Why does it seem the SL population hates Christians?

For an much as I disagree with Lewis, I will agree with him here.

In all my dealings and disagreements with Lewis - I don't think he's going to hell. I think he's a good guy, just misguided. If he saw a person bleeding to death on the side of the street, I can guarantee you he's dial 9-1-1 (oh wait, that's a lie... he's in the UK... that would be 9-9-9). Lewis is by no means an evil person, in my opinion - just misguided.

Lewis has never backed down from his beliefs, and that's worth something. As much as I disagree with his evangelical nature, I'll fight just as quickly to protect his right to believe as such. Every time I'll challenge him, I'll challenge any one who tries to deny his right to believe as he sees fit.

BTW: I think Maury Povich's show on TV is a great way to boost your ego.

BTW: ALL HAIL XENU!

Regards,

-Flip

In a speech to a group of youth pastors about 6 months ago, this is part of what my son (an apprentice youth pastor) said.....

If I'm right yippee, If I'm wrong, oh well then what have I lost? I've had a good time and helped the world on my way.

If a man is a good man and a noble man but his beliefs are contrary to my own, it doesn't make him less in my eyes. If I walk away from him because we disagree, I've only denied myself the chance to know a good man.

I don't believe in anything. Why must there be a reason for existance? Can't we just wing it?

That could be the reason for existance right there. Maybe we were let loose in this universe to find our own way?

What i have gathered from this thread is that there is no original bible. Just books from different places put together as time went on? I need hard facts before id go believing anything. And reading a bunch of mixed words wont help.

Here's a blasphemous idea. What parent doesn't want to see thier children grow and eventually exceed them? What if we were created to grow and evolve and eventually become gods ourselves? With the infinite universes there's more than enough room for several billion gods to cut out a niche and start the process all over again.

wow....


I would sure hate to live in a universe where George W. Bush was God!

oh...wait....

That might have been the plan to start out with. After all Humanity has evolved since the day that book was written. We have learned new things about ourselves and the universe. One day we might be able to find our own planet with people like how we used to be and teach them. That would make us gods woudlnt it? Atleast to them.

You lose obviously all you gave up to follow the religion. For instance, if your religion says sex outside marriage is bad, and you passed on an opportunity because of your religion, and it turns out there's nothing after death, then you lost a chance to have sex.

If it happens that you fully agree with the religion and never felt a need to do something your religion forbids, then you wouldn't lose anything at all. But I don't think there's a lot of people like that.

Now the "helped the world on my way" is more debatable. For instance, IMO, the protests in Spain against gay marriage did absolutely nothing to "help the world". Curiously they protested furiously for a while, now calmed down, and we still have gay marriage.

IMO, even if you got the original you still have a really big problem: How to interpret a non-factual story.

For instance, if I say: "Pure water has the formula H2O", then that's a factual statement that can be easily verified. Its essence will hold 3000 years in the future. Perhaps by then it will be wrong (although I doubt it), but I'm fairly sure everybody will still agree on what was meant.

On the other hand, prose is really hard to analyze. For instance, in spanish school, Don Quixote eventually comes up. Part of what is discussed is that in each age it was interpreted differently! I quote from Wikipedia, for example:



You'd have exactly this problem with the bible, IMO. Even if you were to get the original and be able to understand it, that still won't give you knowledge of the intention of its authors. Just like with Don Quixote, I don't think nobody will ever know the exact idea the authors had in mind even when the original was released.

Whoever wrote the original book, must be very upset, everyone that republishes it changes a bit, imagine how much it had been changed in the last 3k years.

Can my Spanish partner and I come live with you?

Hahaha, no

For 3 reasons in no particular order:

I live with my parents, and there's no extra room
I don't know at all who you are
I'm trying very hard to ignore the existence of RL, and that'd kind of interfere with it

yah. Suicide bombers have the whole faith thing down pat!

umm...I empathize with the OP because, although I never try to tell people what they should or shouldn't eat, the minute someone finds out I am a vegetarian, they ASSUME I will be self-righteous with them so they jump on the offensive and start asking me to justify my dietary choices. It is very odd, but happens frequently and has happened among various cultures and decades. (yup, been one for almost 15 years!)

I confess when I see anyone list his or her religion in SL, I feel a little nervous around the person, afraid I may offend him or her with my earthy humour or belief in string theory or who knows what. That said, just like the whole thing about being vegetarian, it is true that people make assumptions by how we identify ourselves. I know that people think, for example, that when I say I am vegetarian that means I am self-righteous, that when I say I am feminist I mean I hate men, and that when I say I am bisexual that I really mean I am desperate for sex and wanna do you right now. (This latter issue has led to some really painful moments as I am bi, alright, but monogamous and picky.)

All of these are way different than the labels as I apply them, but who's to account for other people's connotations? I hope that by being pointedly unconcerned with other's steak-gnawing, they may some day realize that vegetarian doesn't = self-righteous and so on. I figure my behaviour will walk the walk and then they'll understand what I mean when I talk the talk.

Perhaps as you continue to exude a brotherly attitude (not putting them in the roles of enemies, but differently-oriented planet-cohabitors with interpersonal skills issues) then maybe they will come around and realize that christian doesn't = someone willing to kill other people, disrespect other faiths, and confiscate resources in the name of Christ.

Typically, translators of Biblical text will attempt to go as far back as they can when writing a translation. And although we don't have the original texts, we do at least have a fairly good supply of older copies, and can compare them with later copies as well.

However, intent and usage of language is something which isn't always as clear-cut as you would want, which is where one would seek out some context in order to make a best guess, and I suspect you can get very close to original intent using good translation skills. Old Testament copyists tended to be rather meticulous in their copy methods from what I understand.

That doesn't guarantee all translations are good translations, since some translations may have an agenda hidden withion their pages. It also doesn't prove the concept of divine inspiration of the original document (the idea that it is God somehow communicating via the works of men in direct inspiration). The latter you either take as truth or fiction, much like you have to take any Christian belief in all practicality.

Another thing that's been bugging me is someone posting on St Paul introducing a Pharasaical interpretation through Christianity. If anything, Paul emphasized salvation by grace, and freedom from the contraints of the Law, and opposed the Judaizers who wished to apply a legalistic standard to the Christian faith. See what Paul writes concerning the circumcision of Gentile believers. Not typical of someone who came out of a Pharisee culture. If anything, those who would hold to a works-based faith would tend more often to quote James, who said "faith without works is dead".

And in context, James is talking of works following after faith, rather than leading to faith.

Well, suppose you wanted to read the very first books, such as Genesis. You would need to learn Aramaic, which is the ancestor of Hebrew (at least one of them anyway), and you would have to learn a great deal about how society operated in those times to even begin to fathom what the original author was talking about. So many nuances are lost simply from translating between one contemporary language to another - say, Spanish to English - the flow of the words, elysion and liaison, veiled (and to us completely invisible) references to the spirit of the time (the "zeitgeist", and so forth.

To say nothing of the very real possibility - and here I will talk about bicameral theory, which is not accepted globally, but which I think is probably mostly or completely correct - that some of the bible was written during a time in human psycho-history in which humans did not posess a self, and were thus devoid of higher-order consciousness; it is quite possible that they didn't have what we call the "I," and that the height of their "consciousness" consisted of mere dumb automaticity, similar to the way we handle tasks like moving our fingers to various keys on a keyboard, operating our legs while walking, and applying pressure to a gas pedal while driving. On top of that, social control was made possible by hallucinations, very similar to what modern schizophrenics experience. So, when Moses went into the mountains and had a conversation with a burning bush, he may actually have perceived that the bush was talking to him, just as a schizophrenic might hallucinate admonitions from some stranger who isn't really there.

It's not outrageous to suppose, then, that you'd be looking at reading many thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of pages just to prepare to read the original manuscripts, to say nothing of learning Aramaic. It would be a major task and you'd become a lot smarter in some ways just for doing it.

Bicameral theory holds that people originally hallucinated commands from the dominant man in town - basically a God-King - and from anyone else who was in a dominance role over that person (for example, one's parents.) This would be fairly straightforward - things like, "Build a dam," "mill this flour," "make this hand axe sharper," and so forth. (Nothing too heavy on philosophy - just straightforward subjects as were necessary to go about their simple lives.)

These hallucinations were brought about by novel situations - in other words, the same sort of happenstance that suddenly brings a modern human's conscious attention onto a specific subject. In the ancient mind, not knowing what to do next, or forgetting what one was supposed to be doing, or encountering an enemy, or any other adversity - however slight - would cause the right hemisphere (or left hemisphere, in left-handed people), which is chiefly responsible for abstractions, pattern matching, and other "big picture" functions, to synthesize available information into some kind of solution for the problem, and then send it over the anterior commissure to the other hemisphere (the logical, analytical, language-generating one) in the form of these hallucinations. The physiological possibility of this even happening has been borne out by stimulating the right hemisphere, right around where the speech center would be if it was the left (Wernicke's area), in neurosurgery patients, and asking them what they perceived. Sure enough, they hallucinated that people were talking to them!

So, in ancient times, it would seem that belief in Gods would be VERY easy, BECAUSE THEY WOULD TALK TO YOU DIRECTLY. Or so you would perceive.

More information on Wikipedia: Bicameralism (psychology)

This is basically Pascal's Wager. The trouble is that if some other religion is right, and not his, then he has not made the proper obiesancies and will dwell in eternal torment, or come back as a newt, or whatever. Although, I agree with him in spirit - if he is kind-hearted and helpful to others, I don't think it matters whether there is a religious subtext or not. However, it pains me that people become very pious and give up things like sex because they believe it will make God like them better.

The good news is, your not in charge and I can take part no matter what anyone says.

Is it that each time, you all have to dig up my past to make my point mute? My god, I am on your side in this one and you all still attack me.

No I will still post as normal.

I hear what you're saying and it's not an invalid arguement. But I'm quoting a young man who feels the power of his convictions and the feeling of accomplishment he has in using his inner strength to hold him against temptations is a higher emotional high than the temptation itself. (His words again) Also a man who actually doesn't believe homosexuality is against the bible's teachings but that judging others is. He is for legalizing gay unions and recently argued against a group of parents in his church who wanted to kick a lesbian girl out of the youth group. He's a unique person.

While he and I actuallly disagree on the concepts of religion and I have no clue how he ended up the way he is (hahah) I respect the KIND of pastor and man that he is. My point in quoting him was just to say that it isn't necessary to try so hard to convince each other that "my way is right and yours is wrong" but rather to just enjoy the differences in each other and enjoy the debate without judging the value of the person you're debating with.
He knows he's never going to get me to go to church every sunday (unless I just want to hear him speak), but he's not going to respect me any less for it.

Aww, you know it was just a rhetorical question. But, based on what I've heard about the housing market in Barcelona, we have a lot of penny-saving to do.

Ahhh but now if he were here he would tell you that won't help you. You can follow the "rules" all you want, but if you're doing it to make God "like you better" you're wasting your time. He would tell you that his God loves the sinner and the saint equally, that doing what is right based on what you believe is simply about doing it not about doing it to please God. He would say that if he gives a man a sandwich he's not doing it because God is watching, he's doing it because he's hoping the guy will eat the sandwich. If he resists the temptation to sleep with any of his girlfriends it's not because his God is watching, its because he believes in standing by his convictions and gets satisfaction from it. And he'll be the first to tell you he has failed and believes everyone does, no one can be perfect and follow all the rules all the time. (hehe believe me i've had these round and round debates with him, i know his answers)


Oh and pious, not so much a word I'd use to describe the youth pastor group my son is in.... these guys watch wrestling and play poker in my living room (with cookies, they say its so that its not gambling but also admit its because they're perpetually poor and my cookies are free) and my son has a collection of zombie movies going back to the black and white era. I see them as having a balance.

oh hanks
but i am still a Heretic!

Hey Flip, imagine you are part of a tribal community for a moment. Forget about following these particular rules, but imagine that there is someone who refuses to follow certain rules of the community. How would you feel about the threat that person brings upon the community...threat of disease, betrayal, war, etc.

Imagine you live among a small tribal community and some refuse to cooperate. How can your tribe survive ongoing threats when there is division among you?

Don't think about adhereing to specific rules/laws, but consider the consequences of not cooperating with the community in general.

Do you now have a different perspective on religious thoughts? You dont have to agree with any dogma, theology, creeds, or rules, but you do need to understand that a community requires that its members cooperate. A sign of cooperation is adherence to the rules, laws, and traditions of the group.

Perhaps some of the laws/rules you quoted seem ridiculous today, but that's because you havent considered the importance of notions of 'cleanliness', 'trust', and 'cooperation' that were critical to the communities that passed on these ideas.

Lets make it simple: What came first RELIGION or MAN? Neither. RELGION defines the human condition. We did not create religion to impose order on ourselves and our world. Rather, religion is the essence of what it is to be human. Religion defines the human condition.

Christ is a representation of the human condition and the way we interact with the world. Christ is a story told like so many myths. Christ is relevent and important to all of our lives, whether you beleive he really existed, really was the son of god, or NOT. Either way, Christ is still relevent.

I can live without proselytization. I can also live with institutions that seek to command its followers and demand actions to save their souls. I don't beleive in Heaven or Hell. I dont beleive Jesus ever existed, but I beleive that the story of Jesus is compelling and meaningful.

Jesus saved me.

Personal opinion: a REALLY good, thoughtful book on this subject is The End of Faith.

It's easy to think to yourself, "Well, it really doesn't matter what other people believe as long as they don't try to push it on me," but the book calls even that into question, and in a very compelling way.

I'm not even sure it's right (or even moral) to say that anymore. It's extremely unpopular to say this, but maybe people NEED to be held more accountable for their unjustified beliefs. Not that they should go to jail or anything like that, but should such people really be trusted to make rational decisions in positions of high responsibility? Would we knowingly (emphasis on KNOWINGLY ... lol) let a delusional person assume a position of political office?

It's not so different.

In other words, sure, you can believe anything you want. I, however, reserve the right to view you with not much more respect than I would have for a person claiming to be a dragon and a wizard or something if you insist on believing things for which you have no real evidence.