Slansky Go Away

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's how I see it.

The Church, The Mosque, The Synagogue et al, all represent what is supposed to have been given. (ie- the "truth")

But ...

The Church, The Mosque, The Synagogue et al, all make their living and derive great power and influence from their positions, and if history has shown us anything, it is that humans + power (generally) = corruption.

It is without doubt that the many ecclesiastical bodies over the years have commited atrocities in order to keep their power and control over people.

So interpreting a religion through it's ecclesiastical embodiement is a receipe for disaster, because you are interpteting a supposed interpretation, but with the element of human control present.

The original text of a religion should be read with an open mind, to reason for yourself the nature of this "god" it talks about, and then, only then, should one read the apologists and critics alike, and make up their own mind. (any starting preposition beforehand, either favourable or critical will skew perception of said message in text)

Surely, you must concede David if you haven't read the Bible, yet have read x number of criticisms against it, then you will ultimately be lead to a conclusion which may be unbalanced and biased.

Perhaps this is the position you wish to be in, but bear in mind that you owe it to yourself to be honest if you truly wish to know if there is a "chance" that one of these religions could be the "truth".

In your discovery of 'ultimate truth' one cannot dismiss what they have not personally encountered and analyzed for themselves.

Even the great thinkers of the Enlightenment were open minded to the concept of a 'god' while chastising the Church and its practices.

If you look at, say, the Spanish Civil War, you will see the way the Church aligned itself could be seen as wrong (there is a part in the film "Land or Freedom" which is especially applicable to this point) and also in French history regarding Slavery in which the Catholic church endorsed the practice under the reason that 'at least the slaves would be exposed to Christianity'. (when the real reason was purely economics and lack of willingness for mainland french people to go to colonies and work the fields)

These choices are wrong, because these choices are human, and ultimately linked to the retainment of power, and not the representation of the God this ecclesiastical institution claims to represent.

You should judge "God" on "God" and not of his followers, regardless of the robes they wear and the fancy titles they possess.

And perhaps the men behind the text (Moses, Matthew, & Muhammad) are the same as the men who are behind the pulpit, power hungry and greedy?

Maybe, but what if they aren't? What if the text was 'divinely inspired'? Either way, you won't know unless you read it, and if you don't read it and yet choose to reject it, then your starting preposition is one of bias because you don't really open yourself to the idea of truth, no matter how slim science says the chance of that truth being is.

If that is the case, then your postings about religion (Christianity especially) are nothing more than your own form of 'anti-Christian evangelizing' and do not have the goal of 'discovery of truth' but the 'discovery of truth if it serves your bias' at best and 'convert to athiesm' at worst.

At the very least David, if you wish to reject a religion you must first know it, and not from second hand criticisms or robed men who enjoy their tentative titles in respect to the governments/monarchies of their day.

You have built yourself a great reputation in the poker world for your thoughts on poker, yet your ignorance about some religions is glaring and reflects poorly on you ... David Sklansky, a perceieved well-learned man, whom has the respect of nearly all the posters on 2+2.

I hope I haven't offended David, and I appreciate your posts. These are only my thoughts and could very well be wrong, this is just 'food for thought', take it or leave it.

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

Sorry but your long post didn't answer my question. I agree that critics of anything could conceivably change their mind if they learned more details. I asked what details those might be that could change MY mind regarding ANY religion that believes in a god that is in some way presently interfering with the workings of the universe.

[The once and future king]

At leat they could be intresting questions about religion, not "Hey Christians how do you deal with these glaringly obvious contradictions?"

On a tangent, given DS's comment on Aristotle it is obvious he has no understanding of the history and development of western thought and knowledge.

However he is just a mathematician so we shouldnt expect to much.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect that if any of the 'read your bible' people actually read the bible themselves (and not just parts of it), they'd become one of the following"

1. Athiests
2. Hardcore fundamentalists
3. Buddhists.

depending on how sane they were before they started.

[Zapp]

I think it would be a worth while endeavor for you to read the Bible through. If the creator of the universe decided to write a book that gives the way to eternal life (the Bible claims that such is the case), it would be silly not to read it. If it is all a hoax, you are smart enough to figure that out, right?

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
okay nutjob

[/ QUOTE ]

vnh!

[Hofzinser]

You can be a fully justified, rational, reasonable, and non-narrow-minded atheist without ever needing to read the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other religious tract.

All these books do is tell you about the tenets and morality of their particular religion (and I'm sure all these books contain some sound advice). It is quite possible to agree with pretty much all the moral teachings in the Bible, and to believe everyone should live their lives by these teachings, yet remain an atheist.

A possible reaction might be: "Thou shalt not kill? Sounds reasonable. Turn the other cheek? I guess so. Wait, a virgin birth? Water into wine? Rising from the dead? Why on earth should I believe this? The stuff about not coveting my neghbours ox was fine - good advice, in fact - but am I expected just to unquestioningly believe that all this happened? Is there any evidence at all?"

And there's not, is there? The Bible doesn't do that sort of stuff. It's not designed to either - which is why it would be highly unlikely to convince a sceptic who had thought through the notion of a supreme being at a more metaphysical level.

When pondering the meta-question of whether there is a supreme being or a creator - whether one needs to exist, whether one is likely to exist and all that kind of thing - I see no need for any other tools than reason, logic, and a certain level of knowledge about the world.

For this specific question, I would actually argue that the Bible is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
You can be a fully justified, rational, reasonable, and non-narrow-minded atheist without ever needing to read the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other religious tract.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can, but it's certainly an eye opener. After reading the bible and some of the Quoran, I've come to the conclusion that religious people:

A) Are mad, loony, loopy, crazy scary fools (and I am glad they have religion to keep them in check).
OR
B) Have never actually read the bible.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but your long post didn't answer my question. I agree that critics of anything could conceivably change their mind if they learned more details. I asked what details those might be that could change MY mind regarding ANY religion that believes in a god that is in some way presently interfering with the workings of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok example:

Book of Revelations, re: the Mark of the Beast:

ch. 13 verses 16-17

[ QUOTE ]
And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to recieve a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets explore this passage a little.

Firstly, what is this book?

It is the Book of Revelations, it's author is "John". Whether this is the same John that wrote the gospel of John is debateable, but we know the author was a prisoner on the Greek island of Patmos, and apparently was revealed the end of the world. (ie- the apocalypse)

Great, we have the background, think what you may of it but lets move on.

The Book of Revelations is highly symbolic. It is this symbolism which makes the book one of the most interesting and debateable books of the New Testament.

Protestants believe it is the map for the end of days. The Catholic church believes it represents a time when Romans persecuted Christians and has no future meaning. Muslim apologists like Ahmed Deedat believe it was "a dream" and means nothing.

So lets take a look at this example a little closer, it can't hurt.

- The Mark of the Beast

Ok, so a mark is mentioned, as this mark pertains to the "beast", and apparently all people in society (ie- buy or sell, free or bond) must take this mark.

Q. Who is this beast?

This "beast" is the anti-christ.

Q. Who is the anti-christ?

Unknown. While popular movies have fantasized the anti-christ being this unholy supernatural being that will decieve the world, those who study Apocalyptic prophecy believe the anti-christ will be involved in politics and dupe the world through his charisma, and despite what Hollywood tries to push, there will be nothing on the surface 'fantastical' about him.

Q. What is this Mark?

The Mark has been heavily debated over the years. Some thought it may be tattooing, yet the koine greek word used here is Charigma which means 'to scratch'.

The common consensus amongst those study this believe it relates to a microchip which will be mandatory for all citizens to have under their skin to continue to partake in society.

On this microchip will be your financial information, and most likely medical records. The great thing about this microchip is that unlike a passport or identity card, it can't be forged or stolen, and may quite possibly have tracking potential, though nobody knows.

In Time magazine, April 27 1998, with the cover titled "The future of Money": (see below)



In an article within, (possibly "The Big Bank Theory" - though I have a copy I seem to have misplaced it) it mentions the future of money, and a general consensus is that with the EFT trend, one day we will live in a truly cashless society, and it mentions that one day people will be able to transfer funds to people who have "chips under their skin" (horribly misquoted, though in the story it gives the example of a mother wishing to transfer funds via EFT to her daughter to has a chip under her skin and she can then go instantly and verify the funds are there or make purchases)

The world we currently live in relies heavily on electronic transfers (EFT) and purchases. In some ways we have made the choice to live in a pseudo-cashless society, although cash is not dead yet, many people still use it, despite record rates of Credit Card usage and online options such as NETeller leading the way to more 'cashless purchasing'.

The article also mentions something of an "Omnicard", a generic name given by the article to describe an "all in one" card that will a one card solution for your bankcard, credit card, medicare card, and identitfication.

If this card is introduced, it is only a matter of time until the card becomes a microchip implant, it is logical as it solves the issue of cards being stolen or counterfeited.

Read on...

Q. What about civil liberties?

Since 9/11 the world has changed. Things that pre-9/11 would not have been kosher are now kosher. Increased security is one of the things that has happened.

Prior to 9/11, Theorists were claiming Globalization was creating a 'borderless world' (see The Globalization of World Politics; Baylis & Smith) wheras post 9/11 security changes at airports and so forth in the US and EU have tightened considerably. (also in other countries)

In Australia, an I.D Card was proposed in the 1980's but shot down by civil libertarians, yet after 9/11 and the London bombings, an I.D Card is back on the drawing board.

An I.D card has a plethora of government plusses and virtually no minuses.

An I.D card would not only serve foir identification purposes but could also double for financial transactions.

If cash was abolished, money laundering and the black market would be on the verge of death, as all financial transactions would leave a 'paper trail' (or should that be "electronic trail") and it would be harder for people to cheat the IRS in the US and other tax collection departments around the world.

The problem will ultimately be, if an I.D card is eventually implemented (most probably because of the world fear of "terrorism" - interpret as you please) just like Passports and other cards, it is still suceptible to theft - ie- identity theft, which people would be told was being carried out by "terrorists".

Logically then step in the I.D card evolution process is the chip in the card to be implanted into the skin.

Technology is already available for this. Japanese scientists have invented microchips that are so small they can be inserted via Syringe (remember that koine Greek work Charigma meaning to "scratch") and this technology is already being used on domesticated animals (Mark of the beast, a double meaning?) wheras all domesticated animals have to be microchipped.

Ok, so take this example

So here we have this example, just one example of the Mark of the Beast.

Lets forget the Bible for a minute.

Time magazine and CNN and other sources in the new today have talked about an I.D card in these times of terrorism, so it is a good idea to keep an idea on how this notion progresses, especially in these times of "terrorism" (almost sold to us a 'panic' << Terror level elevated >> etc etc)

C.S Lewis said something to the effect of "If Christianity is untrue, it is of no importance, but if it is true, it is of significant importance".

Nothing could sum up the current situation in the world today.

If what the Books of Revelations talks about concerning citizens to have a mark (ie- most likely microchip under skin) and the world demands an I.D card and/or microchip implant to stop "those evil terrorists" (ie- giving up civil liberties believing through fear, as humans have done for centuries by giving up their power to The Church, Feudal Lords etc) by authenticating identification in a double effort to step up security and also conveniently stop the black market and quell tax evasion, then Christianity is of major importance for a book written in 96 AD to predict such a thing. (the book also talks about the war of Armageddon and various world powers - without getting into it, it is interesting to note that the symbolism for the powers involve the Eu, Russia, and China, all seperately identifiable and to this day Russia is a EU "neighbourhood community" - ie not a member state, and China as we know is not affiliated with the EU)

It's a very deep subject that unfortunately I can't do justice to in one post, and I hope you have stayed with me during this post, which I will now wrap up.

So all religions have their thoughts on how the world will end, and I've read a few. (eg- The Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon don't devote many verses to the end of days, and are very vague)

No religion though gives as much attention to this as Christianity, which has a book devoted to it, and the study also corresponds to the prophetic book of Daniel in the Old Testament also, albeit to a lesser extent, the bulk of the future Christianity predicts can be found in the Book of Revelations.

So to end, if Christianity is true, we are faced with a big choice to reject or accept, if it is false, it is of no importance whatsover, go about your business.

Before the advent of the Internet and EFT, the prophecies in the book of Revelations could not have been possible at all. Rome at the height of it's power still did not conquer the whole world, not even close, so the Catholics treatment towards the book is somewhat curious, especially when you consider the book of Revelations mentions "the great whore" which students of bible propechy equate with Rome and Catholicism (see Ch. 17 but below is an excerpt)

[ QUOTE ]
Ch 17, verses 1-2
Andthere came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither, I will shew thee the judgement of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, the great whore refers to Rome, from its inception to its transformation to catholicism and to end of days.

When many people attack Christianity, what they are really attacking a lot of the time is Catholicism. That's not to say Protestants didn't do their own share of atrocities like burning witches in the US etc, but so did the Jews in Moses' days ... ever read Leviticus or Deuteronomy?

But Catholics took it to a level unlike any other relgiious group.

Rome in its papal form has been in bed with all the dictators - Franco (Spain), Mussolini (Italy), Hitler (Nazi Germany) not to mention the Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the virtually countless trials and murders of people who posed a threat to it, and ofcourse a favorite subject - slavery, and the endorsement of.

Lets not forget when Spain and Portugal came to the Pope in the 15th century disputing what land they could have in Latin America (despite there already being thousands of indians there already having established civilizations and their own religion) it was the pope of that day who decided Portugal could have Brazil and the amazon and Spain could have the rest.

The papacy has funded and fought in wars not only in Latin America but also mainland Spain (they percieved the democratically "left" elected government as a threat because of their communist/anarchist ideologies and thus supported Franco and in doing so assisted in the coup and the loss of many lives to save 'Catholic Spain')

I could go on forever, sorry Sklansky but the Papacy really did it's share to sour the taste of an otherwise peaceful religion in the mouths of many intelligent people through their actions. (eg. Diderot and his contributors in L'Encyclopédie were more against Catholicism than they were protestants, and Voltaire's hatred of Christianity largely stems from Catholicism's actions in France - Voltaire was also an anti-semite BTW, just some trivia for you) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Anyway, that's a 'detailed example' of one thing in the Bible, which makes reading the original text with an open mind very important ... if it could be correct.

If not, keep watching the news, if the developments in the "war of terror" progress to a point where ID cards are implemented it might be worth reading it then if not now.

Excuse any spelling/grammatical errors, I'm tired.

Regards,
SDM

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it would alter your most basic conclusions about Christianity as Christianity is commonly held to be, but I do think it might alter some of your impressions and understanding of Christianity.

Had I derived my impressions of Christianity primarily from reading this forum (or from listening to preachers), those impressions would be quite different than the impressions I gathered by actually reading parts of the Bible (especially the four Gospels). In other words I do not believe that that which has been discussed on this forum necessarily conveys the most accurate or comprehensive view of essential Christianity.

If you were to read nothing else, I would suggest reading the four Gospels (or at least the gospels of Matthew and Mark), preferably in the older style King James version (as some of the newer versions are linguistically biased in a simplistic limiting fashion, in my opinion).

If you can get a red letter edition King James version (with Jesus' words in red), so much the better. Also bear in mind that the gospel of John, while generally the most popular, is the latest written and therefore perhaps the least accurate.

You could then best compare what are considered to be the teachings of Jesus, with the abundant mythology built up around him. I found considerable room for difference when I did this, and it gave me a new view into what Christianity might be all about (or better put, what it might have been intended by Jesus to be all about).

A lot of people are not capable of, or inclined towards, interpreting things in any fashion other than the literal. I would surmise that if you read the gospels with particular attention to Jesus' words, you may see room for an interpretation that is somewhat less literal, and more symbolic or metaphorical. That difference is quite significant in my opinion (although some aspects may remainliteral, especially given the historical context).

If you take Jesus' teachings (which, by the way, also include his life-example), and view them through the lens of the historical context and setting, it may help to see "where he was coming from". This may also help explain some of the mythological aspects of the whole thing.

At any rate, I think that if one focuses primarily on the teachings of Jesus, as related in his words in the gospels, there is room for an interpretation of Christianity that has a somewhat different take or emphasis than those interpretations most commonly held. And such a take, in my opinion, is perhaps the more essential Christianity than the more popularly held versions.