|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted December 16, 2009 07:21 PM |
|
|
Bixie, writing is stronger, if you let out as many exclamation marks as possible 
Though, it's sort of true that elodin refuses to tackle things in an interesting way (to me) and either goes ad hominem (which was perfectly accepted 2086 years ago, when it was customary to begin trials with ad hominems) or quotes things. rather bland...
Anyway, bixie, just calm down, it's all cool. It's just the internet, you know?
I love you guys 
Anyway, I myself chose the christ guerillero when I first saw those nine portraits. I didn't watch the video, because if elodin doesn't play by the rules and isn't willing to conduct the experiment with me, then I am not willing to cater to him. I chose that portrait of Jesus as a guerilla fighter, because Jesus was a rebel in his own way at times.
In fact, there is even a part where Jesus takes this semi-violent stance. "turn the other cheek" comes from the phrase that you should turn your other cheek when someone struck your right one. It was customary at the time to strike someone you didn't take seriously (a slave for instance) with the back of your hand (which we refer to as a pimp slap nowadays), so if someone struck your right cheek, he did it with the back of his hand. That's why Jesus said: when that happens, turn your other cheek. This basically means: "take me seriously, strike me with the other side of your hand. I am a man." It's usually quoted out of context, isn't it?
I thought this was awesome and I think I chose christ guerillero for that reason, but then my religion teacher chose last supper and first I laughed a bit (he's portrayed as a transvestite in that one, with really pretty shoes) and he chose it, because nowadays the least respected people in our society are transvestites; and Jesus, if anything, went to the lowest levels of society and helped them. He hung out with women, beggars, foreigners, the sick and the poor (which were all disrespected social classes, yes, even "women") (part of christianity's popularity came to be, because of the acceptance of women). He didn't like the higher-ups and provoked them, rather knowingly. If you want I can nam several instances where he does that. Noawadays, Jesus wouldn't be taken seriously, especially not by the likes of elodin, because he'd be very provocative, wouldn't he?
I like the gospel by Marcus. He's portrayed as a very human and relaxed person, not a son of God, but a son of man.
Going back to those women, Jesus at first didn't accept women. There was this instance where a woman came to him and asked (help! my daughter's dead! help me!) him for help and Jesus flat-out refused. Then one of his apostles said: "Come on, man!" and Jesus suddenly realised then that women were also to be taken seriously. Those were just a few short lines in the gospel, but it's there. I also like how Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters and that when he came home that no one wanted to listen to him. He was very human, I believe.
Also, I like that he lost his faith in God when he was crucified and I like how he got angry at the marketplace (he shows emotion and discontent). This all happens in the story of Marcus, of course. For clarification: I didn't like his death and I also don't like that he got sad, but I feel that's wat should've happened, like a play that ends badly.
I think everyone can believe what they want, elodin, but if you say that believing that Jesus was just a human is the wrong belief, then I am just as offended as you are all the time. There is no true christian and there is no true belief and you're fighting windmills.
Also, I'm reminded of Corribus when you just flat-out discarded my little memo that birth is very traumatic (I mentioned corribus, because you disagreed with him in the field of physics). I'm not a psychology-student, but I still read a psychology manual or two and believe me, my knowledge about my interests stretches further than yours. 
EDIT: Forgive the horrible lay-out of this post! Oh, god, all those brackets!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 02:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Death
Quote:
Elodin is right on one thing, it's the Bible who defines it, just like a technical specification defines terms used in a standard or protocol.
From a strict "Philosophy of Language" point of view, I have to disagree. Anyone is free to define a word however they wish, of course, but defining a word in such a way that nobody agrees with you precludes any sort of mutual understanding or enlightenment.
Yes of course that is true but since it's defined, more or less in a book, (is it not?) I used the specification analogy instead of natural language evolution.
The thing is that Elodin thinks that, under that definition, being a Christian in that way is the ONLY way for someone to be religious... it's just a question of semantics so he really has no point apart from being right (in that context) only about the WORD (which is useless like I outlined, it's the meaning that matters).
For example, his favorite saying of "atheist tyrants" who "murdered millions" is not a fair comparison: 'atheist tyrants' is a much larger group than his Christians definition (or the Bible's). If he were to say 'atheists who love their neighbor', which would be closer to the strict definition of Christian, he couldn't say that they "murdered millions". Likewise you CAN say that RELIGIOUS people murdered a lot (crusades), but that doesn't make them Christians... but neither does 'atheist tyrants' make them the "other atheists" (for the LACK of a term here, like 'christian', of course no one stops anyone from coming up with a term).
So he and everyone else who starts that or replies to that (it's not only Elodin's fault, bixie, I'm talking to you ) is, simply put, hitting a dead horse, and aiming NOWHERE. There is no point to be logically or concretely drawn from that. There is no CORRELATION.
/rant off
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 02:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
more or less in a book, (is it not?)
It's called the oxford dictionary.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 02:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
more or less in a book, (is it not?)
It's called the oxford dictionary.
I hardly think that was the origin
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 04:00 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:03, 17 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Anyway, I myself chose the christ guerillero when I first saw those nine portraits. I didn't watch the video, because if elodin doesn't play by the rules and isn't willing to conduct the experiment with me, then I am not willing to cater to him. I chose that portrait of Jesus as a guerilla fighter, because Jesus was a rebel in his own way at times.
I looke at the pictures. Some of them were quite offensive and were designed to be that way.
Quote:
In fact, there is even a part where Jesus takes this semi-violent stance. "turn the other cheek" comes from the phrase that you should turn your other cheek when someone struck your right one. It was customary at the time to strike someone you didn't take seriously (a slave for instance) with the back of your hand (which we refer to as a pimp slap nowadays), so if someone struck your right cheek, he did it with the back of his hand. That's why Jesus said: when that happens, turn your other cheek. This basically means: "take me seriously, strike me with the other side of your hand. I am a man." It's usually quoted out of context, isn't it?
Light slaps were done as an insult. Jesus said not to retaliate in such a case. That is hardly a "semi-violent stance." However, Jesus did not prohibit the disciples from defending themeselves and even told them to purchase a sword when they were going into a hostile region.
Quote:
I thought this was awesome and I think I chose christ guerillero for that reason, but then my religion teacher chose last supper and first I laughed a bit (he's portrayed as a transvestite in that one, with really pretty shoes) and he chose it, because nowadays the least respected people in our society are transvestites; and Jesus, if anything, went to the lowest levels of society and helped them.
Jesus was not a transvestite and would not have dressed as such. Cross dressing is clearly labeled as a sin in the Bible. Jesus associated with sinnners but did not participate in sin.
Quote:
He didn't like the higher-ups and provoked them, rather knowingly. If you want I can nam several instances where he does that.
Please do.
Jesus confronted the hypocritical religious leaders but did not "provoke" someone for simply being an authority figure.
Quote:
Noawadays, Jesus wouldn't be taken seriously, especially not by the likes of elodin, because he'd be very provocative, wouldn't he?
False statement. I take Jesus very seriously and try to emulate him as best as I can. I do not back down from speaking the truth.
Quote:
I like the gospel by Marcus. He's portrayed as a very human and relaxed person, not a son of God, but a son of man.
Quote:
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Are you aware the the term "Son of Man" is a Messianic term? Son of man = Messiah = Christ = Son of God = God in flesh.
Mark also records Jesus doing many miracles and claiming to forgive sin (which Jews knew only God could do.)
In Mark John the Baptist calls Jesus "the Lord", wich mean Yahweh (God.)
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Jesus is also quoted as refering to himself as "the Lord." Saying that they had not understood tha "the Son of David" (Christ) would also be "the Lord."
Quote:
Mar 12:35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Mar 12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
In fact, the final verse of Mark refers to Jesus as "the Lord."
Quote:
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Quote:
Going back to those women, Jesus at first didn't accept women. There was this instance where a woman came to him and asked (help! my daughter's dead! help me!) him for help and Jesus flat-out refused. Then one of his apostles said: "Come on, man!" and Jesus suddenly realised then that women were also to be taken seriously. Those were just a few short lines in the gospel, but it's there.
Quote it. Actually, the reverse is true. The disciples didn't were astonished that Jesus was taking the time to teach "the woman at the well." The disciples had gone to town for supplies and when they returned they found Jesus teaching a Samaritan woman. It was not customary for a Jewish rabbi to teach a woman, much less a Samaritan woman.
Quote:
Joh 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
Quote:
I also like how Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters and that when he came home that no one wanted to listen to him. He was very human, I believe.
Oh yes, Jesus was/is very human. But also very divine. Yes, his family did understand him becasue they did not understand that the Christ would redeem man from his sin rather than delivering the nation of Israel from Rome.
Quote:
Also, I like that he lost his faith in God when he was crucified and I like how he got angry at the marketplace (he shows emotion and discontent). This all happens in the story of Marcus, of course. For clarification: I didn't like his death and I also don't like that he got sad, but I feel that's wat should've happened, like a play that ends badly.
No, Jesus did not "lose faith." What you are refering to is when the Spirit offered the flesh no aid during the hours he was bearing the sins of the world. Jesus had to bear the sins of the world as a man.
Mark in in triumph, not tragedy. Jesus resurrected and glorified. The Lord. I already quoted the last verse of Mark.
Quote:
I think everyone can believe what they want, elodin, but if you say that believing that Jesus was just a human is the wrong belief, then I am just as offended as you are all the time.
You can beliee what you want. But the Bible does not back up your belief that Jesus was nothing but a man. All of the New Testament testifies that he is God existing as a man.
Quote:
The thing is that Elodin thinks that, under that definition, being a Christian in that way is the ONLY way for someone to be religious... it's just a question of semantics so he really has no point apart from being right (in that context) only about the WORD (which is useless like I outlined, it's the meaning that matters).
What I say is that the New Testament tells us who a Christian is. It sets forth the teachings of Christ that came from his own lips or that his Spirit inspired his apostles/disciples to write.
I do not say that no one but Christians are religious.
@ bixie
Your rant merits no reply. I recognize that a moderator is unlikely to penalize you for insulting me but still, it is an unseemly mess that you may wish to clean up.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 04:05 AM |
|
|
@Death
If your point is that there's no reason to bother discussing anything with Elodin because he's only interested in doing so on his grounds, defining terms as he wishes with no interest in how other people would define them, or even acknowledging that other people have the right to define them (or to interpret definitions from existing authority sources), then OK, I agree with you.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 04:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Death
If your point is that there's no reason to bother discussing anything with Elodin because he's only interested in doing so on his grounds, defining terms as he wishes with no interest in how other people would define them, or even acknowledging that other people have the right to define them (or to interpret definitions from existing authority sources), then OK, I agree with you.
It is silly to say that you should go to a Buddhist or an atheist to find out what makes a person a Christian.
Christianity is defined in the sacred writings of the Christian religion. The New Testament specificly. I don't know why that seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.
If you want to know what makes a person a Muslim you would go to the Qu'ran.
The fact is that some of the anti-Christian folks don't like what the Bible says makes a person a Christian and want to make up a definition of their own. But they don't get to set Christian doctrine.
____________
Revelation
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Noawadays, Jesus wouldn't be taken seriously, especially not by the likes of elodin, because he'd be very provocative, wouldn't he?
False statement. I take Jesus very seriously and try to emulate him as best as I can. I do not back down from speaking the truth.
no, you wouldn't, for a number of reasons.
1) you wouldn't know it was jesus. don't Bulls**t us with "I will feel a connection with him" because you won't, he'll be another face in the crowd.
2) if you do meet him, you'll think him insane, like the rest of us. there are plenty of people in asylums all over the world who claim to be Jesus christ, maybe one of them is? however, we'll never no, as we've locked them, up.
3) he'll come back as a lefty loony, and as it has already been established, you hate lefty loonies. his message of peace and love does not sit will with america's military dominance, so he'll probably be preaching peace and love, which will get all the hippies around him, but if you believe glen beck and ben o'reilly, you'd want him strung up and shot.
4) if he does perform miracles, there would be a very mixed reaction, and only a small percentage would be "we've seen the light, no we believe!". most peoples reaction would be "Meh", second largest group "that's fairly impressive, he should get an agent and make a bit of money" third largest "That is so fake, I mean, look at it!" fourth largest "criss angel can do it better" fifth largest "WITCHCRAFT!!!!!!!!!!"... you see, his miracles will not have the same effect.
5) we won't know that it's jesus until he's dead, presumably, if he's born in america, after he's killed by the authories. Which could mean that jesus's divinity is moot, and he was just a very inspirational person whose death went on to free isreal from roman rule. makes me wonder, what other figures could be considered divine in in two hundred year.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I looke at the pictures. Some of them were quite offensive and were designed to be that way.
... No, they weren't...
I love you guys!
Quote:
That is so fake, I mean, look at it!
PHOTOSHOPPED! 
Quote:
No, Jesus did not "lose faith." What you are refering to is when the Spirit offered the flesh no aid during the hours he was bearing the sins of the world. Jesus had to bear the sins of the world as a man.
"Why Lord have you abandoned us?" is what he said. Translating literally from Dutch.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:47 AM |
|
|
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:48 AM |
|
|
Yeah, and I guess you've seen a lot of photos to, huh? Yeah right!
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 04:14 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:17, 17 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, Jesus did not "lose faith." What you are refering to is when the Spirit offered the flesh no aid during the hours he was bearing the sins of the world. Jesus had to bear the sins of the world as a man.
"Why Lord have you abandoned us?" is what he said. Translating literally from Dutch.
The actual words he uttered were a quotation from Psalms 22, which prophecied the crucifixion of the Christ.
The below is a continuation of a discussion from the Volcainc board.
Clicky
Quote:
I will respond to your claim but if you want to continue the discussion you should post in the [OSM] religion section [edit: thread] rather than here.
Quote:
first of all, quoting a source that someone doesn't accept as valid, is an exercise in futility, as is quoting sources based on that source
If we are talking about the Bible and you make a claim about the Bible obviiously you should present evidence of your claim about what the Bible says with quotes from the Bible.
Quote:
it is a historical fact that what we know as the bible has been edited countless times, either in the name of "true faith" or to serve more mundane interests ...and that is even without taking the translation errors into consideration
Your claim is false. We have many thousands of historical documents of the Bible, far more than of any other ancient document. Through comparing these documents (textual criticism) we know for a fact that we have the words of the original autographs to within 99.9% accuracy. The differences being mainly word order or a mispelling that resulted from a minor copyist error.
Below is an exert from a brief article you may find enlightening.
Clicky
Quote:
The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.
So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one-step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language in which a person needs to read. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language into which we translate the Bible. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.
Quote:
so you claim that the bible has not been edited countless times and that the translations are for the most part quite accurate, right?
Yes. As I explained, the sheer number of historical documents and textual criticism prove that we have the original words of the Bible to within 99.9% accuracy.
Quote:
well, this presents a rather interesting conundrum, as one of the first things the church had to do was sit down and decide which parts of the bible to keep and which to declare heretical... in fact, people disagreed so much about that, or about their interpretation of scripture that it was the driving force behind the creation of some of the branches of christianity that survive even to this day
You seem to have some misconceptions. The various churches had collected various writings. There were also various false gospels and epistles (letters) in circulation. Those were excluded from the "cannon." The writings that were considered inspired were included in the New Testament and the others were not.
At the time of the formation of the New Testament canon twenty out of the twenty-seven books were readily and universally accepted as genuine, and therefore called "Homologoumena." The other 7 were in dispute for a time, not because they were not considered inspired but because there was a dispute about who authored those 7 books--Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, Revelation--were disputed for a time by particular churches, and were therefore styled "Antilegomena" (or disputed.). Those books were thoroughly examined and accepted into the cannon of Scripture.
The cannon is a formalized list of books that were already considered to be authoritative. The books are did not "receive authority" by being placed in the cannon. They were considered to be authoritative becasue they were considered be inspired by God.
Here is a brief excerpt from an article that you may find to be beneficial to your understanding. It addresses the issue quite well, particularly since these days some people seem to be getting their "knowledge" about the Bible from the DiVinche Code (a work of fiction.)
Clicky
Quote:
Taking all of this into account, we can quickly see that the assertions in The Da Vinci Code are ridiculous. The character Teabing, the book's historical expert, asserts that the gospels weren't chosen until the fourth century - and then they were picked to advance a political agenda. Sandra Meisel summarizes the ludicrousness of this assertion by writing, "Christ wasn't considered divine until the Council of Nicea voted him so in 325 at the behest of the emperor. Then Constantine-a lifelong sun worshipper-ordered all older scriptural texts destroyed, which is why no complete set of Gospels predates the fourth century. Christians somehow failed to notice the sudden and drastic change in their doctrine." (7)
Indeed, there was no council called to sort through a bunch of writings and accept some but dismiss others because they did or did not conform to some political agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. At Nicea, the New Testament canon had been pretty well established for over a century. The church historian Eusebius lists the books as authentic in his Church History volume III, chapters 3 to 25.
History shows that the early church had a fairly consistent method of recognizing what writings were authoritative and they would then copy and distribute them for teaching, correction, moral guidance and a better understanding of God and His desires. We have the prophetic words of the Old Testament authors, we have the apostolic approval of the New Testament authors, and we have the testimony of the risen Jesus.
I hope this has helped in understanding why the Bible holds the place of authority and reverence in the Christian church as it does. I plan on extending this discussion in another article, one looking at some of the other evidences for the inspiration of the Biblical texts. Until then, God bless.
I have included another link that discusses why various books were not included in the "cannon" of Scripture as well as some excepts from teh article.
Clicky
Quote:
These so-called lost books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship; they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies. These books were never authoritative, inspired, or authentically written by either the Jewish Prophets or the Christian Apostles.
The Pseudepigraphal books are "false writings." They are a collection of early Jewish and "Christian" writings composed between 200 BC and AD 200. However, they too were known and were never considered scripture. A list of these would be the Epistle of Barnabas, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Book of Enoch, The Gospel of Thomas (140-170 AD), The Psalms of Solomon, The Odes of Solomon, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Second Baruch, Third Baruch, The Books of Adam and Eve.
The Deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are First Esdras (150-100 BC), Second Esdras (100 AD), Tobit (200 BC), Judith (150 BC), the Additions to Esther (140-130 BC), the Wisdom of Solomon (30 BC), Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (132 BC), Barach (150-50 BC), The Letter of Jeremiah (300-100 BC), Susanna (200-0 BC), Bel and the Dragon (100 BC), the Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah) (200-0 BC), the Prayer of Manassesh (100-0 BC), First Maccabees (110 BC), and Second Maccabees (110-170 BC).1
These pseudepigraphal and deuterocanonical books were never considered scripture by the Christian church because they were not authoritative, inspired, written by either Prophets or Apostles, nor do they have the power of the word of the books of the existing Bible. Therefore, since the books are not lost and were never part of the Bible to begin with, they have no bearing on the validity of the Bible.
Quote:
being greek and with a fairly good knowledge of the bible (i happen to have friends and relatives in the clergy on top of everything else) i can tell you for certain that quite a few passages can be interpreted in at least two ways with equal validity but with dramatically different results. the same goes for the translations -to- greek from the original hebrew version (where such was done)
I contest your claim that a large part of the New Testament is ambiguous due to lack of certainty as to how to translate a Greek text. Perhaps you can cite chapter and verse of the New Testament passages you claiim can be translated in various ways that have "dramatically different results."
Also, most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a small portion in Aramaic. None of it was written in Greek. The New Testament in Greek. I'm not sure why you are talking about translating from Hebrew to Greek.
When the New Testament is translated into English it is translated from the original Greek language. It is not translated from Greek--->Hebrew---->English.
Quote:
to claim that YOUR version of the bible is the unchanged and accurate version God intended, is not only dogmatic, but dangerously ignorant and arrogant. in true Christian(TM) (not to be confused with christian) fashion you ignore the facts when they don't suit you
There is no "Elodin" version of the Bible.
Could you please show me where I said for example the KJV or the NIV (or any other version) is the only version of the Bible that can be used? Thanks. Otherwise, stop making false statements and putting them in my mouth.
Thanks for your insults. I have been trying to conduct an actual debate, citing actual sources and making points in a civilized manner. I am certainly not the one showing ignorance and arrogance or a bigoted attitude against a group of people I disagree with. The anti-Christian crowd unfortunately seems incapable of civilized debate and seems to always resort to insults.
Quote:
i could also go into how the bible is not the kind of moral guide i'd want people around me to follow (because i happen to enjoy NOT being stoned to death or smitten in the name of a vengeful god) but as you correctly pointed out, that's for another thread
I would certainly disagree with you, since the Bible teaches us to love everyone and to seek their well being. Unlike say materialistic atheism for instance, that says there is no such thing as an objective morality. Life in such a worldview is about survival of the "strongest" and imposition of their will on the "weak." For example, in a materialistic world view rape and murder are "natural" things. It is "natural" to want your own way and to seek to advance your own power and pleasure. So I would counter that it is the materialistic world view that is immoral, a poor guide, and destructive to society.
Oh, you seem to be unaware that the stoning mentioned in the Bible was for the Jews in the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. Stoning is not part of Christianity.
Also, God is a God of love. But yes, he does punish sin. Sorry if it upsets you that people are held accountable for their actions by God.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 07:15 PM |
|
|
Now you dear sir, are spreading misinformation about "materialistic atheism." Some people like come up with all kinds of misinformation about such things (argument from ignorance) and also use fancy sounding terms like "materialistic atheism" and also smudge the perfectly good name of materialism & atheism in the progress. I'm sure that you're not malevolently spreading this misinformation, but I feel, as your fellow man, that it is my duty to correct you in the hopes of raising your awareness on the matter, making future debating more fluent and abolishing some misinformation.
Quote:
Unlike say materialistic atheism for instance, that says there is no such thing as an objective morality. Life in such a worldview is about survival of the "strongest" and imposition of their will on the "weak." For example, in a materialistic world view rape and murder are "natural" things. It is "natural" to want your own way and to seek to advance your own power and pleasure. So I would counter that it is the materialistic world view that is immoral, a poor guide, and destructive to society.
Let us turn to "materialistic atheism." Firstly, materialism in philosophy is the belief that everything that exists is something that is of material. This in no way denies or demeans moral values or morality, neither does it deny the existence of deities. Atheism on the other hand, as explained before, is the absence of belief in deities.
Neither of the abovementioned things deny moral values or define them. Even without belief in the existence of some manner of deity or immortal soul, one can still have morals. Simply being a materialist and atheist does in no way define one's morals nor one's capability of empathy and functioning in society. A person who rapes and murders is most likely one considered mentally ill and in need of therapy if he/she is to be a functioning member of society.
As Dagoth before me put it: Tis be a windmill you are fighting against, dear sir! Being a materialist or an atheist does not imply a lack of morality. In philosophy, materialism is not even a concept in the field of ethics; ethics being the field of philosophy concerning morals, that what is right and that what is wrong. "Materialistic atheism" has the feel of an anti-atheist buzzword to it.
Your argument was not relevant against such a thing as "materialistic atheism", your argument was against being a douche.
Quote:
Also, God is a God of love. But yes, he does punish sin. Sorry if it upsets you that people are held accountable for their actions by God.
On a different note, this line pulled at my heartstrings pretty bad. It rather seemed a bit like emotional blackmail.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted December 17, 2009 07:16 PM |
|
|
oh boy...
first of all, learn how to read what i post, not what you want me to post... you raise so many strawmen i have to believe you are a farmer (unless they are windmills, in which case you're a crazy old knight)
second, try citing sources that do -not- treat the bible as the world of god. you know, objective ones, that base their findings on cold hard facts and proof
it's a fairly simple exercise, i am sure you can do it, once you do we can continue this discussion
on the subject of morality... three things, but first... we agree that the god of the old testament is the god of the new testament, right? there wasn't a celestial coup or something in the in between... and god is infallible, yes?
1. god creates satan, god is omniscient, god knows satan will lure mankind away, god punishes mankind... gee thanks dad!
2. OT rules of conduct: if someone rapes your daughter, he has to marry her and give you some money for property damage. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlatWhat]What.[/url]
3. ooh, i know! i know! ...the old fan favourite, 2 Kings 2:
"2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
God is Love, huh? ...nope, sorry... even Zeus was more loving (ok, in a WHOLE different way, but yeah...)
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 08:41 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:48, 17 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
first of all, learn how to read what i post, not what you want me to post... you raise so many strawmen i have to believe you are a farmer (unless they are windmills, in which case you're a crazy old knight)
In other words you made some utterly false claims that you can't back up. I was particularly interested in seeing you try to back up this claim:
Quote:
being greek and with a fairly good knowledge of the bible (i happen to have friends and relatives in the clergy on top of everything else) i can tell you for certain that quite a few passages can be interpreted in at least two ways with equal validity but with dramatically different results. the same goes for the translations -to- greek from the original hebrew version (where such was done)
Lets say, since you say there are quite a few New Testament passages where the original Greek can be translated differently with "dramatically different results" that you attempt to produce 5 such passages. Cite the chapter and verses please. Also, give an alternative translation of the text and explain why that would be a better translation than the way it was translated.
Quote:
on the subject of morality... three things, but first... we agree that the god of the old testament is the god of the new testament, right? there wasn't a celestial coup or something in the in between... and god is infallible, yes?
Yes indeed.
Quote:
1. god creates satan, god is omniscient, god knows satan will lure mankind away, god punishes mankind... gee thanks dad!
God gave you free will. You have the option to abuse your free will. God said don't rape, but you can certain rape. There is no justification in placing the blame on God if you rape someone.
Knowledge is not causation. If I know a bridge is out and tell you so and you chose to drive down the road at 100 miles per hour it is your own fault when you drive off the bridge, not mine.
Quote:
2. OT rules of conduct: if someone rapes your daughter, he has to marry her and give you some money for property damage. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlatWhat]What.[/url]
That is a common falsehood that anti-Christians bring up from their anti-Christian websites, and I have disproven that a number of times on the board. I will however, do so again.
The penalty for rape in the Old Testament was death to the rapist. Nothing was done to the innocent victim for they have not broken the law.
It is quite obvious that the passage in question is not talking about a rapist marrying his victim. Let read the passage in context, shall we?
First, a few verses above, it say rapists shall be put to death and the victims are innocent and shall not be punished. It is obvious that anyone who says the passage refers to a rapist marrying his victim has never read the passage.
Deut. 22 (ASV)
Death penalty for adultury
Quote:
23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.
Death Penalty for rape
Quote:
25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;
27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
If both parties are unmarried and they have consensual sex, they shall marry. The man will pay a dowry to the father.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
Quote:
3. ooh, i know! i know! ...the old fan favourite, 2 Kings 2:
"2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
Yes, anohter passage anti-Christins like to use. Let me explain it to you.
Actually, the "children" were at least 19 years old according to the words used in Hebrew and how it is used in other passages. Those were not "little" children in the Elisha account, and he did not call them out of he woods, God did.
The original, word is µynfq µyr[n nearim ketannim, may mean young men, for fq katon signifies to be young, in opposition to old, and is so translated in various places in our Bible; and r[n naar signifies, not only a child, but ***********a young man*******, a servant, or even a soldier, or one fit to go out to battle; and is so translated in a multitude of places in our common English version.
I shall mention but a few places it is used, because they are sufficiently decisive: Isaac was called r[n naar when twenty-eight years old, Gen. xxi. 5-12; and Joseph was so called when he was thirty-nine, Gen. xli. 12. Add to these 1 Kings xx. 14: "And Ahab said, By whom [shall the Assyrians be delivered into my hand?] And he said, Thus saith the Lord, by the YOUNG MEN, yr[nb benaarey, of the princes of the provinces." That these were soldiers, probably militia, or a selection from the militia, which served as a bodyguard to Ahab, the event sufficiently declares; and the persons that mocked Elisha were perfectly accountable for their conduct.
What they said was
Quote:
Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.] jrq hl[ jrq hl[ aleh kereach, aleh kereach. Ascend, thou empty skull, to heaven, as it is pretended thy master did!
They made fun of the prophet (a representation of God on the earth) saying that he was bald, senseless, and had made up the story of his master (the prophet he succeeded) ascending. Making fun of the prophet was the same as making fun of God himself.
They were blaspheming God and making fun of his power. They were saying it is a lie that Elisha ascended to heaven.
They were young men above the age of accountability and were judged for their blasphemy. You don't like that God held them accountable? Tough.
Every Israelite took a vow to serve God and to follow his Law. They knew the penalty for blashemy in Israel was death. If they wanted to be smart-mouthed blashemers they should have moved to another nation.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The actual words he uttered were a quotation from Psalms 22, which prophecied the crucifixion of the Christ.
Sure, elodin.
Well, I was hoping by this point that a nice christian was going to spiral down from the heavens and talk to me, which sadly was not the case, neither did a spiritual atheist. Kind of sad, but that's life. I had a pretty good run. Maybe my fault to talk to elodin specifically, sort of the 'local character' of HC-OSM-slums. Also, elodin, my interpretation is valid. It just is.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:02 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:03, 17 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Now you dear sir, are spreading misinformation about "materialistic atheism." Some people like come up with all kinds of misinformation about such things (argument from ignorance) and also use fancy sounding terms like "materialistic atheism" and also smudge the perfectly good name of materialism & atheism in the progress. I'm sure that you're not malevolently spreading this misinformation, but I feel, as your fellow man, that it is my duty to correct you in the hopes of raising your awareness on the matter, making future debating more fluent and abolishing some misinformation.
Please note that I never said an atheist cannot be moral.
Actually, some atheists on this board said what I said. They believe there is no abosolute right or wrong. That morality is relative to whaever society decides morality is.
That is the traditional materialistic atheist stance. To say morality is absolute would be to acknowledge the existecne of God for what other source of absolute morality could there be?
Quote:
Atheism on the other hand, as explained before, is the absence of belief in deities.
There is no such thing as an absense of belief. Atheists believe that God does not exist. They do so without any proof that God deos not exist. Such a belief is faith. Atheism is a religion.
An agnostic doesn't know if God exists or not. A "hard agnostic" says not only does he not know, but that no oone knows and that it is impossible to know if God exists or not. A "soft agnostic" says that he doesn't know if God exists or not but that someone else may.
A "hard athesit" says that God definately does not exist. A "soft atheist" says he beleives God does not exist.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:08 PM |
|
|
Actually, the position of most atheists is that of "agnostic atheist" - that is, "as we do not know whether God exists or not, there is no reason to assume that one exists".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:15 PM |
|
|
There is no difference between ancient people who believed earth is flat and those believing in GodS. They were both ignorants and afraid of the human only responsibility. Some survived obviously.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 17, 2009 09:19 PM |
|
|
atheist =/= anti-theist
a(b) deus = without god (latin)
anti deus = against god (latin)
Look at the friggin' origin of the words!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
