Ticket to the Resurrection

First off, I don't think Grizz cares so much about the origin of a belief, as the validity of it, or the sense of it.Second, I am surprised that you are posting all this 'Whore of Babylon' stuff. I can't even tell you how funny it is. You want to debate that 'eating God' came from the pagan Mithras groups, and not from the Bible which said 'take and eat'? Please, by all means, let's do it. Some other thread, though.

Still kinda backwards. Beliefs were molded from scriptures, not to scriptures. Actually, I guess it works both ways at times.I also believe we were made in God's true image, but what is a 'true image'?I don't think men are gods, no, but I think our souls are created with some features that are like God's. The best you can do here is say, 'hey, the authors of Genesis thought God was a man, and so they thought God created men to be the same as He is'. However, that does not hold much credibility when you look at Genesis as a whole. God is always seen as greater than man.

Hi,Exactly, one can mold or shape any belief they wish by playing on words or interpretations found in sacred texts. The very reason I have rejected Divine Revelation as a possibility is that I have yet to see one example of revelation that is clearly detailed and consistent throughout.To this date, Catholics and Protestants can't even agree on whether the scant few sentences on the Last Supper was an invocation to engage in ritualistic cannibalism. Catholics believe the passage tells them they are literally drinking real blood and eating real flesh. In the Middle Ages, simply questioning this interpretation would be enough to get your head lopped off.Surely an Omnipotent being could have done much better in relaying the meaning and specific intent of his revelation? Was his intent to be so ambiguous that, to this day, religious groups are still at each other's throats over what divine revelation states? Isn't this the same source that supplied detailed engineering schematics for an Ark? Unfortunately, this same source failed to supply equally precise details for the larger questions of prime importance. In most places the offerings are extremely vague, ambiguous, and open to numerous interpretations.So, if people are looking for much needed practical advice on how to sacrifice a goat, or construct a temple, they will find a plethora of detailed information on how to go about doing just that. If they want to know why we are here, how we got here, and how we should worship, the best they can hope for is metaphor, ambiguity, and contradictions.The red flags are displayed everywhere, not only in the texts themselves, but throughout the history of Christendom. To this very day, Christians cannot even agree on such trivial matters such as what clothing is appropriate to wear to church, let alone what to do while you are there.Is ambiguity and metaphor what divine revelation is all about? I would think not. Using the Biblical incantation to judge a tree by the fruit it grows, can we conclude the written words are the product of divine revelation or creative license? My bets are on the latter. An Omnipotent being could surely have done much better than this.For me, there is something seriously wrong with the picture that has been painted.Anyways, sorry to go a bit off topic, and my goal is not to thumb my nose at your beliefs. I simply don't get it. Unless one is a literal fundamentalist, why should one trust Genesis to give us an accurate account of anything, given that it has got so much wrong on the specific details? Could it be interpreted as an allegory or metaphor for Man's relation to God? Sure, if one is so inclined, but if it cannot be trusted to supply accurate details in one instance, why should it be trusted at all?Also, Thanks for debating..I am surprised we don't have a much larger crowd on this topic.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Well, how many believers in physical resurrection do we have? Not too many.I think my debating has wandered off somewhere. I am sick today for one thing. Over-all, I do better at debating doctrine and such, but if someone keeps saying 'I don't believe anything productive can come from scripture', I am at a loss. I don't preach. It's not that I am restraining myself, I just am not interested in that, although maybe that makes me a bad Christian. I feel that any replies to a person's disbelief makes me look contriving or preachy, and is usually not the topic anyway.I guess we can only ask two questions:Why do people believe in certain doctrines, and are the doctrines internally consistant? I find that history and apologetics can answer those questions, and I enjoy the study for itself. If it gets into 'why should I, Grizz, believe it?' that is out of my hands.

quote:

---

You want to debate that 'eating God' came from the pagan Mithras groups, and not from the Bible which said 'take and eat'? Please, by all means, let's do it. Some other thread, though.

---

Symbolic, bread and wine are.
No time for thread, but if you want to start one, I'll check in.
You can see the pagan method in the bible, that's fine with me. A catholic told me not long ago that if God wants to borrow a little from paganism, HE has a right to do that. LOL
If everyone were to start a new thread to keep the conversation from detours, chaos.

quote:

---

Also, Thanks for debating..I am surprised we don't have a much larger crowd on this topic.

---

I like everything you said here and see a someone who takes a thought from inception to completion. If you take a look at the response I received for putting emphasis on how the eucharist progresses from casting a spell on bread and wine to imbibing both, you'll see why a reasonable discussion of anything religious is a waste of time and why the crowd stays home. Please keep asking questions and making statements as you did here. If you are seriously looking for the right answer, you will find it. If you are not serious, then you have your answer already. Either way, safe journey to you.

Like any Map, you test it against the Territory. You can use it as a guide, and for planning, but as any prudent person will tell you, "Just because the Map says there is a bridge, don't drive across without looking to be sure." I think part of the reason for the lack of participation is that the initial premise was trivial and the whole thing could be answered in just a few words. The answer is "We don't know."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, all you will see is that I asked for a reasonable discussion in the proper space. Sure Catholicism has pagan influence, but your web links are also full of paranoia and false information.

quote:

---

Sure Catholicism has pagan influence, but your web links are also full of paranoia and false information.

---

You did not list the false information. I would love to take a look at it. Information that is false vs. catholic church does or does not practice it.Yes, the catholic church has pagan influences. Take a look at the OT and get a grip on what that entails. But, shucks, I digress.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing which has ever made someone 'pagan' is the god or gods they worship. Can someone really wear 'pagan clothes'? Course I didn't. Wrong thread. Right now, I am having trouble getting onto that site anyway.Your main point was that humans don't have souls, according to the Bible. Grizz's opening post asked about bodily resurrection, and your site did not answer the questions he had either. The 'soul' conversation was sort of a side track, and it still goes back to what the priest said. There is no information about what the resurrected body will look like. Not in scripture. I don't care what denomination you are, it's simply not there.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Hi Jar,The question is, a guide for what? What parts can be used as a guide, what parts can be discarded as irrelevant, and who gets to pick and choose what is true and false? It seems rather arbitrary, one can decide which passages or interpretations are valid and then simply disregard the rest.There is no consistency or objective way to sort the wheat from the chaff; The result is a free-for-all.I am not saying scripture has no practical wisdom, I simply question the conclusion that scripture is divine revelation. If an omnipotent being wanted to give us information I would assume such information would be accurate, concise, and consistent, even if such knowledge was only indirectly 'inspired'.If scripture is truly divine revelation then it appears the creator is playing a literary version of 'Name That Tune'. We are given a few scrambled bits and pieces, then asked to guess the answer in 3 notes or less.Why should such an inconsistent document be trusted to give us information on such things as the resurrection and the existence of an afterlife when the majority of what we read clearly does not match what we see in the world? How could we know the resurrection is not just another claim like 7-day creation?The answer obviously is one needs to accept it on faith. The most appealing elements are left intact and assigned the status of truth, everything else is dumped or dismissed as the creative license of the author.I certainly would think it nice if we did indeed have a soul that lived on forever in eternal bliss. I could give you a hundred reasons why this idea is appealing and emotionally gratifying. I could not, however, provide one rational reason why it should be true.

Hi Ana,Get well soon.I understand your position. I admit you could be right and I could be wrong. I do not claim to hold a monopoly on reality. I really do not approach a belief with a goal of determining truth or falsehood. None of the issues we are discussing can be deductively established as true or false.I look at such beliefs and claims and then judge them based on their merits. The more inconsistent an idea or belief is, the less merit is has in being an accurate reflection of reality.Also, feel free to let me have an earfull if you want. If they are your opinions, express them. It doesn't matter to me what we debate on the issue. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

I can see what you mean. I really was really trying to get something going that discusses the merits and consistency of such beliefs. To me, the idea of a bodily resurrection seems so trivial in comparison to the belief that one will live out eternity inside a soul detached from a body.Also, I am kind of new here so I am just getting familiar with the ins and outs of what makes a good post.

Thanks, same to you.These types of posts may not be the most popular but I find more interest in such questions.

First, what makes you think it is divine revelation? How did that even creep into the discussion? Where did I say it was divine revelation?Second, you mention Scripture? The Bibles (and as I have pointed out many times, there is no one Canon) are but one example. Scripture simply implies that God inspired a writer, no more. I believe any inspired writing come from God, and all is valuable to learn from. That includes of course, Mark Twain and Rudyard Kipling. The answer is a guide to relationships, between God and Man, Man and God, man and his fellow man and man and the world we live in. And we each must pick and choose, or let others do it for us.I prefer to do the picking and choosing myself, and do so by testing against reason, logic and reality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion