Benz Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 LOL Yeah, Spongebob, and If you're not careful I'll make ya an Arch-Mocking Bird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spongebob Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Yeah, Spongebob, and If you're not careful I'll make ya an Arch-Mocking Bird What does adding Arch do to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 Arch= more authority. For example, an Archbishop has authority over a Province, whereas a bishop only has authority over a diocese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spongebob Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 oh hehe. mabey I can become a a ordained Blue Jay soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Ok, hope ya dont mind but i moved this one & decided to tweak it a bit, im gonna start askin benny about theology - or rather, the bible itself. New member Unidentified Source linked us to another board full of philosophy & religion discussion, figure ill bring some of that here. 1) Does it bother you that, according to Genesis, Adam made a mistake that were still suffering for? Why was eating from a tree of knowledge such a forbidden thing to do? 2) From this, why should people be greatful if an angry, vengeful god who wanted blood was morbid enough to sacrifice his son? Humans are denied moral perfection by nature, so theyre designed by god to be prone to sin, yet they should sacrifice and shed blood for doing so? Old testament guy or not, he's part of the trinity, dont you find him disturbing? 3) Moses used some rather terrorist attacks on a Pharoh whose "heart was hardened by god" (taken by many to mean god wouldnt let him give in. Meanwhile, many innocnent egyption children died. Just as they did in the flood. Or Soddom & Gamorah (sp). I understand that the church placates earthly suffering, often somehow justiying it with pleasure that lies beyond death, but shouldnt something be said of a deity with such a penchant for genocide? 4) Ive read that the name of Joeseph's father varies between Matthew & Luke, and i recall noticing different accounts of what was found in Jesus' tomb after the rock was moved. If you belive the bible to be concrete historical fact, why do contradictions exist? Everyone else seems to be logically arguing with you about the bible & its evidence of god & such, i'd rather discuss your claims of the bible in & of itself - during my catholic studies, i too assumed the bible to be the will of god verbatim, but years later, i find it hard to wholey (sp?) accept the words of any book in its entirety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 It's cool, I kinda figured it belonged here... I'll try and answer as many of these as I can right now, especailly since I only have one more mid-term on Monday. 1) Adam's my middle name, literally. Well, he dun messed up. Um, I believe in a merciful, forgiving God, so I forgive him, especially since I'm not sure how I would have done being faced with a 7 headed gigantic dragon. (The word in Herbew is nachash, which translates into Leviathan, or basically a 7 headed dragon) Even though we're still suffering for his mess up, there's a saying that goes: "Oh happy fault which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" In other words, everything would have been great if Adam hadn't messed up, but even though evil was done a greater good will be drawn from it by God. Now this doesn't mean go sin all you want so God can make things that much better. God makes things better through his saints. God works through angels, not demons. As for "eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil". This is simply a metaphor. The creation narrative is largely not to be understood as literal. Only a very few things may be literal, but for the most part it's supposed to be metaphor. Now take note of the term "knowledge" or "know". The Hebrew word is not just mental knowledge, but intimate knowledge. Adam & Even intimately knew good before the Fall, but in the Fall they intimately knew evil. In other words something against God/ evil was done. Also it's important to know that Adam was the first to sin, not Eve. Adam's sin was that he was silent while the Leviathan spoke to Eve. Adam did not speak up for her, nor did he try to stop her from "eatng the fruit". 2) He actually was not an angry, vengeful God. He was actually merciful to them. They wandered in the desert for 40 years, after having just been set free from one of the world's largest empires - Egypt, and at it's peak mind you, in the Middle Kingdom. While they were wandering, God fed them with bread from heaven, and he told Moses to hit a rock with the staff, and that gave them water to drink, also the staff, when raised, cured the venom from vipers and also helped them to win their battles. God also led them to a place where they could live... I have other examples too if you like... Also humans may have been denied moral perfection because of Adam's sin, however not denied by supernature. Enoch and Elijah were assumed body and spirit into heaven. Moses appeared at Jesus' Transfiguration. They're not designed by God to be prone to sin. That was Adam's fault. Sin disrupts order, the perfect order. Therefore, Adam's sin disruppted the perfect order of mankind. God could have left us, and we would have rejected Him without any guidance whatsoever. The Good News (or Gospel) is that He loves us and cares for us so, that He sent His Son to us, who freely chose to be Crucified for our sake, died and Ressurected on the third day. So, no, I don't find Him disturbing at all. Other 2 I'll answer later. I need a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defgoddess Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 wow i just really looked at the pic in your sig benny... lol... but yeah, anyway... my dad had this really great book about all the things god did in the old testament, i wish i had it now. so this will have to suffice... Abraham to kill him-- Was distinctly told-- Isaac was an Urchin-- Abraham was old-- Not a hesitation-- Abraham complied-- Flattered by Obeisance Tyranny demurred-- Isaac--to his children Lived to tell the tale-- Moral--with a Mastiff Manners may prevail. emily dickinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted March 3, 2003 Author Share Posted March 3, 2003 The point of Abraham's story is that God stopped him from killing his son, and that he had faith in Him. Also the ram is significant. It's a prefiguration fo the sacrafice of the lamb in the passover, and also a prefiguration of the Lamb of God's True Sacrifice on the Cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 2) He actually was not an angry, vengeful God. He was actually merciful to them. They wandered in the desert for 40 years, after having just been set free from one of the world's largest empires - Egypt, and at it's peak mind you, in the Middle Kingdom. While they were wandering, God fed them with bread from heaven, and he told Moses to hit a rock with the staff, and that gave them water to drink, also the staff, when raised, cured the venom from vipers and also helped them to win their battles. God also led them to a place where they could live... I have other examples too if you like... Also humans may have been denied moral perfection because of Adam's sin, however not denied by supernature. Enoch and Elijah were assumed body and spirit into heaven. Moses appeared at Jesus' Transfiguration. They're not designed by God to be prone to sin. That was Adam's fault. Sin disrupts order, the perfect order. Therefore, Adam's sin disruppted the perfect order of mankind. God could have left us, and we would have rejected Him without any guidance whatsoever. The Good News (or Gospel) is that He loves us and cares for us so, that He sent His Son to us, who freely chose to be Crucified for our sake, died and Ressurected on the third day. So, no, I don't find Him disturbing at all. Mana from heaven, that's a helluva band-aid to put on a history of genocidal happenings....I'm not looking for a + and - scale of god's attitude towards man in the old testament, more of an attempt at a justification for said actions. Adamn....Isnt blaming all of suffering on the acts (or inaction) of one man rather petty? Elijah & Enoch...the whole of the bible, those are the only 2 who got in scott-free. Seems like someone was bound to sin sooner or later, what with the criteria being so high...I'm guessing the justification of placing the tree of knowledge in eden at all was to, what, test Adam's faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDawg540 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 So benny... A question hit me during my Paranormal binge. The Catholic church is the only religion i know of who actually keeps exorcists on hand and has a history of banishing harmful spirits, ti even publicly admits excorcisms do still happen. IF ghosts do exist and followers of the catholic church holds the power to remove them and send them on to the afterlife, does it not stand to reason that our God IS the true God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Youre saying....if excorcisms are true, and ordained priests hold power over demons, that proves everything? Ive never heard a theistic argument like that. That's...thats interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDawg540 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Well I'm not saying it Proves every aspect of the religion. But if one religion actually showed a "God backed" Power such as that wouldn't that be pretty hefty proof of the existance of the catholic representation of God? I mean, how would the wolrds other religions refute it? or what could they show to parrallel it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Subjective...way too subjective. How are you gauging/verifying this, with Egon's tools? Youve got someone saying an invisible demon is inside making them crazy. A priest does his ritual and exorcises a demon from an individual that a group of psychologists would clinically diagnose with schitzophrenia...this isnt the criteria to prove the existence or non-existence of a (according to the bible) a very specific god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDawg540 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 I'm just wanting to know that IF It were Proven that Demonic possesion was a reality and that Exorcism was the proven tool to drive the spirit out, Would that not give Proof that God exists? If he didn't then why wouldn't he spirit flee simply because your talking gibberish at it? Its not a Definitive "Yes, God is real" but it would provide a valid point of argument would it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Objectively? Eh... Ok, lets assume its been scientifically proven this is a valid process. How many options are open within this? - We still dont know that this thing were calling a demon is actually a fallen angel of christian belief. - We dont know that perhaps this alien creature simply doesnt dig latin being read at it. - (hypothetical, benny, dont take it wrong) We dont know that those performing the ceremony arent in some way causing the possession to justify their truth. Those are 3 easy questions that came to mind at a glance. Id like to at least say it proves some existence of spirits and thereby gives hope for an afterlife, but then that only depends on how far youre stretching your example, to a sci-fi point of scientists "analyzing" this demon thing and somehow veriftying its alien structure is divine, etc....its a giant game of what-if. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDawg540 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Good points, Any Idea if other religions have similar practices for using their deities powers to directly affect someone/something? Yes...Aside from prayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 ...voodoo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDawg540 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 True, But is voodoo centered on a diety? or is it related to spiritual energies? Another thing i thought of. Holy water. Some claim it to bring healing, some insist it can repel ghosts, demons and banish things it is applied to. If Blessed holy water were to be proven to have differences from normal water based soley on the blessind done over it and no additives, would that not also show some proof of a higher being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Voodoo is something of an "arragnement of superstitions", i know of shamans but im not certain if it falls more under polytheism or energy. Were water, blessed by a priest/preacher of a certain religion, be found to truly have healing qualities - not fluke coincidences deemed "miracles" but a reliable source - it would bring things into question, certainly. The thing, refer to my last set of points. Ok, im about to turn this thread into "Some Truth" part II, my own rant...in the "On atheism" thread, I made the comment of some atheists arguing that one looks high & low to find evidence for deism, but little to the contrary. I had to right my thesis on this kind of thing, it's rather long but I like to think it came out well...anyway, within it, I give merit to more human/natural arguments, such as: one can look out from a pleasent view, watch the sun set and the stars begin to shine, and simply say "its too beautiful to be an accident." Some would call this wanky, but I can feel the argument, I wont disagree. However, one has to broaden one's scope a bit...every day, massive injustices are wrought: citizens of 3rd world countries starve and die, figthing for the scraps their corrupt political vampire leaders allow them, and this is before a nation like ours bombs one of their cities because of a lack of diplomacy, oil, presidental popularity polls, etc. Life for much of the world is nowhere near hallmark quality, but rather a series of injustices, wrongful deaths, hatred and emptiness. Just s one can look at the open sky and think of a loving god, I can look at a leveled villiage, too globally insignificant to get anyone's attention, watch more needless blood spill and think of how no loving creature of any sort would permit this. Continute grabbing at spirtual straws, but dont forget the other side: if we did prove the existence of god through mircales & such, to me it would only prove an indifferent creator, whom i would respond to with indifference. Were it to somehow prove a loving god, Im not sure such a being would be one id care to share eternity with, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDawg540 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 A Valid point. There is the "Free will" aspect in which basically we do this to ourselves because God allows us to run our own lives without old testament type interferance. But I'll admit Free will or not certain things cross the line and I find it amazing any kind of god would allow it all without breaking down and interfering. Specially one who was prone to do so in the past. Old habits Die hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Ah! The free will argument. This one's controversial too. Some negate it with genetics & such, I once heard the argument of free will not being so black & white....i.e, were god to intervene here & there, amongst the trillions of decisions humans make each day, to prevent genocidal incidents & such, would free will truly be compromised? If it really is an all or nothing thing, that puts god back to indifference, and prayers/spiritual bargaining are moot. There's a lot more within this one...i should post my thesis one day when im feeling more egotistical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 The Catholic church is the only religion i know of who actually keeps exorcists on hand and has a history of banishing harmful spirits, ti even publicly admits excorcisms do still happen. IF ghosts do exist and followers of the catholic church holds the power to remove them and send them on to the afterlife, does it not stand to reason that our God IS the true God? I can only respond to part of that. Demons don't actually get sent on to the afterlife. They're allready there. It's not some other dimension. Heaven, Earth, Purgatory, and Hell all exist in the same dimension. They just feel different, and are experienced different. For example when some one says they "feel like hell" they're probably experincing hell or purgatory. The same can be said about heaven. We experience foretastes of them in this life, and fully experience them in the next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 A priest does his ritual and exorcises a demon from an individual that a group of psychologists would clinically diagnose with schitzophrenia...this isnt the criteria to prove the existence or non-existence of a (according to the bible) a very specific god. I actually have been reading a book by the Chief Exorcist in Rome that describes situations where psychologists and medical LICENCED doctors to make sure that what the posessed person is experiencing is NOT psychological nor a medical condition. In other words, even science backs up the claim that these people are indeed posessed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 See, the logical leaps we make here lately....if a handful of licensed doctors are unable to properly diagnose something, its a call for research, not assuming demonic possession. The post-freudian field of psychology has learned a great deal in its short life, lord knows theyre coming up with pop-psych conditions all the time. Again, as an agnostic, i encourage people to recognize that when one answers the a question with "You know, im not really sure." or simply "I dont know." that doesnt default into your answer. PS For example when some one says they "feel like hell" they're probably experincing hell or purgatory. The same can be said about heaven. We experience foretastes of them in this life, and fully experience them in the next. You know, benny, ive never heard it put like that, for some reason. That's interesting, acknowledging that people could experience such feelings here & now, im sure youve heard many times where priests & such tend to downplay the feelings of others when comparing them to the afterlife, I dont mean to sound like Nietzsche here from his "Of the Afterworldsmen" piece (ok maybe i do) but in any event, i think that was an interesting thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benz Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 See, the logical leaps we make here lately....if a handful of licensed doctors are unable to properly diagnose something, its a call for research, not assuming demonic possession. The post-freudian field of psychology has learned a great deal in its short life, lord knows theyre coming up with pop-psych conditions all the time. Again, as an agnostic, i encourage people to recognize that when one answers the a question with "You know, im not really sure." or simply "I dont know." that doesnt default into your answer. It is true that doctors should research medical conditions as much as possible. If we had kept with the medical practices of the Middle Ages, doctors would be bleeding us, rather than giving us pills and telling us to rest. Personally I'd rather have the pills and rest up. However, doctors can research and research and at some point you have to decide: Either you believe it's definitely a medical condition, and research hasn't shown it yet, or it really is a demon. The same goes for psychology. In other words what I'm trying to say is that at what point are you (everyone) willing to accept that it's a demonic affliction, or is there no point at which everyone will accept that it's a demon and everyone rejects the idea of demonic existence reguardless of evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.