In order for anything to be relevant, it must tie into universal truth, and if something 2000+ years old is true, it is still relevant. Every quote has a context, and how to interpret the meaning for today from what was originally intended. Please reference the specific quote if you would like to discuss it. In my religion anyway, there are many churches . . thousands, all over the world. There is no central temple of sacrifice, though. Taking away the temple did not mean taking away the need for communion and community. It can be a challenge to find out the truth for oneself, an adventure of a lifetime. You will never understand it if you do not want to. That goes for any knowledge or wisdom. This piece rates as satire at best, if not outright sarcasm. It is not an attempt to understand, just pointing out faults as perceived by the writer.
Earlier, you said: You do realize that five thousand and two thousand aren't all that different? There is little of what was relevant back then that has any relevance today. In fact, even most things that were relevant 200 years ago are not very relevant today. What is this universal truth you speak of that makes some of these things relevant? Sure, here's Luke's version of the passage: Before I even start discussing this, I first have to make something clear, and it's rather important. Notice how he keeps saying "you"? In English, there's sadly an ambiguity there, as "you" is used as the second-person singular, as second person plural and as a gender-neutral, indefinite pronoun, meaning roughly "a person," with the same meaning as "one," like in "one does not simply walk into Mordor." = "you do not simply walk into Mordor." So the question is, which of the "you" did Jesus mean? Luckily for me, I know other languages (Norwegian and German) were this is not the case, and it's obvious from those translations that the one meant is the second-person plural, i.e. he's talking to his disciples directly. Now, why would he be doing that if they weren't going to experience what he's describing? He even goes so far as to say that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." I've seen plenty of Christians trying to wriggle around this, but they never address the issue: This is clearly addressed directly to his disciples, and that makes no sense if they're not going to experience it. He says things like "they will seize you and persecute you" and "when these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Never mind that nobody can explain it, then? Most, if not all of what I believe to be true, I can argue for satisfactorily, either directly or through third-party resources. Why can't religious people do this for their supposed knowledge/wisdom? It's always being explained away or "you just gotta have faith" or "I don't know, but I choose to believe it anyway." These are not paths to knowledge. The first is a bad excuse, and the other two are paths to ignorance. It's mostly so awesome because you can find justification for everything in that piece in the bible. Yes, it is very sardonic, but that doesn't make it any less correct with regards to the bible.
I can't help but wonder if "this generation" is a translation error of some kind. Which doesn't invalidate the directness of the statement, it just occurred to me that maybe he was speaking of a lineage, rather than a span of a couple decades. Meh. The divine metaphysics of Tamriel makes more sense than biblical script. Sad statement?
The Ten Commandments are no longer relevant? They are far older than the even the earliest writings of the Old Testament I agree. I also speak a language in which there is a pronoun for plural personal "you". In this context he is speaking directly to his disciples. And they did experience all of the things he had described. It happened in 70AD, exactly 40 years (one generation) after the death of Jesus. There were terrible persecutions, many martyrs of the early Church and the Temple of Jerusalem itself was destroyed. A number of historians testify to this as fact.
I think what he meant was, that those being born at that time would still be alive when it happened. Since the average life span was 40 years, it makes sense to me that way. I could even imagine him pointing to a nearby child as he speaks that phrase. Who is Tamriel?
It was a one-off statement, not something I'm going to worry about in great detail. Also, Divine Metaphysics.
Most of them are pretty stupid if you ask me, and the rest are just obvious. Don't lie, steal, kill and commit adultery? Those four are the only relevant ones. The first one isn't even a commandment, it's just a statement. "I am your god." Okay then... Two, "don't make carvings of anything," um... no, I'll do that as much as I please, thank you very much. Hey, have you noticed all those crosses people put everywhere? They all violate this one, don't they? Or those drawings of god and Jesus? Three, "don't use my name in vain," well, what's so special about it? And seriously, who alive today doesn't say "oh my god" at least six times a day? (Yes, I'm exaggerating, but you get what I mean.) Four, "do that sabbath thing." How many do you know who does that these days? I know of none. Five, "honor your parents." Nah. I'd say respect them, as long as they respect you. If parents are jerks, I don't see anything wrong with their children misbehaving in return. In fact, I'd expect it, as child psychology predicts it. Then come the four good ones, which I dealt with already, so we'll skip those, and we're on the tenth, "don't desire anything." Or covet, if you will. Basically, don't do capitalism. Do not desire anything anyone else has, just stick to what you've got. Sounds pretty lame, not to mention harmful to the economy... Quite a lot milder than what Jesus predicted though, eh?
#2: The point of this is that we are not supposed to make statues or carvings and worship them as other Gods. Using symbols to represent or honor Christ is perfectly fine. It's not like we're worshiping the all mighty perpendicular God of wood or anything #3: This is something that I do struggle with, but just because most people do does not make okay. #10: Do not covet. This is referring to envy, not ambition or desire.
I just read through the [Amen] religious thread, and noticed some conflict going on. Seeing how that thread is most definitely not appropriate for that discussion, we should bring it here. I noticed alex and soul getting a little frustrated. I think that the problem is creepin, jtc, and those guys are trying to keep the thread religion focused, as in without secular music. It is coming off a little exclusive maybe, and I do think atheists should be allowed, as long as the song they are posting have a clear religious message. Alex, I know you do have religious views, but atheism is not a religion (maybe by the dictionary definition it is, but not by the practical definition).
Huh. It sounds a lot stricter, though. I mean, it literally says "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." It then goes on to say that you shouldn't worship them and such, but that sounds like an addition to the previous statement, not a modifier.[/quote] I don't get what the big deal is though. I see some people write things like "G-d" or YHWH and such. What exactly is so bad about it? If god would just explain himself a little better, perhaps I'd be more receptive. All right, thanks. I probably did get that one wrong, yeah.
I'm reckon atheists shouldn't be allowed as they told us to make a thread clearly labeled for us. Now there is one and atheist are coming in trying to do what they always did before. It is a little exclusive, kinda because we were told to make an exclusive thread for our opinion.
THANK YOU, now why is it that when we try to do what you all asked us to do you still feel the need to intrude and try to get around our rules by saying that Atheism is a religion and they should get to post too. Take it somewhere else and make your own exclusive thread and you'll find that we can all be happy in our respective corners.
Ugh. I have refrained from posting, since all of you are making my heads hurt. Despite this, I managed to come with a point. God loves us. If a god existed, and if he DID truly love us, wouldn't he judge us on our character, and not if we believed in him or not? Wouldn't he try to make things easier for us, or if you had to believe in him, personally reveal himself? This makes me draw three logical conclusions, though this statement in itself may have some flaws. Firstly, that there is no supernatural forces working on us. If one god exists, then why did many other cultures worship different "devils", when it was in God's power to save them? Why did God not appear at the very beginning of recorded history? My second idea that is that a god does in fact exist. But he is not the god you know. God is selfish, by rewarding all of his followers, and sending anyone who disagrees with him to Hell. My third idea, by far the kindest, is that God thinks the only way to have a good character is to be a Christian. Which I don't personally, but if God is out there, then I think he has good reason to judge man by this.
God exists. He can save us. Say you did something wrong. So,e people would ask why God didn't prevent it. God gave us free will to do whatever we want. If he controlled us, it wouldn't be living life essentially.
But if God is the alpha and the omega, and know's all that was, is ,and will be, he knows your every move in life,every thought, I wouldn't consider that free will.
But are you really doing your own thing, I see the "god has a plan for you" phrase all the time that would imply that he controls the things in our lives.
