@Xueye - Im responding because you asked ever so nicely and spelled my name right lol. I take it offensive because in Christianity 'Magic' is seen as evil and should be avoided at all costs. These are of course the Dark Arts that it is in reference to. I guess you could say that you calling it magic in the form that has been defined by Neo (i think) is fine as it is your opinion. Now don't castrate me for linking to reference in the bible. If you don't want to read it dont go there. I'm not forcing anyone.
That's my reasoning, whenever I hear magic I think of the Dark Arts, witchcraft, etc. When Neo says magic he's refering to that and more. So yea I kinda take offense to it. I, by no means, dont think you are not allowed to say anything negative about religion.
...Heck alot has been said negative about religion in these forums and atheism, just more of the prior than the latter imho. Just look at all that Neo has said.
Quote:
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
those who practice magic arts=evil doesn't mean magic=evil :/
guns don't kill people, people kill people would be an example in the same vein.
Hell technically guns are black magic in the terms of what existed in the times of the revelations.
anything that kills is black magic, anything that heals is white magic.
everything can be labeled as magic without a fundamental understanding of the functions that we have established so far today.
so I mean if you take that sort of restrictive position taking the words of the bible literally, you then must renounce the modern world in a sense.
So I'd say taking passages such as that literally and not as a dated perspective of the time is a bit silly if you ask me.
Also I think the lake of fire stuff is straight up horse pocky.
biggest load of it ever honestly.
John the Revelator was either crazy or a liar when it comes to people being "consigned to a lake of sulfur"
Unless he's referring to pollution, but it's kind of easy to draw strings to a lot of what he says since it's made in a vague way, that's how Nostradamus did it too and I don't think he predicted ***.
I'm not going to bother to get into a debate over the Theology of my beliefs becuase you guys just like to bash it. You asked for my reasoning and I gave it to you. I'm still delving into all things in this world as I am only 23. I'm currently reading the bible from front to back in an attempt to understand everything in my faith.
On the flip side, threads like these enlighten me on what others believe and why.
Thanks for your opinions and retorts. It also challenges me to delve deeper into the true meaning of verses such as Rev. 21:8. According to this website there have been 19 Translations of the word "pharmakeus" which is where we get the word 'magic.' This is just my initial findings though. This website seems to be indefense of Wicca
I'm not going to bother to get into a debate over the Theology of my beliefs becuase you guys just like to bash it. You asked for my reasoning and I gave it to you. I'm still delving into all things in this world as I am only 23. I'm currently reading the bible from front to back in an attempt to understand everything in my faith.
On the flip side, threads like these enlighten me on what others believe and why.
Thanks for your opinions and retorts. It also challenges me to delve deeper into the true meaning of verses such as Rev. 21:8. According to this website there have been 19 Translations of the word "pharmakeus" which is where we get the word 'magic.' This is just my initial findings though. This website seems to be indefense of Wicca
pharmaceuticals?
you better swear of modern medicine too while your at it.
It's magic.
Modern medicine is the pinnacle of "magic" as those times know it.
And just because I supported my counter-argument with claims of how I don't like John the Revelator, it's not like I didn't support it past that.
You just chose to get offended and ignore it apparently.
Regardless if you like magic or not, taking such a metaphoric aspect of the bible literally is stupid.
If you don't take it literally, that's fine, but magic as we know it today is WAYYYYYYY different than magic as was known when that was written, and you'd have to be a buffoon to ignore that.
Also, Inuyasha since you decided to try to make "pharmakeus" directly correlated to magic, I might as well wiki-pwn you, since that's an easy one.
Quote:
A Pharmakós (Greek: φαρμακός) in Ancient Greek religion was a kind of human scapegoat (a slave, a cripple or a criminal) who was chosen and expelled from the community at times of disaster (famine, invasion or plague) or at times of calendrical crisis, when purification was needed.
Pharmakos and Pharmacology
The term "pharmakos" later became the term "pharmakeus" which refers to "a drug, spell-giving potion, druggist, poisoner, by extension a magician or a sorcerer."[3] A variation of this term is "pharmakon" (φάρμακον) a complex term meaning sacrament, remedy, poison, talisman, cosmetic, perfume or intoxicant.[4] From this, the modern term "pharmacology" emerged.
So you either hate and shouldn't use medicine ever again, or you have to accept that you shouldn't take the bible literally and treat it as a dated interpretation.
The use of drugs and medicine at that time were labeled as sorcery, and I really don't know how you can ignore that.
Also, Inuyasha since you decided to try to make "pharmakeus" directly correlated to magic, I might as well wiki-pwn you, since that's an easy one.
Quote:
A Pharmakós (Greek: φαρμακός) in Ancient Greek religion was a kind of human scapegoat (a slave, a cripple or a criminal) who was chosen and expelled from the community at times of disaster (famine, invasion or plague) or at times of calendrical crisis, when purification was needed.
Pharmakos and Pharmacology
The term "pharmakos" later became the term "pharmakeus" which refers to "a drug, spell-giving potion, druggist, poisoner, by extension a magician or a sorcerer."[3] A variation of this term is "pharmakon" (φάρμακον) a complex term meaning sacrament, remedy, poison, talisman, cosmetic, perfume or intoxicant.[4] From this, the modern term "pharmacology" emerged.
So you either hate and shouldn't use medicine ever again, or you have to accept that you shouldn't take the bible literally and treat it as a dated interpretation.
wtf, the name thing again? Did you go back to age 13? -_-; I had just gained a small amount of respect for you too.
Also, Inuyasha since you decided to try to make "pharmakeus" directly correlated to magic, I might as well wiki-pwn you, since that's an easy one.
Quote:
A Pharmakós (Greek: φαρμακός) in Ancient Greek religion was a kind of human scapegoat (a slave, a cripple or a criminal) who was chosen and expelled from the community at times of disaster (famine, invasion or plague) or at times of calendrical crisis, when purification was needed.
Pharmakos and Pharmacology
The term "pharmakos" later became the term "pharmakeus" which refers to "a drug, spell-giving potion, druggist, poisoner, by extension a magician or a sorcerer."[3] A variation of this term is "pharmakon" (φάρμακον) a complex term meaning sacrament, remedy, poison, talisman, cosmetic, perfume or intoxicant.[4] From this, the modern term "pharmacology" emerged.
So you either hate and shouldn't use medicine ever again, or you have to accept that you shouldn't take the bible literally and treat it as a dated interpretation.
wtf, the name thing again? Did you go back to age 13? -_-; I had just gained a small amount of respect for you too.
I don't respect you right now because you sidestep what I say without actually responding to it.
and no need for spoilers, you are just being inherently foolish and stubborn about something silly like magic.
again, since modern medicine was considered to be magic, why do you use it? if you do and you believe it should be taken literally you're going to hell you know that right?
let me simplify this:
i'm just trying to get you to admit that it shouldn't be taken literally.
I don't believe it's a stretch to not take the bible literally while still believing in the core tenets of it.
You can feel insulted about how condescending I'm being, but you haven't really given me any reason not to, since you haven't actually replied.
Let me know when you finish reading the bible from cover to cover. Will be nice to have another atheist in the mix.
So you've read it cover to cover?
I was a christian missionary in India and Youth Pastor before I became an atheist. I've been to seminary.
So ya, I've read the bible a few times, and studied it a few different languages.
It's a major reason why I'm an atheist. Getting educated in physics/biology and working in the science field over the last decade just solidified that premise.
I have. Genesis to Revelations (I hear that in that Christian Rap stuff music voice whenever I say that LMFAO)!
I'm thinking over what you said. It's interesting.
Same, though I think I've forgotten more than I remember.
bah, out with the old in with the new!
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
I was a christian missionary in India and Youth Pastor before I became an atheist. I've been to seminary.
So ya, I've read the bible a few times, and studied it a few different languages.
It's a major reason why I'm an atheist. Getting educated in physics/biology and working in the science field over the last decade just solidified that premise.
that(bolded) would be what I would be most interested in.
Ya that's one reason why half of seminary students become atheists:
The modern version of the bible is almost a completely different book compared to the various compilations of texts that were used to create it. The meaning, intent, and even complete passages are completely different. Not to mention half the original texts were lost and "re-written" by various christian followers.
Most people in seminary can't really deal with the fact that almost every aspect of their religion that they've learned isn't true.
The other half convince themselves that the allegories in the current version are good enough to justify their continued desire to believe in a personal deity.
Right, so getting back to the Santa Claus is real thing, I was five when my older brother told me that santa claus wasn't real and when I didn't believe him, we snuck downstairs and saw my parets putting christmas presents under the tree rather than Santa Claus doing it as I had been told happened. Thereby proving his point that santa claus was fake.
And this revalation, that parents lied about stupid things, made me question everything they ever told me about everything and therefore question God's existance and religion etc.
What I couldn't understand was the purpose of the lie. What was the point? Near as I can make out they lied to me because their parents had lied to them as far back as anyone cared to remember, which really isn't very far when you think about it. How many people know who their great grandmother's father's name? But that is a different story.
Anyways, one day I am in an Eastern Orthadox church and there is an icon, a painting of Saint Nick - sans red suit, elves and magic flying reindeer. Just some old guy. An old priest sees me looking at the painting and starts talking about how the painting is of Saint Nick who did alot of nice things including gaving some poor guy some money so he would have a dowry for his daughter and that's why his picture is there...
He was explaining it to me as if I had never heard about Santa claus
like "oh yeah he was a nice guy and so we put his picture up on the wall" Which made me think about the possibility that Saint Nick may have been real, an actual person and only the stories about him were untrue, at least the flying sleigh and the ability to spy on you when you were being naughty parts.
Maybe there really was a guy they called santa claus and everyone just has all the facts wrong but only because they were told them wrong by people who didn't know any better. And this gets a little heavy but even if he is not real he is probably more real than I will ever be in sense of how many people's lives are influenced by him as opposed to me. And so in all likelyhood santa claus probably is real.
Can I prove to you that he existed unequivicably using scientific method? No, but then I don't really care if you believe in him or not and in fact his existance or non existance doesn't hinge on our belief anyways.
Right, the important thing is you laughed at my previous post when I said santa claus was real but hopefully after reading this you are open minded and curious enough to entertain the idea that their is a possibility that saint nick aka santa claus existed.
Ya that's one reason why half of seminary students become atheists:
The modern version of the bible is almost a completely different book compared to the various compilations of texts that were used to create it. The meaning, intent, and even complete passages are completely different. Not to mention half the original texts were lost and "re-written" by various christian followers.
Most people in seminary can't really deal with the fact that almost every aspect of their religion that they've learned isn't true.
The other half convince themselves that the allegories in the current version are good enough to justify their continued desire to believe in a personal deity.
Right, so getting back to the Santa Claus is real thing, I was five when my older brother told me that santa claus wasn't real and when I didn't believe him, we snuck downstairs and saw my parets putting christmas presents under the tree rather than Santa Claus doing it as I had been told happened. Thereby proving his point that santa claus was fake.
And this revalation, that parents lied about stupid things, made me question everything they ever told me about everything and therefore question God's existance and religion etc.
What I couldn't understand was the purpose of the lie. What was the point? Near as I can make out they lied to me because their parents had lied to them as far back as anyone cared to remember, which really isn't very far when you think about it. How many people know who their great grandmother's father's name? But that is a different story.
Anyways, one day I am in an Eastern Orthadox church and there is an icon, a painting of Saint Nick - sans red suit, elves and magic flying reindeer. Just some old guy. An old priest sees me looking at the painting and starts talking about how the painting is of Saint Nick who did alot of nice things including gaving some poor guy some money so he would have a dowry for his daughter and that's why his picture is there...
He was explaining it to me as if I had never heard about Santa claus
like "oh yeah he was a nice guy and so we put his picture up on the wall" Which made me think about the possibility that Saint Nick may have been real, an actual person and only the stories about him were untrue, at least the flying sleigh and the ability to spy on you when you were being naughty parts.
Maybe there really was a guy they called santa claus and everyone just has all the facts wrong but only because they were told them wrong by people who didn't know any better. And this gets a little heavy but even if he is not real he is probably more real than I will ever be in sense of how many people's lives are influenced by him as opposed to me. And so in all likelyhood santa claus probably is real.
Can I prove to you that he existed unequivicably using scientific method? No, but then I don't really care if you believe in him or not and in fact his existance or non existance doesn't hinge on our belief anyways.
Right, the important thing is you laughed at my previous post when I said santa claus was real but hopefully after reading this you are open minded and curious enough to entertain the idea that their is a possibility that saint nick aka santa claus existed.
I'm damn sure he isn't jumping into every chimney across the globe on the 25th, that santa clause doesn't exist lol.
Just curious, but what do you guys do that allows you to post on here so much? I'm on here cause my current job sucks and I'm basically paying off two years of work for a college degree.
I was a christian missionary in India and Youth Pastor before I became an atheist. I've been to seminary.
So ya, I've read the bible a few times, and studied it a few different languages.
It's a major reason why I'm an atheist. Getting educated in physics/biology and working in the science field over the last decade just solidified that premise.
Now I'm interested again. Where was your final divide when it came to theology? There had to be a breaking point. What was that for you?
Vin and I both posted our breaking points with organized religion in another thread. What was yours?
I'm damn sure he isn't jumping into every chimney across the globe on the 25th, that santa clause doesn't exist lol.
Right, but just because someone lied about him doesn't make him unreal.
Did I say that he wasn't real?
No.
I said the version of him jumping into all the chimneys across the globe isn't real.
That's a version of St. Nick my friend.
Just curious, but what do you guys do that allows you to post on here so much? I'm on here cause my current job sucks and I'm basically paying off two years of work for a college degree.
I do tech support, you gonna reply to my whole magic being relative to the time the relevation was written or are you going to continue to ignore that?
A simple reply would suffice, i just am curious where you really stand on that with the information that has already been provided.
zahrah said:
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
I was a christian missionary in India and Youth Pastor before I became an atheist. I've been to seminary.
So ya, I've read the bible a few times, and studied it a few different languages.
It's a major reason why I'm an atheist. Getting educated in physics/biology and working in the science field over the last decade just solidified that premise.
Now I'm interested again. Where was your final divide when it came to theology? There had to be a breaking point. What was that for you?
Vin and I both posted our breaking points with organized religion in another thread. What was yours?
Just curious, but what do you guys do that allows you to post on here so much? I'm on here cause my current job sucks and I'm basically paying off two years of work for a college degree.
I'm too busy not getting hired during my summer vacation! :D
Now I'm interested again. Where was your final divide when it came to theology? There had to be a breaking point. What was that for you?
Vin and I both posted our breaking points with organized religion in another thread. What was yours?
Mostly the history of the Hebrew faith and the origins of most of the old testament (most of the Hebrew faith is derived from the Hittites). Once you take away the actual origin of the Jewish theology and learn a bit of the actual history on Jesus, it's clear that the current narrative of this solid Hebrew faith (chosen people) that later birthed the messiah is COMPLETELY false and is just a conglomerate of other culture's faiths, with a mix of hebrew history and some good allegorical lessons (and bad ones).
Having my understanding of the Hebrew history shaken up, I began researching the topic HEAVILY and determined that christianity was false (especially current versions of it, which have no relation to early versions of it).
I then began my studies into physics/evolution, since I had naively spent so much of my life arguing with people that those concepts were fake (because I was so faithful).
So basically: Study of religion and history made me question theism (turned me into an agnostic, part atheist). Study of science turned me into a hard atheist.
