The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[soon]

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Judge not, less ye be judged. 

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, soon said:

When to baptize is an incredibly important conversation.  You dont have to care or believe, but thats different then claiming an authority on the subject to say what is or isnt a worthy conversation with in the faiths.

In my opinion, for anyone following a religion based on the irrational belief in supernatural entities, what one really should discuss is the basis for that belief, rather than whatever follows from it. Isn't there an English expression about putting the cart before the wheel or something like that?

2 minutes ago, soon said:

Christian has a definition, youd simply be applying it in an appeal for truth just as you are appealing for truth about the other aspects. 

Christians don't really agree otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? 

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

In my opinion, for anyone following a religion based on the irrational belief in supernatural entities, what one really should discuss is the basis for that belief, rather than whatever follows from it. Isn't there an English expression about putting the cart before the wheel or something like that?

I think we have our wires crossed, as I was meaning to comment on how you seemed to have deemed infant baptism an unworthy/pointless conversation among the faithful.  Maybe I misread you.  But my point is simply that it is a reasonable conversation.

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

Christians don't really agree otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? 

Chris's teachings.  Including not lying.  

[soon]

[Ace Nova]

On 1/15/2018 at 8:08 AM, SoulMonster said:

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Kasanova King

[soon]

As a sign of god faith to the Catholics, I have dusted off my King James translation Study Bible so that we can at least be on the same page that way.  And then I was able to even dig out my Catholic Bible!  (For those who may not know the Catholic Bible has additional, apocryphal, texts not present in Non-Catholic Bibles.  Orthodox have these texts and often additional deuterocanonical texts)

 

 

[Iron MikeyJ]

Honestly I don't recognize the King James Bible, that's a protestant bible. I'm a strictly Dewey Rheims guy myself. Which is sort of the Catholic "King James bible" if you will. Although it predates the King James Bible. I like the more "authentic" translations, even though they can be hard to understand at times. 

Which as a side note, I don't want to get into a bible debate. It's another sore spot between denominations. 

[soon]

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Honestly I don't recognize the King James Bible, that's a protestant bible. I'm a strictly Dewey Rheims guy myself. Which is sort of the Catholic "King James bible" if you will. Although it predates the King James Bible. I like the more "authentic" translations, even though they can be hard to understand at times. 

Which as a side note, I don't want to get into a bible debate. It's another sore spot between denominations. 

Th most accurate Bible translation is the New Revised Standard Version and its incredibly easy to read.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@soon or anyone else,

Has anyone read the book of Enoch? Or care to share any thoughts you may have on that book?

I personally find it quite fascinating. I also recommend people give it a read. Although (the Catholic perspective on it) is IT does contain truths, but it should NOT be held in higher reguard than any books within the bible. 

Depending on your denomination, it can be vewied as highly as Holy Scripture (Etheopian Catholics), or border line satanic (some protestant denominations). Reguardless, I find it to be VERY interesting, and I recommend it to those that love holy scripture. Again, I would say it does contain truths, but don't base your faith around it.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Iron MikeyJ]

7 minutes ago, soon said:

Th most accurate Bible translation is the New Revised Standard Version and its incredibly easy to read.

This is actually my family bible, so the translation for our family bible is the "Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition". Which I believe is the same that the church used for literagy.  But I listen to a lot of audio, and that's where I prefer the Dewey Rheims version.

https://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+bibles&start=160&client=ms-android-verizon&sa=N&biw=360&bih=560&tbs=vw:l,ss:44&tbm=shop&prmd=sinv&srpd=818005665320964735&prds=epd:104188418725071672,paur:ClkAsKraX-VJM5I4FqagoWA8A9Zq1v2LqTblVzEm1_6YwNxK8xju60fGQMQAvKH3xbOwHau3Tye_gclDOTgKAlYhqbeHgQzuRsVMUVtcrDjT0RxGTB0mQh6SeBIZAFPVH70cQkRYbonE_Ng65l7MfSkY-4r5QA,cdl:1,cid:14506977527130524460&ved=0ahUKEwiLw6ar8bTZAhUNz2MKHYqaC-Y4oAEQgTYIoQU

[DieselDaisy]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That early followers of Jesus would somehow get their hands on the crown of thorns used to punish Jesus and managed to preserve it for the first tumultuous 400 years, is unlikely, in my opinion. Of course it could be real, but I find it more plausible that it is just the first out of thousands of forgeries made by unscrupulous christians who wanted to earn money and power out of gullible believers. 

I disagree. I cannot discredit one whose history can be traced back so early that flippantly - it would be a poor historian. I'd agree with you if it first surfaced during the middle ages like the Turin Shroud and a lot of these things, but this is certainly one of the more plausible examples.

 

[soon]

30 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

This is actually my family bible, so the translation for our family bible is the "Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition". Which I believe is the same that the church used for literagy.  But I listen to a lot of audio, and that's where I prefer the Dewey Rheims version.

https://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+bibles&start=160&client=ms-android-verizon&sa=N&biw=360&bih=560&tbs=vw:l,ss:44&tbm=shop&prmd=sinv&srpd=818005665320964735&prds=epd:104188418725071672,paur:ClkAsKraX-VJM5I4FqagoWA8A9Zq1v2LqTblVzEm1_6YwNxK8xju60fGQMQAvKH3xbOwHau3Tye_gclDOTgKAlYhqbeHgQzuRsVMUVtcrDjT0RxGTB0mQh6SeBIZAFPVH70cQkRYbonE_Ng65l7MfSkY-4r5QA,cdl:1,cid:14506977527130524460&ved=0ahUKEwiLw6ar8bTZAhUNz2MKHYqaC-Y4oAEQgTYIoQU

Ah we're samesies!  The NRSV is just an update on the RSV done with the same methodology in the 1980's.  It just further benefits from advances in Anthropology, Archeology, History, Post-Colonial thought, etc; just as the RSV did in the 60's.

Ive got a few RSV's myself and have never actually picked up on a difference between it and the NRSV while simply reading.

This is what my Catholic Bible says.  Printed in the 50's, before the RSV was selected. 

 

A mention of the Rheims fellow

Edited February 20, 2018 by soon

[soon]

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@soon or anyone else,

Has anyone read the book of Enoch? Or care to share any thoughts you may have on that book?

I personally find it quite fascinating. I also recommend people give it a read. Although (the Catholic perspective on it) is IT does contain truths, but it should NOT be held in higher reguard than any books within the bible. 

Depending on your denomination, it can be vewied as highly as Holy Scripture (Etheopian Catholics), or border line satanic (some protestant denominations). Reguardless, I find it to be VERY interesting, and I recommend it to those that love holy scripture. Again, I would say it does contain truths, but don't base your faith around it.

I've read at least 1st Enoch.  I am even more fuzzy now than I was then on the deal.  If memory serves 1st Enoch is comprised of 5 separate writings.  But I cant recall if those 5 make up Enoch 1-3 or only 1?  And the various books are held by different traditions which don't all recognize the other books.

Quite the story. Some Eritrean friends highlight to me how, as fantastical a story as it is, that at its core its also/actually tying up some loose ends about the Nephilim and the mysteries of the Patriarchs.  I dont recall a lot of the specifics.

I note that stoners are especially intrigued by it. lol

Edited February 20, 2018 by soon

[Iron MikeyJ]

53 minutes ago, soon said:

I've read at least 1st Enoch.  I am even more fuzzy now than I was then on the deal.  If memory serves 1st Enoch is comprised of 5 separate writings.  But I cant recall if those 5 make up Enoch 1-3 or only 1?  And the various books are held by different traditions which don't all recognize the other books.

Quite the story. Some Eritrean friends highlight to me how, as fanatical a story as it is, that at its core its also/actually tying up some loose ends about the Nephilim and the mysteries of the Patriarchs.  I dont recall a lot of the specifics.

I note that stoners are especially intrigued by it. lol

Which it goes in-depth with the fall of the angels, the nephilim, and DOES tie up patriarch things as well. It just plain gives you MORE of the story than what is in Genesis. Which I personally love, but I understand why it's not considered cannon. While God is a part of the story (obviously), he is NOT the central focus. While I haven't read all of Enoch, I did listen to the first book. So that's the take away I got from it, it's not going to help you find salvation the way the books of the bible do. That's why I personally feel it isn't considered cannon, not because it isn't true. When compared to Genesis specifically, Genesis always revolves around God in some matter. Sure it goes off about genealogy, and stories regarding the patriarchs, but those stories ALL tie together with God and his covenants. Enoch isn't like that. Enoch is like (I'm paraphrasing) "the angels fell, corrupted man, had off spring with man, and those abominations had to be destroyed, which is PART of the reason for the flood."

Which that's one thing that (some) have a problem with, they say it contradicts Genesis in some ways, sin and the flood specifically. Which I don't feel it contradicts Genesis, it's just going into further detail from a different perspective. If Moses DID indeed write Genesis, than he did so after the fact. While Enoch was knee deep in it all. Even though Moses was divinely inspired to write Genesis, God doesn't let us and him know EVERYTHING. I feel God just wanted Moses to know the things that were important, and help lead people to him. So I feel, going into too much detail about the fallen angels and the nephilim don't really do that. They are more interesting "side notes". 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I disagree. I cannot discredit one whose history can be traced back so early that flippantly - it would be a poor historian. I'd agree with you if it first surfaced during the middle ages like the Turin Shroud and a lot of these things, but this is certainly one of the more plausible examples.

That doesn't make sense. Just because it is older than the other obvious forgeries doesn't make it more likely to be genuine as long as you can't trace its entire history. One of the forgeries had to be the first. And it is still 400 years to explain. I am not saying it has to be bullshit, just that it smells like it.

[soon]

30 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Which it goes in-depth with the fall of the angels, the nephilim, and DOES tie up patriarch things as well. It just plain gives you MORE of the story than what is in Genesis. Which I personally love, but I understand why it's not considered cannon. While God is a part of the story (obviously), he is NOT the central focus. While I haven't read all of Enoch, I did listen to the first book. So that's the take away I got from it, it's not going to help you find salvation the way the books of the bible do. That's why I personally feel it isn't considered cannon, not because it isn't true. When compared to Genesis specifically, Genesis always revolves around God in some matter. Sure it goes off about genealogy, and stories regarding the patriarchs, but those stories ALL tie together with God and his covenants. Enoch isn't like that. Enoch is like (I'm paraphrasing) "the angels fell, corrupted man, had off spring with man, and those abominations had to be destroyed, which is PART of the reason for the flood."

Which that's one thing that (some) have a problem with, they say it contradicts Genesis in some ways, sin and the flood specifically. Which I don't feel it contradicts Genesis, it's just going into further detail from a different perspective. If Moses DID indeed write Genesis, than he did so after the fact. While Enoch was knee deep in it all. Even though Moses was divinely inspired to write Genesis, God doesn't let us and him know EVERYTHING. I feel God just wanted Moses to know the things that were important, and help lead people to him. So I feel, going into too much detail about the fallen angels and the nephilim don't really do that. They are more interesting "side notes". 

Im personally comfortable with the possibility that Moses is not the sole author of the Pentateuch.  From that perspective Im open to the idea that Enoch was written to fill in 'missing' info from the pentateuch, allowing for the divine authority of Moses to go unchallenged.  Im also open to the possibility that both were written organically and tell parts of one story.  Because, of course both benefit form the pre-judaism texts on the Deluge.  The flow of Genesis is very measured and important imo.  One couldnt go on these extended tangents for every generations patriarchs.  Extra texts make lots of sense.  Both narrative texts and also the Rabbinical texts that were developed early on.

I'd have to read it again, but I remember noting that it didnt always seem to claim to be hard fact, but included story telling choices.  I also dont recall how the story was captured if Enoch didnt return?  (similar to how the pentatuach claims Moses' authorship but doesnt mind filling in details after his death.  These claims wouldn't have gone unnoticed by early leadership but more than likely represent the common style of origin stories in that era)

What I find most compelling is its apparent and direct references in the NT.  Jude in particular.  Jude is widely agreed to be poorly written and largely redundant.  During canonization most sects were not in favour of Judes inclusion. Some scholars and churches believe that the only reason it was included is for its direct reference to Enoch as a person and a brief reference to his journey.  

Edited February 20, 2018 by soon

[Iron MikeyJ]

That's interesting in regards to Jude and Enoch. Another thing that IS interesting is that (if I remember correctly) the book of Enoch WAS considered holy and important in OT times, perhaps even in the time of Christ himself. It was only later (during the creation of the actual bible) that it's discredit began. But again, I feel that has more to do with it not being a tool to lead to God, as opposed to it not being true.

As far as Enochs death, I can't remember tbh.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[HOOSIER GUNZ]

So the closest thing we have to an actual authentic biblical artifact is the dead sea texts.  The death linen thread line is sketchy.  

[soon]

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

That's interesting in regards to Jude and Enoch. Another thing that IS interesting is that (if I remember correctly) the book of Enoch WAS considered holy and important in OT times, perhaps even in the time of Christ himself. It was only later (during the creation of the actual bible) that it's discredit began. But again, I feel that has more to do with it not being a tool to lead to God, as opposed to it not being true.

As far as Enochs death, I can't remember tbh.

He didn't die  

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 minutes ago, HOOSIER GUNZ said:

So the closest thing we have to an actual authentic biblical artifact is the dead sea texts.  The death linen thread line is sketchy.  

If I remember correctly, the book of Enoch WAS in the dead sea scrolls as well. Which speaks to it's importance imo.

1 minute ago, soon said:

He didn't die  

He was "taken" into heaven wasn't he? It's been a while since I listened to it. I listen to a lot of scripture and other religious talk in the car. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

So... has anyone else here (since it's a rock music forum) had a conflict between their religious beliefs and their music, films, tv, or entertainment overall? I DID and still do, tbh. I actually really struggled with whether or not I even wanted to associate with music anymore because of the clear lack of morals that is glorified. As a general rule, Catholics are encouraged to avoid things that take you away from Christ, and rock music obviously fits that category. 

After a lot of soul searching, talking with people at church, etc. I came to the realization that if you are strong enough in your faith to with stand the temptations to sin, then it's ok. It's those that are NOT strong enough in their faith that music COULD lead you to sin. I don't listen to rock and feel like sinning anymore, but in my younger days it could. So after lots of soul searching, the temptation to sin that exists within music, doesn't effect me spiritually. So I STILL enjoy many bands, but not all.

Having said that, I no longer listen to Black Sabbath or Ozzy.  Songs such as Iron Man, Paranoid, or Crazy train are just fun little songs, no different than Jungle or paradise city. But it's songs like Black Sabbath and Mr. Crowley that I "feel" the inherent evil within, and I just don't want to support such a thing. So I've just plain walked away from both Ozzy and Black Sabbath. 

I still struggle with Jimmy Pages fascination with Aliester Crowley though... luckily Plants lyrics tended to be "up lifiting" imo, unlike Black Sabbath. I am a HUGE Zeppelin fan, so I still listen to them, but it's because I don't "feel" the evil in the music like I do with certain Sabbath and Ozzy songs. I have lost respect for Jimmy Page because of his admiration for Crowley though...

I also no longer listen to Robert Johnson, and he WAS my favorite blues man.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

That doesn't make sense. Just because it is older than the other obvious forgeries doesn't make it more likely to be genuine as long as you can't trace its entire history. One of the forgeries had to be the first. And it is still 400 years to explain. I am not saying it has to be bullshit, just that it smells like it.

I thoroughly disagree with that statement.

Most of the extent relics surface (re)surfaced during the Middle Ages and under the aegis of the Catholic Church which proliferated saint and relic veneration throughout Western Christendom as part of a quid pro quo intercessionist theology. Whole economies were built, people and locations enriched, due to what can only be described as a medieval form of modern tourism, all because of saint/relic veneration. It is understandable that relics that have only (re)surfaced in Medieval Western Europe have been brought into disrepute. Yet here we have a relic,

- which can be traced to as belonging outside Western Christendom, to Jerusalem (the logical place it would've resided, surely?).

-  that can be traced back to 409 AD, the Ecumenical-Patriarchal Age (only one-hundred years after Christianity had been legalised). 

- that had very little to do with the Catholic Church (until Napoleon I handed it over in 1801) and was infact in private ownership.

- that has been scientifically analysed as belonging to a bush which only grows in Africa and Asia, and proliferates in and around Jerusalem.

- that has no rival claimants

The veracity of this is certainly more probably than, say the Turin Shroud, first (re)surfacing 14th century France, or even the Viennese Spear of Destiny which possesses rival claimants and cannot be traced backwards beyond 10th century Carolingian ownership. 

N.b., that I am not saying that the Crown is certifiably bona fide - it could indeed be a forgery as you said. I am saying its chances of authenticity are far greater than other relics. 

[soon]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So... has anyone else here (since it's a rock music forum) had a conflict between their religious beliefs and their music, films, tv, or entertainment overall? I DID and still do, tbh. I actually really struggled with whether or not I even wanted to associate with music anymore because of the clear lack of morals that is glorified. As a general rule, Catholics are encouraged to avoid things that take you away from Christ, and rock music obviously fits that category. 

After a lot of soul searching, talking with people at church, etc. I came to the realization that if you are strong enough in your faith to with stand the temptations to sin, then it's ok. It's those that are NOT strong enough in their faith that music COULD lead you to sin. I don't listen to rock and feel like sinning anymore, but in my younger days it could. So after lots of soul searching, the temptation to sin that exists within music, doesn't effect me spiritually. So I STILL enjoy many bands, but not all.

Having said that, I no longer listen to Black Sabbath or Ozzy.  Songs such as Iron Man, Paranoid, or Crazy train are just fun little songs, no different than Jungle or paradise city. But it's songs like Black Sabbath and Mr. Crowley that I "feel" the inherent evil within, and I just don't want to support such a thing. So I've just plain walked away from both Ozzy and Black Sabbath. 

I still struggle with Jimmy Pages fascination with Aliester Crowley though... luckily Plants lyrics tended to be "up lifiting" imo, unlike Black Sabbath. I am a HUGE Zeppelin fan, so I still listen to them, but it's because I don't "feel" the evil in the music like I do with certain Sabbath and Ozzy songs. I have lost respect for Jimmy Page because of his admiration for Crowley though...

I also no longer listen to Robert Johnson, and he WAS my favorite blues man.

A few parts to my response.

First; I dont understand the Ozzy Mr Crowley issue?  The song seems to be him calling BS on Alister Crowley and decrying his presence in rock?  And also on that album we have Ozzy moralizing against the consumption of porn, in No Bone Movies.  And a pro-creation song about ecological responsibility and communal identity, in Revelation Mother Earth.

Second part:  I dont know that any one genre of music tends to be any more or less holy?  I think some popular modern Chrsitan songs are dubious at best.  And theres some extreme metal for Christ.

Third part:  Forgive me if Ive already posted about this.  I was living on grace for a while and (mostly wealthy) people would billet me to support my work.  One morning the wealthy conservative hostess casually mentioned that she'd read my internet history and was at first shocked and disappointed to see I'd watched a youtube video of Black Sabbath's Its Alright.  But then she said "but I listened to it and its really beautiful actually, so its okay."  Apparently conservative mainline Christians dont require a Christian message, just that if it sounds pretty it must be holy 

Fourth part:  I havent really turned away from any music just because its not in line with Christianity.  There have been albums that make me kinda nauseous.  Not the lyrics necessarily, but the vibe and general conceit.  One was Kid A by Radiohead.  In that case it was kinda the dark, paranoia that had a physical impact on me.  I dont consider this a spiritual issue, but having said that; I dont know how to categorize it either.  

Fifth part:  I was a huge Manson fan around Mechanical Animals and Holywood era.  Im simply not anymore, but never made a decision to not be.  And Im open to the possibility that as a more fully formed Christian that I just have no desire for it.  I listen to it every now and then - mostly the hits.  Ive posted Manson on this forum and was at first feeling excited by his advanced single "we know were you fucking live" or whatever from his most recent.  But it was again passing.  I've seen Manson live and enjoyed it.  I've seen NIN and would love to again.

Six: About NIN.  Ive been studying and meditating on the notion in some scripture that Hell is most notably the absence of God.  Goat had asked me to talk to it in more detail and from there Ive just incorporated it into my devotions.  When Im doing this, especially as an Anabaptist - doing study communally - I like to bring in music and poetry, even things like tactile, to more fully immerse myself the subject.  It also opens up avenues of conversation with others studying the same topic.  Okay, so NIN's song Closer is one of those artistic works that is helping me see the concept newly.  Its a very Pauline take on sin and as such alludes to feeling either an absence of a soul or possibly god.  So, like the Romans, one falls into fleshly sin to try and engage in some form of union, euphoria, release and wholeness that otherwise the presence of God would offer.  

Seven: Im much more inclined to call out Jimmy Page for having kidnpped and confined a 13 yer old girl then for putting Rumes on the cover of an LP.

Eight: Mustaine, Cooper and those guys in Korn are killing me.  They make big splashy conversions and then run their mouths as neophytes saying all manner of conservative gobbilygook and then in some cases they get over their initial enthusiasm (mustaine!) and just go back to being the same old asshole.  

Nine:  Fictional books and movies that seek to be instructive about a way of being sometimes turn me off.  Only really heavy handed ones.  Its more an intellectual thing, though.

Edited February 20, 2018 by soon

[ZoSoRose]

Art is art (especially rock n roll). If you can't see that... whelp...

 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

N.b., that I am not saying that the Crown is certifiably bona fide - it could indeed be a forgery as you said. I am saying its chances of authenticity are far greater than other relics. 

And I am not saying it isn't more likely to be genuine just that it is unlikely to be genuine. 

It probably is one of the first extant, fake relics to have been made to exploit the gullibility of poor christian believers.