Religeon vs Faith

[Yip]

Hmm...  I guess the easiest way to answer this would be to say,   "Wrong,"  but i think that actually backing up what I'm saying instead of just denying your opinion would be the better way to go about this.

Wrong about what? Since you failed to backup your statement I was arguing against, I'll guessing you mean I'm wrong that you were off topic. But I never said that you were. I was saying that my response would be since I was dealing specifically with the animal sacrifice bit.

What I was explaining there was not exclusive to the Bible,  as you could see if you were more thorough in reading my post:

In your post, you were clearly talking about covenants of the Jews. And even if you widen it to other cultures at the time, you are still mischaracterizing the part played by animal sacrifice.

It was not done "as if to say, should I break this covenant,  may what happens to me be worse than what happened to this animal".  To say it that way is to make light of the true purpose, the true barbaric nature it.

At any rate, I think if we are going to carry on this line of conversation further, we should do it via PM.

[Alsek]

At any rate, I think if we are going to carry on this line of conversation further, we should do it via PM.

No,  if people are misunderstanding me this badly,  i'd rather handle it here,  because,  as i said,  it's a large part of my beleif system.

I was talking about the Covenants between God with Abraham,  God with the Jews,   and God with whoever was willing...  But you can not understand the concepts i am trying to explain untill you know what a covenant IS.  Trying to explain Covenant to someone in western culture i imagin is like trying to explain fine dining to a secluded native tribe in the amazon.  It's hard to understand,  and it's abstract.  Therefore,  i explain what it is before using it in a sentance.  If you don't don't know what a covenant is and i say,  "God made a covenant with Abraham,"  there is no posible way for you to understand how profound a statment that is.   That being as powerful and all knowing as God would make such an increadibly binding promise with something far less powerful,  and compleatly undeserving like a human.

[Yip]

@Alsek:  that entire last post had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm not complaining about your definition of a covenant. I'm specifically pointing out that you are mischaracterizing the part played by animal sacrifice.

Or are you trying to say that animal sacrifice is a big part of your belief system?

[edited to correct spelling/grammar errors]

[Alexandre]

Let me chime in about animal sacrifice.  In all honesty, I think both Vararam and Alsek are correct at some level, specifically with these statements:

Animal was sacrificed,  As if to say,  hould I break this covenant,  May what happens to me be worse than what happened to this animal.

and

The Bible is very clear that the animals were sacrificed to appease God. The smell of the offering is "a sweet savour unto the LORD".  There is a very strong message throughout the Bible that "sins" are transferable.

The reason I agree with both of these in regards to Christianity is because those people that broke major covenants were not able to participate in the sacrifices.  That is, they were not able to transfer their sins to a third-party (a scapegoat that, in the Christian interpretation, represented Jesus Christ).  By breaking covenants, they would have to remain with their sins and, thus, be punished spiritually the same way the goat was punished physically -- that is, receive a "spiritual death" or "hell".

I think this confusion about what was being discussed came from a misinterpretation earlier on.  Anyway, I agree with Vararam that this is a little off topic, so let's get back to the original questions:

I guess what I'm saying in this rant/debate premise is: How do you feel about religeon and faith? Can one fully exist without the other? Are more people treating thier religeons and religeous texts as gods rather than the gods they serve? Should religeous texts be treated as infallible manuals for life or should they simply be seen as a guidebook of sorts, while real answers should come from prayer and cousel with god?

[Avan]

That's what the original question was? 

In that case, my response would be; I'm the one WRITING the text (which is very clear and explicit - devoid of metaphores, literary devices, etc.) - It is written like an instruction manual - clear and concise.

[Alsek]

Erf,  my posts were about the place of the law in the bible and explaining how it fits in...   

_{"I guess what I'm saying in this rant/debate premise is: How do you feel about religeon and faith? Can one fully exist without the other? Are more people treating thier religeons and religeous texts as gods rather than the gods they serve? Should religeous texts be treated as infallible manuals for life or should they simply be seen as a guidebook of sorts, while real answers should come from prayer and cousel with god?"}

Depends on the religion.  Christianity can not exist in a functional way without faith.


Faith however is not dependent on religion.  You can have faith in a close friend.

faith: –noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in anther's ability.


In Christianity,  we see the Bible as the word of God.  God is not going to contradict his own word,  so the two should agree anyhow.  The problem is when people don't understand or miss-interpret the Bible.

Now that I've explained what, “the law,” actually is in previous posts (a part of a covenant promise to the Jews) ,  it makes sense to say that I can get a pretty good idea of what God expects from me from the law.  But, that the law is for us,   not to bind us.  God comes first.

[Yip]

Faith however is not dependent on religion.  You can have faith in a close friend.

faith: –noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in anther's ability.

That's a very broad definition of faith. Faith in a friend is not the same as faith in a religion. You place "faith" in a friend because you know the friend, and can therefore use inference to know what they would or wouldn't do. Faith as applied to religion is different. If it was the same, the phrase "you just got to have faith" wouldn't exist. Used in that way, it's clearly saying "you just got to believe it even though you don't have a good reason".  Yes, the meanings get blurred sometimes, but there is a distinct difference.

It's like people that say, "you have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow". No, I have a reasonable expectation that the sun will come up tomorrow. I have confidence based on past experience and what I know of how the universe works that the sun come up tomorrow. But I don't have faith.

In Christianity,  we see the Bible as the word of God.  God is not going to contradict his own word,  so the two should agree anyhow.  The problem is when people don't understand or miss-interpret the Bible.

I'd argue that the problem is when people DO understand the bible, and follow it anyway.

Oh, and I also wanted to mention, after talking with Alsek over PM, the animal sacrifice thing appears to have been based on a misunderstanding. I still think Alsek is mischaracterizing it, but whatever.