are any guys of opeth satanists?

[Kenneth R.]

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.

i agree... i was making that example for those who said it was perposterous to believe that some being has done all this. i presented that statistic to show that it is just as perposterous or moreso to believe that God didn't have a hand in it.

 

[Jon Snow]

Obviously, we disagree on some things. I don't see this going anywhere anytime soon and I don't have the time to continue this now. Thanks for being far more respectful than most Christians I've discussed religion with.

I'm done.

 

[Kenneth R.]

much respect

 

[RookParliament]

Wow I just read through this entire thread which I had previously ignored. Being an atheist heavily influenced by Richard Dawkins I would have replied, but just the sheer weight of this entire thread makes me wonder where to begin.

Maybe I should just say Opeth are so high up in the Satanist/child-molester/UFO global organization they don't need any outward signs of their belief. Now I feel like an idiot

 

[dorian gray]

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.

i know some folks who adhere to dietary laws but i dont know of anyone who sacrifices animals. nor do i know anyone who sends their wife out to the menstruation tent because they are "unclean". ive never seen anyone stoned either. im not entirely sure what youre trying to tell me here, though. are you saying because most modern christians pick and choose from God's Laws that I am wrong in saying that the Bible was meant to be taken literally? If so, your logic is flawed. That is their choice, not mine, nor God's. I know that you don't think the Bible was meant to be taken literally and I respect and understand that but I don't see how you're correct. So God's Law, spoken directly to his people through his prophets was meant to be taken figuratively? That the ancient Jews who *did* follow dietary laws and *did* sacrifice animals - they were just wrong? I dunno about that.

Many *would* believe the Old Testament is no longer relevant because "jesus is the new convenant" but they would be wrong. That's simply not what Jesus said. You cannot argue that. It's a basic tenant of Christian theology.

To answer your last three questions: yes, yes, and yes. My current understanding is that archeology can easily demonstrate that Biblical texts, ideas, and even characters arose from older cultures and civilizations.

I don't have a personal agenda here. All I'm getting at is how I don't see where literalism stops and figurativism begins. How can one pick and choose what they want to believe? Personally, I realized that one cannot and thus, I stopped being a Christian. I decided it can't possibly make any sense. I'm not saying Christians are wrong - that was my own decision - I just want to know how believers can look me in the eye and declare that they *are* gonna do this but *arent* gonna do that.

 

[Kenneth R.]

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.

^.

 

[dorian gray]

^

 

[deliverance]

^

bwahaha, you point at NOTHING fool...except the FAQ

 

[Jon Snow]

i know some folks who adhere to dietary laws but i dont know of anyone who sacrifices animals. nor do i know anyone who sends their wife out to the menstruation tent because they are "unclean". ive never seen anyone stoned either. im not entirely sure what youre trying to tell me here, though. are you saying because most modern christians pick and choose from God's Laws that I am wrong in saying that the Bible was meant to be taken literally? If so, your logic is flawed. That is their choice, not mine, nor God's. I know that you don't think the Bible was meant to be taken literally and I respect and understand that but I don't see how you're correct. So God's Law, spoken directly to his people through his prophets was meant to be taken figuratively? That the ancient Jews who *did* follow dietary laws and *did* sacrifice animals - they were just wrong? I dunno about that.

Many *would* believe the Old Testament is no longer relevant because "jesus is the new convenant" but they would be wrong. That's simply not what Jesus said. You cannot argue that. It's a basic tenant of Christian theology.

To answer your last three questions: yes, yes, and yes. My current understanding is that archeology can easily demonstrate that Biblical texts, ideas, and even characters arose from older cultures and civilizations.

I don't have a personal agenda here. All I'm getting at is how I don't see where literalism stops and figurativism begins. How can one pick and choose what they want to believe? Personally, I realized that one cannot and thus, I stopped being a Christian. I decided it can't possibly make any sense. I'm not saying Christians are wrong - that was my own decision - I just want to know how believers can look me in the eye and declare that they *are* gonna do this but *arent* gonna do that.

I'm back. Just wanna ask, How can a book so full or contradictions be taken literally? I'll post specific examples if you don't know what I'm talking about. The Genesis creation stories for one. There are two versions. Which is it?

 

[The Dude]

Intransigent belief without proof is imprudent.



chkm8!

 

[Kenneth R.]

I'm back. Just wanna ask, How can a book so full or contradictions be taken literally? I'll post specific examples if you don't know what I'm talking about. The Genesis creation stories for one. There are two versions. Which is it?

2 versions? what'sthe other one. and i'd like to see those examples of contradiction

 

[Jon Snow]

2 versions? what'sthe other one. and i'd like to see those examples of contradiction

They're both in Genesis. I'll find the chapters and verses. The order of when things were created is different. If taken literally then there would literally have to be 2 different orders in which the universe was created.

Give me a bit and I'll compile some contradictions and post them. If you're itching to see some contradictions and have some spare time, check out some of the differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's unbelievable how different the 'facts' are in the stories.

Here are just a few:
Matthew 2:13-15 says that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought their gifts. However, Luke 2:22-40 indicates that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary's purification (which was forty days, under the Mosaic law), then brought Jesus to Jerusalem "to present him to the Lord," and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke makes no mention of a journey into Egypt or a visit by wise men from the east.

Throughout there are many problems such as whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew claims that the name of Joseph's father is Jacob while the author of Luke states that it is Heli.

The Bible contains many contradictions and if two statements contradict eachother then clearly one of the statements must be false. Therefore if there are false statements in The Bible than it is an unreliable authority and most definitely not the direct word of an omniscient, omnipotent being.

The fact that these and many more inconsistencies exist in The Bible along with the questionable morality of God's and The Hebrews' actions in The Old Testament and the obviously non-literal Book of Revelation and the numerous other problems have led me to believe that in no way can The Bible be taken literally.

One last reason for right now on why I don't think it can be taken literally. The Romans would leave the bodies of the crucified on the crosses after they were dead. It was the final insult for crows and scavengers to eat the flesh off of the dead body of the political criminals or whomever else they had crucified. Jesus would never have been taken down and buried but would have been left on the crucifix like all of the other political criminals of the Roman Empire. Therefore Jesus could not have risen from the dead after three days of being buried as The Bible says.

There are inconsistencies about Jesus' grave in the different gospels as well. I'll compile these and post them later.

 

[R0l0]

and i'd like to see those examples of contradiction

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
knock yourself out

 

[Metalloid]

ya I took a World Religions class (which was awesome, by the way) and when we got to Christianity, the professor went on and on about the inconsistencies in the Bible. I wish I had the handout he gave us, it was fairly overwhelming

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

I know that you don't think the Bible was meant to be taken literally and I respect and understand that but I don't see how you're correct. So God's Law, spoken directly to his people through his prophets was meant to be taken figuratively? That the ancient Jews who *did* follow dietary laws and *did* sacrifice animals - they were just wrong? I dunno about that.

I don't think it is a question of calling the Bible 'wrong', or those who interpret the Bible in a certain way 'wrong'. Society is different in thousands of ways to the time when the Books of the Bible were first written, and like it or not, that necessitates straying from the exact words on the page if only for the simple reason that there is so much that was never written about. Is abortion immoral? Does Bible say exactly when a new life is created?...at conception? Are condoms therefore immoral, denying a person a chance at life? What about abortions to save the mother's life? Is that justifying murder? Things have changed. There is no way you cannot accept that, and unless you ditch the Bible entirely, you must apply it in ways greater than merely the 'words on the page'. What it means to be a Christian has changed from 2000 years ago.

I don't have a personal agenda here. All I'm getting at is how I don't see where literalism stops and figurativism begins. How can one pick and choose what they want to believe? Personally, I realized that one cannot and thus, I stopped being a Christian. I decided it can't possibly make any sense. I'm not saying Christians are wrong - that was my own decision - I just want to know how believers can look me in the eye and declare that they *are* gonna do this but *arent* gonna do that.

I just don't see it as choosing what you want to believe. I simply see it as applying intelligence, trying to see what the lessons actually were. Dietary laws are great, but we can go above and beyond what was written for the people of such limited circumstances as back then. Im not saying anything is justifiable based on changing times, and that the Bible should be shelved and winked at...Im saying that we should look for how to relate Christianity to modern life, whatever that entails.

But then again, i don't even go to Church, so maybe im a heretic and don't even know it.

 

[dorian gray]

@jon snow and t3ts: thats my point dudes. the bible *cant* be taken literally. thus, it fails. we are in agreement over that. we just disagree on what Christians are supposed to do with it. As an ex-Christian I can tell you there are essentially two movements - Biblical literalists and Biblical interpreters (for lack of a better term). I currently know many people from both schools and each and every one is just as confused as the other - never reaching a point of total understanding or fulfillment. However, the literalists are *much* more comfortable, sincere, and fulfilled than the interpreters........ I don't think we'll reach a consensus here so I'm dropping it. I appreciate your thoughts though.
@<crimson>: i knew i could count on you

 

[Jon Snow]

@jon snow and t3ts: thats my point dudes. the bible *cant* be taken literally. thus, it fails. we are in agreement over that. we just disagree on what Christians are supposed to do with it. As an ex-Christian I can tell you there are essentially two movements - Biblical literalists and Biblical interpreters (for lack of a better term). I currently know many people from both schools and each and every one is just as confused as the other - never reaching a point of total understanding or fulfillment. However, the literalists are *much* more comfortable, sincere, and fulfilled than the interpreters........ I don't think we'll reach a consensus here so I'm dropping it. I appreciate your thoughts though.
@<crimson>: i knew i could count on you

Sorry man but I still disagree. I have a few Christian friends that are not literalists and they seem to have a sense of fulfillment. They tend to be followers of Jesus and more peaceful and understanding than the literalist fundamentalists who tend to be full of the hatred of the Old Testament and full of God's wrath since they take it all as infallible. The fundamentalists seem to be much more comfortable because they know they are right ( a scary thing indeed) and since they have this monopoly of the truth they think it should be forced down the throats of everyone. Hence the radical right theocratic movement being referred to as the 'Dominionist Movement' here in the United States trying to turn our government into a Theocracy and shitting on the Constitution. People trying to push the 10 commandments onto every citizen when in fact the first four commandments are actually unconstitutional because of the 1st amendment. US law is based on British common law and Roman law. British common law existed at least 200 yrs before Christianity was even introduced into Britain and Roman law long before. Plus the 10 commandments were strongly influenced by the Code of Hammurabi and other laws from other cultures before it. Nothing new. The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with the US Constitution and neither does Christianity of any sort. The Founding Father's knew that mixing Church and State only caused centuries of corruption and warfare in Europe. The knew it should remain a personal thing and a personal choice. Smart men. Too bad the radical right in America are historical revisionists trying to rewrite our history to fit with what they think should have happened.


I'm not in any way bashing Christianity. I don't think the Bible can be taken literally but I do think Jesus said some good things and that value does exist within it.

 

[Kenneth R.]

(lots of interesting contradiction)

The Bible contains many contradictions and if two statements contradict eachother then clearly one of the statements must be false. Therefore if there are false statements in The Bible than it is an unreliable authority and most definitely not the direct word of an omniscient, omnipotent being.

how about we take this back to science since we are debating things in a logical and scientific manner. what is light? some would say its a wave. others say its a particle. clearly it can't be both, cause that's a contradiction. but it is. also, they've now studied particles that (if you've taken chemistry you understand "spin") can be simultaneously spin-up and spin-down, aka both 1 AND 0. logically that is a contradiction and creates chaos, but it exists within the laws of our universe. what if the dual names of Joseph's father were alternate names for the same guy? different people may have referred to him with different names as people often do.

as for the anachronolgy in what happened after what, i'd have to argue that what one person says is "a short time" may be different than another's perception of "a short time". that could create such discrepancies. i'm not arguing that it's perfect. but i'm presenting possible alternatives to falsehood. i don't believe the bible contains falsehood.

literally or not, the bible and teachings of God and all the instructions and examples and everything encompassed by them were told to people with intent that they be applied. it wasn't intended to be taken apart with logic in an attempt to discover if it is logically "valid" or not, it was intended to give people a sense of what they should do and how to behave.

personally i think there are a great deal of literal passages which, even though they are literal, can be applied to more than the scope of their discussion. there is a passage, in Romans 14 i believe, where the bible discusses "discrepancy". it says who cares if you're a vegetarian and i'm not, who cares if you drink and i don't.... who cares about these little details that don't matter as long as we understand the message and meaning set forth by God and his disciples.

if God wants to be clear about something, he does. Thou shalt not kill. that's pretty clear. He doesn't always make everything crystal clear because, given a handbook detailing our entire lives with instructions would make us all robotic clones of each other and we wouldn't need to interact and be companions of one another and get to know God. we wouldn't need faith, nor prayer, and God doesn't want that. He wants to know us, and wants us to know him. these are what i believe in. your thoughts may differ and (according to Romans 14) that's ok by me.

 

[Jon Snow]

i'm not arguing that it's perfect.

Good.

it was intended to give people a sense of what they should do and how to behave.

Yes, but here the Bible also seems to be quite inconsistent. God says thou shalt not kill but if you tally up the people he killed it's over one million in the Old Testament. He ordered the Hebrews to kill many other tribes including their women, young children, and animals. This is not a God I will respect or worship.

Here are a few more contradictions

Deuteronomy 5:9.10. I the eternal your god, punish children for the sins of their fathers.

This contradicts: Deuteronomy 24:16. Children will not be punished for the sins of their father.

Deuteronomy 23:1. No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included among the Lord's people.

This contradicts: Isaiah 56:3. A castrated man should never think that because he cannot have children, he can never be part of God's people

Here are plenty more: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all

Plus The Bible condones slavery. Colossians 3:22. Slaves obey your human masters in all things. Is one of many verses in support of slavery.

II Kings
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

So two bears came out of the woods and mauled the kids for making fun of a bald guy. What's the religious truth to be gained from this?

Here is a site that has compiled other Bible cruelties and absurdities.
http://markhumphrys.com/bible.html

Also, if you're interested. Read 'The Age of Reason' by Thomas Paine.

 

[Kenneth R.]

glad you brought those up.

God says that we humans should not kill each other. He does not include himself in this, though as a benevolent God i trust that he will not kill without good reason, whether i understand that reason or not.

As for the children quote, again its a difference between the charge of men and the words of God. we are not to do such, because he will if necessary. it goes along with "God will give me Justice" instead of seeking revenge ourselves.

I'm not sure what to make of the castration quotes.

As for the slavery one, again this is a good example. In those days, they needed this word "slavery" in that verse to descibe what those who were slaves following Christ should do in their situation. now our society no longer tolerates slavery, and the verse can be applied to those in service, as a slave to a master. in this sense, that verse can be applied to those who work for another, like a boss or superior officer, etc. It means to serve, no matter your job, with honor and without complaint (continues the rest of that verse) in so that no matter how good or bad your job may be, your work shows the Glory of God and you serve with joy or gratitude. basically, even if you don't like your job, do your very best.

the reason for that is, we Christians do care what others see in us in regarding Christianity. it would be a bad example if someone saw me and said "wow, look at him, he is so disorganized and such a lazy worker, all Christians must be that way". It would be much better if someone said "wow, he works so hard and so cheerful about it never complaining. he has such skill, i wonder if it is common that Christians are so seemingly good at this". generally, it's just that we want to portray ourselves and our faith in a way that looks attractive to others (this is in the bible, and it uses the word "attractive" itself, though i can't remember where). we are to show outwardly our joy in Christianity and defend it and clarify anything that descibes it wrongly. this is not to say that we're to run around shoving it down people's throats. i wholly disagree with that idea.

as for the Kings quote, i'd assume it means don't ridicule your peers on their appearance. note that whatever punishment was handed out was done by God's influence. i'm not so sure about the use of the word "curse". that doesn't seem like it fits.