Voults of folly Forum! The post on homosexuals in Arcanum.

RPG forum open for business

Acceptance of the validity of the Creation account in Genesis does not equate to what you are probably referring to as Creationism. First, historically the christian church did not put strict interpretation/definition on those opening chapters until some (operative word) groups in the last two centuries, mostly in response to developments in science and psuedo-science in the 1800's, began taking this account literally.

Second, the text in question bears very strong similarities to co-existent legal documents from the projected time the account was first recorded. Known as covenents, these documents were binding contracts initiated by a ruler to his subjects. The opening segment of such a document functions to lay out who the initiating party is and why he has the authority to initiate such a contract.

Third, ignoring the position of the original audience is a remarkably stupid gaffe made by both those who hold a strictly literal Creationist stance and those who prefer that particular characterization so they can say how stupid all those christians are for believing something so stupid. Right. Let's suppose the standing evidence in geology, paleontology, etc. stands as we currently know it (we shall also assume that, contrary to the purpose and design of the scientific project, the current state of knowledge/understanding will remain unchallenged). How would God explain this to a people who have absolutely no frame of reference for the positing of millions or billions of years? Furthermore what is the chance of a single spokesperson first grasping such a message then accurately conveying it to a multitude of people without getting killed for being absolutely looney?

That there are people who fight tooth and nail for a strictly literal interpretation is sad. That there are people who vaunt their knowledge and scholarship over and against the first group while making such basic mistakes/oversights is sloppy and betrays their own agendas which drives their own subjective pursuits.

In other words it is not a zero-sum game. At least at this level.

 

These should be all together, but . . .

Define 'correct'.


_________________
"History was written to say it wasn't our fault" - Sam Philips

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Oyarsa on 2002-04-04 08:15 ]</font>

 

Doc, my dog's depressed, he's a miserable cur.

Hmm, the old Marx comment. Has it ever occurred to anyone that religious insitutions, like any other human/social institutions, have been abused by people whose principle goal is power and who have hijacked institutions and symbols for their own ends because its a ready made social structure? Marx would have been more correct in saying "Religion is often misused as an opiate of the masses".

Just as soon as you can produce a human being whose entire life is intentionally logically consistent.

 

Jar, religion tends to be about faith. The glory of God is held (by many religions) to be self-evident and not requiring of logical proof. You would have to realise God's greatness in your heart, not debate it.

Personally, I have no faith in the existence of God, but that doesn't make anyone else's belief's any less valid.

I also believe that logical arguments are only valid when one possesses ALL the relevant information. Since we're rarely in that luxurious position, logic should be tempered with imagination and applied with an open mind.

Oyarsa, I think Marx was in particular likening the calming effects of religion to those of opiates. Marx probably intended the analogy to be derogatory, but that does not invalidate it. Religion does produce an artificial calm, through ritual and worship. It helps many people cope with life and achieve serenity, in the same way the anethiatising effects of opiates have probably saved many people from fatal shock brought about by physical injury.

Maybe it is possible to agree with his metaphor without agreeing with his conclusions.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-04-04 09:30 ]</font>

 

Groucho -vs- Karl?

SF,
Marx was talking about religion keeping the working class down by offering them promises of a better afterlife so they would be more content to suffer in lousy, dangerous jobs while living in squalid slums. Although your note about the calming effects of some religious ritual and the ability of religion (notably christianity) to offer adherents powerful coping/betterment tools is true this is not what Marx was referring to. That is an individual level assessment and Marx theorized on the societal/cultural level.

 

evolution!!!!!!!
okay most of the stuff they teach are outdated , theirs one book that tells teachers how to reply to back talk from students. and actually the whole layres in the rock thing . well when mt. saint helons errupted it made rock layers that would have took millions of years too build up. the great flood in noahs time would have done so much more than that.
and scientists have killed black people and australien abborigenes in the name of evolution because they thought they were missing links.
and their is plenty of archaeology records wich prove the bible right . like nebuchadnezzer dissapearing from babylonian records for seven years , the same amount god cursed him for.
and all the dates of the world keep on changing but the bible never changes.
and how we have all the different races can be explained , because it is thought that adam and eve were inbetween white and black , wich could have made their children black or white.

 

ohh and inbreeding back then would have been different. i just saw a christian speaker yesterday who was saying that inbreeding would not create a mutated child. i forget why but i will try and get info on it

 

Literally true.

On the Noah's flood story, it bears a strong resemblance to myths of Atlantis dating back as far as Greek civilization.
There's evidence that the Red Sea was once a floodplain much like ancient Egypt, during the last ice age - as early civilization cropped up around flood plains and fertile river valleys, it's likely there was a city or even a country of some size there. The flooding of the Red Sea basin at the end of the ice age happened very quickly - hence, the Noah and the Ark story could possibly be true on a small scale. It even talks about water rising from the ground and falling from the sky, the former possibly being the floods and the latter being the meteorological effect of a lot of condensation in a very short time.

I realize that that wasn't exactly on topic, but I think it's good reasoning... and it supports the argument of the Bible being a metaphor.

 

Oyarsa, now that is a response. However, since you wanted Etalis to "define 'correct'," here is one for you. You need to cite your sources in the first two paragraphs. Second if the language in genesis was intended to be metaphorical, why choose creation in six days why not language along the lines of it took god many moons to make the earth?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ThreeDogs on 2002-04-04 11:04 ]</font>

 

I need proof. Not necessarily the 'Seeing is believing' kind, but I just can't blindly accept what an institution such as the Church says is the truth. It tells you how to live your life, that you should have faith, etc etc etc, and then when you ask them why you should have faith, they go off on a religios spiel, saying how you should just accept it. Most accepted religions are glorified cults...or cults are non-accepted religions.

Okay, you got me there. That is next to impossible to do, because you'd have to govern a child's life by logic...and that would be a real bitch :smile:.

I think Marx was using the religion/opium comparison as a way of saying it controls the masses. Kind of what like Oyarsa said. Religion has been used many times to keep the populace under control, for fear of whatever has been threatened - it keeps them docile, mindless, and going about their business in ignorance. Dulling the mind, if you will, like opiates do.

 

Saying you need proof is the same as saying "I will not take it on faith" and therefore excludes you from the Christian (and some other) forms of worship. Faith is belief without proof.

My own feeling (which happens to be in opposition to that of Catholicism and some others) is that you should not be required to put your faith in the message of the Church. If a guy in a frock tells you God exists, and you believe him, you have placed your faith in the messenger, not God.

To have faith in God, God must tell you that God exists. I would imagine this as a kind of revelation within your heart. Perhaps a growing conviction that God exists. I have experienced (sadly) no such revelation.

Opiate intake was voluntary. It would take a conspiracy theory of some kind make it a mind control technique.

I think we're both talking about the same thing when you say "dulling the senses" and I say "calming." They negative/positive takes on the same phenomenon.

 

Can we all agree that only Marx truly knows what he meant by that statement? Not that I don't like discussing this stuff, I really like it in fact. However, the way this stuff turns out is, no one convinces anyone else, otherwise we wouldn't be debating would we :grin:?

 

I couldn't agree more. You just convinced me that noone ever convices each other of stuff.

I'll ask Marx what he meant when I see him next. According to most religions, I should be attending the same afterlife as him.

 

Fatman, for someone who claims to not believe in God, you sound like you have been a Christian (or other) all your life. You seem to have the right idea, about it is God who reveals himself to you and not people.

I was deeply saddened when I read your previous post about you not believing in the existence of God, but I do respect your opinion and your right to have it.

It is my hope that you will. I mean that from the bottom of my heart and with the deepest sincerity. It is also my hope that you will never stop seeking.

 

I hope so too. Life would be better with God in it.

It's strange, really. I have no objection to Church. I think worship would be pretty nice, and I can't think of a downside of knowing there is an omnipotent being on my side who only really wants me to be good - something I try to do anyway. None of that means much in the faith stakes, though. I don't believe God exists. I'm not convinced he DOESN'T exist, like many people - I just don't believe he does.

I suspect the Church - or people claiming to be Christians, Muslims or other religions - have a lot to do with it. It's like a distraction. If there weren't all the people spouting dogma and arguing canon, it'd be easier to here the good word.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-04-05 08:35 ]</font>

 

I'm like Fatman - I'd like to believe in a religion, have faith, but I can't believe. I've been a Roman Catholic most of my life, and I don't share many of it's views. I'm not the sort of person who accepts what they are told by a religious body blindly, and I find it very hard to take things on faith, and trust people without getting to know them.

That being said, I have nothing against priests and others who feel strongly about religion. Some of them are pretty cool. I also have respect for them, because they can believe in something that I can't bring myself to.

 

i guess i'm one of the lucky ones... i don't believe in religion, but having had an actual discussion with God, i do have faith in Him... relevations are wonderful things, i hope both sheriff and jar get to talk to God some day... it makes the whole world make sense...

 

I read a book once that had a really good quote on religion, but I can't seem to find it, so I'll paraphrase.

It made sense to me, mainly because I don't believe anyone could be reasonably expected to have the power to create worlds and be content micromanaging the individual lives of insignificant, tiny people.

I sure hope that made sense.

 

It makes sense to me, and it touches on one of the major stumbling blocks to me having any faith - the fact there is so much suffering and injustice in the world.

DU I don't disagree with any of your reasoning, but I think it's all invalid. If God exists, He, She or It is a being far removed from humans. You'd probably not understand his motives, even if they were explained to you in person. Attempting to second-guess them is just futile.

I still think we're in the same place I was talking about with Jar; faith and logic.

Faith, as I understand it, could be stated as KNOWING a God exists without requiring proof. Part of the justification for applying faith (not to be confused with an attempt at justifying specific belief in God) could perhaps be an acceptance that human perception, comprehension and cognition is limited.

Logic (aka reasoning, kind of), is very much a similar deal. We can't reason logically to an explanation of God's will or existence, because our starting propositions, assertions and assumptions are incomplete or just plain wrong.

Perhaps it could be likened to me (an indifferent mathematician and two bob physicist) reasoning through an explanation as to why FTL travel is essentially impossible (or possible - choose your poison).