Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Electricstapler ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 11:05AM

The Bible is outdated. Maybe it did some good when it was published. But the world has changed since then. Modern medicine, technology, and countless inventions have changed the world, and because of that, people have changed.

Christians and believers in God state that their God is loving and wonderful. I don't buy it. The Bible God was very involved with his world, destroying cities, causing floods and collapsing of buildings. Where is he now?

Maybe he gave up on us.

This is the main reason why I consider myself an agnostic. To me, the idea of a God is ludicrous, but I will not go as far as to say that the possibility of a God is nonexistent.

Athiests, change my mind. Why is there no remote possibility at all that there is no God?

Why do people eat up religion the way they do? For those of you who joined another church after mormonism, what was the appeal? What makes it different from mormonism?

I don't want to start a war. I am just having an existential crisis. I want to know what you guys think. What do you believe? What is the meaning of life? What is your role in this world?

What's the point of all this?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 11:09AM

Electricstapler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Athiests, change my mind. Why is there no remote
> possibility at all that there is no God?

There isn't. And that's not what atheism means.
Being an atheist just means you don't believe the "god" claims other people make. It doesn't mean you insist there's no possibility of a god.

Although, to be fair, a huge number of the "god" claims people make are self-refuting -- those aren't "possible."

I don't know if there's a "god" or not. It's simply that with no evidence of one, and no need for one to explain anything, there's no reason to believe there's one. If somebody were able to present evidence of one, I'd accept it. So far, nobody has.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 11:24AM

Maybe the point is to stop pretending. The world didn't collapse when you pretended Mormonism was somehow a good thing. It won't collapse if you pretend the opposite or that there is no God. The thing that really drives progress, why science works, is the admission that you don't know what you don't know. Whether there's a God for you is a matter of direct experience. When you know, you'll know. You know?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jonny the Smoke ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 01:13PM

"The Bible is outdated"

- And so is religion with it.

"....but I will not go as far as to say that the possibility of a God is nonexistent."

- Atheists don't either.

"Atheists, change my mind. Why is there no remote possibility at all that there is no God?"

- Change your own mind, Atheists don't have this mindset.

"Why do people eat up religion the way they do"

- Fear, guilt, conditioning.....

"For those of you who joined another church after mormonism, what was the appeal? What makes it different from mormonism?"

- Replacing what they feel they lost, conditioning that they need religion to be....good, saved, etc. I didn't join another church after leaving LDS.

"I don't want to start a war. I am just having an existential crisis. I want to know what you guys think. What do you believe? What is the meaning of life? What is your role in this world?

What's the point of all this?"

- To make the most of what you have, to practice love and kindness, to appreciate what is around you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Electricstapler ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 02:18PM

I love this. Thank you ♡

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ohdeargoodness ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:07PM

+1000

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 02:36PM

"There was a castle overlooking the valley. Kids grew up hearing stories about the Baron who occupied the castle, and the horrible consequences of disobeying the Baron and his laws. Dark tales were told of these consequences and all the kids believed them and passed the stories on. And when ill befell anyone, a reason for the Baron to have caused it was always presented. The servants who worked at the castle and collected the tithes of the valley inhabitants always supported these stories, and told their own tales about the consequences of disobeying the Baron. Of course you know the final outcome: The last Baron had died ages ago."
--Judic West, at the trial of Lupe Vega, Catholic Cross-Dressing Nun

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Kentish ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 02:42PM

I wouldn't presume to have answers for anyone but myself but it does seem to me that most of those posing questions or starting threads about god are atheists. Why am I wrong in thinking that deep down they are still harbor doubts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 02:47PM

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldn't presume to have answers for anyone but
> myself but it does seem to me that most of those
> posing questions or starting threads about god are
> atheists.

This one was started by a self-described agnostic.

> Why am I wrong in thinking that deep
> down they are still harbor doubts.

Because:

- atheism IS "doubts." Rational doubts that "god" claims are true, and so don't merit belief.

- discussing the flaws of "god" claims doesn't require even the slightest scintilla of belief in a "god"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 02:55PM

Though the bible has been around a very long time, I find great wisdom in reading it and re-reading different scriptures that are filled with common sense proverbs and just plain truth on how to live right and not be a fool subject to the whims of the world.

I don't care much reading about the wars or the violence. Knowing it's a history of a people, wars and violence are fairly accurate historically, even though I don't consider studying them edifying or uplifting.

But I do love the Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and some of the NT that deals with life - and applications thereof.

It's some of the best resources I know of for working through life's problems and dilemmas. When I've been through some tough times, I've always been able to find scripture verses to turn to that helps me get through them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ohdeargoodness ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:10PM

> I don't care much reading about the wars or the
> violence. Knowing it's a history of a people, wars
> and violence are fairly accurate historically,
> even though I don't consider studying them
> edifying or uplifting.

I'm sorry, but, after a degree in Theology and Koine Greek, with a minor in Hebrew, plus private Christian school K-12 (i.e. thousands of hours of academic Bible study), I consider your factual claims about the historical aspects of the Bible to be categorically false.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BeenThereDunnThatExMo ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 03:23PM

I totally agree ElectricStapler!

Why would some goat-herders tribal text have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANYTHING after the century it was written in???

Or so it seems to me...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: pollythinks ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 04:56PM

It seems to me that people who make this claim are often under-educated regarding the bible.

A short-cut to an education is to recognize that the Old Testament (OT) preaches what is "good", and bad", by stories and examples (created, or of actual accounts).

The O.T. also predicts the future----while the New Testament fulfills the predictions. Said another way, the provenance contained of the O.T. predicts, while the N.T. fulfilled the predictions.

The Bible does this so well, that the most respected laws and courts grew from the wisdom contained in it--which one of the most enlightened and respected nations in the world, England, adapted in large part for their own legal system. Following this example, the United States of America, in large part, did likewise.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 05:12PM

pollythinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that people who make this claim are
> often under-educated regarding the bible.
>
> A short-cut to an education is to recognize that
> the Old Testament (OT) preaches what is "good",
> and bad", by stories and examples (created, or of
> actual accounts).

Odd, isn't it, how those who "believe" in the bible never made any such claims until after rational investigation began to show that the stories in the bible *weren't* factual? That only then, faced with the refutation of the claimed "historicity" of the bible, did people start to claim that it's "purpose" could be achieved whether the stories were actually true or not?

I find it odd.

> The O.T. also predicts the future----while the
> New Testament fulfills the predictions. Said
> another way, the provenance contained of the O.T.
> predicts, while the N.T. fulfilled the
> predictions.

It would be more correct to say that the NT stories were written to appear as if they were "fulfilling" OT "predictions." Which isn't hard to do when you make things up.

> The Bible does this so well, that the most
> respected laws and courts grew from the wisdom
> contained in it--which one of the most enlightened
> and respected nations in the world, England,
> adapted in large part for their own legal system.
> Following this example, the United States of
> America, in large part, did likewise.

Our government and legal systems bear no resemblance whatsoever to the laws or "wisdom" of the bible. Presumed innocent? Nope. Trial by jury of peers? Nope. Elected representatives? Nope. Freedom of religious belief? Nope. Individual rights? Nope. Separation of church and state? Nope. Do we enforce Mosaic law? Nope. Do we forgive our enemies? Nope. Do we turn the other cheek when harmed? Nope.

You might consider that the US Supreme Court building includes representations of some of history's "great lawgivers." They include Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus,Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, John, King of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon.

In point of fact, our laws don't come from, and aren't based on, any of the "laws" or teachings of those people (or the books they're mentioned or made up in). Our laws largely come from the Enlightenment/Humanistic movement of the 18th century, and (as explicitly stated) are derived from the consent of the people.

The claim that our government or laws are based on the bible is completely spurious.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 05:25PM

Well said, Pollythinks.

Our Judeo-Christian legal system is based on biblical teachings and understanding.

The bible is still the #1 best seller since it was first published, and is still referenced by kings, presidents, and magistrates.

It didn't get there because it was poorly written or a cheap thrill. It was written by sages and prophets of old, who had great insights into what makes the world go round, and the human soul.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 05:32PM

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our Judeo-Christian legal system is based on
> biblical teachings and understanding.

Our legal system is constitutional-republican, not Judeo-Christian.

Please, by all means, provide examples of the "Judeo-Christian" in our legal system. I'm eager to hear them.

Note: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie -- don't count. They've been illegal in every human civilization ever, and us outlawing them doesn't come from the bible.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2010/06/08/are_the_ten_commandments_really_the_basis_for_our_laws.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2016 05:42PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BYU Atheist ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 06:10PM

Lying is not illegal; "bearing false witness", or perjury (its closest legal equivalent that I know of), is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 06:27PM

Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smirkorama ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 07:38PM

yah the new testament fulfills the claims of the old testament .....in much the same way that the Book of MORmON musical fulfills the claims of the book of MORmON

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smirkorama ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 07:45PM

.......you think?......

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BeenThereDunnThatExMo ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:02PM

I WILL REPEAT AGAIN FOR CLARITY!!!

Why would some goat-herders tribal text have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANYTHING after the century it was written in???

Or so it seems to me...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ohdeargoodness ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:16PM

pollythinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that people who make this claim are
> often under-educated regarding the bible.
>
> A short-cut to an education is to recognize that
> the Old Testament (OT) preaches what is "good",
> and bad", by stories and examples (created, or of
> actual accounts).
>
> The O.T. also predicts the future----while the
> New Testament fulfills the predictions. Said
> another way, the provenance contained of the O.T.
> predicts, while the N.T. fulfilled the
> predictions.
>

There are no short cuts to education. There are short cuts to bad, unqualified, irrational assertions though.

The OT is awful as it concerns women, genocide, slavery, etc. Having read parts of it in Hebrew, I find it a very disturbing record.

Also, it's IMPOSSIBLE to say that the OT predicts the future as every codex we have (and there are not a lot) are from AFTER the time of Christ. The many manuscripts we have for the NT are all older the those for the OT.

Like ificouldhie said, it's easy to fulfill "prophecy" when you're making it up.

BTW, most Biblical scholars agree even books like Daniel were written well after the events they "predicted" based on linguistic and syntactical evidence.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 05:55PM

>
> The bible is still the #1 best seller... etc., etc. ...
>

How many people spent good money to buy the Harry Potter books, one by one? During the time period they were being published, what was the count of all the Harry Potter books v. all the bibles purchased?

And the big flaw in this 'The bible is so popular' argument resides in the question, "How many people who buy or are given a bible read it?"

If a person decides to find good in something, it's usually easy to do. I have no problem with people liking the bible. I have heard of people memorizing the whole thing!! Yay them!!

But I have a huge problem when the 'I love the bible' people look down their noses at those who don't love the bible, and believe that on that basis they've achieved a measure of superiority.

And mormons are locked into the KJV!!! And the church sponsored concordance! Can you say baaaa baaaa?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rhgc ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 06:46PM

You need a better translation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: pollythinks ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 06:58PM

"ificouldhietokolob" wrote his opinions--which everyone is entitled to have (including me) Re. your statement, Your "don't kill, don't steal, don't lie -- don't count... They've been illegal in every human civilization ever, and us outlawing them doesn't come from the bible". IICHTK, who are you that others should respect this silly argument?

Matter that comes from the Bible comes from the Bible, no matter if it was also used by another civilization. Even if this were so, why should the bible exclude appropriate material?

Besides, your sayin' something doesn't make it so.
Just what are your credentials that make what you say respect-worthy more than what the Bible teaches? (Hump.)

A brief on what some of my thinking is based on is found in The Ten Commandments (Exo.20:3-17), and The Beatitudes (both recorded in the Bible). These writings are infinitely more important and wise and compact than what either of us could create.

The 10 rules of behavior have offered wise guidance every since they were written. When followed, they help provide justice for all.

Question: How many rules have been created by our States and courts in the interest of trying to provide "justice for all"? (Ten? Dozens? Multi-thousands?)

You want to find happiness? Look at the Beatitude, "Treat others as you want to be treated".
You want to avoid sorrow? Want justice? Want to say out of jail? Check out Exo. Commandment #4, "Thou shall not kill";
#7, "Thou shalt not commit adultery";
#8, "Thou shalt not steal";
#9, Want others to tell the truth?, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".
#10: Want to be happier?, try, "Thou shalt not covet."

How much space do these commandments take, versus all the rules man has made up with which to try and govern the selfish, dishonest, self-centered, dishonorable, bad, unjust (and so-forth) people, since then? Uncountable.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 07:18PM

pollythinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "ificouldhietokolob" wrote his opinions--which
> everyone is entitled to have (including me) Re.
> your statement, Your "don't kill, don't steal,
> don't lie -- don't count... They've been illegal
> in every human civilization ever, and us outlawing
> them doesn't come from the bible". IICHTK, who are
> you that others should respect this silly
> argument?

If you think it's silly, explain WHY it's silly. Instead of insulting people with "who are you" stuff.

> Matter that comes from the Bible comes from the
> Bible, no matter if it was also used by another
> civilization. Even if this were so, why should
> the bible exclude appropriate material?

Those same outlawed things "came" from texts written long before any bible text existed. So how do they "come from the bible" then?

> Besides, your sayin' something doesn't make it
> so.

You should keep that in mind for your own claims.

> Just what are your credentials that make what you
> say respect-worthy more than what the Bible
> teaches? (Hump.)

Sort of an inverse appeal to authority fallacy.

> A brief on what some of my thinking is based on
> is found in The Ten Commandments (Exo.20:3-17),
> and The Beatitudes (both recorded in the Bible).
> These writings are infinitely more important and
> wise and compact than what either of us could
> create.

I disagree completely that any of that is "infinitely more important and wise and compact than what either of us could create." In fact, I find much of those things rather disturbing, and there are far better examples of "how to live" in texts earlier than the bible. I understand your thinking, I happen to not agree with it.

> The 10 rules of behavior have offered wise
> guidance every since they were written. When
> followed, they help provide justice for all.

#1 I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other gods before me; not used in US law, in fact, the government is specifically prohibited from making a law regarding beliefs in "gods."
#2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; not prohibited under US law, and rather outdated anyway (idol worship mostly went out of style a long time ago)
#3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord they God in vain; not prohibited under US law
#4 Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy; not a requirement under US law, in fact *can't* be a requirement (to observe some religion's holy day) under US law
#5 Honor thy father and they mother; might be good advice (depending on the father and mother), but not part of US law
#6 Thou shalt not kill; yep, we outlaw (most) killing. As I pointed out, so has every other society ever. We didn't outlaw killing because the bible said to, we outlawed killing because it's the rational thing to do in a society of humans.
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery; not prohibited in the constitution. The constitution does allow states to make their own laws, and some states have outlawed this, although almost none of them enforce it (for good reasons).
#8 Thou shalt not steal; yep, we outlaw that (mostly). See #6 above. We don't outlaw it because it's in the bible.
#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor; yep, we outlaw that, but not because it's in the bible.
#10 Thou shalt not covet (various things); not prohibited under US law.

So, out of the 10, three apply to US law. And as I've pointed out, we don't have those three in our laws because they're in the bible. The other 7 are mostly specifically *prohibited* from being in US law (except for adultery).

You may personally think that these offer "wise guidance." Our law doesn't, though. And neither do I. So go ahead and follow them if you wish -- just don't claim our law is based on them. Because it's not.

> You want to find happiness? Look at the
> Beatitude, "Treat others as you want to be
> treated".

I am happy. And that's good advice. Guess what? The bible jesus character wasn't the first to say it. The same advice was written down millenia before the gospels were written.

> How much space do these commandments take, versus
> all the rules man has made up with which to try
> and govern the selfish, dishonest, self-centered,
> dishonorable, bad, unjust (and so-forth) people,
> since then? Uncountable.

I don't see how space is an issue. It can also be a problem. For example, the bible says "thou shalt not kill." What if you're being attacked, is it OK to kill then? Or in a "just war?" Our law says it is. In fact, we go to great lengths in our law to spell out when killing is legally acceptable -- the bible doesn't. I find that spelling out in detail much more useful than the short and ambiguous (and ignored by the bible characters and the bible's god anyway) "thou shalt not kill."

Brevity isn't all it's cracked up to be.

You can appreciate those commandments all you want to. You can live by them if you want to.
But claiming our law is based on them?
Nope. Not the case.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BYU Boner ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 07:08PM

Perhaps for many of you it is. However, you'll struggle with many great works of literature if you don't have some ideas of its stories and teachings.

The American Founders such as a Jefferson and Franklin were deists and not members of any specific Christian church or theological movement. Adams was Unitarian. Washington was a nominal Episcopalian. Only Alexander Hamilton was actively involved in a faith community (he was also the most aggressive toward ending slavery). Franklin is better known as an abolitionist, but he actually owned two house slaves whom he took to France. They escaped, and to his credit, Franklin did not pursue them.

I do not feel that the United States, from its very inception, was conceived as a Christian nation. The Founders, in their wisdom, determined that a republic would be the best (although imperfect) form of government. I'm irked when certain Christians claim that the US government is or was, Christian. Governments are civil structures "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Just as certain Christian groups have tried to hijack the government, so to the Bible. For many other Christians, myself included, the Bible is record of ancient peoples as they have experienced God. To me, the Bible represents truths that are bound, in many cases, to the time and culture of the authors and is best read and understood in those contexts.

The Hebrew Scriptures were probably written during and after the Babylon Captivity. These writing reflect concerns for the necessity of a written record of Hebrew mythological beginnings, laws, and culture. Although, it is fashionable for some to ridicule the Hebrew Scriptures, modern peoples should realize that these sacred writings enable Jewish identity and survival through centuries of violence and persecution. Both religious and secular Jews are "Children of the Book."

The Christian New Testament has never been claimed by its authors as being written by God. The Book of Acts states that the sacred writings were "God-Breathed" into the hearts of the writers. Biblical scholars often theorize that Mark and Matthew were proceeded by an earlier gospel book (Q-German-- quelle--source). The writer of Luke probably relied on passages of Matthew. John's Gospel was, for a long time, thought to have been written 110-120 CE, until an almost complete text showed up from c. 90 CE.

The author of Ephesians probably was not Paul as textual analysis reveals many new words not used by Paul in authentic written and very different syntactical structures.

Knowledge of the above helps me read the Bible as myth, metaphor, and as a sacred record of others. To me, Biblical literalism may destroy the very message that the text is teaching.

For example, modern people know that the Earth is many billions of years old. We know that evolutionary biological science has enabled humankind to understand heredity, disease, and alleviate a lot of pain and death. Yet, a literal reading of Genesis is that the Earth was created in six days, the first humans were named Adam and Eve, they ate some fruit, got kicked out of the Garden of Eden, had kids, and those kids married other people whom the Bible neglects to explain how or where they were created. Biblical readers also know that Creation in Genesis Chapter 2 differs as to its specifics from Genesis 1. Biblical scholars have used literary analysis to differentiate different transcribers whose work got intermingled.

To me, reading the Creation, and the Adam and Eve myth literally causes one to lose what the point of those stories are. For example, Adam and Eve eating fruit from the tree of good and evil suggests to me that humankind's intellectual knowledge will always supersede our spiritual knowledge. The Creation story informs me that my existence and my life are purposeful, and that I do not see humankind as a skin rash on planet earth that is best wiped out for the sake of our planet and the flora and fauna that face extermination under humankind.

Is there a God? I don't know, but I believe there is. My wonderful insightful friend, Hie, says there's no scientific evidence that there is a God. He may, in fact, be right. And, no matter how much I believe in something, believe alone does not make existence. This I know, I may not be correct, but I know that I believe in God.

I recently listened to 48 half hour lectures (thanks Teaching Company!) on "Big History" taught by a professor from San Diego State. He made it a point of stating many time that the Big Bang and what happened afterward did not need a supernatural God to explain astrophysics, chemistry, life, etc. what he could not, however, explain was where the densely condensed mass of matter came from. This mass, about the size of a tennis ball contained all the existent matter of the universe. Then, something remarkable happened--a rapid expansion so fast and furious, we don't even have expressions for it, so we call it, the Big Bang. But it wasn't really a bang, it was a massive expansion highly elegant. In nano seconds, the heavier elements were created through gravity and heat...

The Hebrew story for this is "And God said, let there be light..."

I love you folks! The apologist's Boner.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2016 07:19PM by BYU Boner.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 07:50PM

Boner,

Well said. That you recognize the faults in the more "fundamentalist" claims is one reason (among many) I have such respect for you.

Can I point out two things?

One -- the earliest "nearly complete" version of the gospel of John comes from around 200CE, not 90CE. The earliest of ANY part of it is the Rylands fragment -- whose date is a bit uncertain, but most put it between 100CE and 130CE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Two -- the "singularity" wasn't matter. It was energy, which can be converted to matter, but wasn't matter (or mass) in the singularity.

And while I appreciate the poetry of the Hebrew creation story, its "let there be light" being applied to the "big bang" is a bit of a stretch...no humans knew there was a "big bang" back then. :)

Love ya.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BYU Boner ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:10PM

Oops, I forgot to click reply, see my comment below.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: madalice ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:05PM

I try to imagine a Bible character being transported through time and ending up in the here and now.

I think their superstitions, lack of knowledge, and the fast pace of life would cause them to have a mental breakdown at the very least.

There's no way they could or would be able to open our minds to anything that hasn't already been studied out millions of times over. They were ignorant, uneducated (by our standards), and had strong beliefs in supernatural goblins and ghosts.

I can't help but wonder if the authors, co-authors and editors of the Bible would have the ability to describe our world, let alone deal with it.

They claimed to see and talk to God. Maybe, but God seems to be a no show these days. Like-wise talking Asses and such. So much of the Bible reminds me of Grimms Fairy Tales. Talking animals, invisible people, pumpkins turning into carriages and on and on.Too much similarity. However, if you have a preacher that's good at manipulating emotions, it seems the story can go on forever.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ohdeargoodness ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:05PM

I'm not trying to make light of your "existential crisis," but one of my pet theories is that religions were founded by some bored aliens that just wanted to screw with us and see how we'd respond.

I don't REALLY think that's true, but, heck, that would be funny. An alien appearing as Christ to Joe in the grove... at least it makes me smile.

As to your questions:

What do you believe? I believe I am sentient. I believe the people I love are also sentient. I believe there is a lot of suffering in the world. I'm inclined to think that most people are morally impotent (i.e. not in a position or otherwise unable to effect great change, like say Nelson Mandela), including myself. I believe in love, loss and all the mundane life that swirls in between. I don't know if I'll be reunited with my loved ones after I die. But - that doesn't make me panic. That just makes me want to show them how much I love them all the more. I believe Socrates words that the only real wisdom lies in knowing you know nothing. The more I think I know, the more I know I don't have a clue about. And that's ok with me. I do believe people are essentially good, even if it's just by a slight margin.


What is the meaning of life? For me, it's working hard to take care of my family and trying to the best me possible. I'd like to give something of worth to society, but at the end of the day my family is #1.



What is your role in this world? Very small, I hope. I really just want a small life, where I'm the best version of myself, healed, recovered, contributing to my community and providing for my family.


What's the point of all this? Who knows? Don't let your lack of an answer stop you from enjoying the ride.

There is one and only one promise I live by: This too shall pass. I remember this when I ache and rage, knowing the pain is transient and I remember this when life unfurls hope, love and joy, clinging to them all the more intensely, knowing that they too will pass.

FWIW, I find a lot of concepts in Buddhism very comforting. Hang in there... this too shall pass. ;)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BYU Boner ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 08:08PM

Hie, you're correct on the dates of the fragments. My apology, I'm not an expert on the history of the texts.

And of course, no humans back then knew about the Big Bang. They told stories and wrote poetry for the scientifically-feeble like me!

Hie, I wish you were right here and I'd give you a BIG BONER HUG--sans le Boner! Speaking of which, how do I say Boner in French? And no, I don't want the clinical "erection," I want words the average dude says when he has a woody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 09:02PM

BYU Boner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hie, I wish you were right here and I'd give you a
> BIG BONER HUG--sans le Boner! Speaking of which,
> how do I say Boner in French? And no, I don't want
> the clinical "erection," I want words the average
> dude says when he has a woody.

<hugs back>

As for having a boner...lots of slang terms:

"J'ai la trique," "je sens la sauce monter," "Chauffe Marcel" are my favorites, but they're all rather long (no pun intended).

So I'd go with "J'ai la gaule." Or in your cause, "Je suis la gaule."

(a "gaule" is a long pole; to have a long pole ("J'ai la gaule") means to have a boner. It's considered quite vulgar slang, which is why I like it! "Je suis la gaule" would be "I AM the boner!)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BYU Boner ( )
Date: October 12, 2016 09:17PM

Mais oui! Je suis la Gaule (WTF, a feminine Boner?) et J'ai la gaule pour ma femme! Or, is it mon femme?

Vulgar French, oh merde! Shakespeare uses foutre in Henry V, it can't be vulgar if the bard uses it!

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********  ********  ********   **     **        ** 
    **     **        **     **  **     **        ** 
    **     **        **     **  **     **        ** 
    **     ******    ********   **     **        ** 
    **     **        **     **  **     **  **    ** 
    **     **        **     **  **     **  **    ** 
    **     **        ********    *******    ******