Religious Prophecy (Religion)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 13, 2010, 12:42 (5183 days ago) @ xeno6696

Why wouldn't I like it? You were honest :)
> > 
> 
> Well... I typically meet resistance when I talk about doubt. 
> -Resistance is generally part of that arrogance bit I keep harping about. People resist because they think they are right. The beauty of being agnostic is being able to truly and honestly say, "I don't know, and that's OK." Of all the different positions, it is the only one that doesn't presume to possess more certainty then it actually does, leaving the mind open to learning instead of closed to all positions but its own.-> > 
> 
> If I were a religious man in this day and age, I can honestly say the hermetic path would definitely be the one I would take. Have you ever had a pop at Sacred Geometry? Sadly I haven't but I've been using what little I HAVE found in a novel I started on a couple years back. 
> -I well and truly hate the term 'religious'. It carries that negative connotation of organized theology which to me is antithetical to learning and wisdom. If you like esoteric teaching, check out 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' by Manly P. Hall 1928. It is a wonderful encyclopedia of information that, while extremely informative, is not preachy or overly biased.-> > 
> 
> The analysis is excellent and well-said; but it doesn't answer my deeper question of how are we to know what is the correct interpretation? Picking on Daniel again, what from the 4 gospels fulfils Daniel's prophecies regarding the "Son of Man?" To me, there simply is too much interpretation going on here. Someone here quoted Thomas Paine recently... something like "Only the person who receives the revelation acquires knowledge... everyone else from the 2nd, 3rd, ... nth telling gets secondhand hearsay." 
> -Well, I would say the best way to interpret this, unfortunately, is to look at it in hindsight. A possibility now more than it has ever been in history. A really great book on this was Revelation: A Grand Climax produced by the JW's. I didn't 100% agree with their interpretation, but to be fair, they have made revisions as they learn more, so at least they aren't claiming infallible wisdom or knowledge.-> At any rate, 1:20 and 1:21 together comprise an opposing viewpoint to my own, if for no other reason than the failed prophecy in Ezekiel that I mentioned. "The one true God" wouldn't say he would do something and then not deliver. 
> 
Reading over Ezekial again for a refresher... It's been a while-> Going back to my main point, how are we to trust prophecy when we are so culturally and linguistically distant from the prophet(s) that we cannot begin to comprehend them? Going back to the time before canonization, to the 30yrs after Christ's death, if John thought that his revelation was meant to talk about Rome, than who are we to say that his revelation is for today? Shouldn't John's interpretation supercede ours? 
> 
> Or what about all the "Fufilled prophecies" marking the "end of days" at AD 1000? Or how about the Mayans stating that the world was going to end in 600AD? (don't get me started on 2012...)
> 
That would have been an interpretation wouldn't it? Most prophecies are vague by nature. -
> 
> Whether or not you hate the Catholic Church, I hope you realize that the "Canonization" had really already begun quite some time before Emperor Constantine, and during the time when Revelation was nearly rejected as canon, the church was enemies with the Roman state? (I suggest Constantine's Bible, if you haven't already read it.) Catholics, though having corrupted much leading up to the enlightenment, do have a strong argument in that the four churches of the apostolic fathers are within their fold. The argument for their supremacy came from a Greek tradition of deferring to the masters of (philosophical school "x"). It is argued that correct interpretation belongs to those who have the closest ties to the original author. We can like it or not, but all roads really do lead to Rome if you agree with that sentiment. I'm getting my Master's in computer science, do you trust my word on sociology or football? Or how about if we talk about programming? Do I not have obvious talents that means I should be trusted for one thing and not another?-
The problems I have with the Catholic Church are many, but I would not say I hate them. I think pity would be more of an appropriate term. Like I say about science, they have let their arrogance get the best of them, and have forgotten that the very first lesson in the Bible is actually about humility. In fact, nearly every religion has as their first lesson, humility. And, contrary to popular criticism, it is not because they want to subjugate the worshipers (though it may have evolved into that later) but because without humility your mind is closed.-
I use the netbible.org, primarily because as far as I know, it has no direct affiliation with any major religious organization and the translators notes are clear and concise, not only presenting varying viewpoints on a translation, but explaining the linguistic rules constructs used in his own.