 sj |
||
|
||
Bible prophecy
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 19 Oct 09 - 11:51 AM It certainly is difficult, in this format, to construct a sentence carefully enough to provide all the nuances and disclaimers. I, personally, DO 'doubt' that consciousness continues after the death of the body. I cannot 'prove' such, so I do not connect my personal...ummm... 'suspicions'... to what I feel appropriate to say to those who DO believe this in the context of their religion. *IF* asked, or if approached by those seeking to convince ME, I will give my reasoning. Waffling? Over-analyzing? *shrug*... It's just that I have spent so much time and study on these things for 50 years, that I have quite a list of fine distinctions assembled. (and, as I have said before, if I am right about MY guess as to what happens after death, I don't even get to say "I told you so!") |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 11:54 PM Perhaps I misread. It looks to me like the belief is there (that consciousness doesn't continue after the death of the body) but that there is a realization that it is futile to try to convince others of that belief. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 18 Oct 09 - 11:22 PM It kinda bothers me to see what I said either mis-read or 'spun' to seem like I suggested that "people should just get over it". I carefully said that this should NOT be done. Thus, whether or not one links it to denial of the continuation of consciousness is subjective and an individual thing. I, personally, do not make that leap in that way. (and I will watch that video with great interest) |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 09:00 PM I highly recommend watching the video in the link I posted to get an idea of the direction in which quantum physics is moving. I would put thinking that people should just get over it because death is the end (as expressed by a poster above) in the category of the belief that consciousness doesn't continue after the death of the body. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Peace Date: 18 Oct 09 - 08:49 PM "The Tao of Physics" is a good place to start. However, I do not believe that religions can be imported. They seem to me to be a cultural response to 'spiritualities' that are acceptable in certain places at certain times. If Christ was, and if he came back today without the bells and whistles, who'd believe him? Reference was made earlier to "The Gnostic Bible". It certainly suggests aspects of the life of Christ may not be as the existing churches sees them or h/Him, but again it's interpretation and memories of memories. Much like explanations of how various peoples came to be on Earth or even how Earth itself came to be. Frankly, I don't care what people choose to believe. However, when it begins to impact those around me or me, then I care very much. In the course of my life I have read--cover to cover--The Bible four times. Not much really, but I friggin' well know most Christians haven't even read it once and that makes me suspicious of 1) how much they believe 2) what they believe 3) why they believe I don't believe, but then friends like Dan make me realize that some people have internalized the message of "The Book" and they not only talk the talk but also walk the walk. That's all I have to say. Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 18 Oct 09 - 08:46 PM Of course "One cannot objectively describe whether or not consciousness continues after death."....just as one cannot "objectively describe" what Heaven might me like. In BOTH cases, one either believes it or doesn't...which is why I said what I did about them having similar issues in being something other than linguistic metaphor. 'Naming' an emotional state in an interesting way does not, by itself, confer a special reality to it. I will wait a bit before I agree that what quantum physics is doing has that much relevance to the metaphysics suggested in what most folks mean by spirituality. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 08:35 PM This discussion of quantum physics gives a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 08:23 PM One cannot objectively describe whether or not consciousness continues after death. One can either believe it does doesn't, or they can accept that they don't know for sure one way or another. As time goes by, and I hear more and more about what quantum physics is postulating, the more I find it sounds very much like a lot of New Age thought. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 18 Oct 09 - 08:16 PM "Science is moving more in the direction of where people who experience spirituality are now,...". It is? I'm not sure I see what you refer to. I do see the studies showing more & more evidence of the effects of DNA and various forms of 'material causality' in our evolution. It seems to me that spirituality, *IF* one means actual "somethingness" of ourselves that continues after death in the form of conciousness or awareness, has essentially the same problem as traditional religion in explicating its form & reality. Even I see a 'meaning' for spirituality that does not assume any metaphysical actuality. It is expressed in poetry, song, meditation, compassion, metaphor and just the awareness of the vastness of BEING. It is not an issue for me to **deny** either religion or spirituality, but merely to try to objectively describe the issues relating to them. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: CarolC Date: 18 Oct 09 - 07:52 PM I think it's important to recognize the distinction between religion and spirituality. Many who are not religious do experience spirituality. Science is moving more in the direction of where people who experience spirituality are now, so I don't see spirituality ever leaving the human experience. And the belief that death is the end is as much belief as is belief in an afterlife. We have no proof of either, only the faith of those who either believe there is, or believe there isn't. It's this certainty that some people have that there is no spirit and no kind of life or consciousness after death, and who think their views should be adopted by everyone else (and are better for everyone) that causes me to put them in the very same category as people who are religious. People who believe there is no spirit and no kind of life or consciousness after the death of the body, and who have a desire for everyone else to believe these things also are just as evangelical about their beliefs as any person belonging to an established religion. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 18 Oct 09 - 07:31 PM "I'm not convinced that religion improves anyone's life or makes it "good". I'm not either, Frank.... I just know that, realistically and practically it would probably take a LONG time for most of humanity to 'do without'. In Europe, where church history and the related wars and violence have worn on folks for centuries, many are quietly moving away from 'traditional' religious concerns and practices. In the US, where we still have so many groups & areas founded in order to follow a religion, and where it is difficult to achieve elected office without declaring a 'mainstream' religion, we have much further to go. And in Muslim countries, we know how pervasive the usually state-supported religion is. I know (from personal experience) that belief in an afterlife is the major way many people cope with grief and loss when friends & relatives die too soon and in ways that seem unfair. I simply can't see any way to just tell them "get over it...death is the end!" The human race took 40,000-100,000 years to create a huge, complex set of beliefs to cope with mystery and pain. With education not exactly up-to-date on some issues, we can't expect people to change in 2-3 hundred years. All *I* really argue hard for is for MY country, the USA, to really practice the "separation of church & state" they 'officially' tell us we have. If the Republican party had kept power a few more consecutive years, I'm afraid some form of conservative Christianity would have become deeply entrenched, both in law & culture. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:03 PM Bill D I think the world would be a better place if people would give up their religious addictions. I'm not convinced that religion improves anyone's life or makes it "good". Addictions keep some people going. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: kendall Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:09 PM Was it Marharishi something who was driven out of Oregon some years ago? I heard they have invited him back, and they decided to let Bogwhans be Bogwhans. I know...CELLAR |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: SharonA Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:51 PM Guest from Sanity sez: "As to Mark not including more on the 'resurrection'...So?? That proves what, again???" Again, it indicates that earlier writings about Jesus didn't include the ever-taller tales of miracles that later writings did. Again, if the miracles had happened, it would be logical to assume that stories about them would have dominated the earliest writings about Jesus' ministry, which they did not. Again, this is to say that your assumption about it being illogical to say that the disciples/apostles endured martyrdom for a story/illusion is itself illogical and unrealistic. Their martyrdom wasn't because of their belief itself, but because their ideas about whom to obey stood in opposition to the reigning powers of the time (the political power of Rome and the socioreligious powers of the Pharisees). Again, as more disciples/apostles were martyred and their courage was in danger of faltering, they needed to rally their people by creating those stories about miracles, just as myths about George Washington were made up during and after the Revolutionary War to rally the believers in American independence. Please remember that when you speak of "perspective". Guest from Sanity sez: "Mark wrote about what Jesus said." Speaking of the perspective of the writers (!), Mark (A.k.a. John Mark) was not a disciple of Jesus; he was a disciple of Peter -- supposedly he was Peter's secretary and wrote what Peter said about what Jesus said. This is why I mentioned the heretical Gospel of Peter earlier, which scholars generally agree was written in the second half of the 2nd century. Therefore, of course, it could not have been written by Peter himself -- perhaps by Peter's school of followers or perhaps by someone who just used Peter's name to give authority to that writing -- and it is quite different from Mark's earlier account of 70 AD. Again, this speaks to the escalation of the fantastic stories about Jesus during the first centuries of Christianity (when Christians were persecuted by Rome and the Pharisees). |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Alice Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:42 PM For some people, the "high" they get from being in the chosen group, following the "right path", having the "answers" is actually like an addiction. That is why it is so difficult to get people out of a cult, even when there is evidence that it is harming the person or other people. They are hooked in a physical/emotional way. They fear losing what the group or leader or belief system provides. It is something other than just having a religious faith. Trust me, I've seen people even allow their children to be neglected and abused by their "church" because they were so addicted to believing in the leader, addicted to the high they got from being "in". Alice (who has had to help too many people damaged by this con-artist who just died a few days ago Elizabeth Clare Prophet |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 18 Oct 09 - 02:01 PM hmmm... I see the point, but I don't think 'addiction' is a good metaphor for the way religion works on folks. It starts, for most, in childhood....as another fairy tale which children take seriously as a mater of course, then is reinforced by family & church in ways that show it to be 'different' from most fairy tales, in that we accept that we can't verify Hansel & Gretel, but pretend that we can verify religious tales-- even though many of the tales are contradictory. Most 'addictions' are usually recognized as 'bad for us', and as something we should give up. Religion is processed as being basically good, and thus worthy of keeping, no matter what we have to accept to to do so...........and in some ways, for some people, it just may be all that keeps them going. Interesting to comtemplate what would happen *if* everyone were to suddenly NOT believe. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:40 PM Most of the people I know are far more addicted to money and possessions than to religion. Or they're more addicted to alcohol, various other common drugs, and sex! ;-) They're also addicted to their f*cking home electronic devices (TV, ipod, computer, cell phone, etc). That's why I don't worry about religion as much as you apparently do, Stringsinger. I hardly know anyone who's addicted to religion....and those I do know who are...well, it's a considerably secondary matter to their far more dominant and obvious physical and psychological addictions to the usual material crap that most people in this society are addicted to. Materialism is the ruling religion of THIS society. Now, if I were living in Saudi Arabia on the other hand....THEN I'd be worred about religious addiction! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:30 PM hidigbaugh exemplifies how religion can become an addiction like physical narcotics. The addict defends his addiction despite any appeals to his sanity. To use this forum to display his addictive defense seems an abuse of the intelligence on this site, but his right to do it is Constitutional. It stands as a lesson to the extent in which religious cultism and addiction pervades our society. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Oct 09 - 09:52 PM SharonA:..'Period. The end. Not very strong evidence for a resurrected Christ -- just a guy next to an empty tomb (from which the body might have been stolen, for all they knew). Various other manuscripts tag on various endings about sightings and teachings of a risen Christ; the two most common are referred to as "the shorter ending" and "the longer ending". But it's obvious to scholars that the endings came from different writers than the writer of the preceding text. The Gospel of Mark is said to have been written during the Jerusalem war of circa AD 70, and the 3 longer ones in the New Testament came later (with even more fanciful stories and philosophies in 'em). So, yeah, no matter what Guest from Sanity thinks, people did "make up" stuff about Jesus -- more and more as time went on. (Ever read the Gospel of Peter? Now there is a pretty fantastic story!)" As to Mark not including more on the 'resurrection'...So?? That proves what, again??? All that means is that Mark wrote about what Jesus said. By the way, Mark was put to death, like the others...because he liked his opinion about what he 'made up', just like the others, even though he omitted, or was more impressed with the other things he wrote??? Perhaps they knew they were writing this, from the perspective they had..Matthew was a tax collector..you will see he deals with the 'kingdom' and political P.O.V. ..Luke was a physician...guess who included more 'healing miracles' than Matthew?..John was the youngest, and focused on the Love and spiritual aspect...so his writing make that deeper emphasis. I think it wise for a deeper understanding of what you are putting forth, to take in the perspectives, objectively, of the writers.....whether you agree with them, or not...wouldn't you say??? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: SharonA Date: 14 Oct 09 - 07:51 PM Guest from Sanity sez: "I find it highly unlikely that all 12 [disciples], but one, was martyred for a story, based on illusion, that they just 'made up'..not logical, nor realistic. It is very likely that they all witnessed, or experienced, something rather extraordinary, and chronicled it, to the best of their abilities...I mean, would any of us, be willing to be put to death, for any one of our 'Mudcat' opinions,..and furthermore, skepticism, is NOT 'logical proof', of anything, other than that of the holder, of that mindset, of being nothing more than skeptical!" Unquestionably, the disciples lived in an extraordinary time (meaning an extraordinary political/religious quagmire) and were desperate for some way to deal with it. Unquestionably they were presented with some extraordinary ideas about dealing with it, gleaned from several ancient world religions (by Jesus and/or by other rabbis/prophets). But what they did with those ideas has 'wayyyy more to do with them than with anything that Jesus the man said or did. Two of the many pieces of evidence for this are: the Gospel of Thomas, the closest thing we have to the earliest book of Jesus' sayings; and certain manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark, the earliest-written of the New Testament gospels. The Gospel of Thomas is not a narrative of Jesus' ministry, as the Big 4 gospels are (note that I said they are "narratives", not "chronicles"), but it's a book of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. There's no philosophizing, no rhetoric, just what he is supposed to have said. If Jesus had performed extraordinary, mind-blowing acts -- miraculous healings, raisings of dead people, rising from the dead himself -- wouldn't those stories have comprised the core of the earliest book about him??? Instead, the book contains his teachings. This indicates that the tall tales about him were piled on later, and that they escalated as the political situation deteriorated and as certain sects of early Christianity sought to increase their ranks of believers in opposition to the tyrannical rule by Rome. The Gospel of Mark: the most reliable early manuscripts end at Mark 16:8 -- the part where three women are too frightened to tell anyone they'd seen a young man in a white robe who had told them Jesus was risen from the dead and was on his way to Galilee. Period. The end. Not very strong evidence for a resurrected Christ -- just a guy next to an empty tomb (from which the body might have been stolen, for all they knew). Various other manuscripts tag on various endings about sightings and teachings of a risen Christ; the two most common are referred to as "the shorter ending" and "the longer ending". But it's obvious to scholars that the endings came from different writers than the writer of the preceding text. The Gospel of Mark is said to have been written during the Jerusalem war of circa AD 70, and the 3 longer ones in the New Testament came later (with even more fanciful stories and philosophies in 'em). So, yeah, no matter what Guest from Sanity thinks, people did "make up" stuff about Jesus -- more and more as time went on. (Ever read the Gospel of Peter? Now there is a pretty fantastic story!) Let's not forget that a lot of the writings of various sects of early Christianity were condemned as heresy for the reason that they didn't agree with the beliefs of the most outspoken sects hundreds of years after they were written. So, yeah again, lots of people were making up lots of different stories about Jesus' acts and teachings, and what they meant. Let's face it, an illogical, unrealistic illusion of a risen-from-the-dead, risen-into-heaven God-Son is a much more attractive thing for which to martyr oneself than a real, boring story of some guy who walked around and said stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 09 - 07:45 PM LOL! Yeah, probably, Peace... Great post, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Peace Date: 14 Oct 09 - 07:42 PM Once had some representatives of the Hari Krishna movement come to my buddy's door. We invited them in, gave 'em a few tokes and bored them trying to put a tricycle together--my buddy and I were pissed (drunk in England). They left after the grass wore off. We wished them well and thanked them for coming. We explained our religion's belief in invisible beings for about a half hour and I think we scared the shit outta them. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Don Firth Date: 14 Oct 09 - 07:11 PM I've been worked on by experts. In the mid-1950s, under circumstances it would take to long to explain here (I was staying at a clinic undergoing post-polio physical therapy at the time), I had a fundamentalist minister as a room mate. He went to work on everybody. He went to work on me. A few years before, in the English Lit department at the University of Washington, I had taken an elective course from a professor I especially liked. The Bible as Literature. No religion taught in the course. The Bible as a collection of short stories, novellas, and poetry. We didn't read a verse here and a verse there as one often does in church, we read whole chunks just like in any other literature class. The result was that I actually knew more about the Bible than my room mate, the Reverend. As he tried to save my soul, I would be constantly interrupting his Bible quotes with, "Wait a minute! That's not what that means!" And then I would proceed to explain to him what it was really all about. After a week or two of this, he gave up on me and went to work on a Mormon down the hall (with equal success). I heard a fellow on the radio a month or so ago who had written a book entitled "The Year of Living Biblically." Check it out HERE. One of the incidents Jacobs, the author, described is when a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses came to his door and said that they wanted to talk to him about the Bible. He invited them in with a big smile. A half an hour later, they were looking around desperately for some way to escape without appearing too rude. But Jacobs kept right on talking at them! Since I do belong to a church, when someone tries to "evangelize" me, I tell them in a firm, strong voice that I am quite satisfied with my current belief system, thank you very much! If they persist, I say, "Excuse me," and prepare to leave. Usually they shut up about then. If they don't, I do leave. Why do I go to church? I may explain that some day, but not today. Do I believe in God? Well, first, you're going to have to explain to me what it is you mean by God, then I may be able to answer your question. But I will say that I don't believe in a cranky, bearded old man dressed in a bed sheet who lives on Arcturus 12, keeps a detailed ledger of people's sins and good deeds, throws thunderbolts at those who piss Him off, and marks the fall of every sparrow. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:09 PM That makes sense, Little Hawk...but it is built in to some folks systems. (You know I have posted before that I live 5 minute walk from one active group and 5 minutes drive from another...this is addition to the ones like I encounter preaching from street corners & buses....and I came here from Kansas, where it was even more pronounced.) I try VERY hard to understand that they DO have strong beliefs, but there is huge difference between 'noting' ones beliefs and implicitly harassing others about them. Are threads on Mudcat different from knocking on my door? sorta...but, still..... |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:47 PM That is something I've always found objectionable too, Bill. I think people should simply apply their beliefs in the most helpful and positive way they can...by doing good works...thereby setting a good example. I don't think they should go about trying to convert others. The fact that some of them use various excerpts out of ancient texts to justify their zeal for conversion has led to a lot of trouble. Political movements also try to convert people, of course, by aggressively spreading their message, and commercial advertisers try to convert people (into spending money on their product) by aggressive advertising. I find all these things intrusive and somewhat objectionable. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:39 PM "The freedom to believe or not believe as one sees it..." Yes, that is a basic...except that it has logical conundrum implied in it. It is the case that 'some' sets of beliefs include the admonition to actively recruit and proselytize among non-believers. How are we to reconcile "freedom of belief" when their beliefs demands recruiting and one of MY beliefs includes the desire to NOT be bothered? Many basically good folks take the following very literally... " * Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 4:20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. " |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:35 PM That's true, Don. As with religion (or anything else), politics has both a negative and a positive side, and you have quite correctly pointed out the positive side of politics. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Don Firth Date: 14 Oct 09 - 04:38 PM "And what is politics really about? It's about the material world. It's about the pursuit of money, power, and property." I think there's a bit more to it than that. It's also about matters such as justice, personal autonomy, freedom from oppression, being able to pursue one's own destiny, and much more, going far beyond the merely material world. Freedom of conscience. The freedom to believe or not believe as one sees it, without being persecuted. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 09 - 04:13 PM There's a good deal of truth in what you say, Alice, about "People are willing to die (and kill) for their beliefs about God and Eternity more than any other reason." However, they are certainly equally willing to kill and die for their political beliefs. I think if you look at 20th century history and 19th century history that you will find that far more people died for their political and nationalistic beliefs than did for religion. This would include, for example, most of the people who died in 2 world wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the American Civil War and the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War, etc, etc. They died on behalf of their political beliefs, not their religious beliefs, though they often dragged religion into it in one way or another. The politicians always do that if possible, because it's one more way of persuading ordinary people to go out and die for a political objective. ;-) And what is politics really about? It's about the material world. It's about the pursuit of money, power, and property. So you see....people simply see it according to their own prior choice. They look for their favorite "enemy" to blame when they look at a situation. This reminds me of people I've met who blame everything on the Jews. Or the immigrants. Or the socialists. Or some other handy scapegoat like that. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Donuel Date: 14 Oct 09 - 02:20 PM God reveals the word in strange ways... The bible code computer has just revealed the words President Palin and Melissa Cheney VP O happy day Finally our founding fathers intent to have a theocracy in America will be delivered. The land of breast milk and money will finally win every war and make tax cuts permanent for the rich. Then the faithful will be raptured and Satan will die of AIDS. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Alice Date: 14 Oct 09 - 01:49 PM People are willing to die (and kill) for their beliefs about God and Eternity more than any other reason. (Heaven's Gate suicides, Jonestown murders, 9/11 attack, the Crusades, etc., etc.) |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:38 PM I'm not putting the word "reputed" in to attack the writers of the Gospels. I'm putting it in to fend off attacks by a few rabid people here who simply show up on all these threads to attack and ridicule anything anyone has to say in favor of religion or spirituality. I'm putting the word "reputed" in to appease them somewhat so they don't pester me too much... ;-) My feeling is that the Gospel writers were writing about a number of real events in the life of Jesus and that much of what they wrote is accurate. I also think, though, that some of it was probably shaped in accordance with their own political agendas and various other things they had in mind and that some of the facts were altered, so it's probably not all accurate and dependable in every detail. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Oct 09 - 12:30 PM SharonA:....Hmm, hmmmm. Don't forget that the four Gospels were written during and after the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. It was very easy for the Gospel writers to say then that Jesus had made predictions about the end of that particular "world" -- so were they simply making up those supposed "predictions", or were they putting that "spin" on the words Jesus said in order to make it appear that he was talking about the fall of Jerusalem? ..and I keep seeing the word 'reputed', as to discredit the writers of the Gospel texts, as 'story-maker-uppers' I find it highly unlikely that all 12, but one, was martyred for a story, based on illusion, that they just 'made up'..not logical, nor realistic. It is very likely that they all witnessed, or experienced, something rather extraordinary, and chronicled it, to the best of their abilities...I mean, would any of us, be willing to be put to death, for any one of our 'Mudcat' opinions,..and furthermore, skepticism, is NOT 'logical proof', of anything, other than that of the holder, of that mindset, of being nothing more than skeptical! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Doug Chadwick Date: 13 Oct 09 - 06:55 PM ......I Googled and found several examples of your Thor poem, but didn't find more - are there other verses?...... Sorry Joe, that's all I know. Could be a good song/poetry challenge - either extend the Thor poem or write something about one of the other gods in a similar style. DC |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Oct 09 - 05:20 PM Good comments, Stower. I too base my life on my actual experiences and the evidence I have directly encountered, but it's interesting to discuss many other possibilities and hypotheticals about stuff I haven't encountered in any case. Most of the stuff that's ever happened or ever will...I'm not going to have the opportunity to encounter. (smile) I am also pretty skeptical about applying ancient religious texts to our present circumstances...except where they deal in general moral and ethical concepts...or in techniques for mastering practices such as yoga or meditation, for example. In those areas, some ancient texts are very useful and still quite relevant. Yes, the writers of the Christian Gospels may well have back-dated various predictions reputedly made by Jesus after the fact in order to make a better story. Quite likely. On the other hand, Jesus was probably quite interested in the political ferment in Judea at the time he was alive, so he may well have made some predictions about what he thought would happen, and some of those may have turned out to be accurate. It's impossible to say with certainty 2,000 years later what he said and what he didn't, so it's all speculation as far as I'm concerned. What troubles me is how people, merely because of a religious tradition, will update prophecies that are thousands of years old and try to make them dovetail to present political and social circumstances. That has been happening over and over as the centuries went by. There hasn't been a single generation of Christians in the last 2,000 years whose staunchest fundamentalist believers did not think that "the end of the world" was just around the corner....and they've ALL been wrong so far!!!!! That's a zero batting average. It's kind of amusing when you think about it. ;-) But here's one reason people really go for that sort of thing: Their OWN personal end is coming soon, because they're mortal. They all face their own death in the relatively near future....thus the end of their particular "world" as they know it. This scares people. It worries them. It lurks in the back of their minds. And it bothers them that THEY will be gone,..but everything else and everyone else will be carrying on just fine without them...business as usual. So there is something quite appealing to the human mind about the thought of EVERYTHING coming to an end at the same time! That means that they won't be personally left out and that everyone else must face what they face. There's something about that which would appeal, I think, to a self-centered view of life such as the human ego tends to hold. And I think that's one reason why "end of the world" scenarios fascinate people and grab the imagination of religious cults of various sorts. After all, it makes a neat end and VERY EXCITING and DRAMATIC end to the great lengthy story that is the world...instead of confronting you with the far more prosaic and humble fact that your little part in it is going to end, but the world is going to continue turning without you. Roland Emmerich (the maker of dreadful blockbuster movies) is about to make serious money on that concept with his "end of the world movie" called 2012. You will get to see tsunamis higher than Mount Everest, meteor showers nastier than Richard Nixon on a Monday morning, whole cities swallowed up in cataclysms, the violent death of billions, aircraft carriers dropped on the White House, and other BS along that line....all supposedly based on a Mayan calendar prophesy about the end of the world. Hooo-WEE! Should sell a lot of tickets, I'm thinking. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bill D Date: 13 Oct 09 - 03:26 PM comparison of the ages & content of the Gospels It is such studies that make any absolute claim about historical details of the era OR the supposed metaphysical sources of the stories suspect. Because of the great differences of opinion on these matters, and the personal animosities which result from certain viewpoints being ...ummm... 'shared', I will say again that we have not had experiences with 'discussions' which begin as obvious statements of belief. There are forums which DO specialize in either sharing OF religious beliefs or debates ABOUT them. It is fine to refer to your belief system to explain a point or describe who you are, but beginning any thread or post with statements which are obvious claims as to the 'truth' will lead, inevitably, to conflict. I am not personally religious.....I have a number of good friends here who are. We remain friends by taking pains to respecting each other's view and not making hard claims in either direction. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Stower Date: 13 Oct 09 - 02:18 PM Little Hawk, you make many valid points. They're interesting but pretty irrelevant to real life, which is certainly not meant as a criticism of you, but of discussing in general the validity of ancient texts as if they have some moral or supernatural bearing on our lives now. Interesting, though, but not interesting enough for me to make further comments on this thread, except the following one. LH, you wrote (I'd put the following quotes in italics to make it clear that's what I'm doing, but I don't know how.): "Stower, you said that "In the Gospels, Jesus and his followers clearly believed the world would end very soon. Jesus states that would happen within the lifetime of his disciples. He was wrong." Hmmm. Well, it depends on how you interpret what they were saying. I think what Jesus was predicting was the end of not "the world" in the sense of the whole planet...or human societies all over the planet. I think what he was most likely predicting was the end of the Jewish world in Judea...the fall of Jerusalem...the destruction of the Temple, etc. That's what it looks like to me when I read his reputed statements in the New Testament." No, on several counts. Firstly, we only have the Gospel writers' word (whoever they were) that Jesus said anything. I'm sure there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth who said lots of memorable things. It's highly unlikely that comes down to us untainted by the redaction of the Gospel writers serving their own needs and that of their audiences, though. So I would certainly underscore your comment about "reputed statements". Secondly, to quote myself (for the second time - are we reading each others' responses here before we post?), "It's funny how prophecies about the future are only ever made *retrospectively*, when both the events they 'foretell' and the alleged prophecy about those events are *both* in the past." In other words, the Gospels were written at about the time or after the time of the fall of Jerusalem, AD70, so the claim that Jesus predicted something after his death when it was only written down after both his death and the events he 'foretold' is seriously questionable. Thirdly, many, many Gospel passages, and St. Paul, are clear that Christians expected the end of the world within their lifetime. For example, Mark 8:37-9:1, "Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." That's me done. An enjoyable thread in its own way, but irrelevant to actual life. No doubt the world will end someday. But any tribulation will most likely be of our own making, not part of some supposed divine plan. It's a strange God who punishes people for their unbelief with so little evidence to go on and so much evidence to the contrary, and with so many competing claims from incompatable faiths who all claim to have the truth. Yes, evidence. I base my life on evidence. The truth will set us free. For the truth, we need evidence, debate and a search for understanding. A single book is too limited. Any religion, and the book of any religion, claims to know the truth regardless of evidence, and so is also limiting of real knowledge and real understanding. I hope those who stick around will enjoy the debate, but I wonder how much real learning will go on. Perhaps meeting face to face on a Saturday afternoon in a pub somewhere would be more productive. I think I'd rather enjoy that. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: SharonA Date: 13 Oct 09 - 01:21 PM Little Hawk also said: "Jesus would not have had to be clairvoyant or to be 'the Son of God' to make such a prediction. He would have just needed a good understanding of the politics of his time. The Jews and Romans were clearly on a collision course that was going to soon lead to total war...and the Romans, given their superb military organization and strength, would undoubtedly win that war in the end." Likewise, a good understanding of the politics of his time and of the history of the region would've been all that was needed to predict the eventual fall of Rome and Constantinople into the decadence/weakness/infighting that left them open to attack from barbarians. I agree with LH that extrapolating Bible predictions to the present day and trying to twist them around to fit modern countries is not going to give one the likely meaning of those predictions. Far better to study the times in which those predictions were made and the times that went before them (not after them!). |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: kendall Date: 13 Oct 09 - 01:16 PM I know too much real history to get bogged down in organized religion. "Feed a cold, starve a fever, Argue with no true believer." No amount of belief can create a fact. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: SharonA Date: 13 Oct 09 - 01:09 PM Little Hawk sez: "Stower, you said that 'In the Gospels, Jesus and his followers clearly believed the world would end very soon. Jesus states that would happen within the lifetime of his disciples. He was wrong.' Hmmm. Well, it depends on how you interpret what they were saying. I think what Jesus was predicting was the end of not 'the world' in the sense of the whole planet...or human societies all over the planet. I think what he was most likely predicting was the end of the Jewish world in Judea...the fall of Jerusalem...the destruction of the Temple, etc. That's what it looks like to me when I read his reputed statements in the New Testament." Hmm, hmmmm. Don't forget that the four Gospels were written during and after the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. It was very easy for the Gospel writers to say then that Jesus had made predictions about the end of that particular "world" -- so were they simply making up those supposed "predictions", or were they putting that "spin" on the words Jesus said in order to make it appear that he was talking about the fall of Jerusalem? Remember also that, after the fall, the Romans were the conquering rulers so any Christian who talked openly about Jesus' predictions of entire human societies (such as Roman society) being destroyed was likely to be executed as a seditionist. Therefore, any writings about Jesus' predictions of such destruction had to be coded and couched in oblique terms, in order to save the necks of the writers and the readers/hearers of those words. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Oct 09 - 12:06 PM Stower, you said that "In the Gospels, Jesus and his followers clearly believed the world would end very soon. Jesus states that would happen within the lifetime of his disciples. He was wrong." Hmmm. Well, it depends on how you interpret what they were saying. I think what Jesus was predicting was the end of not "the world" in the sense of the whole planet...or human societies all over the planet. I think what he was most likely predicting was the end of the Jewish world in Judea...the fall of Jerusalem...the destruction of the Temple, etc. That's what it looks like to me when I read his reputed statements in the New Testament. If so, his prediction was spot on. That "world" (the traditional world of the Hebrew nation and all its basic assumptions about its own permanence and importance) DID end very soon. It ended within the lifetime of many of his disciples when the Romans besieged Jerusalem, took the city by storm, destroyed the Temple, massacred the garrison, and scattered the survivors of the Jewish nation hither and yon. That was definitely the end of the comfy and seemingly permanent world that the Jewish people in Judea had known since the end of the Babylonian captivity. It's pretty grandiose to expand such a prediction to include the entire world in our time...but people in later eras do tend to expand such ancient predictions to fit their own idea of "the world" because it satisfies some kind of emotional need they have. Jesus would not have had to be clairvoyant or to be "the Son of God" to make such a prediction. He would have just needed a good understanding of the politics of his time. The Jews and Romans were clearly on a collision course that was going to soon lead to total war...and the Romans, given their superb military organization and strength, would undoubtedly win that war in the end. **** Now, there's a further dimension to various other prophetic stuff that's in Revelations and elsewhere about the destruction of "Babylon", "the Great Whore", "the Great City" and so on....and I believe it referred to the fall of Rome. They couldn't say "Rome" openly in those texts without being arrested for it, however, so they said "Babylon" instead. They used a number of symbolic names as code for "Rome". This prediction also was eventually fullfilled, and Rome did finally fall into decadence and weakness and was plundered by barbarian invasions from the north, thus ending the Western Roman Empire and bringing a very definite end to that world (the Roman world). The Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople fell at a considerably later date. *** Those are far more likely scenarios for the Bible predictions than extrapolating them all the way to the present day and trying to twist them around to fit modern countries like the USA, Russia, China, etc. *** Still there may be some further echo to the whole thing that comes forth in our time. It's possible, I suppose. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it, that's for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 09 - 11:10 AM Doug Chadwick, I Googled and found several examples of your Thor poem, but didn't find more - are there other verses? It's a kick! I've often said that fundamentalist Christianity is the State Religion of the US - even atheists see religion in fundamentalist terms, and then reject it. But many religious people aren't concerned with the doctrinaire, "I have the truth and you don't" view of religion. These others see religion as an exploration, as more about asking and exploring questions than it is about possessing and controlling the 'Truth.' Most of the major religions were founded on some form of the Golden Rule ("do unto others") and a seeking of some power greater than the members themselves. As time went on, many adherents took the easy (mindless) path and turned to a fundamentalist obsession with possession of Truth and condemnation of all who did not share their Truth. But if you look into mysticism, you'll find that the mystics of all religions are remarkably similar in their gentleness and open-mindedness, and that all are quite different from the fundamentalist stereotype. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Jack Blandiver Date: 13 Oct 09 - 10:21 AM Suibhne - like OD I have my beliefs, but I hope I don't shove them down peoples' throats. You do make it rather obvious though, Bryn - which is cool by me, as I say, though I might worry about the implied level of intolerance when a professed neo-Pagan accuses a Christian of God-bothering, whatever the fundamentalist stripe of the latter. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Stower Date: 13 Oct 09 - 10:06 AM Yes, Mr Happy, you're right, of course. Hidigibaugh will, going on past form, make more insubstantiated claims and simply insult anyone who disagrees to avoid actually engaging with them. As I say above, "unsubstantiatable claims about the future and links unconnected things in the past". It's funny how prophecies about the future are only ever made *retrospectively*, when both the events they 'foretell' and the alleged prophecy about those events are *both* in the past. It's like me doing a card trick, predicting what card you will pick only when you have handed me the card: 'Yes, I knew it would be said card'. You wouldn't be convinced. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Mr Happy Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:55 AM hidigibaugh 'The prophecy of Gog and Magog refers to a great world war centered on the Holy Land and Jerusalem and first appears in the book of Yechezkel (Ezekiel). On one side were: Israel United States Britain France Germany On the other were: Iran Russia China Syria North Korea ' ************ Aren't you making a None of those political entities [countries] existed when the bible was written/ being compiled. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: olddude Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:22 AM leveller Thank you my friend |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: theleveller Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:15 AM Thanks, OD - mutual respect! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: Bryn Pugh Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:04 AM Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil- An it harm none, do what ye will. So mote it be. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: olddude Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:47 AM leveller I was wrong to say that to you and I apologize. You were wrong to tell me to shove it right before that when I was only making my point. however I do have a temper it is one of my faults ... I do apologize, and do respect your belief system. I ask that you do the same ok Dan |
|
Subject: RE: Bible prophecy From: TheSnail Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:44 AM Does God exist? Theism - God exists! Atheism - God does not exist! Agnosticism - It is impossible to know whether or not God exists. Ignosticism - Sorry, what was the question? |
| Share Thread: |
