I think in a democracy our faith is supposed to be a faith in humans, however, with this faith is an understanding of the importance of education that enhances the human good, and that is not education for a technological society with unknown values.

It is also a concept of equality that does not mean being same, for we are as different as the gods, but the sun shines equally on all of us, so we aim for equal opportunity to fulfill our individual potential and make our best contribution to the whole. This is not compatible with the hierarchy of authority of religions and the notion that some are closer to god than others, or that a god has a chosen few.

You opened the door for that comment by inferring a goal should be to develop our own faith. Humanism and faith in humans is preferable to some of us.

Hey I get to recycle this now -

so how about we all just stipulate, that basis some reasonable interpretations of the Bible there are passages that can be shown to be contradictory to other passages. Let's all assume that is 100% true for this discussion -

Where do you want to go from there Andrew ?

Contradictory claims abut the same topic leading to confusion. — Andrew4Handel

I think if people perform their due diligence of employing their reasoning faculties then the confusion fades away. And it begins with knowing what one is looking for. If the confusion arises from some relation to truth, then one must know what truth is for them to know what truth isn't.
If the confusion arises from different statements, given by different people at different times, in different circumstances, etc, then I think it should have very little inconvenience for one who is unbiased in their criticism and open to all reasonable interpretations.

I take it in historical context. We can glean a lot from secular ancient texts that put the Bible in perspective.

Liberal education taught people how to think, not what to think. Unless we learn how to think abstractly, we don't. Nothing is wrong with anything said in the Bible when it is understood abstractly. However, a lot is wrong with the Bible when it is understood concretely. I want to stress, we need education in the higher order thinking skills if we are to use our brains most effectively for the better of mankind and all life on earth. Relying on a god to take care of us is a big mistake, however, understanding how God works (science) is pretty important.

What is your idea of how to judge truth? My idea of judging truth is to use the scientific method. I also try to remain aware that I should never be too sure of what I think I know. I am afraid those who think they can know absolute truth are absolutely dangerous.

You opened the door for that comment by inferring a goal should be to develop our own faith. — Athena

Yeah, I believe developing faith is similar to developing understanding. And part of it is, as you say, realising the relation between the abstract and the concrete.

What is your idea of how to judge truth? — Athena

Truth for me is in seeking and learning that which in reality is constant and unchangeable.

I am afraid those who think they can know absolute truth are absolutely dangerous. — Athena

True. There's a question, "how can relative existence (such as humans) claim possession of any absoluteness (knowledge of truth). I think the best tool to uncover truth with is logic, patience and constant effort. Because we're limited, we should avoid the pretense of attaining to absolutes. This makes our values just as fluid as our nature, and why should it be any different?

:chin: I am not sure we want our values to be too fluid? :cool: you tickle me with the idea our values should be fluid because it causes me to think. If our math values were fluid they would be no good to us, and perhaps civilized values are the same? Perhaps we should allow for civilizations having different values, just we might allow for individuals to have different values? And yet we need constant and shared values if we are going to get along.

We value being responsible human beings, but is not caring for children being responsible? Should we support mothers who want to stay home be full-time homemakers? Personally, I think nothing is more important than raising our children. But we seem to think people who are not working for the beast do not deserve the necessities of life. :worry: That is having shared values but not exactly the same values. Because we are not in agreement we have many children growing at risk and this becomes a costly social problem. Before the New Order World, we had family order, and I think the New World Order is about serving the beast, not the family. I mention this because the beast is mentioned in the Bible. We are warned against the beast and yet we seem to be supporting it 100%.

Let's all assume that is 100% true for this discussion -

Where do you want to go from there Andrew ? — Rank Amateur

I think people should stop promoting biblical infallibility and stop proselyting and should teach people the bible in a critical way without making false claims.

Personally my interpretation of the bible and my examination of the contradictions leads me to reject most of Christianity especially in a literal sense.

I am a not assuming the bible contradicts itself. I know it does. Like I said in the other thread I think contradictions are a good tool for examining somethings truth.

Some of the Bible may be true. If someone wants to make this claim I want to see the evidence.

I don't think "interpretation" should be an excuse for completely twisting statements in the bible or being tactically vague.
Christians are trying to spread Christianity around the world and trying to translate the bible into every language. In the face of this I think people being targeted to in this way by proselytizing and evangelicalism have a right to response and challenge. I think children have a right to chose their own religion and not to be indoctrinated.

What do you think is true in the bible. It seems like you are prevaricating. And if something is true in the bible what is it and why is it true?

I think people should stop promoting biblical infallibility and stop proselyting and should teach people the bible in a critical way without making false claims. — Andrew4Handel

I think people should be able say whatever they believe about the Bible, and leave it to the discernment of the audience to agree or not.

Personally my interpretation of the bible and my examination of the contradictions leads me to reject most of Christianity especially in a literal sense. — Andrew4Handel

As is your right, enjoy

Christians are trying to spread Christianity around the world and trying to translate the bible into every language. In the face of this I think people being targeted to in this way by proselytizing and evangelicalism have a right to response and challenge. I think children have a right to chose their own religion and not to be indoctrinated. — Andrew4Handel

As is your right - enjoy

Andrew - It is big world of ideas out there, some good - some bad, some we chose to believe some we don't. In a tip of the hat to Terrapin Station - we are all going to leave this broke down palace someday - there are lots of paths to chose from where we are to there - we are all free to chose - pick well and enjoy the ride.

What do you think is true in the bible. It seems like you are prevaricating. And if something is true in the bible what is it and why is it true? — Andrew4Handel

You're the one who brought up the notion of contradictions and truth. My questions to you are attempts to find out what you mean by truth and how you determine their relation to the contradictions.

By truth I mean the factual. Factual claims. Factual values. I think that most historical atrocities have some relation to false truth assertions.I am an agnostic. I don't think saying "I don't know" can lead to atrocities.

I think if there is a contradiction then either A or B is true or neither, but they can't both be true. So I was asking how you find truth in contradiction.

No Christian I have met has followed the bible literally nor could they, even when they claim to do so. But people use the infallibility doctrine to convert people.
I have lived this for my entire childhood 'til I was 17 so this is very real for me. As an adult you can adopt a religion and choose which bits you like and how to interpret it but this has not been the reality for many children like myself.

I think the truth is relevant wheninfallibility and truth claims are made. There are lots of Christians that don't believe in infallibility and they pose no problem to anyone I imagine.

BTW I did not invent the infallibility or inerrancy doctrines but I was subject to them my entire childhood.

Apparently, for some people, it doesn't matter why the statements might contradict as long as they do. Why should reasons matter? — BrianW

There are those who use reason to justify bias. Personally, as a believer, I often find myself questioning some of the bible statements but I never question its teachings on morality. I think some of the leaders in the bible were more intense in their judgements than others but their overall stance on morality in terms of right and wrong seem to be the same.

By truth I mean the factual. Factual claims. — Andrew4Handel

In common use, the terms facts and truth are very fluid in their definitions. Personally, I define truth as the part of reality that is constant and unchangeable; and fact is a statement which defines status or the state of a circumstance. I think facts can change with change in circumstances while the truth never does. This is one of the problems I have in relating fact to truth. Because of this, I also don't consider people's claims as truths.
Therefore, on the query of contradictions vs truth, I think facts are obscured by contradictions but the truth remains untouched.

Apparently, for some people, it doesn't matter why the statements might contradict as long as they do. Why should reasons matter? — BrianW

There are those who use reason to justify bias. Personally, as a believer, I often find myself questioning some of the bible statements but I never question its teachings on morality. I think some of the leaders in the bible were more intense in their judgements than others but their overall stance on morality in terms of right and wrong seem to be the same.

I’m sorry you were indoctrinated by your zealot parents at such a young age. I’m sure they meant well according to their beliefs however blatantly misguided. I believe children should be taught the overlapping and overarching truths that are shared by all religions (the lessons, morals, and such), and when they are adults after being taught how to think critically and with an entire childhood of experience behind them, then they can decide how religious they do or do not want to be. I agree the Bible was written by fallible men, but I do believe it has deep wisdom and much of it was inspired by a spiritual connection to God. I disagree with the fire and brimstone hellfire preaching, and I think it has no place to be taken literally, but should be taken as meaning a spiritual separation from God. I was an atheist for 12 years, and much of that time felt like literal hell because of my attitude and spiritual sickness.

Do what works for you, but we must all remember that we are a part of a community, so always keep the community in mind, too; and I think the best way to do this is to always try to follow the Golden Rule and admit that we can be wrong.

What I respond to most enthusiastically when I read the Bible or other religious works (Christian or other) are general principles that I can understand and carry with me and apply according to whatever dim wisdom I have. So, Micah: "Do Justice, love mercy." Jesus, "Love one another as I have loved you." Heraclitus on change: "You can not step in the same river twice" (lots of sages said similar things -- change is the only constant). St. Catherine of Siena: "All the way to heaven is heaven" (the process is the end).

The best we can do during our short lives in our benighted world is take care of one another as well as we can. The best we can do will not get one into heaven (which I doubt exists); it will not earn us special treatment after death (the dead stay dead); and we may get no thanks for our efforts -- but that is still what we should try to do.

What I respond to most enthusiastically when I read the Bible or other religious works (Christian or other) are general principles that I can understand and carry with me and apply according to whatever dim wisdom I have. — Bitter Crank

I believe it's the intelligent way since it reflects self-discipline and personal responsibility over one's endeavours.

Before the New Order World, we had family order, and I think the New World Order is about serving the beast, not the family. I mention this because the beast is mentioned in the Bible. We are warned against the beast and yet we seem to be supporting it 100%. — Athena

I think the beast represents the ways of association along the lines of bias (such as racial, cultural and historical, economic, social, religious, geographic, sexual, mental, emotional, physical, etc) especially when unity and harmony is not the main aim of these interactions.
Personally, I think, as a collective humanity, we're at that point in development where we are becoming aware of our biases and negativities. We have managed to come up with a few quick solutions or ideas to alleviate some of them (the biases and negativities) but we're not yet ready to undertake the main 'cleansing' process. The best we can do now is ensure those who depend on us for wisdom and direction understand the plan and continue with the preparations. At the moment, the inertia (which is a natural part of all motion) within certain factions and individuals seems to mask the collective progress but only outwardly and, at best, is just a momentary setback.

the I.C.T.s of the first centuries of our era, Piscis, were the alphabet, the papyrus and durable ink. This new technologies were propagated throughout the Ancient World, creating a brave new world. It was very easy for people back then to think that written texts were magic, because they could communicate your thoughts and those thoughts remained even after you died, or traveled thousands of miles. Amulets and hexes used alphabetic writing to charge their incantations, and anybody could do it.

This explains the rise of literary cults. Cults where books are considered divine, or epyphanies of the Divinity. Since then, we have characters in written stories are our gods, and the voice of Heaven is no longer in the signs Nature as Celts, Egyptians or Iberians or Mesopotamians believed, but in published books.

Thus, we learnt to see time not as a circle or spiral (Time has fractal qualities, which manifest in patterns that repeat and that is how calendars are made and how all pre-alphabetic societies viewed time), but as a literary story: with a Beginning, a Development that builds up a climax, and an End of the World. The end of the World is not a new beginning, is the real end of the world: the literary deities promise that. That is why Christianity and post-Christianity (socialism, capitalism), Luciferian logias, Islamism and Judaism all work for a much awaited and desired Doomsday or end of History; and not for the preservation of Nature and the Human race, which is the purpose of religion and History in circular or spiral (scientific) conceptions of Time.

Part of Literary idolatry, is the idea that written pages can convey the thoughts of God: so "Scripture" is used as an oracular object, seeking information about when the end of the world will come and what can we personally do to bring it closer; also what we can we do personally to be in good terms with the deity when the (probably nuclear) Final Chapter comes.

What are we looking to find in the scriptures. If it's the truth, then, amidst the many interpretations, which do you pick as truth? — BrianW

The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine.

I am not sure I am understanding your post. The book "Suicide of the West" speaks of a return to tribalism and the education that prevents that. Would the word "tribalism" work in an explanation of the problem?

aware of our biases and negativities — BrianW

When we were not aware of biases and negatives? Is what you said a positive or a negative? Awareness of our faults brings us closer to resolving them. Awareness of the faults of others can make matters worse of better depending on how we deal with that. For example prejudice against native Americans, Asians, people of color, immigrants from Italy and Irland have been serious problems in the US at different times. Cultural differences are problematic and the US used education for transmitting a culture to resolve the cultural conflict problem but that stopped in 1958. Without education for culture and the conditions of poverty, there are countercultures and these can become a serious social problem.

I watched a program documenting a school's struggle with underachieving children in a city school in a neighborhood with severe poverty and addicted parents who were failing their children. Most of these children will drop out of school because they are not learning and cannot keep up when the schools require more of children, and there are fewer labour jobs for them. These children do not have life skills and may never become part of mainstream society. We do not have quick solutions for dealing with this, but a rapidly increasing homeless population and increasing prison population. It is not a problem that can be managed by police, jails and prisons and the point of the document is these schools are underfunded and are not given the resources necessary for correcting the problem.

Yipes, this thread is about interpreting the Bible. Oh gee, the problem is God has allowed Satan to come to earth. We are not seeing the number people possessed by demons that were the problem during the hundreds of years of witch hunts, but we are seeing the problem with humans being degenerates who cannot possibly govern themselves and must have authority over them, and aren't we lucky that Trump is being such a good father to our nation? Ah, that Biblical explanation is not exactly how I understand the problems, but who should we believe, anthropologist and socialogiist or the Bible?

DiegoT
226
↪Athena the I.C.T.s of the first centuries of our era, Piscis, were the alphabet, the papyrus and durable ink. This new technologies were propagated throughout the Ancient World, creating a brave new world. It was very easy for people back then to think that written texts were magic, because they could communicate your thoughts and those thoughts remained even after you died, or traveled thousands of miles. Amulets and hexes used alphabetic writing to charge their incantations, and anybody could do it. — DiegoT

I so remember when I thought it possible that sounds/words could have magical power. I also remember I was afraid I was possessed by Satan. That was a very bad time in my life. I had a choice, I could start killing people because I was too weak to oppose Satan, or I could decide those religious notions were false, there is no Satan and whatever I do falls totally on me and the need for me to be responsible for what I do. At the time Satanism was popular and quite a few young people went to prison because of killing someone under the influence of Satanism. I am glad I decided the whole God and Satan story is not a good explanation of reality. But when we are young, we are impressionable and there is a tendency to be attracted to the occult, magic spells and magic potions. There is a dark side to Christianity and I think it has contributed to social problems throughout history.

This explains the rise of literary cults. Cults where books are considered divine, or epyphanies of the Divinity. Since then, we have characters in written stories are our gods, and the voice of Heaven is no longer in the signs Nature as Celts, Egyptians or Iberians or Mesopotamians believed, but in published books. — DiegoT

Yes, if I understand you correctly, superstition followed a period of time when people were not superstitious and didn't study a holy book but nature. It is so paradoxical that a book that is 100% supernatural is supposed to be the truth. This is a political problem. Democracy depends on understanding nature, not supernatural forces. When our gods were nature gods we had a better understanding of nature, and opposed the notion that a man could be a god. Granted we could be sons and daughters of a god, and this belief gave Alexander a strong following of men willing to follow him into war, but the folks in Athens, who were pulling away from superstition, didn't find it believable that a human could be a god. But we do have a problem with Egypt. At least Cleopatra was able to convince some that she was the incarnation of Isis. Wasn't her attraction to Ceasar in part the possibility of being considered a god? Something that was not possible in Rome.

Didn't Mesopotamia go back and further on the notion about gods and man? It seems to me, in places where priests had a lot of power the people had a story that justified the priest having a lot of power, but the Greeks didn't have powerful priest did they? We learn a lot about Greek philosophers without hearing of them having powerful priests. However, when the Greeks moved into Egypt they took advantage of Egypt's religious beliefs to gain power and greatly improve the economy by developing a market for religious paraphernalia? Then we move on to a later date and Byzantine tears itself apart fighting over religious if icons are to be considered holy and have power or considered taboo.

With Christianity, I am sure the biggest draw is a belief in immortality. At least I sure struggled with the fear that I would loose my immortality if I turned against Christian belief. Eastern religions and the notion of reincarnation helped me get over that. However, I have a Christian friend who totally believes Jesus is a supernatural power that answers our prayers. She handles all her life fears by clinging to Jesus and a belief in the power of prayer. I believe that works, but not because there is a supernatural power. Facing a challenge and saying "I think I can. I think I can." also works.

I find Christianity confusing. How does a person know if life is bad because God is punishing them for their sins, or because Satan has power?

The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine. — Tomseltje

:up: :ok:

The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine. — Tomseltje

BrianW

Those words are worth repeating. What can you tell us of Tomseltje? What is his geography and time?

Concerning negativities and biases, there was a study conducted to investigate whether our lives at present is much improved compared to the 18-19th centuries. (I don't remember the name of the study or the link to it.) The study goes on to show that the number of rapes has gone down by almost 80-90% but the reason we don't see it that way is because our awareness of even the little that is occurring is so much greater. Basically, the study goes on to say that the average person is much safer at present than in those old days but because our awareness of current affairs is so much improved, it often feels like we're dealing with crime and violence all the time. (I think the study refers primarily to those countries whose governments have a semblance of stability, which is most of them.)

Anyway, my point is, it is easy to get worked up when focusing on the negatives but, the level of human interaction we have achieved is such that even those who do not attend school are capable of knowing which direction to head towards in terms of morality, destiny, profession, etc. The main problem is not institutions but the values which the average human chooses. Yes, governments and institutions do play their part in directing people but, they are run by people who must have proper values in the first place. We've replaced humility with popularity, discipline with ambition, intelligence with victory, etc both in home values and institutions. And, what most people won't agree to, is that, home values are more important because the young and impressionable humans are sent from home into those institutions. How come those caring care-givers don't question the institutions? And before we get into parents and care-givers trusting the institutions, remember that it's parents and care-givers who work at those institutions.

What I'm saying is, the short-sightedness is a symptom of a collective ignorance which is being alleviated at the speed at which we can move. It is not a fast pace but most of us are not that fast either. Very few humans are intelligent enough, with the capacity to accumulate enough resources in time to change the small environment around them. And, unfortunately, instead of the rest of humanity rallying behind them and their efforts, they would rather sit back and receive the benefits instead of work even harder when incentive is given.
It's a universal disease and it will take a while before the patients can heal themselves. But, the fact of it is that, undoubtedly, there is progress.

What can you tell us of Tomseltje? What is his geography and time? — Athena

He's a member of tpf, I just appreciated his contribution.

Yes, governments and institutions do play their part in directing people but, they are run by people who must have proper values in the first place. — BrianW

What are the values held by international banking and how do you feel about the bankers determining what our children learn? Which do you think is playing a stronger role in determining our reality, religious organizations or the bankers? Do you think these people share the same values?

What are the values held by international banking and how do you feel about the bankers determining what our children learn? Which do you think is playing a stronger role in determining our reality, religious organizations or the bankers? Do you think these people share the same values? — Athena

I think we're lost the moment we fail to realise our ability in determining our circumstances. The parents and care-givers determine to a far reaching extent what the children learn. When the children see their superiors subjecting themselves to institutions as if they (the institutions) have any real power over them, then most of them (the children) suppose they have no choice but to comply with the stat quo.
Neither banks nor religions determine our reality. We (humans) have given them too much influence over us but, if we determined to, we could reclaim it. The only deterrent is, unlike the collective handing over of power, those who wish to reclaim are often individuals who cannot muster the resources of the collective.

My answer to those who seek a revolution which they can't seem to propagate is to nurture strength of spirit to shield them in misfortune (from Desiderata). The current state of affairs of the world is such that people will lose money, people will lose their houses, people will lose their loved ones, people will lose their livelihood and even their lives. Only those who can muster the resolve to keep fighting are worth anything to humanity. (That is what I tell my family - It's not what you have that determines who you are but who you are determines what you have. Also, that it's more important to be than to have because, in the end, all you have is who you are.)

People complain due to many reasons, primarily desperation, and all those reasons are signs of weakness. I have it and so do many others too. The only solution is to fight against the weakness and resolve to fight even if by oneself. But if someone is only willing to fight if supported by others then they should also be willing to wait until those others are ready and willing, even if it means never.