I'm very confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I don't take the Bible to be the literal word of G-d. I believe rather the bible is a human written book that records man's experiences of G-d, thus it's divinely inspired, but not necessarily divenely written. I should point out those are two very different things. So even if one believed that G-d is depicted as inconsistent, there is plenty of room even within Theism on the grounds that different writers at different times had different experiences of G-d and different interpretations of those experiences based off how they could understand them and put them into human terms.

---

Fair enough, but from my viewpoint, Semitic Theism (and I will use that to include Judaism and Islam, because the only difference is Judaism is the foundation, and closed in the sense that it is ethnic-derivative, whereas Islam took that system and said anyone can join in) is static in terms of theological evolution.

Christianity, though I dislike it more, is in danger of losing any doctrinal meaning whatsoever--at least in the West. *God-is-love* doesn't mean much really. I can get as equally effusive over *Cat-is-love*.

I was an English Major too, so we do have something in common. Have you read Chefitz, out of curiosity? His books make me cry, quite moving, and he seems to have a firm hand on unifying themes in American Judaism. He is a bit soppy, but none the less intellectually interesting and emotionally gratifying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Christianity, though I dislike it more, is in danger of losing any doctrinal meaning whatsoever--at least in the West. *God-is-love* doesn't mean much really. I can get as equally effusive over *Cat-is-love*.

---

Hmmm...most cats I know only love themselves. For the most part, their lives seem to be a tour de force of studied indifference to all that does not benefit them.

Might you care to explain why "God is love" has become meaningless? I'm curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Might you care to explain why "God is love" has become meaningless? I'm curious.

---

Because the word god is semantically meaningless, and love is a transitory feeling. No one feels it continuously. The only reason I really took a peek in the Religious Texts Forum is because a light went on in my head about Wittgenstein, Foucault, deconstruction, and language gaming theory, and my cerebral processes will either:

1. click and write a nice thesis I can send somewhere;
2. fail at this task
3. stroke out before I understand what I am driving at.

I don't really care what you believe or I believe. I want to publish a few successful papers as a writer before I get too old--but it is language, and primarily and only language, which informs upon faith, belief, lack of faith, and knowledge. Each of us use language as a source of enforcement for these arguments--which is why we all fail, because language breaks down on either end, for the believer and non-believer alike, for the creationist or Darwinist, and the process of it fascinates me--but this is probably my last post about it in any serious way.

For monotheism, strip away the triumphalist metaphors and you are left with a narrative that ultimately breaks down. No believer can tell me what comes next after salvation has been achieved.

For the non-believer, once we have all the possible explanations of mass and space and motion available, the narrative also breaks down and reaches epistemological failure, and actually, this post might be the start of a light essay on the topic for some of my favorite markets, so I am going to copy it in my hard drive.

Good luck with the continuing debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

love is a transitory feeling. No one feels it continuously.

---

I just wanted to pick out this one thing and declare that I don't believe love is a feeling or an emotion. Love is a tendency of someone to act for the benefit of the beloved, and maybe to feel elation in response to the beloved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Because the word god is semantically meaningless, and love is a transitory feeling. No one feels it continuously. The only reason I really took a peek in the Religious Texts Forum is because a light went on in my head about Wittgenstein, Foucault, deconstruction, and language gaming theory, and my cerebral processes will either:

1. click and write a nice thesis I can send somewhere;
2. fail at this task
3. stroke out before I understand what I am driving at.

I don't really care what you believe or I believe. I want to publish a few successful papers as a writer before I get too old--but it is language, and primarily and only language, which informs upon faith, belief, lack of faith, and knowledge. Each of us use language as a source of enforcement for these arguments--which is why we all fail, because language breaks down on either end, for the believer and non-believer alike, for the creationist or Darwinist, and the process of it fascinates me--but this is probably my last post about it in any serious way.

For monotheism, strip away the triumphalist metaphors and you are left with a narrative that ultimately breaks down. No believer can tell me what comes next after salvation has been achieved.

For the non-believer, once we have all the possible explanations of mass and space and motion available, the narrative also breaks down and reaches epistemological failure, and actually, this post might be the start of a light essay on the topic for some of my favorite markets, so I am going to copy it in my hard drive.

Good luck with the continuing debate.

---

Two quick points:

1) Deconstruction "eats itself" because once you suggest that words have no inherent meaning, then the words used to lay out this theory become meaningless themselves - so why should deconstructionism be any truer than any other theory, since it seems to suggest that language cannot be trusted and ultimately breaks down?

2) Love is not a "feeling" - the "feeling" portion of love is the attraction/affection/infatuation component; "love" kicks in when that other stuff finally quiets down; love is a choice, above all else, to do what is best for the other person even when you don't feel like it. That, in a nutshell, is God in action: doing what is best for the other (even if the other cannot appreciate it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Hmmm...most cats I know only love themselves. For the most part, their lives seem to be a tour de force of studied indifference to all that does not benefit them.

Might you care to explain why "God is love" has become meaningless? I'm curious.

---

But Aristotle in Metaphysics proves God's one activity is contemplating himself. Therefore cats may very well be God...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

But Aristotle in Metaphysics proves God's one activity is contemplating himself. Therefore cats may very well be God...

---

Well, yeah. But "comtemplating oneself" and "total self-absorption" are two different things. I think cats fall under the latter term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Well, yeah. But "comtemplating oneself" and "total self-absorption" are two different things. I think cats fall under the latter term.

---

Aristotle claimed that the ONLY activity of God is self-contemplation. I think you have thus proven God is a Cat. So much for the clue of reading the name backwards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Aristotle claimed that the ONLY activity of God is self-contemplation. I think you have thus proven God is a Cat. So much for the clue of reading the name backwards...

---

Well, OK (which I guess I should be happy about because most of my disputants claim I never prove anything. So, I'll take what I can get :) ).

But - Aristotle also didn't believe in God the way the Bible presents Him. Aristotle's brilliance and logic simply led him to admit that something like God must exist to explain the universe and how it functions (in terms of the Metaphysics, cause-effect). Admitting that God must exist is very different from understanding Him and His character.

*Meow!*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Well, OK (which I guess I should be happy about because most of my disputants claim I never prove anything. So, I'll take what I can get :) ).

But - Aristotle also didn't believe in God the way the Bible presents Him. Aristotle's brilliance and logic simply led him to admit that something like God must exist to explain the universe and how it functions (in terms of the Metaphysics, cause-effect). Admitting that God must exist is very different from understanding Him and His character.

*Meow!*

---

Of course. I could not help but enjoy a little fun over this. These topics are too serious not to joke about.

And my avatar had a thing or eighty to say about what Aristotle missed.

Why try to make sense out of any religious text? They have been manipulated and changed as governments evolved.

Take out of them what you will, but remember they were created by, and have been continually changed by, men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DooRag

Why try to make sense out of any religious text? They have been manipulated and changed as governments evolved.

Take out of them what you will, but remember they were created by, and have been continually changed by, men.

---

How do you know the religious texts were manipulated by men if you haven't tried to make sense of them first? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DooRag

Why try to make sense out of any religious text? They have been manipulated and changed as governments evolved.

Take out of them what you will, but remember they were created by, and have been continually changed by, men.

---

Care must be taken to avoid the extremes of unquestioning acceptance and complete scepticism since knowledge is impossible in either of those cases.

As Augustine pointed out, faith must precede any knowledge, but he never advocated blind obedience. See his Confessions on this point.

Faith is a precondition of any knowledge, not just religion. One can not learn anything beyond the particular instances one experiences if one has no faith in what others report.

"Faith" is a word you are using rather liberally without giving any sort of context to. I could say that "clouds" are a precondition of any knowledge and make about as much sense as your last statement.

As far as the history goes, its been made pretty clear who changed the bible, and when, and why they changed it. The bible is the most ingenious political tool in the history of mankind, and I have read it, amongst several other religious texts. They all follow the exact same formula. So, either there are a bunch of gods copying each other, or they were written by men.

Which makes more sense?

Augustine of Hippo was a religious zealot that might have be slightly insane. I wouldn't lean to strongly on his texts.

Also, I want to apologize if I offend anyone. I believe that great wisdom can be gained from all religious texts. As a history guy, though, I'm just throwing in my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DooRag

As far as the history goes, its been made pretty clear who changed the bible, and when, and why they changed it. The bible is the most ingenious political tool in the history of mankind, and I have read it, amongst several other religious texts. They all follow the exact same formula. So, either there are a bunch of gods copying each other, or they were written by men.

As a history guy, though, I'm just throwing in my two cents.

---

I apologize for jumping in mid stream. But, as a "history guy" shouldn't you site reputable sources, not just your two cents?

I will repeat what I told you elsewhere:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Please site your sources. Manuscript evidence in quantities and of a quality unprecedented in any other work of antiquity exists for the Old and New Testament. Multiple witnesses from different regions, dating back to within a hundred years of the original autographs and of Christ himself not only exist, but are nearly unanimous with regards to spelling and grammar much less the actual teachings and statements and actions of Jesus. What reliable evidence do you have to support your vast claims? If you reject this preponderance of evidence, you are denying something with greater support than Cesar's Galic Wars, Homer's Odyssey and Plato's Republic. Do you reject those too?

---

Further more, you must have been very cursory in your reading of ancient religious texts. While, if one paints with a broad brush, there can be passing similarities [Creation--Enuma Elish, Flood--Gilgamesh] read them side by side. Which one sounds like a bedtime story, which one sounds like a historical record of an astounding event. This is true of the doctrines and teachings as well as of the accounts and language.