Religion...

Remove all ads!

@NOG and Sir Fink:

Thanks for giving the explanation of the Tetragrammaton in my absences from the thread. Let me correct one tiny thing - the Name is YHVH, not W. It stands for the Hebrew letters yod-hei-vav-hei - there is no "w" in Hebrew. Ironic, isn't it?

 

@Mediocre Man:

Actually, God has never had a real NAME. Everything anyone has ever called Him is all titles. "Lord of Creation", "King of Heaven", "I Am" (Or He Is, which ever) they're all titles to (vainly) try and capture the nature of God. Think about it. Today, names are given to you by those who came before you, those who have authority over you, your parents. In ancient Israel, names meant much more, they were a reflection of the character of the person, or the person was intended to be a reflection of the character of the name. Either way, no one is older or higher than God, that they may give Him a name, nor could any word adequately express the true nature of God, that we could define Him so simply. God, or God Almighty, is about as close as it gets, and even that is far from adequate. It isn't that we've lost something, just that it was never there.

@Rally:
Ok, so where did Yahweh come from? I can understand the w-v substitution if the romans were involved, the letter v in latin is pronounced w, but does Hebrew even use an alphabet, a set of symbols that represent sounds, and only sounds? I though it was ideographic or something, but I could be TOTALLY off base here, please enlighten us. Anyway, if there's no Hebrew alphabet, per se, then the english (or greek, or spanish, or whatever) spelling is simply how it would be pronounced, and has nothing to do with what symbols the Hebrews used.

 

@Chev: a lot of the things you dismiss, such as astrology, have roots that are as old as or older than Christianity. a lot of people place as much faith to those things as yuou do in God. Just because they are used to make money *cough* rteleveange4lists, anyojne? *coughj* doe snot mean that sincere belief in those things is any less of a relgigon/faith than Christianity.

 

@Ara:

You're missing the point. If you dismiss the faith in God on scientific reasons because a supernatural entity like God can't exist and all, then you shouldn't really read horoscopes, arrange your room in a feng-shui way or use alternative medicine (other than the, "it works, so I don't care how real it looks or what it is," outlook). People think they are too smart to believe in God but they fall for first best self-appointed astrologist or tarot reader.

@Sir Fink:

That was vowels from "Adonai" (Lord) put into IHVH (if we're considering English) in middle ages AFAIK, as "adonai" was the natural thing for you to read when coming across IHVH in the text. By the way, (also @Rally), English is the only European language to pronounce "w" that way. In other languages, "w" is pretty much like "v" in English. In Latin, it would have to be IHVH. In German, IHWH, either "v" or "w" in French ("w" exists in French, it's just rare and I can only think of surnames containing it). The "j" in there comes from the mediaeval custom of writing "j" in some Latin words where it was a long sound (cuius => cujus, iacere => jacere, Iesus => Jesus, Iahveh => Jahveh), and obviously the initial sound in the Hebrew IHVH couldn't have had anything to do with the initial sound in "James", because that's just the way English reads "j".

[ March 06, 2006, 00:28: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

That's the unfortunet bit about it. I was born into a roman catholic family, and inherited the religion, as you do. I didn't have a choice, and it took a long time before I was able to see it for what it really was, bull****. I wasn't beaten into buying this religion, but it's the little things you're told when you're little, like going to hell if you're naughty, which is just about the most evil thing you could tell a child.

You get the picture, but what's unfortunet is that I didn't get to decide, at the time, for myself, I was just told, and because I was a small child, assumed it was all true. Now things are different, and barely anyone in my family is in the least bit religious. I am still a vert spiritual person, but not religous in any way.

If I have children, they will learn about religion, but I will never take them to a church, or try to influence their views in any way, religion, if they choose to be a part of it, will be down to them. I respect no one who would do the opposite. My children will be free human beings, free to make their own choices and mistakes, they can be gay if they want to be gay, they can hindu if they want to be hindu, they can do as they please. I am just a knowledgable guide that will pass on my experience, they will take what valuable information I can give them if they want it, but it will never be forced upon them.

 

Svy,

Let me begin by saying I was in no way trying to bash any type of tradition, religious or otherwise, and you seemed to understand that from my last post. It is true - your statement regarding how tradition is such an integral part of most religions. I also will admit that you have a very valid point that many of these "new age" religions that people start, well, there's really no reason to think that they have come to some higher form of enlightenment that the whole of humanity have missed up to this point.

However, there does seem to be some groups - here in the U.S. at least - that seem to do just that, and have huge followings no less. I'm sure you have heard of some of the more popular televised evangelicals. Almost without exception, these people have started their own church. I was watching a program on the History Channel just last night, and they said that people belonging to Churches of these TV evangelists number 30 million. That's hardly a fringe element. Granted, it's small when considering Christianity as a whole, which has over a billion members, but 30 million - many of whom likely live in the U.S. is a significant following.

These people use terms which are completely alien to me as well. They believe in the coming of an antichrist - which, as the name implies, is a corporeal representation of incarnate evil. Moreover, these people claim that the "true believers" will not be around to see the antichrist, because at the time of his coming, they will all be sent to Heaven in the "Rapture". Evidently, there is a belief that during the Rapture, the faithful on earth will disappear without a trace and be sent directly the Heaven. Which seems strange to me to say the least. It all seems like the process is quite rapid - you just vanish to Heaven. If you are driving at the time, does your car go careening off the road? At least to me, claims like this are just as fantastic as many of these "new age" religions we see.

 

It should be noted however, that all the religions that have a long history today have at a time been at the exact same point as the kooky new age crap now.

 

Mediocre Man [If it is the former, please be kind enough to elaborate.]

Perhaps face to face I would... however, I learned a long time ago that this isn't the medium for proselytizing ones faith to others... it will suffice to say, if I may be so bold, to suggest that you drink deeply from the well of life before writing such a folorn oponion of it, at least in any permanence, upon your heart.

For if you are correct in your current thinking... you will yet thank me... and if you come to find your current opinion in error... you will not have needed me to convince you of it.

For my part... in sincerity, I pray you are blessed with dicernment and a full cup from which to drink from.

[ March 06, 2006, 16:28: Message edited by: halfogremagi ]

 

That is an interesting point.

 

Halfogremagi:
My beliefs are in no way cynical; I feel that I am just being logical about the place humanity has in the universe, albeit that there is none. We only exist as either a fluke or an eventuality, and are not influenced by any order beyond that which we impose on ourselves.
Slightly more on-topic: I don't particularly care for the newer religions, as most just seem to be tailor-made to suit a specific lifestyle, picking and mixing from various other faiths to create one YOU like.

 

If you look at the "classic" religions through the same glasses you use to view "wacky" religions like Scientologists or Moonies you will notice they are all equally weird and implausable.

 

MM,

Sometimes I fear we may all be blinded by familiarity.

Say you were strolling along the Mohave desert and found a pristine Dell D810 notebook lying on a flat rock among the dunes of sand... what would your initial conclusion be... after of course perhaps the childhood phrase "finders keepers losers weepers"... your initial conclusion would be that someone placed it there and left it... being a halfway moral sod, you might even search out the owner... but I guarantee you that the very last thing you would do is determine that it evolved into existence and was placed there by mere chance with no owner or creator per se.

Yet take a stroll through that same desert... perhaps past that same rock... and take note of an animal as "simple" as a gila monster... and yet for all the complexity orders of magnitude above that of a Dell D810 notebook... you would assume that such a creature merely evolved without direction by mere chance alone against all odds of all manner of scientific disciplines.

And what of those that seek signs of intelligent life in the cosmos... straining with all manner of telescopes for some semblance of pattern... some semblance of order... some semblance of intelligence.

Well... perhaps they should turn their telescopes around... or perhaps trade them in for microscopes.

Logic...? I believe that there is logically much more to life than we are often able... or sometimes willing to perceive or entertain.

As I eluded to in an earlier post... I believe that man has been more hampered by the prideful inability to say with all sufficiency "I don't know"... than nearly any other process of thought and conteplation... you see... the inability to say something as simple as "I don't know" damages us severely, as it often means the ongoing pursuit of that which is false at the expense of further contemplating a sincere search for the truth.

[ March 07, 2006, 01:42: Message edited by: halfogremagi ]

 

halfogremagi, contrary to your argument that man cannot say "I don't know", I believe that man often admits that to him/herself. However, saying I don't know does not prevent one from also saying "I don't know, but want to." This, I belivem is where science comes in: people wanting to attempt to explain the world in a way that is not entirely dependent on faith in what another person or an ancient book says is true. However, I believe that the destructive pride comes in when one is unable to admit defeat, unable to say: "I tried my best to understand, but I failed. Mabye someday someone else will be able to explain this, but for right now, I have to admit that I cannot know."

 

Did you just switch sides? 'Cause it sounds like that applies a lot more to your religion than anyone else's. (JK)

Seriously, though, all that quote boils down to is "everyone else should stop being wrong", which comes right back to "I'm right"; the basis for just about every religion or theological belief there is. So long as one group of people believe they are right, they will believe that anyone who thinks different must be wrong. The only problem is: We don't know who's right! Noone does. Heck, for all we know, we might not have anyone in the entire world on the right track. That's why I think everyone should be allowed to explore their own beliefs; somebody's bound to get it right sooner or later.

And finally, a joke to go out on...

Now wouldn't that be a waste of time!

 

Umm, that's pretty sound Christian theology, actually. Much of it comes from the book of Revelation, but some major points come from OT prophecies about the Messiah. Christians believe that, at some point, Jesus will call us all to be with Him in Heaven. This is called the rapture. Some believe it will happen before the Tribulation, some in the middle, and some after. These are called pre-, mid-, and post-trib. beliefs. Most Christians are pre-trib.
The tribulation is a period described in Revelation when the Anti-Christ, Satan personified, will decieve the nations, persecute the Jews, command all to worship him, and try to wipe out the remaining Christians, those who got saved after the rapture if you're pre-trib. During this time, God will curse the Earth in many ways, and I suggest you read Revelation for more info on that, but at the end of 7 years, Christ returns to Earth, wipes out Satan and his army, judges man, and sets up a 1,000 year perfect kingdom on Earth. At the end of that, Satan gets one last crack at decieving people, probably those born since, and then Heaven and Earth are destroyed and we live in a new Heaven and a new Earth with God in perfection.
Again, this is all pretty sound Christian theology. Also, many of those televangelists are members of legitimate churches. Our pastor broadcasts his sermons on some channel, I don't know which one. Its not a 'new age cult', just a new medium. That being said, there are more than a few out there who are just in it for the money, or who are spreading lies, but you have to judge them indifidually.

 

Felinoid, deepfae,

Perhaps you misunderstood to whom my last post was addressed and therefore are extracing more from my argument than is there.

I was addressing Mediocre Man (MM), as a self ascribed nihilist, which sounds to me to be much likened to an atheist.

My argument was not framed in advocacy of my personal beliefs on the issue... but rather something much less... to put it bluntly... that logically, one would at the very least be perhaps agnostic and open to searching for the truth.

That is all.

 

Only if you're an evangelical Christian. Other groups that may include this in their belief system include born-again Christians and the LDS Church. I was born Catholic. I attended a Catholic University. I served as an altar boy in my Church for many years when I was young. I know what of I speak. While the book of Revelations is part of the Bible (the book of Daniel too, I believe), there is no belief in the Rapture as you so describe it in the Catholic faith. I've never even heard of it at any point in my Church-going life. Also, the term Rapture does not date to ancient times. It came into being as a belief and a term for evangelicals in the 1830s.

I'm not trying to belittle your belief system in any way. I'm just saying you can't call it "sound Christian theology" when a large number of Christians - Catholics at the very least if not many others - do not subscribe to this belief. It would be more accurate to say it is "sound Evangelican theology". I hope Chev sees this topic - I'd love to hear his input.

 

Heh... I think yer both sort of right... to my knowledge both the Catholic Church and Protestant Church's recognize the Rapture... the point of contention is over it's timing.

My understanding is that Catholic and ealy Protestant teaching is of a post tribulation rapture... while very recently, evangelical protestantism has embraced a pre-tribulation rapture position.

There are in fact 4 positions that I am aware of... pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, and most recently pre-wrath.

In sincere honesty... for various reasons of apparent translational or theological validity, there are good godly men in each camp.

 

I have never heard a Catholic priest use the term "Rapture". Ever. I've heard hundreds of homilies during my time as an altar boy, I've heard hundreds of lectures from Jesuits teaching theology at the University. I would like to think that if it were part of the Catholic belief system, someone at some point would have brought it up. Like I said earlier - the term is COMPLETELY foreign to me.