Everything you wanted to know about.. RELIGION

[Zelfouz]

In the same place, we are warned not to worship 'other G-ds'. You have 2 of them, Jesus and his mother(is it Marry or Maria?). You pray and bow to them. How do you explain that?

Catholicism. Not directly interchangeable with Christianity.

It's both a Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox thing, as far as I am aware. I think the way they argue around it is by saying that they are not worshipping Mary or any of the other saints, but rather asking the saints to pray for them and intercede on their behalf.

 

[Ellie]

I think... I'd like to see a lot less I'm right because x is wrong arguments here.

You basically said:

A: How do you prove that 300,000 people saw it?
B: Yeah but no but yeah because Christians say 11 people saw theirs

It doesn't matter what Christians say they saw, (both are equally unreliable due to the mediums of recording such viewings, but that's just my opinion). This is a question and answer thread.

 

[silver wind]

Well, what they saw scared them so much that they asked Moses to stop it 'before they die'. They asked him to go talk to G-D himself and transfer his words. I'd say they saw more than an old man climbing on a mountain. Did you actually read the text in the bible..?
Later, Moses tells them, in the name of G-D: "You saw me talking to you from the sky". If they saw nothing, why did they believe in Moses and accept the bible as a holy text?

About Jesus being a profit, the point is that (whether he is G-D, or his messenger) the same G-D warned us not to listen to this kind of profit. How can G-D possibly expect us to believe Jesus?

About Catholicism, do non catholic Christians pray to Jesus?

Edit: @wyat, my comment about the 11 disciples had nothing to do with 'how do you prove 300,000 saw it'. I refuse to answer that in the 3rd(!) time this thread, this is getting ridiculous, you ignore my posts and act like I didn't answer that. I'm sorry but this is not a way to have a serious argument.

 

[Incognitus]

If they saw nothing, why did they believe in Moses and accept the bible as a holy text?

If I had just given up everything to follow this crazy guy into the wilderness with an uncertain future I'd be willing to believe anything he said too! Just because.

But considering none of the story happened - well... it happened to the Hyksos but that's beside the point - the entire issue is moot.

About Jesus being a profit, the point is that (whether he is G-D, or his messenger) the same G-D warned us not to listen to this kind of profit. How can G-D possibly expect us to believe Jesus?

About Catholicism, do non catholic Christians pray to Jesus?

I was under the impression that Jesus didn't actually do miracles to convince people he was a profit, and the few he did were done... you know... to be helpful. Like resurrecting the dead. Very helpful.
He, as I'm sure you're aware, also went up a mountain and basically told Satan to eff off when he was asked to produce a miracle.

As I said before, the messiah is supposed to come - how will you recognize him when he arrives? I thought the messiah was the exception to the rule.

Furthermore, all Yeshua did was re-enforce and re-state commitment to the mosiac law - everything else came from God... I suppose a bit like Samson and his magical hair stating his belief in that which came before him.

 

[silver wind]

If I had just given up everything to follow this crazy guy into the wilderness with an uncertain future I'd be willing to believe anything he said too! Just because.

In other words, jews were actually the missing link between man and monkeys..? Just how stupid do you think they were? did they go ooh-ooh instead of talking?
READ
ancient people =/= stupid
You're taking the evolution theory concept of older people being more monkey than man, obviously..
If your grand-grand-grand father were told he saw something, and he didn't see it... I would like to believe, or the sake of humanity, that he was intelligent enough to say: YOU ARE LYING.
Then again, maybe he was a Chimpanzee..

This is the *last* time I answer this. :/

 

[Ellie]

People believe things all time time, it's called Propaganda. And, as is proven by how many of the things there are in the world, Religion is the master of propaganda.

 

[Incognitus]

I'm completely confused now.

I've just spent the last couple of posts explaining to you how ancient civilizations actually knew more than you give them credit for... and now you're accusing me of calling the ancient Hebraic peoples the Missing Link.

Exactly as Wyatt said: The old testament was a national epic. Large sweeping stories that never happened, but just a little bit of truth in there to confuse a lot of people. Lots of people have a stake in it so it's hard to dispel the notion that maybe, just maybe, it's not exactly the most historically reliable book, and has distorted and mislead many people into making judgments which are off the mark; It contains what amounts to a racist screed against some of the oldest civilizations which has coloured people's views on places such as Babylon - and it was only very recently that Egyptologists have been able to move away from the idea that the pyramids were built primarily with slave labour which is another view of the ME that has been coloured by the old testament.

 

[Stardust]

For all that it applies: why black clothes? Why are those heavy black clothes required dress attire? It seems like they would be incredibly hot, so I want to know what meaning it has that would make people want to hold on to that tradition.

It's actually a myth that black clothes are hotter than other types of clothes. Some psychologists have suggested that the only people who feel hotter in black clothes than other colours are those who believe their clothes would be hotter. This idea became so prevalent across the West sometime, it's now impossible to imagine otherwise.

No, I can almost guarantee that black clothes are actually hotter than lighter clothes. Black colors absorb all or most of the light waves from the sun while white clothes reflect all of the rays. It has to do with how our eyes interpret light and those extra absorbed waves mean more heat. Our minds can probably counter-balance this by an extreme belief that black clothes aren't hotter (we have a lot of control over our bodies in that way sometimes), but black is certainly hotter. That's also why black roads are a hell of a lot hotter than cement and burning one's feet isn't a brain trick.

But that's not really my question. I was wondering why certain religions involve wearing black, not how hot the people inside are. :P

 

[Incognitus]

For all that it applies: why black clothes? Why are those heavy black clothes required dress attire? It seems like they would be incredibly hot, so I want to know what meaning it has that would make people want to hold on to that tradition.

It's actually a myth that black clothes are hotter than other types of clothes. Some psychologists have suggested that the only people who feel hotter in black clothes than other colours are those who believe their clothes would be hotter. This idea became so prevalent across the West sometime, it's now impossible to imagine otherwise.

No, I can almost guarantee that black clothes are actually hotter than lighter clothes. Black colors absorb all or most of the light waves from the sun while white clothes reflect all of the rays. It has to do with how our eyes interpret light and those extra absorbed waves mean more heat. Our minds can probably counter-balance this by an extreme belief that black clothes aren't hotter (we have a lot of control over our bodies in that way sometimes), but black is certainly hotter. That's also why black roads are a hell of a lot hotter than cement and burning one's feet isn't a brain trick.

But that's not really my question. I was wondering why certain religions involve wearing black, not how hot the people inside are. :P

Yes, but apparently it doesn't apply for clothes. There is no discernible difference. Stephen Fry said it on QI - so it must be true. :biggrin:

 

[So fist]

I didn't get your second question about Adam.

Let's put the relevant passages in front of us with the most relevant things bolded.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Notice in Genesis 1 man is last to be created. LAST. Now lets move to Genesis 2,

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Notice the switcharoo, Adam, or man rather, is created first despite being informed in the last chapter of Genesis that man was created last. Man comes first then god makes him plants and animals for him to name and rule over in the garden. That's a huge contradiction. Also your clarification is moot and misses the point, you were marginalizing the ancient heathens for their navel gazing into broken and incorrect systems despite the fact that the ancient hebrews cosmology was no more correct or scientific for that matter. Fact is if your Torah is your sole core of scientific, historic, and cultural lore you believe that what sits above you at some point is some endless ocean of water and eventually Yahweh on a boat or something. Or not, I suppose he wouldn't need one.

Phoenecians were the early Hebrews rivals. They are characterized in the bible stories of Samson and Delilah, and show up in the book of Samuel as the people Saul is making war with. They were a significant seafaring city-state of the ancient world.

 

[Ellie]

Black draws heat in, but also out.
White reflects heat away, but also reflects body heat back.

Therefore, they are both the same.

 

[silver wind]

*I said it's last time*
About the messiah, Jews were always waiting for him to appear. This is the top goal, to reach the days of the Messiah. During history, several people were recognized as possibly being the messiah. Jesus wasn't one of them. We have signs for him. Trust me, if he matched our concept of the messiah, this would be the best thing to happen and we would have gladly followed him. However, the main Jewish authorities of that time thought he didn't match. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus didn't claim to be a messiah, but a G-D.

you believe that what sits above you at some point is some endless ocean of water

Please, read the text again. It may be a matter of wrong translation to English, because I see no part that says the sky is water:

And G-D said: let there be sky in the middle of the water to separate water from water.
And G-D created the sky, which separated the water below the sky and the water above the sky, and it was so.

The genesis story is not clear, and open to interpretations.
the commentators for the bible didn't explain what are those 'water above the sky', but from what they say about other issues:
Some say the sky 'is like a tent', and talk about the sky as separating us from 'the water above the sky', which, in my opinion, could be the water on the stars. They also say the 'water above the sky' hang in air, and are separated from the sky in the same way the sea is separated from the sky by air. To me, it sounds like stars in space.
Even where they say the sky was made from water, they say it was changed to something else.
I found no reference to a floating pool of water above the sky. The text may give that idea, but remember water can also be in the shape of ice, which is found on some stars.

Now, about Adam and the garden, there are plenty of such examples in the bible. We say the order of which events are written isn't necessarily the order they happened. The bible mentions the creation of Adam and then returns to describe the creation of animals/plants which already happened.

 

[So fist]

A bit of humor with biblical contradictions, From Waiting for Godot:

VLADIMIR: Ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story?

ESTRAGON: No.

VLADIMIR: Shall I tell it to you?

ESTRAGON: No.

VLADIMIR: It'll pass the time. (Pause.) Two thieves, crucified at the same time as our Saviour. One—

ESTRAGON: Our what?

VLADIMIR: Our Saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other . . . (he searches for the contrary of saved) . . . damned.

ESTRAGON: Saved from what?

VLADIMIR: Hell.

ESTRAGON: I'm going. (He does not move.)

VLADIMIR: And yet . . . (pause) . . . how is it –this is not boring you I hope– how is it that of the four Evangelists only one speaks of a thief being saved. The four of them were there –or thereabouts– and only one speaks of a thief being saved. (Pause.) Come on, Gogo, return the ball, can't you, once in a while?

ESTRAGON: (with exaggerated enthusiasm). I find this really most extraordinarily interesting.

VLADIMIR: One out of four. Of the other three, two don't mention any thieves at all and the third says that both of them abused him.

ESTRAGON: Who?

VLADIMIR: What?

ESTRAGON: What's all this about? Abused who?

VLADIMIR: The Saviour.

ESTRAGON: Why?

VLADIMIR: Because he wouldn't save them.

ESTRAGON: From hell?

VLADIMIR: Imbecile! From death.

ESTRAGON: I thought you said hell.

VLADIMIR: From death, from death.

ESTRAGON: Well what of it?

VLADIMIR: Then the two of them must have been damned.

ESTRAGON: And why not?

VLADIMIR: But one of the four says that one of the two was saved.

ESTRAGON: Well? They don't agree and that's all there is to it.

VLADIMIR: But all four were there. And only one speaks of a thief being saved. Why believe him rather than the others?

ESTRAGON: Who believes him?

VLADIMIR: Everybody. It's the only version they know.

ESTRAGON: People are bloody ignorant apes.

 

[Incognitus]

*I said it's last time*
About the messiah, Jews were always waiting for him to appear. This is the top goal, to reach the days of the Messiah. During history, several people were recognized as possibly being the messiah. Jesus wasn't one of them. We have signs for him. Trust me, if he matched our concept of the messiah, this would be the best thing to happen and we would have gladly followed him. However, the main Jewish authorities of that time thought he didn't match. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus didn't claim to be a messiah, but a G-D.

Well, you ARE mistaken. Jesus never claimed to be a god, or the god.

Evidently, quite a few jews felt that he was the messiah - those first followers had to come from somewhere, eh! And it's pretty odd that you say "Jesus wasn't one of them" because, out of all the "messianic figures" floating around Judean and Samarra around that time, only the historical character we acknowledge as Jesus caused a great debate and discussion, with even a few Romans noting that the Jews believed they have found their messiah. So obviously, at that time, he had support. Vote God/Jesus '33!

I always think of the Sanhedrin as the forerunner of the medieval Catholic Church - hopelessly corrupt and wouldn't recognise a higher power if He bit them in the ass; more concerned with their own positions rejecting anything that challenged them and regardless of who he may or may not have been, the historical Yeshua certainly challenged their authority.
You're holding up these people as an authority... based on what? What makes you think they'd be able to recognise the messiah when he came? What is your opinion on the messiah in modern times?

 

[silver wind]

>.>
<.<
You 'think' of them. This is a free country, think what you want.
But, you know that even in a free country, calling someone 'corrupt' with no evidence may end with you paying millions, right?
Good thing we're not disscusing Islam, similar words would have started another Intifada.

You're holding up these people as an authority

They were the religious authority of that time, what do you want me to call them? when people wanted to know what Judaism said about something, they would go to the Sanhedrin. So, when they were asked about Jesus, and decided what they decided, that is the official decision of Judaism. We are ordered, by the bible, to let the Sanhedrin in every generation, make the decisions. "Even if they say that right is left and left is right"

the historical character we acknowledge as Jesus caused a great debate and discussion

And Chinese is the most spoken language. There are more Chinese, so they talk Chinese.
There are more Christians, so they talk Jesus.
In Judaism, many possible messiah were mentioned AND discussed.

quite a few Jews felt that he was the messiah

Quite a few chose to stay Jews, otherwise there would be no Jews today. Anyway, like I said the Sanhedrin wasn't convinced. There are always some people who, how to say this gently, are more easily convinced.

 

[Schism]

I have a question for folks who follow any religion that requires conversion of others.

...Why? I mean, I sorta get that you want to help 'save' people, or whatever, but it always struck me as kind of counterproductive. Most people already have their own set of beliefs, whether they be religious or atheist or something in between. So when someone comes along trying to 'sell' their religion of choice, most people range anywhere from slightly annoyed to downright pissed off (an incident in my childhood that involved my mother throwing a glass of water at a Jehovah's Witness springs to mind).

I mean, it seems to me that you'd be alienating potential converts more than anything by trying to shove it down their throat (I've never had someone try and convert me who wasn't overly aggressive about it). Wouldn't it make more sense just to put the information out there, and let people decide for themselves whether or not they're interested?

 

[So fist]

First, Silverwind what's with the we stuff? If you think you are speaking for Judaism in general please note you don't speak for me. Second stop missing the point and arguing semantics. If you don't get the point I'm trying to make about the attitude you go about this debate then please review the last few posts until it sinks in. I'm not rehashing it since I can't really think of a more simpler way of putting it.

The genesis story is not clear, and open to interpretations.

What! Yes it is. I mean if you want to play the sophist here out of convenience for your viewpoint be my guest. But realize you are hurting your argument since you said earlier that the Jews had access to knowledge straight from the divine, which infers that the word of the Torah is that of the divine and true. If the Torah is fallible, wrote by men, open to interpretation you are blowing up your premise of direct from the divine word. Instead god is delivered second hand in many different prophetic voices full of contradictions, debate, and doubt. In short a summation of the human condition. It is in that case fallible and as capable of falsehood as it is truth.

But getting back to Genesis the order is pretty clear and its evident that there were two traditions colliding in the creation myths that are irreconcilable in terms of cosmological logic. Genesis one is pretty specific. On this day he did this, on this day he did that, and it all ends with man in his image. In Genesis two God decides we need some water, then feels lonely so he makes a mudman, then he figures the mudman will be hungry and lonely so he makes him some peeps to chill with. Man thus in Genesis II comes before there was a shrub on the ground, before god made any other life.

 

[Incognitus]

You're holding up these people as an authority

You 'think' of them. This is a free country, think what you want.
But, you know that even in a free country, calling someone 'corrupt' with no evidence may end with you paying millions, right?
Good thing we're not disscusing Islam, similar words would have started another Intifada.

I see. Obviously you're as out of touch with the history of the Middle-East today, as you were with the Middle-East thousands of years ago.

We are ordered, by the bible, to let the Sanhedrin in every generation, make the decisions. "Even if they say that right is left and left is right"

Well that's very silly. Unfortunately they are mortal and therefore fallible. One of the things the character we know as Jesus has stated was that, obviously, we should following the teachings of the scriptures rather the teachings of a mortal authority.

Are you seriously telling me if Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Meir Kahane's brother, or Yisrael Ariel - a man who makes Lieberman look like a centerist - told you that black was white and white black, you would immediately readjust - and it is religiously required that - your worldview to assimilate those... opinions?
Or do you think there is a better "modern" Sanhedrin and if so, what qualifies them for the position?

quite a few Jews felt that he was the messiah

Quite a few chose to stay Jews, otherwise there would be no Jews today. Anyway, like I said the Sanhedrin wasn't convinced. There are always some people who, how to say this gently, are more easily convinced.

And obviously there are always people who will say that those Jews are diabolically inspired and are on a one way ticket to the hot place for rejecting the messiah.

Neither are especially valid points, neither have much to say in support of them, and neither have been responsible for the happy-clappy friendly attitude between faiths for the last millennium.

 

[silver wind]

This isn't a religion vs science thread. If you have a question which is meant to disprove the bible/religion in general, there is another thread for it-http://www.arpgmaker.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=61271.
This thread is for the other kind of questions.

@Captain Murphey
The bible isn't a text anyone can interpret how he/she understands it. The traditional way to explain the 2 biblical texts is different from your interpretation.
Your view of the text is simply not relevant, I'm not trying to offend, please understand:
Any religion should have a set of rules/ideas(the bible), and if the rules(or ideas) aren't clear, there should be someone/someway to explain what they mean. Otherwise, anyone would have his own idea of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, leading to a religion with thousands of different 'cults'.

Who interprets the rules? Every religion to itself, but WE, the Jews, give that AUTHORITY to the leading Rabbis of our time- a group of 120 respected people.

For example, we are ordered to not do any 'work' in Saturday. (Work= anything which shows the control of men over nature. it's a complex and wide topic in Judaism which can fill several books)
When the electricity was invented, Jews asked if using electric devices is considered 'work'. It clearly wasn't mentioned in the bible, so the rabbis of the time had to decide, by reading the text and reviewing the unwritten traditions of Judaism. They concluded it is forbidden. Note, it doesn't matter if they were wrong in understanding that rule! Once the bible was given to us, it's up for humans to decide, according to the bible itself.
The rabbis decide not by guessing or rolling a dice- we have 13 methods of extracting information from the bible, and every decision MUST be based on the biblical text or the unwritten traditions- both we believe were given on Mt.Sinai. This includes ideas/concept like explaining the genesis story, they explain it by using a set of rules and rely on the tradition or the biblical text- all three originate from G-D himself. So, the system isn't fallible. Not only that, but the 120 rabbis vote, and the rule is decided by the majority. This system is reliable, and even if it makes a mistake, G-D himself tells us to obey anyway. I guess it's because the uniformity of the religion is more important than breaking a single rule.

@Incognitus
I merged my reply to you with Captain Murphey's.
I'll add that kahena was not accepted by the majority of Jews, therefore he wouldn't be accepted as a member in a 'modern Sanhedrin'. Even if he did, there would be 119 people voting against his rules, and they wouldn't be accepted.
Obviously, the Sanhedrin doesn't decide about colors, but about religious issues. The left and right were an allegory to religious mistake/ religious truth.

 

[Zelfouz]

What ARE you allowed to do on a saturday? Are you obligated to turn every electrical device in your home off Friday night (since turning them off on Saturday would be work) and just loaf around for 24 hours? Does this include food preparation?