It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Every time I ask: do you believe literally? I get willful moral and intellectual dissonance.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Every time I ask: do you believe literally? I get willful moral and intellectual dissonance.

Please see how this clip ends.

www.youtube.com...

I believe that Jesus believed, is what that last gent speaking in this clip uses as his reason for believing the unbelievable story of Lot. He is forgiving a God who is obviously doing evil just because he can blame his poor moral position on Jesus.

This type of willful moral and intellectual dissonance is what I get from many Christians who will forgive their God for things they condemn people for doing.

If morals are not the most important issue for God or Christians, then what is the most important aspect of religion to you as a believer?

Are literalists idol worshipers? The last speaker seems to be one as he ignores his own true beliefs to follow his idol, Jesus.

Regards
DL




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
@op... haven't watched the vid....and you haven't posted a synopsis. So what about Lot? God wiped out a town full of rapists. What exactly is the problem here may I ask?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Keep in mind most religious people don't REALLY follow their doctrine, they hand pick the parts they like and leave out the rest.

I mean think about it, they didn't find religion while looking deeply inside themselves, nor did they start a quest for absolute knowledge and concluded that this particular faith was the answer;
No, they were "gently" coerced into it from a young age by society and/or their family.

And if you ask me, with that kind of a start it's only natural that most people have an incongruent and ignorant relationship with their faith.
edit on 23/1/14 by MadHatter364 because:



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

I guess the only important question here is, why do you care? What do you get out of this?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
@op... haven't watched the vid....and you haven't posted a synopsis. So what about Lot? God wiped out a town full of rapists. What exactly is the problem here may I ask?
He also wiped out a town full of women, children and animals just to smite a few rapists, which, by the way, could have been handled by the angels themselves. And one screwed up part about this ''story'' is the fact that LOT offered up his own virgin daughters to keep the rapists from these angels. Is that your best example? Just asking.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
@op... haven't watched the vid....and you haven't posted a synopsis. So what about Lot? God wiped out a town full of rapists. What exactly is the problem here may I ask?


That story has nothing to do with sex.

Since when is the sentence for rape death and what of the times in scriptures where God orders it with orders for the Jews to kill all the married women in town but save the virgins for the Jewish men?

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

MadHatter364
Keep in mind most religious people don't REALLY follow their doctrine, they hand pick the parts they like and leave out the rest.

I mean think about it, they didn't find religion while looking deeply inside themselves, nor did they start a quest for absolute knowledge and concluded that this particular faith was the answer;
No, they were "gently" coerced into it from a young age by society and/or their family.

And if you ask me, with that kind of a start it's only natural that most people have an incongruent and ignorant relationship with their faith.
edit on 23/1/14 by MadHatter364 because:


I agree.

God is supposed to be the biggest decision for a person and yet 99% of theists inherited their God from their parents.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Bone75
reply to post by Greatest I am
 

I guess the only important question here is, why do you care? What do you get out of this?


With luck and the butterfly effect perhaps a reduction in the harm that Christianity is doing to people.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

www.youtube.com...

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 3
www.liveleak.com...

Death to Gays.
www.youtube.com...

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Morality is NOT dependent on 'religion'.
I watched your vid, and also watched the longer version of it (From BBC "The Big Questions") - an hour of people speaking. Two men, two women.

One of the women (Francesca) is a Biblical Historian - and she says, "No, King David and Moses did not exist".
The other woman is a Rabbi -
Then we have Richard Dawkins and an Anglican Bishop....

The name of the episode was "Is the Bible still relevant today?"

I say, no. Not really.
Others will disagree. Does it really matter? Yes: It matters that people (like the guy at the end of your 10-min clip) take it literally, when it is CLEARLY full of myth, metaphor, and manipulation.....

I agree with Dawkins on this one: WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO BE MORAL PEOPLE.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Its an inner journey and gnostic writings, the literal is a fairy tale, but the real value in the scriptures is it shows true faith, seeking, growth, goodness, and the way to ascend or become a buddha.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
There is nothing to believe, just be.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Morality is NOT dependent on 'religion'.
I watched your vid, and also watched the longer version of it (From BBC "The Big Questions") - an hour of people speaking. Two men, two women.

One of the women (Francesca) is a Biblical Historian - and she says, "No, King David and Moses did not exist".
The other woman is a Rabbi -
Then we have Richard Dawkins and an Anglican Bishop....

The name of the episode was "Is the Bible still relevant today?"

I say, no. Not really.
Others will disagree. Does it really matter? Yes: It matters that people (like the guy at the end of your 10-min clip) take it literally, when it is CLEARLY full of myth, metaphor, and manipulation.....

I agree with Dawkins on this one: WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO BE MORAL PEOPLE.



I take it further and say we would be a more moral people without believing in fantasy, miracles and magic.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Unity_99
Its an inner journey and gnostic writings, the literal is a fairy tale, but the real value in the scriptures is it shows true faith, seeking, growth, goodness, and the way to ascend or become a buddha.


Pfft. Not to Christians.

They do not seek wisdom. They only crave their free ride on Jesus into heaven.

That is why they call it a fall when A & E gained the moral wisdom that God had.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

HUMBLEONE
There is nothing to believe, just be.


Wish I could but it is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

www.youtube.com...

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 3
www.liveleak.com...

Death to Gays.
www.youtube.com...

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the two cities were so full of wicked people that not even 10 good ones could be found there. When God said he was going to destroy the cities because no one good lived there, Abraham pleaded for them people in the cities, and God agreed to spare them if Abraham could find even 50 good people. Abraham bargained God down to just 10 good people.

Two angels of the Lord went into the city met Abraham's nephew Lot who took them home and gave the hospitality. Understand that hospitality is a sacred sort of thing in those days and lands, still is today to some degree. Well, all the men of the city surrounded the house and demanded that Lot hand the two visitors over so they could rape them. Well, Lot didn't hand over the angels of the Lord, but even he had become corrupted enough that he handed over his virgin daughters to the rape gang.

So, there were no more good men in the cities.

The Lord knew what he was doing.

Do I think that was the literal thing that happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? Who can say. It has been established that they existed and something bad happened to them, though.
edit on 23-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   
The easy answer is that I believe that Jesus did not believe literally.

I found an interesting article. You might say the search was inspired by this thread.


Literalism and Biblical Authority

It should also be noted that the issue of “literalism” is quite distinct from that of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Jesus plainly believed that the Old Testament was both inspired and authoritative [1]– he did not believe that it merely had some nice stories and some inspirational bits (like Aesop’s fables or The Lord of the Rings). But to believe that something is inspired and accurate need not imply one takes it literally. Thus eg we may believe that John was absolutely accurate and inspired in recording that Jesus said “I am the vine” – but this does not mean that we take it literally. Jesus definitely believed the whole Old Testament (his Bible) was inspired, but did he take it literally?


The article is quite lengthy and describes in detail the contradictions that arise when anyone tries to take the bible too literally.


No one takes the whole Bible literally

Actually, although the media often speak of “biblical literalists”, no one at all takes the whole of the Bible literally. Looking just at Jesus’ sayings: there are few one-eyed literalists (Matthew 5:29) few who suggest we should really “hate” all our relatives (Luke 14:26), and even fewer who think that Jesus was literally a vine even though he plainly said he was (John 15:1). Looking at the creation passages, one of the very first statements is And God said “let there be light” – but few suppose that this means God spoke using literal sound waves before he even made an atmosphere. People who set out with bold claims to be biblical “literalists” really aren’t. Thus eg in a postscript below we look at Henry Morris, a key figure in establishing the supposed “literalist” movement, and find that, in practice, in ten key points he interpreted the Bible’s creation passages figuratively. This is inevitable. No one can be a total literalist.


Link to full article
www.scibel.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Greatest I am

Unity_99
Its an inner journey and gnostic writings, the literal is a fairy tale, but the real value in the scriptures is it shows true faith, seeking, growth, goodness, and the way to ascend or become a buddha.


Pfft. Not to Christians.

They do not seek wisdom. They only crave their free ride on Jesus into heaven.

That is why they call it a fall when A & E gained the moral wisdom that God had.

Regards
DL


I am a Christian. Went through the hoops from Catholic to Protestant, or free=er, and have a strong faith, but not in any smiting God, and have always been directed within and experienced daily miracles.

Now Im a Gnostic CHRISTIAN. And can actually read the clues in the bible, along with realizing what is buried there. Inner meanings pertaining to you, God is Love and Goodness with infinite patience, which is God and Dad/Mom by the way, the way God really is, would never harm a fly. Outer fairy tale, you have a smiting jealous saturn and a murderer.

I am a Christian, gnostic one, can see through most of what's there. Inner meanings are wonderful clues as to how to overcome this world and walk in Christ's footsteps.
edit on 24-1-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

ketsuko
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the two cities were so full of wicked people that not even 10 good ones could be found there. When God said he was going to destroy the cities because no one good lived there, Abraham pleaded for them people in the cities, and God agreed to spare them if Abraham could find even 50 good people. Abraham bargained God down to just 10 good people.

Two angels of the Lord went into the city met Abraham's nephew Lot who took them home and gave the hospitality. Understand that hospitality is a sacred sort of thing in those days and lands, still is today to some degree. Well, all the men of the city surrounded the house and demanded that Lot hand the two visitors over so they could rape them. Well, Lot didn't hand over the angels of the Lord, but even he had become corrupted enough that he handed over his virgin daughters to the rape gang.

So, there were no more good men in the cities.

The Lord knew what he was doing.

Do I think that was the literal thing that happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? Who can say. It has been established that they existed and something bad happened to them, though.
edit on 23-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)


I did not particularly want to speak of the historicity of Sodom here is an old O P of mine.

What was the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Let's look at what God Himself has to say about it, through the Prophet Ezekiel:
"49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it." - Ezekiel 16:49-50

Ah, so the true sin was that they were greedy, prideful and did not aid the poor and needy!

You can read the whole chapter here: Ezekiel 16 "Again the word of the LORD came to me:..." RSV - Online Bible Study (Most of what God is chastising the Hebrews for here is entirely true of modern America.)

Now, in the Letter of Jude, it does mention "going after strange flesh", but that could easily be taken as pertaining to them trying to rape Angels. I'd certainly say that Angelic beings are certainly "strange flesh" to wish to fornicate with.


What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?
To many anti-gay Christians, gays are nothing more than “sodomites" who are damned for all eternity. It doesn't matter that many spent decades immersed in the Bible, ancient biblical languages, and the Christian theological tradition. It doesn't matter that gays dedicated their lives to preaching, teaching, and ministering to all people, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The simple fact that one is openly gay man makes all of that irrelevant. To anti-gay Christians, God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapter 19 of the Book of Genesis is a warning to gays and those like me who support them.

Ironically, I believe that these anti-gay Christians actually have it backwards. The true sin of the Sodomites as described in the Bible has nothing to do with same-sex acts per se. Rather, the ancient Sodomites were punished by God for far greater sins: for attempted gang rape, for mob violence, and for turning their backs on strangers and the needy who were in their midst. In other words, the real sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality. And, ironically, it is often anti-gay Christians who are most guilty of this sin today.

The biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah begins when two angels, disguised as travelers, arrive at the gates of Sodom. They meet Lot, a relative newcomer to the city, who insists that they spend the night in his house. The other men of Sodom learn about the two strangers in their midst. In contrast to Lot's gracious hospitality, which includes preparing a feast for his guests, the men surround Lot's house and demand that he turn over his guests so that they may "yada" them (Genesis 19:5). Anti-gay Christians have interpreted this Hebrew word narrowly to mean "to have sex with" and thus have interpreted the sin of Sodom as nothing more than engaging in same-sex acts, as opposed to "rape" or "molestation."

Interestingly, most people don't realize that Biblical translators do not agree on how to translate yada into English. Of the 983 times that yada appears in the Hebrew Bible, it literally means "to know" at least 973 (that is, 98.9 percent) of those times. Indeed, the King James Version (KJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) all use the more literal word "know" in Genesis 19:5. By contrast, the New International Version (NIV) uses the phrase "have sex," the New American Standard Bible (NASB) uses "have relations with," and the New American Bible (NAB) uses "have intimacies with."

I am not criticizing the NIV, NASB, and NAB for making explicit the sexual meaning of the word yada. After all, the same word is used by Lot a few verses later when he offers up his daughters to the men of Sodom. Which, if you think about it, is a rather foolish thing as gay men would have no use for his daughters. Lot would know that. If you are a straight male then you will know that that would be as foolish as me offering you a gay man to play with.

Yuk!! From YPOV. Right?

What I am saying, however, is that translation is not simply a matter of reading a Hebrew word and plugging in a corresponding English word from the dictionary. If that were the case, there would be no need to love God with our minds in addition to our hearts and souls. In my view, a much more accurate -- and responsible -- translation for yada in the NIV, NASB, and NAB would be "to rape" or "to molest," since the acts described in Genesis 19:5 have nothing to do with consensual or loving sex.

To continue the story, Lot offers up his virgin daughters to appease the angry mob (which, by the way, is highly problematic and is rarely addressed by anti-gay Christians), but the men of Sodom turn down Lot's offer and try to storm Lot's house. At this point, the angelic visitors blind the men of Sodom so that they are unable to find the door. The next morning, the visitors whisk away Lot, his wife, and his two daughters right before God destroys Sodom and its neighboring town Gomorrah with sulfur and fire from the heavens. Despite being warned not to look back, Lot's wife cannot help herself and is therefore turned into a pillar of salt.

To me, it is clear that the real sin of Sodom is radical inhospitality, or turning one's back upon the strangers and the neediest in our midst. Rather than welcoming traveling sojourners into their homes and feeding them, the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape them and exert their power over them. (In fact, gang rape is precisely what happens to the unnamed concubine in Judges 19, which is the parallel story to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hebrew Bible.)

In fact, the Bible itself expressly describes the sin of Sodom elsewhere as radical inhospitality. According to the prophet Ezekiel, the real "guilt" of the Sodomites was the fact that, although they had "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease," they "did not aid the poor and needy" and were "haughty" (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Similarly, the Letter to the Hebrews warns Christians by alluding to the true sin of the Sodomites as inhospitality: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it" (Hebrews 13:2).

Even St. Jerome, the distinguished fourth-century Doctor of the Church, biblical translator, and author of the Vulgate Bible, described the primary sin of Sodom as "pride, bloatedness, the abundance of all things, leisure and delicacies." (See "Commentaria in Hiezechielem" 5.16.48-51, as translated by Mark D. Jordan in The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997], at 33 n.11.)

(I recognize that some readers may point to the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 7 as a counterargument to my reading of Genesis 19. However, the Greek text in that passage, "sarkos heteras," literally means "strange" or "other" flesh, which I believe refers to the divine, or other-worldly, nature of the angelic visitors. In other words, the Sodomites' desire to rape God's angels is akin to the transgressions of the mysterious "sons of God" in Genesis 6 who copulated with human females and thus led to the Great Flood in Genesis 7.)

It should be no surprise that radical inhospitality was a sin of the first-order magnitude in the Ancient Near East. Taking care of the sojourner or traveler in the midst of a hostile desert environment often meant the difference between life and death. According to ancient Jewish texts, such as the Babylonian Talmud and the Genesis Rabba, the inhabitants of Sodom were infamous for their cruelty and their failure to support the poor and the needy in their midst, as well as their failure to practice charity and justice. Extra-biblical stories included the Sodomites' physical torture of travelers as well as their burning of a young woman who had dared to share food with a family that was starving of hunger. This is in stark contrast to Lot's radical hospitality, or the radical hospitality of Abraham and Sarah to the three disguised angels who visit them in Genesis 18, the chapter that immediately precedes the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative.

So, who are the real Sodomites today? Who are the people who turn their backs on the strangers and the least among us? Ironically, I believe that anti-gay Christians are often the ones who are most guilty of committing the true sin of Sodom. These include the Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops who are trying to scapegoat LGBT people for the horrific crimes of child rape that were committed by their brother priests. These also include the Mormon leaders who are secretly funding campaigns to fight marriage equality for LGBT people, despite the fact that their founders practiced polygamy. Finally, these include anti-gay politicians and self-appointed "family values" advocates who insist that LGBT people are categorically unfit to serve as parents or judges (because they are sinners and morally flawed), but are too blind to see their own sins and moral flaws.

The bottom line is that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus Christ ever condemn LGBT people. However, Jesus does expressly condemn people who turn their backs on strangers and on those who are the neediest among us. In the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus says that whoever fails to welcome such people has failed to welcome Jesus himself (Matthew 25:43). In my view, the anti-gay religious leaders, politicians, and "family values" advocates who turn their backs on LGBT people should spend far less time obsessing about LGBT people and far more time thinking about the true sin of Sodom: radical inhospitality.
Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.: What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?

Ketsuko

The bottom line for me is that there had to be many children in those cities and no self-respecting moral God would kill children for what their parents do.

I hope you agree.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

GodIsRelative
The easy answer is that I believe that Jesus did not believe literally.

I found an interesting article. You might say the search was inspired by this thread.


Literalism and Biblical Authority

It should also be noted that the issue of “literalism” is quite distinct from that of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Jesus plainly believed that the Old Testament was both inspired and authoritative [1]– he did not believe that it merely had some nice stories and some inspirational bits (like Aesop’s fables or The Lord of the Rings). But to believe that something is inspired and accurate need not imply one takes it literally. Thus eg we may believe that John was absolutely accurate and inspired in recording that Jesus said “I am the vine” – but this does not mean that we take it literally. Jesus definitely believed the whole Old Testament (his Bible) was inspired, but did he take it literally?


The article is quite lengthy and describes in detail the contradictions that arise when anyone tries to take the bible too literally.


No one takes the whole Bible literally

Actually, although the media often speak of “biblical literalists”, no one at all takes the whole of the Bible literally. Looking just at Jesus’ sayings: there are few one-eyed literalists (Matthew 5:29) few who suggest we should really “hate” all our relatives (Luke 14:26), and even fewer who think that Jesus was literally a vine even though he plainly said he was (John 15:1). Looking at the creation passages, one of the very first statements is And God said “let there be light” – but few suppose that this means God spoke using literal sound waves before he even made an atmosphere. People who set out with bold claims to be biblical “literalists” really aren’t. Thus eg in a postscript below we look at Henry Morris, a key figure in establishing the supposed “literalist” movement, and find that, in practice, in ten key points he interpreted the Bible’s creation passages figuratively. This is inevitable. No one can be a total literalist.


Link to full article
www.scibel.com...


Good info. Thanks.

I think that literalists are killing religion and if spiritual people do not start pushing back then religions will disappear.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Unity_99

Greatest I am

Unity_99
Its an inner journey and gnostic writings, the literal is a fairy tale, but the real value in the scriptures is it shows true faith, seeking, growth, goodness, and the way to ascend or become a buddha.


Pfft. Not to Christians.

They do not seek wisdom. They only crave their free ride on Jesus into heaven.

That is why they call it a fall when A & E gained the moral wisdom that God had.

Regards
DL


I am a Christian. Went through the hoops from Catholic to Protestant, or free=er, and have a strong faith, but not in any smiting God, and have always been directed within and experienced daily miracles.

Now Im a Gnostic CHRISTIAN. And can actually read the clues in the bible, along with realizing what is buried there. Inner meanings pertaining to you, God is Love and Goodness with infinite patience, which is God and Dad/Mom by the way, the way God really is, would never harm a fly. Outer fairy tale, you have a smiting jealous saturn and a murderer.

I am a Christian, gnostic one, can see through most of what's there. Inner meanings are wonderful clues as to how to overcome this world and walk in Christ's footsteps.
edit on 24-1-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


Now there are two Gnostic Christians here.

That would make you a universalist. Right?

Regards
DL

P S. www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-1-2014 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join