Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Old Testament... Which is basically just giving context to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In a way, the Old Testament is supposed to make you say, "oh i'm glad it's not like that any more," because although God still has reason to punish us, he forgives us instead.

By that logic, the Ten Commandments aren't needed anymore, because they're only found in their full form in the Old Testament (twice, slightly different each time).

Plus, according to the tenets of the New Testament, God has sent the majority of the people who have ever lived to Hell (and all the Neanderthals, presumably) for not believing in Him - at least the Old Testament didn't have Hell so I can't really say "oh I'm glad it's not like that anymore".

IMO, the God of the New Testament is even more jealous (God's own description of himself as per the 3rd commandment) than the God of the Old Testament for that reason, at least when you die a Jew, you aren't then sent to an *eternity* in a pit of fire if you transgressed one of God's rules.

It is indeed symbolic that Moses "slaughters" 3000 of his own followers. They weren't really his followers, they worshiped a golden calf.

It's arguable that the calf was an idol representing God; that the Hebrews weren't worshipping the golden calf as a concrete deity, as it was made as a tangible representation of their Hebrew God.
The worshipers of the calf included Moses' own brother (who did not get slaughtered by Moses when he came down the mountain, because nepotism).

So anyway, the very first thing that Moses does after being given the Ten Commandments (which includes "Do Not Murder") is murder 3000 of his own people, and God's okay with it (actually God wants to kill ALL the Hebrews but Moses talks him out of it).

What kind of symbology is that, murdering people for transgressing a rule they hadn't been told about yet?

And it would be ridiculous to see Noah's Ark and the flood as anything but symbolic. Not to say that these events did not happen historically...

Even giving a remote credence (as you seem to) to those events happening historically is as you begin by noting: ridiculous.

... but their inclusion in the Bible is due to more than just a want to record history.

Noah's Ark is in the bible because the early Hebrews appropriated the Babylonian myth of utnapishtim for their own folk tales.

Other than that it holds little moral message other than the same one you find in Moses murdering 3k of his own followers, or Jesus telling everyone how they're going to burn in hell for all eternity if they don't worship his dad.

Disagree?

Atheist convert to Catholicism here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind, thread is three months old.

 Manchu wrote:
Atheist convert to Catholicism here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind, thread is three months old.

It's been alive for awhile though, also was your switch to Catholicism recent or something that happened a long time ago?

There are other Muslims here? Wow. Who?

I'm an Atheist, thank God.

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm an Atheist, thank God.

Oh, the irony of that statement.
That said, I was raised Christian, but nowadays, I see myself as being "on the fence".

skink007 wrote:
I find it more difficult to disprove the existence of a God then to prove one exists. The intricacies of life at every level of scale seems to scream to me that there is no way that this happened simply by chance. I have no trouble attributing evolution to God.

The onus is not on disproving god, but on proving its existance. All of life, chemistry and physics gets on happily without one single bit of "godonium" being present. Nothing physical has ever been discovered to indicate that god exists in any way in the universe, or even that god ever existed or is required for existance in any way.

Thankfully we have moved passed the times of "established knowledge" of gods existance and the vast majority of the scientific body can now focus on how things work rather than on "where is god in all this?".

Earlier in this thread someone said that compromise is not possible with religion. That is entirely untrue. If you have true faith, it should be easy to open your mind wide enough to accept things that you at first were dead set against.

So, compromise is only possible if you believe everything you do?

One: Being an agnostic is almost like choosing immobility as a mode of transportation.

Not really. being agnostic is simply not taking a position on the existance or otherwise of a/some/all god(s). It would be more akin to not being sure on any other issue.

Atheism takes just as much if not more faith than any established religion.

Do you not believe that there is a purple unicorn orbiting the sun which controls the actions of everyone on earth through the power of galactic space dust it sprinkles out of its butt?

Then you are an anti-pruple-unicorn-butt-dust-ist and clearly have "faith" that there is no purple unicorn!

Faith is not required to not believe in something. One thing that annoys many atheists is the insistance that they have "faith" in there being no god, or "faith" in science in the same way that religious people have faith in there being a god - nothing could be further from the truth.

Two: If God is real and you believe, you win big time. If God isn't real and you believe, how much did you really lose?

But what if you believe in the wrong god (or worship him in the wrong way!?!), and the god that "actually exists" is a right git like your god apparently is according to you and others who think that if you don't sing from the appropriate hymn sheet you are going to burn for eternity or some other suitable punishment despite anything else you may have done in your life?

But if God is real and you don't believe, well then you lose, and lose big time.

Since god, as far as I am aware, doesn't exist, I think I can live with that very small chance.

However, isn't your god's love unending and for all things? Kind of hard to gel this with the idea of god throwing a tantrum because I don't believe in it and casting me out of heaven or whatever god does to non-believers in your particular brand of religion.

Faith is not required to not believe in something. One thing that annoys many atheists is the insistance that they have "faith" in there being no god, or "faith" in science in the same way that religious people have faith in there being a god - nothing could be further from the truth.

QFT.
Theists often don't seem to get that Atheism is not a positive statement of opinion (such as "there is no god") it is the absence of a statement, the null position that says "I've seen no credible evidence in favour of believing in the supernatural". It is a void which would quite happily be filled if presented with credible evidence.

Literally, A-Theism means "without gods". It does not mean "there are no gods".

As you say, if Atheism is a faith, then Aunicornism is a faith, and for that matter Asantaclausism would be a faith too.
.
.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
and for that matter Asantaclausism would be a faith too..

But Santa is real - he is in all these books! And look at all these pictures of him! You have no evidence there isn't a Santa!

skink007 wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 baxter123 wrote:
Born and raised devoutly Anglican, though I tweak it a little bit: I believe there is One God and his Son, but believe God is like what he is portrayed in the Old Testament. I also believe in a three word conduct of Courage Honour and Duty.
Though I do admit some of the stories in the Bible are outrageous, but the Bible is more symbolistic than actual reality. Jesus did exist, I also believe the Prophets, Moses and Noah etc. existed (Adam and Eve is symbolistic!).

Cheers, Bax123

So when Moses comes down the mountain, sees the Hebrews worshiping an idol (a golden calf), something that is against the Ten Commandments (that he's just received and the Hebrews don't know about them yet), is it symbolic or historical that the next thing Moses does is slaughter 3000 of his own followers for worshiping the golden calf?

And is it symbolic, or historical, that Noah built a medium sized barge and carried 5 each of all the good animals and 2 each of all the bad animals for 40 days on a globe-spanning flood?
(what about all the fishermen who already owned boats?)

Old Testament... Which is basically just giving context to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In a way, the Old Testament is supposed to make you say, "oh i'm glad it's not like that any more," because although God still has reason to punish us, he forgives us instead. It is indeed symbolic that Moses "slaughters" 3000 of his own followers. They weren't really his followers, they worshiped a golden calf. And it would be ridiculous to see Noah's Ark and the flood as anything but symbolic. Not to say that these events did not happen historically, but their inclusion in the Bible is due to more than just a want to record history.

just to put this to you.

There is evidence of a huge flood in the meditarainian area. This flood covered a lot of the land around that sea for about a month. A king was out riding one day when he say a man building a boat. but the King thought it was odd the man was building a boat inland, so when the King asked the man what he was doing, the man replied that a flood was coming, and being a farmer he wanted to save all his animals.

Now I got that off a tv program, can't remember which one, but if it is true, it could be the origin of the Noah story. Though I need to look into it more.

 necrovamp wrote:

just to put this to you.

There is evidence of a huge flood in the meditarainian area. This flood covered a lot of the land around that sea for about a month. A king was out riding one day when he say a man building a boat. but the King thought it was odd the man was building a boat inland, so when the King asked the man what he was doing, the man replied that a flood was coming, and being a farmer he wanted to save all his animals.

Now I got that off a tv program, can't remember which one, but if it is true, it could be the origin of the Noah story. Though I need to look into it more.

Or, you know, the story of the Biblical Flood could be the origin of that tale. I feel like this thread has gotten dangerously off track.

 necrovamp wrote:


just to put this to you.

There is evidence of a huge flood in the meditarainian area. ...
Now I got that off a tv program, can't remember which one, but if it is true, it could be the origin of the Noah story. Though I need to look into it more.

Well, there was a historical flood, the Zanclean Flood, which occured 5.3 million years ago. So, only about 5.2 million years before humans evolved. :-)

The Minoan eruption that destroyed the Minoan civilisation may be a better candidate for your (100% speculative?) story. The myth of Atlantis probably came from the destruction of the Minoan civilisation through a volcanically-generated tsunami.

Or, you know, the story of the Biblical Flood could be the origin of that tale.

No it couldn't because we know there wasn't a world-wide flood 4000 years ago as the bible claims.
Rather a lot of civilisations that we know were around at the time would have been destroyed by such a thing, and they weren't.

If there ever was such a flood there would be a common silt layer at the same geologic point in time all across the planet - Since the flood supposedly happened only ~4,000 years ago according to the bible, we know that there is no world-wide silt layer at that point in time (or at any point in geologic history, for that matter) to indicate a biblical flood.

We also know from the distribution of animals over the planet / the archeological record that all our animal populations did not all start out from Mt. Arrarat, a 5km high Turkish mountain where the Ark supposedly came to rest when the waters began to recede, from whence the Penguins would have had to have waddled to the South Pole and the Polar Bears ambled to the North Pole. Also the flightless birds of New Zealand would have had to have walked on water to get to New Zealand, one supposes. We also know from gene science that there is no "genetic bottleneck" that indicates every animal species on earth was whittled down to a breeding population of 2-5 individuals all at the same time.

It's fundamentally silly to give credence to the idea that biblical flood was a real historical event, to put it mildly.
.

I want to say that I have heard the "Mediterranean Flood" story as well, but I can't tell you how or when I heard it. Some History Channel thing if I remember right.

Although it might have been the Black See flood:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

 Cheesecat wrote:
was your switch to Catholicism recent or something that happened a long time ago?

Oh, I like to think of it as ongoing. But the beginnings were not what I'd call recent. It began about fourteen years ago and I was formally received into the Church seven years ago.

 Manchu wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
was your switch to Catholicism recent or something that happened a long time ago?

Oh, I like to think of it as ongoing. But the beginnings were not what I'd call recent. It began about fourteen years ago and I was formally received into the Church seven years ago.

So as a Catholic, you believe that wafer turns into literal flesh in your stomach, and wine turns into literal blood?
(the Church says that it's a literal thing that happens and is not symbolic).

Yep, I believe that, while the accidental appearances of bread and wine remain, the reality of the Eucharist is body and blood.

 Manchu wrote:
Yep, I believe that, while the accidental appearances of bread and wine remain, the reality of the Eucharist is body and blood.

Does that make you a cannibal?

Superficially, sure. But that's not what the Eucharist is actually about.

 Manchu wrote:
Superficially, sure. But that's not what the Eucharist is actually about.

I just find these kinds of things slightly strange and incomprehensible

Same here. The word I use is "mysterious."

 Manchu wrote:
Same here. The word I use is "mysterious."

International god of mystery... groovy baby

 Manchu wrote:
Yep, I believe that, while the accidental appearances of bread and wine remain, the reality of the Eucharist is body and blood.

So if you literally believe that, would you be willing to have your stomach pumped after partaking in the mystic ceremony of transubstantiation so that everybody in the world can see the chunks of flesh and human blood that are pumped back up, after you have eaten the wafer and the wine?

It is part of the Catholic faith that this transformation literally happens, it is not symbolic or metaphor - if Catholicism is the one true religion (as opposed to being a false religion, like I reckon all religions most likely are), a stomach pump should bring back up literal chunks of flesh.

Pretty easy to prove your faith is real, if you're willing to endure some minor discomfort. Just think of all the souls you'd save when lumps of flesh come back up and billions of people convert to Catholicism (heck, I would).

So what do you say, are you willing to do it?

Except the faith also states that the bread and wine retain the physical appearance of bread and wine, so pumping the stomach does nothing. It changes, and it doesn't.

If it were as easy as you said the pope would have puked on an altar a long time ago to make that point.

Exit: I don't believe in transubstantiation.

...the bread and wine retain the physical appearance of bread and wine,

If they're not different in any detectable regard, then they're just bread and wine, same as they were when they went down the hatch.

If it were as easy as you said the pope would have puked on an altar a long time ago to make that point.

Unfortunately, that sounds far too convenient to me.

If a miracle is occurring that allows millions of Catholics to be magical cannibals every week, that's a claim that requires some proof in order to be regarded as something greater than any other religion's miraculous claim.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
If they're not different in any detectable regard, then they're just bread and wine, same as they were when they went down the hatch.

"The sausages are fried, allowing the "true sausagidity" to ascend to Offler by means of smell, while the clergy eat the "earthly shell" of the sausages, which the clergy claim taste like ash, as Offler has eaten their essence."

Must be true - it is written in a book which has been read by millions of people all over the world

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not sure this thread will end well...

Do not worry, I plan to discuss politics next! I will invite all the trolls I know

And if we are using such fun descriptions as "magical canibals" then we know why we can't have rational discussions about what people believe.

I don't believe in transubstantiation either, but you don't see me mocking people who do.

 d-usa wrote:
And if we are using such fun descriptions as "magical canibals" then we know why we can't have rational discussions about what people believe.

I don't believe in transubstantiation either, but you don't see me mocking people who do.

I did actually wonder about the legal ramifications of claiming that you eat parts of an actual person - I would be very interested in how that court case would go.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
so that everybody in the world can see the chunks of flesh and human blood

Do you think the transformation happens in the stomach after consumption???

Doesn't seem like you know much about this subject ... plus I can see the chip on your shoulder pretty clearly. But whatever, I'll try to explain.

"Transubstantiation" is a philosophical theory about the True Presence of the Eucharist, namely that the bread and wine are truly body and blood. To understand the theory, you need a little background in classical thought. Aristotle taught about the difference between appearance and substance, namely that what a thing looks like is not necessarily the same thing as what a thing is. The elements of appearance are "accidental" in the sense that they do not constitute substance; if those elements were not present the thing in question would still be itself. Regarding the Eucharist, bread and wine are said to be the accidental appearances of body and blood.

No one is claiming, outside of misguided superstition, that the actual chemical composition is being changed. That is not what is meant by "literal." In the context of modern thinking, the word "literal" perhaps tends to mislead. A better word is "actual" or, as in common parlance, "true." Everyone can see the host is bread if all they use is their eyes, up to an including all the instruments designed to enhance the modern experience of vision. But so too can everyone, in light of the ritual, understand that what is going on in the Eucharist is more than eating bread.

The biggest difference between Catholics and many Protestants on this issue is that many Protestants are, in one sense or another, content with the language of symbols. They say the bread is the symbol of Jesus's body. The Church rejects this notion, basically because it renders Jesus -- whose truly human nature is paramount to Catholic theology -- himself into a mere symbol. Belief in the True Presence is therefore a central part of the Catholic faith.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I would be very interested in how that court case would go

Well, in order to have that case we'd need cops and prosecutors ignorant enough to conflate the Eucharist with the actual criminal act of cannibalism.

Do you think the transformation happens in the stomach after consumption???

I'm an existentialist, so if you can't show me any sort of proof, then I don't think it happens at all.

If bread goes in, and bread comes back out, then it was just bread all along - Jesus didn't let you eat a bit of his sinew, and Mithras didn't either.

"Transubstantiation" is a philosophical theory...

Theological theory. BIG difference.

A better word is "actual" or, as in common parlance, "true."

So Jesus didn't change the bread into wine, he changed himself into trillions of chunks of bread across a couple thousand years, and his blood into trillions of sips of wine for the same period of time.

I can see how that makes more sense to you.



So anyway, are all the Neanderthals in Hell?