Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It doesn't need to be proof to anyone else though, just the person who received. Doesn't make either party wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Not exactly accurate from what studies and classes I've taken -- and by that I mean classes outside of the synagogue. I have always heard from Jewish and non-Jewish sources that it referenced the epoch, not the time since creation. And again, unreliable website. You cannot use a website to prove a point that the website is reliable, or continue to use it without clearing up why it should be taken as reliable.

 

The point of me quoting it was that the site gave another point of view with what is meant by “days”. This site certainly doesn’t appear nearly as biased as some others like answersingenesis.org, icr.org, and drdino.com. If we’re talking about sites on Judaism, would you think this site was as biased as chabad.org?

 

Furthermore, how is it inaccurate? The “Seder Olam Rabbah” says that creation started at 3760 BC. If it was epochs, then what’s the point on trying to derive a timeline from Adam and Eve?

 

Here's another one from the Kuzari

 

http://www.shechem.org/torah/kuzari/index.html

 

"44. Al Khazari: It is strange that you should possess authentic chronology of the creation of the world.

 

45. The Rabbi: Surely we reckon according to it, and there is no difference between the Jews of Khazar and Ethiopia in this respect.

 

46. Al Khazari: What date do you consider it at present?

 

47. The Rabbi: Four thousand and nine hundred years. [...]"

 

There is nothing in the Mishnah that suggests it is a 24 hr period, only the Gemara, since the Mishnah is the only part considered sacred, it doesn't really matter if the Gemara disagrees. You're referencing Gemara, not Mishnah.

 

Cherry tomato-picker tongue.gif

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

 

The Gemara is there precisely for the reason that it’s hard to understand. It clarifies positions and words of the rabbis who wrote the Mishnah.

 

Lawyer speak, but not instructions on how to write -- modernized Hebrew came much later. It's not a dictionary, it's not a grammar primer -- they wrote it in the same language. The movement to standardize Hebrew came in the 18th century.

 

Shiny, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Before, you argued that it was symbolic because of how the letters were written. Now, you’re arguing there would be no mention because Hebrew wasn’t standardized. From the little that I’ve read of the Talmud, they’ll analyze a word for pages.

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Isra...acred+Texts.htm

 

"Rabbinical commentaries have proliferated from the Talmudic era (see below) to the present day. Their purpose, in many cases, was to make the biblical text, as well as the rabbinic traditions concerning it, accessible to medieval and then modern audiences. The approaches of the commentators range from the literal to the mystical, with careful attention being paid even to minute details in the Biblical text: an ellipsis, a grammatical oddity, a "misspelling," or even a letter of a different size may elicit a torrent of commentary. The best-known rabbinical commentator on the Bible is Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040-1105), who tried to strike a balance between literal explication of the text and classical rabbinic homiletics.

 

[...]

 

The Talmud

With the advent of the Mishna, a class of rabbis known as Amora'im (third century CE through the sixth century) discussed this document, elaborated on it, performed emendations and reconciled ostensible contradictions. "

 

ANd you're referring to a quote which uses the terms Gemara and Talmud interchangeably (check your darling wikipedia for that, Alpha.) Masaorti consider halacha (the Mishnah) binding, they do not the Gemara (the Talmud).

 

How can you be so sure when the Talmud can be used interchangeably with the Gemara or refer to both?

 

In fact, right above it, the sentence says, “The halacha is far from being a closed book, with everything being clear-cut and sealed in stone.”

 

I think they’re more apologetic than you give them credit for.

 

An example,

 

“ In our secular society, the role of women has radically been changed. Women today are fully integrated in society, are educated, hold positions of power and share equal rights. The halacha grew in an age where none of this was true. […] We maintain that failure to apply the tools of change that exist within the halacha to the changes in our world today will leave the halacha irrelevant to most Jews.”

 

Imagine what Reform would say. user posted image

 

You believe you would know what it would look like if a star moved with purpose? How would you know?

 

The same way one could point to certain UFO footage and say, “It’s just a balloon.”

 

How do you know they all aren't moving with purpose?

 

As in they’re all being pulled/carried by chariots? It’s like someone going up to me saying that Santa Claus gives everyone gifts every year. Nobody buys the gifts. It’s just your imagination.

 

When I say spiritual I mean, at the very least, immaterial. What would science have to say about that? That is the question I asked.

 

Again, it seems like you’re talking in general instead of on Apollo. If we’re talking about Apollo’s spiritual chariot, the pulling/carrying should produce an observable difference compared to other stars.

 

That's what happened to me, that switched me from die-hard atheist to polytheist.

But speaking in pure theoreticals, in that case, then what?

 

What are you waiting for!? Go collect 1 million dollars.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-cha...pplication.html

 

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post

Heya guys biggrin.gif I'm a Witch. Thought it was pretty cool to make a topic about peoples religions and let them explain it and what not. I find it really interesting to see how many different religions there are on here and to see the different beliefs everyone has. Anywayyyyssss, yeah . happy.gif

Wiccan?

i love reading about Wiccan religion. i have no idea why people judge Wiccan/witches as bad. so many people i know are Wiccan in secret.

 

I am still agnostic. Science can't prove OR disprove God/s as many have said, why can't it be a combination of all religions and science???

 

or we could all be wrong and there is no logic in anything -shrug-

Edited by Keriel

Share this post


Link to post

The same way one could point to certain UFO footage and say, “It’s just a balloon.” 

You keep trying to move this onto UFOs, but I'm not going with you.

 

As in they’re all being pulled/carried by chariots? It’s like someone going up to me saying that Santa Claus gives everyone gifts every year. Nobody buys the gifts. It’s just your imagination.

 

The fact that people buy others Christmas gifts is easily observable scientifically. I'm not saying all stars are pulled by chariots, but can science prove the movement of stars is mindless? If so, how?

 

Again, it seems like you’re talking in general instead of on Apollo. If we’re talking about Apollo’s spiritual chariot, the pulling/carrying should produce an observable difference compared to other stars.

 

Likely, but not necessarily, as you said, it should. There isn't, but...that doesn't really mean there isn't an Apollo there. If there is an Apollo there, it means he's not doing something obvious.

 

I don't happen to think there is, my point was science doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone knows the sun is raised by an alicorn. (This does make me wonder, what evidence could hypothetically be found for a being that guides the sun, but doesn't directly touch it, unlike the chariot argument?)

 

... or pulled by horses and chased by a wolf.

 

 

Edited by Dr. Paine

Share this post


Link to post

You keep trying to move this onto UFOs, but I'm not going with you.

 

You asked, “You believe you would know what it would look like if a star moved with purpose? How would you know?”

 

I answered. The stars don’t move with any semblance of spontaneity. Is it reasonable to assume that an extraterrestrial UFO will have a pattern of movement like a balloon? So why should I assume Apollo wants to make a 230 million year near circular orbit around the Milky Way?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/hubble-time-machine-...ars-future.html

 

“Using observations from the Hubble Space Telescope, scientists have calculated how stars in the globular cluster Omega Centauri will move for millennia to come.

[…] Now this cluster, located almost 16,000 light-years from Earth in our Milky Way galaxy, is known to be a swarm of about 10 million stars, all orbiting a common center of gravity.”

 

The fact that people buy others Christmas gifts is easily observable scientifically.

 

What would you say if I said the universe was created yesterday?

 

Or

 

user posted image

 

I'm not saying all stars are pulled by chariots, but can science prove the movement of stars is mindless? If so, how?

 

I thought this was about Apollo? Since other stars move in the same fashion as Apollo’s chariot, can’t we infer those also have chariots? If they don’t, Apollo’s chariot is unnecessary.

 

What happens when you get knocked out? What does a rock do? What does a satellite do once in orbit?

 

Everyone knows the sun is raised by an alicorn. (This does make me wonder, what evidence could hypothetically be found for a being that guides the sun, but doesn't directly touch it, unlike the chariot argument?)

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...-space-science/

 

“A galactic crime involving hundreds of stolen stars has been uncovered 160,000 light-years away—and space sleuths believe they've caught their thief red-handed.”

 

Hopefully Apollo has a chariot of iron. user posted image

 

Share this post


Link to post

But with science now, it provides the answers to a lot of things that religions did in the past, as in the case with Apollo. So those who still choose to believe in Apollo (as an example) would probably have to retain that ignorance if you will, or choose to reject the science behind why the sun moves across the sky, in order for their beliefs to still be valid.

Speaking as someone who honors Apollo... no, that's not the case at all.

 

I am a huge fan of science and the scientific method and I know that it's our best tool for figuring out the mysteries of the natural world. If I had to make a hard-and-fast choice between religion and science, I'd choose science every time. And I have no doubt that what scientific inquiry has revealed about our solar system and stars in general is correct. To me, the myth of Apollo's chariot is best understood as poetry, revealing something about the role of the God in the cosmic order (in His role as a patron of creativity, symbolized by his association with the fire that lights the world), not as a literal description of what happens in the material universe.

 

Methinks you're assuming that all religious folk accept all myths as inerrant truth, which is a false assumption.

Edited by prairiecrow

Share this post


Link to post

Actually I'm trying to point out that in order for some people to accept religious belief, they need to let go of the science behind the parts of religions/myths/whatever they're believing in. That isn't true for everyone though, as is obvious in your case, just as it's true that some people accept various religious myths as 'truths'.

 

Like I said before, it's hard for me to explain.

Share this post


Link to post

I read a few of the first pages of this and have to say that it's an interesting read smile.gif

I'm Pagan, have been since I could read and comprehend what I was being told as truth and whether or not I could even believe in it. My family is all basically Catholic, Christian, and Baptist. And everyday I have to listen to reasons why I'm wrong and am "disgracing" the family name by not believing in the "one true God."

Honestly the last time I went to a Catholic church I heard the words "...condemn the nonbelievers..." come out of the preacher's mouth. Never have I ever been so hurt that my family would take the word of a man they don't know well, over the feelings of someone of their own family. sad.gif I just want to know, how many other religions are teaching this, and how many people are really willing to go by what a man in a robe tells them?

Share this post


Link to post
I read a few of the first pages of this and have to say that it's an interesting read smile.gif

I'm Pagan, have been since I could read and comprehend what I was being told as truth and whether or not I could even believe in it. My family is all basically Catholic, Christian, and Baptist. And everyday I have to listen to reasons why I'm wrong and am "disgracing" the family name by not believing in the "one true God."

Honestly the last time I went to a Catholic church I heard the words "...condemn the nonbelievers..." come out of the preacher's mouth. Never have I ever been so hurt that my family would take the word of a man they don't know well, over the feelings of someone of their own family. sad.gif I just want to know, how many other religions are teaching this, and how many people are really willing to go by what a man in a robe tells them?

I feel for you. This form of religion is quite upsetting, in my opinion. I wish I had some sound advice for you, but the best I have is "avoid religious discussion at all costs." And I know that doesn't work. I've recently gotten a new stepfather that's religious. I can see now that it's going to cause issues. It can be tough - if not impossible - to convince family members to accept that you have differing beliefs, and that that's okay and not the end of the world. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
I feel for you. This form of religion is quite upsetting, in my opinion. I wish I had some sound advice for you, but the best I have is "avoid religious discussion at all costs." And I know that doesn't work. I've recently gotten a new stepfather that's religious. I can see now that it's going to cause issues. It can be tough - if not impossible - to convince family members to accept that you have differing beliefs, and that that's okay and not the end of the world. rolleyes.gif

Thanks, I know it's not the end of the world. What I want to know really is, is it normal for a church to preach a message that tells everyone to shun and condemn all the people whose beliefs aren't the same as their's? :/

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks, I know it's not the end of the world. What I want to know really is, is it normal for a church to preach a message that tells everyone to shun and condemn all the people whose beliefs aren't the same as their's? :/

Sadly, yes, it's a fairly typical reaction of most fundamentalist groups of many religions, but less likely to happen in more moderate churches/sects

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, I know it's not the end of the world. What I want to know really is, is it normal for a church to preach a message that tells everyone to shun and condemn all the people whose beliefs aren't the same as their's? :/

I wouldn't say it's normal, no. I've never been a part of any church that preached that, and I was raised Catholic (still am, more or less...?), and am very close friends with people of other Christian faiths, Wiccans, Druids, Jews, and atheists. Hurtful statements like the one you were exposed to (and I'm sorry you were!) don't seem like the norm, to me. Unfortunately, all it takes is one priest or minister or rabbi or whoever with a chip on their shoulder, and if you're part of their congregation, that's who you get to hear every week. Gah. Growing up as a Catholic, even *within* that branch of religion, different churches in my area had different reputations. You can't help that -- a church is a body of people. It reflects the local culture, and if the local culture is, for instance, posh and judgmental and catty, then that church often takes on the same attitude. When the minister's attitude matches that of his congregation, the effect is multiplied.

 

In general, the Christian concept of proselytizing (which tends to be more strongly focused on in Baptist or more fundamentalist sects) means that you "share the good news" with other people, while loving your neighbor as yourself, and treating them how you would wish to be treated. So by its very nature, a Christian faith ought not to order either condemnation or shunning. It's "hate the sin and love the sinner," not "hate the sin and hate and/or avoid the sinner at all costs."

 

Unfortunately, every faith has its extremists, fundamentalists, and judgmental you-know-whats. Even atheism. There's really no changing that; just ignore the extremists and try to get to the heart of the beliefs, instead.

Edited by Kelkelen

Share this post


Link to post

I call them bullhorn guys. You know the type. They shout at you to force you to change because God apparently hates everyone except a select few. They are the loud minority that outshadow the quiet majority. People easily coexisting doesn't make the news.

 

Also more or less what Kelkelon said. The entire point is to show the same respect you would want, no matter if you agree with or even like the person. Honestly I would say that the people claiming God hates ANYONE are being very unChristian. Whatever happened to judge not or ye shall be judged?

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, I know it's not the end of the world. What I want to know really is, is it normal for a church to preach a message that tells everyone to shun and condemn all the people whose beliefs aren't the same as their's? :/

No. I wouldn't consider it normal. The goal of the church should be kind outreach and ministry, not shunning of anyone who doesn't think like we do.

 

To better explain what I mean, I believe a church should help those in need regardless of faith, age, gender, race, sexual orientation, family, situation, etc. If Christians expect people to listen to them, the people first need to see that they are living out the teachings of Christ and not telling them "God hates you. Come to church so He won't anymore." Because that's not going to win anyone. Even if it doesn't win any converts, helping others should be one of the church's primary goals.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, I know it's not the end of the world. What I want to know really is, is it normal for a church to preach a message that tells everyone to shun and condemn all the people whose beliefs aren't the same as their's? :/

in smaller churches it tends to not be but the changes from church to church depending on who is there.

i still remember being condemed for being athiest, i remember my best friend coming up to me one day and saying we couldn't be friends because her parents didn't like my belifes and thought i would lead her astray. We had never talked about religeon we simply wanted to be friends.

 

philpot is correct. churches should be trying to help, not shun you

 

back, way back in history to shun non belivers was the norm and expected, but it does not have a place in todays society. many religeons want to be accepted and treated the same, and yet they have the gall to shun us? i'm sorry but this doesn't work.

 

i think it more comes down to the person other than the religeon. i am now agnostic because no matter what side i sat i was given hell. as an agnostic i watch and say neither side is better morally than the other as a whole, but when you get down to indavidual level, sometimes the belife is irrelavant.

 

my boyfriend is christian and was taught to shun people like me... well you can see how that went. Same with another friend, her parents are right wing christian, she and her sister are very heavy believers but refuse to shun people based on the fact they believe something different.

 

this world is in no way a sure world. science has been wrong before in things and can be wrong again as we continue to discover new things.

 

 

to the appolo argument. just because something isn't neccassary doesn't mean it isn't happening (no i do not believe the sun is driven by appolo's chariot) there are fish that live in pitch black underwater caves, they do not need eyes as there is nothing to see... yet they still have eyes, completely blind but they have eyes even though they don't need them. reason is a human overlay, not everything that is has a reason it just simply is

Edited by Keriel

Share this post


Link to post

So I'm being handed this flyer that says that although people may be a good person, you're still going to hell for not believing in God. Furthuremore, it says that no, no one's good, everyone's evil. Then, it goes on to explain that no one can possibly be a good person without God. Finally, it explains that tolerance is a sin, because every way that isn't God's way is bad and should be condemned as such.

 

 

I...

 

I don't even know how to feel.

Share this post


Link to post
So I'm being handed this flyer that says that although people may be a good person, you're still going to hell for not believing in God. Furthuremore, it says that no, no one's good, everyone's evil. Then, it goes on to explain that no one can possibly be a good person without God. Finally, it explains that tolerance is a sin, because every way that isn't God's way is bad and should be condemned as such.

 

 

I...

 

I don't even know how to feel.

Oooh, Bible tracts. I strongly dislike those. Their content can range from innocent-but-ineffective to intolerant to outright offensive and mean. Just know that those things don't generally reflect a majority belief. I've seen tracts from other faiths as well; they're usually distributed by a small fundamentalist group that puts great stock in proselytizing.

 

Another thing about tracts is that they oversimplify complex concepts. "No one's good, everyone's evil" might have been trying to address the concept of original sin, or the idea that humanity is flawed, or that we can achieve good but it doesn't come naturally or spontaneously to us, and must be a conscious choice. Or maybe it was addressing something else. Hard to tell, when it's stated so simplistically.

Share this post


Link to post
So I'm being handed this flyer that says that although people may be a good person, you're still going to hell for not believing in God. Furthuremore, it says that no, no one's good, everyone's evil. Then, it goes on to explain that no one can possibly be a good person without God. Finally, it explains that tolerance is a sin, because every way that isn't God's way is bad and should be condemned as such.

 

 

I...

 

I don't even know how to feel.

Oh, it it a Chick Tract?

 

A piece of me feels bad for enjoying them because they're so darn fun to pick apart, what with all the logical fallacies and all, because... it is someone's honest belief. But sometimes, all you can do is sit back and laugh to keep your brain from breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
So I'm being handed this flyer that says that although people may be a good person, you're still going to hell for not believing in God. Furthuremore, it says that no, no one's good, everyone's evil. Then, it goes on to explain that no one can possibly be a good person without God. Finally, it explains that tolerance is a sin, because every way that isn't God's way is bad and should be condemned as such.

 

 

I...

 

I don't even know how to feel.

When it's presented that way, Christianity strikes me as such a gloomy, hateful and hopeless religion that I have to wonder how anyone could follow it and remain mentally and emotionally healthy.

 

Honestly, do the fundamentalist sects who hand out those lovely little wastes of paper think it's attractive in some way? dry.gif Because it's not. It just makes them look like a bunch of loony tunes (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?).

 

There are plenty of sane and joyous sects of Christianity to join without resorting to "WE HATE EVERYONE AND YUR ALL GONNA BUUUURRRRRN!" denominations.

Share this post


Link to post
When it's presented that way, Christianity strikes me as such a gloomy, hateful and hopeless religion that I have to wonder how anyone could follow it and remain mentally and emotionally healthy.

 

Honestly, do the fundamentalist sects who hand out those lovely little wastes of paper think it's attractive in some way? dry.gif Because it's not. It just makes them look like a bunch of loony tunes (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?).

 

There are plenty of sane and joyous sects of Christianity to join without resorting to "WE HATE EVERYONE AND YUR ALL GONNA BUUUURRRRRN!" denominations.

I make a point of watching Ray Comfort's show once in a while, and he's part of a large evangelical fundamentalist Christian movement, and they do seem to find those tracts attractive.

 

They are under the impression that they're approaching people with love. They want to attack people's sense of morality. They want to make people feel like guilty sinners, so that they realize they need to come to Jesus. And they think it's a loving thing to do.

 

I think their position is more like: "WE LOVE EVERYONE AND WE DON'T WANT YOU ALL TO BUUUURRRRRN! (so join our club)"

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, it it a Chick Tract?

 

A piece of me feels bad for enjoying them because they're so darn fun to pick apart, what with all the logical fallacies and all, because... it is someone's honest belief. But sometimes, all you can do is sit back and laugh to keep your brain from breaking.

Chick Tracts are a category unto themselves. sleep.gif They're pretty much produced by ONE man, with the occasional extra artist (they are the bible tracts that read like little comic books), and don't actually support any organized religion -- just Jack T. Chick's personal version of fire-and-brimstone Christianity, in which every other religion, including other existing branches of Christianity, is evil and wrong. Sometimes, various fundamentalist churches order Chick tracts to distribute; either by hand, or by leaving them on bus seats and public benches.

 

@ Dr. Paine -- I do, in fact, read them on the Chick website to enjoy them the same way you do. In some combination of outrage/amazement/humor. And, I suppose, to make myself aware of the misconceptions that are out there. I've been very confused on occasion when people asked me things like "Is it true that the Catholic church is the censorkip.gif* of Babylon?" I just had no idea where it was coming from until I read some of the fundamentalist literature for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
There are plenty of sane and joyous sects of Christianity to join without resorting to "WE HATE EVERYONE AND YUR ALL GONNA BUUUURRRRRN!" denominations.

My former church handed out flyers and such, but the jist of it was "Hey, we're this church over here. God loves everyone. Come check us out sometime and if you like our church then that's great, but if not, sorry".

 

(I found my own set of beliefs, which are mainly Buddhist)

Share this post


Link to post

Recently in the church that I attend (my family is Roman Catholic, so i go to church even though I'm not religious), they've made a switch to more literal interpretations of the Latin prayers. It's really hard to adjust to the new prayers after 15 years of the old ones!

 

Plus I don't really see much of a difference. The kind of switches they made are along the lines of-

 

"The Lord be with you."

 

"And also with you with your spirit."

 

Kinda silly if you ask me!

Share this post


Link to post

There's this woman in the next town over that walks around all day and hands out Christian flyers. Dad suspect that she has some sort of mental illness, and her church is taking advantage of that. I don't know exactly what the flyers say, but it's probably not good.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.