ChieftheCef
Active Member
How can you tell it is what they did if you haven't seen it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we change our mind about what we believe?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
ChieftheCef
Active Member
If it is beneficial why were you afraid to say how it is beneficial? How is it beneficial? How has this evidence been verified?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I can tell what they did by what has been written about them.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I cannot list all the benefits.
In short, it is beneficial since it is beneficial to follow what has been revealed by God, since God knows what is best for humans.
I am not sure what evidence you are referring to.
ChieftheCef
Active Member
But God has shown time and time again that he is incompetent, showing us that he's made by man. For instance did you know that till farming is inherently harmful to the ecosystem. I can explain if you like. Or even the fact that if you do not ejaculate often you get prostate cancer. Antifun is more harmful than too much fun, mostly. If you don't have fun, you make it.
How do you know it's true?
ChieftheCef
Active Member
But how can you know the book wasn't fabricated? Surely you must know of some way it's been verified.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How has God shown that He is incompetent?
How is that related to God being incompetent?
How do I know that what is true?
ChieftheCef
Active Member
You're playing dumb. It's exactly as I said.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Truth is distinct from falsehood!
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I believe that at least some of the stories in the Bible were fabricated, and we do not know who the biblical authors were.
By contrast, the Writings of Baha'u'llah have been authenticated by handwriting analysis, so we know who wrote them.
However, there is no way to verify that any holy books came from God. That is a matter of belief.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
With regard to:
How has God shown that He is incompetent?
How is that related to God being incompetent?
I am playing, but I am not playing dumb, since I know why you think God is incompetent.
I just wanted you to elaborate on that.
With regard to:
How do I know that what is true?
Are you asking how I know my religion is true?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Which is exactly what you are doing in your last post -
"That makes no sense..
Did Adam know that he was told not to? Yes."
Treating the story as if it's real.
Did I not say it's just re-worked Mesopotamian mythology?
I am familiar and it's equally as mythic and fictional. At least they got rid of original sin. Angels, gods, people made from dust, trees of immortality, are things from fiction.
This version does have Eden in a celestial realm where it is supposed to be because God sends them to earth after they eat from the tree. The story writer somehow forgot that Adam did eat the fruit so he should be immortal.
Humans did not start with one man in one place and it is clear that we evolved from the line of hominids as we have the same biology as great apes, morphologically, behaviorally and genetically we are great apes.
Of course Jinns were added and didn't exist in fiction in early Israel but were part of fiction in Arab countries and what do you know, now Jinns appear. Religious syncretism.
You really should update your understanding with reality. Relatively recent.
joelr
Well-Known Member
I don't think details and facts matter to them anymore?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
They are NOT fiction, just because you say so..
"people made from dust" is not to be taken literally .. but as in "made of physical material",
as opposed to angels being made of light, and jinn of smokeless fire.
HOW G-d created everything is beyond the scope of Scripture .. these texts are not scientific treatise.
..and whether the "tree" was a literal tree or not, changes nothing .. the concept is still meaningful.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Sigh.
When ever did I say they were fiction "because I said so"?????
The stories are re-workings of older stories, contain absurd happenings that have never happened or been demonstrated at least, were ancient peoples version of science and simply made up the same way the Greek stories about Zeus and those deities were?
It's also taught at all university when studying history:
These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs, used in classes
John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”
The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”
Not literal? In a celestial realm, above earth, with angels flying around, a God, a tree of immortality, Adam lives 700 years.
It's FICTION. The entire story isn't literal, including god. It's a myth.
This is the same fiction as Zeus and Inanna, just different names.
"The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh. "
Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD
Beings of light and fire. Yeah that's real.
It was beyond the scope of scripture because it was beyond the scope of human imagination.
It isn't just beyond science, it isn't even beyond science. It's just ancient humans being completely wrong and applying mythic concepts.
Modern fundamentalists look for any connection to reality so they don't have to face facts.
But there are hundreds of creation stories, all as wrong and you can force connections with any of them. The cosmic waters and chaos origin was very common. Is it a coincidence creation stories tend to be the most similar to the surrounding nations and time period. Even though one of them you claim is from a deity?
So the others which were guesses were as good? I think they are all fiction.
List of creation myths - Wikipedia
And the god and angels, celestial realm, talking deity, satan, all metaphor. The entire story is a metaphor, as is most mythology.
When you have evidence let me know. Right now those are Mesopotamian tales with a Canaanite deity who the Israelites took on. His consort Ashera didn't make the final cut. But her figurines, thousands of them are still found at temple sites that pre-date the Persian era in Jerusalem.
Mythology does have meaning, that is it's point. Maybe Campbell knows the meaning?
Moyers: Genesis 1: ''And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.'' Campbell: And from the Upanishads: ''Then he realized, I indeed, I am this creation, for I have poured it forth from myself. In that way he became this creation. Verily, he who knows this become in this creation a creator.''
That is the clincher there. When you know this, then you have identified with the creative principle, which is the God power in the world, which means in you. It is beautiful. (p. 45) Moyers: But Genesis continues: ''Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?'' The man said, ''The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.'' Then the Lord God said to the woman, ''What is this that you have done?'' The woman said, ''The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.''
You talk about buck passing, it starts very early.
Campbell: Yes, it has been tough on serpents. The Bassari legend from West Africa continues in the same way. ''One day Snake said, 'We too should eat these fruits. Why must we go hungry?' Antelope said, 'But we don't know anything about this fruit.' The Man and his wife took some of the fruit and ate it. Unumbotte came down from the sky and asked, 'Who ate the fruit?' They answered, 'We did.' Unumbotte asked, 'Who told you that you could eat that fruit' They replied, 'Snake did,' '' It is very much the same story.
Moyers: What do you make of it— that in these two stories the principal actors point to someone else as the initiator of the Fall?
Campbell: Yes, but it turns out to be the snake. In both of these stories the snake is the symbol of life throwing off the past and continuing to live.
Moyes: Why?
Campbell: The power of life causes the snake to shed its skin, just as the moon sheds its shadow. The serpent sheds its skin to be born again, as the moon its shadow to be born again. They are equivalent symbols. Sometimes the serpent is represented as a circle eating its own tail. That's an image of life. Life sheds one generation after another, to be born again. There is something tremendously terrifying about life when you look at it that way. And so the serpent carries in itself the sense of both fascination and the terror of life.
Furthermore, the serpent represents the primary function of life, mainly eating. Life consists in eating other creatures. The serpent is a traveling alimentary canal, that's about all it is. And it gives you that primary sense of shock, of life in its most primal quality. There is not arguing with that animal at all. Life lives by killing and eating itself, casting off death and being reborn, like the moon. This is one of the mysteries that these symbolic, paradoxical forms try to represent.
Moyers: In the Christian story the serpent is the seducer.
Campbell: That amounts to a refusal to affirm life. In the biblical tradition we have inherited, life is corrupt, and every natural impulse is sinful unless it has been circumcised or baptized. The serpent was the one who brought sin into the world. And the woman was the one who handed the apple to man. This identification of the woman with sin, of the serpent with sin, and thus of life with sin, is the twist that has been given to the whole story in the biblical myth and doctrine of the Fall.
Microsoft Word - Adam and Eve Campbell Text.doc
Moyers: What is the myth of Adam and Eve trying to tell us about the pairs of opposites? What is the meaning?
Campbell: It started with the sin, you see—in other words, moving out of the mythological dreamtime zone of the Garden of Paradise, where there is no time, and where man and women don't even know that they are different from each other. The two are just creatures. God and man are practically the same. God walks in the cool of the evening in the garden where they are. And then they eat the apple, the knowledge of the opposites. And when they discover they are different, the man and women cover their shame. You see, they had not thought of themselves as opposites. Male and female is one opposition. Another opposition is the human and God. God and evil is a third opposition. The primary oppositions are the sexual and that between human beings and God. Then comes the idea of good and evil in the world. And so Adam and Eve have thrown themselves out of the Garden of Timeless Unity, you might say, just by that act of recognizing duality. To move out into the world, you have to act in terms of pairs of opposites.
Out of one comes two. All things in the field of time are pairs of opposites. So this is the shift of consciousness from the consciousness of identity to the consciousness of participation in duality. And then you are into the field of time.
Moyers: Is the story trying to tell us that, prior to what happened in this Garden to destroy us, there was a unity of life?
Campbell: It's a matter of planes of consciousness. It doesn't have to do with anything that happened. There is the place of consciousness where you can identify yourself with that which transcends pairs of opposites.
sfs
People made from Dust" indeed is to be ... and was taken literally .. but it is clear that you don't have an understanding of the story.
The "Clay" = Earth = Earthling .. modern people were made from primitive earthlings according to the Sumerians living in 2500 BC around the time when Pyramids were being built.
People came from the sky (looked on as Gods - called annunaki) and were mining the earth .. but the work was hard and the workers revolted. The solution was to create a hybrid being . They impregnated 14 annunaki women with 7 male and 7 female .. and that is how the Adamu came to be.
Whether the tree was literal tree or not changes a whole lot friend .. and the "knowledge" that the Serpent in the Garden is a God .... the "Serpent" being that Old Dragon ... the Primordial one of Chaos .. known to the Sumerians as Tiamat.
My experience has been that it is preferred to follow what one's own reasoning and moral faculties reveal over the opinions of others including (and especially) those who write in the name of an alleged god. There are an awful lot of people like me living satisfying lives without a god belief or a religion, and a lot that are tormented by their religious beliefs and living unnatural lives trying to accommodate them.
I've told you about my hospice experience. Many of the faithful are terrified at death, not comforted. Many refuse pain medication because they feel that their lives have failed to meet some standard by which they are about to be judged and they are afraid and have been taught that pain is purifying. And this is undoubtedly how they lived their lives - in fear of death and judgment and feeling inadequate.
The atheistic humanist knows nothing about that. He may fear dying, although many are quite comfortable with the idea of being mortal and consciousness being extinguished at death. And if he has been true to his moral precepts and they are beneficent, he lives and dies content.
So why do you recommend otherwise? Why do you recommend taking instruction from holy books instead? What do you say to those who have found happiness without religions or holy books?
First, he allegedly created angels that rebelled against him. Then he unleashed them on earth unreformed. Then he created man and eventually regretted what he had done. Then he tried to correct that by drowning most of the earth and repopulating it with the same breeding stock. We are also told that this god wants to be known, understood, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped, but has been ineffectual at all of that. And the holy books said to be authored by "God" are rife with error, imprecise language, and internal contradiction.
Yes, unconfirmed belief, which is what faith is. You also say that you have evidence that holy books come from God, but in the end, what you describe is that you and all other believers believe in "God" by faith. If so, I agree, but disagree that what is being called evidence for God has anything to do with arriving at that belief.
That's your larger point? I don't dispute that. Unfortunately, the word faith is used to mean both justified and unjustified belief. Justified belief is "faith" that one's car will start today based in experience. We all have such beliefs and describes most of what we consider experiential knowledge.
Religious faith is unjustified belief, and I agree that this kind of thinking is found outside of religion as well. It's why we see climate denial, election integrity denial, and vaccine efficacy denial (I heard somebody call Covid itself a hoax this week).
So what do history texts have to do with that point? Are you claiming that they are believed by faith, and if so, did you mean justified belief or unjustified belief, and also, why did you want to make that point about history texts? I can't help but feel that you haven't addressed where you're really going or what motivates you to post these things, which is almost certainly in support of some religious belief.
Maybe you don't understand what critical thinking is. It is a skill that can be mastered with training and practice and has been by millions. It's all around you. And it is quite effective at identifying correct claims, incorrect claims, insufficiently supported claims, and unfalsifiable claims, which allows one to believe only demonstrably correct ideas and avoid wrong and meaningless ones.
Nor should they.
Isn't this a little black-and-white/all-or-none of you? That isn't what I described. Belief isn't a yes-or-no proposition for a critical thinker. For starters, belief is always tentative, that is less than certain. There is always at least philosophical doubt, and some ideas are believed more than others. Some are considered probably correct, some very likely correct, and some almost certainly correct.
They were intended to describe the history of the world from its inception and how it works today, which is what science does, only through observation and testing rather than pure speculation.
Not because you say so. Given human nature, it's likely that in most times and places since those words were written, what you wrote would be considered blasphemy. You have no valid reason to say that the words weren't intended or believed literally. You believe that that never happened as do I, but that's modern thinking based in knowledge not available to the ancients or through the Middle Ages - people who didn't know where the rain came from or why we have seasons. They also had no idea what people were made from or made of.
ChieftheCef
Active Member
Hand writing analysis? That doesn't determine if something's true!
Then why do you believe that?
ChieftheCef
Active Member
You're implying the meaning is what makes god true, and that's not the case. That is a silliness you have because it's kinda cool "oh I find meaning in the scriptures so god is true". It's dangerous mistruth.
Say this slowly
Thus the imam's speech is metaphorical, not literal.
Muhammad did not ride to the moon on a donkey, though he did murder and rape many thousands upon hundreds of thousands of people who were otherwise trying to get along in their society.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the devil does get punished in the end.