ADVERTISEMENT

Happy Easter.

I'm going to obliterate any good will I may have built up with religious people here.

How do those of you who are truly faithful bring yourselves to believe things about the world that you know can't be true? And if you're the sort of person who believes (for example) in intelligent design or the literal truth of the Genesis story, why do you do that? Exactly when and where did God appear on Earth and tell His followers that they must always and forever believe the literal truth of words that would later be stitched together by flawed fallible humans into what has come to be the Bible? When did that happen?

I'm an asshole to doubt that anyone ever arose from any tomb on a day when bunnies deliver chocolates, but how much of the literal truth of what by any rational understanding is a silly story is important to the heart of what you actually believe? Why does the Bible have to be true like an encyclopedia to have spiritual heft? Why couldn't it be transcendentally important in ways that are spiritual and mystical, without giving a single shit whether it's literally correct?

And now that I've given too much offense, why can't faith be about . . . faith? The quiet confidence you're supposed to have when you don't know what the larger purposes are but you feel like maybe a higher power still has room for you.

I'm an agnostic, so what do I know. Still, have a happy Easter, Christians.
 
I noticed Trump spent Easter morning tweeting about DACA. I would have thought he would have been at Easter Sunrise Services, followed by regular Easter Services...since he is such a changed person.

lk033018dAPR.jpg
 
I'm going to obliterate any good will I may have built up with religious people here.

How do those of you who are truly faithful bring yourselves to believe things about the world that you know can't be true? And if you're the sort of person who believes (for example) in intelligent design or the literal truth of the Genesis story, why do you do that? Exactly when and where did God appear on Earth and tell His followers that they must always and forever believe the literal truth of words that would later be stitched together by flawed fallible humans into what has come to be the Bible? When did that happen?

I'm an asshole to doubt that anyone ever arose from any tomb on a day when bunnies deliver chocolates, but how much of the literal truth of what by any rational understanding is a silly story is important to the heart of what you actually believe? Why does the Bible have to be true like an encyclopedia to have spiritual heft? Why couldn't it be transcendentally important in ways that are spiritual and mystical, without giving a single shit whether it's literally correct?

And now that I've given too much offense, why can't faith be about . . . faith? The quiet confidence you're supposed to have when you don't know what the larger purposes are but you feel like maybe a higher power still has room for you.

I'm an agnostic, so what do I know. Still, have a happy Easter, Christians.
Well, probably a majority of Christians don't believe in a literal Bible. At the very least, the vast majority of Christians don't belong to denominations that require literal belief. That is, while most denominations accept the Bible as inspired, they do not necessarily take it to be a literal history of events. As early as the 4th Century, for example, Augustine recognized that Genesis 1 can't be a literal depiction of events, because it describes three passages of "night and day" before the sun and moon even existed. So he concluded that the story was a parable, and contained some sort of spiritual rather than literal truth.

As for the Jesus story, that's just an example of a singular miraculous event, faith in which is central to most Christian belief. Most, I would suggest, feel no need to try to "prove" any of it actually happened.
 
Well, probably a majority of Christians don't believe in a literal Bible. At the very least, the vast majority of Christians don't belong to denominations that require literal belief. That is, while most denominations accept the Bible as inspired, they do not necessarily take it to be a literal history of events. As early as the 4th Century, for example, Augustine recognized that Genesis 1 can't be a literal depiction of events, because it describes three passages of "night and day" before the sun and moon even existed. So he concluded that the story was a parable, and contained some sort of spiritual rather than literal truth.

As for the Jesus story, that's just an example of a singular miraculous event, faith in which is central to most Christian belief. Most, I would suggest, feel no need to try to "prove" any of it actually happened.
I guess I've been misinformed. I thought there was a substantial body of religious opinion based on the literal truth of the Bible. I thought this was the reason (for example) why evolution is false. But I'm an agnostic, so I only know what I read in the papers. If you say there isn't anyone who actually thinks this way, I'll let it go. Still, there are a lot of people who plausibly claim to believe these things who show up being quoted in the newspapers.
 
I guess I've been misinformed. I thought there was a substantial body of religious opinion based on the literal truth of the Bible. I thought this was the reason (for example) why evolution is false. But I'm an agnostic, so I only know what I read in the papers. If you say there isn't anyone who actually thinks this way, I'll let it go. Still, there are a lot of people who plausibly claim to believe these things who show up being quoted in the newspapers.
You're not wrong that it exists or is extensive, but you are betraying an (understandable) American-centric bias. Throughout most of the Christian world, these types of Biblical literalists and young-earth creationists are rightfully considered whackjobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
You're not wrong that it exists or is extensive, but you are betraying an (understandable) American-centric bias. Throughout most of the Christian world, these types of Biblical literalists and young-earth creationists are rightfully considered whackjobs.
Which brings us back to my question: why literalism has seized American conservative understanding of what faith is here where we are living, when a literal understanding of the Bible is so baseless, even if you make all manner of crazy assumptions about how the Bible was written.

It's impossible for me to imagine how the Bible could be misinterpreted in cultures I know nothing about. I'm focused on our culture here. Hence my American-centric bias about the American-centric culture I'm trying to talk about.
 
Thanks. I have never heard that thought expressed. You might be onto something.
The early Christian community was very diverse. A number of sects thought of Judas as a hero, particularly the gnostics. These sects died out, though, and Judas was apparently not well-regarded by the particular sects that would eventually become mainstream Christianity. Already in the Bible, there are two different stories of Judas grief-driven suicide, both dating back to the first century.
 
Which brings us back to my question: why literalism has seized American conservative understanding of what faith is here where we are living, when a literal understanding of the Bible is so baseless, even if you make all manner of crazy assumptions about how the Bible was written.

It's impossible for me to imagine how the Bible could be misinterpreted in cultures I know nothing about. I'm focused on our culture here. Hence my American-centric bias about the American-centric culture I'm trying to talk about.
I don't have an answer for you. The easy answer would be our Puritan heritage, but the literalist traditions don't really arise from Puritan and related sects. They seem to have more revivalist roots. Whatever it is, it's not entirely unique to American Christianity (it can be found in Canada and Australia, too), but it's close. No other country displays these beliefs to the extent we do.
 
I don't have an answer for you. The easy answer would be our Puritan heritage, but the literalist traditions don't really arise from Puritan and related sects. They seem to have more revivalist roots. Whatever it is, it's not entirely unique to American Christianity (it can be found in Canada and Australia, too), but it's close. No other country displays these beliefs to the extent we do.
And thus what I intended as a sharp social commentary has become muddled into a politically untethered summation of eternal religious uncertainties. Who'd have guessed that these ostensibly religious notions could have political origins or purposes? Much of this, you'll be surprised to learn, Goat, has little to do with what Augustine said (or didn't say) in the 4th century, but it has everything to do with hypocrites who blame God for what they do today.
 
I'm going to obliterate any good will I may have built up with religious people here.

How do those of you who are truly faithful bring yourselves to believe things about the world that you know can't be true? And if you're the sort of person who believes (for example) in intelligent design or the literal truth of the Genesis story, why do you do that? Exactly when and where did God appear on Earth and tell His followers that they must always and forever believe the literal truth of words that would later be stitched together by flawed fallible humans into what has come to be the Bible? When did that happen?

I'm an asshole to doubt that anyone ever arose from any tomb on a day when bunnies deliver chocolates, but how much of the literal truth of what by any rational understanding is a silly story is important to the heart of what you actually believe? Why does the Bible have to be true like an encyclopedia to have spiritual heft? Why couldn't it be transcendentally important in ways that are spiritual and mystical, without giving a single shit whether it's literally correct?

And now that I've given too much offense, why can't faith be about . . . faith? The quiet confidence you're supposed to have when you don't know what the larger purposes are but you feel like maybe a higher power still has room for you.

I'm an agnostic, so what do I know. Still, have a happy Easter, Christians.
No need to apologize for any of your comments. Each of us has had a different experience in life, which has led us to different beliefs, whether you acknowledge those as religious or simply as feelings. I suspect that the universe is large enough to accommodate all of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Well, probably a majority of Christians don't believe in a literal Bible. At the very least, the vast majority of Christians don't belong to denominations that require literal belief. That is, while most denominations accept the Bible as inspired, they do not necessarily take it to be a literal history of events. As early as the 4th Century, for example, Augustine recognized that Genesis 1 can't be a literal depiction of events, because it describes three passages of "night and day" before the sun and moon even existed. So he concluded that the story was a parable, and contained some sort of spiritual rather than literal truth.

As for the Jesus story, that's just an example of a singular miraculous event, faith in which is central to most Christian belief. Most, I would suggest, feel no need to try to "prove" any of it actually happened.
I am not sure I agree with that.
Literal Christians are very dangerous to the Republic
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
And thus what I intended as a sharp social commentary has become muddled into a politically untethered summation of eternal religious uncertainties. Who'd have guessed that these ostensibly religious notions could have political origins or purposes? Much of this, you'll be surprised to learn, Goat, has little to do with what Augustine said (or didn't say) in the 4th century, but it has everything to do with hypocrites who blame God for what they do today.
Of course the origins are political and social. I just don't know exactly what they are - and it's not like I haven't tried to figure it out. Every country has conservatives. Not every country has a large bloc of conservatives personally offended by Darwin. A major driving force behind it must be something that is especially American. But, there are other countries who don't give three shits about Darwin, but will nevertheless murder the neighbor suspected of being gay. So people all over the world blame dumb shit on a book and a god. That's a universal. Why this particular version of that tendency is so popular in America, however, continues to mystify me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
Of course the origins are political and social. I just don't know exactly what they are - and it's not like I haven't tried to figure it out. Every country has conservatives. Not every country has a large bloc of conservatives personally offended by Darwin. A major driving force behind it must be something that is especially American. But, there are other countries who don't give three shits about Darwin, but will nevertheless murder the neighbor suspected of being gay. So people all over the world blame dumb shit on a book and a god. That's a universal. Why this particular version of that tendency is so popular in America, however, continues to mystify me.
That is not hard. The motivation of the first colonists was exile from persecution for religious belief. Science is the true religion and that might be wrong. If I am wrong about this the at least I will stand before a loving God. I recon I will be admitted. Just direct me to the saloon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Did you watch the NBC performance tonight? I have to admit John Legend left me slightly underwhelmed, but it was pretty solid overall, and it ended strong.
Missed it for the Title 9 Championship. Sold out and a large TV audience. Title 9 worked for the big state schools but it destroyed Kentucky Wesleyan. Sorry to change the subject. The original vinyl work has never been surpassed. How could it be surpassed. London's best Rockers with the London Symphony,
 
Last edited:
Missed it for the Title 9 Championship. Should out and a large TV audience. Title 9 worked for the big state schools but it destroyed Kentucky Wesleyan. Sorry to change the subject. The original vinyl work has never been surpassed.
Yes, the original will forever be the gold standard. But others were good. I saw the 2006 revival tour with Ted Neeley, and it was excellent.

Tonight wasn't bad. It wasn't as good as the original, but that's a really tough bar to reach for.

Alice Cooper as Herod was actually pretty awesome.
 
but it has everything to do with hypocrites who blame God for what they do today.

I'm assuming you aren't talking about those who say "Allahu Akbar" as they take lives, so who exactly are you talking about here?

BTW, I think you raise excellent questions, your second from the last paragraph of your first post in this thread is where I am.
 
The staging was near-perfect.

Legend was really good in spots and didn't have the rock chops for other parts, although I appreciated he brought a different interpretation.

Judas (Brandon Victor Dixon) was outstanding, although I like Judas to be more intense through than how he portrayed it. He just crushed the title song.

Thought everyone else was great, despite some audio issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing and hoosboot
Missed it for the Title 9 Championship. Sold out and a large TV audience. Title 9 worked for the big state schools but it destroyed Kentucky Wesleyan. Sorry to change the subject. The original vinyl work has never been surpassed. How could it be surpassed. London's best Rockers with the London Symphony,
These people were very good.
 
Yes, the original will forever be the gold standard. But others were good. I saw the 2006 revival tour with Ted Neeley, and it was excellent.

Tonight wasn't bad. It wasn't as good as the original, but that's a really tough bar to reach for.

Alice Cooper as Herod was actually pretty awesome.
I haven't seen him yet but I had a permeation that would be his part.
 
The staging was near-perfect.

Legend was really good in spots and didn't have the rock chops for other parts, although I appreciated he brought a different interpretation.

Judas (Brandon Victor Dixon) was outstanding, although I like Judas to be more intense through than how he portrayed it. He just crushed the title song.

Thought everyone else was great, despite some audio issues.
Other than the technical issues you mentioned, the production was fine. And some performances were outstanding. You are right to mention Dixon. Also, in a role that usually gets overlooked, Jin Ha (previously of Hamilton and M. Butterfly) was excellent as Annas.
 
I'm assuming you aren't talking about those who say "Allahu Akbar" as they take lives, so who exactly are you talking about here?

BTW, I think you raise excellent questions, your second from the last paragraph of your first post in this thread is where I am.
Yes, well, you've absolutely got my central concern straight -- I'm upset about all the Mooslims who go running around on your lawn "Allahu Akbar-ing" while committing terrorist events. That's what I was talking about.

It's obvious that I wasted my time in this thread. I apologize to everyone else for that. Never mind.
 
And now that I've given too much offense, why can't faith be about . . . faith? The quiet confidence you're supposed to have when you don't know what the larger purposes are but you feel like maybe a higher power still has room for you.
Wherein I'll reinforce your certainty that I'm an idiot...Faith is not something to have but rather something to be. People tend to get these things backwards, thinking they need to have so they can do so they can be. You need to have a scalpel so you can perform surgery in order to be a surgeon. Actually, you have to be a surgeon in order to do surgery in order to have a well patient.

Religion as we know it is a control operation. If you have faith, the preacher will bless you, and you will be forgiven for your sins. Just put your money on the platter. No.

You are faith. Or you're not.
 
Yes, well, you've absolutely got my central concern straight -- I'm upset about all the Mooslims who go running around on your lawn "Allahu Akbar-ing" while committing terrorist events. That's what I was talking about.

It's obvious that I wasted my time in this thread. I apologize to everyone else for that. Never mind.
I don't think you can judge whether or not you wasted your time according to the response from the baddest of bad faith posters.
 
Wherein I'll reinforce your certainty that I'm an idiot...Faith is not something to have but rather something to be. People tend to get these things backwards, thinking they need to have so they can do so they can be. You need to have a scalpel so you can perform surgery in order to be a surgeon. Actually, you have to be a surgeon in order to do surgery in order to have a well patient.

Religion as we know it is a control operation. If you have faith, the preacher will bless you, and you will be forgiven for your sins. Just put your money on the platter. No.

You are faith. Or you're not.
Yes, you're right. That's stupid.

Good night, everyone. My bad. Have a happy bunnies distributing chocolates day. Forget I was ever here.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT