The Cellar - Faith... to what/whom?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Faith... to what/whom? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5982)

Quote:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
And Catholics also do a bunch of stuff, IMO that is wrong, according to the bible.

As do folks from probably every other Christian denomination.

(wonders where slarti and mrnoodle are....)

You know, for an allmighty type of guy, that was pretty damn dumb. God knows (literally) what the first bible(s) said but I'm willing to bet that more than half has had at least one mistranslation over the generations that caused it to be inaccurate.

Same problem really with the made in god's image, god must use a really shitty photocopier because we've got as many bugs as windows XP.

While on the topic, why the hell is god always he? Do christians think god has a wang?

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
Maybe...but no one can say for certain.

Agreed. You either have faith in it as the unerring word of God or you don't.

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
You know, for an allmighty type of guy, that was pretty damn dumb. God knows (literally) what the first bible(s) said but I'm willing to bet that more than half has had at least one mistranslation over the generations that caused it to be inaccurate.

Same problem really with the made in god's image, god must use a really shitty photocopier because we've got as many bugs as windows XP.

Well, alot of people thought that, until they found the dead sea scrolls in like...1947, which were copies of the bible as of about 600AD, IIRC...and comparing them to the current translations yeilds the same document. That seems to be to be a pretty good track record.

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar

While on the topic, why the hell is god always he? Do christians think god has a wang?

Because the bible says so. Trust me, if God was a woman, she wouldn't allow herself to be called a he. She'd get it right. It would be "mother, son, holy ghost."

And some Christians thing god has a wang, and uses it to sleep with all the angels, thus creating souls that are put into babies when they are conceived.

The problem with translation though is that it is never, ever perfect. There are two factors, usually while there is a roughly direct tranlation of a word, you can usually never caputre the exact same means and even if you can, you can't capture menings which may have only existed in a cultural context, due to both of these you always loose things in translation, direct or not. While that document you linked to covers this, I personally find the idea of entrusting your eternal soul or whatever it is you types beleive is at stake on some guys interpretation of a dead language is well, brave.

The idea of god having an eternal orgy with all the angels not only has me in fits lof laughter but reminds me of that wonderful mark twain text, letters from earth.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is a disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." -1 Corinthians 14:34-35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

From the Amplified Bible translation
1 Corinthians 11

1PATTERN YOURSELVES after me [follow my example], as I imitate and follow Christ (the Messiah).
2I appreciate and commend you because you always remember me in everything and keep firm possession of the traditions (the substance of my instructions), just as I have [verbally] passed them on to you.
3But I want you to know and realize that Christ is the Head of every man, the head of a woman is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God.
4Any man who prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, and comforts) with his head covered dishonors his Head (Christ).
5And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved.
6For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head].
7For a man ought not to wear anything on his head [in church], for he is the image and [reflected] glory of God [[1] his function of government reflects the majesty of the divine Rule]; but woman is [the expression of] man's glory (majesty, preeminence).(1)
8For man was not [created] from woman, but woman from man;(2)
9Neither was man created on account of or for the benefit of woman, but woman on account of and for the benefit of man.(3)
10[2] Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, [3] that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them].
11Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman;
12For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author].
13Consider for yourselves; is it proper and decent [according to your customs] for a woman to offer prayer to God [publicly] with her head uncovered?
14Does not [4] the native sense of propriety (experience, common sense, reason) itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor [humiliating and degrading] to him,
15But if a woman has long hair, it is her ornament and glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.
17But in what I instruct [you] next I do not commend [you], because when you meet together, it is not for the better but for the worse.
18For in the first place, when you assemble as a congregation, I hear that there are cliques (divisions and factions) among you; and I in part believe it,
19For doubtless there have to be factions or parties among you in order that they who are genuine and of approved fitness may become evident and plainly recognized among you.
20So when you gather for your meetings, it is not the supper instituted by the Lord that you eat,
21For in eating each one [hurries] to get his own supper first [not waiting for the poor], and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.

Verse 5 indicates the women were preaching and speaking in Corinth.

Paul was writing to the church in Corinth.

taken from my study bible:
In the Corinthian culture, women were not allowed to confront men in public. Apparently some of the women who had become Christians thought their Christian freedom gave them the right to question the men in public worship. This was causing division in the church.

In addition, women of that day did not receive formal religious instruction like the men did. Women may have been asking questions during the service, when their husbands could have answered it at home without disrupting the service. Paul was asking the women not to flaunt their Christian freedom during the ceremony, in an effort to create unity, not to suppress their questions.

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
The problem with translation though is that it is never, ever perfect. There are two factors, usually while there is a roughly direct tranlation of a word, you can usually never caputre the exact same means and even if you can, you can't capture menings which may have only existed in a cultural context, due to both of these you always loose things in translation, direct or not. While that document you linked to covers this, I personally find the idea of entrusting your eternal soul or whatever it is you types beleive is at stake on some guys interpretation of a dead language is well, brave.

That's why I like the amplified translation...when a word has other connotations, or can be construed differently contextually, it is put in parenthesis or brackets to clarify the meaning.

Wouldn't you end up with two copeis of the same sentence that could be interpreted differently?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."

Deuteronomy 22:5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amplified translation:

The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Taken from my study bible
This verse commands men and women not to reverse their sexual roles. It is not a statement about clothing styles. Today, role rejections are common - men becoming women, women becoming men. It's not the clothing style that offends God, but the using the style to act out a different sexual role.

and how is it that they get that interpretation?

Stuff like this is part of the reason why I became Buddhist.;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 21:1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect scripture reference. Please correct.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people."

Leviticus 20:18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was only for a certain period of time, I think.. until a sacrifice was made to "cleanse them" of their uncleanness, not forever.

Bet you didn't know that your menstrual cycle was called "your sickness", eh?

Actually yes, I did. Why would you think I didn't?

(quote about lot and his daughters)
Homosexuality is a sin, but if you and your sister want to boff your dying father while he's drunk and asleep, go right ahead.

Where does it say that is was ok for them to do that?

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
and how is it that they get that interpretation?

I don't know. Lots and lots of study and lots and lots of different people agreeing that is the interpretation, when the bible is taken as a whole.