Cat Stevens

[Impactor returns 2.0]

which leaves a large % for being wrong aswell.

Now if i spent my life worshiping somthing, when there was such a high % chance i could be wrong. I think I wouldnt bother.

[Denyer]

Truth does not have two faces. There is only truth and everything else is falsehood.

That is merely your opinion. We are each attaching labels to what is probably the same universe. You want and quite possibly need truth to be external and identifiable.

Either the Christian, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc is 100% right, but only one of them is.

You credit the idea one of them may be. I do not believe them false; I do not think that we can know. No-one has presented any evidence I regard as credible either for the existence of a god or against. However, the people who argue against the existence of a god don't tend to use it as an excuse to start violent arguments with other groups of people who argue that one doesn't exist in a slightly different way.

how could the universe cope with over 6 billion bus drivers?

"They taught the quantum theory on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and the relativity theory on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. On the Sabbath they rested in front of their television sets."

[Dead Head]

I do not think that we can know. No-one has presented any evidence I regard as credible either for the existence of a god or against. However, the people who argue against the existence of a god don't tend to use it as an excuse to start violent arguments with other groups of people who argue that one doesn't exist in a slightly different way.

Yes indeed.

[sprunkner]

I haven't read anything else since I made my highly provocative comment about the South. You gusy talked about religion a lot. As a guy who spent two years of his life as a full-time missionary (in the South, yes, I love it and I hate it) this is my take:

Religion is based on feelings. Jesus appeared after his death in disguise to two of his friends, who said afterward, "Did not our hearts burn within us as he spoke?" (Luke 24: 13-32) The Jews at Jerusalem during Pentecost were "pricked in their hearts" (Acts 2:37) and asked what they should do.

It seems simple to me, from a host of evidence, in people's lives and in the scriptures, that people become religious for undefinable reasons. I saw a successful 79-year old businessman and his wife, both very rich and very settled, go from being born-again Christians to Mormons because, when they went to church, they said "We felt at home."

The selling point (if you could call it that) of the Book of Mormon itself is a statement that basically says, "If you read this, pray about it, and God will let you know if it is real." There is plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith did not write it, and plenty of evidence that he did. None of that makes a bit of difference. We do it because we feel it. Because it makes us better people.

James said, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain" (James 1: 26). Religion is obviously not in showy, outward appearance. This is why George Bush scares me-- he refers to his belief so often that it seems he is trying to prove it rather than live it. Against a horde of Muslim countries, that is dangerous.

I hope someone gets through all of this. Sorry if I sound preachy.

BTW, I'm sorry to post this without reading all of your posts first. I will later, I promise.

[Ultimate Weapon]

You credit the idea one of them may be. I do not believe them false; I do not think that we can know. No-one has presented any evidence I regard as credible either for the existence of a god or against. However, the people who argue against the existence of a god don't tend to use it as an excuse to start violent arguments with other groups of people who argue that one doesn't exist in a slightly different way.

Within the realm of human experience god cannot be known, as a human event. Your definition of epiphany is merely a hiccup of the imd, not an actual divinty of a higher up. But you could argue that the mind is a transmitter to god, yet I would have a hard time believing those who take that stance with no physical evidence. Even those distant peoples who have the advantage of substance undertaking and pyschedelics at their disposal.

[Denyer]

people become religious for undefinable reasons

What's hard to define or explain? People don't accept explanations, certainly.

I saw a successful 79-year old businessman and his wife, both very rich and very settled, go from being born-again Christians to Mormons because, when they went to church, they said "We felt at home."

An excellent way to select a religion. Not necessarily advantageous to society depending on what the religion in question does, but great for individuals. Gut feeling is explicable (not all psychology is bunkum) but train it well and it can serve well.

he refers to his belief so often that it seems he is trying to prove it rather than live it.

Mmm. I'd tend to agree.

those distant peoples

Distant?

Your definition of epiphany is merely a hiccup of the imd, not an actual divinty of a higher up.

You can attempt to attach different words to things, I suppose.

[Ultimate Weapon]

those distant peoples

Distant?

Distant being native peoples and culture that have no relative impact upon my society.

[Denyer]

I could've sworn Bill Hicks was an American.

[Ultimate Weapon]

To take it a step further language, thought , and culture are intricatly woven. You can ask yourself which comes first. Simply by closing your eyes for a minute the answer could be revealed to those keen enough. It is in this act that a line of communication is opened with the mind. Thus language speaks to the brain to create the thought.

[Denyer]

language speaks to the brain to create the thought.

Language is reactive; indeed, it's an abstraction of physical reality, whether vocalisation, vision or tactility. It's just shorthand we apply to the acts of communication and interpretation.

[Metal Vendetta]

So that's 60% would go with tragic and hilarious, then.

[Denyer]

I went for "who's Cat Stevens?"

I gather some kids' entertainer from the comments in the thread...

[spiderfrommars]

Aren't you thinking of Cat Deeley?

She has a wonky face btw. And walks funny.

Cat Stevens wrote 'Father and Son' and other MOR drudge.

[Commander Shockwav]

That is merely your opinion. We are each attaching labels to what is probably the same universe.

Either the Christian, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc is 100% right, but only one of them is.

You credit the idea one of them may be. I do not believe them false; I do not think that we can know. No-one has presented any evidence I regard as credible either for the existence of a god or against. However, the people who argue against the existence of a god don't tend to use it as an excuse to start violent arguments with other groups of people who argue that one doesn't exist in a slightly different way.

Well, that 's what I'm saying, its the same universe, despite the various interpretations and beliefs people may have about it. But despite these different opinions on the matter, essentially, there is one truth, whether or not one can prove it to be true. An atheist and believer in a supreme "God" such as myself cannot be both right. Either we die and rot in our graves, ceasing to exist, or we die and stand before this supreme diety. Both cannot be true, only one. Just because someone has not presented any evidence to convince everyone who exist of something does not make it false. It could very well be true. But if it is, then everything else anyone ever said counter to this is false.

Truth stands clear from falsehood.

[Dead Head]

I went for 'tragic and hilarious' too. Pity it wasn't more clearly called 'wrong, tragic, and hilarious'.

I'd like the 2 people who voted "Hell yeah he's a muslim, isn't he?" to show their hands and tell why. Again, I dislike Islam as much as any other mainstream religion, but it's strikes me as an incredibly broad ignorance to equate all muslims with terrorism.

[Commander Shockwav]

I went for 'tragic and hilarious' too. Pity it wasn't more clearly called 'wrong, tragic, and hilarious'.

I'd like the 2 people who voted "Hell yeah he's a muslim, isn't he?" to show their hands and tell why. Again, I dislike Islam as much as any other mainstream religion, but it's strikes me as an incredibly broad ignorance to equate all muslims with terrorism.

Moreover, one should judge a religion not by its followers, but by its doctrine and original teachers. If I want to know what Christianity is, I'm not going to ask George Bush. I'm going to go to the Bible and read it. If I want to know what Islam is, I'm not going to ask Osama Bin Laden, but rather read the Quran and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. If I want to know Judiasm, Hinduism, etc, I will not go to those poor representatives of it.

And lets face it, how many people can claim they follow the teachings of their religion accurately and correctly? Very few, I would venture.

Go to the source of the teaching, not to its current followers, or a skewed picture will be the end result.

[Denyer]

Go to the source of the teaching, not to its current followers, or a skewed picture will be the end result.

I couldn't agree with you more. However, very few people seem content to recognise their religion as an offshoot of the concerns and prejudices of a group of desert nomads.

Most of them aren't very big on Kemetian or Sumerian history, either.

despite these different opinions on the matter, essentially, there is one truth, whether or not one can prove it to be true.

You're substituting 'truth' for 'reality'. You're also assuming reality is singular (and, I suspect, linear.)

An atheist and believer in a supreme "God" such as myself cannot be both right. Either we die and rot in our graves, ceasing to exist, or we die and stand before this supreme diety.

Both can occur contemporaneously, and we'd still be pushing words and mathematical proofs around.

[Dead Head]

If I want to know what Christianity is i'm going to go to the Bible and read it.

Which version? One has so many choice editings, lengths, translations, and variations to choose from. The gospel of Thomas, the book of Jasher, and the book of Gad the Seer were supposed to be real page-turners in their day.

[Ultimate Weapon]

I'm going to go to the Bible and read it.

The accuracy of which cannot be verified through any known scientific method other than archealogy. Which has come up with very little outside of the great pyramid, and some Sumerian tablets. Even the existence of Christ himself has no historical record. Not even the Dead Sea Scrolls recant anything from his teachings or life.

[Denyer]

Or you could read, say, the older surviving flood myths rather than the Noah rehash.

Most of Christian mythology does not stem from Biblical texts, and there is significant conflict even between the texts comprising the version sanitised by the Council of Carthage. Read the Old Testament material, for instance, and the character Satan is regarded as an adversary—by the New Testament, writers compounded this into dualistic opposition.

Dante. Milton. Deuterocanonical texts. Gnosticism. Roman montheistic cults.

As someone once said, "if the Bible were really the work of a perfect and loving God, it would be obviously superlative in every respect to anything that could be conceived by human intellect alone. It would be accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout."

Unfortunately, some fundamentalists do actually swallow that... in spite of, amongst other things, not reading a word of Hebrew or Greek...

[Ultimate Weapon]

The problem stemming from the historical inaccuracies of the text over a vast expanse of time.

[Commander Shockwav]

If I want to know what Christianity is i'm going to go to the Bible and read it.

Which version? One has so many choice editings, lengths, translations, and variations to choose from. The gospel of Thomas, the book of Jasher, and the book of Gad the Seer were supposed to be real page-turners in their day.

And it is for this very reason that I reject Christianity as the truth, no offense to any reading Christians.

For me to believe something to be true, it cannot be changed multiple times to suit the perferences of that time and age. It must be for all time, accurate for all times. It cannot be victim to the prejudices or desires of that time.

The Bible has been changed in both its translation and wording numerous times, and continues to be so. Today, we have Christian homosexuals trying to reason out, through some twisted interpretation, that the Bible supports homosexuality, when entire cities in the Bible we destroyed for such behavior. So, either you are a Christian homosexual who admits they are going against the word of God and hoping for forgiveness, or you are simply a homosexual.

What I hate is the way religion is so easily changed for the conviences of ones personal satisfaction and justification. Damn it, if my religion decrees something wrong is wrong, whether I do it or not, I will fess up that what I do is wrong according to my religion, or I will reject that faith. There is no difference between this example and the way Bush will twist his personal war efforts into some Christianity vs. Islam Crusade.

[Ultimate Weapon]

The Bible has been changed in both its translation and wording numerous times, and continues to be so. Today, we have Christian homosexuals trying to reason out, through some twisted interpretation, that the Bible supports homosexuality, when entire cities in the Bible we destroyed for such behavior. So, either you are a Christian homosexual who admits they are going against the word of God and hoping for forgiveness, or you are simply a homosexual.

You mean the very same book that left out: GAY IS WRONG, in the 10 commandments? The supposed be all end all final de facto word of God's law? Again you canot prove nor verify the accuracy of that statment with a scientific definition. That is why the bible is so subject to interpretation. And is it any wonder why science has been so heavily guarded by the culprits.

[Denyer]

The problem stemming from the historical inaccuracies of the text over a vast expanse of time.

I see the problem being more to do with indulgent caveman fancies getting out of hand over time.

the Bible supports homosexuality

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."

Leviticus 18 is a chapter about according dignity; to treat a man in the same manner as a woman involved reducing him to property. Historically, it was also an attempt to invalidate male-male copulation as part of pagan temple rituals.

Religion is entirely justification; else there would be no conflict.

[Commander Shockwav]

That is why the bible is so subject to interpretation.

That is my point, that anything is subject to interpretation, including religious texts. Therefore, to understand a religious book, such as the Bible, Torah, or Quran, one must learn it from a source that is familiar with its historic meaning and the context in which it was 'revealed'. So many verses can be misinterpreted, its scary. I too am guilty of reading something, not knowing the context in which it is written, and therefore leading myself to misinterpretation.

[Commander Shockwav]

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."

Leviticus 18 is a chapter about according dignity; to treat a man in the same manner as a woman involved reducing him to property. Historically, it was also an attempt to invalidate male-male copulation as part of pagan temple rituals.

Religion is entirely justification; else there would be no conflict.

I'm not quite sure of your point here, but I am sure that unless homosexuals are not people too, those 362 admonishments also apply to homosexuals as well, do they not?

As I said above, I want to know from the scholars of the Bible, with documented evidence to support it, what the actual view of homosexuality is. Not some neo-interpretation that gives gay people justification from a religious standpoint why they can do what they do.

We are not experts in religious texts, at least I am not. So careful am I about misinterpretation of my own religious doctrine that I rarely speak of it unless I am 100% sure of what it means, for fear of creating something from it out of my own bias and opinion.

When dealing with interpretation of other religious doctrines, I would hope the same care would be taken in getting to what a verse really, truly means.

[Denyer]

anything is subject to interpretation

Ten minutes with some notes on Saussaure and semiotics would convince almost anyone of that—there are, however, many pig-ignorants out there who think language both immutable and separable from context.

It's not so much that a few things are subject to misinterpretation; language is incapable of operating as a medium for transcendental signification.

Exodus 22:18 being a particularly glaring example.

[Denyer]

I am sure that unless homosexuals are not people too

What are you talking about?

As I said above, I want to know from the scholars of the Bible, with documented evidence to support it, what the actual view of homosexuality is.

That's easy enough: homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are modern concepts. Coining of the term in 1869 led to widespread dumbing down of discussion into dualistic antagonism.

The bible (Leviticus) has a view on the treatment of men as possessions (lying with a man as a woman in a dominant manner) and a view on ritual cleanliness. It does not therein express a view on the sexuality of same-sex acts.

So careful am I about misinterpretation of my own religious doctrine that I rarely speak of it unless I am 100% sure of what it means

I assume you never speak of it, then.

what a verse really, truly means.

A tradeoff between the intention of the inscriber and the intention of whoever is reading—that's all any use of language represents. Define love. Now try to find one other person on this planet who agrees precisely with you.

Just as James I's fear of witchcraft was read into Jewish poisoning, later generations converted maleficos into a gender-specific prohibition, and no two people can agree on the specifics of 'good' or 'evil'... your use of language is the same as no-one else's.

[Redstreak]

Either the Christian, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc is 100% right, but only one of them is.

I disagree...I've found most of this debate generally interesting on all sides with the exception of certain comments, but I feel like I want to comment on this statement.

No one's nailed it down.

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change

an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.

That's what I go by, personally. I have an idea that doesn't necessarily mesh with my upbringing or adhere to Jewish dogma fully. I keep my mind open to possibilities, and never take anything at face value and build my belief structure on that.

Now, if anyone picks this apart I'm going to be very upset with them. I am not looking to have my idea structure deconstructed with possible questions of 'how can you believe that given this' or whatnot. I state it as simply something to digest, not to be challenged. Because no one is going to change my views, so I am telling anyone who would do so to not bother.

I personally believe God exists, in some form or another. However I do not have a definitive idea about Him. But I do have an idea about the meaning of life, things like that, that religions claim to know. I answer the question, "why are we here?" with a simple "Why not?" I know these are things that ppl won't agree with, and that doesn't bother me. It's what I think, and I like what I think. Why not be here? Why even think about it? We're here, let's just roll with it and see where it goes. I still observe Jewish customs, chief among them being the just-passed Yom Kippur. Whether it's a real thing or not, I am willing to fast one day a year on the chance that there is a slate to be wiped clean of sin. Granted I couldn't do it for health reasons this year, but health is something the faith is huge on, and is something that trumps things like fasts.

Does any of this mean anything? I say maybe. I say I am willing to take the chance that it does, because it's not a big deal for me, and it's a form of a safety net. I feel it better to go with the idea that there is a God, and turn out to be wrong, than take it the other way; not believe there is a God and find out there is. That's not a slap against anyone who's an aetheist or anything, don't get me wrong; if that's what you believe that's what you believe. Everyone has their reasons, that's mine.

So many things are possible, and sometimes ya just have to have faith...something to believe in. But the moment you start killing yourself or others for that belief is the moment that belief becomes corrupted.

[Ultimate Weapon]

The problem stemming from the historical inaccuracies of the text over a vast expanse of time.

I see the problem being more to do with indulgent caveman fancies getting out of hand over time.

Define cavemen? Hehe even that concept is open to debate. Given the significance of ancient culture myths. It is not out of the realm of possibility that we have regressed from the past till now. And the bible only being one tool of many to control the populace and bend its will to that of a hierchal structure of power. Old does not equate with holy or divine. Though somewhere along these lines that vision became blurred; much more so the cultures and events that predate the Hebrew language.