are any guys of opeth satanists?

[Kenneth R.]

Science is the only valid religion. Fact.

i strongly disagree with this stupidity.

and as for the previous few posts, why do you argue creationism vs evolution as a way to invalidate the entire faith? i personally am not so convinced that God just popped down and created all these things, but i believe he did it somehow.

who's to say that to God, a "day" is not a million years or time at all? he had 7 days to do it, and humans were last on the list. that matches up with evolution even. i have no need to deny evolution exists, its been shown. however, the theory that it has always existed, and has been our origin, i am even more skeptical of than God creating beings.

do you even know what the chances are that a small pool of amino acids will randomly become a protein? 1 in 10^60. that's 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

is that somehow easier to believe than "God did it in some way that we can't comprehend"? heh. well, we believe different things.

 

[ViCyniC]

i strongly disagree with this stupidity.

I believe that science will lead us to understanding God, someday.

Should I attribute a Christian mind with stupidity as well?

 

[Jon Snow]

I'm not trying to invalidate the entire faith. I believe in a God myself but not the Christian one admittedly. Someone mentioned creationism earlier in the thread and that's one thing I can't tolerate. It's bastardized science. Young Earth Creationism that is (earth is only 6,000 yrs old, etc.)

 

[Feicht]

i honestly don't see the appeal nor the need to believe in god(s)

 

[dorian gray]

Although I've agreed with pretty much everthing you've said thus far, I'd call into question this statement. The supernatural is quite often debated in a scientific manner, and science often adopts previously 'supernatural' ideas into its folds

i see your point and i think it's a good one. hypnosis is a great example. theres obviously something to it, neurobiologically, but no one knows what it is yet. it's more of a "borderlands" science (michael shermer's term). one day we will probably understand it.
My post was leaning more towards concepts that don't lend themselves to observation and repeatable, controlled experiments. science deals with nature; the super-natural, by definition, is above nature. Thus, science can't really study concepts such as God. Well, obviously historians and archeologists can study the ancient Jews and Biblical artifacts but it's simply not possible to prove or disprove the actual existence of God.

 

[dorian gray]

who's to say that to God, a "day" is not a million years or time at all? he had 7 days to do it, and humans were last on the list. that matches up with evolution even. i have no need to deny evolution exists, its been shown. however, the theory that it has always existed, and has been our origin, i am even more skeptical of than God creating beings.

do you even know what the chances are that a small pool of amino acids will randomly become a protein? 1 in 10^60. that's 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

yeah, but numbers like that are usually used as creationist propoganda. just because events are amazingly rare - according to our subjectivity - doesn't automatically equate to an all-powerful God. That's a long-standing logic fallacy of religion.
I don't know much about the "day being a million years" thing. I've heard it before but I'm not usually impressed with the scholarship behind it. In all honesty, most of the Bible, including the genesis story was ripped off from cultures and civilizations that existed - and died off - thousand of years before the Jews. To believe the Bible is infallible, one would *have* to believe the Jewish genesis story was the first, and that the Jews were the first people on Earth...and that's simply not true. What about early Africans, Pheonicians, Caananites (predecessors to the Jews)? They were all around looooooong before the Bible-writing Jews. And, well, what about the dinosaurs? The early hominids? The various branches of the evolutionary tree? If the Jews believed God was all-powerful, wouldn't they have at least *mentioned* evolution, since it's a well-grounded fact? Shouldn't God have known this already?

 

[Kenneth R.]

basically my point is:

i think creation of some form occurred. and that what most people interpret genesis to mean is probably not the case. that the earth and universe are only 6000 years old is absurd.

whatever rocks your socks

 

[Jon Snow]

^Most Christians I know are not nearly as open minded as you. I respect you greatly for that. It's very refreshing after dealing with fundamentalist YECs all the time where I live.

 

[dorian gray]

basically my point is:

i think creation of some form occurred. and that what most people interpret genesis to mean is probably not the case. that the earth and universe are only 6000 years old is absurd.

whatever rocks your socks

yeah, but thats not what the Bible says. The OT is pretty straight forward if you ask me. The Jews were strict-ass people, taking their God very seriously. And when Jesus came along, he said, "I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it". As far as I've been told, he is talking about the Law (Old Testament) as well as the Covenant between the Jews and Yahweh. The latter doesnt really apply here, but my point, is that I (and apparently Jesus) think that not taking the Bible literally is baloney. I am incredibly impressed with Biblical literalists. Although I think they are totally wrong in the face of everything we know about our universe, I still think it's more impressive than trying to incorporate our knowledge into what is essentially just another ancient religion - and an unoriginal one at that.
I mean no offense to anyone and I agree with your last line...as long as there is strict separation of Church and State.

 

[dorian gray]

^Most Christians I know are not nearly as open minded as you. I respect you greatly for that. It's very refreshing after dealing with fundamentalist YECs all the time where I live.

hmm. i dunno. like i said above: whats so great about being open-minded in this case? God's word to his people is the Bible. That's it. It commands believers to take it literally - as the voice of God. Incorporating post-modern concepts and facts into it is a compromise (although well-intentioned) that just shows how fragile religious thought is. The biggest offenders here are the churches that claim to be Christian but say it's ok to live any lifestyle you want. I think it's nice that people want to belong to something, and I'm sure they have their good points, but that's not the Christian message. Yes, that's right - the Christian message is not one of uncompromised acceptance of everyone and everything. Anyone who tells you different is simply wrong.

 

[Jon Snow]

^I'm glad you have a monopoly on the truth and complete understanding of the Christian religion.

Yair Zakovitch a professor of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and also the university's dean of humanities says, "The Bible is for teaching. Its characters, its history are only tools for getting across ideas. The main thing in the Bible is not if there was an event, but the ideas and ideology that it represents. The authors of the Bible knew that history can be reshaped to express ideas."

I took a course at a Lutheran College here in PA called Interpreting the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. We learned this exact point. The bible authors never intended everything to be taken literally. It was the ideas and the truths that could be taken from the book that were important not the events. Jesus told parables to teach a lesson. Did the events in the parables ever happen? It doesn't matter. That is missing the point entirely. What matters is the lesson contained within the events.


Your assumptions are completely misguided.

 

[dorian gray]

^I'm glad you have a monopoly on the truth and complete understanding of the Christian religion.

haha! well, you know, I try.

That's interesting you took a class at Lutheran College. I'm sure you learned lots of cool stuff. However, that hardly makes *you* and expert on it. Just because Yair Zakovitch makes a statment on something, doesn't mean he's entirely correct. What about all the people who say the opposite? What about the countless theologians who claim that the entire crucifixion/resurrection theme is an allegory - that it never even happened? Are all these people wrong?
What do your statements regarding Jesus's parables mean? Are you saying that because he was teaching in parables, the entire Bible is a parable? Like I said earlier - which you competely ignored - Jesus made it clear that his believers were to continue to live to the letter of the Law. As I - and virtually every Christian understand it - this means to take the Old Testament literally.
Now, I'll agree that literalism is confusing and increasingly at odds with our increasing knowledge (4000 years worth) and that's why I stopped being a Christian. I just didn't see how it could work. That's not to say it can't - it's just my personal decision. However, I still contend that incorporating post-modern scientific ideals into the fold is a recipe for compromise. You may disagree, but I think I have the stronger case. What the "experts" have to say doesn't really matter. What does the Bible say?

 

[Jon Snow]

haha! well, you know, I try.

That's interesting you took a class at Lutheran College. I'm sure you learned lots of cool stuff. However, that hardly makes *you* and expert on it. Just because Yair Zakovitch makes a statment on something, doesn't mean he's entirely correct. What about all the people who say the opposite? What about the countless theologians who claim that the entire crucifixion/resurrection theme is an allegory - that it never even happened? Are all these people wrong?
What do your statements regarding Jesus's parables mean? Are you saying that because he was teaching in parables, the entire Bible is a parable? Like I said earlier - which you competely ignored - Jesus made it clear that his believers were to continue to live to the letter of the Law. As I - and virtually every Christian understand it - this means to take the Old Testament literally.
Now, I'll agree that literalism is confusing and increasingly at odds with our increasing knowledge (4000 years worth) and that's why I stopped being a Christian. I just didn't see how it could work. That's not to say it can't - it's just my personal decision. However, I still contend that incorporating post-modern scientific ideals into the fold is a recipe for compromise. You may disagree, but I think I have the stronger case. What the "experts" have to say doesn't really matter. What does the Bible say?

I never claimed to be an expert. My only point in saying that was that it is generally accepted by bible scholars and experts in religion that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. That is what we were taught at a Christian school.

How many Christians do you know that honesty take the Old Testament seriously beyond lip service? How many people do you know that have been executed for working on the Sabbath? How many kids have been stoned for disobeying their parents? How many follow the dietary laws? How many sacrifice animals? How many are executed for commiting adultery? How many gouge their eyes because they caused them to sin? The list goes on and on and for the New Testament too.

Many believe the Old Testament is no longer relevant because Jesus is the new covenant.

Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas or any of the other books that were left out of the bible? Do you understand the process of the canonization and how and why only certain books were included in The Bible? How about when they were written and who actually wrote the different books that are included?

I think your understanding is flawed.

 

[Kenneth R.]

because of the way our society has changed, some things don't quite work in this day and age. sacrificing a lamb would probably get me arrested, and i don't like cruelty to animals. however, the idea of sacrifice is still viable. there are other ways to sacrifice without bloodshed.

so in that sense, i would agree that some instructions are now outdated, but not in the sense that they no longer apply. their point still remains, but must be achieved through different means in modern times.

i believe the resurrection was indeed a real event, that the teachings and miracles of Jesus were indeed real, and that many of the events in the bible were real and meant to be taken literally. a few things however, as i said above, have to be taken figuratively these days.

 

[Jon Snow]

because of the way our society has changed, some things don't quite work in this day and age. sacrificing a lamb would probably get me arrested, and i don't like cruelty to animals. however, the idea of sacrifice is still viable. there are other ways to sacrifice without bloodshed.

so in that sense, i would agree that some instructions are now outdated, but not in the sense that they no longer apply. their point still remains, but must be achieved through different means in modern times.

i believe the resurrection was indeed a real event, that the teachings and miracles of Jesus were indeed real, and that many of the events in the bible were real and meant to be taken literally. a few things however, as i said above, have to be taken figuratively these days.

So you can just pick and choose? Very convenient.

 

[Kenneth R.]

no no, its difficult to explain...

all i'm saying is i wouldn't go around killing animals as sacrifice. you see, in those days people's property was a lot less than what we have now. to them, a cow or a goat was worth a lot. these days we have a lot more "stuff" that is not necessarily important, though we may see it as so. in that sense, we can still sacrifice without literally killing and burning a goat. the point is to give up something you value in honor of God and his glory.

 

[Jon Snow]

So you admit that as time goes on and things change so does the interpretation of the bible? Some things aren't now necessarily literal but some things still are literal?

 

[Erich w/ an h]

Of course Opeth are satanists. Im listening to the hidden track on deliverance, "Sucking Lucifer's Double-Pronged Cock And Gargling His Demon Seed In Subservience". People that dont like that track ARENT TRUE FANS AND DONT CARE THAT THEY'RE SIGNING TO ROADRUNNER! Fucking posers.

 

[Kenneth R.]

So you admit that as time goes on and things change so does the interpretation of the bible? Some things aren't now necessarily literal but some things still are literal?

no i do not admit that.
its hard to explain. things that were literal remain literal. for example, any passage talking about what people did, what Jesus did, what people said, etc. i believe to be literal. just about everything is... what i am saying may not be literal are the examples given. the concepts that Jesus was trying to explain to them were hard for them to understand, so he gave frequent examples.

We no longer wear sandals most of the time. We don't worry so much about farming because we are not all farmers and fishers. We don't build things the same way. thus if there is a passage explaining with an example of farming, we who are not farmers can apply the moral of the story (or the lesson and teachings intended) to our lives in another way. those who are in fact farmers, might take it literally.

this doesn't make the message of God subjective. it merely means that to apply that message to life now may take different means.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

Yair Zakovitch a professor of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and also the university's dean of humanities says, "The Bible is for teaching. Its characters, its history are only tools for getting across ideas. The main thing in the Bible is not if there was an event, but the ideas and ideology that it represents. The authors of the Bible knew that history can be reshaped to express ideas."

I took a course at a Lutheran College here in PA called Interpreting the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. We learned this exact point. The bible authors never intended everything to be taken literally. It was the ideas and the truths that could be taken from the book that were important not the events. Jesus told parables to teach a lesson. Did the events in the parables ever happen? It doesn't matter. That is missing the point entirely. What matters is the lesson contained within the events.

Sounds like Id like this course, as thats largely what I believe. I try and think about introducing something as vast in scope as The Bible (and belief in monotheism) to people back then, and i simply cannot comprehend it EVER taking root if ideas such as Evolution were told. It would have been stupid to try and forcefeed knowledge that has taken man thousands of years to come to a hesitant acceptance of so quickly. The Christian faith would in all likelihood have been ignored (im not trying to say it instantly took root as it was, but it did survive).

To me, The Bible was exactly what was needed at the time. It explained things in a way that other belief systems did not. It unified people. It set down laws. It said that it was the most powerful, and that all others were false. The grounds these foundations built i think history has proven.

The real question to me is are we in the same position as people were back then? I would say no. We DO still need to pay attention to the morals of the bible, but we also need to temper our literal understanding with real world knowledge. I strongly believe that in some way (which is probably not for us to ever comprehend) God has guided us through the ages, but i do not believe this has been with complete control over everything. We must do things for ourselves, and that includes searching for the correct place of religion in the modern era. We don't need to jump at shadows any longer, but neither do we need to destroy God.

I think the story of Creation was a useful tale. But i do not think it was necessarily accurate. Perhaps the "seven days" were (as Silent Song said) a metaphor to 7 distinct periods of God directing the formation of the universe, and the word 'day' to a being such as this has no meaning? Perhaps the Adam & Eve tale was an allegory for Man turning from the animal world into that of an intelligent creature?

It is no proof to say that because the universe is so amazingly balanced on a needle tip suited to life it was therefore knowingly created by some all powerful being for us; if there are 10^60 universes out there where this hasn't happened, and we are that one tiny statistic where it did, we would never know. But it sure does make you wonder, and no matter who warps religion to their own aims, I refuse to believe this is a bad thing.