Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zod

Mayor Bloomberg: "God was not with this plane the way he was with the other..."

40 posts in this topic

Why are we trying to include the idea of a supreme being controlling humankind into a plane crash? We build the planes the pilots/computers are flying, we create the mess, then as always: we look for clarification & closure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we trying to include the idea of a supreme being controlling humankind into a plane crash? We build the planes the pilots/computers are flying, we create the mess, then as always: we look for clarification & closure.

It's only natural to question your belief when faced with a tragedy. Whether that tragedy is a close one like one of your loved ones dieing or a distant one like the plan crashes. I think it's a good thing to reevaluate your belief every now and then. It's healthy like exercises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we trying to include the idea of a supreme being controlling humankind into a plane crash? We build the planes the pilots/computers are flying, we create the mess, then as always: we look for clarification & closure.

If you are correct, then prayer is indeed useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a slippery thing to claim the "whole thing" needs to be looked at that way, because the entire second half is only about the fulfillment of the laws of the first, and as such, the ability to save yourself by following the medium of that fulfillment. Likewise, much of the first half (Old Testament) is merely a history. The only two books that deal with the "Law" are the ones I mentioned before.

The wonderful thing about Christianity is that it did not come from older religions that worked, not in its broader sense. The base of Christianity is, of course, Judaism. And yes, some parts of Judaism stemmed from even more ancient religions. However, Judaism introduced a brand new concept into religion, that of monotheism. Judaism was the first monotheistic religion on Earth, and also the first to base its system on ethics, on the acceptance of people.

Now here's the interesting thing. After the first five books you have, like I said, a history of events, and what's important to note is the struggle people have in conforming to God's law. Many people point to the Bible and say, why would God sanction this, when many events in the Bible weren't sanctioned by God, and were instead made by men who were TRYING to find God's will, sometimes failing miserably. It's the growing pains that lead to a message of salvation.

No, no, you are not getting it. Judiasm and monoethism is not what I am talking about.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

It's great that Judiasm changed from several gods to one, but it's still the same old same old. And Christianity based itself off of that.

Looking at it rationally and from a historical perspective, it is clear that religions of ancient cultures changed with the times and the needs of the people and more importantly, their leaders. When we have more information at hand to decide, most of us can see that Mormonism is just kind of wierd, and Scientology is a construct of a science fiction writer. Put each of these beliefs a couple of thousand years in the past and suddenly the rational explanations fade and all that is left is the faith part. Likewise, looking at ancient religions, we know from simple scientific study that the Sun is not a person living in the sky.

Christianity falls between these two extremes - we've had lots of scientific evidence that for example, the Earth is not the center of the universe or even unique to the galaxy in terms of it's ability to support life. We know that the Earth was not created in the explained time frame as described by the Bible. At the same time, we do know that locations mentioned in the Bible do or did exist (but not all). Christians either rationalize or trivialize this knowledge, or stick to it like a rabid dog depending on their need to have absolute "truth". They attempt to hamper further scientific knowledge because of it - Creationists are todays equivalent of the people that sought to silence Galileo and his fellow scientists for simply asking questions.

The idea that a person can claim that half of the Bible is simply stories to guide an older civilization (while of course, the important things like parting the Red Sea and all that) are true, and that the second half of the book is somehow absolute in its correctness, is just a bit off kilter to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is not. :mad:

Get with the OP on that then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, you are not getting it. Judiasm and monoethism is not what I am talking about.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

It's great that Judiasm changed from several gods to one, but it's still the same old same old. And Christianity based itself off of that.

What many of the first website's example are are that a syncretism, yes, it was necessary to ensure the survival of Christianity at its beginnings.

As for the other examples...and this is a personal conclusion I've come to after looking at Christianity from both perspectives...is that Christians and non-Christians alike seem to want to disjunction what shouldn't be disjunctioned. People looks at these parallels between Pagan and Judiaistic miracle-stories and say that they are proof of the Bible's falsehood, while I personally believe they are simply different incarnations of different perspectives. Who's to say that our God--Yahweh--did not appear to different peoples at different times? I know you're probably going to call me a loon for that idea, but it's what I think.

As for the second article...I mostly skimmed through it, but it was pretty clear about the writer's viewpoint on Christianity, and I'm not going to get into the same circular argument that's been raging for decades. There are articles this long that try and debunk Christianity, and there are articles this long that try to prove it, and I think both are off, in the end..

(On a side note, I did have a big problem with the second articles belief that "Egyptian sources are well-documented during this time etc. etc." This is false. The egyptians kept horrible documentation on just about everything...I mean, my God, even today we still have no idea how the pyramids were built. If the Egyptians documented so well you'd think they'd have scribbled that down somewhere. :cool: I also take issue with his pronouncement that "wandering in the desert for 40 did not happen...because there's no archaeological evidence." I think they writer forgets that the desert's a big place, especially when you have 4000 years of shifting sands involved. Hell evidence of the House of David was just recently discovered, and the House of David is almost 3000 years old, and not in the middle of a desert either.)

Christianity falls between these two extremes - we've had lots of scientific evidence that for example, the Earth is not the center of the universe or even unique to the galaxy in terms of it's ability to support life. We know that the Earth was not created in the explained time frame as described by the Bible. At the same time, we do know that locations mentioned in the Bible do or did exist (but not all). Christians either rationalize or trivialize this knowledge, or stick to it like a rabid dog depending on their need to have absolute "truth". They attempt to hamper further scientific knowledge because of it - Creationists are todays equivalent of the people that sought to silence Galileo and his fellow scientists for simply asking questions.

This is getting into an entirely different argument, which I simply don't have the expertise for. There's a lot of explanations for the six days Genesis theory, and for the non-existence of some places in the Bible.

The idea that a person can claim that half of the Bible is simply stories to guide an older civilization (while of course, the important things like parting the Red Sea and all that) are true, and that the second half of the book is somehow absolute in its correctness, is just a bit off kilter to me.

Please know that I don't think the Old Testament was a bunch of stories. I believe with all my heart the the red sea was parted, etc. What I was trying to say, was that as history progressed and these items were written down, they became tools for guiding the Ancient Jews...a Pre-A.D. version of "remember history or you're doomed to repeat it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say that our God--Yahweh--did not appear to different peoples at different times? I know you're probably going to call me a loon for that idea, but it's what I think.

That's actually the most reasonable explanation for a God that has decided to make Himself aware to us that I can think of. Still a zillion gaps in logic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think William Shatner said it best when he said "What does God...need...a starship...for?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually the most reasonable explanation for a God that has decided to make Himself aware to us that I can think of. Still a zillion gaps in logic....

Probably. But my point is, I think Christians...all religions for that matter, have alienated themselves from each other and from the world by becoming exactly that: religions. Forgetting their purpose, which is to serve a higher power. I mean, Christians and Muslims are usually antagonists, but they forget they serve the EXACT SAME GOD: Yahweh=Allah. They only difference is the contention over Jesus.

Astrology is another example. Christians laugh at the idea of people basing their lives on the way the planets are aligned, conveniently forgetting the THE ENTIRE REASON the wise men found Jesus was they noticed some celestial bodies starting to come together, aligning to appear as one big star that hung over Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites