Religion Versus Science

[cuchulain]

I have never gotten the straight answer either, Mererdog, but I realize of course that since it isn't my spirituality, I don't actually need a straight answer on that particular subject. I can fully respect wanting one, though.

Johnathan, I agree for myself. As I said, I was speaking for someone else when I realized they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, my bad. If the Holy Spirit were indeed part of the Holy Trinity, and thus infallible, our interpretations of the bible would all be the same, wouldn't they? That's always been my take on it at least. I was simply attempting to view things from the other side for a while, like I do sometimes, and usually I guess that annoys people, eh? But I find that a person can learn a lot simply by trying to view things from other perspectives. Doesn't always work, of course, but I like to try anyway.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I have never gotten the straight answer either, Mererdog, but I realize of course that since it isn't my spirituality, I don't actually need a straight answer on that particular subject. I can fully respect wanting one, though.

Johnathan, I agree for myself. As I said, I was speaking for someone else when I realized they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, my bad. If the Holy Spirit were indeed part of the Holy Trinity, and thus infallible, our interpretations of the bible would all be the same, wouldn't they? That's always been my take on it at least. I was simply attempting to view things from the other side for a while, like I do sometimes, and usually I guess that annoys people, eh? But I find that a person can learn a lot simply by trying to view things from other perspectives. Doesn't always work, of course, but I like to try anyway.

Sometimes, I wish to speak plainly and bluntly. Why does God need a book? In particular, this book, which is so badly written? Is this really the best we can get from the supream, all powerful, all knowing, omni-present, etc. etc.? If the author were perfect, would we really be arguing over content, meaning and interpretation? Over what is literal and what is allegory? Over what is and is not history?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[panpareil]

Outside of the stone tablets from Mount Sinai, I do not recall God penning anything.

[Key]

Sometimes, I wish to speak plainly and bluntly. Why does God need a book? In particular, this book, which is so badly written? Is this really the best we can get from the supream, all powerful, all knowing, omni-present, etc. etc.? If the author were perfect, would we really be arguing over content, meaning and interpretation? Over what is literal and what is allegory? Over what is and is not history?

God doesn't need a book, but it seems He felt we did?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

God doesn't need a book, but it seems He felt we did?

Here we go again. Full circle. Which God would that be? Something that actually exists? A creation of the priestly class? The god of Pantheism? A mass projection? The Trinity? Aein Soph? We keep dancing around it. The God word has no meaning.

In this context, the default meaning of God is the author of the Bible. Fine. Full circle -- again. Is this the best book that God could manage? At best, it reads like something put together by committee(s).

Edited May 11, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

I could agree that god only penned the stone tablets...if they were around for proof. Or, if they were moved and relocated so often, if I could even come across the ancient shipping manifest that states they had the stone tablets in custody, but again...lack of contemporary evidence to back that one up as well. Of course, even producing the tablets, I would probably lean towards Moses wrote them himself in an effort to lend credence to his claims. Skeptic in me I guess.

Edited May 11, 2015 by cuchulain

[Dan56]

There are actually two parts I quoted from the Sermon. One regards helping others. The other regards helping the self. Jesus specifically says to place faith in God to provide needs, rather than working to provide the needs yourself. As I said, this is plain language reading comprehension. Looking at what is said, purely in terms if what is said. The language is quite strident, leaving no implication of exception. If you don't think the words are meant to apply to lazy people, I suggest you look again. The rule is to treat even the worst people well. Even your enemy, even those who curse you, even those who strike you. They ask for shoes you give them socks too. Of course doing all that stuff only makes sense if you trust in God to provide your daily bread and you believe that to be poor is to be blessed. Otherwise, you will assert that people should earn things.

The Sermon on the Mount could essentially be summarized by; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7:12). Or as Paul put it; How to live peaceably with everyone by overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:18-21). But Jesus was not inspiring people to make themselves willing victims of the wicked, nor was he preaching extreme pacifism. Yes, Jesus inspired us not to take personal vengeance or to escalate a problem by returning evil for evil, as did Paul (Romans 10:17). Its also important to note that he was speaking to Jews, which would make his sermon centered and relevant among brethren. I would not expect someone to throw money at me if I were a bum who refused to work, so likewise, I would do unto a bum as I'd expect others to do unto me under similar circumstances. Turning the other cheek simply means to turn away from someone you've offended in order to avoid further conflict. And examine the verse; "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also" (Matthew 5:40). Someone who sues and takes your coat would insinuate that they were entitled to it by law. Jesus was not saying that if someone wants the change in your pocket, to also give them your wallet. Treating everyone equally is the Christian message, but you don't ever take on the characteristics of an oppressor by becoming like them. Remember the harsh words Jesus had for the Pharisees, the anger he displayed with the money changers in the Temple, and the fact that when one of Caiaphas officers struck Jesus, he didn't turn the other cheek, but instead asked: “Why smitest thou me?” (John 18:23). Praying for your enemies or those who mistreat you is an act of love, its not supporting, condoning, or praising those who abuse you. Imo, all of Paul's letters support the context of the Sermon on the Mount (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

I have no right to be speaking on Dan's behalf, so I apologize to Dan.

No need to apologize, you've got my number and articulated my position accurately.

Here's a thought. If the "Holy Spirit" were enough to avoid error -- we would not need "the word." Maybe, we don't. I don't.

The "Word" and the "Spirit" work in conjunction, but aren't the same thing. The Holy Spirit convicts a person, it guides, comforts, and empowers them with the Truth. The "Word" is Christ, and its been the Truth from the beginning.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

The Sermon on the Mount could essentially be summarized by; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7:12). Or as Paul put it; How to live peaceably with everyone by overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:18-21). But Jesus was not inspiring people to make themselves willing victims of the wicked, nor was he preaching extreme pacifism. Yes, Jesus inspired us not to take personal vengeance or to escalate a problem by returning evil for evil, as did Paul (Romans 10:17). Its also important to note that he was speaking to Jews, which would make his sermon centered and relevant among brethren. I would not expect someone to throw money at me if I were a bum who refused to work, so likewise, I would do unto a bum as I'd expect others to do unto me under similar circumstances. Turning the other cheek simply means to turn away from someone you've offended in order to avoid further conflict. And examine the verse; "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also" (Matthew 5:40). Someone who sues and takes your coat would insinuate that they were entitled to it by law. Jesus was not saying that if someone wants the change in your pocket, to also give them your wallet. Treating everyone equally is the Christian message, but you don't ever take on the characteristics of an oppressor by becoming like them. Remember the harsh words Jesus had for the Pharisees, the anger he displayed with the money changers in the Temple, and the fact that when one of Caiaphas officers struck Jesus, he didn't turn the other cheek, but instead asked: “Why smitest thou me?” (John 18:23). Praying for your enemies or those who mistreat you is an act of love, its not supporting, condoning, or praising those who abuse you. Imo, all of Paul's letters support the context of the Sermon on the Mount (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

No need to apologize, you've got my number and articulated my position accurately.

The "Word" and the "Spirit" work in conjunction, but aren't the same thing. The Holy Spirit convicts a person, it guides, comforts, and empowers them with the Truth. The "Word" is Christ, and its been the Truth from the beginning.

If "the Word" is different from "the Book" -- then we really don't need "the Book."

Edited May 12, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

But Jesus was not inspiring people to make themselves willing victims of the wicked, nor was he preaching extreme pacifism.

"Resist not evil" is a direct command.

I would not expect someone to throw money at me if I were a bum who refused to work, so likewise, I would do unto a bum as I'd expect others to do unto me under similar circumstances

There is a difference between treating others as we would expect to be treated and treating others as we would have them treat us. I expect to be treated poorly. I want to be treated well. Remember that the sermon tells you that you have to exceed the righteousness of others.

Someone who sues and takes your coat would insinuate that they were entitled to it by law.

Because the courts of the day were just? The progression of examples given goes man who sues, man who compels, man who asks, man who borrows. In each case, the instruction is to give freely. Simple declarative sentences.

, and the fact that when one of Caiaphas officers struck Jesus, he didn't turn the other cheek, but instead asked: Why smitest thou me? (John 18:23).

Actually, he challenges the man to condemn him for his words, showing a willingness to accept more punishment than a simple slap. And the book is silent as to whether or not he literally turned his cheek, which is not the same as saying he didn't.

. Imo, all of Paul's letters support the context of the Sermon on the Mount

Simply in terms of what the words say, that simply isn't the case. Edited May 13, 2015 by mererdog