|
| Thread: what relievence does religion have now? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted July 20, 2009 01:26 PM |
|
|
Nonono.
Quote:
Bishop Ussher, in a remarkably scholarly attempt well before the advent of modern day geological thinking, estimated the age of the Earth by counting up all the generations in the Old testament, plus a few adjustments here and there. He came up with a date for Genesis at just over 6000 years BC (that's 8000 years old).
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 02:13 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 14:16, 20 Jul 2009.
|
@ Baklava
Bishop Ussher's way of determining the age of the earth was invalid. He did not realize that the meaning of the word translated "beget" does not always mean a father-son relationship. It can mean "descendant of." It is also readily apparent that the "days" of creation could well mean ages instead of a literal 24 hour day.
Quote:
You can be a Christian that understands that the Bible has, above all, undergone 2 millenniums of social and political editing, that those in power constantly revised it and kicked out things they didn't need (various apocrypha, Black Sea scrolls etc.), and that perhaps some important things about Jesus' teachings that didn't fit the people on the top were simply extinguished.
We know from the many thousands of manuscripts that we have the original words of the Bible to 99.9% accuracy. The variations are mostly misspellings and such trivial things.
The false books like the gnostic gospels that were were written long after Christ were rejected. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered relatively recently in several different caves and were a collection of Biblical texts and other writings. The apocrypha was never considered inspired. There is no evidence that anything Jesus said was extinguished.
Quote:
You can be a Christian that follows Christ, that follows what is good and what he feels is pure, and yet not put all your faith in idolizing a book or a city or an earthly institution. I think Jesus was exactly against that.
A book is not to be idolized. But Jesus refereed to the Old Covenant writings as the Word/Commandments of God. The apostles acknowledged the New Testament as given by God. The early church held the New Testament writings to be God's Word.
Quote:
Please note, in my previous posts I solely mentioned the Old Testament. However, I have serious troubles connecting it to the New one; I for one am not quite sure if Jesus followed the Old Testament so closely either. His teachings were radically different from those found there and thus, the New Testament was forged. I have read and liked the New Testament - I have even based many motives in my life according to it. And I definitely think there is something to it.
The Old Testament writings describe the Old Covenant and various historical occurrences. The Old Covenant were between God and Israel. The Old Covenant prophets predicted the New Covenant would be established by Christ, who would die for our sins. The basis of the teachings of Jesus are all found in the Old Covenant writings though he expounded on the deeper meaning of some things.
Quote:
But Christ taught not to follow Rabbis and similar which he viewed as insincere earthly authority; and that is exactly what the Catholic and some other Christian churches have become.
He warned about false prophets (Mat 7:15 to 7:23, and some other places). And the Church has, ironically, always taught everyone to look for them outside the Church.
I agree we are to follow Christ. But Christ put apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in his church . We are to obey those who have the rule over us. Yes, there are wolves in the flock. Which is why it is important to study the Bible and have a relationship with Christ for yourself.
Quote:
Quote:
"A Christian should certainly "think with hiw own head." But if your own head tells you differently than the Bible, you own head is wrong."
See what I'm talking about.
Now, that's a view that turned away so many people from not only Christianity but all the other religions in the world.
No, I don't. You seem to attatch little to no authority to Scripture.
Quote:
I don't think I'm less of a Christian just because I hate it when people see God as a deity that commands people to sacrifice living beings to it.
The fact is the Old Covenant commanded the Jews to sacrifice animals. The New Coveant confirms that the Old Covenant commands were from God.
Quote:
That needs to be regarded in the context of that age; the Old Testament was, above all, a rulebook - a set of laws for the nation of Israel. They functioned that way and incorporated laws in religion for those laws to be more powerful. Do you see God commanding anyone anything in our time? Certainly not in the way it was told in the Old Testament.
There are lots of commands in the New Testament writings also. Yes, God commands us the same as he did back then.
Quote:
1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Quote:
I have never said it is alright to kill a human baby, that's just how you're presenting it to yourself in order to out-moral me. I was talking about the early first trimester.
The human life cycle begins with a single cell organism that is the union of an egg and sperm. Cell multiplication rapidly follows so it is alive. It has human DNA so the organism is a human life.
Quote:
As presented in the Bible, written by humans, God looks human, God talks like a human and God values humans over everything else.
Figures of speech are used. God is a Spirit. He fills all of space and time. The Spirit of God has no form. He has manifested himself locally in many ways however.
The Bible was written through humans. God inspired the Bible. Humans did not dream up the Bible.
Quote:
I believe that God has set up a path we need to follow. But we can't reach that path until we ourselves figure it out. Without God or anyone else constantly pushing us in the right way and thinking instead of us, because that way we'll never learn. And how we treat other life is one of the cornerstones in that path.
God reveals himself. God has given us his Word. God pushes us. God woos us and draws us. God guides us. He has not left us without direction.
Quote:
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Quote:
And no, I don't believe the Bible is false. Far from it. There has even, perhaps, been some divine inspiration to it. There are many truths in it, and many good attitudes - primarily in the New Testament. But I am an agnostic Christian - meaning I tend to believe in a higher power, and I adore Jesus as a person and his teachings, but I am aware I can know very little of it.
The term "agnostic Christian" is an oxymoron. To be a Christian according to the Bible one must believe that Jesus is God. The confession of Christianity is "Jesus is Lord (God.)" Jesus is both man and God.
Quote:
Some say Christ is the son of God, some say all of us are sons of God, I will be the first to admit that I don't know, and that it doesn't really matter. Christ didn't want anyone to worship him, Christ wanted people to be better to each other and enlighten themselves about some important things in life - and that's what I think Christianity is about. That's why I love him.
I have to disagree that it dosn't matter how one sees Jesus. Jesus received worship and said that he is God. Certainly we are to treat each other well and become better people.
Quote:
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 02:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The variations are mostly misspellings and such trivial things.
Thousands of years of translating and editing by people who have gain out of editing... Yeah, if you think that all words and intents are 99.9% of the orginal, then... Maybe you're wrong... Just maybe!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 03:00 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:01, 20 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The variations are mostly misspellings and such trivial things.
Thousands of years of translating and editing by people who have gain out of editing... Yeah, if you think that all words and intents are 99.9% of the orginal, then... Maybe you're wrong... Just maybe!
Below is an except from an article about this subject. The article is short. Perhaps you should take a few minutes to read it.
Click here
Quote:
On the average, Old Testament documents yield about one variation per page of text; New Testament manuscripts yield only a tenth of one percent variance. In other words, 99.9% of those manuscripts are in perfect agreement.
Though an occasional scribe altered a text to be copied, the resulting deviant copy constitutes only an infrequent departure from the plethora of copies available for corroborating comparison. Even as later copyists unknowingly passed on certain aberrations, appeals to still earlier or more reliable documents still preserve the original message.
Thanks to textual criticism and on-going archaeological discoveries, even as time passes far beyond the date of the original writings, we may be confident that the Bible of today is a fully trustworthy duplication of the original autographs.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 03:08 PM |
|
|
It provides an excellent example of my point:
The original verse says: thou shalt not murder.
But many have interpreted it thou shalt not kill in modern days, despite the fact that thou shalt not murder is the correct verse. This is not a correct translation and, though the stories may be correct, the phrasing would be incorrect and since some words don't have an exact translation in other languages meanings and interpretations of certain verses would be twisted. See how this goes?
Don't care about textual criticism, as someone who had a bit of fun studying ancient medieval texts (the oldest are barely 700 years old) I know that translations easily go awry, unless you start translating from the original source again.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 03:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The variations are mostly misspellings and such trivial things.
In Norwegian teaching of language we got this rule of puncations and pauses:
Drep han ikke, jeg kommer
Drep han, ikke kommer jeg
Its a bit more senteance correct that this, what i point at is the point. Shall we kill or not kill? Its after all 1 puncation in difference here 
Add on the age stacking, well thats not so valid since we would have to count in translations away from orginal source.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 03:31 PM |
|
|
Interesting.
Things which do NOT fit in Elodin's view of the world are called "translation errors", while other things which ONLY fit in his view are named "written in the bible".
Cherry picker anyone?....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 09:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Cherry picker anyone?....
don't look at me!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 20, 2009 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It provides an excellent example of my point:
The original verse says: thou shalt not murder.
But many have interpreted it thou shalt not kill in modern days, despite the fact that thou shalt not murder is the correct verse. This is not a correct translation and, though the stories may be correct, the phrasing would be incorrect and since some words don't have an exact translation in other languages meanings and interpretations of certain verses would be twisted. See how this goes?
Don't care about textual criticism, as someone who had a bit of fun studying ancient medieval texts (the oldest are barely 700 years old) I know that translations easily go awry, unless you start translating from the original source again.
"Thou shalt not kill"
- Exodus 20:13
"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his
side... and slay every man his brother..."
- Exodus 32:27
So, which one?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 12:27 AM |
|
|
Interesting... I have to read that old testament somde day...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 12:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"Thou shalt not kill"
- Exodus 20:13
"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his
side... and slay every man his brother..."
- Exodus 32:27
So, which one?
You used a bad translation of Exodus 20:13. In the original language it says "Thou shat not murder." You may note that in the next chapter it says murderers and ceretain others are to be executed.
Quote:
Exo 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
You have given a partial quoting of Exodus 32 and have lifted it out of the context of the passage. God ordered the people who had rebelled against him to be executed. Those who chose to stand with Moses executed the rebels.
Quote:
Exo 32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
Exo 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
@ Angelito
Your accusations are unfounded and untrue. I study the Bible diligently and try to keep everything in context.
Also please refrain from making comments about a person and address their points instead.
@ DagothGares and Del_Diablo
Neither Hebrew nor the Greek of the time had punctuation in the language. The word "kill" in the passage is properly translate murder. And as I quoted abouve in the next chapter (the Bible also was not written in chapters and verses) certain violations of the law called for the offender to be executed.
Quote:
H7523
øöç
râtsach
raw-tsakh'
A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 01:14 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
Ok, so the Old Testament doesn't say it's wrong to kill but to murder - but, uhm...
It's still wrong to kill anyhow, isn't it?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 01:17 AM |
|
|
Well, Bible verses should not be understood as God's law for all time periods. Some verses are specific to the culture and time they were written, and are no longer viewed as appropriate, which tends to prove than people living at that moment wrote it, and not a supernatural force with a long term vision.
The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon had 1000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Bible. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.
Or maybe there is again a translation problem?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 05:51 AM |
|
|
@ Baklava
No, it is not always wrong to kill someone. In war it is not wrong for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier. It is not wrong to kill in self defense or to defend others. It is not wrong to execute criminals.
@ Salamandre
No, all of the Bible is not for all time periods. The Old Covenat ceremonial law and civil penalties were for the Old Covenant Jews.
Quote:
The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife.
That is untrue. All sex outside the marriage covenant is said to be sin. In the Old Covenant both the man and the prostitute would be stoned to death.
Quote:
Polygamy is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines.
Untrue. Sort of. God tolerated polygamy in the Old Covenant. It was God's will that one man and one woman marry.
The Bible does not specificly say why polygamy was allowed in the Old Testament. One could speculate that it was a way of making sure women were provided for.
1) There have always been more women than men. In ancient societies war wiped out many men so the gap was even larger.
2) It was hard in ancient societies for a woman to provide for herself.
3) To physically protect the woman.
4) Polygamy allowed for the population to grow more quickly.
God restored marriage to his original intention in the New Covenant.
Quote:
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Quote:
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Quote:
Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Bible.
The whole world allowed slavery.
God allowed slavery for the same reason he allowed divorce. Because of the hardness of the hearts of men.
The whole world allowed people to marry at young ages. The Jews were allowed to marry at age 12 for girls and age 13 for boys.
Sex with slaves was not allowed. Sex outside the marriage bond was punishable by death for both parties under the Mosaic Law.
Oh, women were not treated as property.
Quote:
On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.
The Bible has no prohibition against interracial marriage, birth control, or discussing or calling a sexual organ by name. Moses married a black woman. It does forbid parents from getting naked around their kids.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 11:26 AM |
|
|
IMO realigion has no place in the world nowdays.
i mean whats the point,there are so much religion,and i won't point out just the monotheistic ones,that differ in so little among themselfs,its raieing obsulote. the more and more logic explains of the realigon the less it is needed.
God spot:
something nice i want you too look at
nowdays religion is a way of life. a silly one i dissagree with. esspecily if its monoteistic. but i could except buddahism. couse they dont speak of god. they speak of peace though mediation. peace.
not fighting.
which chrisnity,jedahism,and islam clearly wants too fight.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 11:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it is not always wrong to kill someone. In war it is not wrong for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier. It is not wrong to kill in self defense or to defend others. It is not wrong to execute criminals.
Ever heard of someone called Jean-Paul Sartres?
Anyway, if someone is killed, someone is always responsible for death and these conditions set by society are all silly excuses. As a human you'll have to bear your freedom like everybody else.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 12:25 PM |
|
|
@ Antipaladin
Christianity does not "clearly want to fight." Jesus told us to love, pray for, and do good to even our enemies.
@ DagothGares
Yes, someone is always responsible for a death if one human kills another. But if a person is committing an act of violence against someone and gets killed he is responsible for his own death.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 12:45 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:53, 21 Jul 2009.
|
@Elodin
What do you consider defense? If it's immediate defense against a rapist or something, certainly. But how wide is that term? Do you approve killing someone innocent if it's in your defense?
And war is no excuse for murder.
Just because you don't get criminally prosecuted for the killings in war doesn't make them right. We are not a hive. Every man, every soldier is responsible for his own actions. That pilot which bombed the building where my father worked and killed dozens of people, to me he is a murderer. And my father which deserted from the senseless Yugoslav wars, is a bloody hero in my eyes.
Following orders? If someone orders you to rape a woman and you obey, you're still a rapist.
If not, why were Hermann Goering and the others prosecuted and executed? They all followed Hitler's orders. They can't be to blame. If Hitler orders you to shove a hundred of Jews into a gas chamber, you can't be blamed for doing it, right? Sorry for the Hitler reference, it was fitting as hell.
I find it horrifying that your view of Christianity allows war killings and thus supports war itself. Then again, that was one of Western Christianity's most notable characteristics throughout history.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 01:04 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:05, 21 Jul 2009.
|
@ Baklava
Self defence is killing a perosn to defend your life. In the event that a woman is pregnant and somehow here life is in danger from the unborn child and she can't have a C-section she is justified in having an abortion.
I stand by my statement that soldiers killing the enemy in war is not murder. It is necessary for a nation to defend itself against aggressors. You can't win a war by only being in defensive mode. You must go on the offensive.
Unfortunately it is a fact that civilians will get killed in times of war. Key buildings must be bombed and also bombs are not 100% accurate. Sometimes a bomb may be dropped and land at the wrong place.
I support just wars. I do not suppor a nation deciding it wants to take over other nations as a land grab for instance. Just wars often cannot be avoided. If an aggressor nation attacks you have no choice but to go to war.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 21, 2009 01:26 PM |
|
|
Shakespeare said that even the devil could quote the bible to serve his interests. I am sorry, but as soon as something inconsistent and contradictory is pointed from the book, quickly you quote the opposite, which can be find as well in the same book. That's why many lost faith. It is amateurish and clearly written by the religious cast, to serve its interests and establish its influence . We could play at this little game for ever, there is no issue.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
