Many paths...one God?

[Meriweather]

What "word of god" would that be? It goes without saying that facts matter and the fact is: none of the writers of the Bible had any communications with the gods. I understand that believers are desperate to believe, but that doesn't change the facts.

Let me update your understanding. Believers are no more desperate to believe in God and His word, than people are desperate to believe 2+2=4. It is a simple acknowledgement of what is.

Believers note three things about themselves--that they are composed of body, mind, spirit. Communication can/does occur on the spirit(ual) level. No, it cannot be videoed and televised because it uses another reality than the one of physical reality.

People of faith 'test' the Word every day. For example, at an early age I went through each of the beatitudes, carefully applying them to my own life. The same can be done with Commandments, proverbs, etc.

People of faith are at peace with the concept of God and we move on from there.

 

[Blues Man]

Not what I said. I am saying I knew someone who spoke both languages and could give me the differences between a subjective language and one that painted pictures. His "qualification" is that he was fluent in both languages--and both cultures for that matter.

Anyone who has had lessons in any foreign language has probably had instances when the teacher noted that something is sometimes lost in the translation. My Spanish teacher often noted this--that a certain Spanish word was most like (not exactly like) the English word translated from the Spanish.

What's your point?

And linguists are the most proficient at these skills and also in the historical , cultural are regional uses of languages but you think all the people who have studied,Hebrew and Greek and all the years of translations and application don't matter because you think they got it wrong when they translate the bible and use the words vengeance or wrath and that those words should actually be ameliorated to something like indignation or hurt feelings.

 

[Blues Man]

Not what I said. I pointed out the obvious--that authors present stories in ways in which their human audience can best relate.

So now the bible is not the word of your god but just a bunch of stories about him.

 

[Blues Man]

We are discussing The Word of God, written for humans by humans--and translated from the original Hebrew into many languages. We were comparing differing perspectives between peoples of Western culture and modern English and that of an ancient language and more ancient cultures.

And as i have said there have been countless language experts over the centuries that have refined translations of Hebrew and Greek into modern languages.

 

[Meriweather]

And linguists are the most proficient at these skills and also in the historical , cultural are regional uses of languages but you think all the people who have studied,Hebrew and Greek and all the years of translations and application don't matter because you think they got it wrong when they translate the bible and use the words vengeance or wrath and that those words should actually be ameliorated to something like indignation or hurt feelings.

In fact, I never said they got it wrong. I said that reading the modern English translation through the lens of Western culture gives a different perspective than that of the Hebrew language as viewed through the lens of ancient culture.

I am merely pointing out that the perspective vengeful, wrathful God is not the only perspective, in fact it is not even the original perspective. I presented reasoning for this.

Each story that includes God's displeasure begins with the misbehavior of mankind--each account gives the clear reason for displeasure or indignation (not "hurt feelings"). Man's troublesome behavior leads to troublesome consequences brought on by himself. That is the lesson being presented.

 

[Meriweather]

So now the bible is not the word of your god but just a bunch of stories about him.

The stories are about mankind. With God in their midst. People of faith view the Bible as the Word of the Lord. As has often been said, Inspired by God, written by man.

 

[Meriweather]

And as i have said there have been countless language experts over the centuries that have refined translations of Hebrew and Greek into modern languages.

No one has been arguing that. What would be the point?

 

[ding]

As I said, interpret as you wish. I will stick with the recognized interpretations rather than the Tiny Minded one.

The phrase religion is the opiate of the masses means it dulls the pain of the people.

Socialism has usurped Christian values for the same reason.

Socialism is a religion. Ergo socialism is the new opiate of the masses.

 

[sear]

The phrase religion is the opiate of the masses means it dulls the pain of the people.
Socialism has usurped Christian values for the same reason.
Socialism is a religion. Ergo socialism is the new opiate of the masses.

Interesting that you choose Marx as your ideological reference point.
Marx, co-author of The Communist Manifesto is recognized as a communist, archetypal if you will. We should be mindful of the difference between communism and socialism.

Socialism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. There are churches in Denmark, Sweden, & Norway (& NYC).

"Socialism is a religion. Ergo socialism is the new opiate of the masses." d

Socialism involves no supernatural deity.
And in terms of "opiate of the masses" socialism is to communism as Billy Graham contrasted to Jim Jones. Enjoy the kool-aid.

 

[Hollie]

Let me update your understanding. Believers are no more desperate to believe in God and His word, than people are desperate to believe 2+2=4. It is a simple acknowledgement of what is.

Believers note three things about themselves--that they are composed of body, mind, spirit. Communication can/does occur on the spirit(ual) level. No, it cannot be videoed and televised because it uses another reality than the one of physical reality.

People of faith 'test' the Word every day. For example, at an early age I went through each of the beatitudes, carefully applying them to my own life. The same can be done with Commandments, proverbs, etc.

People of faith are at peace with the concept of God and we move on from there.

I'm not sure that analogy to mathematics is correct. In mathematics, there are fine distinctions to be made between definite and indefinite articles. There are various derivations in mathematics that "prove the rule". More to the point, we can collect four "holy texts" from different religions and we will have collection of four books. However, those books get us no closer to four different gods.

 

[ding]

Interesting that you choose Marx as your ideological reference point.
Marx, co-author of The Communist Manifesto is recognized as a communist, archetypal if you will. We should be mindful of the difference between communism and socialism.

Socialism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. There are churches in Denmark, Sweden, & Norway (& NYC).

"Socialism is a religion. Ergo socialism is the new opiate of the masses." d

Socialism involves no supernatural deity.
And in terms of "opiate of the masses" socialism is to communism as Billy Graham contrasted to Jim Jones. Enjoy the kool-aid.

It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism. Every pledge from communism was about Man's earthly happiness with a capital M.

Nothing has changed in secular society. There was no revolution. There is still a ruling class. There is still a working class. The masses just switched drugs.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm not sure that analogy to mathematics is correct. In mathematics, there are fine distinctions to be made between definite and indefinite articles. There are various derivations in mathematics that "prove the rule". More to the point, we can collect four "holy texts" from different religions and we will have collection of four books. However, those books get us no closer to four different gods.

You said your understandings of believers is that they are desperate to believe. As a believer, I can disagree and say desperation plays as little part in a believer's emotions as the fact of 2+2=4. Now, you either need to show how people do get emotional--even desperate--over this simple equation or present a group of those who believe as being desperate to believe. Can you verify your claim? How?

I am not desperate to believe and I believe. You don't believe, and you have never given me any indication you are desperate to believe, but isn't more likely that someone who does not believe is one who is desperate to believe--not the one who already believes?

Think about it. When someone is convinced about anything, are they desperate to be convinced? Isn't it the person who is not yet convinced, but really wants to be the one who falls into the feeling desperate category?

 

[Hollie]

You said your understandings of believers is that they are desperate to believe. As a believer, I can disagree and say desperation plays as little part in a believer's emotions as the fact of 2+2=4. Now, you either need to show how people do get emotional--even desperate--over this simple equation or present a group of those who believe as being desperate to believe. Can you verify your claim? How?

I am not desperate to believe and I believe. You don't believe, and you have never given me any indication you are desperate to believe, but isn't more likely that someone who does not believe is one who is desperate to believe--not the one who already believes?

Think about it. When someone is convinced about anything, are they desperate to be convinced? Isn't it the person who is not yet convinced, but really wants to be the one who falls into the feeling desperate category?

The analogy of 2+2=4 as somehow equivalent to belief in gods was yours. I presented a logical circumstance to refute that: mathematics has logical progressions of steps to prove a result.

On the other hand, I maintain there is a certain desperation to believe when that belief insists gods that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exist outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and use methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist..... ummm, yeah, there's a certain desperation there.

Of course, your gods being demonstrated in some verifiable way would go a long way toward mitigating that desperation.

How can you verify your claim?

 

[sear]

It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism. Every pledge from communism was about Man's earthly happiness with a capital M.
Nothing has changed in secular society. There was no revolution. There is still a ruling class. There is still a working class. The masses just switched drugs.

Communism works fabulously in the United States, in family-sized, and congregation-sized units. I don't see communism thriving on the scale of nations. China is in clear ascendancy. BUT !!
Though communist China is gaining ground, it is China that is most Westernized, that is most successful. Hong Kong may be a conspicuous example, but far from the only example.

Nothing has changed in secular society. There was no revolution.

The counterpoint is more obviously true. Secular society is constantly changing in a variety of ways. A citizen technically poor, literally surviving below the poverty level, has access to luxuries King Henry VIII could not have imagined:
- cable TV
- the air-conditioned mini-van
- numerous vaccines
Imagine the brood Hank8 might have spawned if he and his numerous wives had access to modern hospitalization.

There was no revolution.

You seem very likeable d.
But though it isn't personal, I must smack down hard this historic absurdity. If there was "no revolution" it is because it is all revolution.

 

[Meriweather]

I maintain there is a certain desperation to believe when that belief insists gods that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exist outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm,

Okay, then show us these desperate people. I have yet to meet a believer who is desperate, but on the other hand, nor have I met an atheist desperate believe. This is why I maintain that anyone who has settled on belief or non-belief does not exhibit desperation. For them, the question is settled.

 

[Meriweather]

Of course, your gods being demonstrated in some verifiable way would go a long way toward mitigating that desperation.

What desperation? Whose desperation?

The best verification anyone can have is to seek and find God. This is not something that can be done and verified in a science lab. Step out of the lab, seek God.

 

[Meriweather]

How can you verify your claim?

You think people should have to? Most people's word is as good as gold. Even when it is, that doesn't mean anyone has to believe what was said.

For example, "Seek and you will find" are words. I thought they were worth the trouble, so off I went and found. If you want this gold, go find it. Don't expect someone to bring it to you any more than you would expect anyone to walk across the US, over Donner Pass, dig night and day, excavate a nugget, and then take the return trip to hand it over to you. The gold is there. If you want it, put your own time and energy into finding it. (By the way, it took me over ten years, which is much longer than it took gold miners to make their trek.)

 

[ding]

Communism works fabulously in the United States, in family-sized, and congregation-sized units. I don't see communism thriving on the scale of nations. China is in clear ascendancy. BUT !!
Though communist China is gaining ground, it is China that is most Westernized, that is most successful. Hong Kong may be a conspicuous example, but far from the only example.

Sure... sometimes. There are limits. It's not always in a child's best interest to give them everything they want. That's how we end up getting spoiled brats with an entitlement attitude.

The counterpoint is more obviously true. Secular society is constantly changing in a variety of ways. A citizen technically poor, literally surviving below the poverty level, has access to luxuries King Henry VIII could not have imagined:
- cable TV
- the air-conditioned mini-van
- numerous vaccines
Imagine the brood Hank8 might have spawned if he and his numerous wives had access to modern hospitalization.

And a "poor" person living in Western Civilization today would be considered wealthy compared to someone living in a dirt floor hut with no electricity or running water. Which one do you think will complain the most about their lot in life? The more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became because we were made for more.

You seem very likeable d.
But though it isn't personal, I must smack down hard this historic absurdity. If there was "no revolution" it is because it is all revolution.

Thanks. You seem very likable too, s.

I suspect if Marx were still around he would disagree with you because we still have a ruling class and a working class. The same disparities that existed in his day - which was the driving force behind his theory - still exists today. All secular society has really done is switched drugs.

 

[ding]

income gap argument anyone?

 

[sear]

It's not always in a child's best interest to give them everything they want. That's how we end up getting spoiled brats with an entitlement attitude.

Problem is, individual humans undergo a different maturation pattern than ascendant nations.
The individual has recall, learns from experience.

Nations, Peoples may have "institutional memory". BUT !!

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." Hegel

This is why so often important historic lessons must be re-learned.

And a "poor" person living in Western Civilization today would be considered wealthy compared to someone living in a dirt floor hut with no electricity or running water. Which one do you think will complain the most about their lot in life? The more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became because we were made for more.

"Disappointment is a function of expectation." psychologist Joy Browne

Barry Farber observed that if poverty caused crime, Calcutta would be one of the most crime-riddled cesspools in the solar system.

IMAO the have-nots don't lament their lot, unless more lavish living is flaunted before them.
Hunter-gatherer, & or nomadic cultures seem spared this, as there's not much wealth gap.

Discontent arises when the hard-working laborers live in conspicuous poverty (squalor), while the idle rich apparently haven't a care.
Sure... sometimes. There are limits. It's not always in a child's best interest to give them everything they want. That's how we end up getting spoiled brats with an entitlement attitude.

I suspect if Marx were still around he would disagree with you because we still have a ruling class and a working class. The same disparities that existed in his day - which was the driving force behind his theory - still exists today. All secular society has really done is switched drugs.

Ah!
Yeah. Not the revolution Marx & Engels might have intended. Not in the mainstream U.S. anyway.

The "revolution" I had in mind is the titanic differences in lifestyle on August 9, 2021, compared to what life was like August 9, 1021.
A millennium ago, life was tough, and short. A 30 year old would have been a sage old man.
In fact, the portions of culture humanity accumulated from that time, & before, came substantially from teenagers.

- Indoor plumbing,
- central heat
- air conditioning
- television (UHD !!!)
- Internet
- vaccines
- 80 year life expectancy
- decades of comfortable, financially secure retirement
- mid-engine 'vettes

- holy cow - !

Wouldn't I love to spend an evening with Benjamin Franklin checking out my ride:

Franklin was a world-class scientist. But things we take utterly for granted would leave him dumbfounded. Understandably so.