Without rattling anyone's cage here, I have to admit some deep consternation when the topic of faith and religion rears it's ugly head. Much of this comes from the attitudes of many faiths towards unbelievers; not necessarily individuals and the strictures their faith places upon them, more the organisations and what they publicly stand for and preach.
I'm with Pat on his thoughts on the 'desert dogmas' generally speaking, but that doesn't mean I'm anti religion - people can believe what they like, so long as they choose not to impose their ideas and beliefs upon others.

I'd like to draw attention to the two sections in bold above as an example, not of DeepIron's views particularly, but of the point he is trying to make in its wider sense.

Firstly, I have encountered religious belief that considers me to be the one who does not 'think right' and quite vociferously so, because I have no faith in a creator deity as we would recognise in christianity, islam and the like. The scale varies from smugly stating I'll burn in eternal hell because the all forgiving, omnipotent god is, erm.. all forgiving? (I must admit to finding such piety to be more than a little condescending - that and the misplaced idea that somehow I need to be saved from myself; why, I cynically ask? for my benefit, or for bettering the conscience of believers?) To what amounts to a religious apartheid, condemning me to death and subjugation and exploitation.

Secondly, it appears a rarity that (some) believers can equal the statement regarding 'arguing their own point of view in any sensible manner', as their reference to their argument is based in its entirety upon scripture from a holy text that has no greater insight or meaning to an atheist than a recipe for noodle soup. And so most arguments like these will inevitably reach an impasse. The trouble is none of these have any common thought or belief or tradition. So believers continue to call upon scripture to justify their views and beliefs, whilst atheists continue to view such nonsense with derision accorded to vague and contradictory ancient literature as a basis on which to live your life and organise others to that effect.

So who is really right? Well... nobody as far as I can see. For the most part I see no benefit in attempting to convince believers of the error of their ways. It is with some humour that I can say that it is a pity many believers do not hold such a view :lol: (I have yet to have an atheist knock on my door early on a saturday morning and ask if I have thought about humanism recently) Goes in hand with vague statements like 'Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.'
I know what it means in an allegorical sense, but the finest minds and resources in history have argued both for and against any number if theological points from the bible, without any real conclusion. Our propensity, as a species, for expending great effort in the completely abstract never ceases to amaze me. Just think what all of those brains could have envisaged had they not been confounded by religion? Maybe nothing at all...? Who knows? The question is academic.

I have to admit to not having any more knowledge of the bible than that which I was forced to learn at school until I was 17 or so. But that is simply because I don't need a text/belief system imposed upon me to tell me how to be nice to people, which is the basic core of christianity anyway surely?

I spent quite a good deal of time since, reading and discussing ancient greek theology and philosophy - Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides and Plato to name but a few sources. Despite their pagan roots, there's much of the sense of values that christianity adopted as it's own; the question of many gods or the 'one' god appears to miss the point somewhat. There are common aspects to be found in all of the ancient religions which have passed forwards to those we know today (mostly by 'modern' religion subsuming pagan ritual and tradition), such as redemption and forgiveness, atonement, hubris and retribution, salvation and apolalypse. Some might think this is a result of some pervading divine truth, giving further weight to their spiritual belief and righteousness. I think however, that this is symptomatic of the human condition; the need to understand and describe the emotions and feelings intertwined with existence and being. It is a natural conceit to assume that we are the centre of everything, as many a long held belief maintains to this day.

As for the idea of a single deity, I think on balance I prefer the old greek gods with their petty arrogance and tantrums - the seem every bit as 'human' as the rest of us but with the capricious nature allowed by super human powers/magic. They are very honest in a simplistic way; what you see is what you get so you'd best take a little care! It is this very familiarity of spirit that makes them perhaps more approachable and indeed gives a glimpse as to their origins in the minds of men - full of such human failings and jealousy and contradiction, not quite unlike certain aspects of the christian or islamic god as I understand it.

Can prophesy tell us anything about ourselves or the future? I don't think so. Most are so vague or out of their time and understanding as to be almost useless as anything other than an insight into the minds of those consigned to antiquity and dust. Most also seem to have a duplicitous nature to them too, hence the continual discussion of their validity today. Perhaps it is all true? One thing is certain, the more time spent trying to fathom the murky depths of contradictory dogma and clairvoyance, the more time we devote to erecting walls between each other over something nobody really knows about for certain one way or another - that's the difference between faith and knowledge in my opinion. Despite religion of the modern age espousing respect and love for all, it should be a source of great great shame that so much blood has, and continues to be, thrown away for such an obviously human need for a simple answer as to our place in the universe.

The thread topic is about the Book of Daniel ... a very interesting point is made in Daniel's pleading with God for the deliverance of Jerusalem.

The angel Gabriel comes to Daniel in the middle of his prayer (verse 21) stating that the God of the Hebrew children had already approved of giving Daniel the understanding of the vision.

Notice how Daniel is humble in his prayer and request to God to save Jerusalem.

Daniel 9:13-23

Even though this is the Internet, I don't see any reason why people of faith cannot soberly discuss religous topics. As long as they don't spam the forum, and that principle applies to all topics (political, etc).[/quote]

OK Neal ( she says with a grin, thinking of starting a thread on PMT) :rotfl:

Iceman, despite your zeal for doing the Lord's work, Matthew 7:6 comes to mind. I fear that unready folk are not in any way made ready, just hardened and antagonised by being spoken at rather than agreeably conversed with - but, you will quite rightly point out to me that such folk do not need to read the thread. I still think it inappropriate, but I will keep quiet from now on:yep:[/quote]

Again...we speak not for those many who will not see or hear but for the one who will...can you tell which it is?....I can't, hence the seed tossing. :)

Already the topic itself has drawn some who never would have thought such a discussion would or could even take place here...imagine that.

Let the dead bury the dead...he that is unholy let him be unholy still....Indeed....He that hath an ear to hear let him hear.

Mikhayl, is it necessary to be so rude?

Not only that but Aramees too, like this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Interested in de bible, listen to: Misquoting Jesus, Stanford Lecture.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement. There are many good translations available where the Greek and Hebrew are shown and translated faithfully for the layman. In some texts, the translations are shown side by side with the english so the student can make comparisons directly.

That being said, I think anyone who makes study of Scripture their life's work, as in Seminary or Study of Religion at a University, yes, should learn both along with some Latin thrown in...

Great lil 10 vids...:up: ...a doubting Thomas to the end but makes his point.2000 years of stories handed down what do you think you would get Thomas?Vanity of vanites All is vanity..."The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd."

Seek and ye shall find....don't and you won't. :) ---> Back to Daniel...

Some great Revelation art work on this site if anyone is intrested.

Jesus is going to puke us out??? They got anti-nausea meds for that...

I object!

As a non believer, I think it's unfair to believe that I would automatically have harsh words for those of faith. I only opened this thread out of curiosity, as it's not a subject that I'd be interested in. But this is what leaped out at me.
Personally, I think it's wonderful for you folks to have a discussion about a topic that interests you, religious or not, and why I would be perceived to have a problem with that simply because of my beliefs strikes me as me being the one who is being judged, as opposed to you. I think you call that irony....

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein

:smug:

Carry on my friends....

Enigma, bringing religious topics into a games forum is likely to bring a hostile comment from those who are opposed to - as some have put it 'bible freaks' - putting what THEY believe, but what others do not,and have no interest in, on public display. I have a certain sympathy with that reaction as I think it is a divisive contribution - it separates 'us' from 'them', whoever 'us' is deemed to be.

If you do not mind - fine, the comment was not directed at you, but some folk do mind.

If I said 'from some of those who are not believers' that might have been less sweeping, so my apologies.

I thought about this thread this morning while I was driving my V8 powered 4x4 full size American truck to Starbucks and haul home a heavy cup of mocha (my car is in the shop). On the way I passed by a few churches. All of them had open doors, I could have stopped into any one of them and listened to the sermon.

What if I would have entered into one of them and started telling them they are wrong? What if I told them they should only believe what I agree with and nothing else? What if I started yelling and screaming they they were stupid for their beliefs?

Of course nobody in their right mind would do this. So why is it OK to enter a thread and do the same thing? I just kept driving and chose to let them practice whatever religion they wanted, in peace. You have that same option here. If you don't agree with what is being discussed, why would you feel obligated to enter and mock them? Would you do this in person?

Welcome to America, land of the free. Where people are free to believe in whatever god they choose without fear of reprisal. It should be no different online than it is offline. If there isn't a rule barring this type of discussion then there's no reason to complain, just go to the next thread.

I don't see the problem with it at all. So there's a few people on the forum who are into submarine simulations who are also interested in the bible. So they start a discussion about it, to have an open conversation with people of similar likes. That's great, that's what this country is all about. The freedom of choice.

People who diligently study God's Law and the Scriptures and find application in their lives tend NOT to automatically react in such a way has been my experience.

We are to have love, compassion and understanding, knowing good and well that every individual has to discovery for his or herself what kind of relationship they want or don't want with God and His Son.

Do you have two sets of manners? One that you use online, one that you use offline? What's the difference?

I didn't see anyone recruiting in this thread, just a discussion.

Fish's post actually was a very good one with the link to the gent who had a discussion in a ten part vid series on the discrepancys in the history, origins and transcriptions of the bible. Honestly I never actually considered this aspect for people as a cause for stumbling or doubt as to the accurracy or athenticity of the text, I don 't know why. I assume from my part that each person would naturally expect such discrecpancys since the very books of the Bible have different names...I.E. Daniel,Matthew, The Books of Moses , and the Proverbs and Pslams. I always assumed that they would have different styles of writting what they were wittnesses to as well as being written in different periods of time....that to me is what makes the book so unique....It is a "Living" word to me...not because of one particuliar book or passage but the book as a whole.I have read many books in my life and I can not say that I would ever want to read them again...but the Bible to me is so dynamic and the lessons and storys so ...so...better than any Speilburg or Lucas movie could ever have hoped to achieve that for myself I have been convinced of it's truths many times over...it never gets old...I have never finished it and yet have read it from cover to cover many times now in my life...it has no end...to me. But the gent in Fish's vid makes a very good point to me and it simply refocuses one of Christs very last lessons to man...and that is the lack of the ability of man to believe even when he has "Seen" for himself things that could not have been done by any other than the Son of God....Thomas was told to "Touch" the wounds in the body so he might "See" and believe....

I mean every member here can probably alomst recite the scenes from "The Hunt for Red October'...we are all intrested in it..yet we would all tell the tale a little different to a person who hadn't seen it...that being said...if a person has any wisdom at all and not even having believeing in a "God" to look at the history of the world and the tales by Christianity,Judiasim and Islam...and the books that have been written, and the story's that have been passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth...then for any human to not at least take a very very close look at the "Theory" of creation...then that man must be a FOOL...by my measure because no way in hell could such a "Movie" have survived so many generations for so long...if there is not a great amount of truth in it somewhere...one only need seek to find the answers..in my opinion...to each his own huh? :)

P.S...anyone with more on Daniel...please post it because that book has always intrested me as well as Revelations,Proverbs and Psalms.

Steer right 315... :)

Well I have alot more about this book. But tell me, what do you think of the brief I posted on Chapter II. I'm thinking more Middle East particularly a kingdom that occupies Nebuchad-nezzer's old kingdomm of Babylon.