The Bible

So, another thread was in danger of being hijacked by my intrigue in a small tangential element of that thread. To respect the thread's OP, I decided to move the discussion here, as it is one that promises to be interesting.

It was brought up in that thread that a 'biblical argument' could be made that discourages polygamy, to which I responded with, essentially, the idea that the bible can be used to build an argument for any number of other things, some of them ridiculous (IMO).

almostinsane wrote:Well, I think the above is a topic that would eclipse the topic here, so I'll just say I have my own opinions about the Bible, , much of it focused on Jesus' own sayings...

Now that a thread is no danger of being hijacked, could you be a bit more detailed? Also, if you'd prefer to share in private, PM me. I'm more curious than looking for a fight, please don't think I'm trying to stir you up.

Further, anyone who wants to weight in on the subject, please do.

Myself, I do believe in a higher power, though I hesitate to use a male or female pronoun to describe it. Out of training more than conviction, I do still use the masculine 'he', but I don't think God has a sex in any way we'd understand it. Now, if this God gave us "his' word, so that we'd know what to do in order to be saved, then he'd make it pretty clear, without a lot of need for argument or cleverness to figure it out. He'd have to have known that a large number of people that would read his Word would be less than average in intelligence, which means, for fairness sake, he'd have to make it simple so even the least of them would get it. That is, unless your version of God has it in for stupid people, and believe me, I totally get that.

That's not even getting into the endless translations, or the political motivations behind every iteration of the currently known Bible ever. Is it possible that God has supernaturally protected his 'Word'? Sure, I suppose it is, but considering how many version of that 'Word' have survived, then I'd say all of them are relevant. And what of the lost books, the Apocrypha, the gospels of Mary, the gospel of Judas and the many other scrolls that were also written in scripture? They, too, have survived, so who is to say which of these scrolls were the 'supernaturally protected' ones?

Don't misunderstand me. I actually love the bible, and have read it front to back twice, and have read selected books many, many more times. I'm a big fan of the book of Revelation, my notion that it was brought on by hallucinations, caused by a certain mushroom that grows on Patmos, notwithstanding. I think there is a lot of truth in the bible, even if there isn't much in the way of fact.

I personally would like to take this to PM, if that's okay with you. I will say that I think Jesus was sent to correct much of what is in the Old Testament, though. Please allow me to PM you.

Some of these characters of course are useless, pure technical creations of no purpose other then a function however some seem to posses a flame or at least the darkened remains of wood long burned and left to decay in the earth rain and mud. My real point here... that is if I truly have one is to share our thoughts of long abandoned ideas and concepts.

I am not an atheist however despite being spiritual and surprisingly morally conservative in the Christian sense I cannot accept any bible as divine.

To me the moment the divine is put into words it can no longer be divine since words are a human instrument of understanding and therefor an interpretation of the divine. I do not consider the many translations of spiritual scripts in my words but the use of words to express them as an error.

I treat the Bible as a work of philosophy, history and spirituality but not as the word of a divine being.

To me the divine must be the universe since it is the ultimate plain of being, by universe I also mean the Multiverse and other such plains... I just can't be bothered to say all these time and time again. The Universe represents the single greatest action of creation among our surroundings and therefor to observe it is to contemplate the divine.

I also think there is a greater being however I refuse to accept a being beyond our understanding because the theory of impossibility lacks the evidence. It is true that many things cannot be done in this universe by our hands however I cannot see any reason why these should remain impossible to us in the future.

To me a greater being must be a supreme Sentient. Animal life lives by the confines of its surroundings, a Sentient life forms while it does begin its way as an animal strives to control its surroundings. I think a greater being is a Supreme Sentient which as been able to achieve this feat. I do not think that such an achievement is beyond human ingenuity and that should we wish it we could also become a Supreme Sentient. However, I often wonder if we should strive to that end or if maybe we should remain animals in our nature.

To strive for Supreme Sentience would mean the sacrifice of humanity. PM me if you want to hear exactly what I mean by this since it does not really have anything to do with this discussion.

Colonel_Masters wrote:To strive for Supreme Sentience would mean the sacrifice of humanity. PM me if you want to hear exactly what I mean by this since it does not really have anything to do with this discussion.

I agreed with the vast majority of your post... it sounds like you and I have thought in many of the same circles, at least regarding this subject.

I don't really mind threads like this coming off-topic... for me, good conversation is marked by how often it changes subjects. A REALLY GOOD conversation will even circle back on itself.

If you don't want to share what you mean in 'public' because you don't really want to get embroiled in an online flame-war, I get that, and would love to hear more about your thoughts on this matter. If you're not afraid of the net trolls coming out to feast, then feel free to post it here, though I think I may see what you mean anyway.

Let me illustrate with a story from the bible.

The first king of Israel was Saul, who was chosen by God when the people demanded a ruler. It was understood that so long as Saul obeyed God's word, he would prosper as would Israel. The Amalakites lived nearby, and apparently God decided that these Amalakites needed to die, since they worshipped other gods and what have you. He told Saul to take his army into the lands of the Amalakites and slaughter everything: the men, the women, the children, everything. Not even the crops and livestock were to be spared. Saul saw that the women of the Amalakites were pretty, and saw no profit in destroying the crops, so these he spared (he did still slaughter all the men and children though, so... there's that). It was this failure to obey God that prompted God to look in a shepherd's field for a better king... though it was still many years before this transition happened.

At any rate, there are LOTS of things about this biblical story that just ring wrong for me. Most people who preach from this part of the bible point to it as an example of what can happen to you if you disobey. At the time that I read this, I was trying hard to figure out how this God was going to eventually become the God of the new testament... how could a diety that was so bloodthirsty become merciful enough to assume human form and experience an excruciating death to assure the salvation of humanity?

At the time, struggling with my faith, I tried hard to reconcile my mind with these two, seeming opposing faces of God. The only thing I could do is turn it over in my own mind, try to think of something that could force me to do something terrible, something truly inhuman and evil, for the sake of the greater good. It was easy...

See, I'm not Jewish, but I've always had a heart for the plight of the Jewish people, most especially during the Holocaust. I've never been able to understand the kind of fear and hatred that goes into hating people because of their heritage (especially when there are so many character traits much more worthy of my hatred... I hate stupidity no matter what color package it comes in), and I for some reason have always been able to identify with those oppressed by so called superior people. Even though neither I nor any of my family suffered during the Holocaust, I can't imagine being any more affected by it if I had been. I had to say this to say the next part.

The question I eventually asked myself was this: If I found myself in a situation where I was standing over baby Hitler's crib, AND if I had the prescience to know that if I kill him now, then all those lives would be spared, I'd kill that baby in a heartbeat. Knowing what an evil bastard he'd grow up to be wouldn't really change the fact that he's just a baby now though, so that would be something I'd have to live with. Killing a baby is not good, but I'd do it, given the situation and the knowledge that it would actually change things for the better for all.

Winding my way around to my point here, bear with me.

So... if I could envision such a scenario with a limited vision on history, then I could see how God would be able to do such things on a grander scale. The question came to my mind, what if these Amalakites had some sort of genetic disposition toward a certain disease? What if this genetic strain, over a thousand years, would permeate most of the civilized world, and when this disease pops up, kills almost everyone?

Now, obviously, this is a dangerous justification to make, because it seems to make racial cleansing okay so long as you can justify a threat to the other races. Religions do this all the time anyway, all I'm saying that it's a possibility for why God wanted these people dead. Of course, the next obvious question would be why wouldn't he just send the Angel of Death like he did against Jerusalem when David called for a census. Or rain down fire and sulfur like he did with Sodom and Gammorah. Or turn them all into pillars of salt like he did with Lot's wife.

Anyway... the point of all that is this: Assuming that there is a God, then IF this God is loving and merciful, AND IF this God did decree the wholesale slaughter of an entire race, THEN this was not a pleasant choice for God and he did it only because there was literally no other way to save the rest. You couldn't make such choices if your mind is still focused on what it's like to be those individuals dying. Even if you are interested in preserving humanity as a race, then your own humanity as a being must be eliminated.

I actually meant by the death of humanity its conversion from an organic life form to a technologically altered creation, The final transition between animal and sentient, the termination of the animal.

The single most defining surrounding is our own physical bodies therefor it is logical for a being set on becoming a supreme sentient to replace it with its own creations in order to gain control over it's nature. Also, our brains are gradually proving inadequate at interacting with our technology; eventually to the Sentient the body not only becomes undesirable but also obsolete.

Currently humanity is both animal and sentient, it is in its period of transition between one form to the other when a relatively stable balance between the two conflicting natures remains. However, I do not think this balance is likely to last. In the past I saw this transition as a rational and natural conversion of a wasteful animal life form into a responsible sentient however I have since changed my opinions from support to Supreme Sentience to concern over its ramifications.

The only purpose of an animal life form is to survive among its surroundings, the only purpose of the Sentient is to take control over these surroundings in order to survive. As I said I do not consider anything impossible however it is because of this philosophy that I am left with the conclusion that a Supreme Sentient would have nothing to stop it from essentially becoming the universe since control over the entirety of thy surroundings is to become the laws governing them.

Commenting on your problem with the massacres as expressed in the Bible all I can say is that during that period of history such actions where accepted as norm. The sense of morality with which you now approach this story does not reflect the period and therefor is actually in error in this case. When reading history reading the events is less important then understanding the world of that time period.

I maintain that God would not have spoken to mankind in words. Instead it would have been for mankind to interpret the will of God through creation. Therefor it is not God who would be at fault but the nature of mankind. I am personally more of a Pagan in my spiritual views however

How does one determine divine will? Well, I think by knowing the world one is closer to the divine will. I do not pretend to know the world, books are great but they are just words. A creation is the clearest expression of an artists personality so therefor divine will must be among trees and stars and among ourselves. How to determine what it means has been a subject of debate for quite a while...

If I have made an enormous ramble... darn, I have edited this post so many times I am no longer sure what I wanted to say in the first place!

Colonel_Masters wrote:I actually meant by the death of humanity its conversion from an organic life form to a technologically altered creation, The final transition between animal and sentient, the termination of the animal.

The single most defining surrounding is our own physical bodies therefor it is logical for a being set on becoming a supreme sentient to replace it with its own creations in order to gain control over it's nature. Also, our brains are gradually proving inadequate at interacting with our technology; eventually to the Sentient the body not only becomes undesirable but also obsolete.

Ah, so you mean humanity more in the 'mortality' sense rather than the philosophical sense... one would have to give up their physical existence in order to become a Supreme Sentient. I think this would necessarily come with a loss of philosophical humanity as well, though. When you are now concerned with cosmic forces, human problems must seem mighty small.

Colonel_Masters wrote:The only purpose of an animal life form is to survive among its surroundings, the only purpose of the Sentient is to take control over these surroundings in order to survive. As I said I do not consider anything impossible however it is because of this philosophy that I am left with the conclusion that a Supreme Sentient would have nothing to stop it from essentially becoming the universe since control over the entirety of thy surroundings is to become the laws governing them.

I disagree that the only purpose of the Sentient is to control its surroundings, especially since control is an illusion anyway. For me, the purpose of the Sentient is to live in symbiosis with it's environment, rather than in dominance of it. Also, you assume that the Supreme Sentient is operating in our universe, whereas if it 'became' our universe, then it's very possible that it would begin existing on another dimension, and for all we know, in that dimension there are all sorts of things stopping it from just hijacking the cosmic forces.

Colonel_Masters wrote:Commenting on your problem with the massacres as expressed in the Bible all I can say is that during that period of history such actions where accepted as norm. The sense of morality with which you now approach this story does not reflect the period and therefor is actually in error in this case. When reading history reading the events is less important then understanding the world of that time period.
{/quote]
I actually know this quite well.. my point was not a moral one, it was a philisophical one. I presented the 'case' from a modern sense of morality because God (as Christians are wont to say) is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I don't really have a problem with the massacres of the bible, because to be honest, I think they were politically motivated, later justified with scripture. I was using it more as a means of illustrating how I came to ask myself how is it that a God that loves humanity could at times seem so inhuman.

Colonel_Masters wrote:I maintain that God would not have spoken to mankind in words. Instead it would have been for mankind to interpret the will of God through creation. Therefor it is not God who would be at fault but the nature of mankind. I am personally more of a Pagan in my spiritual views however

Yet another resonance... I consider myself a messianic druid. I firmly believe that I can learn everything I need to know about God by watching how nature works. I do think that occasionally certain people who were close to their diety were compelled to write their experiences down, indeed I feel that same compulsion and have journal after journal of my observations.

Heck, maybe some day there'll be a religion based on my journals, the Church of the Doctor. The idea of a whole nation of Whovians committing bloody war over what color bow tie to wear just tickles me pink.

Colonel_Masters wrote:How does one determine divine will? Well, I think by knowing the world one is closer to the divine will. I do not pretend to know the world, books are great but they are just words. A creation is the clearest expression of an artists personality so therefor divine will must be among trees and stars and among ourselves. How to determine what it means has been a subject of debate for quite a while...

I'd say you're on the right track, but expand that thought a bit. It's not just in trees and stars.. it's also in how atoms interact with each other. It's in how particles are created in super colliders. It's in how light travels and disperses, and carries information with it. It's in how machines work, and how entropy occurs. Indeed, I'd say that the divine can be seen in everything, except in humanity at large.

Colonel_Masters wrote:If I have made an enormous ramble... darn, I have edited this post so many times I am no longer sure what I wanted to say in the first place!

This is exactly the reason I tend to parse posts... it helps keep me focused on individual bits of conversation, because lord do I ramble when I am just let off the chain. I mean, just go back to my previous post... I meandered ALL OVER the place trying to get around to a relatively simple point.

I often take what is written in all three major Religious Texts with a grain of salt as all three are in their simplest form purely extensions of the previous book. The Old Testament, The New, and then the Quran (or Qur'an if one were to give it the correct Western spelling), are like an anthology of a spiteful and jealous God turning peaceful, and then back to spiteful (depending on your interpretation of the Quran, though that seems to be the consensus amongst most Western Theologians). The Hebrew Faith finds the first book Holy, the Christians the first two, and the Islamic Faith finds all three to be Holy, though Muhammad "preached" that out of all Holy texts, the Quran was the exact word of God and the previous two were merely prophetic words that don't reach the level of the true prophet, i.e. Muhammad.

Now, from this we can assume that all three books were simply created to spread the word or message of whatever ideal most appealed to them. One could say it was a near thousand year workshop that culminated in the most divisive issue in the modern world. While I do believe all three book have many lessons that can be taught, there are certain aspects that I find rather bizarre and downright frightening. Many look to these texts for moral guidance, something I don't quite understand. I am a firm believer that one should strive to be kind to those around them and spread joy and love, but I believe these feelings of what is just and fair about the world are more innate than I think most realize. So, in a way, The Bible does help as it seems to stop rather sadistic and horrible people from committing violent and demeaning acts (Some even being willing to admit on forums and television that The Bible is the only thing that morally stops them from committing such acts). I truly hope this is just defense mechanism for their beliefs, and that they actually know not to bring harm to others, but use the Bible as the basis for that reasoning rather than their own instincts.

The Old Testament, The New Testament, and The Qur'an are no different than any other major influence on the world in that, they all have their negatives and their positives. The Pros and the Cons. Western Civilization was at one time the forerunner for innovation and thought, then the New Testament arrived. After that it was Baghdad, which at one point was the Intellectual Capital of the World, helping greatly in the development of Art, Astronomy, and Math. Then came the Qur'an. My point in bringing this up is that, yes, these are incredibly powerful books, but I don't think a Supernatural Force has anything to do with the strength they possess. Religious Texts offers answers and guidance in a simple form that even the most primitive cultures are able to understand. Whether or not this is for the better remains to be seen as, keep in mind, the era of the Big 3 is but an insignificant fraction in the timeline. The beliefs of Ancient Egypt lasted almost 2,500 years, roughly the same amount of time since the Old Testament was written. Then one must consider the beliefs of the Old World, in times of Gilgamesh when The Text was literally The Word. We will not see the fall of the Big 3 or the Religious Texts as our lifespans are far too short. But, if history is anything to go by, with the fall of the civilization comes the fall of its beliefs. Odds are later generations will look upon the beliefs of the past two thousand years in much the same way as we look at the beliefs of the Pagan Religions. As old world thinking that was used to appease the masses.

First, let me say that I am very surprised at the quality of posts here... I've brought up this discussion in other forums, and inevitably it led to a forum flame war ending with some bans and some thread deletions. This really does confirm my theory that roleplayers are an evolved form of humanity, willing to argue tooth and nail over game rules or plot devices, but speaking civilly about the truly divisive topics.

PaperCoversRockB*tch wrote:Now, from this we can assume that all three books were simply created to spread the word or message of whatever ideal most appealed to them. One could say it was a near thousand year workshop that culminated in the most divisive issue in the modern world.

I'd also say that not only was it an ideal that appealed, but also used as a political device to gain power over others. Nothing says 'I own you' like telling people they will be punished by God for disobeying you.

PaperCoversRockB*tch wrote:While I do believe all three book have many lessons that can be taught, there are certain aspects that I find rather bizarre and downright frightening. Many look to these texts for moral guidance, something I don't quite understand. I am a firm believer that one should strive to be kind to those around them and spread joy and love, but I believe these feelings of what is just and fair about the world are more innate than I think most realize.

I can see why certain elements of the New Testament could be looked at for moral guidance, and much of Paul's philosophy was just as you said yours is... to spread love and joy. Much of the bible is bizarre and frightening, which is one of the reasons I have a hard time seeing how it has become such a mainstay. I'd like to say that humans are smart enough to see a clever ruse when one comes up, but religion has been doing it for thousands of years.

PaperCoversRockB*tch wrote:So, in a way, The Bible does help as it seems to stop rather sadistic and horrible people from committing violent and demeaning acts (Some even being willing to admit on forums and television that The Bible is the only thing that morally stops them from committing such acts). I truly hope this is just defense mechanism for their beliefs, and that they actually know not to bring harm to others, but use the Bible as the basis for that reasoning rather than their own instincts.

I know my experiences are not the end all.. but from my experiences I can say that most people that use the Bible for justifying things, usually are finding ways of justifying bad behavior, rather than good.

PaperCoversRockB*tch wrote:The Old Testament, The New Testament, and The Qur'an are no different than any other major influence on the world in that, they all have their negatives and their positives. The Pros and the Cons. Western Civilization was at one time the forerunner for innovation and thought, then the New Testament arrived. After that it was Baghdad, which at one point was the Intellectual Capital of the World, helping greatly in the development of Art, Astronomy, and Math. Then came the Qur'an.

Ya gotta love them Dark Ages.

PaperCoversRockB*tch wrote:...but I don't think a Supernatural Force has anything to do with the strength they possess.

I am not beyond the idea that a Supernatural Force was behind the writing of some of the scripture, but it would be more in the vein of God speaking and his mortal pen writing down what he thought he heard. Not the Holy Word of God, but rather the words of a god interpreted through the mind of a man. I'm more prone to think that these various books are more in line with fables than with history, but I'm not going to say that absolutely, there is no way God or gods had anything to do the writings.

PaperCoversRockB*tch wrote:Religious Texts offers answers and guidance in a simple form that even the most primitive cultures are able to understand. Whether or not this is for the better remains to be seen as, keep in mind, the era of the Big 3 is but an insignificant fraction in the timeline. The beliefs of Ancient Egypt lasted almost 2,500 years, roughly the same amount of time since the Old Testament was written. Then one must consider the beliefs of the Old World, in times of Gilgamesh when The Text was literally The Word. We will not see the fall of the Big 3 or the Religious Texts as our lifespans are far too short. But, if history is anything to go by, with the fall of the civilization comes the fall of its beliefs. Odds are later generations will look upon the beliefs of the past two thousand years in much the same way as we look at the beliefs of the Pagan Religions. As old world thinking that was used to appease the masses.

It's interesting you bring up pagan religions... most of them have no written codex, their precepts being passed down from generation to generation. This ensures that belief and dogma will evolve with society, making the telling of the traditions more way of tying past and present together than in an attempt to make the present be like the past. My own faith, that of the Druids, is much older than any organized religion you can point at, and has survived because druids don't expect you to believe what they believe.. in fact they firmly expect everyone to see things differently, just as a hawk sees a mouse differently than another mouse does.