|
Noah's Ark? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
which is a relatively new position, once science illustrated what a joke the explanations in the bible have been. meaning that theists have moved the goalposts once we had the capacity and knowledge to thoroughly discount information in the bible. in short- its a copout from believers, indeed the argument that the bible is metaphoric in many cases is conjecture at best- it is the deeply-needed position by otherwise rational theists in order to cling to their unbelievable belief system. |
I disagree completely. The position that the bible is largely metaphoric and symbolic has been arround since the dawn of the christian churchs (I cannot speek for the other Abrahamic religions in this regard as I do not know). The role of priests and preachers has always been one of explenation of the deeper meanings to the stories. The question of whether or not the bible was meant to be literal was a major question at the conference of Nicea (where all the christian churchs were combined) to form the unified religion that became the official christianity of Rome. In fact, a litteral interpretation of the bible is a relatively new phenominom in christianity as it first started to appear with the Reformation.
| quote: | | coming from a theist, thats pretty damned funny. |
Please explain. My guess is you think that because I believe in a higher entity I do so blindly, perhaps as an easy alternative to thinking too much, just doing what I've been told or believing what I've been taught. For many that is the case, for many it is not. I fall into the later. I was raised with no real religious instruction. At the age of 12 I decided I wanted to learn more. I researched many faiths and philosophies in an effort to get answers... which I've still yet to find. My beliefs are not really in keeping with any one faith or philosophy; however, I choose to express my beliefs in the style of catholosism. While you may think this is the easy route, I assure you it is not. Having a deep and thoughful understanding of faith is more troubling then it is soothing for me, it raises far more questions then it answers, it creates more termoil then peace. To me, rejecting faith is the easy way out. If you reject all faith then you don't need to think about anything more complex then what your sensory organs detect, you don't need to worry about the consequences of your actions, you don't need to consider larger questions, you don't have to think. No my friend, athiesm is the easy way out, I'd have much more peace if I could just shut my mind off and say "that's that, I live, I'll die and it's all over. All I know is all there is." |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Having a deep and thoughful understanding of faith is more troubling then it is soothing for me, it raises far more questions then it answers, it creates more termoil then peace. To me, rejecting faith is the easy way out. If you reject all faith then you don't need to think about anything more complex then what your sensory organs detect, you don't need to worry about the consequences of your actions, you don't need to consider larger questions, you don't have to think. No my friend, athiesm is the easy way out, I'd have much more peace if I could just shut my mind off and say "that's that, I live, I'll die and it's all over. All I know is all there is." |
You don't have to believe in god to be able 'worry about the consequences of your actions'. Funny that you say religion encourages you to think. By its nature, especially catholicism, is designed to tell what you should think. After all that's that the bible it there for. Then the Pope and your local priest instruct you on the proper way to interpret it. We'd still believe the earth was the center of the solar system if the church had its way. Since your so open minded, I hope you've left open the door to the possibility, no matter how inconvenient that God might not exist. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
You don't have to believe in god to be able 'worry about the consequences of your actions'. Funny that you say religion encourages you to think. By its nature, especially catholicism, is designed to tell what you should think. After all that's that the bible it there for. Then the Pope and your local priest instruct you on the proper way to interpret it. We'd still believe the earth was the center of the solar system if the church had its way. |
Indeed, there have been points in the Roman Catholic church's history where it has encouraged people not to think and has been resistant to change. That said, the fundamental questions which religion focuses on are difficult and require much thought. The interpretation of the bible is difficult and requires much thought. Our understanding of God (presumption of existance here) is difficult and requires much thought. Answers to all the questions raised by examination of one's faith are non-existant, as is proof, therefore, faith is difficult, it is a decision, and it requires much effort to maintain.... disbelief; on the other hand, requires neither effort nor thought. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Indeed, there have been points in the Roman Catholic church's history where it has encouraged people not to think and has been resistant to change. That said, the fundamental questions which religion focuses on are difficult and require much thought. The interpretation of the bible is difficult and requires much thought. Our understanding of God (presumption of existance here) is difficult and requires much thought. Answers to all the questions raised by examination of one's faith are non-existant, as is proof, therefore, faith is difficult, it is a decision, and it requires much effort to maintain.... disbelief; on the other hand, requires neither effort nor thought. |
The only complexity is trying to come to terms with all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. One must create an elaborate web of explanations to satisfy the mind. This I agree is very difficult. Makes me think of after a natural disaster religious ppl wringing their hands trying to figure out why god would do such a thing. It's hard work finding meaning where there is none. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
The only complexity is trying to come to terms with all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. One must create an elaborate web of explanations to satisfy the mind. This I agree is very difficult. |
Figuring out the meaning behind the stories is rather complex.... probably why many in the last few centuries have adopted a litteral view (it's easier). Beyond that, there are difficult philisophical questions, ethical questions, moral delemas, one must think about if one accepts that there is a god.... these things become easier if one believes that all life is by chance and there is nothing beyond what we sense. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Figuring out the meaning behind the stories is rather complex.... probably why many in the last few centuries have adopted a litteral view (it's easier). Beyond that, there are difficult philisophical questions, ethical questions, moral delemas, one must think about if one accepts that there is a god.... these things become easier if one believes that all life is by chance and there is nothing beyond what we sense. |
Ppl who don't believe in god don't think everything is random, thats why we turn towards science to make sense of the unknown, instead of looking for answers in a book of metaphors. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Ppl who don't believe in god don't think everything is random, thats why we turn towards science to make sense of the unknown, instead of looking for answers in a book of metaphors. |
Not all those who believe in god reject science. Most look for answers from both. I look to religion and philosophy for those things that science cannot explain or those things that cannot be proven. There is no argument between which is correct; science or religion... the answer to me is neither and both. The point I've been trying to make is that faith is not necessarally a crutch for those with weak minds, for many it is far more difficult to have faith then to not. Which is easier to come to grips with; the idea of a finite end to all things or eternity in an existance of which you know nothing and cannot comprehend. I submit to you that believing all things are within the grasp of human knowledge and that all things can be solved through our senses is far easier then accepting there are things of which we know nothing and can never hope to understand. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
The only complexity is trying to come to terms with all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. One must create an elaborate web of explanations to satisfy the mind. This I agree is very difficult. Makes me think of after a natural disaster religious ppl wringing their hands trying to figure out why god would do such a thing. It's hard work finding meaning where there is none. |
here's a way to look at the complexities and seeming contradictions of religious books from a hindu point of view.
The object of interest for a religion is "God". God is said to be infinite in nature. Understanding attributes of an infinity by a finite mind necessarily brings into the picture, contradictions and complexities. It is impossible for human mind to imagine infinities.
Secondly, language has its limitations. There are many experiences that cannot be described adequately through words. At best, you can point someone to the source of your experience and allow that person to experience it for himself. Fundamentally, scriptures say that God is a concept that has to be experienced. The problem is mitigated by the infinite structure of this concept. Religion serves at best as an instruction set to describe methods to experience this infinity and explain its attributes, its relation to universe, to humans etc.
If you are to understand religion, you have to look beyond the books, the silly stories and literal meanings of the contradictory passages. I cannot overemphasize the fundamental need of a competent teacher to guide you through this process. Without a teacher, you will never get educated. Surely, if you open a philosophy book, without any training, it will be impossible to grasp the content. But you don't reject philosophy. Instead, you trust the philosophers are doing their job. The same is true with religion. Unfortunately, the scope of religion necessarily has to extend beyond understanding the concepts of God, into moral, ethical behavior of society and such. People resist such rules. They look at ways to circumvent these rules by ridiculing religion and people who "believe" in it.
In my opinion, you should never take anything on the face value, and should reject it only if you have studied it independently with enough intellectual input from your side ; not by merely listening to some one else or forming opinions based on the scripture's face value. that is ignorance to say the least. |
|
|
| Ripped Bag |
| I don't bother with fairy tales. |
|
|
| Prometheus Xex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
I'm surprised such a huge story of incest has made it in the bible. |
Ya... it's the one after Adam and Eve.
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Please explain. My guess is you think that because I believe in a higher entity I do so blindly, |
hehe. moral, youre one of the most intellectually gifted people on these here forums, i was just taking the piss ;)
i stand corrected re the bible and metaphors. i was under the impression it was a relatively new phenomenon. as it stands however, despite people's beliefs to the contrary, there is indeed no way to ascertain exactly what context it was written in, and for what goals. indeed, where does one draw the line between metaphor and truth? i find the ridiculous nature of parts of the bible to be treated as metaphors a bit disingenuous, or at the very least, the easy way out. |
|
|
|
|
