DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on May 10, 2008, 04:38:53 AM
-
Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes .
http://www.thegodmovie.com/?gclid=CMf-4cm0m5MCFQGsGgodEUchwQ
Can't get better news than that now can ya?
WE are attracting some interestiong ads , I kinda like it , it is another interesting feature.
-
Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes .
==================================================
What are the odds of this?
Even if one assumes that Jesus is returning, why now? Why not during the religious wars when Islam spread all over the Middle East and North Africa? Why not during the Protests vs. Catholic wars after the Renaissance?
I think people believe this because they have no historical perspective.
Jesus claimed that he would return before the last of the Apostles died. Hey they are all dead by now, aren't they? Has anyone seen a two thousand-year-old apostle?
I am sure that in ages past, the percentage of people who were expecting the Second coming (or would it be the Third: he did return after the crucifixion and then again after thaT?) were much higher than 44%.
-
Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes .
==================================================
What are the odds of this?
Even if one assumes that Jesus is returning, why now? Why not during the religious wars when Islam spread all over the Middle East and North Africa? Why not during the Protests vs. Catholic wars after the Renaissance?
I think people believe this because they have no historical perspective.
Jesus claimed that he would return before the last of the Apostles died. Hey they are all dead by now, aren't they? Has anyone seen a two thousand-year-old apostle?
I am sure that in ages past, the percentage of people who were expecting the Second coming (or would it be the Third: he did return after the crucifixion and then again after thaT?) were much higher than 44%.
The prayer for this is Maranatha! Come soon.
There are up to 56% of us who don't think the return is Immanant , but a lot of these might be Christian anyway.
I am not going to defend the statistic anyway , look where it is from.
-
What are the odds of this?
It depends on how old you are.
Even if one assumes that Jesus is returning, why now? Why not during the religious wars when Islam spread all over the Middle East and North Africa? Why not during the Protests vs. Catholic wars after the Renaissance?
Because it didn't happen. It's a pretty good bet that something that didn't happen won't happen.
I think people believe this because they have no historical perspective.
I don't think historical perspective has anything to do with it. If one assumes that Christ will return, it is going to happen on his timetable, not ours. There are an awful lot of times when people wished Jesus would come and make all things new again. Heck, you can bet that during the holocaust Jewish people were hoping the Messiah would finally make his appearance. Ahmanutjob in Iran is banking pretty heavily on the coming of the twelveth Imam (whomever that may be) and if he gets nukes Israel, the US and a lot of other folks will be looking for the return/advent of their respective dieties in short order. None of this has anything to do with the end of times (except maybe those Iranian nukes - but that is decidely un-mystical).
Jesus claimed that he would return before the last of the Apostles died. Hey they are all dead by now, aren't they? Has anyone seen a two thousand-year-old apostle?
There is WAY too much subject to interpretation to make that argument successfully.
I am sure that in ages past, the percentage of people who were expecting the Second coming (or would it be the Third: he did return after the crucifixion and then again after thaT?) were much higher than 44%.
Probably, but not necessarily. It surprises me to learn that 44% of people expect Him in their lifetimes. I guess a lot of people see signs that seem to correspond to Biblical prophesy. Look at the catastrophic floods, famines, earthquakes, wars and rumors of wars we have seen over the past years. And there is a Bible verse that talks about a great city falling in an hour and the smoke being seen by the sailors at sea. That was quoted pretty heavily on 9-11. But again, there is WAY too much that can be misinterpreted to use these "signs" as a prediction. I can see a lot of people believing it will be relatively soon. I can certainly see a large percentage of the population believing it will be eventual. But almost half the population of the US expecting Him before they die? That statistic seems extremely dubious.
Of course, if He really is coming in my lifetime, I hope it isn't before that last Harry Potter movie gets released.
-
Of course, if He really is coming in my lifetime, I hope it isn't before that last Harry Potter movie gets released.
ditto 8)
-
They're using the snopes.com people? Really? Thats the best they could do? ::)
I'd prefer to see documentaries pointing out the irrationality of religions, philosophies, etc. Something that appeals to reason. Not something that simply says God and Jesus do not and never have existed. Biblical Scholarship is full of intersting theories about Jesus of Nazareth. This movie seems to want to dissuade more than it wants to explain or dissect or compare.
"...And no philosophy, sadly, has all the answers. No matter how assured we may be about certain aspects of our belief, there are always painful inconsistencies, exceptions, and contradictions. This is true in religion as it is in politics, and is self-evident to all except fanatics and the naive. As for the fanatics, whose number is legion in our own time, we might be advised to leave them to heaven. They will not, unfortunately, do us the same courtesy. They attack us and each other, and whatever their protestations to peaceful intent, the bloody record of history makes clear that they are easily disposed to restore to the sword. My own belief in God, then, is just that -- a matter of belief, not knowledge. My respect for Jesus Christ arises from the fact that He seems to have been the most virtuous inhabitant of Planet Earth. But even well-educated Christians are frustated in their thirst for certainty about the beloved figure of Jesus because of the undeniable ambiguity of the scriptural record. Such ambiguity is not apparent to children or fanatics, but every recognized Bible scholar is perfectly aware of it. Some Christians, alas, resort to formal lying to obscure such reality." -Steve Allen
"The problem is that once the untrained mind has made a formal commitment to a religious philosophy -- and it does not matter whether that philosophy is generally reasonable and high-minded or utterly bizarre and irrational -- the powers of reason are suprisingly ineffective in changing the believer's mind." -Steve Allen
-
What one has to consider is that "Biblical scholarship" uses a different ,methodology than scientific scholarship.
Scientific scholarship starts with the most likely hypothesis and then tries to disprove it under various conditions. What is replicable is then accepted as the logical explanation, or at least a part of it.
Biblical "scholarship" starts with the premise that the scripture is true and then tries to figure out how it can be both true and logical. How could it be that Jesus said that he would return before the last of his apostles had died. Could he have meant something other than the physical death of all of them? What if one of then ascended to Heaven or something? What did Jesus mean by now every good follower would hate their parents? Maybe he just was referring to hating the way they practiced some aspects of their religion, or hating their shoe styles of something, because obviously it HAD to be Good to hate your parents because Jesus said it was the right thing to do, and being a Deity and all, He just had to be 100% right.
I think it is an easy call that every Harry Potter Book will be turned into a major motion picture before Jesus brings on the End of the World.
-
What one has to consider is that "Biblical scholarship" uses a different ,methodology than scientific scholarship.
Scientific scholarship starts with the most likely hypothesis and then tries to disprove it under various conditions. What is replicable is then accepted as the logical explanation, or at least a part of it.
Biblical "scholarship" starts with the premise that the scripture is true and then tries to figure out how it can be both true and logical.
Scientific methods in the question of evolution are exactly the same , whenever something strange turns up in nature, the Scientists involved ask "how does evolution explain this ?".
So Scientific scholarship starts with the premise that evolution is true and then tries to figure out how it can be both true and logical.No other potential explanations need apply.
-
What one has to consider is that "Biblical scholarship" uses a different ,methodology than scientific scholarship.
The problem with your ascerbic analysis is that you oversimplify your definition of Biblical scholarship and rely far too heavily on what you, personally, view as "logical" or acceptable. Like many people who disagree with a religion, philosophy or ideology, you insist that whatever you read MUST mean exactly what you would mean if you made the statement. When someone explains why your interpretation is wrong, or provides an answer to your criticism that doesn't sound "logical" to you, you insist that they are rationalizing - or simply irrational. I can easily answer your specific examples, but there is no point. This is why I do not debate doctrines. When I see you (as you frequently do) misrepresent Christianity in general, or Mormonism in specific, I am often tempted to correct you, but it is a pointelss exercise. Part of the reason is because of your admiration of the terribly limited "scientific" mindset.
Those who tout science as superior to the supernatural do so only because they cannot accept that which is beyond the easy route to observe. You have said that one cannot "know" there is a God. I do. You dismiss that as delusion or some other confusion because it is beyond your grasp. It requires far more work than a scientific analysis. With science you need only be concerned with the evidence of the physical senses. If you get burned by a stove, you feel heat. You can trust that. If you hear of a revelation from God and it isn't some wildly sensory thing like a fiery chariot or trumpets in the east, you have to worry. You worry because if it is true, something must be wrong with you for not being able to see it, or something must be "better" about those who can. In fact, neither is true. The only difference between those to whom God opens up truth beyond science and those to whom God only reveals the physical is that those with faith have learned to trust another set of senses. They require, however, more work than simple physical observation. You have to study the word of God. You have to pray, fast, listen to the still, small voice of the spirit, and actually ask for knowledge. Before you can do any of this, however, you have to accept that there is a God, and he will answer you. When you study, ask God for wisdom, and consider apparent dichotomies like the ones you have described, the answers come.
But that is not acceptable to you. I'm deluded and so are all of the other people who feel as I do. There are misinterpretations and contradictions in the Bible; there are people who believe what science says cannot be true. There is so much that the religious world and the scientific world seem to disagree about. But in fact, many who are religious revere the knowledge and truth that science gives us, and many who work in scientific fields revere the truth that God reveals to us. We don't have the running battle, those of us in that place. We are neither fundamentalists who insist the earth must be flat nor fundamatheists who insist that science proves the Bible wrong. Like didja know that the Bible says Pi = 3? What utter nonsense. It says no such thing. But some ultraliteralist who sees an apparent error of mathematical precision makes that claim. Claptrap. Those who focus on such trivialities are no more credible than the fundamentalist who insists the Sun revolves around the Earth because, dammit the Bible TELLS me so.
And anyway, you made one prediction in your post. And you are absolutely wrong. You have said that each Harry Potter book will be made into a major motion picture before the Savior comes again. Yet they have already said that they will not be making the seventh HP book into a movie, so your prophetic ability is lacking.
-
" Yet they have already said that they will not be making the seventh HP book into a movie, ..."
What?
-
" Yet they have already said that they will not be making the seventh HP book into a movie, ..."
What?
They're making it into two movies. (Ka-ching.)
My point here, of course, is that (in the words of those great philosophers Plant and Page) you know sometimes words have two meanings.
I wonder what they're going to call the second one? Harry Potter and the Cash Cow?
-
" Yet they have already said that they will not be making the seventh HP book into a movie, ..."
What?
They're making it into two movies. (Ka-ching.)
My point here, of course, is that (in the words of those great philosophers Plant and Page) you know sometimes words have two meanings.
I wonder what they're going to call the second one? Harry Potter and the Cash Cow?
Whew!...
.... I almost paniced.
-
Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing that Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes .
http://www.thegodmovie.com/?gclid=CMf-4cm0m5MCFQGsGgodEUchwQ
Can't get better news than that now can ya?
WE are attracting some interestiong ads , I kinda like it , it is another interesting feature.
It's another dime a dozen,Plane.
-
The only difference between those to whom God opens up truth beyond science and those to whom God only reveals the physical is that those with faith have learned to trust another set of senses. They require, however, more work than simple physical observation. You have to study the word of God. You have to pray, fast, listen to the still, small voice of the spirit, and actually ask for knowledge. Before you can do any of this, however, you have to accept that there is a God, and he will answer you. When you study, ask God for wisdom, and consider apparent dichotomies like the ones you have described, the answers come.
=========================================
What you are saying is essentially, that to "know" that there is a God, you must learn how to brainwash yourself. This is easiest to do if you have grown up being told every step of the way that God exists and means you well. Anything you are indoctrinated with by the age of five or so will be there in your head forever, as a stil small voice or a festering presence, depending on your point of view.
If the Bible does not say that pi=3, what DOES it say about pi? I do not recall it says 3.1459... I think it simply can be interpreted to mean that Jews, not being at that moment, really good with circular objects, had to call in outside help, and were less than effective eavesdroppers when they listened in on their Gentile architects.
It is entirely correct what I say about Biblical "study". It always begins with the premise that what in in the Holy Writ is 100% true, and
examines various ways of rationalization, historical speculation and outright self-delusion until behold! one believes.
This should not be confused with actual scholarship, which starts with as Socrates said, "the only thing I know is that I know nothing."
I continue to believe that each and every Harry Potter book will be made into some sort of film. Perhaps they will make several flicks of the last ones, just to make them last. Of course, this depends on just one entity alone: June Rawlings.
I must say, I have personally been rather unimpressed with the Harry Potter films. Though watchable, they are nowhere as good as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films. I have not read the books, so I offer no opinions about them. I do know that it is exceedingly difficult to turn 600+ pages into under 150 minutes, which is the outer limits of the endurance of the human bladder and more importantly, every movie theater manager's desire to have three showings per evening.
-
What you are saying is essentially, that to "know" that there is a God, you must learn how to brainwash yourself. This is easiest to do if you have grown up being told every step of the way that God exists and means you well. Anything you are indoctrinated with by the age of five or so will be there in your head forever, as a stil small voice or a festering presence, depending on your point of view.
No, that's what you're saying.
If the Bible does not say that pi=3, what DOES it say about pi? I do not recall it says 3.1459... I think it simply can be interpreted to mean that Jews, not being at that moment, really good with circular objects, had to call in outside help, and were less than effective eavesdroppers when they listened in on their Gentile architects.
What it says is that the writers of the Bible were not interested in mathematical precision. They didn't need to be. Few normal people obsess over the subject. I never hear a footbal announcer say "that play netted 7.68934 yards."
It is entirely correct what I say about Biblical "study". It always begins with the premise that what in in the Holy Writ is 100% true, and
examines various ways of rationalization, historical speculation and outright self-delusion until behold! one believes.
No it's not. Many Bible scholars feel that the book is an historical record of oral traditions, some of which are based on fact and some myths. Fundamentalists believe the Bible to be true word for word, with no room for interpretation (though they cannot avoid interpreting it anyway) and no allegory, symbolism or metaphor. Many other Christians leave much room for other meanings than immediate fundamentalist ideas. You, yourself, are a fundamentalist. I am not. I can read the scriptures and recognize that what YOU think a particular verse must mean is not necessarily the case. You use apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible to prove your belief that the Bible is not true and therefore all who believe in it are "brainwashed" or "deluded." I say it is you who are brainwashed. You constantly seek new ways to prove to yourself that your intellect is better than other people's faith. You can throw insulting comments at me and other believers all you want. It won't change the fact that God exists and that he reveals himself to those who seek him.
This should not be confused with actual scholarship, which starts with as Socrates said, "the only thing I know is that I know nothing."
You know nothing (to speak of) at birth. After that life experience teaches you what can be used to measure truth. Socrates' statement was metaphorical. I knew nothing, at birth, of Christ except for the light all of us are born with. As life went on, I learned more of God and eventually I learned to hear the Holy Spirit. You don't believe that, or you dismiss it as "brainwashing." That's your opinion. It is wrong. But it is convenient for you because it removes the obligation to think, study, pray and exercise faith. You can claim forever that someone else cannot "know" God, because that claim allows you to count experiences which do not match your own. But those of us who testify of his existence, intervention and ultimate love know better.
I continue to believe that each and every Harry Potter book will be made into some sort of film. Perhaps they will make several flicks of the last ones, just to make them last. Of course, this depends on just one entity alone: June Rawlings.
Do you mean J. K. Rowling or is there someone else involved in the process, like a producer or something, whose name is interestingly similar?
I must say, I have personally been rather unimpressed with the Harry Potter films. Though watchable, they are nowhere as good as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films. I have not read the books, so I offer no opinions about them. I do know that it is exceedingly difficult to turn 600+ pages into under 150 minutes, which is the outer limits of the endurance of the human bladder and more importantly, every movie theater manager's desire to have three showings per evening.
I liked the LOTR trilogy, though some of the liberties they took with the book made me pretty angry. The HP movies do leave a lot out for cinematic brevity, as you say. Most younger fans hate that Peeves the Poltergeist has never made it into any of the movies. He HAS to show up in the movie for "Deathly Hallows" - at least the last of the two, or it will be very disappointing. The books are really very good reads. I STRONGLY suggest that if you have any interest in the last several movies and don't want some pretty amazing stuff spoiled, read at least the last two books. Like Tolkien, Rowlings writing has progressed from "kid's story" style to far more dark things by the end.
-
I am not any sort of Biblical fundamentalist. I accept that Hebrews wrote the Bible according to their own observations and interests, and that as you say, some of it is myth probably passed down from oral tradition over a long period of time, and other parts document historical occurrences, seen by one or perhaps more than one individual. I fail to see how anyone can simultaneously believe that the Bible is entirely true with no allegory, symbolism or metaphor because much of it is stated by the text to be this. Was there a real Good Samaritan? Was the bit about the oil for the lamps and the virgins an actual occurrence? Or were these stories told to illustrate a point, as Buddha told?
I just don't consider the Bible to be more than a book written by people who felt they were godly.
If the actual mission of Jesus was to bring the word of God to Mankind, then it stands to reason that there should be a Book of Jesus, written by Jesus. After all, he was a rabbi of a religion that by the time he came along, revered the written word over the spoken word.
But there isn't. I am not sure what to make of this. I am thinking that the Coca-Cola company has been more successful at spreading the values (such as they are) of their expensive sugar water in the past 130 years or so than the followers of Jesus have been at spreading the word of Jesus, since more people recognize the name and symbol of Coca-Cola than those of Jesus. If Jesus were perfect, one would expect better results: nothing can beat perfection, can it? Does this mean that Jesus was less than perfect at his strategy of proselitizing that the Coca Cola Co.? Or does it simply indicate that (a) Jesus was not perfect, ot (b) not capable of a perfect advertising campaign?
=================================
Perhaps there are two Jesuses (is the Latin plural 'Jesi'?) the real one, and the one that appears in the New Testament, written a good generation or four after the assumed date of the real Jesus, and a crucial period in history during the course of which there were two expulsions of the Romans by the Jews, one that ended in the Fall of Masada in 75 CE and another by Shimon Bar Kochba, who claimed to be a Messiah, that ended in 135. It was after the latter (with its obvious message that Bar Kochba, the military messiah, was unsuccessful, while the Yeshua ben Yacob (ie Jesus) movement was perhaps successful, since Jewish Christians stayed out of that rebellion and were not dispersed as were the Jewish rebels. These days, maybe the descendants of these same people are known as "Arab Christians" to the Zionists, who dislike the term Palestinians.
===============================
Oh dear, many years ago, I taught in Washington State with a large bossy woman named June Rawlings. It seems that she has been confused in my mind with J.K. Rowling. So you are right about that, sorry. Someday, perhaps I will read her books, I imagine. At the moment, I am quite fond of Annie Proulx, who writes books that have little to do with magic of the Harry Potter sort. I read the Tolkein books way back when, all of them during a break between the end of the HS academic years and the beginning of summer school at Cheney State. I had three Herb Alpert records on the stereo and played them continuously. Even today, I hear Herb's trumpet in an elevator, and I cannot help but conjure up Legolas and Gandalf.
If the Bible does not say that pi=3, what DOES it say about pi? I do not recall it says 3.1459... I think it simply can be interpreted to mean that Jews, not being at that moment, really good with circular objects, had to call in outside help, and were less than effective eavesdroppers when they listened in on their Gentile architects.
-----------------------------------------------
What it says is that the writers of the Bible were not interested in mathematical precision. They didn't need to be. Few normal people obsess over the subject. I never hear a football announcer say "that play netted 7.68934 yards."
I hardly think that being precise involves being obsessive. I bet that if your young son asks you how much pi is, you will NOT say three. If you say 3.14159 or even 3.14, I hardly think you would consider that obsessive behavior. The word of God should at least approach perfection, simply because it claims to be the word of God.
And also, if you build a building is built on the assumption that pi=3, there is a pretty good chance that it will collapse on you. I agree that 5 decimals in a football score are of little or no consequence, because sports scores are all of no consequence after a year has passed. A miscount in sports is never fatal, is it?
I am betting that each and every architect that has ever built or ever will build a Mormon temple could tell you the value of pi to a useful decimal point, despite the fact that Mormons are less fond of circular devices (domes and arches) that others, such as Catholics. I am thinking "incompetent patriarchs" when I see this. I agree that it is of little importance, but hey, if you want to be taken seriously, you just have to be serious about matters of common knowledge.
Can you deny that it is impossible for a person to brainwash themselves to believe an untruth? Can you deny that it has been done? After all, there are many, many religions on this planet and most of them depend on faith, do they not?
There are only two possibilities: either one is correct and all the rest are not, or they are all incorrect.
I have heard people say that all religions are the same, but the fact is that any serious study will reveal that they are not, and that even sects of the same religions contradict one another.
But they all rely on faith. So you are saying that your faith in Jesus is a true faith, while Dagdish in Uttar Pradish's belief in Lord Ganesh, in which Dagdish has much faith, is a false faith. Lucky for you to have been born where you were and not in Uttar Pradesh, hunh?
What about poor Dagdish? Does not the same faith that compels you to believe also compel Dagdish to send Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesseses and Muslim proselitizers away from his door?
-
I had three Herb Alpert records on the stereo and played them continuously.
As a young teen in the days of Herb Albert and his T-Brass, I enjoyed listening to the vinyls play away on my parent's Hi-Fi. Those were festive days, in the hot summertime, while the folks entertained with neighbors and friends.
I remember wishing that I could be that girl on the cover of the album with all the whipped cream wrapped about her body. I thought that was such a delicious photo. But, of course in those days, I was in awe of the whipped cream and how it must of felt on the body. I had no clue back then that my wish to be drenched in the coolness of the cream was also man's desire for the creamy whip for the girl's hot dessert.
d'oh.
-
I remember wishing that I could be that girl on the cover of the album with all the whipped cream wrapped about her body. I thought that was such a delicious photo. But, of course in those days, I was in awe of the whipped cream and how it must of felt on the body. I had no clue back then that my wish to be drenched in the coolness of the cream was also man's desire for the creamy whip for the girl's hot dessert.
This is a side of you I have never seen, Cindy.
I think I need a cold shower . . . :D
-
(http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/A/Alpert/herbf.jpg)
The model is Dolores Erickson. She was pregnant at the time of the photo shoot. She was actually covered with shaving cream (whipped cream kept melting under the lights). The LP was released in 1965 and spent 189 weeks on the charts.
http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/A/Alpert/herb_alpert.html
-
I am not any sort of Biblical fundamentalist. I accept that Hebrews wrote the Bible according to their own observations and interests, and that as you say, some of it is myth probably passed down from oral tradition over a long period of time, and other parts document historical occurrences, seen by one or perhaps more than one individual. I fail to see how anyone can simultaneously believe that the Bible is entirely true with no allegory, symbolism or metaphor because much of it is stated by the text to be this. Was there a real Good Samaritan? Was the bit about the oil for the lamps and the virgins an actual occurrence? Or were these stories told to illustrate a point, as Buddha told?
Even fundies, I think, recognize the parables as fictional accounts intended to illustrate a point, but that's because the Bible makes that realitively clear. I was referring to other areas where there is allegory, metaphor or other figurative speech used. I do believe, for example, in creation. I do not believe it happened in 6 earth-days 6000 years ago. But I DO believe that it happened in phases, much as Genesis describes.
If the actual mission of Jesus was to bring the word of God to Mankind, then it stands to reason that there should be a Book of Jesus, written by Jesus. After all, he was a rabbi of a religion that by the time he came along, revered the written word over the spoken word.
Funny you should mention that. I was addressing a similar point today in a class I was teaching. When Cornelius (In Acts) was visited by an Angel he was told to go to Peter. When Saul saw Christ on the road to Damascus, he was sent to Ananias. Christ delegated his authority to men to administer to men. He could, of course, have written his own gospels, or simply have invented the internet and established a website. But that was not his intent. Each of the evangelists was given a mission. Each of the Apostles had a stewardship. God intends that people serve other people. He intervenes only when other people cannot. Christ had no need to write a book. His life was the book. He was the Word. It was up to men to witness of Him.
If Jesus were perfect, one would expect better results: nothing can beat perfection, can it? Does this mean that Jesus was less than perfect at his strategy of proselitizing that the Coca Cola Co.? Or does it simply indicate that (a) Jesus was not perfect, ot (b) not capable of a perfect advertising campaign?
How well people choose to accept, teach or interpret Christ is not an indication of His perfection or lack thereof. It is an indication of human imperfection. He could, of course, have forced everyone to recognize him. That would have been exactly how Lucifer planned to "win back" all of us. Free will is what Christ endorsed. The ability to choose makes the potential for bad choice, and that is an acceptable (and necessary) risk of the concept. Coca-cola is not interested in presenting a choice. They want it all. They advertise aggressively. Christ did not choose that method. They compete in a cut-throat fashion, often signing contracts prohibitting outlets that sell their product from offering a choice. Christ does not take choice from us. The analogy is not valid. They are not just different products, they are different worlds.
Oh dear, many years ago, I taught in Washington State with a large bossy woman named June Rawlings. It seems that she has been confused in my mind with J.K. Rowling. So you are right about that, sorry. Someday, perhaps I will read her books, I imagine. At the moment, I am quite fond of Annie Proulx, who writes books that have little to do with magic of the Harry Potter sort. I read the Tolkein books way back when, all of them during a break between the end of the HS academic years and the beginning of summer school at Cheney State. I had three Herb Alpert records on the stereo and played them continuously. Even today, I hear Herb's trumpet in an elevator, and I cannot help but conjure up Legolas and Gandalf.
I wasn't sharpshooting, I just wasn't sure if June Rawlings was some other important person in the mix. With all that money floating around there have got to be a lot of hands in the pie - and speaking of pie . . .
I hardly think that being precise involves being obsessive. I bet that if your young son asks you how much pi is, you will NOT say three. If you say 3.14159 or even 3.14, I hardly think you would consider that obsessive behavior. The word of God should at least approach perfection, simply because it claims to be the word of God.
As I understand the argument (I pay little attention to such silliness, but I have heard it told) the size of the baptismal font in the temple (or some such round item) was described in cubits as measuring out so that pi would have to equal exactly three for the thing to be proportionate. It's a ridiculous argument, because the Bible is not a math book. The author of the work was stating an estimate - not a precise measurement. He was trying to give a description of the temple - not a set of blueprints. I'm sure the builders were far more concerned with precision - and they probably used tools to get it round - than the average layman to whom the story is related. Like I said, I imagine it is a VERY rare occurance for a running back to get precisely three yards - or for a three-foot putt to be three feet long. Such arguments, which state that the Bible must be technically perfect in every way to be true, are ridiculous.
And also, if you build a building is built on the assumption that pi=3, there is a pretty good chance that it will collapse on you. I agree that 5 decimals in a football score are of little or no consequence, because sports scores are all of no consequence after a year has passed. A miscount in sports is never fatal, is it?
But few people, reporting for the local newspaper, are going to quote measurements accurately. I'll bet, for example, that the 9-11 memorial will not be EXACTLY 1776 feet high. It might be 1776 ft 3.253 inches high, but that's close enough. Those three inches are probably critical to the architect and builders, but few people will begrudge the round off in a news report.
Can you deny that it is impossible for a person to brainwash themselves to believe an untruth? Can you deny that it has been done? After all, there are many, many religions on this planet and most of them depend on faith, do they not?
Well, there are far too many negatives in that sentence to be absolutely certain of the meaning, but I think you're asking if I deny the possibility of brainwashing oneself into believing a falsehood. The short answer to that is, yes, people can convince themselves to believe falsehoods. But one can just as easily do that with science as with religion. You have said that nobody can "know" there is a God. That's just as much the product of "brainwashing" as anything I have seen in religion. You CAN say that YOU don't know there is a God - you cannot say that I don't. You can express the opinion, but it is no more than that. The rest of your reasoning is far too black-and-white. Every faith has some measure of truth in it. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has the fullness of the gospel, but that other faiths have a pretty good chunk of it (some more than others, but all to some extent). That includes, btw, non-Christian faiths. I also believe that there are many misinterpretations and confusions in other faiths. But if a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Zoroastrian asks for wisdom of God, he can receive it. God doesn't turn his back on you if you are not part of an exclusive club. He ministers to all of his children to the extent that they are ready to receive him. As to matters of doctrine, those are separate from the existence of God. When poor little Apu turns away the missionaries at his door, he is making a mistake. But that does not mean his experience with God is false. It may well be true, he just hasn't received it all yet. A person can know there is a God, irrespective of his personal religious belief. Whether or not that knowledge leads to an understanding of the fullness of the gospel in this lifetime, is up to the believer and God.
-
I remember wishing that I could be that girl on the cover of the album with all the whipped cream wrapped about her body. I thought that was such a delicious photo. But, of course in those days, I was in awe of the whipped cream and how it must of felt on the body. I had no clue back then that my wish to be drenched in the coolness of the cream was also man's desire for the creamy whip for the girl's hot dessert.
This is a side of you I have never seen, Cindy.
I think I need a cold shower . . . :D
Ah shucks, little girl sometimes grow up wishing they could be Barbie dolls, as did I, (confession time again)....heck, I wanted to be THIS LADY. d'oh.
Had to whip up the board a bit, I suppose. ;)
Back to the business of debating.
C*
-
(http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/A/Alpert/herbf.jpg)
The model is Dolores Erickson. She was pregnant at the time of the photo shoot. She was actually covered with shaving cream (whipped cream kept melting under the lights). The LP was released in 1965 and spent 189 weeks on the charts.
http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/A/Alpert/herb_alpert.html
Ah my gosh, how funny. Hey.....! Thanks for whipping my cool whip dreams to shame! d'oh..
J/K
Cindy
-
That was one of the Herb Alpert records I came to associate with the Lord of the Rings. It was really great in its day, but like all catchy tunes, it has entered the realm of Muzak, which is where catchy tunes go to die.
-
That was one of the Herb Alpert records I came to associate with the Lord of the Rings. It was really great in its day, but like all catchy tunes, it has entered the realm of Muzak, which is where catchy tunes go to die.
http://www.televisiontunes.com/g-theme-songs.html
Muzak!
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Peter_Gunn.html
However, Henry Mancini's "tunes" will never be Muzak. Peter Gunn, classic...