Music Talk Board

Full Version: The Religion and Philosophy discussion thread!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(06-01-2014, 03:27 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]I would hardly say "most". In fact, the Catholic Church is the only big one that does that. Every other large denomination is either mum on it or says that they believe that Creation period lasted a literal 7 days.

Edit:
Actually, just see this wiki. It's more accurate than my above words were. lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_...ristianity

Even with that in mind, many Christians still take the Biblical account of Creationism as literal, including that it lasted 7 literal days.
But it's hardly a large chunk of them. The majority of Young Earth Creationists I would think live in the United States and in underdeveloped countries, and even they don't have unanimity regarding their creation; Danjo believes it happened some 10 000 years ago while the most popular view is that it occurred 6000 years ago. Then again, there are Christians who believe that people like Krishna and Mohammed are also messengers of God (although they aren't mainline, but neither are literalists, according to that wiki page).

(06-01-2014, 03:27 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2014, 08:22 AM)Mr Maps Wrote: [ -> ]Much of the bible is allegorical anyway, or at least most modern views are it that way.
There's a lot of Christians who believe it is literal. The Jews take it even further and consider it a direct history. (Of course, other than Messianics, most Jews don't believe or follow the New Testament. They believe Jesus was a living rabbi around 30AD, though.)
Be careful though, as it is just as dangerous to take it all literally as it is to take it all allegorically - the Bible has both metaphorical books (Song of Songs, Revelation, Book of Daniel, etc. - don't tell me Revelation isn't some bad acid trip if taken literally) and allegedly historical accounts (Herod's condemnation of Jesus, Exodus, Paul of Tarsus' execution, Judas' suicide, etc.) which have historical evidence - I don't buy any of the theories that Jesus never existed. You might as well believe Julius Caesar or heck - Napoleon never existed while you're at it. Whether he was the son of God and/or divine is a different story.

If you reject the historicity of a man of the Levant named Yeshua who began a sect of Judaism around 30 A.D. you might as well reject any and all other history (and I myself am skeptical of history as a subject in general).

(06-01-2014, 03:31 PM)FantasyFanMan Wrote: [ -> ]I meant the seperation of churhc and state.
Ah, okay.

(06-01-2014, 03:31 PM)FantasyFanMan Wrote: [ -> ]Another thought, odd thought, that I have had was what happens when technology surpasses God, if there is a God? So according to the Bible God created Earth, what if 1,000 years in the future we no longer live on Earth? Will religion still be governed by God even though we are no longer in God's domain?
I don't understand this thought. It makes no theological sense to me - God cannot, by very nature, be "surpassed" by anything - far less technology.

God created everything that isn't part of Him (the Son and Holy Spirit are what you call generated entities as opposed to created), so saying that you "left" His creation is nonsensical - let alone leaving just the Earth.

(06-01-2014, 03:31 PM)FantasyFanMan Wrote: [ -> ]And the thing is, I am Christian buut in my mind the idea of a God, or at least the God written in the Bible, seems unfeasable, yet I still somehow believe in God.
Maybe it's time to take an existential quest and study religion and philosophy, to both better understand what could and could not be, and find a definitive faith - whether that be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, Paganism, Jainism, New Age, Theosophy, Scientology, and so on. It seems to me you are following a somewhat blind faith, which I generally frown upon. No offense.
(06-01-2014, 04:01 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2014, 03:31 PM)FantasyFanMan Wrote: [ -> ]And the thing is, I am Christian buut in my mind the idea of a God, or at least the God written in the Bible, seems unfeasable, yet I still somehow believe in God.
Maybe it's time to take an existential quest and study religion and philosophy, to both better understand what could and could not be, and find a definitive faith - whether that be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, Paganism, Jainism, New Age, Theosophy, Scientology, and so on. It seems to me you are following a somewhat blind faith, which I generally frown upon. No offense.

I would love to do that but let me tell you the conflict in my mind. Even I realize I am somewhat blind which I to do nott like, but I was raised lutheran and later christian so I felt if I let go of those beliefs even for a little bit I am condemming myself due to years of religion being drilled into my head.
But think of it this way - what if you're following a heresy, or worse, a false religion altogether?

Skepticism isn't bad - in fact, it's necessary to follow a good Christian life. It allows you to reject things that look convenient in order to accept what is true.
That's a good point, but for me because if the way I was raised it will be really hard on me mentally.

That second part didn't make sense to me.
(06-01-2014, 04:01 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]But it's hardly a large chunk of them. The majority of Young Earth Creationists I would think live in the United States and in underdeveloped countries, and even they don't have unanimity regarding their creation; Danjo believes it happened some 10 000 years ago while the most popular view is that it occurred 6000 years ago. Then again, there are Christians who believe that people like Krishna and Mohammed are also messengers of God (although they aren't mainline, but neither are literalists, according to that wiki page).
Nah, I get that. I'm just saying.

One thing to consider though...about religion. It's a personal thing. What some large theological body considers "truth" may not be what you personally want to believe.

(06-01-2014, 04:01 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2014, 03:27 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2014, 08:22 AM)Mr Maps Wrote: [ -> ]Much of the bible is allegorical anyway, or at least most modern views are it that way.
There's a lot of Christians who believe it is literal. The Jews take it even further and consider it a direct history. (Of course, other than Messianics, most Jews don't believe or follow the New Testament. They believe Jesus was a living rabbi around 30AD, though.)
Be careful though, as it is just as dangerous to take it all literally as it is to take it all allegorically - the Bible has both metaphorical books (Song of Songs, Revelation, Book of Daniel, etc. - don't tell me Revelation isn't some bad acid trip if taken literally)

Yes, but in the case of these books, it's obvious that they are meant to be prophecy (or poetry, in the case of Song of Songs). Even so, there are certain "prophetic" events that some believe have already been fulfilled. All of the prophetic books (the entire 2nd half of the Old Testament) are filled with metaphors. But the idea is that the metaphors, by definition, are meant to represent future events (as in, "future" in regards to the prophets who were currently given the prophecies at the time the books were written) that haven't happened.
The Christian denominations as a whole though...don't really understand any of those books (in other words, about the entire 2nd half of the Old Testament confuses them) and don't teach very deeply into the subjects in those books. It's mainly the Jews who are experts on this sort of thing, honestly. Because the Jews have studied this stuff.

Quote:and allegedly historical accounts (Herod's condemnation of Jesus, Exodus, Paul of Tarsus' execution, Judas' suicide, etc.) which have historical evidence - I don't buy any of the theories that Jesus never existed. You might as well believe Julius Caesar or heck - Napoleon never existed while you're at it. Whether he was the son of God and/or divine is a different story.

If you reject the historicity of a man of the Levant named Yeshua who began a sect of Judaism around 30 A.D. you might as well reject any and all other history (and I myself am skeptical of history as a subject in general).
No, the Jews don't reject any of that stuff. They just don't believe Yeshua was Messiah, with the exception of Messianic Jews. And Messianics are a minority.
(06-01-2014, 04:12 PM)FantasyFanMan Wrote: [ -> ]That's a good point, but for me because if the way I was raised it will be really hard on me mentally.
That's perfectly understandable - existentialism is not easy to go through, but it is necessary. I myself fear the wrath of God if I question certain things, but after a while you realize you don't really have a choice, and either way, everyone is a sinner.

I still have many gripes regarding the idea of Hell with the existence of only a solely benevolent deity.

(06-01-2014, 04:12 PM)FantasyFanMan Wrote: [ -> ]That second part didn't make sense to me.
Basically, it might be convenient to believe that the church is wrong regarding say, contraception or premarital sex. However, that doesn't forcibly mean it's acceptable. Perhaps the church is right. You have to be skeptical of your own skepticism, is what I'm saying.

In another example, it might seem normal to believe in relativism, i.e. all religions are equally correct and God doesn't care whether you practice this or that provided you're doing the right thing. Not only is that philosophically groundless and makes no sense, but it goes against standard Abrahamic thought - whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

It does not, however, forcibly go against many of the Eastern philosophies and religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism are particularly open to other ideas (but that does not mean they are relativists).

(06-01-2014, 04:13 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Nah, I get that. I'm just saying.

One thing to consider though...about religion. It's a personal thing. What some large theological body considers "truth" may not be what you personally want to believe.
Of course, this is why skepticism is generally good and relativism is generally silly and baseless.

(06-01-2014, 04:13 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, but in the case of these books, it's obvious that they are meant to be prophecy (or poetry, in the case of Song of Songs). Even so, there are certain "prophetic" events that some believe have already been fulfilled. All of the prophetic books (the entire 2nd half of the Old Testament) are filled with metaphors.
The Christian denominations as a whole though...don't really understand any of those books (in other words, about the entire 2nd half of the Old Testament confuses them) and don't teach very deeply into the subjects in those books. It's mainly the Jews who are experts on this sort of thing, honestly. Because the Jews have studied this stuff.
The thing about that is that much of the Tanakh was added after Christianity had already gained a lot of popularity yet was still rivaling Manichaeism. From what I've heard (from my Catholic father, yesterday), the Torah was all that was considered important in ancient Judaism - the rest of the Septuagint was considered revelation, but not nearly as important, and only officially added later on, even after the Talmud was written. The Jews eventually added the same books as the early Christians, with some exceptions. Fast-forward to the Reformation and Luther does the same thing, believing the Catholics added non-holy books to its collection.

That's what I heard, anyway. From what I understood, the 2nd half of the Old Testament is more complicated and is less about ethical behavior (unlike the Torah) as it is about prophecy and whatnot. But then again, don't quote me on this because I might have misunderstood.

(06-01-2014, 04:13 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]No, the Jews don't reject any of that stuff. They just don't believe Yeshua was Messiah, with the exception of Messianic Jews. And Messianics are a minority.
Of course. I'm just saying that those few people who believe Jesus never walked the Earth like you and I have are either deluded or skeptical of all history. Again, that doesn't mean they have to believe he was divine - if that were the case you'd have to believe that Buddha, Zoroaster and Krishna were also either divine or at least in touch with the spiritual reality.
Have you went through it yourself, Joel?
(06-01-2014, 04:38 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2014, 04:13 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, but in the case of these books, it's obvious that they are meant to be prophecy (or poetry, in the case of Song of Songs). Even so, there are certain "prophetic" events that some believe have already been fulfilled. All of the prophetic books (the entire 2nd half of the Old Testament) are filled with metaphors.
The Christian denominations as a whole though...don't really understand any of those books (in other words, about the entire 2nd half of the Old Testament confuses them) and don't teach very deeply into the subjects in those books. It's mainly the Jews who are experts on this sort of thing, honestly. Because the Jews have studied this stuff.
The thing about that is that much of the Tanakh was added after Christianity had already gained a lot of popularity yet was still rivaling Manichaeism. From what I've heard (from my Catholic father, yesterday), the Torah was all that was considered important in ancient Judaism - the rest of the Septuagint was considered revelation, but not nearly as important, and only officially added later on, even after the Talmud was written. The Jews eventually added the same books as the early Christians, with some exceptions. Fast-forward to the Reformation and Luther does the same thing, believing the Catholics added non-holy books to its collection.
Well...sort of. But not really.

Traditionally, much of the Tanakh was not considered as important as Torah, yes. But it's not as Rabbis and Scholars didn't study the Propeth's books (known as the Nevi'im http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Nevi.27im ) or the other 11 books (known as the Ketuvim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvim ). Much of this stuff gained more importance to the average practicing Jew (and was studied more by the average practicing Jew, as a result) throughout the centuries since Yeshua walked on the earth, rather than being important to them since the books were written. But the Rabbis have always considered the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim of importance, if of less importance than the 5 books of the Torah.
I mean, the Jews have always had this habit of the Rabbis keeping Biblical (or, in some cases, suspected Biblical) manuscripts and texts. They would copy them down and preserve them. And so on. But the average practicing Jew generally has been concerned with Torah first and foremost and has always seen the other books as an addition to Torah. If that makes any sense...

(06-01-2014, 04:38 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]That's what I heard, anyway. From what I understood, the 2nd half of the Old Testament is more complicated and is less about ethical behavior (unlike the Torah) as it is about prophecy and whatnot. But then again, don't quote me on this because I might have misunderstood.
There's mostly prophecy (and some history; see 1st & 2nd Samuel and 1st & 2nd Kings, Joshua, Judges) in the Nevi'im. The Ketuvim includes some prophecy (see parts of Daniel) but is also history (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, and parts of Daniel), poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs), and meaning of life (Ecclesiastes, Lamentations).

Btw, the Jews mostly divide up the Tanakh into 3 parts, really: Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim.

(06-01-2014, 04:38 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2014, 04:13 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]No, the Jews don't reject any of that stuff. They just don't believe Yeshua was Messiah, with the exception of Messianic Jews. And Messianics are a minority.
Of course. I'm just saying that those few people who believe Jesus never walked the Earth like you and I have are either deluded or skeptical of all history. Again, that doesn't mean they have to believe he was divine - if that were the case you'd have to believe that Buddha, Zoroaster and Krishna were also either divine or at least in touch with the spiritual reality.
Yeah, fair enough.

Edit: It bugs me how the quote tags on MTB work, lol.
(06-01-2014, 05:20 PM)FantasyFanMan Wrote: [ -> ]Have you went through it yourself, Joel?
Oh yes. But it came mostly as a surprise, without warning. I now realize how important it was and how much of an existential responsibility it is to go through it. In fact, I'm still somewhat going through it, but I've resolved that I am an agnostic instead of just not knowing what I believe, knowing that that can always change. It's just that the difficult parts are past, for the most.

(06-01-2014, 05:23 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Well...sort of. But not really.

Traditionally, much of the Tanakh was not considered as important as Torah, yes. But it's not as Rabbis and Scholars didn't study the Propeth's books (known as the Nevi'im http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Nevi.27im ) or the other 11 books (known as the Ketuvim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvim ). Much of this stuff gained more importance to the average practicing Jew (and was studied more by the average practicing Jew, as a result) throughout the centuries since Yeshua walked on the earth, rather than being important to them since the books were written. But the Rabbis have always considered the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim of importance, if of less importance than the 5 books of the Torah.
I mean, the Jews have always had this habit of the Rabbis keeping Biblical (or, in some cases, suspected Biblical) manuscripts and texts. They would copy them down and preserve them. And so on. But the average practicing Jew generally has been concerned with Torah first and foremost and has always seen the other books as an addition to Torah. If that makes any sense...
I see. I guess that clears that up, and it makes sense.

(06-01-2014, 05:23 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]There's mostly prophecy (and some history; see 1st & 2nd Samuel and 1st & 2nd Kings, Joshua, Judges) in the Nevi'im. The Ketuvim includes some prophecy (see parts of Daniel) but is also history (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, and parts of Daniel), poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs), and meaning of life (Ecclesiastes, Lamentations).
Right, the Torah I guess is more about how you should live your life to be a good Jew, although you could argue that most of the non-Genesis books are historical as well.

(06-01-2014, 05:23 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Btw, the Jews mostly divide up the Tanakh into 3 parts, really: Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim.
I did not know that. Interesting.
(06-01-2014, 07:41 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2014, 05:23 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]There's mostly prophecy (and some history; see 1st & 2nd Samuel and 1st & 2nd Kings, Joshua, Judges) in the Nevi'im. The Ketuvim includes some prophecy (see parts of Daniel) but is also history (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, and parts of Daniel), poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs), and meaning of life (Ecclesiastes, Lamentations).
Right, the Torah I guess is more about how you should live your life to be a good Jew, although you could argue that most of the non-Genesis books are historical as well.
Yeah, definitely. But there's like 600 or so laws and statutes in the Torah.
A lot of them are common sense, like..."Don't have sex with goats, because God doesn't like that. It's a sin." I mean, when you think of that from a modern health standpoint, having sex with a goat probably isn't a healthy thing, right? Never mind the possible harm to your or the goat sexual parts. A lot of them, I'm sure people read them and go, "Well, why would God have to mention that?". Well, people are stupid, lol.

But yeah.