fundamentalist christians
•
2 Jan 2009, 18:09
•
Journals
had an argument with one of those guys who thinks the earth* is like 3 thousand years old, YET he believes the ulumminati exists.
i have thought i would never see the day.
i told him to go shove his head up his arse when he started going on about dinosaurs -_-
i have thought i would never see the day.
i told him to go shove his head up his arse when he started going on about dinosaurs -_-
i think people dont realise the point of journals :D
pointless as usual.
:P
The nazi elite of the world believe in the darkest black magic imaginable, you not believing it isnt what you should be worried about, what you should worry about is the fact that they do.
I mean, do you believe in something that can't be concretically proven or seen?
About believers: sure they feel the attendance of God if they believe enough in it. That's how human mind works. You can cheat yourself by believing in something long enough. :l
So please, do me a favour, stop cheating yourself.
faith is something you carry in your heart, you also, but you try to blend it out because you think you are smarter then the rest of the world and think you can explain it whit your especially smart brain, don't take it personal but it's just like that
if you try to not explain religion with your knowledge you will soon understand it
just by the way..anybody from your family or friends died already?
Umm.. what are you referring to? No, none of my family's died yet.
I'm not trying to act smart but ask you how can you believe in God. Have you experienced "him"? Or is/was it just a placebo due your eager believing? :d
No. You really don't.
Imo ppl only believe in god, because dont know how to explain certain things and are scared to die and dont know what is happening then... 500 years ago ppl believed in fucking raingods and that the earth was the center of the universe... get real
dunno why i put year
tyvm
they are really annoying here, but since 5 year or so, they are not allowed to go and piss u at ur home, so they are randoming at public transport :)
hf with ur atheistic shit.
anyway i'm off 2 watch a film :D
the bigger picture is the corrupt governments wanting to control you
just for power and money
so much that it's willing to attack it's self. I'm not talking about 9/11 i'm talking about openly admitted cases by the government of government sponsered terror.
It's quite simple. You take into account historical and social context, and make assertions based on that. Which you can do without bringing science into the discussion explicitly. For example: religion grew because of a misunderstanding (misappropriation?) of the natural world.
Explicitly or not, investigating why God exists should be a scientific process.
Infact, belief in the existence of Santa Claus is a religion?
Please...
I've had the non-belief = belief argument before. :-\ It ends up in circles.
Anyway, I like how you added the "(s)" as if atheism somehow has a set of beliefs akin to an ideology, and akin to a religion. It doesn't. You're deliberately distorting it. :)
EDIT: Dictionary.com > "religion" imo.
That it's intepretation changed is part of one of the defining features of modern religion: relentless qualification.
Good one.
On the question of allegory: 'misinterpretation' is fundamental to language, and not only the Bible or religion itself. Derrida's theories of non-recognition and sensibility of the signifier pretty much explain why language is misinterpreted. This symbolic space creates allegory and every other literary technique and style you can imagine. The Bible was always allegorical in other words because of languages 'flaw'.
The bible was not originally intended to be 'interpreted' as anything other than truth; the move to accept an allegorical interpretation came as a result of an inability to defend concepts like 'Eden' on a rational basis. Religion progressed and evolved along with culture and science. It is interpreted allegoricall because the church decided it would be, not because of some feature of language.
and your saying you dont agree it's pointless arguing? :DDD
so in the end its just that mister x chose to believe in theory a because theory b is what stupid people believe in
:s
there has been so many discussions if theres a god or not and good arguments from every side
Pretty much epitomises most Atheists. Whether they use scientific theories or not is irrelevant since science is fundamentally flawed itself. Both science and religion require a (blind) leap of faith.
by believing in something like evolution u are taking a huge leap of faith in science
so what does science offer in terms of facts? nothing
still we can hear such things as "evolution is a scientifict fact" ok it is but scientifict fact is not the same as fact
which brings us to the point of stupid atheists who are thinking ok thats just how it happened
and like i said what we know to day can be miles away from the truth u cant denie that
I'll give you an example of how science works, and how something it can be wrong.
Newton came up with his theory of motion, and it worked incredibly well. The motion of objects could be calculated to incredible accuracy. However, when things were moving really fast, something odd happened that didn't happen when they moved slow. The predictions began to become increasingly innacurate, and it was at this point that a new theory was required. However, the old theory was not 'thrown out', it's still used by nasa, because it is incredibly accurate for things travelling even up to 10% the speed of light. While the old theory is techincally wrong, it is still used because it was based upon evidence, and evidence never changes.
forget i said that :D not thinking clearly on that one obviously
but u cant compare that to something way more complex where u have to take so much more things in to account
drastic changes are much more likely in these
There's nothing wrong with this in itself but it is just one way of satisfying the lack which people feel. It is not better or worse, and in my opinion science merely distracts people from their problems whereas religion tries to tackle them head on.
In what way are religions tackling these head on, other than giving people false hope?
The 10 commandments, the golden rule, etc. Apparently, without religion, we'd all be raping and murdering each other.
Oh and what was your theory about.
Just because people violently (in some cases) protested that the Bible should be interpreted as truth doesn't make it a legitimate contemporary counter-argument. It's like saying science is a waste of time because the world was flat at one point. There's nothing wrong with religion changing how it validates itself and becomes 'useful' for people – even if it directly contradicts what has been said before. It is, in fact, exactly what science does itself. Let the people decide for themselves.
Your point about Eden's existence not being 'proven' is irrelevant. Why would you want to prove that it existed in 'our world'? It's a literary space which has been embellished to become symbolic. Think logically about the connotations of a garden 'space', and then tell me that it is only contemporary religion which puts forward the idea of an allegorical reading of the Bible.
The garden suggests that a fall was inevitable so there's no contradiction about God determining fate yet giving men free will. The free will was an allusion. God's existence creates a co-dependent binary opposition which meant man was destined to fall.
This embellishment is a 'scientific process' (Todorov's theory of the fantastic) because the imaginative (taking the Atheist standpoint that God doesn't exist for a second) is framed by the real just like any mythology, or anything even remotely abstract – like scientific theories! There's a garden somewhere which was the inspiration for Eden, however. Though, that is not the proof you want it is an undeniable truth.
Religion deals in truth and absolutes. It derives these absolute truths from the bible and other holy documents. These documents were written by men, and are interpreted by men. A man's interpretation is, as you have rightly pointed out, flawed. How can absolute truth be derived from flawed interpretation? Moreover, as interpretation changes with time, so will the absolute truths. How can absolute truths change?
The chain can be described thus: religion derives absolute truth from vague interpretation. Contrast this with: science derives vague interpretation from absolute truth (the absolute truth being external, objective fact).
This is the point that I am arguing. The reason I think the interpretation of the bible should not rightly change is that absolute truth is derived from it, and if the interpretation changes so does the truth: if the absolute truth of the church changes, then it can hardly be said to be holy or divine.
Also, literary interpretation is not a science, it's not even close.
Right!
It's like the Vatican recently deciding that there was no such place as limbo, although many parents of dead, unbaptised babies had thought there child had went there...but then they're ready to be infallible all over again.
Religious beliefs these days are much more like a buffet where you can pick and choose what you want, than a set menu.
I think you've missed the point I raised but you summarised it quite nicely towards the end. There's no such thing as an absolute truth – not in science or the bible. The fact you were quite nonchalant towards Derrida shows how far you're off 'getting it'. His theories explain why the Bible exists, why you study science and why we disagree over the interpretation of something unchanging. Language itself is 'flawed' even before you take into account individualistic interpretation [note I don't say subjectivity!].
My theory de-constructs binary oppositions into theoretical and 'real'. Good and Evil cannot exist in a 'raw' form because of biological limitations – my theory is essentially naturalistic. Which means there are no absolute truths [variables] since each pairing is co-dependent. One cannot claim a complete victory otherwise it would cease to exist but it can subjugate the other into submissive roles: patriarchy for example. Contextually, the Bible is an extension of man's control over women. [I've summarised a three-page theory into one paragraph so forgive me if you think the claims are unsubstantiated].
I'm quite surprised how unscientific you're being about this to be fair. While I get your point - “[t]he reason I think the interpretation of the bible should not rightly change is that absolute truth is derived from it, and if the interpretation changes so does the truth: if the absolute truth of the church changes, then it can hardly be said to be holy or divine” - you've to understand that the absolute truth which you choose to focus on is the embellishment which hides the real truth(s) – which reinforces the idea that the Bible [and all works in written language] are allegorical at some level [readerly/writerly – Barthes etc].
The divinity of Christ helps get across the message but the message's 'meaning' is not dependent on that divinity. After all, he has left his message open to the interpretation of mortal men which makes you question his 'plan' anyway. The fact the Bible or other holy texts are so explicit with their requirement of submissiveness is because their message often requires a change in nature of man.
I am by no means religious but I can sort the wheat from the chaff. If you read the Communist Manifesto or Social Contract you'd either agree with their principles or not. The Bible is no different. It merely chooses to reinforce its message [way of living] by targeting some of the basic fears of man and embellishing them – Christ rising from the dead etc. I do not discount Marx because he was a Jew or he believed he was a Dragon in a previous life. The embellishment either substantiates the story or, as you're trying to prove with the progression of science, undermines it. I say ignore the embellishment and go for the real message.
Lastly, while religion has generally be used as a means of social control there's nothing wrong with that. You can, in retrospect, decide that what was done was evil or bad but that would be a waste of time. You're in a superior position to question but you're wasting your time with embellishments.
This is why I said science tends to subversively displace problems whereas religion tries to directly displace them. I will live longer because of modern medicine than I would've a couple hundred years ago but now I've to deal with pensions, and I will still die. Will my life really be enriched because I live longer? Doubtful. Religion, however, attempts to attack my anxiety directly. It is right to suggest that the length of my life is not linked to my anxieties over mortality, and so it focuses on something else instead.
Your first paragraph tells me the interpretation of religion has changed, and that such a change was inevitable. I never argued that it hasn't changed, but that it should not have. That change was inevitable is part of the problem with religion.
There are such things as absolute truth. That I exist is an absolute truth. I don't want a discussion about that because they end up being verbal masturbatory sessions rather than anything productive.
As for explaining why I study science, or why the bible was written, that is one hell of a theory. I started reading some of 'of Grammatology', but I get the sense, as I do with most philosophical and linguistic writing, that Derrida is wrapping something incredibly simple in a complicated, verbose, package. If you can't explain something wide reaching in simple terms then it isn't as important as you think, not least because no one will ever understand it outside of your field.
I have no idea what your theory is about from that paragraph. You describe binary positions in terms of the real and theoretical? What on earth does that mean. Which binary positions? That he is hot and I am cold? What are the theoretical and real parts? etc etc.
'Contextually the bible is an extention of mans control over women' - Says who? You? What context are you talking about exactly? How exactly is it an 'extension'? Do men use it to beat women who aren't under their control?
So what real truths are the apparent truths hiding?
The bible was not intended to be deconstructed linguistically, you are overcomplicating this by a few orders of magnitude. The divinity of Christ is CENTRAL to Christianity, it is not there simply to 'help' it along. The bible wasn't written as a story book from which to pick and choose your principles, it was written as literal fact. That people no longer see it that way, and that the church accepts this position, is the whole problem I'm getting at.
I think you some how got it into your head that I'm arguing the bible shouldn't be interpreted allegorically. I'm not. I agree with you, that's how it's interpreted by the more progressive christians, i.e. not fundamentalist, the christians who accept scientific advances. That they do interpret it this way is my problem - That was NOT how it was originally written.
Now, you can argue from your understanding of linguistics all you like, but it remains as fact that the bible was intended to be interpreted literally. If I tell you I am a Cat, and I mean it as to literally mean I am a Cat, with whiskers, paws, etc, then that is the only correct interpretation of the phrase "I am a Cat". Later on, an English student will probably tell someone that I meant to highlight the binary position of our carnivorous, violent history with our need to feel comfortable in a domestic setting: but they would be WRONG. In effect, this is what Christianity has done. Science somehow proved that I could not have possibly been a cat, and they adjusted themselves to the less literal interpretation; they now claim that I was being metaphorical about my cat like nature, that I was never actually claiming to be a Cat at all. But they are WRONG! That I thought I was an actual Cat is the only correct interpretation of that phrase because it is the original, author intended meaning.
The writers of the bible intended it as historical record, they intended it to be an accurate description of what exactly went on in history. Since I accept the goings on in the world as truth, they are describing a truth, and they intended it to be accepted that way.
Now, please, don't tell me that language is 'flawed' from the outset. It is not, I don't care what Derrida says. It is only flawed when meaning is left undefined. If I tell you that the earth is a sphere, that can only be misinterpreted if you don't know what the earth or a sphere is. For anyone that accepts the common meaning of those words the sentence is not flawed in the slightest, it has an exact, specific meaning - Almost all language has the same potential, it just requires a careful author and a large dictionary. I'll agree that non descriptive language, i.e language which points to something unreal, can be easily misinterpreted - My idea of the dragon described in a story may not be exactly what the author had in mind when he wrote it. But in the case of the bible, which was written as a form of historical record, it is describing explicitly events which occured in the real world, and descriptive language has a definite meaning - Something Did, or did not, happen, there is no in between.
I agree with your propsition that the message should not be confused with the man, but in the case of religion the two are intertwined. The more fantastical parts of the bible are not an embellishment intended to persuade the reader, they are not a linguistic device, they are literal historical records of what occurred. The bible was intended as a history book, not a rhetorical device. Progressive Christians pick and choose which parts are now historical fact and which are allegorical: Jesus's life is a historical record, the story of creation is allegorical etc etc. Fundamentalists interpret it as it was intended, literal record, and for that they are ridiculed, but the truth it is no more absurd to interpret the bible literally than it is to arbitrarily decide which parts are allegorical and which parts are not.
Is your life better because your risk of dying as an infant is significantly lower? Is your life better because you no longer risk dying from the plague? Is your life better because you don't run the risk of dying every time you break a leg or get a tiny cut on your finger? Is your life better now that you can have your heart augmented by mechanical parts should it fail? Or have a bypasses should it become clogged? So yes, your life is enriched. Science has allowed you to live longer in a world that is more open; Religion allows you to discard your anxieties about death by turning it into something glorious, in affect it directly addresses mortality anxiety by telling you it doesn't really exist.
I don't believe you. :-)