Tercel

The people that wrote it in the Bible would have been Hebrew and they would have written it sometime in 1400-500 BC. But the story has all the trappings of a creation myth, so presumably it was an oral tradition among the people long before the story was written. I would suggest that the story originally involved Satan but Satan had later been replaced by a snake as the story reached people who had no understanding of Satan.

Because the original source of the story is probably not the Bible-writing Hebrews. (There are other ancient cultures in the world with very similar stories) They don't need to have invented the story, or understood its full original meaning to include it.

Tercel

Wyrdsmyth

What is much more intuitive is that the creation myth was originally about a talking snake, and it was only much later that the concept of Satan as an evil deity made its way into Judeo-Christianity when it was borrowed from Zoroastrianism. The concept of Satan evolved and changed, just as with all dramatic characters who are used by successive authors.

Nomad

You appear not to have understood what Augustine said. The pursuit of wisdom is not for our entertainment, but, rather, for our enlightenment. If the pursuit of wisdom were an easy thing, then we would have no reason to admire the wise, as everyone would be wise. Clearly true teachings are hard teachings, and one does not have to delve into this matter very long before learning this. Try any philosophy or theology, and you will discover that a great deal of it is very hard to understand, and is even counter intuitive. Such appears to be the nature of much that we call truth.

This is a very far cry from what you said in your first statement. You claimed that the Church needs to use fear to keep the faithful in line. This is patently false. Requirement of a “loyalty oath” is not using fear, it is using common sense. If one claims to be a member of a group, yet denies all of the key things required to be a member of that group (and here I am not talking just about religions), then one is being hypocritical. If I were to say that I was a Muslim, but denied that Allah was God, then any right thinking person would think I was being disingenuous. If I said I was Buddhist, but believed that Jesus was my Lord and Saviour, you would wonder what planet I was from. So when a person says that they are Roman Catholic, it is right to expect them to admit to a core set of beliefs. The Church asking them to publicly admit to these beliefs is common sense, not coersion.

Anyone that confesses the Creeds is basically orthodox. Within that group you will have an extremely wide divergence of beliefs on other matters. On the core beliefs of the Creeds, however, there is agreement.

Of course I have evidence for my belief. What you are saying is that you do not find my evidence convincing. Here I will say that the truth is the truth, and what you or I believe is not relevant to that point.

One can be a sincere bigot or racist, yet bigotry and racism is based on a lie. I am not saying that you personally are either, BTW, just that one can hold to a lie, even sincerely.

Just a caution Toto, but you clearly have no respect for Christianity or Christians, and have said as much. On this basis, do not presume to know what I am doing here. I have said many times, I am not here to convince people (although that would be nice), so much as I am here to answer questions and to learn. I respect many beliefs, but I do not respect that some choose to ignore the truth, and to believe things that are not true about Christianity.

No, I have not invented anything. There is a core set of beliefs outlined in the Ecumenical Creeds. Those who accept these core beliefs are “orthodox” Christians. I use this label in the strictest sense of the word, in that they believe what has traditionally always been believed by Christians. I have found the terms “conservative” and “liberal” to be unhelpful in this matter, as people have associated a great many things to these particular labels that just do not fit the understanding of orthodoxy. For example, it is not “liberal” to deny that the Flood was not world wide, nor that Creation happened in six 24 hour periods approximately 10,000 years ago. Within the broad framework of orthodoxy, one can accept or reject this belief as one wishes. The Church itself does not have any official doctrinal position on the question.

Martin Luther used the phrase “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) in the sense that Scripture is to be interpreted within the framework and understanding of past Church teachings, meaning the Creeds and statements of the Ecumenical Councils.

Nomad

Nomad

Yes He has, but that is a separate question from this thread.

Yes again. In fact, this is the only way I know of by which anyone can come to believe in God. Until He reveals Himself to an individual, they will not be able to see Him, or know Him.

The fact that many have had similar experiences to my own helps me to accept that I am not delusional. At the same time, I do not base my faith upon the fact that others share it. I will believe the truth regardless of how many share my beliefs.

Actually, this is simply not true. Many people throughout the ages have claimed experiences of God and the supernatural. Some reject even their own experiences, based on the belief that such things are simply impossible, and therefore that they were hallucinating or delusional, or had an experience that was purely natural, but inexplicable. Personally, I find such reasoning to be quite circular.

Wrong discussion board, but I think what you would call "hard evidence" for God's existence I would call trying to put God in a test tube. Obviously, any kind of Creator God is not going to submit to scientific experiments. I think it is more probable that He would take the initiative and reveal Himself as He saw fit.

Actually, the Catholic Church has a number of extremely vigourous tests for miraculous claims. If you would like more information on this, then I would be happy to dig it up for you.

Fair enough WS. I believe you, and accept your reasoning. So long as you remain open to the possibility that you are currently mistaken, and would accept God's self revelation if and when you receive it, then that is all that can be asked.

Peace, and be well.

Nomad

MrDarwin

The talking snake story is especially ironic in light of the fact that many Christians claim to believe the Bible is literally true (I usually encounter these claims in creationism discussions, where I usually post). I've tried asking these Christians whether or not they believe this story to be literally true, and I get the most fascinating and convoluted answers.

Christians generally reply either that the snake and Satan are one and the same, or that it was Satan in the form of a snake, or that it was a snake possessed by Satan. But the story never refers to the snake by name and never raises any of these possibilities. In fact, except for talking the context supports the identity of the creature as a snake, a "crafty" or "subtle" beast. If it was actually Satan, one wonders why the writer of the story didn't say what he meant, or mean what he said.

This interpretation of the story seriously undermines the credibility of creationists and other Christians who claim to believe the Bible is literally true in all its parts. Of course, when I point this out I'm told one needs to view the Bible as a whole. But oddly enough, no other book of the Bible identifies the snake of Genesis as Satan.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Toto

Nomad - I think we have reached the point where this is unproductive. Let me make only a few points:

Requirement of a "loyalty oath" is not using fear, it is using common sense.

A "loyalty oath" is an instrument of economic coercion. I am old enough to remember such things.

One can be a sincere bigot or racist, yet bigotry and racism is based on a lie.

Racism is based on demonstrable scientific untruth. When you elevate your unprovable religious beliefs to the status of "truth" so that everything in opposition is a lie, you are starting down the road to dangerous religious intolerance.

Of course I have evidence for my belief. What you are saying is that you do not find my evidence convincing.

I do not find that your evidence stands up to scientific scrutiny. I think that most Christians who are honest admit that they cannot prove their beliefs in a laboratory.

Religious experiences, however, can be produced in a laboratory, using brain stimulation, drugs, meditation, or severe dietary restrictions. This leads me to believe that these experiences cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a god, or of any god in particular.

Just a caution Toto, but you clearly have no respect for Christianity or Christians, and have said as much.

I have no great respect for Christian dogma, but I am a humanist and respect many Christians. You are continuing to demonize me, or confusing me with another poster here.

I was, incidentally, at a Greek Orthodox Church related event this weekend. The capital-O Orthodox say that they believe that some parts of scripture are figurative and some are literal, and that their Church tradition tells them which is which. But unlike the western church and its many schisms, they have an unbroken tradition going back to the early church, and read the New Testament in its original language. I wish I knew more about the doctrine; perhaps at some later point I will delve into it more, just for comparative purposes.

Nomad

Since anyone who wishes to leave the Church can and has, I do not know what your problem is here Toto. You have not addressed a single one of my points, and since it is axiomatic that one should believe the core tenants of the organizations to which they belong, I do not even see why you object to this.

Bottom line for me is, if I claim to be a Muslim, I confess that Allah is God, and Mohammed is His prophet. If I am a Buddhist, I do not call Jesus my personal Lord and Saviour. And if I am a Christian, I confess the Creeds. This is pretty basic, and hardly a harsh demand.

Actually, when racism was state policy in Nazi Germany, it was justified on the basis of a science known as eugenics. I assume that you believe the faith some once had in this science is unjustified, but at the time it did seem to have a rational foundation.

Racism is evil not because science says so, but because our moral conscience tells us so. In my view, science cannot be used to say that anything is particularily good or evil, since science does not even address this question.

If one married one's beliefs to an official policy of discrimination, then your statement here would be correct. But Jesus told us to love our enemies, and to turn the other cheek when we were assaulted. It is His teaching that we not fight back against those that would mock us, or persecute us, and I will not break His commandment here.

I am free to speak the truth, but I am not free to force that truth on anyone.

Science does not examine metaphysical or moral questions. It cannot prove or disprove a personal experience. And God does not confine Himself to a laboratory or test tube. Any God that did would be a pretty puny and pathetic thing.

Of course He cannot be proven in a laboratory. I do not know of a single person that claims otherwise.

Since audio, visual and sensory delusions and halucinations can be produced in a laboritory using brain stimulation, drugs, meditation or severe dietary restrictions, I do not see your point here. Do you doubt your senses because they can be fooled?

On this basis, sight, taste, smell hearing and sensation cannot be used to prove anything in partcular either.

I have read your posts Toto. From A pragmatic approach to christianity you said:

Your close mindedness against Christianity is plain as day. Your willingness to maintain that Christianity has not done a single good thing since it was adopted as the state religion in Rome (c. 4th Century) betrays your bias.

I, for one, would be mightily impressed if an organization could actually exist for over 1600 years and never achieve a single good thing in all that time.

Yes, this is the position of the Roman Catholic Church as well, and the orthodox Churches maintain that those things that have been taught by the Church back to its foundation in the 1st Century are certainly true. This was the source for the Creeds.

I think that would be an excellent idea, as it would expand your knowledge of what Christians believe. You can find their web site at http://www.oca.org/ and it is well worth pursuing.

Best of luck in your journey Toto.

Nomad

Ender

Originally posted by Amos: In the end, the entire bible is allegory or it would not be timeless.Amos

So, in your estimation, Nietzsche's pseudo-biblical allegory, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is also timeless?

~WiGGiN~

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ender ]

Amos

Nietzsche was torn between heaven and earth. Yes it was timeless but can be shot down because he is not illusive enough. I read it in a mad rush when I had 7 courses in front of me. So really, I should not comment other than that I could tolerate Nietzsche.

His best and my all time favorite is his camel allegory where we load up like a camel and proceed towards the oasis. Before we get there we must become like a lion and for most of us our bagage will be to great to act like a lion and hence few of us will ever reach the oasis.

I have no objection to his "God is dead" and can justify his position here.

Amos

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]

Amos

To believe something is to accept it as data and what I write is my own.

Only because the bible calls it the 1000 year reign.

Nothing is in control of reincarnation because there is no essense of reincarnation but only of incarnation.

The universe does not exist because it does not have an essence and can therefore not have an existence. It exists only as an illusion in our mind and until we become the centre of it we do not exist and when we come into existence the universe becomes real. Just opposite to cogito ergo sum (I am when I am not thinking).

Amos

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]