How can we get rid of our sinfulness?

[L Gilbert]

Do you not see the arrogance of your statements?

No.

In other words, if the eternal "ME" is not convinced, it must not be true.

Actually, it's more like the collective "we" (as in scientists, researchers, etc.)

In other words, there is such a sense, in many people's hearts, that all things must somehow be put on a table and examined prior to being accepted. It is as if to say that "I" am the only judge of what is and is not real.

Not quite, it is actually science that says something is real or not, we are just the administrators of science.

Yet, so many today, and before us, have accepted God and the evidence of His existence is in the hearts and works of these people.

Um, good point, but for me I find sufficiency in accepting solid evidence and cannot put much stock in a great pile of suppositions, hypotheses, and feelings. That stuff is entirely subjective. As I just pointed out to MLG, I know without any doubts air exists, planets exist, electricity exists, but "faith" doesn't fit under the heading of substantiated evidence so items that have no basis of valid evidence are simply hypotheses, suppositions, and myth.

 

[Niflmir]

What about the stories in the Bible do you feel do not have a bearing on life? The stories reflect all the many ways humans inter-relate with one another-or have we changed in our core so much that we no longer feel love, devotion, anger, passion..etc.,etc.?

First I want to say that I hope we can have a civil debate. I understand that a person's spiritual beliefs grant a large part of the meaning in their life. I never want you to feel like I am somehow implying that your life has no meaning. Nor do I ever want you to feel like I want you to give up your beliefs. All I want is to talk about our situations in the hopes of maybe learning a bit about each other's beliefs.

That being said, I really fell like the entire book of Leviticus needs to be removed from the bible. Any time you quote one part of that book, you give credit to another part of that book. Then I have to lock my wife in the house when she is on her monthly period and stay away from her. Even worse, the high priest has to send a goat into the desert as a sacrifice to a fallen angel known as Azazel. Those are two things that come to my mind in Leviticus.

I already mentioned the justifiable rape in the story of Lot. There is another one in the book of Kings, I believe. I also have a hard time with the idea that demons can possess people. That because the romans referred to the planet Venus as Lucifer and the fallen king of babylon is compared to the evening star chasing after the sun we now refer to Lucifer as a demon. Manna falling from the sky, Cain leaving Adam and Eve to find people to have a family with (where did they come from), Samson and his invincibility, Noah's gigantic boat that can hold two of every animal, Noah's seven hundred year life span. All these mythological things just give me a headache. Sure, that isn't a reason for disregarding them out of hand, but it isn't hard to give reasons.

 

[sanctus]

No.

In other words, if the eternal "ME" is not convinced, it must not be true.[/quote]Actually, it's more like the collective "we" (as in scientists, researchers, etc.) Not quite, it is actually science that says something is real or not, we are just the administrators of science. Um, good point, but for me I find sufficiency in accepting solid evidence and cannot put much stock in a great pile of suppositions, hypotheses, and feelings. That stuff is entirely subjective. As I just pointed out to MLG, I know without any doubts air exists, planets exist, electricity exists, but "faith" doesn't fit under the heading of substantiated evidence so items that have no basis of valid evidence are simply hypotheses, suppositions, and myth.[/quote]

Science, my friend, has not attempted to disprove the existence of God. That is not its' role.

Your point on faith is fair and accurate. It cannot be measured anymore than any other emotion or feeling. It either is or it is not.

As to the "ME", oh yes that certainly exists! Look around, we live in a culture eternally dedicated to the concept of"ME"

 

[sanctus]

First I want to say that I hope we can have a civil debate. I understand that a person's spiritual beliefs grant a large part of the meaning in their life. I never want you to feel like I am somehow implying that your life has no meaning. Nor do I ever want you to feel like I want you to give up your beliefs. All I want is to talk about our situations in the hopes of maybe learning a bit about each other's beliefs.

.

Trust me, you will not shake my faith, nor will you get me to abandon the Church
. We have just "met", so to speak, so I should share that I am employed in the service of the Church, or more specifically my boss is God, so it is more than just opinion with me.

 

[L Gilbert]

Interesting little essay here http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk54.html that seems to have some bearing on this discussion, and a few others around the boards. Scroll about halfway down, to the paragraph that begins "Due to poor planning on my part..."

Interesting. Thanx for that, Dex. Personally, I rather enjoy several religions, some of them have supreme deities and a couple don't, so I have nothing against any of them in reality, just some of the followers' practises in the names of their faiths. I think a prime reason behind the bad things that have been done in the name of whichever faith is because of interpretation and ignorance of what they think they believe. Another prime reason is that people who profess to be followers of some faith or other have clearly no self-control.

 

[sanctus]

That being said, I really fell like the entire book of Leviticus needs to be removed from the bible. Any time you quote one part of that book, you give credit to another part of that book. Then I have to lock my wife in the house when she is on her monthly period and stay away from her. Even worse, the high priest has to send a goat into the desert as a sacrifice to a fallen angel known as Azazel. Those are two things that come to my mind in Leviticus.

I already mentioned the justifiable rape in the story of Lot. There is another one in the book of Kings, I believe. I also have a hard time with the idea that demons can possess people. That because the romans referred to the planet Venus as Lucifer and the fallen king of babylon is compared to the evening star chasing after the sun we now refer to Lucifer as a demon. Manna falling from the sky, Cain leaving Adam and Eve to find people to have a family with (where did they come from), Samson and his invincibility, Noah's gigantic boat that can hold two of every animal, Noah's seven hundred year life span. All these mythological things just give me a headache. Sure, that isn't a reason for disregarding them out of hand, but it isn't hard to give reasons.

Let us not fall victim to using our own set of standards in judging the value of the texts you mention. Let us also not forget the historical context in which the book of Leviticus was written. This is very important. The Church never teaches us to take any of the 72 Biblical books out of context to the times and situations they were written in and for. The book of Leviticus was written for the early Jews at a time when its injuctions were wise and healthy for them. It serves now as part of the historical texts of the Bible, not as instructions on living for 2006.

The Bible is a book of faith, and should be viewed as such. It does not seek to define science or history, though parts of it certainly deal with history. And in those historical parts, let us not fall into error by judging behaviour of thousands of years ago with the moral standards to today.

 

[L Gilbert]

Thank you. The cult of "ME" has permeated our society like a sick cancer that spreads ever slowly towards the eventual death of the soul. Since the 1970's this cult has grown. Responsibility, morality, duty and honour have fled the scene, to be replaced with ME, ME, ME. What is important, saddly, is not what is right or good, but what makes ME "happy". Heaven forbid that we are not constantly catering to our own self devotion and desires!

Yup. Priorities have been an issue for a long time. I think it's partially due to the idea that people are serving society rather than societies serving their peoples (which is their whole purpose). Joseph Campbull mentioned this in one of his books. Societies were (are) developed to support people's survival and activities. Now, it seems as if societies have started using people to ensure their own survival and activities. Gov'ts are good examples of this. The machine exists not for the people but for itself. It's no wonder that people have become like that. They've been trained to be that way. Why? Is it to keep them from advancing faster than society can handle by keeping them focused on themselves at the exclusion of others?

 

[L Gilbert]

To elaborate further, I would agree with MapleLeafGirl, only in Semantics. I will never see an electron, but I know it exists. However, I will affirm strongly that: "If you can not ever measure something, that thing does not exist." Have you met my pink, invisible unicorn?

We cannot measure the universe but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, obviously.

 

[Niflmir]

Trust me, you will not shake my faith, nor will you get me to abandon the Church
. We have just "met", so to speak, so I should share that I am employed in the service of the Church, or more specifically my boss is God, so it is more than just opinion with me.

Just wanted to declare my good intentions. I was raised Roman Catholic, but fell out when I realized that what I though being Christian meant differed from what everyone else thought.

Let us not fall victim to using our own set of standards in judging the value of the texts you mention. Let us also not forget the historical context in which the book of Leviticus was written. This is very important. The Church never teaches us to take any of the 72 Biblical books out of context to the times and situations they were written in and for. The book of Leviticus was written for the early Jews at a time when its injuctions were wise and healthy for them. It serves now as part of the historical texts of the Bible, not as instructions on living for 2006.

The Bible is a book of faith, and should be viewed as such. It does not seek to define science or history, though parts of it certainly deal with history. And in those historical parts, let us not fall into error by judging behaviour of thousands of years ago with the moral standards to today.

That is one of the good things about the Catholic church, that they say the bible is a book of history, allegory, revelation and truth, depending on the part of it. Not all churches do that, and to me it is a drawback of those churches to take everything literally. It is one of the many things I do respect about the Roman Catholic church.

That being said, there is the problem of decoding which parts of the bible refer to moral standards of thousands of years ago (surely the part about multiple wives and the rule of thumb, we surely agree on those), and determining which parts reflect God's moral atom. What I mean is, is there some one idea or principal from the bible that we can base ethics on, or must we take a number of quotes and base it on those?

If we take the entire book as the basis for ethics, then there will be all sorts of evil people who find quotes to justify their actions. It happens in todays world, and luckily our government generally ignores their arguments. So how much of the bible do we need to make proper ethical choices?

 

[L Gilbert]

Really...can you measure a thought? Love? Yet these exist, do they not?

Yes, they can be measured. Emotions, thoughts, etc. register in the electrochemical processes of the brain.

 

[Niflmir]

We cannot measure the universe but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, obviously.

Uh... What?!?

Last time I checked, the universe was defined as: "The observable, physical space in which we live." It is defined to be the measurable.

You are kind of invalidating the work of my wife in that statement. She can tell you all sorts of things about the universe. Including its shape!

But lets not get off track the topic of sin. Measuring physical variable is far simpler than measuring social or psychological ones.

 

[L Gilbert]

Indeed, and after fixing the world and its issues, let's work on the universe..those black holes need to go

Go where? Why? We have barely started studying them. Unless, of course, by black holes, you mean huge, authoritative gov'ts.

 

[L Gilbert]

The Church is not a science, nor is it a technological society. It is in touch with God, and the human soul, which is its purpose.

Right on, Sanc. My problem with them is that I don't see them doing their level best at the job, but overall, I'm really glad that at least some of them exist.

 

[L Gilbert]

The Bible is a book of faith, of man's relationship with God. It does not seek to be a science textbook.

No problem with that. Where I differ is that I prefer to have a relationship with nature or the universe because I know for a fact that either exist. I find comfort in those facts.

Stem cells, from dead babies...is that the best science can offer us these days?

You cannot really think that's the best science can offer? I agree that it's a low point, but there are much better things available from science.

 

[L Gilbert]

What about the stories in the Bible do you feel do not have a bearing on life? The stories reflect all the many ways humans inter-relate with one another-or have we changed in our core so much that we no longer feel love, devotion, anger, passion..etc.,etc.?

Ever read the Tao Te Ching? My favorite version is the translation by Gia Fu Feng. I found for the most part it parallels the bible in teachings but a lot of the stuff that's easily misinterpreted and sidetracks people's minds is left out. It is concise and simple.

 

[L Gilbert]

Sure these can be measured. When you are in a relationship of supposed love, you expect certain loving actions and attitude. It differs by relationship, but certainly if someone is constantly abusing me, or cheating on me, when I make a call to:

measure(love)

It would certainly return with something like:

"Love found missing."

You are thinking in conventional senses of measurement there. There are also ways of measuring pain in other people. Although I am no expert in psychology, I know that they have ways of measuring all sorts of emotions.

Psychology is iffy as a science. But as I said earlier, emotions, thoughts, and the like can be measured in electrochemical activity.

 

[L Gilbert]

In other words, if the eternal "ME" is not convinced, it must not be true.

Actually, it's more like the collective "we" (as in scientists, researchers, etc.) Not quite, it is actually science that says something is real or not, we are just the administrators of science. Um, good point, but for me I find sufficiency in accepting solid evidence and cannot put much stock in a great pile of suppositions, hypotheses, and feelings. That stuff is entirely subjective. As I just pointed out to MLG, I know without any doubts air exists, planets exist, electricity exists, but "faith" doesn't fit under the heading of substantiated evidence so items that have no basis of valid evidence are simply hypotheses, suppositions, and myth.[/quote]

Science, my friend, has not attempted to disprove the existence of God. That is not its' role.

Of course not. The purpose is to explain things to us. So far, and I'm sure it never will, it cannot explain demons, gods, goblins, and other fantasies.

Your point on faith is fair and accurate. It cannot be measured anymore than any other emotion or feeling. It either is or it is not.

As to the "ME", oh yes that certainly exists! Look around, we live in a culture eternally dedicated to the concept of"ME"

Yup.

 

[L Gilbert]

........ or more specifically my boss is God .........

Hope you're getting more than minimum wage. Obviously, you consider the benefits package to be at least adequate.

 

[L Gilbert]

Let us not fall victim to using our own set of standards in judging the value of the texts you mention. Let us also not forget the historical context in which the book of Leviticus was written. This is very important. The Church never teaches us to take any of the 72 Biblical books out of context to the times and situations they were written in and for. The book of Leviticus was written for the early Jews at a time when its injuctions were wise and healthy for them. It serves now as part of the historical texts of the Bible, not as instructions on living for 2006.

The Bible is a book of faith, and should be viewed as such. It does not seek to define science or history, though parts of it certainly deal with history. And in those historical parts, let us not fall into error by judging behaviour of thousands of years ago with the moral standards to today.

72? I thought there were something like 84. :? link

 

[Niflmir]

Well that's pretty solid what you say L Gilbert, but sometimes I do feel that the Church is out of touch with god and more in touch with its own traditions and the bible.