quote:

Originally posted by theoctobercountry:
I had asked this question before, but once again: how is it possible to have an Old Testament God telling his followers to do exactly the opposite of what Jesus says in the New Testament? There are plenty of warlike passages in the OT, with God specifically commanding people to do things like kill their enemies---kill the women and children, but set aside any virgins to rape for your own pleasure. I simply do not believe that God would say these things (particularly since it goes against NT teachings). And don't see how it can be possible that contradictory statements are all "inspired" by God.

Two different gods - and that's just in the Old Testament!

I've spoken of this before, and will once again be ridiculed for it, but here is some good back-story.

Remember, the OT is basically a midrash of Sumerian mythology - almost down to the smallest detail. This is so obvious, I'm always amazed at those who do not see it (or is it that they refuse to see it?).

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
It takes a lot of study. It takes a lot of discernment. You just don't read a few things and ask a few friends and think that's it...no answers are around.

You have that right! I took years to earn my BTh and uncovered multitudinous good stuff during the process.

All it takes is the desire to know.

Ah, but Enki and Enlil weren't perceived as being in conflict until the Akkadian period.

As for The OT being a midrash of Sumerian mythology...

That's a bit of a stretch.

I believe it contains midrash of Near-eastern cosmology: Just like how today many claim God was responsible for the big bang, back then they were inserting their deity and his attributes into, say, their own personal version of the Babylonian Enuma Elish (at the time the most universal and "scientific" explanation for the universe's creation).

And the Assyrian treaty format used for Leviticus, etc.

Through that lens, it becomes unimportant whether the material is or is not a midrash built upon older texts. What is important is how the concept of the deity itself, in the eyes of the authors, influenced those midrash texts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nico,

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:

Two different gods - and that's just in the Old Testament!
All it takes is the desire to know.

Oh, Doug Spaulding, when are you ever going to give it up? All it takes is the desire to know, you say? THAT is certainly not in scripture. THAT is in Doug Spaulding's mindset.

You need the Holy Spirit to discern.

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
Oh, Doug Spaulding, when are you ever going to give it up?

Right this minute - I'm sleepy. Goodnight.

quote:

I know. When you suppress your natural sexuality, it always comes out ugly.

Hey Mr Doug, just yesterday I read Mel White's book "A Stranger at the Gate" and he spoke (among other things) just about that. Some really sad and terrible stories, there...

It was a very interesting book, though a little outdated now, as it was written in 1994. At that time the theocracy of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson was on the rise. And now, at this date, such a mindset has (for the time being) failed utterly.

I see that White has written another book just a year or two ago; I'll have to look that up.

quote:

Originally posted by theoctobercountry:
At that time the theocracy of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson was on the rise. And now, at this date, such a mindset has (for the time being) failed utterly.

.

October: You are so out of touch with the reality of scripture that it's really useless to have a genuine conversation with you. You are the one with the mindset. You are stuck on yourself. It's all about you.

They say the devil don't bother much with people who are already his. When is the last time the devil bothered you, Mr. October?

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion
Ya think?

Hey MD!

I'm a bit curious about your post, and what it has to do with what I stated previously.

I have no particular beef about the RCC; it does not affect me personally at all, since I live in a Greek Orthodox area (what with residing in a bit of the country which was settled by eastern European immigrants about 100 years ago).

But when I read material like the following, I have to wonder. Seems to me that the church is like a ageing and diseased tree---individual leaves on the branches are full of life, but the core of it is rotten and decaying.
=====================================
Thou shalt not blackmail.

Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio threatened state lawmakers by vowing to close churches in their districts -- and blame them for the closures -- if they dared support a bill making it easier for people who were sexually assaulted as kids to sue, legislators told The Post.

They said the dark warning came during a "legislative breakfast" at DiMarzio's Brooklyn residence, as he told the gathering of about 20 state and city politicians that he would retaliate against Albany lawmakers if they backed the Child Victims Act.

The controversial bill -- which could be heading for an Assembly floor debate as soon as June 8 -- seeks to extend the statute of limitations for lawsuits involving the rape or molesting of youngsters. It could cost the Church hundreds of millions in payouts to victimized parishioners.

Two lawmakers said the bishop brazenly bullied them during the coffee-and-doughnuts gathering at his stately brick residence in Clinton Hill on Oct. 21.

"He said, 'If it passes, we will close a parish in each of your districts and we will tell your constituents that it was your fault,' " said one Assembly member who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"I was shocked," he said. "I've never seen a threat like that made at any lobby meeting."

A senator who asked not to be identified said: "The hair on the back of my head stood up. In my years of Catholic schooling, we were never taught to be so vindictive, and here's my bishop saying, 'I'll close a church in your district.' "

A City Council member said: "He brought up this bill, and he went on a tirade about it, saying, 'We'll have to close churches, and you'll be the ones responsible for it. It will be your fault.'

"He basically threatened the room. I was appalled."

The author of the legislation, Queens Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, did not attend the breakfast, but she said lawmakers who were there told her about DiMarzio's remarks.

"People take offense at that," she said. "Legislators do not want to be threatened by anyone. You don't close parishes just because a state legislator votes on a particular bill."

The assemblyman who spoke to The Post said DiMarzio's ploy backfired -- the lawmaker was so put off that he signed on to Markey's measure as a co-sponsor.

"Her bill was not on my radar screen, but the obnoxiousness of his threat made me take a look at it," he said.

"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: theoctobercountry,

Lurking again, I see the sound and the fury has continued, Sad. There is no way to reconcile the views of the folks on this thread. Go your separate ways in peace and try to understand that what appears to be an absolute answer is in fact just one answer, that there are many, and that they are equally valid as beliefs. Now, if you looking for truth, that is another matter. Faith and truth are very different things. Sometimes faith is substituted for truth when knowledge is not available. Be open not closed, not absolute. But, if you are happier in your absoluteness, as the song said, don't worry. It is all just so much sound and fury after all. Peace to all here.

I think most ought to be looking for truth, but agree that while we're in different places, we should look to peace, patience, and kindness to guide our interactions. By the way, I have spent months and months in Laguna Beach--one of the most beautiful places on the planet.

I have heard that Laguna really IS one of the most beautiful places on the planet! But I won't be out to California for a dog's age (wait, will I ever be out there again?) so I'll totally take your word for it.

(I loved California the brief time I was there----seems like a paradise to us here on the bleak and windy east coast.)

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
Lurking again

Hey Pa, don't lurk! I would like to hear your voice (jumping back about 1000 years ago here, I would say "make your own kind of music" in the voice of Cass Elliot).

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
There is no way to reconcile the views of the folks on this thread. Go your separate ways in peace and try to understand that what appears to be an absolute answer is in fact just one answer, that there are many, and that they are equally valid as beliefs. Now, if you looking for truth, that is another matter. Faith and truth are very different things. Sometimes faith is substituted for truth when knowledge is not available. Be open not closed, not absolute. But, if you are happier in your absoluteness, as the song said, don't worry. It is all just so much sound and fury after all. Peace to all here.

Huh?

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
Go your separate ways in peace and try to understand that what appears to be an absolute answer is in fact just one answer, that there are many, and that they are equally valid as beliefs. Now, if you looking for truth, that is another matter. Faith and truth are very different things. Sometimes faith is substituted for truth when knowledge is not available. Be open not closed, not absolute.

Well, let's see here. Patrask thinks most of us here don't know our horse from a barn yard door, but he's got the answer, as quoted above. Seems a bit awkward, I'd think.

Salamander: no, you got that wrong.

I don't have THE answer, there is more than one, there are answers, and each must find his own, through study and questioning, on a path looking for what makes sense to him/her. I only object violently when someone throws out scripture from a single source and calls that the only valid answer.

Let's play a game, its is a very old one I am sure: What If. What if your soul, given that you have one, is born into a baby in India, or china, or any other place you care to name. You then are indoctrinated during the first five years of your life by your parents, or other elders in your tribe, to a set of beliefs. Your are told that there is a path to a better life if you follow a set of rules. You do, and you are then of that belief system. Now, rewind the scene, relocate the action and repeat with a different set of rules. What do you get? Its different strokes for different folks, and each will defend his belief system until the death as the absolute truth and only way to life a life. Killing another who has different beliefs is acceptable as a way of purging the infidel, the non-believer, the lost souls, those who would question the only True Church, etc.

Thus, we arrive at the present state of the world of human activity, primarily governed by taking note of our differences and hating those who are different than we. Hating, because that is realy fear in reaction to the unknown other, instead of loving and understanding why we are of different beliefs and then trying to get to what we have in common.

It is for this reason that I have no religious belief system, other than that simple truth hoarry with age: Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Whether you pray or don't pray, genuflect to the East, or the West, matters not, as long as you keep the prime directive in place: hurt not that ye shall not be hurt.

Once this is put into practice, the need for your religion to be the only truth is lessened. There are no winners in this game, only losers. We all lose when we denegrate each other for beliefs that cannot be proven by experimental data.

As an enternal sceptic, but also an optimist, I would like to live in a world where each of us could chose, for his/her own reasons, what to beleive and then allow others to do the same, with the same validity on the part of each. I see a crossroads up ahead, with a Mosque, a Church, a Budist temple, and a simple house of meditation of no sect, each on a different corner, each full of respectful people who know that their beleifs are only that, and that those across the street are equally valid in their chosen path to know the Creator of the Universe. What a dreamer am I?

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
Salamander: no, you got that wrong.

Let's play a game, its is a very old one I am sure: What If. What if your soul, given that you have one, is born into a baby in India, or china, or any other place you care to name. You then are indoctrinated during the first five years of your life by your parents, or other elders in your tribe, to a set of beliefs. Your are told that there is a path to a better life if you follow a set of rules. You do, and you are then of that belief system. Now, rewind the scene, relocate the action and repeat with a different set of rules. What do you get? Its different strokes for different folks, and each will defend his belief system until the death as the absolute truth and only way to life a life. Killing another who has different beliefs is acceptable as a way of purging the infidel, the non-believer, the lost souls, those who would question the only True Church, etc.

Just highlighting this particular part of your post. I'd have to spend some time explaining to you why this is not true. No matter where you are blind in the world, when someone gives you a new cornea to see, you see what is. If you see murk and fog, you know that isn't the truth you are looking for, which is the ability to see the world around you.

Next couple days I'll try to give my take on your above posting as best as I can.