Religious Affiliations

Warmaster129 · **Joined:** Mon May 10, 2004 10:01 pm **Posts:** 12

Quote:

"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

Another reason I'm not a christian.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:31 pm

There are literally hundreds of such inconsistencies in the Bible, but a Christian who has a real handle on his faith (mind you, I'm no Christian) will tell you that the bible is anything but straight non-fiction, and that it's the message that matters.

A good site for Christians who want to learn more about their Bible is this one:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Egh. For an IPU-follower I spend far too much time defending Christians.

cyco · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:22 pm

When he says hes seen God hes saying hes seen he works.like what he did for him and other people.The Bible was written a long time ago so hes talking in the same way they did a looong time ago.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:34 pm

I wouldn't be so sure about that, cyco.

cyco · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:18 am

The ones that they saw Jesus were when he was human.no one can see the Holy Spirit.why it says you cant see God and the lord and keeps changing is because the Father Son and Holy Spirit (God Jesus and Holy Spirit) are one.but they also arent.why we dont understand that is like a infant or toddler understanding algerbra or calculas.we think its impossible but we just dont understand it.

Tom · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:51 pm

cyco wrote:

The ones that they saw Jesus were when he was human.no one can see the Holy Spirit.why it says you cant see God and the lord and keeps changing is because the Father Son and Holy Spirit (God Jesus and Holy Spirit) are one.but they also arent.why we dont understand that is like a infant or toddler understanding algerbra or calculas.we think its impossible but we just dont understand it.

Actually cyco, I'm pretty sure the problem is linguistic. The words "Yahweh" and "Elohim" have different meanings, but are often translated into the same English words. cyco, the passages in question don't mention anything about the Holy Spirit or the idea of the Trinity. Did you read them?

This Wikipedia page on Elohim and this one on Tetragrammaton really clarify the difference between the two words.

JoeyDay · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:26 pm

The passages that refer to God speaking to someone face to face (or for example, wrestling with Abraham) are called "Christophanies" by theologians. They are not real manifestations of God's completeness, but simply God revealing himself to man in a way man will understand.

Even though Moses (among others) repeatedly made the claim that he had "spoken to God face to face," he could not have meant that he saw or beheld the true nature of God. We get a glimpse of what God is really like when he shows his full glory to Moses (Exo. 33:18-23; 34:6, 7). He can't show Moses all of himself at once, and the experience is excruciating for Moses to endure, so the Lord tells him to hide in the cleft of a rock while it happens. God passes by Moses in all of his glory, but keeps his hand in front of Moses (this is an anthropomorphism of course; it essentially means that God covered Moses in some way), so it's not clear if Moses really sees much. When Moses comes down off the mountain after the experience his face shines as if it's been sunburned. This is what it means to truly see God, and this is the meaning used in passages that say no man can see God.

I'd like to provide more information about the concept of "Christophany", but I'm having trouble finding a good article about it online. The great Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't seem to have an article, and the popular search engine Google isn't coming up with much that is any good. I'm also trying to find a better explanation in some theology textbooks I have. I'll keep looking.

Suffice it to say, no one can see ALL of God -- or God's complete glory -- and survive, but man has been shown visible manifestations of God in various forms, the most important one being the Christ (Heb 1:1-3).

JoeyDay · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:12 pm

Heh... I may have screwed up in my terminology. What I'm referring to might be called a "Theophany", not a "Christophany". I'm still researching it.

JoeyDay · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:12 pm

Yep... Found a wikipedia article. Unfortunately, it's a stub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany

I'm looking through my textbooks again.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:42 pm

Thanks for the elaboration, Joey. Interesting.

Didymus · **Posted:** Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:18 pm

I have no problem with the tension in those passages; it seems kind of simple to me. God in his full nature (or essence) is invisible. But at times He does reveal Himself to people by assuming some form or another in what Joey called "theophanies." What Moses saw was not God's face, but His backside, that is, only a minute part of His glory. What Jacob saw was not God in His glory, but God in a human form.

But Joey has already answered that question fairly well, I think.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:27 pm

Didymus wrote:

What Moses saw was not God's face, but His backside

...

lumberpeg vegeplank · **Posted:** Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:55 pm

Pardalis wrote:

Polytheist! Stemming from my philosophy that if the world was the work of just a single deity life, the world and the universe would contradict itself far less often.

Lots and lots of gods out there with their own agenda's. Some like us humans, others hate our guts. Why else would people sometimes win first class tickets to Hawaii only for the plane to crash into the pacific?

Hey it happens!

And why else would everything that taste's good or is fun be bad for you?
Sure you can say God and the Devil, but even that just won't do since life is all to often as incoherent as one of those incoherent movies that's incoherent because it had seven or more people writing the script.

I am telling you, oodles of gods! :eek:

No but seriously... I am an agnostic. But I respect people's rights to hold their beliefs and I don't make fun of them unless they are really asking for it (either by trying to annoyingly convert me or telling me I am going to hell, or by being loud and obnoxious in public, such as by stating all atheists go to hell or that its a tragedy if people don't believe in God. I mean, if someone demands respect for his beliefs but obviously doesn't respect what others think, he's fair game IMHO.)

But as long as people respect my (lack of) beliefs, I respect their beliefs. But I do think turnabout is fair game.

Although admittedly, better done in private then on forums.

Hey, I like this first idea!

That makes a lot of sense to me!

Do you have any, say, pamphlets (preferably in comic book form) that could illustrate to me the finer points?

Didymus · **Posted:** Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:37 pm

How about this one?

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantIT ... ript?SK=73

I know it may seem irreverant, but for a comic explaining beliefs of a polytheistic religion, I thought it was hilarious.

JamesGecko · **Posted:** Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:05 am

InterruptorJones wrote:

A good site for Christians who want to learn more about their Bible is this one:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

What the heck? I'm sorry, but that site takes way too many things out of context.
Secondly, Why does it use the KJV? It's not modern language and it is MUCH easier to find things that were translated in a confiusing way, leading to many of the 'inconsistancys'.
I found like three errors because of the context & old english in the first 5 minutes I was on that site.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:59 am

Some guy once emailed me a link to a web site that "proved" that King James was the only true translation. I consulted my Greek New Testament on the passages in question, and lo and behold! in most cases the modern translations were more accurate than KJV.

Most people have to rely on some translation or another, but when in doubt, check the Greek or Hebrew, or consult someone who can for you.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the English Standard Version.

JoeyDay · **Posted:** Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:27 pm

I like the New American Standard Bible ('95 update), but I'm really looking forward to the new Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Gir · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:23 pm

Since I just joined up, I realize that this discussion has been done for like a month. But I just want to say a couple things:

1.) I am Mormon/LDS, and proud!

2.) Mormon and LDS are the same thing
3.) "Mormons" who practice polygamy are excommunicated. There are weird cults and stuff who have splintered off from Mormonism or whatever and practice it, but it is a BIG no-no in the mainstream Mormon Church.
4.) I believe that although the Bible is mostly correct and has "the right idea", there are in fact several translational errors and whatnot. I mean, really, it's been around for thousands of years so you can't expect it to be pristine. Forget a word somewhere (like "not") and a passage has a whole different context. So although I think that the stories have been preserved, you have to take a lot of the details with a grain of salt.

That is all. I hope I didn't offend anybody, I was just saying what I think.

furrykef · **Posted:** Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:28 am

I'm a Zen Buddhist.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:38 am

Really, kef? Buddhism is probably the only belief system that I've seriously considered in the past five or eight years. A good friend of my family spent awhile as a Buddhist monk (he's a software developer now :grin:

), and as a whole Buddhism seems like it would be really rewarding.

Didymus · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:23 am

There's a guy I know from seminary who used to be a Buddhist monk. He was from Thailand I think.

Gir: That's why I consult the Greek and Hebrew. Those are the languages the Bible was originally written in. If you have the original languages, you don't need to worry about translations.

Interesting you should mention the word "not". The original edition of the King James version actually said, "Thou shalt commit adultery." I wonder if a certain former president has that edition...

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:35 pm

Didymus wrote:

I wonder if a certain former president has that edition...

Boooooo.

JoeyDay · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:41 pm

Gir wrote:

1.) I am Mormon/LDS, and proud!

Beware of pride, Gir.

Gir wrote:

4.) I believe that although the Bible is mostly correct and has "the right idea", there are in fact several translational errors and whatnot. I mean, really, it's been around for thousands of years so you can't expect it to be pristine. Forget a word somewhere (like "not") and a passage has a whole different context. So although I think that the stories have been preserved, you have to take a lot of the details with a grain of salt.

There's a very good book I can recommend on this subject. It's called How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot. You can probably pick it up at your local library (if possible, make sure you get the third edition, updated with the latest archaeological info). I could say so much more on this subject, but I'm afraid it might start an argument, and that's the last thing I would want to see here. If you'd like to discuss this further, Gir, I would love to do so in private messages or email.

Gir wrote:

That is all. I hope I didn't offend anybody, I was just saying what I think.

No offense taken, and none has been meant by my remarks above.

furrykef · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:32 pm

Didymus wrote:

Interesting you should mention the word "not". The original edition of the King James version actually said, "Thou shalt commit adultery."

If that isn't a joke, I'd like to see some sources

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:50 pm

Furrykef:

Try this link: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/The_Wicked_Bible.

Buz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:37 am

NickelBad wrote:

Probably the weirdest thing about us is that we don't drink coffee.

I don't drink coffee. I'm not sure if it's part of religion or just common sense. I've been in an extended discussion on religiously-based topics with a few people, and I don't think I can boil those ideas down to a single term, except the one given to my kind centeries ago... roughly translated "Jesus-lings." The original Greek word is "Christian" and I've been a member of an A/G church. For more thoughts, see my web page (since I'm an iconoclast, my "Jesus" link doesn't have a picture).

Prof. Tor Coolguy · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:50 pm

This may be a little strange but something is sticking out in my mind. In the movie SWAT when Colin Ferrel was working in the gun cage he was frends with a guy that couldn't eat McDonalds because it was agienst his religion(what religion was it?)

Prof. Tor Coolguy · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:57 pm

InterrupterJones Wrote:

Quote:

A good friend of my family spent awhile as a Buddhist monk

One of my frends(he's out of HS now)is going to spend a stent(4 years) as a monk the thing is that his brothers and sisters did that instead of going to a university ect. I think that's really cool and I commend your frend.

Upsilon · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:57 pm

Well, I think in some varieties of Buddhism you're not allowed to eat meat. That might be it.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:58 pm

In Hinduism, cows are sacred, so a Hinduist cannot eat beef. I'm not sure why that would rule out al McD's food, though. Certainly hamburgers would be out of the question, and also their french fries (they use flavoring from beef fat in their fries, and recently a class-action lawsuit was brought against them by vegetarians), but I don't know why they couldn't have a chicken or fish sandwich or a salad or something. If it's not Hinduism, it might be some religion that mandates (or encourages) vegetarianism, which would certainly make pickins slim at McD's.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Religious Affiliations

Who is online