The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[david_x]

If I ever decided to make a request-prayer, the evidence tells me it would be ineffective in bringing about said request. Indeed, it is a tenant of Wicca to 'use magick as a last resort', to do things ourselves before we defer to divinities and supernatural forces.

Our prayer is fundementally different than that. It is not something we actually stop doing. It is something like a conversation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Our prayer is fundementally different than that. It is not something we actually stop doing. It is something like a conversation.

Which is why I say request-prayer, not prayer. I'm aware that the latter includes simple communication to your god. Nevertheless, request-prayer is as I said:a deference to divinities and supernatural forces.

 

[PeacaHeaven]

What good is a prayer if no god exists to hear it?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

What good is a prayer if no god exists to hear it?

Indeed, and there is such joy in knowing that when we talk to God, He is actually listening to us! Who are we that He would care for us? Yet He does. He loves and cares and we can tell Him anything.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Because the cult of Mithras grew up at around the same time the cult of Jesus. A prophesy is someone saying 'A will happen', and later on, A does happen*. The myths of Jesus' birth and of Mithras' birth grew up simultaneously; the latter myth wasn't a 'portent' of the former.

But why do people assume that Christianity was somehow derived from this cult? It's more likely that it was the other way around. There is more historical evidence for Christianity than for this myth about Mithras.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But why do people assume that Christianity was somehow derived from this cult?

They don't. The 'Mithras argument' is to counter the claim that Christianity is unique, that is is founded on a historical event, etc. Indeed, the similarities between Christianity, religions that exist(ed) at it's founding, and religions that existed before it's founding, cast doubt on the NT itself: if it is a patchwork of myths lifted from other faiths, how can one trust the core message?

It's more likely that it was the other way around.

What makes you say that?

There is more historical evidence for Christianity than for this myth about Mithras.

What do you mean, 'for Christianity'? Are you referring to the resurrection? To the existance of Jesus?
Also, what evidence are you talking about?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

First of all, it is God's fault we are naturally sceptical of extraordinary beliefs: he created us, did he not?

Why do you assume that He created this particular trait in us? It could be a product of the Fall or of the way we are raised and taught about the world.

Second, are you suggesting that blind faith is preferable to critical analysis?

No matter how much 'critical analysis' you use, you would still need to make the decision to believe, and this decision feels a lot like a 'leap of faith'. Critical analysis won't force you to believe, although it can help make it seem more reasonable (as it did for me).
What is 'critical analysis' based on? It's mostly based on how we were taught to use logic and is the product of our society and 'modern thought'. It's good for facts, but not always for Truth.

Third, why doesn't God manifest on Earth today? Like you said, it would still be a matter of choice whether someone believes or not.

Because when He comes again, He would come as a King, not like the first time. We would see glory that we can't even imagine now. And then, you wouldn't have a choice...you would see that He's real, and that would either be inexpressible joy or pain.
Some people insist that they'll only believe in God if they see Him, but what good would that do? If they were unbelievers till that moment, how could they possibly feel joy at seeing Him? His presence would be like hell, unless they'll repent...I have no idea if they'd want to, or not.

It's considered better because it teaches us to be self-sufficient, rather than relying on powerful and tempermental forces. Wicca itself doesn't require the use of spells; it is in fact witchcraft that teaches spellcraft. The two are very similar in theological beliefs, but they are still fundamentally different.

Oki. By the way, Christianity teaches sort of the opposite, lol..that we don't need to be self sufficient because we have a God who made us to be with Him. Self sufficiency is seen sort of like pride. But God is not temperamental, but unchanging and reliable.

What is your view on gods, on your god?

wow well let's see how to summarize this....I believe in One God in three Persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Someone once said the Trinity is kind of like the sun: the Father is the sun, the Son is the light, and the Holy Spirit is the warmth from the sun...still one sun though. God is love. I believe that He's eternal, existed before Creation, and is in charge of the world..except He gave us choices. Some are in accordance with His laws, and lead to life, some are in opposition, and lead to death...sort of like how jumping off a building would kill someone, and even though it's because of gravity, you can't blame it for the person's choice.
Is that what you meant?

Why not?

If He had forgotten about our sins "just like that", it wouldn't be very just because other people suffered from our sins! Would you like a judge that let a criminal go if you were the victim?

But why the whole commotion before, during, and after the Crucifixion? Apparently the events were necessary, but I don't see why.

You mean, why were these events necessary? Well..here's how I see it: it's sort of like a law in the universe, if you do something bad you pay for it (sort of like 'karma', maybe). But we owe a debt that we cant' pay off, it's simply too big. So God took on our sins and paid it for us. And by dying, He destroyed death, to bring us life. This is the simplified version...I think there's much more to it, and the theology gets complicated sometimes. But shortly, it was necessary because we aren't able to save ourselves.

But why does he want us to choose to come to him?

<my opinion> Because then, we would serve Him out of love, not because we were forced into it. God is love, and the world was made to receive His love..but we were made in His image, so we have some of His characteristics: like consciousness, morality, and love. When we love, we participate in His nature and live according to 'how the world was made'. </my opinion>

If my Christian theology serves me, he is above the Law, but chose to obey it. If the Law no longer serves his purpose, why not simply change the Law, instead of changing his purpose?

I don't really get what it means that "He's above the Law". Surely, the Law is an expression of His nature? He's perfectly good and just, and if He had changed the law, it would no longer 'fit' His nature. It would be a..good God creating an evil law to do something good for us. It makes no sense.

I don't understand. Are you saying Hell is our own creation? A byproduct of sin?

The latter.

I'll finish later *off to dinner*

cheers
monica

 

[david_x]

Which is why I say request-prayer, not prayer. I'm aware that the latter includes simple communication to your god. Nevertheless, request-prayer is as I said:a deference to divinities and supernatural forces.

Oh, well you have been misinformed by the world masquerading as the Church.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh, well you have been misinformed by the world masquerading as the Church.

By all means, fill me in on what you consider the truth to be.

 

[david_x]

By all means, fill me in on what you consider the truth to be.

Well it is what I already said. A conversation, "pray without ceasing." It is a moral booster and a way to ask God for spiritual strength and guidence. It is our heritege and our future.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well it is what I already said. A conversation, "pray without ceasing." It is a moral booster and a way to ask God for spiritual strength and guidence. It is our heritege and our future.

So prayer cannot be used to ask God to interevene on Earth?

 

[KCDAD]

So prayer cannot be used to ask God to interevene on Earth?

If by that you mean that some giant person comes to Earth and magically changes something... no. That is not what prayer is for.

If you mean can it be used to unify and motivate the body of believers to be God's hands to change something through effort and hard work on Earth... yes. That is what the church is for.

 

[david_x]

So prayer cannot be used to ask God to interevene on Earth?

It can be, but God's plan is far more importent in prayer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It can be, but God's plan is far more importent in prayer.

If by that you mean that some giant person comes to Earth and magically changes something... no. That is not what prayer is for.

On the contrary, Matthew 7:7, 17:20, 18:19, 21:21, and Mark 11:24, all state that if you ask for something, and have faith, it will be given to you (indeed, the tiniest amount of faith can move mountains, apparently).

If you mean can it be used to unify and motivate the body of believers to be God's hands to change something through effort and hard work on Earth... yes. That is what the church is for.

Wonderful. Except, we're talking about prayer, not Church.

 

[david_x]

On the contrary, Matthew 7:7, 17:20, 18:19, 21:21, and Mark 11:24, all state that if you ask for something, and have faith, it will be given to you (indeed, the tiniest amount of faith can move mountains, apparently).

That is not contrary at all. I just said that that is not the focus.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is not contrary at all. I just said that that is not the focus.

The verses say nothing of God's plan. Or is this in the smallprint?

 

[KCDAD]

On the contrary, Matthew 7:7, 17:20, 18:19, 21:21, and Mark 11:24, all state that if you ask for something, and have faith, it will be given to you (indeed, the tiniest amount of faith can move mountains, apparently).

I will not repeat my explanation of Middle Eastern idioms...go back and read it. Jesus is not talking about moving mountains.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I will not repeat my explanation of Middle Eastern idioms...go back and read it. Jesus is not talking about moving mountains.

Either way, rather a blow against Biblical literalists

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I will not repeat my explanation of Middle Eastern idioms...go back and read it. Jesus is not talking about moving mountains.

I must have missed it. Besides, my argument is against literalism. If he is not talking of moving mountains, and there is no indication from the text that he is talking in parable, then the text cannot be literally true.

 

[david_x]

The verses say nothing of God's plan. Or is this in the smallprint?

The bible is meant to be taken as a whole. You can't pull out one or two versus and think they will mean something by themselves. It takes the spirit to truly translate the versus anyway.

I must have missed it. Besides, my argument is against literalism. If he is not talking of moving mountains, and there is no indication from the text that he is talking in parable, then the text cannot be literally true.

Not commiting an act does not mean it can not be done.