Believing In Fairy Tales
alissowack
Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
The religious seem to be the ones that are accused of believing in fairy tales...and maybe rightfully so. The Christian is one that is ranked high on the list of those. There are stories in the Bible that stretches the imagination of what seems humanly impossible and a deity that is seen as "the Great Magician".
But, I feel there is a problem in treating the miraculous things of the Bible as just "miraculous"...or making miracles to only to be about miracles. It's one thing to believe that ? created the heavens and earth and another to be entertained by it; to somewhat be amused that ? could do such a thing; maybe even try to understand or re-create Genesis. It's one thing to believe that ? used Noah to keep the human race (and animals) alive and another to be fixated on "the boat" that made it possible.
It would be missing the point to try to see if it is humanly possible for someone to live inside a whale, make a burning bush talk, find the Ark of the Covenant or the "Giants" in which one was slain by David. We are definitely "lost" if Jesus's time on earth was just a magnificent display of healing and power in our eyes; to also be fixated on his death and resurrection as "last trick" of the day.
There is a passage in Luke 16 that expresses this. The rich man is in Hell and is trying to at least get Lazarus (who is dead) to tell his five brothers about this place...
27.“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28.for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29.“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30.” ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31.“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
According to this, if the "dead" can't convince someone to believe, then what would it take?
But, I feel there is a problem in treating the miraculous things of the Bible as just "miraculous"...or making miracles to only to be about miracles. It's one thing to believe that ? created the heavens and earth and another to be entertained by it; to somewhat be amused that ? could do such a thing; maybe even try to understand or re-create Genesis. It's one thing to believe that ? used Noah to keep the human race (and animals) alive and another to be fixated on "the boat" that made it possible.
It would be missing the point to try to see if it is humanly possible for someone to live inside a whale, make a burning bush talk, find the Ark of the Covenant or the "Giants" in which one was slain by David. We are definitely "lost" if Jesus's time on earth was just a magnificent display of healing and power in our eyes; to also be fixated on his death and resurrection as "last trick" of the day.
There is a passage in Luke 16 that expresses this. The rich man is in Hell and is trying to at least get Lazarus (who is dead) to tell his five brothers about this place...
27.“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28.for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29.“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30.” ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31.“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
According to this, if the "dead" can't convince someone to believe, then what would it take?
Comments
-
So it sounds to me like you're saying people who are skeptical of Christianity should just stop focusing on the lies?
-
shootemwon wrote: »So it sounds to me like you're saying people who are skeptical of Christianity should just stop focusing on the lies?
This doesn't just apply to the skeptics. It applies to the believers as well. What if the "Christians" have been wrong all along? What if the atrocities done in the name of ? were false hopes of what they thought the Bible saying? -
alissowack wrote: »This doesn't just apply to the skeptics. It applies to the believers as well. What if the "Christians" have been wrong all along? What if the atrocities done in the name of ? were false hopes of what they thought the Bible saying?
Well if that was the case, it would be a lot like much of Western History. -
If dead people came to life and spoke about heaven and hell i'd believe. If Jesus came down I'd believe.
A book doesn't make me believe.
A man in a decorated klansman outfit doesn't make be believe.
One person surviving a jet crash while 350 die doesn't make me believe. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »If dead people came to life and spoke about heaven and hell i'd believe. If Jesus came down I'd believe.
A book doesn't make me believe.
A man in a decorated klansman outfit doesn't make be believe.
One person surviving a jet crash while 350 die doesn't make me believe.
Yes, you would be convinced that Jesus exists...but you still won't believe. -
alissowack wrote: »This doesn't just apply to the skeptics. It applies to the believers as well. What if the "Christians" have been wrong all along? What if the atrocities done in the name of ? were false hopes of what they thought the Bible saying?
What do you mean by this? By being wrong and things being done in the name of ? ? -
no one who has died has ever came back to life.So what the ? are you talking about? Why cant Christians and other religious freaks admit that their is no physical proof that ? exists and that they are just followers?
-
What do you mean by this? By being wrong and things being done in the name of ? ?
This may not be the best example, but I'll use it. The Bible has been instrumental in slavery and the white supremacy of western society. It brought pain and suffering for Black people and the followers did so in the name of ? . And yet, the same Bible was instrumental in freedom of Blacks during the Civil Rights Movement (and so that I don't seem naive, I am aware of the racism that still exists between Whites and Blacks). MLK had to have been aware of those passages that talked about slaves just as well as the Klu Klux ? , yet what made MLK's understanding "right"? What would make MLK's movement more "Christian" than the KKK? Just a side note, I'm not saying that MLK's movement IS the reason for our freedoms, but it contributed to it.
There are people "using" the Bible for their own selfish advances. It's more evident in the megachurches of today. -
no one who has died has ever came back to life.So what the ? are you talking about? Why cant Christians and other religious freaks admit that their is no physical proof that ? exists and that they are just followers?
But, if someone did come back to life talking about Heaven and Hell, you still wouldn't believe. My point isn't to prove that dead people can be brought back to life. -
-
If someone did comeback,why would I not believe them? That would actually prove this whole ? theory to be true.
-
whatever you think of religion in general, or Christianity in particular, do we really think that the KKK is more in line with the New Testament than MLK?alissowack wrote: »MLK had to have been aware of those passages that talked about slaves just as well as the Klu Klux ? , yet what made MLK's understanding "right"? What would make MLK's movement more "Christian" than the KKK? -
whatever you think of religion in general, or Christianity in particular, do we really think that the KKK is more in line with the New Testament than MLK?
LOL...but you really don't wanna go there with the Old Testament
-
whatever you think of religion in general, or Christianity in particular, do we really think that the KKK is more in line with the New Testament than MLK?
But, it could be just as easy to treat the Bible in the same light. MLK could have been fed the line..."this is the white man's book that endorses slavery". And when we think of slavery, we are more likely to think about it as it pertains to slavery in the South. What if what we think of slavery is wrong? -
If someone did comeback,why would I not believe them? That would actually prove this whole ? theory to be true.
Sure, you would be convinced when it comes to the evidence. But, it's not about the evidence. -
alissowack wrote: »Sure, you would be convinced when it comes to the evidence. But, it's not about the evidence.
Yes it is. If I said I was a the next big prophet and that you had to have faith I was you wouldn't. Why? Because there's no evidence I can present proving it. Now I could write a book and have people 50 years later believing it and thinking I was a prophet but to your face you wouldn't dare just take my word for it and place your faith and life in my hands. -
alissowack wrote: »The religious seem to be the ones that are accused of believing in fairy tales...and maybe rightfully so. The Christian is one that is ranked high on the list of those. There are stories in the Bible that stretches the imagination of what seems humanly impossible and a deity that is seen as "the Great Magician". But, I feel there is a problem in treating the miraculous things of the Bible as just "miraculous"...or making miracles to only to be about miracles. It's one thing to believe that ? created the heavens and earth and another to be entertained by it; to somewhat be amused that ? could do such a thing; maybe even try to understand or re-create Genesis. It's one thing to believe that ? used Noah to keep the human race (and animals) alive and another to be fixated on "the boat" that made it possible. It would be missing the point to try to see if it is humanly possible for someone to live inside a whale, make a burning bush talk, find the Ark of the Covenant or the "Giants" in which one was slain by David. We are definitely "lost" if Jesus's time on earth was just a magnificent display of healing and power in our eyes; to also be fixated on his death and resurrection as "last trick" of the day. There is a passage in Luke 16 that expresses this. The rich man is in Hell and is trying to at least get Lazarus (who is dead) to tell his five brothers about this place... 27.“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28.for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29.“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30.” ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31.“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ” According to this, if the "dead" can't convince someone to believe, then what would it take?
Oh, where to start ? .....
We look around and see a world of immense variety of living, interacting highly complex replicating creatures.
Big debate going on for centuries: Did it all come about due to a Creator ?,.... or sans Creator ?
What is most plausible ? Creator or sans Creator ..... Which is the reality and which is the "fairy tale" ?
If one acknowleges a Creator to be plausible,.... then the rest of the "miracles" of the Bible are a piece of cake. -
John Prewett wrote: »Oh, where to start ? .....
We look around and see a world of immense variety of living, interacting highly complex replicating creatures.
Big debate going on for centuries: Did it all come about due to a Creator ?,.... or sans Creator ?
What is most plausible ? Creator or sans Creator ..... Which is the reality and which is the "fairy tale" ?
If one acknowleges a Creator to be plausible,.... then the rest of the "miracles" of the Bible are a piece of cake.
Also, if one acknowledges there is no reason to believe in a creator and that the "miracles" of the Bible were just made up, there's no need to come up for excuses for why logic, reason, and the laws of physics were defied. -
well, we're also talking about Christianity, so we might as well keep it based on the NT and avoid all the "NT changes things said in the OT" debates and the likeshootemwon wrote: »LOL...but you really don't wanna go there with the Old Testament
what he could have heard about the book is not the point. we're talking about whether it's accurate to say that the KKK's view of the Bible can be considered as accurate as MLK's, right?alissowack wrote: »But, it could be just as easy to treat the Bible in the same light. MLK could have been fed the line..."this is the white man's book that endorses slavery". -
well, we're also talking about Christianity, so we might as well keep it based on the NT and avoid all the "NT changes things said in the OT" debates and the like
Not exactly. It's probably more because the Old Testament described ? as spiteful, angry, and supportive of genocide. -
well, considering that it's my position i'm going with, i have to tell you why i'm going with itshootemwon wrote: »Not exactly. It's probably more because the Old Testament described ? as spiteful, angry, and supportive of genocide. -
Whatvever. Let's just agree that the Old Testament indicates that ? supports genocide, so extremist racist organizations can relate to that.
-
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Yes it is. If I said I was a the next big prophet and that you had to have faith I was you wouldn't. Why? Because there's no evidence I can present proving it. Now I could write a book and have people 50 years later believing it and thinking I was a prophet but to your face you wouldn't dare just take my word for it and place your faith and life in my hands.
There is a difference between knowing what you can do and knowing who you are. If you are "the next big prophet", then you are (for the sake of the argument). You wouldn't have to prove it or provide evidence because it is personified in you. Getting to know you is equivalent to getting to know "the next big prophet". I would know the nature, the being of who you are (whatever it is). Now, if it is what you do, then it's possible that you are not who you say you are. You could be someone else posing as the "next big prophet". You could do everything a prophet does, but display a different personality or nature; you could be just like a machine that tells the future. I would only come to you because I know what you can do and care less about who you are...just as long as I get what I want. -
alissowack wrote: »This may not be the best example, but I'll use it. The Bible has been instrumental in slavery and the white supremacy of western society. It brought pain and suffering for Black people and the followers did so in the name of ? . And yet, the same Bible was instrumental in freedom of Blacks during the Civil Rights Movement (and so that I don't seem naive, I am aware of the racism that still exists between Whites and Blacks). MLK had to have been aware of those passages that talked about slaves just as well as the Klu Klux ? , yet what made MLK's understanding "right"? What would make MLK's movement more "Christian" than the KKK? Just a side note, I'm not saying that MLK's movement IS the reason for our freedoms, but it contributed to it.
There are people "using" the Bible for their own selfish advances. It's more evident in the megachurches of today.
How is that done in the name of ? ? Any logical person who reads the bible about slavery and then looks at chattel slavery and we don't see anything that condones that. So if they try to use the bible, they're not only in the wrong but purposely misusing it. This wouldn't be in the name of ? , because it would be misused so it couldn't be in the name of ? . They might claim this but it holds no barring and whoever accepts what they say and doesn't do research in their bible (or a friends/library) then they have nothing to say.
Bolded - yes, very true. This is exactly why I say there's more than half of these "scc's" who are going to "hell" or if you don't like that term because you don't believe in hell, they will be separated from ? "forever". -
what he could have heard about the book is not the point. we're talking about whether it's accurate to say that the KKK's view of the Bible can be considered as accurate as MLK's, right?
It's more like same Bible, different viewpoints. I don't think that accuracy is the issue (though I may have made it sound that way). MLK and the KKK believed in something, and the Bible "confirmed" their belief whether voluntarily or involuntarily. One's "faith" led to the cruel treatment of Blacks and the other led to the de-segregation of Blacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg39rTrnWaA
