You definitely don't want to antagonize him...
:cool:
Printable View
You definitely don't want to antagonize him...
:cool:
Hi Chsh,Quote:
Originally posted here by chsh
Ah, so this is why god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah(sp?)? Because he knew best? Well that's the line an AWFUL lot of humans have used in the past to achieve their goals, many of which have taken a large toll on countless others.
Exactly what motivation did 'God' have for destroying those two cities?
Well, they didn't worship him for one.
Two, it proved his power.
Three, it made people fearful of him.
Sounds like your standard egomaniacal leader to me...
What makes the bible right? Sure, it's great and fine to say that the bible teaches something, but what makes it right? What makes the teachings of that book correct?
It really depends on what you define as a religion, and this is where the argument begins to fall apart. Personally, I would
say no, but then, I think the question is worded entirely inappropriately.
Ok, let me ask you a question. Is judgment ever appropriate? Were the Allies justified for putting the Nazis on trial for war crimes after WWII? Is it wrong to put criminals in jail? Many people see the innocent suffer and the guilty prosper and they say, "Where is God? Why is there no justice in the world?" But when God does work justice we wonder why he does it. God is good and just. It is God's nature to punish evil. If God did not punish evil, would that not make him evil? Would that not make him unjust? Many times we complain when someone hurts us, "That was unfair." But God is fair. The wonderful that is that God is also merciful. That's why Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins-- to take the punishment that we deserve.
Hi Korp Death,
I don't presume to know God's motives except as he has already revealed them in the Bible. But yes, God does punish evil for the reasons I have noted above in my reply to Chsh. Also, the Bible teaches that we need God's forgiveness. Ultimately all sin is sin against God. And on what basis do we forgive ourselves? I think deep down inside we know that there is a penalty for sin, and that we are incapable of paying it. True self-forgiveness can only be based upon what Jesus accomplished on the cross.
Isn´t the point of religion believing in something bigger than yourself? Does it realy matter what you believe, isn´t the point that you just believe?
Would not a point of view like that save alot of time, agony and horror?
Hi Preacherman481 (nice topic btw)
Am I wrong in asuming that you base alot of your belives in the bible? You say that al religions can not be right, why? It seems to me that you base this upon the notion that the bible itself was written indirectly(or directly?) by God himself. Why would the Christian bible be more right or true than any other ancient bible?
If there was to be a God, would he not be interested in the whole population of the world? If we are his children after al.. Then why the different religions?
My thought is that we are unable to precieve the truth at this time. Petty brawling over pages written in books by humans can not be the way to revere the power that we claim is God.
Please get to your point. You and I both know neither of us is here to debate the morality of our justice system.Quote:
Originally posted here by preacherman481
Hi Chsh,
Ok, let me ask you a question. Is judgment ever appropriate? Were the Allies justified for putting the Nazis on trial for war crimes after WWII? Is it wrong to put criminals in jail?
People who say "why is there no justice in the world" usually mean "why is there no justice (as I consider it) in this world (for me)". Life in and of itself is unjust, that is part of what makes life what it is.Quote:
Many people see the innocent suffer and the guilty prosper and they say, "Where is God? Why is there no justice in the world?" But when God does work justice we wonder why he does it.
Okay, this is a very sad argument coming from you. First you argue that God is good and just, but that he only punishes evil. Good and evil should be simply thrown out of this conversation, because they are relatives, and can't be pinned down. Is killing a man an evil act? You will have to consider all the circumstances to answer that question. So don't go to the 'god is good' place yet.Quote:
God is good and just. It is God's nature to punish evil. If God did not punish evil, would that not make him evil? Would that not make him unjust?
God is Just. Not good, not evil, but Just. After all, if god only punished people for bad acts, would that really be just?
I still have yet to see where your reply falls to my question regarding Soddom and Gomorrah.
That's just plain BS, in my opinion. People have for far too long used Jesus as a scapegoat to make themselves feel better about what they've done, knowing that 'God will forgive me'. It is not god's place to forgive anyone. This is contradictory even in Christian terms, because God did after all give us free will. There cannot be 'forgiveness' for doing what you're told, and deciding what you decide. That's the fundamental flaw in your argument.Quote:
Many times we complain when someone hurts us, "That was unfair." But God is fair. The wonderful that is that God is also merciful. That's why Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins-- to take the punishment that we deserve.
I still have a hard time with all of this...
In my view, Christianity was a sub-cult of Judaism until after the death of Jesus, when a pagan Roman Emporer (Constantine - whose empire was beginning to crumble) decided to hold council to decide whether or not Jesus was a god. After the council said Jesus was in fact a god (A god, not THE God or The Son of God), Christian beliefs became more popular.
We must remember that historically Jesus was not a popular man in the "mainstream" community. He was a radical who claimed to be the son of God and yet broke bread with prostitues, lepers, Roman tax collectors, etc. who were all considered to be "unclean" by the Jewish community. (And yes, Jesus was Jewish - he did not just live in a Jewish area...) These "unclean" people were not allowed into the temples to worship and were kept at bay by the rabbis in front of the temples, yet Jesus allowed them to worship with him and even baptised many of them (which really did not make him too popular with the rabbis of the time).
All of this may have endeared Jesus to his followers who were tired of being judged by the rabbis who were living in large houses connected to the temples (which allowed them access to the temple without having to interact with common folk), but it made him an outcast in the society as a whole.
It wasn't until long after Jesus' death (40 years) that the Apostles began to document their Gospels, but it was actually the decision made by Constantine's council that made Christianity more widely accepted.
So it seems to me that at least Christianity should lead back to Constantine or the Apostles, as without their efforts, most if not all interest in Jesus' activities may have been lost.
Just for fun check out:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/catholics.html
A lot of their stuff is written tongue-in-cheek, but this one will make you think...
And naturally, most hard-line Catholics will disagree with what I have stated above, but it is historical fact. I know the Church doesn't like to deal with facts, but there they are. - Hey, the Church's problem with historical fact could maybe be the reason that a mob of Christians burned the library at Alexandria to the ground destroying a vast collection of ancient knowledge... Was Christianity the machination of a Roman Emporer struggling to keep his empire in one piece?
Food for thought...
Oops - sorry - forgot to post my answer to your question -
Religion does lead to God... In a manner of speaking.
It leads to an opinion or idea (faith) that some Supreme Being or entity has some kind of influence over our lives.
Whether that God be created in the image of man, or a concept so expansive it is incomprhensible to the human mind, it is subjective to each individuals interpretation and beliefs. God means different things to different people.
And Preacher - I still don't see any "right" or "wrong" to religious beliefs as long as they do not endanger the health or well-being of others. If you want to worship a charismatic long haired man who consorted with unsavory types of people and spoke out against the current state of society, thats fine. A couple thousand years ago His name was Jesus - in 1996 his name was David Koresh. Just depends on what your beliefs are and where you place your faith, man.
well, i've got one thing to say ... we should differentiate between a religions and beliefs ...
in all cases both leads to god , but religions leads to the god we know ... and not all beliefs lead to the god we know, as for example , some people believes in fire or cow .... and they consider it as god ....
as for us muslims we believe in god the only god , who vreated us and carry the skys without pillars, who created earth in 7 days , and he who created the fire and the cow , he should be something much bigger than we can even imagen .... and he who made jesus without a man to touch his mother .... so i don't think our god is the same as their god.
that why we respect religions such as christianity and jews but not hendus and others...
Gotta agree.. in what way are we talking about religion? do we include faith?
Bimmer> Then I'm sorry, but I think you're all a bunch of mindless, arrogant, petty, and above all else self-serving jerks. Don't you dare complain about others saying your religion is a bunch of hooey and hearsay if you are not willing to give others a good listen.
The most dangerous kind of mind is a closed one. You'd do well to remember that.
Hi,Quote:
Originally posted here by Specter6
Oops - sorry - forgot to post my answer to your question -
Religion does lead to God... In a manner of speaking.
It leads to an opinion or idea (faith) that some Supreme Being or entity has some kind of influence over our lives.
Whether that God be created in the image of man, or a concept so expansive it is incomprhensible to the human mind, it is subjective to each individuals interpretation and beliefs. God means different things to different people.
And Preacher - I still don't see any "right" or "wrong" to religious beliefs as long as they do not endanger the health or well-being of others. If you want to worship a charismatic long haired man who consorted with unsavory types of people and spoke out against the current state of society, thats fine. A couple thousand years ago His name was Jesus - in 1996 his name was David Koresh. Just depends on what your beliefs are and where you place your faith, man.
David Koresh and Jesus Christ are worlds apart (literally). This is a perfect of illustration of what I'm getting at. Some people think it's ok to believe whatever you want as long as you are sincere about it. But the Bible says "There is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in death." Today it seems increasingly unfashionable to talk about matters of right and wrong when it comes to religious beliefs. The prevailing viewpoint seems to be that all religions are equally valid. Yet when you look at the character and outcome of the lives of Jesus Christ and David Koresh, I don't see how anyone could say that it doesn't matter what a person believes. One gave His live for others, another led others astray and caused them to lose their lives. Who and what we follow determines where we will arrive.
Hi Pooh,Quote:
Originally posted here by Pooh-Bear
Gotta agree.. in what way are we talking about religion? do we include faith?
Well, I would say Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship of trust with a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what faith is, a relationship of trust with God. Religion is what people try to do the reach God-- keeping rules and performing rituals that they think will earn them favor with him. Faith is trusting in him.
QUOTE]But the Bible says "There is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in death." Today it seems increasingly unfashionable to talk about matters of right and wrong when it comes to religious beliefs.[/B][/QUOTE]
What I am getting at is that right Vs wrong is very subjective. If you are likely to read the bible and take it's contents at face value, then maybe your idea of what is right is very different from somebody who does not necessarily believe everything they read, but rather carry a degree of skepticism that gets them to do more research on what they believe is right or wrong.
Personally I have a hard time believing everything from a text that claims a man lived 600 years and a woman could bear 99 children in an age when average life expectancy was under 45 years of age and child birth was one of the leading causes of death in women at the time.
I'm not saying anybody is right or wrong here. I'm merely stating that right and wrong is subject to interpretation, as is your bible. Your quote "There is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in death." to me, means that there is no one "right way" that regardless of the decision that is made, death is the only certainty. And I'm sure there are different interpretations as well.
In truth, organised religion has often stood as an obstactle on the path to God. The 'power of the pulpit' has, and in some cases still does (jihad as an obvious example), held sway over the minds of men for centuaries. But the problem is that 'men of God' are also just men.
And so over the centuaries our respective religions have taught us to hate and sent us to kill in the name of the same god who proclaimed it a sin. The 100 year war, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts, the policy of non-involvement by the catholic church in the holocost and modern day Jihad are all examples of what I mean. No; my covenant is with god and with God alone. I do not feel the need for the intermediary of a religion to realise the responsibilities that this covenant places upon me.
I was raised as a protestant, went to a catholic school, married a jewish girl and live in a moslem area. I have worked nationally and internationally. The God I believe in would not want me to be anything less than cordial to the good people that I have met, regardless of which direction they face to commune with Him.
Which given that we are mostly all sons and daughters of Abraham this is often the same actual god, just with different ceremony and tradition. The basic message is the same. (judaism, christianity (of all flavours) and islam all share these common roots). People seem to forget that.
I think Jesus Christ summed it up best when he said:Private Joke, sorry ->(Dieses irgendjemandes für Sie Victor. Alle bezogen richtig!)Quote:
"I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
From The "Scholars' Translation" of the Gospel of Thomas
by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer
http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
It's not about being in church on a Sunday (or sinagouge on a Friday ;)) - it's about being good to your fellow man on a daily basis.
Hmm,
actually the Gospel of Thomas has never been accepted as the words of Jesus by most Christians. It was written by a sect caled the Gnostics. They denied that Jesus actually had a material body. And the religions you mentioned, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism do have similarities. But they also have some great differences in how they teach we have a relationship with God. How can all of them be right?
Neither religion has to be right. I was raised a Roman Catholic and do not participate in the Catholic church any longer. That does not mean that I don't have a belief in God, just not the "God" my religion taught me. I believe that God is representative of ourself and our attempts to find happiness in life. He does not guide us, we choose our paths, He does not save us, we choose our paths. He is an abstract being, designed to assist us when we think of death, to believe it is not the end. A comfort if you will.Quote:
all religions cannot be right. The only way they could all right is if they say they same thing, and clearly they don't. For example, Christianity says that salvation comes by grace (God's unmerited favor freely bestowed on those who throw themselves on God's mercy). Islam says that good works are required to obtain salvation. Those are two mutually exclusive opinions. Therefore, one must be right and the other must be wrong.
Religions are right for the individual who believes in them. Much the same as beliefs about marriage differ all over the world, so do the beliefs in religion.
I think each person decides for themselves which is the "correct" religion and many choose to have no religion. All of them are the right choices for each individual. I don't think it is something that is blanket right or wrong.
hehe! One of my favorite subjects! :)
Satanism is (from what I understand because I have a few friends who used to be Satanists), is the "religion" or belief that one is their own god. It teaches the raising up of one's self above all (thus serving self rather than God). It is interesting to note that this is the same thing that Lucifer did (right before God gave him the boot, that is).
Jesus made the statement that we could have one of two masters. Many believe that one is God and the other is the Devil (Baal, Lucifer, Satan, etc). I don't believe this is the case. I believe he was talking about the choice of serving God or serving self (which is what Lucifer did to get himself in trouble).
On another remark that was made, the Catholic church came after the early Church of the apostles. Actually, the Early Church came to be known as the Cathlic church much later. The two definately should not be confused. One was free and open while the other was very controling and veiled in secrecy.
To offset the very first comment (which I must do in all fairness), just how many denominations does the "Christian" Church have? I think you will be interested to note their differences in beliefs as well (I've been in and out of a LOT of them, and I should know). Does that mean that not all Christianity leads to God?
I hate to use such a cliche example, but remember the story of the seven blind men with the elephant? One thought it was a barrel, the other a snake, etc...
Personally, I believe that all religions (even those that teach the servitude to self) will lead to God. However, my impression (for myself) is that I don't want to be standing on the wrong side of the picket line on that "great day" if you know what I mean... :)
Just a thought or two...
Rev
Well, a couple of thoughts.
If you think or believe that anything subjective such as religion can be correct or incorrect, you probably shouldn't be discussing it. An idea can be good or bad, relative to a person's beliefs, but a subjective thing cannot be correct or incorrect (right or wrong). I may say something feels wrong to me, but that is merely a statement of good/bad relative to me.
The differences between Islam and Christianity and Judaism are fringe differences. Those differences are in the presentation, not the pudding itself. If you want to be arrogant and believe that only YOUR religion can be right, perhaps you should just go somewhere else, because that kind of boorish arrogance is exactly what caused tragedies like the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc..
Being that the most dangerous kind of mind is a closed one (which I agree with completely because no single religion is completely right IMHO)...
Points to ponder:
1. The Cruisades were caused by the Catholic church's greed for power (which it was beginning to lose at the time).
2. The Inquisition was caused by the Catholic Church's greed for power (which it was seriously loosing at the time).
3. As for the Holocoust... I'm sure it's going to be because of someone's greed for power (aren't most wars?)
4. The focus of Christianity(as it was berthed): To have a relationship with a living God through Jesus Christ.
5. The focus of Judiasm(as it was berthed): To have (or continue in) a covenant with God.
6. The focus of Islam(as it was berthed): To be found in favor with God.
No religion calls for warfare with another religion (and yes, that includes Islam, so Thilly Thadam was way off track on that one). The Catholic Church definately screwed up on that as well (greed does that to people if they let it). The Jews just stayed ticked off because they kept getting slaughtered, enslaved, and then finally their boarders were recognized by the UN (which is probably the best thing that's happened for them to date).
All three religions have to do with one true God... It only makes sense that they all lead to the same one, right?
So in a sense you're right... It's just a matter of what one believes. What I believe I know is right for me. Of course I can only say that for me because I have no right to judge (that's against my religion). :)
Cheers!
Rev
I have never heard this perspective from a Muslim before. Bimmer you know just as I do, that the Qu-ran has many many verses condeming the Jewish people and their belifes. So Save your apologetics on that situation. I have read the Qu-ran. The truth cannot be hidden. I know how the Islamic state feels about Jews and Christians. I have spoken with Muslim Preists, they say that there is a war between faiths, not nations. Which makes them think every Palestinian that attacks the public goes to heaven. This is not the case. No-one goes to heaven for being a patriot.Quote:
Question...
I only read the first three chapters or so of the Qu-ran, so mayhaps someone can "enlighten" me on this...
From the first few chapters I read, I came to the conclusion that Muslims believe Jews and Christians to be like "brothers" in that they both served the same God. I seem to remember some comments about how the Jews had "missed" it because they refused to recognize Jesus at all while the Christians "missed" it because they believed that Jesus was God on Earth (which, even though I'm a Christian, I have to disagree with as well). The Qu-ran stated that Jesus was like a divine prophet, or a great spiritual leader (I don't remember exactly which, but it's something along those lines)...
My question is simply this... If both the Jews and Christians are as brothers (although deceived), then why the condemnation (or religous warfare)? If someone can PM me (it's really kind of off-subject here) where those condemnations are, then perhaps I can get an idea of where the lines are being drawn.
Every religion has it's wierdos (SayDamn, David CoreDump, etc...), but those are pretty far out exceptions... For the most part, I'm speaking of mainstreams in each religion. Writings are inturrepreted differently by different people. Fame, power, greed, money, and wierdos can do some pretty awesome damage to any sect of society (religous or not).
Curious,
Rev
I agree.Quote:
Originally posted here by Rev Jazzman
Being that the most dangerous kind of mind is a closed one (which I agree with completely because no single religion is completely right IMHO)...
Points to ponder:
1. The Cruisades were caused by the Catholic church's greed for power (which it was beginning to lose at the time).
I disagree. If you want power, you don't come to a far off land, and slaughter thousands of people and take their land. You make slaves of those people to get power over them. Think of the Inquisition's forays into South America, and tell me if you still honestly believe that they were seeking power, not resources (land, money, gold, etc).Quote:
2. The Inquisition was caused by the Catholic Church's greed for power (which it was seriously loosing at the time).
Well, it was basically because one man decided he didn't like the Jews, and that they were wrong, and he was going to show them. Whether that was the intention or not, I am unsure, but the visible effect in history is that was what the Nazis were trying to do. Either way, it seems to me to be built upon the basis that the Jews were wrong in their religious beliefs, and they were to be punished for it. Again, boorish arrogance on the part of the people with power.Quote:
3. As for the Holocoust... I'm sure it's going to be because of someone's greed for power (aren't most wars?)
Now think about this for a moment. If Jesus is credited with starting Christianity, and stated many times over that people should be worshipping god, not him, wouldn't it follow that he was trying to get people to simply have a relationship with God?Quote:
4. The focus of Christianity(as it was berthed): To have a relationship with a living God through Jesus Christ.
All three of these things are merely a different way of saying the same thing: be with God.Quote:
5. The focus of Judiasm(as it was berthed): To have (or continue in) a covenant with God.
6. The focus of Islam(as it was berthed): To be found in favor with God.
I disagree with that, not on the basis of wording, but on the basis that while no major religion calls for outright warfare with another religion, the religions do teach and preach discrimination of others (the damned). If you compare Christian, Jewish, and Islamic {pr|t}eachings to those of say, Buddhists, there's a very startling contrast.Quote:
No religion calls for warfare with another religion (and yes, that includes Islam, so Thilly Thadam was way off track on that one). The Catholic Church definately screwed up on that as well (greed does that to people if they let it).
And potentally the worst thin that's happened for them.Quote:
The Jews just stayed ticked off because they kept getting slaughtered, enslaved, and then finally their boarders were recognized by the UN (which is probably the best thing that's happened for them to date).
That is, in essence, the point. If what you believe works for you, and feels 'right' to you, then that is the answer for you.Quote:
All three religions have to do with one true God... It only makes sense that they all lead to the same one, right?
So in a sense you're right... It's just a matter of what one believes. What I believe I know is right for me. Of course I can only say that for me because I have no right to judge (that's against my religion). :)
Perhaps many Christians believe that Christianity is "right" because of the bible verse (Deuteronomy 12: 2-3):
"Ye shall surely destroy all the places, wherein the nations that ye are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree. And ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods; and ye shall destroy their name out of that place."
Which, in essence give divine "permission" to destroy all evidence of other religions. Which gave motivation to the band of Christians that burned the library at Alexandria in Egypt that contained records of religious beliefs and practices. One can only wonder about the information that was lost...
Then again, many Christians have little understanding of the parables contained in the bible, and therefore accept the dogmas and interpretations blindly without any question.
two words.....
Old Testament.
Jesus Came and said that all men are created equal, that all men could be forgiven. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. God was an angry, wrathfull God in the old Testament. With Jesus, he showed us his undying compassion and love. So your statement about Christianity was wrong.
Education you see is the key to this Specter.
I agree with all except with one point... Actually two points...
Power is achieved in many ways... Though money, assets, fame, etc... If you go to a far away land and slaughter for gold, land, and money (and achieve that goal), you have gained power. Unfortunately, it was all done in the name of "God." It kind of makes you wonder who their god was.
As far as the holocoust, I wasn't going to assume he meant any specific one, so I chose the "Great Holocoust" that will supposedly come... As far as the Nazi/Jew Holocoust, it wasn't just hate for the Jewish people. Hitler was another one of those wierdo "Christians" who hated the Jews for a variety of reasons. (Two being that, they didn't believe Jesus to be the Son of God, and he saw them as a threat because he knew (as both Christians and Jews would) that the Jews would be a protected nation (by God) until the "end" and for world dominance (greed), that would present a serious problem for Hitler).
My second disagreement is about the relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Jesus taught that the ONLY way to the Father was through Him ("I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man cometh unto the father but by me," "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved...," etc)
Up until Jesus died on the cross, God's covenant was only with the Jews. The Jews were God's chosen people. Jesus didn't just die for the Jews. He died for all. That relationship with God only comes by way of Jesus Christ.
That is a HUGE difference. That difference is between the old covenant (which only included the Jews), and the new covenant (which includes all).
That brings me to Specter6's observation.... You have to understand that the Old testiment centered around God's covenant with the Jews. That's Judiasm and not Christianity. There is a difference there, so bear that in mind. I bet you won't find anything like that in the new covenant. In fact, what you'll find are comments like "Love your enemy", "Judge not", and "Neither do I condemn thee...", etc... It's all over the place. ;)
What you're talking about is Wierd people who are "Christians" gone awry. Fatal errors, so to speak... :)
Rev
Ok - Old Testament/New Testament which one is "right"?
Just the fact that the New Testament is the "kinder, gentler" version, does that make it "right"? Or do your upbringing and personal beliefs make it "right"?
This is one of the biggest problems that I see with religion. You have numerous translations, versions, etc., and everybody has their own. Each person claims there's is more "accurate". even the Gospels conflict with one another!
I want to know how the New Testament is better than the Old Testament. Is it because it reflects "God" as a merciful entity? Don't they refer to the same "God"? So how is the "edited" version better?
The Old Testiment enveloped God's covenant with the Jews. The Old Testiment is "right" for Judiasm. The New Testiment envelopes God's covenant with "all who believe." That is "right" for Christianity. Neither is "better." Neither is untrue. (If you haven't noticed yet, I'm one of those "The answer to everything is 'it depends'" people)
The Gospels conflict with one another? Are you sure you want to go there (I AM a preacher, after all!) :) Actually, if you want to do that, then let's do it PM. That's really not what this thread is supposed to be about... (we're already getting off subject)
Another thing to take note of is the fact that the Holy Bible is a "Christian" book but still contains the Old testiment. This is because there is very little to be understood about the New Covenant unless there is at least a general understanding of the Old. It's like two completely different worlds, but they're inseperable.
As far as versions, I'm assuming you're talking about the different translations... The ancient Hebrew and Greek languages are not exactly easy to translate. I have a Hebrew and Greek index that I refer to all the time because translations do get messed up along the way. That's just a part of life (Not that I'm complaining, because research never hurt anyone). Another factor is that there are translations that supposedly "expound" whereas it's more interjectory than exposition.
Actually, the Old Testament provides the basis for the New Testament. It tells the story of humankind's inability to live up to God's standards. The New Testament continues the story by telling how God sent the solution for our sin, his Son Jesus Christ, to die and take the penalty for our sins. God did not "change" and somehow become more loving and merciful in the New Testament. God's love and mercy and forgiveness are well illustrated in the Old Testament , just as God's judgement and discipline are present in the New Testament. God is not schizophrenic. Judgment and love are not necessarily mutually exclusive. God is balanced. I'll write more later.
BTW, good to see another preacher, welcome Rev. Jazzman! :)
Balanced between what? Why does the creator of everything need balance?
I've never thought of God as the catholics do, you know, "You'll burn in Hell for jerking off!" I've always viewed him as sort of like Hugh Beaumont, you know, "Aww, you screwed up come over here and give me hug, and don't screw up again."
As far as the whole translation thing goes. There are far too many words thet just aren't transl;atable. Simple fact of the matter is there are some words that have no direct or even indirect translation, so everything you read in today's bible is (how shall I say this without pissing everybody off), inherintly flawed...
King James was a perfect example of how translation can be twisted to suit misogyinstic, racist, blah, idiots.
Balanced between what? Why does the creator of everything need balance?
I've never thought of God as the catholics do, you know, "You'll burn in Hell for jerking off!" I've always viewed him as sort of like Hugh Beaumont, you know, "Aww, you screwed up come over here and give me hug, and don't screw up again."
As far as the whole translation thing goes. There are far too many words thet just aren't transl;atable. Simple fact of the matter is there are some words that have no direct or even indirect translation, so everything you read in today's bible is (how shall I say this without pissing everybody off), inherintly flawed...
King James was a perfect example of how translation can be twisted to suit misogyinstic, racist, blah, idiots.
Have to agree. The King James "version" (not translation), is a rather perfect example of how religious texts can be manipulated, but yet accepted.Quote:
King James was a perfect example of how translation can be twisted to suit misogyinstic, racist, blah, idiots.
Now how is this possible, if there is one "right"?
Have to agree. The King James "version" (not translation), is a rather perfect example of how religious texts can be manipulated, but yet accepted.Quote:
King James was a perfect example of how translation can be twisted to suit misogyinstic, racist, blah, idiots.
Now how is this possible, if there is one "right"?
[quote]Balanced between what? Why does the creator of everything need balance?[quote]
Balance is a virtue. To be balanced is to not be given to extremes. As humans we often go too far to extremes. God does not suffer from this fault.
[quote] As far as the whole translation thing goes. There are far too many words thet just aren't transl;atable. Simple fact of the matter is there are some words that have no direct or even indirect translation, so everything you read in today's bible is (how shall I say this without pissing everybody off), inherintly flawed...
King James was a perfect example of how translation can be twisted to suit misogyinstic, racist, blah, idiots.[quote]
What are you basing this statement on? Can you give specific examples to back up your assertion?
[quote]Balanced between what? Why does the creator of everything need balance?[quote]
Balance is a virtue. To be balanced is to not be given to extremes. As humans we often go too far to extremes. God does not suffer from this fault.
[quote] As far as the whole translation thing goes. There are far too many words thet just aren't transl;atable. Simple fact of the matter is there are some words that have no direct or even indirect translation, so everything you read in today's bible is (how shall I say this without pissing everybody off), inherintly flawed...
King James was a perfect example of how translation can be twisted to suit misogyinstic, racist, blah, idiots.[quote]
What are you basing this statement on? Can you give specific examples to back up your assertion?
I have to agree. The English language doesn't support many of the Hebrew and Greek words. This is why having the Hebrew and Greek index is so important. Probably the best language that the Bible can be translated into is Spanish. It supports things like gender and time descriptions MUCH more effectively (and you'd be surprised just how much difference those two make in themselves). I just wish I knew Spanish! :)Quote:
As far as the whole translation thing goes. There are far too many words thet just aren't transl;atable. Simple fact of the matter is there are some words that have no direct or even indirect translation, so everything you read in today's bible is (how shall I say this without pissing everybody off), inherintly flawed...
Another problem that Christianity today is facing is the vast difference in culture. There is a LOT to be learned in the scripture just from understanding bits and pieces of ancient cultures. (For instance, I used to rely heavily on some local Jewish friends until I met and started talking to a Jewish rabbi in Israel. Even American Jews know little (no offences here, just observation) of their ancient culture. It's been watered down, and that presents a serious problem even for Judiasm in America).
The "inherent flaw" comes with taking things at face value. People HAVE to be objective in reading/studying the scripture. They HAVE to take the time to research with a "question everything" approach, or what they get is a very twisted idea of what they perceive the Bible to teach.
Paul stated "[God] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. " II Cor. 3:6
Plainly put, if you take scripture (or anything for that matter) at face value, you get deception. That certainly doesn't only work for the New Testiment, either. As I pointed out, the Old Testiment is becoming more and more difficult to study as time passes.
Even then, people tend to see what they want to see. For instance, some people think that Ozzy Osbourne's Suicide Solution is a song about suicide being a solution to a problem. With that mentality, the whole song takes on a different meaning, but anyone who listens to it objectively knows it's about alchoholism (the word "solution" meaning "mixture"). People see what they want to see, and don't question it. That's a problem, and it doesn't just result in general misinturpretations (which we are all subject to), but even produces extremities such as Hitler, Koresh, and BinLackin.'
These are really good points, BTW. It's good to converse with a "logical lot" for a change. :)
Rev
[quote]That is, in essence, the point. If what you believe works for you, and feels 'right' to you, then that is the answer for you.[quote]
Hi,
This is what I'm getting at. You seem to be saying "it doesn't matter if your faith has any objective reality behind it as long as it meets your needs." But true faith is not based upon what meets our needs. It stems from God's claim on our lives and our response to Him. Either God is real, or He isn't.
No, I am not saying that if it meets your needs, if you actually read what I said, it's what WORKS for you. You may think that something suits your needs (say you're a ruthless killer), but it may not WORK for you.Quote:
Originally posted here by preacherman481
Hi,
This is what I'm getting at. You seem to be saying "it doesn't matter if your faith has any objective reality behind it as long as it meets your needs." But true faith is not based upon what meets our needs. It stems from God's claim on our lives and our response to Him. Either God is real, or He isn't.
You seem to have mistaken what I meant by works. I do not mean it in in the sense of 'suiting your needs', I mean it in the sense of 'you feel comfortable with it, and it brings you happiness'.
Since the dawn of man, there have been people whose actions have been bad, and there have been people whose actions have been good. Almost all the time people vary between acting good and bad. A religion that works for one person may not work for another, because human beings are invariably different from one another in some way. Because of this, one religion is not the answer, and no religion is completely correct. Religion is a thing which is entirely relative to the person who is following that belief. There can be no right and no wrong when it comes to religious teachings, only good and bad from our own perspective.
For me, pushing a set of views on someone, whether racial, political, religious, or otherwise, is bad, even wrong (in the sense of extreme bad -- not incorrect). Conversely, there are lots of Jehova's Witnesses that very obviously disagree with my stance.
Hi ChSh,
You seem to be making human beings the meaure of truth. Regardless of what you meant by "works," what really matters is what is true. Is there a God or isn't there? Has God chosen one particular way to reveal himself or not? Also, I really disagree with your reaction to Bimmer's post. I am not a Muslim, and I think Christianity is the truth (Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life), but just because a person thinks his belief is right and another's is wrong doesn't make him arrogant. It is not bad to believe you are right and another person is wrong. Not everyone can be right. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. Either Christianity is right or it is wrong. It doesn't matter if it "works" for someone or not. Christianity makes some pretty exclusive claims about God. Either they're right or they're wrong. What we want to be true or what "works" for us is beside the point.
preacherman481--
Do unto others? Love thy neighbor? Stop me when we get to an axium that you feel comfortable with ;)...historically speaking however Arameic 'Thomas' manuscripts have been found that predate the New Testament with it's early Catholic editors and their political axe to grind. My point - which you skipped over - was that the message is more important than the methodology and that the message is the fellowship of man.Quote:
actually the Gospel of Thomas has never been accepted as the words of Jesus by most Christians.
Ones relationship with god has nothing to do with the attendant methodology. This dogma (read: voodoo) has been added on a per society basis to the basic message - /subsequent/ to it's delivery. The methodology of the relationship with God is not what makes a good person. What makes a good person is the relationship itself.Quote:
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism do have similarities. But they also have some great differences in how they teach we have a relationship with God.
I would submit that the contradictions in the methodologies of practice in these religions are really secondary to the basic premise of the religion itself, ie the commandments (in whatever format) or superset thereof.Quote:
How can they all be right?
I really hope that this is the case because the logical alternative is obscene. Let us say, as you suggest, that there /has/ to be a right and a wrong side because of the contradictions in these faiths. Let us further suggest that salvation will only come to those of the 'right' religion. Shall we now count the contradictions in the Bible and tear that page from page aswell? Are /we/ now not to be saved?
If we were to start down that path we might end up calling the whole business of faith into question entirely. I would prefer to think that the message is more important that the methodology, for it would seem imprudent to lose so potent an opiate of the masses by pursuing such folly.Quote:
Should we kill? Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
vs.
Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
For a discussion of the defense that the Commandments prohibit only murder, see "Murder, He Wrote", chapter 27 (Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist).
Should we tell lies? Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."
vs.
I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.
Should we steal? Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs.
Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.
Extract from:
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html
But where have these contradictions come from?
Given the contradictions even in our own dogma is it so difficult to see that the dogma surrounding the same basic message in a different culture might also be contradictory from that of our own? So my initial position still stands - I have left the church and gone back to God.Quote:
The Bible consists of materials (diaries, letters, narratives, written and oral histories) that survived Catholic editors who were motivated by politics and not, as is obvious to anyone free of theological bias, logic. In other cases, things that seem illogical in the Bible were left exactly as the translators found them, out of reverence for the text. They didn't understand, so they transcribed as exactly as they could. Parts that had more mystical or almost Buddhist overtones were left out altogether. Many writings were systematically destroyed to favor the mystically vacant and emotionally mean orthodoxy
Excerpt from:
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm
Umm... Those aren't contradictions. First, you have to ask youself, "What is the context that all of these things were written around." Second, you have to ask, "Are divine judgments and laws the same thing?" Thirdly, "What were the customs of the people involved (and bear in mind that Jewish customs today are not the same as the customs of the early Jew. Nor was it the same for the Jew at the time of Christ)?"
The "contradictions" that came from improperly translating text (for whatever reason) would be more productively labeled as "improper translations." Again, this is why it is so important to have the Hebrew and Greek indexes handy (There is a program called FreeBible which has this feature, BTW).
The Orthodox Church (Church of England) on the other hand is an interesting story in itself... The second time a pope tried to excommunicate a king, the king simply said "core dump!" and started his own Church of which the prime minister was in charge (and so it is today). They set the Church up because they wanted to be able to serve God without having to serve or be subject to the power-hungry Catholic Church (of the time).
For them, the problem came with the translations (which were translated from various languages, that were translated before from latin). They were "Fourth generation Bibles" so to speak. As with Windows, it only gets worse. (j/k) The king ordered that a new Bible be translated (directly from the Hebrew and Greek), and that the translation team be the "best" linguists and scholars of their universities. Then it had to "pass" the inspection of a team of ministers.
After that, the "KJV" was literally enforced in the Church to keep uniformity (vs. confusion). You may find it interesting to note that even today, people will still say, "The King James Version is the only true version of the Bible. Everything else is a lie!" This is what happens when Church and state mix. :)
Yes, the KJV definately has it's flaws, but those flaws are not contradictions. Those flaws only come from improper (or impossible) translation. In reality, they did a pretty good job with it... Maybe somday, babelfish.altavista.com will be able to handle something like that, but for now... The Hebrew and Greek index coupled with a good knowledge of ancient history and culture is really all we can go by if we really want to research the scripture. Unfortunately, as time passes, it will only get more and more difficult.
Rev
Ok let's call them "improper translations". My point is that through "translation" /any/ document of such age is bound to lose some of the origional context. A non religious example you will probably be able to think about rationally would be the works of Shakespere. The words are English but in many cases the context and useage has shifted. This has happened in only 400 years - and Shakespere has been much less "translated" than the bible.
Given the imperfections that you yourself admit in the written word of the bible it would be arrogant in the extreme to suggest that any one religion has a moral superiority to another. But those imperfections are the imperfections of man, not imperfections of the message. And that message is the fellowship of man.
My point, which you eloquently ignored by way of an unnececary lesson into the history of my own nation (no offence intended) was this: Given the imperfections you admit even in our own dogma surely you must agree that the dogma surrounding the same basic message in a different culture might also have diversified from the initial message under the hand of "translation"?