Creation >> DNA Code

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

I don't pretend to be an expert in the theology of other religions but a little common sense does go a long way. The parts that the Mormons disagree with are they significant?

They have a completely unique theology based on writings "discovered" in the early nineteenth century. These have nothing to do with traditional Christianity except where they are made to tie in with the Bible. My point wasn't to divert this discussion to the Mormons, but to raise the question of how anyone is to tell what to accept from a "Holy Scripture" and what to dismiss.

Thomas Jefferson believed that Jesus was the greatest "human teacher" of all time, but that his followers altered and added things, introducing the supernatural to the story. Jefferson even produced his own edited version, keeping the gist of the story but cutting out anything miraculous. When I read this I had to ask the question "How does Jefferson know that any of it is true?" If the disciples added in the miracles, how does he know that the teachings are really those of Jesus, or of any one man? How does he know any of it is true, if he can pick and choose?

And that's my question to you. In answering Razark you said you weren't going to give a point-by-point review. He didn't ask for that, and neither did I. The question wasn't "which ones", but "how do you make that judgement?" By common sense? Do you only choose parts that agree with your philosophy? Some of the Ten Commandments are commands to follow the One God. Others are good sense and good law, but they are still presented as Commandments, and you can pick some that you like and dismiss others but they are presented as a whole.

So did Jesus rise from the dead? Did he perform miracles? Was he just a great teacher? Is any of it true? I don't disbelieve, I just don't know, and despite all claims and what I used to think I knew, the fact is that I don't know. And no one I've seen can show any proof that he does know, just that he believes. So how does one decide exactly?

[Skybird]

Claims mean little - what we do, how we behave, defines what we are and what our honourable quality is.

Honour: to me that is the attitude in which we meet life, and live our life.

The value of teachings lies in their content, not in the person that is claimed to be the originator. That also means that a worthless teaching remains to be worthless, no matter how respectable the author is claimed to be.

Authenticity. Well. You learn something but assimilating it in your mind. It then is no longer a separate thing emebedded in yourself, but it is part of yourself. This is true knoweldge, true competence, true expertise. No true mastery of arts without assimilation having made competence a part of you. But after assimilating knowedge and "it" having become "yourself" - what's left of authenticity, then?

It does not matter whether I truly and in full assimilated conclusions from the sermon on the mount, or reached to similiar conclusions all by myselves, or by assimilating inpiut from other sources. The person of Jesus has no value from then on anymore, can just be an object of academic, historic curiosity. Truth remains to be truth, it cannot be endlessly twisted and turned and relativised without its essence going amiss. But it can be approached and reached from different directions.

Problem in modern time is thnat we live in an era of dilettantism. The wish to be something, surpasses the need of shpowing competence to match that desired status. We claim to be judged by what we want to be, not by what we can be, in the meaning of our abilities, skill, experience. Similiarly, we claim to be already respectable for knowledge we would like to be flattered for, but do not have. And so we have a culture where painters must not have any painting skill at all. American Idol singers without voice and technical skill. Politicians without political brain. Academics without academic capacity. Bestselling writers without literaric competence and without having anything to say. And believers without a proper understanding of what they believe - and why, how they were made to believe this and not that. Religious fundamentalism to me is a form of dilletantism, too.

More appearance than substance, more illusion than reality. This is what modern culture, modern intellectuality, and fundamentalist religion are all about. Or in brief: dilletantism.

The value of teachings lies in their content, not in the person that is claimed to be the originator. That also means that a worthless teaching remains to be worthless, no matter how respectable the author is claimed to be.

More appearance than substance, more illusion than reality.

Good points, that would be like doing a moralistic rant about how society encourages young girls to get pregnant so they can be single mothers living on welfare and the problems for society that can cause....but as a bonus to the questionably worthless teaching managing to top it off by using an example of a woman who had a big pile of kids in wedlock and then went through a divorce

Not of course that anyone on their moral crusade would do that

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So how does one decide exactly?

By not deciding Steve, by having faith. Our species seems to want to quantify and categorize everything. The Bible is merely an example of such an attempt, the Koran another. Even those who want to complain about the relative morality of the various stories and passages are doing it as well.

But God (imo of course) being a supreme being that we barely comprehend let alone understand does not fit into the neat mental compartments we crave and that seems to drive some people crazy on both sides of the believer divide. God is mysterious and undefinable, and that includes doing things that we may not understand.

Sorry if that's not much of an answer but seriously, if you really want to know which parts of the Bible, the Mormon bible, the Koran, Torah, etc are correct and which parts are not then just use your head, but just as importantly, use your heart.

[Sailor Steve]

To me that sounds like circumlocution. You may not see it that way, but it would be for me if I did it. Most Holy Books are written in a fashion that insists on belief in the whole, and are not open to picking and choosing. Of course the moral teachings are good and we can agree with them and dispose of the rest, but they are always placed in a context. As I said before, to claim the Ten Commandments is a "good guideline" is to accept the commandments that are moral and ignore the ones that are doctrinal. I don't see that as a possibility. Are Jesus' teachings good? Absolutely. Is the ressurection real? I'd like some real evidence. The wall I come up against is still the same. If you say the ressurection is unproven, then what proof have you that the teachings were real either? Did God destroy the entire population of the world in a massive flood? If you believe it then you need to show people like me how it happened, other than "The Bible says it." If you dismiss that part of the Bible but accept other parts, then you need to explain why, If Jesus is indeed God come in the flesh, he apparently believed it, which, if it were not true, he should know better. Did he know it wasn't true, but used the story because his followers didn't, and he didn't consider it his place to disabuse them of the notion? Did he know it was true?

This is my problem. I can't pick and choose, at least where the book seems to command belief. I can accept that it's an interweaving of stories, some wholely mythical and some at least partly based in fact, but with no way of knowing for sure I can only accept that which is proveable. None of the teachings are proveable, so while I can agree with them morally, that is so subjective as to be untrustworthy.

The Golden Rule as a great way to live your life, but it was said by others long before Jesus allegedly said it. So for me pickinig and choosing which parts I will accept and which I will reject is to avoid the obvious, which is that none of it is proven, so while it is possible that it is true, it is also possible that other ancient myth is true, so I'm forced to reject it as a whole, keeping the realization that I may be wrong, and keep questioning everything.

[Skybird]

Steve, I think it makes sense to make at least these differences regartding the bible: old versus new testament, and the gos0pels fopcussing on Jesus' teachings versus the rest. What for example Paul had to say on Jesus is not the same what the gospels report about what Jesus should have said, Paul was a self-exposer. The conception of Jesuus of what God is, imo is very different to the conception of a God as depicted in the old testament.

So, the Bible imo should be seen as being divided into differnt sections that imo also are of different ethical and intelecctual value. This is what mnakes the Bible very different to for example the Quran, which is quite like you said: monolithic and not leaving you the choice to pick what you like and dismiss what you do not like: its either all, or nothing at all. While there is a separation between suras deriving from the Mekkanese and the Medinese era of Muhammad'S life, these have soime consequences in lingual and prosaic exprerssion, but by ciontent are not so much of theological-ethical interest, but more of acadmeic, historical interest only. It is also impossible for the unknowing layman to distinct betwene the two, sicne suras fro both eras are wildy mixed in the Quran, and are not separated in different sections of the Quran. As you certainly know, the suras are not sported by their age, but by their length (with the exception of the first). - The internet offers some Quran versions where the suras are sorted by their correct timeline. That makes the sequences in which they are given, much more revealing and explanatory for the way Muhammad'S life and thinking unfolded, from initial social reform-orientation to growing radicalisation and racism, conquest, and megalomania.

However, the churches of course sell to the people the whole package, of course, and do not accept the idea that with Jesus a new conception of what God is entered the stage.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So for me pickinig and choosing which parts I will accept and which I will reject is to avoid the obvious, which is that none of it is proven, so while it is possible that it is true, it is also possible that other ancient myth is true, so I'm forced to reject it as a whole, keeping the realization that I may be wrong, and keep questioning everything.

Nothing wrong with questioning everything but just curious as to why you apply such a high standard to that when you don't apply that same standard to anything else? Would you for example reject as a whole everything that is posted on Subsim just because there's a post or two that you disagree with?

The Bible, like every other religious text, was written by many people over a very long time. It has since been translated and retranslated many times over by even more people, and not always with the most noble of intentions. This is why I say reading too much into it just obscures the overall message.

Now I don't really care what any religion claims the various passages mean but nobody, especially organized religion, has the right to tell me that I must accept all of it or none of it. The Bible does not belong to them, it belongs to the world. Let each man take from it according to his beliefs and customs. If the rest of us have a problem with it we can always deal with them in a secular manner.

This may be circumlocution in your eyes but hey I never claimed to be an English professor.

The Golden Rule as a great way to live your life, but it was said by others long before Jesus allegedly said it.

Oh and another thing I was wondering about. What makes those others you mention believable but Jesus only gets an "allegedly"?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Steve, I think it makes sense to make at least these differences regartding the bible: old versus new testament, and the gos0pels fopcussing on Jesus' teachings versus the rest. What for example Paul had to say on Jesus is not the same what the gospels report about what Jesus should have said, Paul was a self-exposer. The conception of Jesuus of what God is, imo is very different to the conception of a God as depicted in the old testament.

I agree. I've read a few good books on the development of both old and new testament. My point is not to thinkers, but to believers, who insist that it must be taken as a whole.

I didn't quote the Q'uran part because I wholeheartedly agree.

However, the churches of course sell to the people the whole package, of course, and do not accept the idea that with Jesus a new conception of what God is entered the stage.

Which is my thinking as well. As I said, my comments are fairly tightly focused. When I said the Bible expects to be taken as a whole, I should have said that believers expect it to be taken as a whole.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Nothing wrong with questioning everything but just curious as to why you apply such a high standard to that when you don't apply that same standard to anything else? Would you for example reject as a whole everything that is posted on Subsim just because there's a post or two that you disagree with?

I don't apply any standard at all. I asked you how you tell what to accept and what to reject, and your answer left me wondering even more. As to the Subsim reference, if someone claimed that Subsim was the Holy Word and key to my salvation I would be forced to call him an idiot. Should I treat the Bible the same way? The only real difference is that I can talk to Subsim members about what they say, and ask for clarification. No one is suggesting that Subsim is anything more than a place to discuss things.

The Bible, like every other religious text, was written by many people over a very long time. It has since been translated and retranslated many times over by even more people, and not always with the most noble of intentions. This is why I say reading too much into it just obscures the overall message.

There are scholars today who examine and take to task every translation, so the "retranslated" part doesn't really hold up. We know what it says, though there are differences in what people think it means.

Now I don't really care what any religion claims the various passages mean but nobody, especially organized religion, has the right to tell me that I must accept all of it or none of it. The Bible does not belong to them, it belongs to the world. Let each man take from it according to his beliefs and customs. If the rest of us have a problem with it we can always deal with them in a secular manner.

So what do you think of Jesus? Son Of God? Great teacher? Myth? The Gospels say what they say, and don't leave much to interpretation. Any of the options are possible, but I don't see how anyone can pick and choose to believe some and not the whole. I feel the same way about the Old Testament. Picking and choosing doesn't play out well. Of course, as you say, everything is personal, and all we can do is discuss it or ignore it.

This may be circumlocution in your eyes but hey I never claimed to be an English professor.

As I said, I would be guilty of that, not anyone else. But I never claimed to be sane.

Oh and another thing I was wondering about. What makes those others you mention believable but Jesus only gets an "allegedly"?

For the simple reason that Jesus is claimed to be The Son Of God, so his words carry more weight. No one ever told me that my immortal soul was hanging on the words of Thales. I can accept the claim that he said it 600 years before Christ without question because it means nothing if someone proves that he didn't say it. I lose nothing and gain nothing by accepting it as fact.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I don't apply any standard at all. I asked you how you tell what to accept and what to reject, and your answer left me wondering even more.

Sorry, I answered it as best I can.

As to the Subsim reference, if someone claimed that Subsim was the Holy Word and key to my salvation I would be forced to call him an idiot. Should I treat the Bible the same way?

Treat the bible any way you want. I'm not asking you to live by it's principles. I believe in many of it's tenets and if that makes me an idiot in your eyes then I expect I can live with that.

There are scholars today who examine and take to task every translation, so the "retranslated" part doesn't really hold up. We know what it says, though there are differences in what people think it means.

Hmm, you seem to place a great deal of trust in the opinions of these scholars so far be it for me to challenge their findings but as far as I know no original Bible texts survive. I don't understand how they could be so sure that the present day version of the Bible is still the exact (translated) words and meanings of the original authors.

So what do you think of Jesus? Son Of God? Great teacher? Myth? The Gospels say what they say, and don't leave much to interpretation. Any of the options are possible, but I don't see how anyone can pick and choose to believe some and not the whole. I feel the same way about the Old Testament. Picking and choosing doesn't play out well. Of course, as you say, everything is personal, and all we can do is discuss it or ignore it.

Doesn't matter what I think, i'm not trying to proselytize you into anyone's church. As far as I know Jesus was all three: Son of God, Teacher AND myth. They aren't mutually exclusive things and after the fact embellishment is almost a given. George Washington didn't cut down a cherry tree, nor did he heave a dollar all the way across the Potomac river but that doesn't mean he wasn't the father of our country.

For the simple reason that Jesus is claimed to be The Son Of God, so his words carry more weight. No one ever told me that my immortal soul was hanging on the words of Thales. I can accept the claim that he said it 600 years before Christ without question because it means nothing if someone proves that he didn't say it. I lose nothing and gain nothing by accepting it as fact.

You loose or gain nothing either way if you don't believe in the first place Steve. If the bible is just a collection of ravings by religious lunatics then there is no Christ and you have no immortal soul to loose. It's your choice. That's what faith is all about.

[Nicolas]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So did Jesus rise from the dead? Did he perform miracles? Was he just a great teacher? Is any of it true? I don't disbelieve, I just don't know, and despite all claims and what I used to think I knew, the fact is that I don't know. And no one I've seen can show any proof that he does know, just that he believes. So how does one decide exactly?

God can manifest to your life if you do what his word asks.
Read Romans chapter 10, versicle 8 until 11. Speaking to God, do what versicle 9 and 10 say, then it will happen what says in John 1:12 and 13.

Please later read the following words, to a better understanding:

Jhon 3:16, Jhon 6:37, Jhon 14:23, Jhon 17:3, Acts 16:31 [I particulary like this one].

It's only necessary to do exactly what the word of God says, simple as that.

Every day talk to Jesus as a personal friend and the Holy Spirit will manifest his presence to you. It's only by believing in God words.

Different versions of the Bible, online:
www.biblegateway.com/

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Hmm, you seem to place a great deal of trust in the opinions of these scholars so far be it for me to challenge their findings but as far as I know no original Bible texts survive. I don't understand how they could be so sure that the present day version of the Bible is still the exact (translated) words and meanings of the original authors.

Not their opinions, but their discoveries. As far as texts go, there are several Old Testament texts that predate the Christian era, and some of them are consistent with what we've always had. The earliest New Testament texts only date to about AD 120, so while they are almost certainly not originals, they are early enough to withstand scrutiny. Of course there are also several other gospels which were rejected by various councils because they contrevene what is accepted as canon. That's always of interest, but they too are old enough to be considered unchanged from the originals, accept them or not.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not their opinions, but their discoveries. As far as texts go, there are several Old Testament texts that predate the Christian era, and some of them are consistent with what we've always had. The earliest New Testament texts only date to about AD 120, so while they are almost certainly not originals, they are early enough to withstand scrutiny. Of course there are also several other gospels which were rejected by various councils because they contrevene what is accepted as canon. That's always of interest, but they too are old enough to be considered unchanged from the originals, accept them or not.

Only "some of them are consistant"? Earliest known texts written over 100 years after the fact? Other gospels not included? It all sounds clear as mud to me. You couldn't apply those issues to a more modern text and reasonably expect total accuracy regardless of who considers them to be unchanged.

In any case my take on the Bible allows for both accuracy and inaccuracy so it doesn't matter to me which one it is.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

God can manifest to your life if you do what his word asks.

And you say you have an open mind. As for your comment and your text references, Been There, Done That. I was a professed believer for about fifteen years. As I've said in the past, even as a believer I recognized that there was no evidence. You started this thread trying to correlate scripture and DNA. Now you've fallen back on direct preaching. Fine, I have nothing against that. Just don't try to prove your faith with science, because it can't be done. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God. This does not mean there isn't one, or even that the Christian God is not true. It does mean that you can't know one way or the other, and all your claims that you do amount to no more that belief.

As I said at the beginning, my problem isn't with people who believe. In fact sometimes I wish I still could. My problem is with people who try to equate their faith with science and scholarship, and don't see that it's not possible. I've read your passages many times, and used to teach them myself. What I now recognize is that they are words that make great claims but can't be shown to be true. Believing them is up to you.

I don't know for sure, and what I've come to realize is that for all your talk, neither do you. Oh, and if I'm wrong and you really do know beyond all doubt, please show me the evidence. I really do want to know.

[Skybird]

"A discovery in science, or a new theory, even when it appears most unitary and most all-embracing, deals with some immediate element of novelty or paradox within the framework of far vaster, unanalysed, unarticulated reserves of knowledge, experience, faith, and presupposition. Our progress is narrow; it takes a vast world unchallenged and for granted. This is one reason why, however great the novelty or scope of new discovery, we neither can, nor need, rebuild the house of the mind very rapidly. This is one reason why science, for all its revolutions, is conservative. This is why we will have to accept the fact that no one of us really will ever know very much. This is why we shall have to find comfort in the fact that, taken together, we know more and more." - J.R. Oppenheimer


Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


Science does not know its debt to imagination. - Ralph Waldo Emerson