Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan
Just now, third_eye said:

Idolatry ?

Oh .. let's not forget the Urantia Book ...

~

He's the only one we have literally no first hand written knowledge about. That's an odd thing to consider, ain't it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Leviticus indicates you should not eat blood, yet that's exactly what Jesus requests at the Last Supper.  Jesus touched lepers which would make him unclean, and it is also questionable whether he 'kept the Sabbath holy' since he would go around healing people on that day regardless. 

Do you, or Peter above, think that Christians cannot eat shellfish?  This is usually addressed by Christians with references to moral, ceremonial, and spiritual law and how some laws still apply and some don't.  I don't consider these divisions 'simple' if we're just working from scripture and, if one has no inclination to interpret these vague passages in the most favorable way to Christianity, can appear contradictory or at least unclear.


Please correct me if I fall short in my conclusion the blood you are referring to here is wine symbolizing the blood of Christ, signifying the Holy Communion.

The Sabbath; what is and what is not (un)holy on that day, he would be extremely able to dictate. The question is not if Christ respected the holiness of Sabbath (Mosaic Law), the question is if his acts of kindness / righteousness were in violation of that law, as was the position of the weary Sanhedrin, seeing him as a threat to their position of power. I would personally beg to differ.

I would also think that although touching a leper would mean uncleanliness to any normal contemporate, this would by no means follow automatically for a man able to heal the sick, and quicken the dead.

Exactly these sort of implicit statements being used to diffuse / circumvent an explicit one is what I referred to earlier. In my mind, these admittedly somewhat ambiguous, implicit statements do in no way overrule the explicit statement Christ made, not by a long shot. Thesame goes for all the countless explicit statements of Christ signifying a strong subservient relationship with G*d, completely contradicting the Christ = G*d / Trinity concept (and re affirming the Messianic one*). I seem to be the exception though, which quite honestly boggles my mind. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe I'm thinking too simplistic, I dont know.

 

Edit: *

 

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

He's the only one we have literally no first hand written knowledge about. That's an odd thing to consider, ain't it.

Honestly, I've never read it all with that perspective in mind before, surely there are other characters in the OT and NT that shares that odd plate of leaven bread

Just off the top of my head ... Saul ? David ? Solomon ?

~

Edited by third_eye
addendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Honestly, I've never read it all with that perspective in mind before, surely there are other characters in the OT and NT that shares that odd plate of leaven bread

David ? Solomon ?

~

It's any interesting perspective,. I was just speaking with regards to Jesus and Christianity. But the same can be said for Mohammed and Islamic studies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

He's the only one we have literally no first hand written knowledge about. That's an odd thing to consider, ain't it.

 

But Dany, that's what the Urantia Book is for. First hand written knowledge about it.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, danydandan said:

But the same can be said for Mohammed and Islamic studies. 

Well, Mo had a good excuse, he was illiterate ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Well, Mo had a good excuse, he was illiterate ...

~

I just find it odd that vast majority of Religiously minded individuals consider it lunacy to accept a tangible person who's claim is to be a son of God, or whatever. But consider it sane that a bunch of second or third or more than likely fourth hand accounts of a dude from 2000 years ago. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
19 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Please correct me if I fall short in my conclusion the blood you are referring to here is wine symbolizing the blood of Christ, signifying the Holy Communion.

As far as the first sentence I'm not sure if we should use 'signifying' and 'symbolizing' when referring to the Last Supper.  Jesus I think says something along the lines of 'this is my blood' and considering that he was already known to magically transmute certain liquids into others at weddings I'm not sure if he was using symbols here.  I had thought that some denominations (Catholic?) actually believed that during Communion/Eucharist carried out today that the wine is 'really' changed to the blood of Christ, not sure.

19 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

I would also think that although touching a leper would mean uncleanliness to any normal contemporate, this would by no means follow automatically for a man able to heal the sick, and quicken the dead.

Yes, maybe there are special rules that apply just to Jesus, but if he Jesus himself doesn't follow the 'Law' from which no jot or tittle has been removed then it could seem to bring up an inconsistency or contradiction.

19 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Exactly these sort of implicit statements being used to diffuse / circumvent an explicit one is what I referred to earlier. In my mind, these admittedly somewhat ambiguous, implicit statements do in no way overrule the explicit statement Christ made, not by a long shot. Thesame goes for all the countless explicit statements of Christ signifying a strong subservient relationship with G*d, completely contradicting the Christ = G*d / Trinity concept. I seem to be the exception though, which quite honestly boggles my mind. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe I'm thinking too simplistic, I dont know.

Good points, I actually am not familiar with the specifics of how the Trinity came out of the Bible.  I just think that in the example you bolded from your James quote that although the statement itself is explicit, what exactly was meant by 'the Law' seems to differ depending on which believer you are talking to, although almost all agree that some of 'the Law' that is explicitly laid out in the OT no longer applies today to Christians.  Thus I'm not sure on this particular point that we should criticize today's Christians for not following these 'explicit' instructions if the specifics are unclear or complicated.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
31 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

But Dany, that's what the Urantia Book is for. First hand written knowledge about it.

 

 

So if I lock myself in a room take a bunch of hallucinogens and write a book you'll worship it?

Edited by danydandan
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

As far as the first sentence I'm not sure if we should use 'signifying' and 'symbolizing' when referring to the Last Supper.  Jesus I think says something along the lines of 'this is my blood' and considering that he was already known to magically transmute certain liquids into others at weddings I'm not sure if he was using symbols here.  I had thought that some denominations (Catholic?) actually believed that during Communion/Eucharist carried out today that the wine is 'really' changed to the blood of Christ, not sure.

Yeah, it's called transubstantiation. One of the tenants of Catholicism.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, danydandan said:

I just find it odd that vast majority of Religiously minded individuals consider it lunacy to accept a tangible person who's claim is to be a son of God, or whatever. But consider it sane that a bunch of second or third or more than likely fourth hand accounts of a dude from 2000 years ago. 

The one thing I liked about Mo was that he, right from the get go, absolutely forbade any possibilities of worshiping himself, he never claimed to be anything other  than a messenger that he claimed that he was. He really drew the line where idolatry was and he stuck to it.

He could recite the Quran but couldn't read ... well .. as far as his autobio of his day goes anyways ...

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah, it's called transubstantiation. One of the tenants of Catholicism.

Sorry ... it just cracks me up whenever I hear this mentioned by me Catholic friends ... not all of them believes it, in fact I have yet to meet one that actually believes it, They just go through that ritual just because it is important to them.

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Sorry ... it just cracks me up whenever I hear this mentioned by me Catholic friends ... not all of them believes it, in fact I have yet to meet one that actually believes it, They just go through that ritual just because it is important to them.

~

If they call themselves Catholic and don't actually believe transubstantiation, then they actually aren't Catholic. That's actually an excommunicatable offense. Actually in all actuality! 

Gimme their names and #sendmelocation so I can call the pope so he can get them.

Edited by danydandan
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
21 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So if I look myself in a room take a bunch of hallucinogens and write a book you'll worship it?

 

You shouldn't take drugs Dany. 

 

"You also have another saying among you, and one that contains much truth: That the way which leads to eternal life is straight and narrow, that the door which leads thereto is likewise narrow so that, of those who seek salvation, few can find entrance through this door. You also have a teaching that the way which leads to destruction is broad, that the entrance thereto is wide, and that there are many who choose to go this way. And this proverb is not without its meaning. But I declare that salvation is first a matter of your personal choosing. Even if the door to the way of life is narrow, it is wide enough to admit all who sincerely seek to enter, for I am that door. And the Son will never refuse entrance to any child of the universe who, by faith, seeks to find the Father through the Son.

"But herein is the danger to all who would postpone their entrance into the kingdom while they continue to pursue the pleasures of immaturity and indulge the satisfactions of selfishness: Having refused to enter the kingdom as a spiritual experience, they may subsequently seek entrance thereto when the glory of the better way becomes revealed in the age to come. And when, therefore, those who spurned the kingdom when I came in the likeness of humanity seek to find an entrance when it is revealed in the likeness of divinity, then will I say to all such selfish ones: I know not whence you are. You had your chance to prepare for this heavenly citizenship, but you refused all such proffers of mercy; you rejected all invitations to come while the door was open. Now, to you who have refused salvation, the door is shut. This door is not open to those who would enter the kingdom for selfish glory. Salvation is not for those who are unwilling to pay the price of wholehearted dedication to doing my Father's will. When in spirit and soul you have turned your backs upon the Father's kingdom, it is useless in mind and body to stand before this door and knock, saying, 'Lord, open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom.' Then will I declare that you are not of my fold. I will not receive you to be among those who have fought the good fight of faith and won the reward of unselfish service in the kingdom on earth. And when you say, 'Did we not eat and drink with you, and did you not teach in our streets?' then shall I again declare that you are spiritual strangers; that we were not fellow servants in the Father's ministry of mercy on earth; that I do not know you; and then shall the Judge of all the earth say to you: 'Depart from us, all you who have taken delight in the works of iniquity.'

"But fear not; every one who sincerely desires to find eternal life by entrance into the kingdom of God shall certainly find such everlasting salvation. But you who refuse this salvation will some day see the prophets of the seed of Abraham sit down with the believers of the gentile nations in this glorified kingdom to partake of the bread of life and to refresh themselves with the water thereof. And they who shall thus take the kingdom in spiritual power and by the persistent assaults of living faith will come from the north and the south and from the east and the west. And, behold, many who are first will be last, and those who are last will many times be first." UB

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

You shouldn't take drugs Dany. 

 

"You also have another saying among you, and one that contains much truth: That the way which leads to eternal life is straight and narrow, that the door which leads thereto is likewise narrow so that, of those who seek salvation, few can find entrance through this door. You also have a teaching that the way which leads to destruction is broad, that the entrance thereto is wide, and that there are many who choose to go this way. And this proverb is not without its meaning. But I declare that salvation is first a matter of your personal choosing. Even if the door to the way of life is narrow, it is wide enough to admit all who sincerely seek to enter, for I am that door. And the Son will never refuse entrance to any child of the universe who, by faith, seeks to find the Father through the Son.

"But herein is the danger to all who would postpone their entrance into the kingdom while they continue to pursue the pleasures of immaturity and indulge the satisfactions of selfishness: Having refused to enter the kingdom as a spiritual experience, they may subsequently seek entrance thereto when the glory of the better way becomes revealed in the age to come. And when, therefore, those who spurned the kingdom when I came in the likeness of humanity seek to find an entrance when it is revealed in the likeness of divinity, then will I say to all such selfish ones: I know not whence you are. You had your chance to prepare for this heavenly citizenship, but you refused all such proffers of mercy; you rejected all invitations to come while the door was open. Now, to you who have refused salvation, the door is shut. This door is not open to those who would enter the kingdom for selfish glory. Salvation is not for those who are unwilling to pay the price of wholehearted dedication to doing my Father's will. When in spirit and soul you have turned your backs upon the Father's kingdom, it is useless in mind and body to stand before this door and knock, saying, 'Lord, open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom.' Then will I declare that you are not of my fold. I will not receive you to be among those who have fought the good fight of faith and won the reward of unselfish service in the kingdom on earth. And when you say, 'Did we not eat and drink with you, and did you not teach in our streets?' then shall I again declare that you are spiritual strangers; that we were not fellow servants in the Father's ministry of mercy on earth; that I do not know you; and then shall the Judge of all the earth say to you: 'Depart from us, all you who have taken delight in the works of iniquity.'

"But fear not; every one who sincerely desires to find eternal life by entrance into the kingdom of God shall certainly find such everlasting salvation. But you who refuse this salvation will some day see the prophets of the seed of Abraham sit down with the believers of the gentile nations in this glorified kingdom to partake of the bread of life and to refresh themselves with the water thereof. And they who shall thus take the kingdom in spiritual power and by the persistent assaults of living faith will come from the north and the south and from the east and the west. And, behold, many who are first will be last, and those who are last will many times be first." UB

 

 

Tell that to the Authors of the Urantia Book.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

If they call themselves Catholic and don't actually believe transubstantiation, then they actually aren't Catholic. That's actually an excommunicatable offense. 

Gimme their names and #sendmelocation so I can call the pope so he can get them.

To be fair, being Chinese and Indians (India) ... they do have experience of the same concept common and prevalent of the old religions well before Catholicism ... I guess the same dubious sentiments carried over even when they are practicing Catholicism.

~

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
37 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

As far as the first sentence I'm not sure if we should use 'signifying' and 'symbolizing' when referring to the Last Supper.  Jesus I think says something along the lines of 'this is my blood' and considering that he was already known to magically transmute certain liquids into others at weddings I'm not sure if he was using symbols here.  I had thought that some denominations (Catholic?) actually believed that during Communion/Eucharist carried out today that the wine is 'really' changed to the blood of Christ, not sure.

Yes, maybe there are special rules that apply just to Jesus, but if he Jesus himself doesn't follow the 'Law' from which no jot or tittle has been removed then it could seem to bring up an inconsistency or contradiction.

Good points, I actually am not familiar with the specifics of how the Trinity came out of the Bible.  I just think that in the example you bolded from your James quote that although the statement itself is explicit, what exactly was meant by 'the Law' seems to differ depending on which believer you are talking to, although almost all agree that some of 'the Law' that is explicitly laid out in the OT no longer applies today to Christians.  Thus I'm not sure on this particular point that we should criticize today's Christians for not following these 'explicit' instructions if the specifics are unclear or complicated.


These are all very rational points, but to subsequently position any ambiguity in the laws as a legitimate reason to not follow or the intention to follow it as explicitly dictated by Christ, seems a bit extreme (?) Sort of; we dont really understand some of it, so lets get rid of (just about) all of it.. That would obviously not be in line with what was taught, as I understand it. Also, if such ambiguity was (too) abundant for Christians, would not follow thesame problem for Muslims?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
17 minutes ago, third_eye said:

To be fair, being Chinese and Indians (India) ... they do have experience of the same concept common and prevalent of the old religions well before Catholicism ... I guess the same dubious sentiments carried over even when they are practicing Catholicism.

~

So they are more open to the interpretation of their faith, because of their cultural backgrounds? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
30 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

These are all very rational points, but to subsequently position any ambiguity in the laws as a legitimate reason to not follow or the intention to follow it as explicitly dictated by Christ, seems a bit extreme (?) Sort of; we dont really understand some of it, so lets get rid of (just about) all of it.. That would obviously not be in line with what was taught, as I understand it. Also, if such ambiguity was (too) abundant for Christians, would not follow thesame problem for Muslims?

Definitely a fair enough point, and you know more about the details than I, but I think our ongoing discussion here is somewhat supporting the notion that not everything Jesus said that seems explicit is simple. Concerning the 'jot or tittle' passage, I think it's fair to think he wasn't destroying/overriding any commandments there for instance.  Don't eat shellfish and don't wear mixed fabric clothing I'm not so sure about, although there is a case if we are to treat this passage 'explicitly' that those may still be in effect.  'Fulfill them' is another phrase that despite being explicit has ambiguity, so it's a tough passage for a non-believer like myself to decipher in context.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
32 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


These are all very rational points, but to subsequently position any ambiguity in the laws as a legitimate reason to not follow or the intention to follow it as explicitly dictated by Christ, seems a bit extreme (?) Sort of; we dont really understand some of it, so lets get rid of (just about) all of it.. That would obviously not be in line with what was taught, as I understand it. Also, if such ambiguity was (too) abundant for Christians, would not follow thesame problem for Muslims?

I think that ambiguity is fundamental to all Religious ideology, isn't it?

But there a number of passages where its, lets say, insinuated that because Jesus is the Son of God he does indeed supercede the Old Testament writings.

A prime example is the conflicting, passages in the OT and NT. For example Exodus 21:24. ( I think) the Eye for and Eye part and Matthew 4:38-40something. Regarding turning the other cheek.

Also you could argue that in Matthew, again, 4:17 that he also seems to insist that Jesus superceded the old laws. Basically the laws of Moses was given to point people's minds forward to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah-to-come. Once he did come, the law's purpose was fulfilled, and it became obsolete. It was not destroyed, but superseded by a higher law, the law of the Gospel.

Basically read all of Matthew 5 and you can certainly argue that Jesus did indeed supercede, but did not abolish the old laws. 

Ambiguous, by nature lol.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I think that ambiguity is fundamental to all Religious ideology, isn't it?

 

With ideology yes.

But not with personal true religious experience. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, danydandan said:

So they are more open to the interpretation of their faith, because of their cultural backgrounds? 

I guess you could say that, one has to bear in mind that Western religious concepts are relatively recent over here in this corner of the globe. In the beginning nobody actually cares about the theological precepts or ideological principles, if a Church or Mosque or Temple was where food and security were available, then that's where god is, hardly a choice during the tumultuous period when Christianity/Catholicism/Protestantism came a proselytizing salvation. Islam was already centuries old, much more so when it comes to Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, and that's not mentioning the multitudes of other minor deity worshiping sects of the different cultures and traditions.

Western religions were pretty much the religion of choice among the elites and aristocrats. It was only quite recent that one finds the humble Jane and Joe converting to it. To me, and  I am by no means an expert in such matters, what I see is its actually some form of a social club for individuals of like mindedness, and it seldom has anything to with god whatever the denominations. Yes ... even for Islam as many of my Muslim friends will attest to. The common mantra right across the board is Let us deal with earthly issues and let god deal with the rest.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
13 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I guess you could say that, one has to bear in mind that Western religious concepts are relatively recent over here in this corner of the globe. In the beginning nobody actually cares about the theological precepts or ideological principles, if a Church or Mosque or Temple was where food and security were available, then that's where god is, hardly a choice during the tumultuous period when Christianity/Catholicism/Protestantism came a proselytizing salvation. Islam was already centuries old, much more so when it comes to Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, and that's not mentioning the multitudes of other minor deity worshiping sects of the different cultures and traditions.

Western religions were pretty much the religion of choice among the elites and aristocrats. It was only quite recent that one finds the humble Jane and Joe converting to it. To me, and  I am by no means an expert in such matters, what I see is its actually some form of a social club for individuals of like mindedness, and it seldom has anything to with god whatever the denominations. Yes ... even for Islam as many of my Muslim friends will attest to. The common mantra right across the board is Let us deal with earthly issues and let god deal with the rest.

That's how everyone should be, seems so much more easy going. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, danydandan said:

That's how everyone should be, seems so much more easy going. 

Its not perfect by no means, but we do the best we can.

Its two in the AM ... I gotta go snatch some shut eye ...

~ cheers ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Its not perfect by no means, but we do the best we can.

Its two in the AM ... I gotta go snatch some shut eye ...

~ cheers ~

Nothing and noone, expect my two daughters, are perfect. But all the Catholic Church here (In Éire) really is/was a meeting place for the village or town. So people could communicate or share stories and socialise with their neighbors that they might not have seen in awhile. 

Issues arise when people take it to the extreme, and in reality all the sectarianism here was caused by colonialism and a people not wanting to be colonised. Religion just took sides sometimes.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.