Semantics, semantics.
Religion and Medical Schools
- Thread starter Kazzar
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
Guiding philosphical assumptions/worldviews, guiding philosphical assumptions/worldviews.
This fellow is letting some of his philospohical assumptions be known, communicating some of their tenants, which taken together construct a significant part of his worldview, and he is advocating for it as a good way.
What makes this unlike a religion to him, though personal in its exact form, in all but minimal ways?
BTW, Kazzar, please know I am not trying to pick at you, just letting your post illustrate a certain point. You do show a good knowledge of varying viewpoints.
This fellow is letting some of his philospohical assumptions be known, communicating some of their tenants, which taken together construct a significant part of his worldview, and he is advocating for it as a good way.
What makes this unlike a religion to him, though personal in its exact form, in all but minimal ways?
BTW, Kazzar, please know I am not trying to pick at you, just letting your post illustrate a certain point. You do show a good knowledge of varying viewpoints.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
But Stephen Ewen, those aren't religions!!!! I was sharing ideas that have similarities with certain philosophies on life. I only speak my mind, I have no intent to change people over to my side of the issue. I think writing about this stuff is more cathartic than anything for me (and if people show good logic that proves me wrong, I'd throw my ideas to the wind and take shelter in their ideology's warm bosom).
But back to my point, a religion has a dogma and a way to believe. It is ordered, systematic, it tells you how you should act and feel acording to their tennets (accept Jesus in your heart, fast for 60 days, pray every night, etc). I am sure many of my words may reflect the teachings and words and prophets of the world over. (I try to read the closest translations of original religious texts when I feel theological).
But as I said in my closing remarks, I respect he who has assimilated many religions into one vault of ultimate wisdom. I thank you for pointing out how many philosophies I encorporate in my words, it means that I approach things from many perspectives, from many viewpoints. It is a very kind compliment, and not one I have ever received from anybody. It's kinda cool to be all-encompassing... kinda like God. heheh
But I wholly reject your idea that I have a religion. Religion is absolute (unless it breaks off into a new demonination). If I put apples, oranges, pears, pinnapples, and marshmellows into a fruit salad, would I always use the same ingredients? No, I do not follow a recipe for life, and that is what religion is to me, a recipe to be followed. If you stray from the recipe you may screw it up and go to Hell-ahh! Where naught but fire and brimstone eat at your bones and crows pick out your eyes and devils feast on yer soul...... muahahah.
Ahem, but I digress. Others on this forum have pointed out that we all have an inner spirituality, of things we hold to be true and untrue, but this cannot be a religion in of itself. I'd have to write up a charter, write a religious text, file for a religious status with the federal government, and most importantly, tell others that they should do things similarly, if not exactly how I do. That is religion. And that is not what I am, religious.
I don't even go to church. I'd feel like I'd be a sinner if I did on false pretenses.
But back to my point, a religion has a dogma and a way to believe. It is ordered, systematic, it tells you how you should act and feel acording to their tennets (accept Jesus in your heart, fast for 60 days, pray every night, etc). I am sure many of my words may reflect the teachings and words and prophets of the world over. (I try to read the closest translations of original religious texts when I feel theological).
But as I said in my closing remarks, I respect he who has assimilated many religions into one vault of ultimate wisdom. I thank you for pointing out how many philosophies I encorporate in my words, it means that I approach things from many perspectives, from many viewpoints. It is a very kind compliment, and not one I have ever received from anybody. It's kinda cool to be all-encompassing... kinda like God. heheh
But I wholly reject your idea that I have a religion. Religion is absolute (unless it breaks off into a new demonination). If I put apples, oranges, pears, pinnapples, and marshmellows into a fruit salad, would I always use the same ingredients? No, I do not follow a recipe for life, and that is what religion is to me, a recipe to be followed. If you stray from the recipe you may screw it up and go to Hell-ahh! Where naught but fire and brimstone eat at your bones and crows pick out your eyes and devils feast on yer soul...... muahahah.
Ahem, but I digress. Others on this forum have pointed out that we all have an inner spirituality, of things we hold to be true and untrue, but this cannot be a religion in of itself. I'd have to write up a charter, write a religious text, file for a religious status with the federal government, and most importantly, tell others that they should do things similarly, if not exactly how I do. That is religion. And that is not what I am, religious.
I don't even go to church. I'd feel like I'd be a sinner if I did on false pretenses.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
In how you yourself described religion, I myself am not part of a religion.
On a more base level, beyond the particulars of accumen, origin, fluidity or non-fluidity, specific tenant, individualism or communalism, a religion is simply a worldview, a set of guiding philospohical assumptons that one holds about about life,. We ALL have them.
Beyond that, I certainly agree with you on the 501c3 status thing--unless you and scootad get together, that is.
On a more base level, beyond the particulars of accumen, origin, fluidity or non-fluidity, specific tenant, individualism or communalism, a religion is simply a worldview, a set of guiding philospohical assumptons that one holds about about life,. We ALL have them.
Beyond that, I certainly agree with you on the 501c3 status thing--unless you and scootad get together, that is.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
Stephen Ewen, I have to say, you are a very intelligent man, and even some of your ideas, such as "fluidity," go over my head. (I think I fell asleep in my anthropology class the day that word was discussed.)
I have to also laud you on your work in Africa bringing health care to the masses.
But I take offense to your website listed in your info. I think it is very ethically wrong how your medical mission says, "55,000 people in the world's neediest nations die daily because of a lack of medical care. The vast majority of these fall into a Christ-less eternity."
Christ-less eternity?
These people will be overjoyed to receive medical care. They'll accept any religion if it means they'll survive. It makes me feel sick, it feels like soda-pop advertising. Something shoved down your throat.
Why can't you give them medical attention first, so their "IDs" are satisfied (health, hunger, etc), then show them the Bible and all it has to offer. I do not assume to know what exactly goes on in your particular mission. But if they are anything like the self-reported descriptions I hear from other religious missions, ("We will help them find Jesus Christ so that they can be saved physically and spiritually"), I dont think I am far off.
Hell, I would accept Satanism if a bunch of people came to my hypothetical needy village and started giving me medical attention, food, and the most valuable commodity, care.
To me, it's product placement at its most sacrilegious.
I have to also laud you on your work in Africa bringing health care to the masses.
But I take offense to your website listed in your info. I think it is very ethically wrong how your medical mission says, "55,000 people in the world's neediest nations die daily because of a lack of medical care. The vast majority of these fall into a Christ-less eternity."
Christ-less eternity?
These people will be overjoyed to receive medical care. They'll accept any religion if it means they'll survive. It makes me feel sick, it feels like soda-pop advertising. Something shoved down your throat.
Why can't you give them medical attention first, so their "IDs" are satisfied (health, hunger, etc), then show them the Bible and all it has to offer. I do not assume to know what exactly goes on in your particular mission. But if they are anything like the self-reported descriptions I hear from other religious missions, ("We will help them find Jesus Christ so that they can be saved physically and spiritually"), I dont think I am far off.
Hell, I would accept Satanism if a bunch of people came to my hypothetical needy village and started giving me medical attention, food, and the most valuable commodity, care.
To me, it's product placement at its most sacrilegious.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
First off, there you go advocating for your worldview/philosophy of life/religion of a sort again. No problem. We all do it.
For example, and I am speaking theoretically here: on what authority can you confidently assert that people who die without Christ will not "spend a Christless eternity"? Can your basis of declarative authority against the proposition supercede another basis supporting it? What is it and from where did it come and why is it superior? You see what I mean.
A lesson in life for you: the money of donors' will, but with rare exception, go to those in kind with their philosophy.
Now, you understand The Luke Project and the written material on the website for it about as well you understand a 501c3 organization.
An organization that is classified as 501c3 is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization to the IRS.
Now, you are drawing HUGE assumptions about me from one sliver of my life. You might inform yourself about what I work to do to increase the numbers of doctors in the third-world who are from diverse backgrounds, IN ADDITION to those who are Christians. Go to ATTN: New U.S. Government Program to Pay for Your Medical Education to see what I mean.
The idea is to INCREASE the number of medical personnel serving in the third-world.
To do this, they but with rare exception must have their full bills paid by an outside source: tuition, living, insurance, transpo, everything.
The Luke Project sends out medical missionaries in training to indigenous foreign medical schools under already existing mission organizations that facilitate these students' full support to be medically trained. I am simply creatively using this already existing support system to meet the end objective of getting more medical missionaries to the field than otherwise could make it.
Now, if you can show me other comparable systems where full support structures are already in place that are already supporting similar things with already held monies, and are not already doing it, I will create an organization for them starting on the day you forward me the information.
Do you know any organizations that regularly send people out to the third-world with full monetary support to do certain things that might instead send them out to go to medical school?
You make very ill-informed assumptions and assertions about what Christian medical missionaries do on the field.
I see Christian medical misisonaries lifting up, for example, Nepalese prostitutes with Vaginal Fistulas.
The women (girls) marry at 12 or 13, expereince trauma in early childbirth; the fistuals form.
They then defacate through their Vaginas; their husbands typically abandon them, and with them goes their means of livlihood.
To survive, they starve themselves for days at a time so feces ceases to flow from their vagina; they then prostitute themselves for a few days, then eat again. The cycle repeats and repeats and repeats....
The Christian missionaries go out and find these women on the streets of ill-health and dis-esteem. They offer them sugery freely--surgery they could never obtain on their own.
They then go the nearby Christian hospital where medical missionaries give them the life-changing surgery. In the process, chaplains tell the women that Christ was a healer, loved the "unlovable," and that at his own expense; and that is what they are doing for her right now. No strings, just love given freely, and a reason why.
In the process, some of the women ask questions, and do become Christians because they make that choice of their own volition.
Either way, the missionaries then teach the repaired women tailoring--a really good trade in Nepal. They then have a whole new life!
I have found a support system for sending out fully supported medical missionaries-in-training, and I am using it to the end of saving lives that would otherwise be lost. And as you said, the recipients are "overjoyed to receive medical care."
By creatively using this already exisitng system, certain students correlative to that system who would otherise be stuck here at home serving in the US where they really are not needed can serve in areas where they are the only doctor for 150,000 people who are in a three days walk radius.
This is far from perfect, and truly not adequate to meet the need. All will openly admit this. Still, I am creatively utilizing what is already in place to meet a good end, and in the meantime, am working to create new structures and systems.
What are you doing to increase the number of doctors serving in the third-world?
For example, and I am speaking theoretically here: on what authority can you confidently assert that people who die without Christ will not "spend a Christless eternity"? Can your basis of declarative authority against the proposition supercede another basis supporting it? What is it and from where did it come and why is it superior? You see what I mean.
A lesson in life for you: the money of donors' will, but with rare exception, go to those in kind with their philosophy.
Now, you understand The Luke Project and the written material on the website for it about as well you understand a 501c3 organization.
An organization that is classified as 501c3 is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization to the IRS.
Now, you are drawing HUGE assumptions about me from one sliver of my life. You might inform yourself about what I work to do to increase the numbers of doctors in the third-world who are from diverse backgrounds, IN ADDITION to those who are Christians. Go to ATTN: New U.S. Government Program to Pay for Your Medical Education to see what I mean.
The idea is to INCREASE the number of medical personnel serving in the third-world.
To do this, they but with rare exception must have their full bills paid by an outside source: tuition, living, insurance, transpo, everything.
The Luke Project sends out medical missionaries in training to indigenous foreign medical schools under already existing mission organizations that facilitate these students' full support to be medically trained. I am simply creatively using this already existing support system to meet the end objective of getting more medical missionaries to the field than otherwise could make it.
Now, if you can show me other comparable systems where full support structures are already in place that are already supporting similar things with already held monies, and are not already doing it, I will create an organization for them starting on the day you forward me the information.
Do you know any organizations that regularly send people out to the third-world with full monetary support to do certain things that might instead send them out to go to medical school?
You make very ill-informed assumptions and assertions about what Christian medical missionaries do on the field.
I see Christian medical misisonaries lifting up, for example, Nepalese prostitutes with Vaginal Fistulas.
The women (girls) marry at 12 or 13, expereince trauma in early childbirth; the fistuals form.
They then defacate through their Vaginas; their husbands typically abandon them, and with them goes their means of livlihood.
To survive, they starve themselves for days at a time so feces ceases to flow from their vagina; they then prostitute themselves for a few days, then eat again. The cycle repeats and repeats and repeats....
The Christian missionaries go out and find these women on the streets of ill-health and dis-esteem. They offer them sugery freely--surgery they could never obtain on their own.
They then go the nearby Christian hospital where medical missionaries give them the life-changing surgery. In the process, chaplains tell the women that Christ was a healer, loved the "unlovable," and that at his own expense; and that is what they are doing for her right now. No strings, just love given freely, and a reason why.
In the process, some of the women ask questions, and do become Christians because they make that choice of their own volition.
Either way, the missionaries then teach the repaired women tailoring--a really good trade in Nepal. They then have a whole new life!
I have found a support system for sending out fully supported medical missionaries-in-training, and I am using it to the end of saving lives that would otherwise be lost. And as you said, the recipients are "overjoyed to receive medical care."
By creatively using this already exisitng system, certain students correlative to that system who would otherise be stuck here at home serving in the US where they really are not needed can serve in areas where they are the only doctor for 150,000 people who are in a three days walk radius.
This is far from perfect, and truly not adequate to meet the need. All will openly admit this. Still, I am creatively utilizing what is already in place to meet a good end, and in the meantime, am working to create new structures and systems.
What are you doing to increase the number of doctors serving in the third-world?
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
I will not be so arrogant or naive to say that the system can be changed easily. But we cant give up. That's just un-American, weak, and not what our mommies told us to do. If I was a better political speaker (I am afraid of the podium, no literally, just the podium) I would go to Washington and lobby for federal dollars to be expended for more health clinics for impovished nations. The money could be used for supplies, and maybe the salaries of the doctors could be a bit higher because they'll be living in sub-standard conditions. It'd be like a rock-solid humanitarian institution for doctors, except they get paid well, and young doctors can get some experience, all for a good cause. (Similar to what Stephen Ewen proposed in a past thread). Then, once this system is established, Churches can be erected, and all can be the same. Freedom of choice, yadda yadda yadda.
It's just that I cant accept that we should say, hey this is the best we can do, so f-ck it. I think there are huge possibilities for wonderful humanitarian support without the philosophical ties. I mean, hell, they'll have to be an under-riding philosophy of Humanism and Socialism (Why else would we be out there - wait don't answer that). But we should keep out of others affairs except for three small things: food, health, and whatever they need for happiness (shelter, warm clothes, a Playstation 2, etc).
What comes along after food, health, and happiness? Well that's what a "civilized" (I am using BOLD quotes) nation gets to enjoy. Things like research, the entertainment industry, international trade, a million special interests, organized (on a massive scale) religion, and as a result, many ways to look at the world.
And by the way, what about the people's old religion? I am sure they have just about given up on their gods because of their ill luck, but who are we to say our gods are better? My God isn't very well endowed so I dont have much faith in Him.
And yes, I am very ignorant about a lot of sh-t. There are many things I do not know, especially when it comes to missions. I don't know cause I haven't been there, in effect I am an armchair anthropologist. But, to my defense, I have no skills in medicine (yet) and that's why I am on this board. Get the fire rolling in people's bellies and have them explain that fire. Maybe somebody can direct me to charity (or maybe they'll direct me to take a long walk off a short pier).
Hey wait, now that think about it, shouldn't I be saying something about "what are my chances getting into med school with this MCAT score? " or "I really hate that damn AMCAS application! " I think its long overdue... Eh, maybe tomorrow.
Sorry for all the edits, I can't do HTML links worth a damn.
It's just that I cant accept that we should say, hey this is the best we can do, so f-ck it. I think there are huge possibilities for wonderful humanitarian support without the philosophical ties. I mean, hell, they'll have to be an under-riding philosophy of Humanism and Socialism (Why else would we be out there - wait don't answer that). But we should keep out of others affairs except for three small things: food, health, and whatever they need for happiness (shelter, warm clothes, a Playstation 2, etc).
What comes along after food, health, and happiness? Well that's what a "civilized" (I am using BOLD quotes) nation gets to enjoy. Things like research, the entertainment industry, international trade, a million special interests, organized (on a massive scale) religion, and as a result, many ways to look at the world.
And by the way, what about the people's old religion? I am sure they have just about given up on their gods because of their ill luck, but who are we to say our gods are better? My God isn't very well endowed so I dont have much faith in Him.
And yes, I am very ignorant about a lot of sh-t. There are many things I do not know, especially when it comes to missions. I don't know cause I haven't been there, in effect I am an armchair anthropologist. But, to my defense, I have no skills in medicine (yet) and that's why I am on this board. Get the fire rolling in people's bellies and have them explain that fire. Maybe somebody can direct me to charity (or maybe they'll direct me to take a long walk off a short pier).
Hey wait, now that think about it, shouldn't I be saying something about "what are my chances getting into med school with this MCAT score?
" or "I really hate that damn AMCAS application! " I think its long overdue... Eh, maybe tomorrow.Sorry for all the edits, I can't do HTML links worth a damn.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Kazzar and Stephen:
I am observing your exchange from the sidelines, until now.
Kazzar commented on Stephen's statement (forgive the paraphrase)that those who die outside of the acceptance of Stephen's world view would spend an eternity separated from Stephen's god.
Stephen, you responded fully to Kazzar, but strayed immediately from the premise of his argument, and you opted instead to describe some things that Christian medical missionaries may do outside of those things that you feel Kazzar perceives to be true. But your response did not address the premise of his post to you.
Kazzar, your premise did not accomodate Stephen fairly. You questioned Stephen's statement that those who die outside of acceptance of Stephen's world view would be eternally punished. However, whenever criticizing another's comments, it is always fair to understand the intended recipient of those comments, and to consider whether or not the comments were appropriate for the intended audience.
I think both of you are very bright and I am learning alot from each of you just by listening to your conversation! And you treat each other with respect and that is refreshing to me. But Kazzar (to me) seems to be accusing Stephen of promoting false ideas before recognizing that both Stephen and his intended audience may share a world view paradigm that accepts as truth the thing that Stephen asserted to that particular audience. And Stephen (to me)ignored the fundamental motive of Kazzar's response, choosing instead to meander peripherally around the heart of Kazzar's response, to the point where one might conclude that Stephen missed Kazzar's point entirely.
For me, I cannot remember the last time I was in a forum where such diverse beliefs about such important things was discussed with such intensity, yet without any expression of disrespect from any party toward another. I think this thread is unique in that aspect. I am looking forward to following it. The topics are deeper than any one of us, I just hope we don't tire out, but that we will continue to go where logic takes us.
While I comment on the recent discussion between Kazzar and Stephen, this does not mean that I don't see value in the rest of the posts. The are all so interesting and ripe for response, each one of them. I only wish I had more time and energy to participate more fully with each posting member in the discussion!
john
I am observing your exchange from the sidelines, until now.
Kazzar commented on Stephen's statement (forgive the paraphrase)that those who die outside of the acceptance of Stephen's world view would spend an eternity separated from Stephen's god.
Stephen, you responded fully to Kazzar, but strayed immediately from the premise of his argument, and you opted instead to describe some things that Christian medical missionaries may do outside of those things that you feel Kazzar perceives to be true. But your response did not address the premise of his post to you.
Kazzar, your premise did not accomodate Stephen fairly. You questioned Stephen's statement that those who die outside of acceptance of Stephen's world view would be eternally punished. However, whenever criticizing another's comments, it is always fair to understand the intended recipient of those comments, and to consider whether or not the comments were appropriate for the intended audience.
I think both of you are very bright and I am learning alot from each of you just by listening to your conversation! And you treat each other with respect and that is refreshing to me. But Kazzar (to me) seems to be accusing Stephen of promoting false ideas before recognizing that both Stephen and his intended audience may share a world view paradigm that accepts as truth the thing that Stephen asserted to that particular audience. And Stephen (to me)ignored the fundamental motive of Kazzar's response, choosing instead to meander peripherally around the heart of Kazzar's response, to the point where one might conclude that Stephen missed Kazzar's point entirely.
For me, I cannot remember the last time I was in a forum where such diverse beliefs about such important things was discussed with such intensity, yet without any expression of disrespect from any party toward another. I think this thread is unique in that aspect. I am looking forward to following it. The topics are deeper than any one of us, I just hope we don't tire out, but that we will continue to go where logic takes us.
While I comment on the recent discussion between Kazzar and Stephen, this does not mean that I don't see value in the rest of the posts. The are all so interesting and ripe for response, each one of them. I only wish I had more time and energy to participate more fully with each posting member in the discussion!
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Scootad and Kazzar:
I am following each of your posts closely, and I am starting to see in your respective logics what I can best describe as 'cognitive dissonance'. You each seem to define words one way when talking about your own subjective understandings but then define them in another way when describing your perceptions of your debate opponent's own subjective understanding. Basically, I see in each of your respective string of posts a tendency to hold contradictory philosophies as equally true.
I think that the best way for me to try to understand each of you better is to ask each of you:
Could you please describe the difference between the two words "philosophy" and "religion"? You each seem to make a disctinction between the two in your comments, but when I study your threads and extrapolate logically on each of your comments, I am starting to think that you use these words as if they describe two different things, but also, at the same time, neither of you has been able to articulate the substantive difference between the two concepts described by you as 'philosophy' and 'religion'.
just some thoughts as I attempt to understand you!
john
I am following each of your posts closely, and I am starting to see in your respective logics what I can best describe as 'cognitive dissonance'. You each seem to define words one way when talking about your own subjective understandings but then define them in another way when describing your perceptions of your debate opponent's own subjective understanding. Basically, I see in each of your respective string of posts a tendency to hold contradictory philosophies as equally true.
I think that the best way for me to try to understand each of you better is to ask each of you:
Could you please describe the difference between the two words "philosophy" and "religion"? You each seem to make a disctinction between the two in your comments, but when I study your threads and extrapolate logically on each of your comments, I am starting to think that you use these words as if they describe two different things, but also, at the same time, neither of you has been able to articulate the substantive difference between the two concepts described by you as 'philosophy' and 'religion'.
just some thoughts as I attempt to understand you!
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Scootad and Kazzar:
Scootad replied to my post where I requested his definition of "god" because I felt that his definition of "god" had become central in my effort to understand him in this thread about 'religion and medical school'. He wrote:
"Thanks for the reply Florida_Style. You bring up some very interesting points.
You asked about my concept of G-d. I don't really want to get into this here in depth, but to me G-d is not something that is clearly defined. I do have many doubts and questions and I am in no way certain about the origin of life. But I try to keep an open mind about it all and listen to the perspectives of others. I have always been fascinated by the order/organization of nature. For me, confusion or uncertainty is not a bad thing. In fact, I revel in it. Not knowing exactly why we are here, where we are going, but at the same time admiring the beauty in the nature all around us is in itself a beautiful thing to me. I guess that's where my spiritual nature comes in. I feel at peace with nature in a sense.
I totally respect your position that the macroperspective of religion and the microperspective is one and the same for you.
But that may not be true for everyone, and it certainly isn't the case for me."
Scootad, your position is noted, but at the same time it is noted that you chose not to offer your definition of "god", this definition being crucial any meaningful discussion about the relationship between religion and the practice of medicine! Clearly!
Kazzar responded to Scootad's reply to me. Kazzar wrote:
"Scootad, I completely agree, well, have the same feelings about religion with you. I think being a skeptic or having a skeptical mind is part of being a good scientist (and thinker) and will help you in being a good doctor."
Kazzar! Are you implying that a medical practitioner cannot be skeptical and religious at the same time? Are you implying that religious scientists cannot think logically and scientifically? Are you implying that the discrete practices of religion and science are mutually exclusive in motive and in practice? Are you implying that any medical researcher who also holds a world view that you define as 'religious' cannot understand, implement and respect the scientific method as it applies to his own practice of medicine? Are you willfully forgetful that the majority of the advancement of the scientific method and the subsequent renaissance of scientific knowledge in the middle ages and accross all scientific disciplines proves historically to be the fruit of deeply religious men who understood that the scientific method was god's wisdom given to scientists so that such scientists would be able to inquire into the 'mysteries of god's creation', as they understood it to be? Astronomy, mechanics, physics of planetary movement, chemistry against alchemy....what? Yes, even philosophy!
Come on guys, don't throw around words as if they don't mean anything. If you aspire to be excellent practitioners of science in the arena of medicine, start by understanding that if you can't define the words and terms that you use, you haven't got a prayer. Sorry: stated a better way, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Grateful for your respective inputs,
jb
Scootad replied to my post where I requested his definition of "god" because I felt that his definition of "god" had become central in my effort to understand him in this thread about 'religion and medical school'. He wrote:
"Thanks for the reply Florida_Style. You bring up some very interesting points.
You asked about my concept of G-d. I don't really want to get into this here in depth, but to me G-d is not something that is clearly defined. I do have many doubts and questions and I am in no way certain about the origin of life. But I try to keep an open mind about it all and listen to the perspectives of others. I have always been fascinated by the order/organization of nature. For me, confusion or uncertainty is not a bad thing. In fact, I revel in it. Not knowing exactly why we are here, where we are going, but at the same time admiring the beauty in the nature all around us is in itself a beautiful thing to me. I guess that's where my spiritual nature comes in. I feel at peace with nature in a sense.
I totally respect your position that the macroperspective of religion and the microperspective is one and the same for you.
But that may not be true for everyone, and it certainly isn't the case for me.
"Scootad, your position is noted, but at the same time it is noted that you chose not to offer your definition of "god", this definition being crucial any meaningful discussion about the relationship between religion and the practice of medicine! Clearly!
Kazzar responded to Scootad's reply to me. Kazzar wrote:
"Scootad, I completely agree, well, have the same feelings about religion with you. I think being a skeptic or having a skeptical mind is part of being a good scientist (and thinker) and will help you in being a good doctor."
Kazzar! Are you implying that a medical practitioner cannot be skeptical and religious at the same time? Are you implying that religious scientists cannot think logically and scientifically? Are you implying that the discrete practices of religion and science are mutually exclusive in motive and in practice? Are you implying that any medical researcher who also holds a world view that you define as 'religious' cannot understand, implement and respect the scientific method as it applies to his own practice of medicine? Are you willfully forgetful that the majority of the advancement of the scientific method and the subsequent renaissance of scientific knowledge in the middle ages and accross all scientific disciplines proves historically to be the fruit of deeply religious men who understood that the scientific method was god's wisdom given to scientists so that such scientists would be able to inquire into the 'mysteries of god's creation', as they understood it to be? Astronomy, mechanics, physics of planetary movement, chemistry against alchemy....what? Yes, even philosophy!
Come on guys, don't throw around words as if they don't mean anything. If you aspire to be excellent practitioners of science in the arena of medicine, start by understanding that if you can't define the words and terms that you use, you haven't got a prayer. Sorry: stated a better way, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Grateful for your respective inputs,
jb
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
p.s.
and put yet another way, your patient who needs a tonsilectomy might just end up without a leg to stand on, too.
jb
and put yet another way, your patient who needs a tonsilectomy might just end up without a leg to stand on, too.
jb
Whoa, baby! Florida_Style, have you been reading closely? We (Kassar especially) HAVE demarcated between philosophy and religion. Kassar advanced a good explanation by saying:
"...a religion has a dogma and a way to believe. It is ordered, systematic, it tells you how you should act and feel acording to their tennets (accept Jesus in your heart, fast for 60 days, pray every night, etc). I am sure many of my words may reflect the teachings and words and prophets of the world over. (I try to read the closest translations of original religious texts when I feel theological)...Religion is absolute (unless it breaks off into a new demonination). If I put apples, oranges, pears, pinnapples, and marshmellows into a fruit salad, would I always use the same ingredients? No, I do not follow a recipe for life, and that is what religion is to me, a recipe to be followed. If you stray from the recipe you may screw it up and go to Hell-ahh! Where naught but fire and brimstone eat at your bones and crows pick out your eyes and devils feast on yer soul......"
Florida, you mention that I have been twisting words around and using contradictory meanings to prove my point but have given no specific examples. Perhaps you can elaborate more specifically.
P.S. I will be out of town for the next week so I won't have an opportunity to respond for a while so bear with me.
"...a religion has a dogma and a way to believe. It is ordered, systematic, it tells you how you should act and feel acording to their tennets (accept Jesus in your heart, fast for 60 days, pray every night, etc). I am sure many of my words may reflect the teachings and words and prophets of the world over. (I try to read the closest translations of original religious texts when I feel theological)...Religion is absolute (unless it breaks off into a new demonination). If I put apples, oranges, pears, pinnapples, and marshmellows into a fruit salad, would I always use the same ingredients? No, I do not follow a recipe for life, and that is what religion is to me, a recipe to be followed. If you stray from the recipe you may screw it up and go to Hell-ahh! Where naught but fire and brimstone eat at your bones and crows pick out your eyes and devils feast on yer soul......"
Florida, you mention that I have been twisting words around and using contradictory meanings to prove my point but have given no specific examples. Perhaps you can elaborate more specifically.
P.S. I will be out of town for the next week so I won't have an opportunity to respond for a while so bear with me.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
Wow Florida, thats a mighty string of posts. I'll try to answer your questions to the best I can, and forgive me if I ever get on my high-horse at any point. It's just my style of writing, and I mean nothing by it (and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings by my loud and cynical approach - making people feel bad or angry is the absolute last thing I want).
I understand that some of my opinions will fall on deaf ears, and some of the criticisms I make will not "reach" their intented audience. When I criticize the "fallacy" of religion, the people who are the most faithful will not change their minds. The whole idea of faith is believing in something in the midst of great opposition, no matter what new information is presented. In my short 20 years of life, I have talked to many highly-religious people and often when I would present contriversial information, (with almost infallible logic) they would see me almost as a "devil," tempting them with foribidden, sinful, knowledge.
Let me give an example of my "almost infalliable logic." I recently read about some translations of wall etchings by the ancient Sumarians, who lived approx 3000BC (I may be off by a thousand years). They apparently had a religion with 7 gods who each made a part of the heavens, the earth, and the animals. The last and 7th God made man as a slave so the other gods could relax. The author of the article speculated, as that is all we can do with history, that Genesis is a take off on this idea, but with only one god and each event happening for 1 day, in the exact same order of creation (in the other story, each god birthed a new god who created a new facet of Earth: light, heaven and earth, the ocean, etc). The story was changed because who would want to be part of a relion where you were considered a slave? So they changed it to where man was the greatest, and final creation before god rested (and people like having a day off for rest). If you dont believe me, please check out a book on Summerian religion at the local library - this is a rather new archeological discovery, so you might have to do a current periodicals search.)
Oh well I barely scraped the bottom of Florida's questions, I think I'll do a multi-post too. Cont....
I understand that some of my opinions will fall on deaf ears, and some of the criticisms I make will not "reach" their intented audience. When I criticize the "fallacy" of religion, the people who are the most faithful will not change their minds. The whole idea of faith is believing in something in the midst of great opposition, no matter what new information is presented. In my short 20 years of life, I have talked to many highly-religious people and often when I would present contriversial information, (with almost infallible logic) they would see me almost as a "devil," tempting them with foribidden, sinful, knowledge.
Let me give an example of my "almost infalliable logic." I recently read about some translations of wall etchings by the ancient Sumarians, who lived approx 3000BC (I may be off by a thousand years). They apparently had a religion with 7 gods who each made a part of the heavens, the earth, and the animals. The last and 7th God made man as a slave so the other gods could relax. The author of the article speculated, as that is all we can do with history, that Genesis is a take off on this idea, but with only one god and each event happening for 1 day, in the exact same order of creation (in the other story, each god birthed a new god who created a new facet of Earth: light, heaven and earth, the ocean, etc). The story was changed because who would want to be part of a relion where you were considered a slave? So they changed it to where man was the greatest, and final creation before god rested (and people like having a day off for rest). If you dont believe me, please check out a book on Summerian religion at the local library - this is a rather new archeological discovery, so you might have to do a current periodicals search.)
Oh well I barely scraped the bottom of Florida's questions, I think I'll do a multi-post too. Cont....
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
Ok, the distinction between religion and philosophy (This sounds like something from Plato - like trying to define Justice or Faith) I use is how they affect your life day-to-day, I am not using textbook definitions.
Religion and philosophy sound similar on the surface - they are ways of thinking - but I will clarify their differences in the sociological effects they have on people. People who enjoy philosophy rarely adopt one philosophy and believe it to be the pure truth. I think even though the writers of founding philosophies wrote in black in white, they might have been internally changing their mind a hundred times. The real problem is that books are stuck in time - the thoughts do not evolve and progress - but we do. That is also the flaw I find in the Bible - it was written for a 0th century society (and revised in the middle ages for the King James version). It doesnt take in account the new problems that society faces (such as abortion or stem cell research). If the Bible could constantly be amended, a living document, like the US Constitution, it would reflect the truth and mean much more to its followers.
Along the same lines, religion is often based on a text that often reads like an instruction manual of life. Whereas in philosophical writings, they should be (in my eyes) taken as crazy ideas that are fun to throw around and ponder upon. Like people who read Nietzche might think it possible that there is really nothing, but they dont live by it and let it guide their actions. I personally love Rousseauian thought that says that humanity must behave according to a "Social Contract" - that we should act according to the will and needs of society as a whole. It has influenced me to be more altruistic, but it doesn't pervade my thoughts every day and I do not feel guilty for doing things against the philosophy (such as being selfish... well actually nobody >likes< being selfish).
Ok, well maybe we need a more concrete definition of these two words, and less relativistic examples.
Religion is like a higher consciousness, something that takes over your superego (not that I take much stock in Freudian ideas, but a superego is the easist way to explain this) and influences every decision; it is what you hold to be absolute truth.
Philosophy (as in "life-guiding philosophies," what Steven calls my ideas) is an idea or theory about the world that is not self-sufficent in itself, it presents a option on how things work. If a philosophy does not "work," it is discarded, because the truth of a philosophy only goes as far as its logic and reasoning. (I admit this sounds a lot like Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions")
Religion, at least for the basis of this argument, relies on faith, so sometimes people get it into their head that they should ignore logical thought if it conflicts with their faith (as in "blind faith"). I mean, if you are relgious, and something contradicts your religion, you do your damnest to try to disprove that logic.
To me, that is just bad science.
A real scientist looks at a problem unbiased and does not look for a certain result, the result that they want to get. If you want a result, there are always ways to do the experiment to get the results you want. We need to be >unbiased< observers, and we need to look with eyes wide open.
Unfortuantely, we are human, and we are biased. That is why I "preach" philosophy. It offers many types of lenses through which to view the world. Take an existential approach one day, then a transcendental approach the other. All the information is tainted by the philosophy we hold at the moment, but if we take it from alternate viewpoints, we can see the real image. Much like you will never know if an apple is really an apple until you smell, touch, taste, see, and... well I guess you cant hear it, but you get the idea.
So religion presents us with a lens, with a varying focus, or maybe as thick and blurry as if one was peering through a tall mug of lager. But it is all we are allowed to look through once you are a full-fledged member of a religion. (To be fair, I understand that Buddhist teachings allow the mixing of religions in your beliefs, but Buddhism seems to be more spiritual than religious, but that's just me).
To wrap up this whole rant into something medically related, I think to have a relgion taints the options available to us as doctors. Maybe a Catholic doctor will not give a young woman an abortion because he believes it is wrong. She goes through with it, but she ends up resenting the absent father, which gets shifted onto resentment towards the baby, which in effect creates a disruptive and unloving environment, the baby develops psychological problems, and as he grows up he may be turn out to be deviant or murderer due do his messed up family life. (Ok, this is hard-core speculation, but do not tell me this is something that could very likely occur, and I am sure in reality it happens a lot). We might say that the mother should have given the baby up for adoption, but we can't restrict people's freedoms. That is what religions do to us. They tell us what we can and cannot do. We cant decide for ourselves anymore... especially when behavior is dictated by a religous text like the Bible. I'm sure some demoninations are more lenient, but they all have rules or paths to live by. But when we are giving medicial attention to people, we need to think what will make them the most healthy (and by healthy I also mean that they should be happy and content). But if we, through our own personal faith and ideas, start confusing our happiness with what we think people need (such as "needing to find Jesus" or "needing to do things that are not sinful" or "needing to have a healthy sex-life" <- my personal need) to what they really need. So, we should just ask. Talk. Connect. Set them free. Make them happy.
This is why I advocate philosophy. I allows complete freedom: freedom of thought. It is one thing to remove the shackles that bind our bodies, it is another to remove the shackles that bind our minds. Approach problems from all sides, from all viewpoints, wearing all types of "lenes" which bias us, and ultimately we will make the most informed and intelligent choice.
Oh and happy 4th of July everyone! May everyone do as they please (well as long as they do not hurt anybody else - heh-heh)
<<<Edited for grammar (boy on a 2nd reading I think I need to go back to 2nd grade)>>>
Religion and philosophy sound similar on the surface - they are ways of thinking - but I will clarify their differences in the sociological effects they have on people. People who enjoy philosophy rarely adopt one philosophy and believe it to be the pure truth. I think even though the writers of founding philosophies wrote in black in white, they might have been internally changing their mind a hundred times. The real problem is that books are stuck in time - the thoughts do not evolve and progress - but we do. That is also the flaw I find in the Bible - it was written for a 0th century society (and revised in the middle ages for the King James version). It doesnt take in account the new problems that society faces (such as abortion or stem cell research). If the Bible could constantly be amended, a living document, like the US Constitution, it would reflect the truth and mean much more to its followers.
Along the same lines, religion is often based on a text that often reads like an instruction manual of life. Whereas in philosophical writings, they should be (in my eyes) taken as crazy ideas that are fun to throw around and ponder upon. Like people who read Nietzche might think it possible that there is really nothing, but they dont live by it and let it guide their actions. I personally love Rousseauian thought that says that humanity must behave according to a "Social Contract" - that we should act according to the will and needs of society as a whole. It has influenced me to be more altruistic, but it doesn't pervade my thoughts every day and I do not feel guilty for doing things against the philosophy (such as being selfish... well actually nobody >likes< being selfish).
Ok, well maybe we need a more concrete definition of these two words, and less relativistic examples.
Religion is like a higher consciousness, something that takes over your superego (not that I take much stock in Freudian ideas, but a superego is the easist way to explain this) and influences every decision; it is what you hold to be absolute truth.
Philosophy (as in "life-guiding philosophies," what Steven calls my ideas) is an idea or theory about the world that is not self-sufficent in itself, it presents a option on how things work. If a philosophy does not "work," it is discarded, because the truth of a philosophy only goes as far as its logic and reasoning. (I admit this sounds a lot like Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions")
Religion, at least for the basis of this argument, relies on faith, so sometimes people get it into their head that they should ignore logical thought if it conflicts with their faith (as in "blind faith"). I mean, if you are relgious, and something contradicts your religion, you do your damnest to try to disprove that logic.
To me, that is just bad science.
A real scientist looks at a problem unbiased and does not look for a certain result, the result that they want to get. If you want a result, there are always ways to do the experiment to get the results you want. We need to be >unbiased< observers, and we need to look with eyes wide open.
Unfortuantely, we are human, and we are biased. That is why I "preach" philosophy. It offers many types of lenses through which to view the world. Take an existential approach one day, then a transcendental approach the other. All the information is tainted by the philosophy we hold at the moment, but if we take it from alternate viewpoints, we can see the real image. Much like you will never know if an apple is really an apple until you smell, touch, taste, see, and... well I guess you cant hear it, but you get the idea.
So religion presents us with a lens, with a varying focus, or maybe as thick and blurry as if one was peering through a tall mug of lager. But it is all we are allowed to look through once you are a full-fledged member of a religion. (To be fair, I understand that Buddhist teachings allow the mixing of religions in your beliefs, but Buddhism seems to be more spiritual than religious, but that's just me).
To wrap up this whole rant into something medically related, I think to have a relgion taints the options available to us as doctors. Maybe a Catholic doctor will not give a young woman an abortion because he believes it is wrong. She goes through with it, but she ends up resenting the absent father, which gets shifted onto resentment towards the baby, which in effect creates a disruptive and unloving environment, the baby develops psychological problems, and as he grows up he may be turn out to be deviant or murderer due do his messed up family life. (Ok, this is hard-core speculation, but do not tell me this is something that could very likely occur, and I am sure in reality it happens a lot). We might say that the mother should have given the baby up for adoption, but we can't restrict people's freedoms. That is what religions do to us. They tell us what we can and cannot do. We cant decide for ourselves anymore... especially when behavior is dictated by a religous text like the Bible. I'm sure some demoninations are more lenient, but they all have rules or paths to live by. But when we are giving medicial attention to people, we need to think what will make them the most healthy (and by healthy I also mean that they should be happy and content). But if we, through our own personal faith and ideas, start confusing our happiness with what we think people need (such as "needing to find Jesus" or "needing to do things that are not sinful" or "needing to have a healthy sex-life" <- my personal need) to what they really need. So, we should just ask. Talk. Connect. Set them free. Make them happy.
This is why I advocate philosophy. I allows complete freedom: freedom of thought. It is one thing to remove the shackles that bind our bodies, it is another to remove the shackles that bind our minds. Approach problems from all sides, from all viewpoints, wearing all types of "lenes" which bias us, and ultimately we will make the most informed and intelligent choice.
Oh and happy 4th of July everyone! May everyone do as they please (well as long as they do not hurt anybody else - heh-heh)
<<<Edited for grammar (boy on a 2nd reading I think I need to go back to 2nd grade)>>>
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
Oh, the Biblical illiteracy of our day!
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
Haha yeah I don't know much about that ole text... I was thinking about saying something about me guessing those dates in my message, but I figured I had enough parentheses already.
What were the exact dates of the original text (Old and New testaments) and the popular revisions? (So I dont look like a fool next time I am trying to make a point about the stagnancy of old texts).
Plus a future patient of mine might want to know... (ok I am scraping the bottom of the bucket trying to make this post medically- related)
What were the exact dates of the original text (Old and New testaments) and the popular revisions? (So I dont look like a fool next time I am trying to make a point about the stagnancy of old texts).
Plus a future patient of mine might want to know... (ok I am scraping the bottom of the bucket trying to make this post medically- related)
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
The New Testament was indeed written in the 1st Century. The way to approach the text is as with ANY ancient text, and it is to apply the science and art of hermenuetics.
In this, one seeks to understand the culture, period in history, and then contemporary issues that were going on.
From there, we can gain an understanding of language use, if we like. But accurate translations of language experts are good too.
Doing these things, we can accurately interpret ancient texts and documents.
A revision and a translation are literally worlds apart!
The Bible has been translated many times from the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), into modern languages. No single text has been translated into as many different languages as the Bible has been.
Too, no single text of antiquity has had more hand made copies of the original autographs of the original texts, and at more early of a period. Becasue of this, over the years, archaeologists have found thousands of manuscripts of bits of the New Testament and even some complete copies. By comparing these, we can get very close to what the New Testament writers originally wrote. Some of these copies are dated less than 100 years after the original gospel or letter was written.
For an idea of how compeling this evidence is, compare the New Testament with other writings that are about as old as the New Testament. For example, Julius Caesar wrote a book called The Gallic War about 50 years before Christ was born. We obviously do not have the original copy. Yet, we do have nine or ten copies, and the earliest of these was made about 900 years after the original. This is a typical gap for ancient writings. However, when we examine the historical evidence relating to the Bible, one learns that there are thousands of accurate and agreeing manuscripts of the New Testament books. In addition, one can piece together almost the entire New Testament many times over just from quotes made from it in early documents within the first 500 years or so of the original writings.
Scholar "F.F. Bruce said:
Because of the plethora of ancient texts--more than for any other ancient documenet many, many times over--any actual "revisions" to the texts can easily be seen for the $3 dollar bills they are.
Some charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers.
However, the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.
Prior to the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest extant Old Testament texts were those known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which dated from about A.D. 980. The MT is the result of editorial work performed by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes.
Here were the differences between MT and the DS Scrolls.
Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb differ from the Masoretic Text.
10 letters = spelling differences
4 letters = stylistic changes
3 letters = added word for "light" (vs. 11)
____________________________________________
17 letters total
It should be noted that none of these changes have any affect on the actual teaching of the text.
Anyway, I could go on and on; but that is enough food for thought for now, I suppose.
Anyway, again, this says all and more this a lot been than I have here:
http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/search_truth/basics/bible.htm
Oh, and for those who have studied the Biblical texts, as have I--we are **incredibly** awed at how they speak so well to our very contemporary issues.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Scootad, Kazzar...I apologize If I came accross too strong as if I were trying to blow you guys out of the water. I need to take more time in my posts to give you examples of why I perceive things you write the way I perceive them. I think that as I read the way each of you is proposing distinctions in terms with your own logics, my logic tells me that even if I use your own logic, I can show that no such distinctions exists. And this I will try to do in a post very soon, and with a little more thought and less horseback riding, if you know what I mean! My p.s about your future patient losing a leg when he only needed a tonsilectomy was just a cynical emphasis.
Along the lines of what Stephen wrote about relevancy of the bible in today's times, I must agree that you cannot see how relevant these manuscripts are in our modern times without taking the time to read them. On only two issues mentioned (abortion/stem cell research), even a lay-person with nothing more than rudimentary understanding of Judeo-Christian theology (me for example) could show you that the bible does answer these issues clearly, and true, the answer does not change with time,but neither does god who wrote the answer(again according to this particular theology). There is a thread that runs through the entire bible with a single theme: human life begins at conception, and is sacred. In a deeper theological treatment of the topic, the individual human life begins even before conception (god is eternal and knows and controls the end from the beginning). Therefore this theology holds that there is no such thing as a human being that was not foreordained into conception by god). Just a few verses that reveal parts of this thread are "We are fearfully and wonderfully made" ... "While still in their mother's womb, I loved Jacob and hated Esau" (god speaking according to judeo-christian theology), all paraphrases, and only two of many to show that the theme does exist. Im not pushing the bible at anybody, but I just wanted to show that the bible does speak to the sanctity of life throughout, it defines human life in unquestionable terms, and certainly answers in clear terms any modern day issue of abortion or stem cell research (unless you want to be liberal with it and change the definitions of the words). thats all I wanted to show in this post. It simply means that you think some things about the bible that just aren't true. You have already bent over backwards to admit that you aren't a bible scholar (oops, Kazzar I think), and your graciousness is noted! (I am not a bible scholar either).
About manuscript evidence, if you just even look in any encyclopeida about manuscript evidence for other ancient works (homer for example) and compare such manuscript evidence with that available for the bible translations that we have today, you will see right off the bat that in the first century AD, the world was inundated with manuscripts that all said the same thing...(nearly to the letter, and on the magnitude of several thousand such copies from the period and thereafter), and so a translation of that [document] is available to anyone at any time. Stephen gives a more learned explanation but I can echo in general the things he is saying about the manuscripts.
Again, I will post soon and will spend more time preparing my posts in the future.
thanks,
john
Along the lines of what Stephen wrote about relevancy of the bible in today's times, I must agree that you cannot see how relevant these manuscripts are in our modern times without taking the time to read them. On only two issues mentioned (abortion/stem cell research), even a lay-person with nothing more than rudimentary understanding of Judeo-Christian theology (me for example) could show you that the bible does answer these issues clearly, and true, the answer does not change with time,but neither does god who wrote the answer(again according to this particular theology). There is a thread that runs through the entire bible with a single theme: human life begins at conception, and is sacred. In a deeper theological treatment of the topic, the individual human life begins even before conception (god is eternal and knows and controls the end from the beginning). Therefore this theology holds that there is no such thing as a human being that was not foreordained into conception by god). Just a few verses that reveal parts of this thread are "We are fearfully and wonderfully made" ... "While still in their mother's womb, I loved Jacob and hated Esau" (god speaking according to judeo-christian theology), all paraphrases, and only two of many to show that the theme does exist. Im not pushing the bible at anybody, but I just wanted to show that the bible does speak to the sanctity of life throughout, it defines human life in unquestionable terms, and certainly answers in clear terms any modern day issue of abortion or stem cell research (unless you want to be liberal with it and change the definitions of the words). thats all I wanted to show in this post. It simply means that you think some things about the bible that just aren't true. You have already bent over backwards to admit that you aren't a bible scholar (oops, Kazzar I think), and your graciousness is noted! (I am not a bible scholar either).
About manuscript evidence, if you just even look in any encyclopeida about manuscript evidence for other ancient works (homer for example) and compare such manuscript evidence with that available for the bible translations that we have today, you will see right off the bat that in the first century AD, the world was inundated with manuscripts that all said the same thing...(nearly to the letter, and on the magnitude of several thousand such copies from the period and thereafter), and so a translation of that [document] is available to anyone at any time. Stephen gives a more learned explanation but I can echo in general the things he is saying about the manuscripts.
Again, I will post soon and will spend more time preparing my posts in the future.
thanks,
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
And so in the meantime, just food for thought: in terms of potential for future enjoyment of life, what is the difference between a zygote and a comatose adult? Been scratching my head for years over this one, can't see any difference yet.
john
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
What, am I getting a little bit addicted to this thread? I need to go to sleep but still I have to make another post.
Kazzar took considerable effort to distinguish 'religion' and 'philosophy'by offering discrete definitions of the two concepts. I can't leave the forum today without at least giving my initial response.
So let me just say this. I can think of a specific example of an institution that would qualify as both a 'philosophy' and a 'religion' according to the discrete definitions of these terms already offered by Kazzar.
Look at the ELCA, the "Evangelical Lutheran Church of America". According to definitions already offered by Kazzar, this institution is both a religion and a philosophy. Why? The ELCA believes that god's grace is extended to humans by faith in Jesus Christ alone, and that in part this grace is actually transferred through bread and fermented grape juice. They believe that Jesus Christ is 'GOD'. They hold that Jesus Christ is eternal god presented to human beings in the form of a human being. So, can I say that according to Kazzar's definition of religion, the ELCA would qualify as a religion? I hope that I am safe in my assumption.
Now, the ELCA claims the bible as its governing document. At the same time, the ELCA does not believe that the bible is a static proposition from god to us humans, but believes instead that the bible is a "living document". They mean that the bible (whether or not we humans can understand it fully)is not a document that we should consider to be superior to our own human understanding, so that we are under its authority. They believe instead that the bible's meaning is only valid by way of our human interpretation of it, and according to our changing times. So it could be said that they see the bible as a book of suggestions, implementation of which is governed by human reason, which is changing always as human progress and reason changes. They see that the document is "living", and can be 'amended' as time goes by, and the authority that is allowed to make the amendments is the authority of human reason.
Now, is this institution a religion, or is it a philosophy? It has tenets of both disciplines.
If I were forced to use Kazzar's definitions of the distinctions between religion and philosophy, I am afraid that I would once again be left pulling out my own hair as I tried to fit the ELCA into one camp or another.
(True, the ELCA does hold some truths to be immutable concerning Jesus, which would tend to qualify it as a religion according to Kazzar's definition. On the other hand, using the ELCA's own logic, one could argue 'infallibly' that even those immutable truths are 'living and adapting', and therefore up for revision under the authority of human reason. I am hoping that we can try to define the organization as member of one camp or the other using our own logic, and in spite of what appears to be faulty logic [cognitive dissonance] within the academia of that institution).
john
Kazzar took considerable effort to distinguish 'religion' and 'philosophy'by offering discrete definitions of the two concepts. I can't leave the forum today without at least giving my initial response.
So let me just say this. I can think of a specific example of an institution that would qualify as both a 'philosophy' and a 'religion' according to the discrete definitions of these terms already offered by Kazzar.
Look at the ELCA, the "Evangelical Lutheran Church of America". According to definitions already offered by Kazzar, this institution is both a religion and a philosophy. Why? The ELCA believes that god's grace is extended to humans by faith in Jesus Christ alone, and that in part this grace is actually transferred through bread and fermented grape juice. They believe that Jesus Christ is 'GOD'. They hold that Jesus Christ is eternal god presented to human beings in the form of a human being. So, can I say that according to Kazzar's definition of religion, the ELCA would qualify as a religion? I hope that I am safe in my assumption.
Now, the ELCA claims the bible as its governing document. At the same time, the ELCA does not believe that the bible is a static proposition from god to us humans, but believes instead that the bible is a "living document". They mean that the bible (whether or not we humans can understand it fully)is not a document that we should consider to be superior to our own human understanding, so that we are under its authority. They believe instead that the bible's meaning is only valid by way of our human interpretation of it, and according to our changing times. So it could be said that they see the bible as a book of suggestions, implementation of which is governed by human reason, which is changing always as human progress and reason changes. They see that the document is "living", and can be 'amended' as time goes by, and the authority that is allowed to make the amendments is the authority of human reason.
Now, is this institution a religion, or is it a philosophy? It has tenets of both disciplines.
If I were forced to use Kazzar's definitions of the distinctions between religion and philosophy, I am afraid that I would once again be left pulling out my own hair as I tried to fit the ELCA into one camp or another.
(True, the ELCA does hold some truths to be immutable concerning Jesus, which would tend to qualify it as a religion according to Kazzar's definition. On the other hand, using the ELCA's own logic, one could argue 'infallibly' that even those immutable truths are 'living and adapting', and therefore up for revision under the authority of human reason. I am hoping that we can try to define the organization as member of one camp or the other using our own logic, and in spite of what appears to be faulty logic [cognitive dissonance] within the academia of that institution).
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Scootad wrote to Kazzar:
Wow, Scootad raised one of my eyebrows, and pretty high!
Instead of starting a new religion, why not explore the possibility that you already share the same religion?
(What did you mean when you said to Kazzar: "We are kindred spirits."? )
Sounds pretty religious to me
Just tossin' up the obvious.
Good, meaty stuff.
john
"How can two men walk together, lest they agree?"
Amen, Kazzar, Amen. no pun intended.
I'd say we are kindred spirits.
P.S. Maybe if we got together, consolidated our beliefs, wrote them down, etc. etc. we could start our own religion. LOL
Wow, Scootad raised one of my eyebrows, and pretty high!
Instead of starting a new religion, why not explore the possibility that you already share the same religion?
(What did you mean when you said to Kazzar: "We are kindred spirits."? )
Sounds pretty religious to me
Just tossin' up the obvious.
Good, meaty stuff.
john
"How can two men walk together, lest they agree?"
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2001
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 4
deviating completely from the past two pages of posts I wanted to bring in other relgions into the discussion.
If we are to truly understand our patient's needs and desires, we are to understand them as holistically as possible, no? Not just at the most fundamental biochemical level, but as humans with intentions and feelings. In a country that is such a melting pot, we should at leas be offered a 4th yr elective on the 'religious beleifs of the world as they pertain to medical decisions' That way if a patient is Taoist, Muslim, or Scientologist, we could know what they would and would not want done to them.
This just propogates my view that we should be learning to treat the mind, body and soul and not just the 2nd or possibly the first two.
If we are to truly understand our patient's needs and desires, we are to understand them as holistically as possible, no? Not just at the most fundamental biochemical level, but as humans with intentions and feelings. In a country that is such a melting pot, we should at leas be offered a 4th yr elective on the 'religious beleifs of the world as they pertain to medical decisions' That way if a patient is Taoist, Muslim, or Scientologist, we could know what they would and would not want done to them.
This just propogates my view that we should be learning to treat the mind, body and soul and not just the 2nd or possibly the first two.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
An excellent proposal.
Class title?:
Worldviews and Religions in Medical Practice
Class title?:
Worldviews and Religions in Medical Practice
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
USef The Bull:
I support your proposition without qualification.
Osteopaths share your philosophy as a founding premise, and any allopath who cannot embrace your philosophy is an allopath who is intellectually dishonest.
Now, to a more important question, it is personal in nature, and I hope you will not take offense: Why do you feel that either academic or clinical treatment of such an issue should be relegated to the realm of '4th year elective' ?
Seems to me that you are saying "My thoughts on this issue are important" in one breath, but in another, "But not really".
john
I support your proposition without qualification.
Osteopaths share your philosophy as a founding premise, and any allopath who cannot embrace your philosophy is an allopath who is intellectually dishonest.
Now, to a more important question, it is personal in nature, and I hope you will not take offense: Why do you feel that either academic or clinical treatment of such an issue should be relegated to the realm of '4th year elective' ?
Seems to me that you are saying "My thoughts on this issue are important" in one breath, but in another, "But not really".
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
USef The Bull:
Apologies:
As I look back on your post, I realize that in your post you said that such things should be treated "at least" as a 4th year elective. I hope that instead of responding to my earlier post, you will share your thoughts about whether or not such issues should be treated as an integral part of any medical training, whether allopathic or osteopathic, and regardless of teaching institution.
john
Apologies:
As I look back on your post, I realize that in your post you said that such things should be treated "at least" as a 4th year elective. I hope that instead of responding to my earlier post, you will share your thoughts about whether or not such issues should be treated as an integral part of any medical training, whether allopathic or osteopathic, and regardless of teaching institution.
john
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2001
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
I have been overwhelmed in reading the 6 pages worth of posts to this topic. In short, I just have to say: What about you? Religion is the details, the practice, the choice, so-to-speak. But what about you? I don't think any one of you can deny that you have a very real soul.
I just simply ask...if you died today, then what? have you thought about it? do you know? do you care?
nothing in life is more important to me than knowing that I have an answer.
Jesus Christ is God, and know one will enter heaven except through belief in Him.
Argue it if you would like, but arguing will not change the condition of your soul. Instead of quickly coming up with some eloquent speech to mask your personal convictions, don't even reply. Just take a moment and evaluate yourself, your life, and where you would be if you died today.
Remember, we are not even guaranteed our next breath. There is no better time to make decisions and quit philosophizing.
I just simply ask...if you died today, then what? have you thought about it? do you know? do you care?
nothing in life is more important to me than knowing that I have an answer.
Jesus Christ is God, and know one will enter heaven except through belief in Him.
Argue it if you would like, but arguing will not change the condition of your soul. Instead of quickly coming up with some eloquent speech to mask your personal convictions, don't even reply. Just take a moment and evaluate yourself, your life, and where you would be if you died today.
Remember, we are not even guaranteed our next breath. There is no better time to make decisions and quit philosophizing.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
It's this kind of dogmatic thinking that drove me away from the Christian faith in the first place.
A man leads a good life. He spends his free time helping others. He takes a job that enables him to provide a good home, food, clothes, education for his family. He is kind and thoughtful. He is warm and loving. He is not a Christian. According to the dogmatic Christians, this man will burn in Hell.
No, thank you. I do believe in a God, but not in a God that would arrange the universe that way.
Nova
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2001
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
NOVA
Don't think dogmatic, think sensible. When writing an essay for school, you may have written the best essay possible. It may have a lot of wonderful things on it and be worthy of an A and possibly being published. If on the way to school you dropped it in mud, that paper is ruined. No matter how good it is, it is unreadable, it is scarred eternally.
So are our lives. We are ALL sinners and there is no denying that. No matter what wonderful things we do and accomplish, there is only one way to look pure in the eyes of God and that is through Jesus Christ who died for our sins so that we won't have to. The ultimate punishment for sin is death, but by accepting Jesus Christ your debt has already been paid and you can live a life and an eternity without speculation or worrying or guessing what will happen to you, but having an assurance in the word of God.
That sounds like nothing but love for our sorry souls to me, not at all dogmatic or wrong. For someone to send their only son to die in my place, I definitely feel I owe my life to them. Who are we to deserve such love and compassion?
Don't think dogmatic, think sensible. When writing an essay for school, you may have written the best essay possible. It may have a lot of wonderful things on it and be worthy of an A and possibly being published. If on the way to school you dropped it in mud, that paper is ruined. No matter how good it is, it is unreadable, it is scarred eternally.
So are our lives. We are ALL sinners and there is no denying that. No matter what wonderful things we do and accomplish, there is only one way to look pure in the eyes of God and that is through Jesus Christ who died for our sins so that we won't have to. The ultimate punishment for sin is death, but by accepting Jesus Christ your debt has already been paid and you can live a life and an eternity without speculation or worrying or guessing what will happen to you, but having an assurance in the word of God.
That sounds like nothing but love for our sorry souls to me, not at all dogmatic or wrong. For someone to send their only son to die in my place, I definitely feel I owe my life to them. Who are we to deserve such love and compassion?
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2001
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 0
NOVA, who's your god?...my God is a God of love, who does not wish anyone to perish, but humans tunr away from God because of their belief in self-sufficiency...my God is described in John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
God's existent is evident before our very eyes and people don't see because they don't want to see it...
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
God's existent is evident before our very eyes and people don't see because they don't want to see it...
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
Man, I have to post because I need to back up NOVA. The responses he has generated solely critize him for not believing in Jesus or accepting Christianity. Saying that your God is better (which reminds me of George Carlin's very funny "My God has a bigger dick than your God" routine) is pathetic. It's like whiny missonary work. Accept people for what they believe. Quote as many parts of your religious text to other people in your church, but let people discover the world's truths on their own. If you want to share, it would be only fair to teach of all religions, just as a good teacher presents all points of view on a issue. Islam's relgous text gives support and evidence for as many historical events as Christianity's, so it must also be considered. Anything else is partisan banter.
And my mandatory Christ-like quib: Jesus didn't tell others to follow him, his disciples did. He never said, "listen to me and ye shalt be saved." (Or maybe he did on South Park, but I bet most relgious devotees think that show is crude and blasphemy). No, his apostles said to make a Church to follow Jesus. They were just men, so they could easily put words in Jesus's mouth. We are human; I am not so naive to think men 2000 years ago never lied. To be a good scientist, no, a good thinker, you can only really trust and believe a first hand account from anything. I'd be like making decisions based on what people say in an opinion column that only gives one side of an issue.
Although I don't really care where this topic wanders, please don't make it a "my religion kicks ass, here's why" thing.
And in response to LENZ:
There are those of us who don't believe we are full of sin. I don't feel guilty for my life or what I do. Why worry about things when life is so short and precious? Devote your energy and thoughts to helping others. Every moment preaching is one moment lost to give others assistance (from helping volunteer, to something obscure as writing jokes for a TV show in the hope it will make somebody smile and feel good). Spiritual assistance is a paradox. If there are "souls," are we so conceited to think that our soul can influence and mold another? It's like control and manipulation of the highest order. Slavery is wrong, but mental, spiritual, slavery is just "spreading the good word."
If I die tomorrow, my conscience is clear. I dont need to be forgiven, for I have forgiven myself. I have forgiven myself by learning from my mistakes and treating every new day as potential for good. And when I die, there is nothing. Eternal nothingness. My molecules are spread among the soil and they give life to other creatures. Hey, maybe one day a 40 year old man will eat beef from a cow that ate grass from the soil that is the manure of the bacteria on the fungi that ate from my brain where I was buried. I will not be "me," but who cares about "I" when you are now part of the world. That is heaven. No angels, no halos, no harps. You are now Earth. You are a god, for you are now a planet. Just as a part of your body, your hand, is you, you are the planet, for you are a part of it. We all are the planet, as cheesy as that sounds (that old Saturday Morning Cartoon "Captain Planet," woefully comes to mind).
Aw crap I sound like I am preaching. Sorry. I don't want to pretend my thoughts are anything like a religion. They are just ideas. Not to be believed, but hopefully considered.
I Love you.
And my mandatory Christ-like quib: Jesus didn't tell others to follow him, his disciples did. He never said, "listen to me and ye shalt be saved." (Or maybe he did on South Park, but I bet most relgious devotees think that show is crude and blasphemy). No, his apostles said to make a Church to follow Jesus. They were just men, so they could easily put words in Jesus's mouth. We are human; I am not so naive to think men 2000 years ago never lied. To be a good scientist, no, a good thinker, you can only really trust and believe a first hand account from anything. I'd be like making decisions based on what people say in an opinion column that only gives one side of an issue.
Although I don't really care where this topic wanders, please don't make it a "my religion kicks ass, here's why" thing.
And in response to LENZ:
There are those of us who don't believe we are full of sin. I don't feel guilty for my life or what I do. Why worry about things when life is so short and precious? Devote your energy and thoughts to helping others. Every moment preaching is one moment lost to give others assistance (from helping volunteer, to something obscure as writing jokes for a TV show in the hope it will make somebody smile and feel good). Spiritual assistance is a paradox. If there are "souls," are we so conceited to think that our soul can influence and mold another? It's like control and manipulation of the highest order. Slavery is wrong, but mental, spiritual, slavery is just "spreading the good word."
If I die tomorrow, my conscience is clear. I dont need to be forgiven, for I have forgiven myself. I have forgiven myself by learning from my mistakes and treating every new day as potential for good. And when I die, there is nothing. Eternal nothingness. My molecules are spread among the soil and they give life to other creatures. Hey, maybe one day a 40 year old man will eat beef from a cow that ate grass from the soil that is the manure of the bacteria on the fungi that ate from my brain where I was buried. I will not be "me," but who cares about "I" when you are now part of the world. That is heaven. No angels, no halos, no harps. You are now Earth. You are a god, for you are now a planet. Just as a part of your body, your hand, is you, you are the planet, for you are a part of it. We all are the planet, as cheesy as that sounds (that old Saturday Morning Cartoon "Captain Planet," woefully comes to mind).
Aw crap I sound like I am preaching. Sorry. I don't want to pretend my thoughts are anything like a religion. They are just ideas. Not to be believed, but hopefully considered.
I Love you.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
He, is fact, is recorded as saying it over 20 times. Here are just two instances:
He in fact said things of that tune over 30 times. Here are just two instances.
It was Jesus Himself who said He would build the Church.
Not just John (quoted just above), but all of the Apostles gave first hand accounts. How do we know any other history?
Would you die for a lie? Or suffer untold hardships? All the Apostles did, and all but one was eventually killed for this "lie." Here are a few of the Apostle Paul's hardships:
The Apostle Paul--his head rolled off the chopping block for his faith just a few years after writing the above.
You wrote with confident assertions about Jesus and the Apostles. I just wanted to clear them up.
Best wishes.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Messages
- 185
- Reaction score
- 1
Ewen, those quotes by apostles are still self-reported things that Jesus said - he might have been just saying, "Do what I say, it will make you find happiness as you are a more kind human being." His words are like a philosopher, but the apostles could have twisted it around and make him do miracles to make him sound greater. If Plato and other students of Socrates wrote that he performed miracles, I'm sure we'd have a Socratic religion. Nobody wants to follow the very compassionate and wise philosopher Joe Smith, but if Joe Smith performed miracles - whoo-wee!
So they embelished.
Yes, the apostles died for their cause, but people die for lies all the time. It was called Vietnam.
And in response to the quote saying Jesus wanted to build a church, "MT 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." I studied this, because I dont think Jesus, in all his wisdom, would be so vain to want a church built after >him< (not just his ideas). He does not mention an organization of people preaching his word. In fact, in original Greek, the word for "Church" is e?kklhsi?a: a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly, or any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously. So by this defination I found at "www.studylight.org" (a Christian website, so it sould be biased against my argument if anything) it is more a group of people united under a cause - the cause of good. He could mean a crude assembly that makes up the entire globe, or an Pot-Luck assembly down by Stone Creek. Either way, it does not call to have structure and being "taught" by others. It seems to me more of a discussion, where a bunch of people get together to find out how they can practice good and be kind.
Like in the quote: "MT 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock." It means nothing to preach or follow the words unless you act out the kind and caring things that he talks about. I meet tons of Christians, but I meet few truly wonderful, wholy benevolent creatures. Plus do you want to say you do good in the name of Christ or in the name of your own soul and free-will? If you do what you think somebody wants you do to, that isn't really your choice at all, it's theirs. You need to want to do good inside, regardless if it'll get you into Heaven or not. (In fact, forget about Heaven, because that will give you selfish reasons to do good. Doing something so you dont go to Hell is not real salvation.)
When Hey-sus says that those who follow him are saved, it could mean that being saved is being made better, more compassionate, more humanitarian. Saved from the evil that is in our hearts, the evil that makes it so easy to be selfish and apathetic to others.
Hey, I love Jesus Christ. I would want to be his friend, and if he gave speeches to the world today, I would listen intently. But miracles and churches? Bah! He wouldn't support such things and the Apostles are not men to be trusted.
The ideas expressed by Jesus Christ guide my desires to be a healer and to "save" people, from curing disease to spreading kindness and joy. But you can only lead by example, not by word. Do for others, and they will be saved. Martyrdom is not just for religous figures. If we were all martyrs to each other, God this place would be beautiful.
So they embelished.
Yes, the apostles died for their cause, but people die for lies all the time. It was called Vietnam.
And in response to the quote saying Jesus wanted to build a church, "MT 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." I studied this, because I dont think Jesus, in all his wisdom, would be so vain to want a church built after >him< (not just his ideas). He does not mention an organization of people preaching his word. In fact, in original Greek, the word for "Church" is e?kklhsi?a: a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly, or any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously. So by this defination I found at "www.studylight.org" (a Christian website, so it sould be biased against my argument if anything) it is more a group of people united under a cause - the cause of good. He could mean a crude assembly that makes up the entire globe, or an Pot-Luck assembly down by Stone Creek. Either way, it does not call to have structure and being "taught" by others. It seems to me more of a discussion, where a bunch of people get together to find out how they can practice good and be kind.
Like in the quote: "MT 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock." It means nothing to preach or follow the words unless you act out the kind and caring things that he talks about. I meet tons of Christians, but I meet few truly wonderful, wholy benevolent creatures. Plus do you want to say you do good in the name of Christ or in the name of your own soul and free-will? If you do what you think somebody wants you do to, that isn't really your choice at all, it's theirs. You need to want to do good inside, regardless if it'll get you into Heaven or not. (In fact, forget about Heaven, because that will give you selfish reasons to do good. Doing something so you dont go to Hell is not real salvation.)
When Hey-sus says that those who follow him are saved, it could mean that being saved is being made better, more compassionate, more humanitarian. Saved from the evil that is in our hearts, the evil that makes it so easy to be selfish and apathetic to others.
Hey, I love Jesus Christ. I would want to be his friend, and if he gave speeches to the world today, I would listen intently. But miracles and churches? Bah! He wouldn't support such things and the Apostles are not men to be trusted.
The ideas expressed by Jesus Christ guide my desires to be a healer and to "save" people, from curing disease to spreading kindness and joy. But you can only lead by example, not by word. Do for others, and they will be saved. Martyrdom is not just for religous figures. If we were all martyrs to each other, God this place would be beautiful.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Well maybe we cannot trust what the apostles wrote. Maybe some of us are more comfortable with a more recent historical record of the same phenomenon. So how about a book that you could stick in your back pocket and can read in one sitting, yet the historicity of which nobody could deny?
Nope, no title here. But I have three copies, and they will be sent for free to the first three people who are curious enough to send me their mailing address, I am at [email protected]. Posts about the nature of the little book will not be anwered
Well we are talking about issues of faith after all. Maybe it is best (my little opinion) not to approach the issues from positions of respective beliefs, where could that possibly lead? We all want to be good scientists, and none of us would discount a preponderance of the evidence. I think it is better to attack the elemental foundations of another's beliefs rather than get into a George Carlin type discussion about it. When you boil it down, argument outside of discounting or supporting the foundational premises is like two people arguing about whether peanut butter tastes better than tofu.
Now, at least about Jesus, if you say that you admire him for one thing or another but you do not accept him as God in the flesh, you show that you have not considered that all we know of him is what is written about him in the old and new testaments (yes, much is written about Jesus in the old testament...spare me the otherwise inevitable posts about how only the new testament writes about Jesus). There is no doubt that he claimed to be 'God Eternal' expressed in human flesh. When he told the religious jews "Before Abraham was, I AM", he wasn't proposing a riddle. When Moses asked God 'Who should I tell Pharaoh sent me?" God said that Moses should tell Pharaoh that "I AM" was the one who sent Moses. The religious Jews of Jesus' days did not have trouble understanding what Jesus meant when he said "Before Abraham was, I AM". They understood what he meant, and they picked up rocks and tried to stone Jesus to death because in their eyes, Jesus had just committed the ultimate blasphemy, to put himself equal to God, and in doing so admitted to an offense worthy of capital punishment.
So from a logical point of view, and unless you know not only how to look up the occasional greek or hebrew or aramaic word, but instead understand how they are related throughout the judeo-christian texts, you do not do yourself any favors by paying any homage to Jesus as some person to be admired because of his philosophy. Your argument is more sound and stronger and respectable if you argue that Jesus was a demented lunatic.
just a couple of pennies
john
Nope, no title here. But I have three copies, and they will be sent for free to the first three people who are curious enough to send me their mailing address, I am at [email protected]. Posts about the nature of the little book will not be anwered
Well we are talking about issues of faith after all. Maybe it is best (my little opinion) not to approach the issues from positions of respective beliefs, where could that possibly lead? We all want to be good scientists, and none of us would discount a preponderance of the evidence. I think it is better to attack the elemental foundations of another's beliefs rather than get into a George Carlin type discussion about it. When you boil it down, argument outside of discounting or supporting the foundational premises is like two people arguing about whether peanut butter tastes better than tofu.
Now, at least about Jesus, if you say that you admire him for one thing or another but you do not accept him as God in the flesh, you show that you have not considered that all we know of him is what is written about him in the old and new testaments (yes, much is written about Jesus in the old testament...spare me the otherwise inevitable posts about how only the new testament writes about Jesus). There is no doubt that he claimed to be 'God Eternal' expressed in human flesh. When he told the religious jews "Before Abraham was, I AM", he wasn't proposing a riddle. When Moses asked God 'Who should I tell Pharaoh sent me?" God said that Moses should tell Pharaoh that "I AM" was the one who sent Moses. The religious Jews of Jesus' days did not have trouble understanding what Jesus meant when he said "Before Abraham was, I AM". They understood what he meant, and they picked up rocks and tried to stone Jesus to death because in their eyes, Jesus had just committed the ultimate blasphemy, to put himself equal to God, and in doing so admitted to an offense worthy of capital punishment.
So from a logical point of view, and unless you know not only how to look up the occasional greek or hebrew or aramaic word, but instead understand how they are related throughout the judeo-christian texts, you do not do yourself any favors by paying any homage to Jesus as some person to be admired because of his philosophy. Your argument is more sound and stronger and respectable if you argue that Jesus was a demented lunatic.
just a couple of pennies
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
What then?
As a physician, if your patient shows signs of measles or german mealses, yet he tells you "I was immunized when I was a kid", would you say "Okay, it must be something else then!!". Or would you order antibody titres?
And what if the lab results differed from what your patient was telling you? What would you do? Would the scientific evidence control your next immediate step, or would you rely on the testimony of your patient instead?
Maybe you would say "I have to investigate further with the patient as well as with the laboratory.". A sound step for any physician.
Or, put another way, could you picture two pathologists having the following conversation about a patient? :
Doctor number 1: "I'm sure he has leprosy, I saw this symptom in my grandmother once."
Doctor number 2: "No, you are wrong, my own brother had similar symptoms, it is surely a matter of a rare condition of psoriasis on the face!!."
I have noticed that in this thread, some participants offer concrete contributions worthy of consideration. Others simply react from a position of personal experience and emotion.
Forget about religion for the moment. Let me ask rhetorically, if you had a choice of one of these two types of participants to look at your upper lip if you thought that you had pre-leukoplakic lesions, which would you choose? The participant who reacts from personal experience and emotion, or the participant who at least offers up some concrete contribution to be rightfully criticized by other participants?
If we were talking about the best candy bars available from the vending machine, we could all be happy with the thread. But the topic is elementally more critical than that, and one that cannot be avoided in practice, even if we can opt to not participate in the proper treatment of the topic here in the forum.
Real life does not afford us the comfort about the topic that the forum does afford us.
Now I see that I had four pennies in my pocket today instead of only two. And I know which doctor I would choose to examine my upper lip.
john
As a physician, if your patient shows signs of measles or german mealses, yet he tells you "I was immunized when I was a kid", would you say "Okay, it must be something else then!!". Or would you order antibody titres?
And what if the lab results differed from what your patient was telling you? What would you do? Would the scientific evidence control your next immediate step, or would you rely on the testimony of your patient instead?
Maybe you would say "I have to investigate further with the patient as well as with the laboratory.". A sound step for any physician.
Or, put another way, could you picture two pathologists having the following conversation about a patient? :
Doctor number 1: "I'm sure he has leprosy, I saw this symptom in my grandmother once."
Doctor number 2: "No, you are wrong, my own brother had similar symptoms, it is surely a matter of a rare condition of psoriasis on the face!!."
I have noticed that in this thread, some participants offer concrete contributions worthy of consideration. Others simply react from a position of personal experience and emotion.
Forget about religion for the moment. Let me ask rhetorically, if you had a choice of one of these two types of participants to look at your upper lip if you thought that you had pre-leukoplakic lesions, which would you choose? The participant who reacts from personal experience and emotion, or the participant who at least offers up some concrete contribution to be rightfully criticized by other participants?
If we were talking about the best candy bars available from the vending machine, we could all be happy with the thread. But the topic is elementally more critical than that, and one that cannot be avoided in practice, even if we can opt to not participate in the proper treatment of the topic here in the forum.
Real life does not afford us the comfort about the topic that the forum does afford us.
Now I see that I had four pennies in my pocket today instead of only two. And I know which doctor I would choose to examine my upper lip.
john
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh, look! Another penny!
The new testament records an event in the life of Jesus that is very telling not only about the ontological nature of Jesus, but also of the intent of God in presenting Jesus to humanity (of course, according to christian theology).
As I mentioned in a much earlier post, I am not a bible scholar. I am not sure about the particular illness of the man who approached Jesus for healing in this particular instance.
So I will use the illness of the "paralytic laying on the mat", because I think it is the correct one for the particular record.
And so the paralytic on the mat asked Jesus for healing, and instead of healing the man's physical paralysis, Jesus told the man "Be very happy this day: because of your faith in me, your sins are forgiven!!".
Now, there were some scoffers in the crowd of witnesses, and they said "Well, anyone can say 'Your sins are forgiven.', what good is that?? !!!".
And so Jesus said to them "So that you know that I have power to forgive people of their sins", (and then turning to the paralytic man), Jesus said "Get up off your mat, and walk.".
And the man was healed from that moment, and he got up off his mat and walked.
Now, the point is only that according to the new testament manuscripts, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and was not shy in manifesting to us, in our own physical settings and in ways that we could see and touch, that what he said about himself is in fact true.
People who consider Jesus must either discount the validity of the record or acknowledge that God has made a way to look human beings straight in the eye. The evidence does not allow us any type of 'middle road' at all.
john
The new testament records an event in the life of Jesus that is very telling not only about the ontological nature of Jesus, but also of the intent of God in presenting Jesus to humanity (of course, according to christian theology).
As I mentioned in a much earlier post, I am not a bible scholar. I am not sure about the particular illness of the man who approached Jesus for healing in this particular instance.
So I will use the illness of the "paralytic laying on the mat", because I think it is the correct one for the particular record.
And so the paralytic on the mat asked Jesus for healing, and instead of healing the man's physical paralysis, Jesus told the man "Be very happy this day: because of your faith in me, your sins are forgiven!!".
Now, there were some scoffers in the crowd of witnesses, and they said "Well, anyone can say 'Your sins are forgiven.', what good is that?? !!!".
And so Jesus said to them "So that you know that I have power to forgive people of their sins", (and then turning to the paralytic man), Jesus said "Get up off your mat, and walk.".
And the man was healed from that moment, and he got up off his mat and walked.
Now, the point is only that according to the new testament manuscripts, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and was not shy in manifesting to us, in our own physical settings and in ways that we could see and touch, that what he said about himself is in fact true.
People who consider Jesus must either discount the validity of the record or acknowledge that God has made a way to look human beings straight in the eye. The evidence does not allow us any type of 'middle road' at all.
john
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2000
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 1
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
--C.S. Lewis
--C.S. Lewis
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2001
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
Nova, I totally understand your thinking. Most Christians give themselves a terrible name and reputation, which in turn gives Jesus a bad name. I think Lenz has to remember that each man dictates his own life and that he cannot choose for another individual. I have seen scenario after scenario of people running away from Christianity because of how it's Christians abuse their names. I'm not saying this is you, Lenz or Brazil- No. But I'm speaking in generalizations. And as for your scenario Nova---concerning a man that dedicates his life to helping others yet isn't Christian - Who are we to say what happens in a man's last few seconds of life? I, for one am confident that Yeshua is Just.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 6
I know this thread is old, but I have to thoroughly agree with Paulista. I loved the "molecular oneness" that was conveyed. Anyway, I think that aside from all the scripture quoting and all of the con-versions, this thread has been very interesting. Thought I'd bring it up to the top of our posts.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2002
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
•••quote:•••I don't think a doctor would be acting in opposition of God's plan. Instead, God would be acting through the doctor to heal others. Throughout the Bible a lot of Jesus' disciples were sent out to heal the sick. I'm not sure where I heard this from, but "God is the one who heals and the doctor is there to change the bandages." ••••I know this is going to piss people off but I can't help myself.... I just find it amazing how very religious people will find ANY explanation, no matter how lame/underdeveloped/shortsighted, to preserve their beliefs. Why would God "heal through doctors" ? Exactly what would be the point(ie why not just heal them himself)? If a doctor fails to heal a patient does that mean that God has CHOSEN not to heal the patient? Why would he choose to heal some over others (ie. the drunk driver survives but kills a family of 5)? Why would their be bad doctors? Why would doctors make mistakes? Why are there ailments that we can't heal? If God has chosen to heal a patient why did he choose to let them get hurt in the first place? You point of that Jesus' followers used to go out and heal people -- this really does not support your point. I would imagine that any of Jesus' healers would have been using the "magical" healing power of God to treat the patients (ie. laying hands on someone -- ya know *SMACK* You're Healed! Praise the Lord!) instead of using any kind of diagnostic/surgical procedures. Simply put, modern medicine is NOT consistent with the idea that God heals through Doctors. I am not saying that people shouldn't believe in God -- however, I do feel that people should look closely at their beliefs concerning how involved God is in the daily lives of humans.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2002
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
•••quote:•••Originally posted by LENZ:
•NOVA
Don't think dogmatic, think sensible. When writing an essay for school, you may have written the best essay possible. It may have a lot of wonderful things on it and be worthy of an A and possibly being published. If on the way to school you dropped it in mud, that paper is ruined. No matter how good it is, it is unreadable, it is scarred eternally.
So are our lives. We are ALL sinners and there is no denying that. No matter what wonderful things we do and accomplish, there is only one way to look pure in the eyes of God and that is through Jesus Christ who died for our sins so that we won't have to. The ultimate punishment for sin is death, but by accepting Jesus Christ your debt has already been paid and you can live a life and an eternity without speculation or worrying or guessing what will happen to you, but having an assurance in the word of God.
That sounds like nothing but love for our sorry souls to me, not at all dogmatic or wrong. For someone to send their only son to die in my place, I definitely feel I owe my life to them. Who are we to deserve such love and compassion?•••••LENZ -- It is people like you who give religion a bad name. The fact that you take it upon yourself to judge others based on religious beliefs makes me physically ill. Fanatics like you help spread intolerance and hate. If that is the will of God then I want no part of it. I support your right to worship as you wish however I do not support your right to create an environment of intolerance.
ps. The idea of Jesus "dying for our sins so we won't have to" is nothing more than people refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Seems awfully convenient that if we accept Jesus we don't have to worry anymore about sins we have committed. Stand up and accept responsibility for yourself and your actions.
•NOVA
Don't think dogmatic, think sensible. When writing an essay for school, you may have written the best essay possible. It may have a lot of wonderful things on it and be worthy of an A and possibly being published. If on the way to school you dropped it in mud, that paper is ruined. No matter how good it is, it is unreadable, it is scarred eternally.
So are our lives. We are ALL sinners and there is no denying that. No matter what wonderful things we do and accomplish, there is only one way to look pure in the eyes of God and that is through Jesus Christ who died for our sins so that we won't have to. The ultimate punishment for sin is death, but by accepting Jesus Christ your debt has already been paid and you can live a life and an eternity without speculation or worrying or guessing what will happen to you, but having an assurance in the word of God.
That sounds like nothing but love for our sorry souls to me, not at all dogmatic or wrong. For someone to send their only son to die in my place, I definitely feel I owe my life to them. Who are we to deserve such love and compassion?•••••LENZ -- It is people like you who give religion a bad name. The fact that you take it upon yourself to judge others based on religious beliefs makes me physically ill. Fanatics like you help spread intolerance and hate. If that is the will of God then I want no part of it. I support your right to worship as you wish however I do not support your right to create an environment of intolerance.
ps. The idea of Jesus "dying for our sins so we won't have to" is nothing more than people refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Seems awfully convenient that if we accept Jesus we don't have to worry anymore about sins we have committed. Stand up and accept responsibility for yourself and your actions.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2002
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 0
gotta say, although i do not believe that jesus the man (and child of god as we all are) would want people criticizing/damning others because they believe differently than he did...this has got to be the most intelligent discussion about religion i have ever seen. thanks to all for keeping it friendly. if anything, reading this will help us to be compassionate towards those with firm religious convictions. during times of trauma and illness, even the most lukewarm believer gets fired up for their version of god. as future physicians we will have to understand and work with those with different beliefs than our own.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2001
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 4
•••quote:•••Originally posted by hannacanna:
• as future physicians we will have to understand and work with those with different beliefs than our own.•••••mrh, you are always welcome, and I do appreciate hearing what different view people have. You are right that the mainstream view of god will change between time and place. That though, is a discussion for another time and place.
The point of this thread, as was concluded on the bottom of page 3, is the above statement by hanna.
• as future physicians we will have to understand and work with those with different beliefs than our own.•••••mrh, you are always welcome, and I do appreciate hearing what different view people have. You are right that the mainstream view of god will change between time and place. That though, is a discussion for another time and place.
The point of this thread, as was concluded on the bottom of page 3, is the above statement by hanna.
Dude wtf. 5+ year bump!
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,431
- Reaction score
- 1
Actually thats not the case in Islam. You can't leave you doors wide open in NY and not expect to be robbed. ( I switched camels with doors
God only helps those, who help themself first.
To the OP I agree, I would not want to go to a school with a lot of "God talk". I think medical schools should e pure science because if someone wants to learn religion and world applications they should go to a theology school.
These are all purely rhetorical responses right? You do realize the OP posted over 6 years ago.
