Discussion in 'Philosophy and Spirituality in the Arts' started by shesulsa, May 23, 2006.
hMMM...The Nine Charges of the Odinic Rite strike me as pretty much true, issues of racism aside:
I don't know if I ever read the bible but I do know many stories in the Bible and hearing preacher tell of the bible at church. I don't know whether it's all true or not maybe it is, maybe it's not but ill put my faith to believe so. It is good to have something to believe in naive or not it is a fact
It's true that Odin speaks to me every night. It's true that he is the one and only god left. It's true that he thinks the truth is subjective and that the impreciseness of the word itself proof enough.
Maybe the bipedal monkey things conflated some concepts when they invented English.
I've thought of a different way of illustrating my point. We'll start with a question, what is the opposite of true?
Of course, none of us has the means ofobjectively falsifying any of those statements. That they can be falsified is based entirely on subjective evidence: Odin hasn't spoken to any of us; there is no evidence of gods that can be objectively falsified.
I'll assert again, as elsewhere: all "evidence" of God is subjective, and only suitable for the subject who holds it to be true.
A story, posted by me earlier, for those of you who insist that "gods" are "imaginary friends."
When I was in boarding school, there were people there who might go unnoticed by some: the cafeteria workers, the janitors, the maintenance people....of course, being kids who interacted with them daily, we did notice them-we called them (for reasons lost to me) "wombats."
Some of them were cool. Some were ex-convicts and lunatics, I think. The guy who ran the cafeteria was named Lothar, and we named my first band after him, Lothar and his Amazing Mayonnaise People :lfao:
I digress, though....
Two of the people I'm going to talk about here worked in the cafeteria-one fellow would come into the dining hall for his lunch break, sit down at one of the side tables, and carry on an extremely animated conversation with the empty chair across from him.
The other was a long-haired young fellow named Rick, who played some pretty excellent blues guitar and dealt what I was told was pretty bad-*** weed.....some of us would get together with him to jam, and, likely, smoke dope, which may or may not figure into this story.
One day, I had the temerity to ask Rick, Hey-what's up with that guy who talks to himself all the time? To which Rick replied, I dunno man, but I'll tell you what: one day we were loading trays of potatoes in the oven, and these things had to weigh like 200 pounds. That dude slid one out of the rack by the corner, looked over and said, "Ya got that?" and carried it over to the oven by the corner!!
Now, already being of a certain bend of mind, I calculated that even including the weight of the tray, based on their observed size, and the size and weight of large russet potatoes, the tray didn't weigh 200 lbs.......though it likely weighed pretty close to 100 lbs-and carrying it that way was an impressive feat of strength...especially for such an unathletic, late middle aged, chain smoking mental patient, which is what this fellow seemed to be......of course, the story may have just been told to freak out some kids who were under the influence, but I like the metaphor:
When it comes to "god," I need my "imaginary friend to help "carry my tray" across the kitchen....and you cannot tell me he isn't there, after all-I've carried the tray with his help-I have all the evidence I need, though I can't prove a thing to you..
There may not be anyone at all there, but that fact (if it is a fact) doesn't make it any less true for me.
Thanks for the story. I think you've captured mostly how I think of gods and goddesses. They are subjective experiences, unprovable to the outside world, but still meaningful nonetheless.
That said, I don't believe in any of them. For some reason, when I was a young boy, I could remember questioning whether any of them existed and asking any adults I could find for any tangible evidence. I mean, come on, shouldn't we have a Mt. Olympus we could go to to actually find these guys!
Anyway, what I left with was the realization that these beings were not real. They were not like rocks or anything that you could do anything with. They were just ideas in people's heads...imaginary friends...like Santa Claus for adults, but no one is ever going to spoil.
And IMHO, humanity desperately needs these illusions to be spoiled. When the rational mind is tainted by belief in superstitious phantasms, there is a line that is drawn where that mind is no longer capable reasoning. This line is like a choke on a highly tuned engine and it holds humans back from realizing there true cognitive potential.
Also, that line represents the point at which words will fail to sway that human. Therefore, the fists will take over. Therefore, these imaginary friends, are probably the casus belli for most of the avoidable sorrow in the world.
The wisdom that is Futurama
The Bible as it was originally written by God through men such as Paul and Peter is 100% true. The best version of the Bible in English that I like to use is the original King James Bible of 1611, actually your "original" KJB that you find in most stores today is a version written sometime in the 1700s but that evolved from the KJB of 1611. I find that to be much better than modern versions including the new King James Bible as well as NIV or any of the other modern Bibles.
How on Earth can you make the claim that the King James Bible is the 'best'? How do you know which version is the most accurate translation? What about the Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. What makes one better than another?
No that isn't true when you consider there are different kinds of truth. Five I think, It has been a while since that class.
The best would be the original Bible as it was written in greek and hebrew by men such as Paul and Peter, actually written by God through men such as Paul and Peter. So to get the best Bible would be to get one of those original manuscripts and be able to understand it.
Everyone uses Paradise Lost these days anyway. Who cares? Bring on the aliens!!! LOL
Damned good point, the OP should have specified which version they were asking about so we know which one we're voting on.
However it wouldn't change the fact that the answer is no.
Briefly, there are two streams of Greek that have been used to translate the Bible into English; Antiochian and Alexandrian. The Greek of Antioch was used by Tyndale, Matthews, those at Geneva, and the King James Translators (and others). The Alexandrian Greek (as well as their Latin Vulgate) was used by the Catholic Church when they finally printed a Bible in English, and for all their subsequent English translations. It was used as the basis for the 'newly made' Greek New Testament made by Wescott and Hort. The Wescott and Hort newly made Greek New Testament was used for the majority of the translations since the late 1800s. Obviously there are proponents of each stream. I recommend you search on Antiochian and Alexandrian, as well as Wescott and Hort, for more information. You will find people who are passionate in their defense of one system, and against the other. But it will give you information to help make up your own mind.
I personally, as I have stated before, believe in the King James Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God in the English language. Everyone however, gets to make up their own mind.
I guess you mean for your beliefs, not others?
Not the way you meant it I suppose, but in fact, I do believe the Holy Ghost inspired the Bible writers to use the words God intended, and then inspired the King James Bible translators to use the English words they used. I understand not everyone believes that, and that is each person's choice.
It tends to be much more of an inherited trait than an actual choice.
Super busy day for me. I think I am missing something in your reply. Can you help me out here?123
Separate names with a comma.