Faith... to what/whom?
<Pomp and Circumstance playing in background> During the last few days, fellow celarites have unearthed the question that has solidly endured since time inmemmorial: Does a deity exist, and can you prove it?
<music streaks out, like in a record>...enough with the big words. let's get to businness.
I believe that God does exist. < that right there, my friends, is a PERIOD. get it? P-E-R-I-O-D.
You want proof? here is the proof! the earth, sky, sea, the animals, plants, every living organism, humans,... the universe as a whole.
How else can you explain the almost natural shape in the stars of Orion, of Leo, of the Ursa major with the big dipper? they look almost realistic, right? Check an astronomy atlas if in doubt.
How else can you explain that every single particle in this universe is composed of 92 natural elements?
How else can you explain that living matter exist? show me at least one person who has created a life-form or an organism out from scratch, and I'll show you God who has created a countless number of Living organisms created from the nothingness of the void.
how else can you explain our own selves? Masters of the Earth ruling over all other organisms. we have subdued and erradicated polio. we have conquered over infectious diseases. We have increased in knowledge from working with stones and sticks being naked in the field surrounded with ferocious animals, to become people who work with computers, cars, modern technoloy; dressed in clothes and having the wild animals in the zoo.
how else can you explain the perfect turn of the Earth aroud the Sun and about itself?you think is not important right? wrong! if the Earth were to stop, the lit side would rise to tempertatures up to 145*F whilst the dark side becomes as cold as the Antartica. So tell me, has any one ever applied any single significant amount of energy to the Earth so that it may keep on spinning?
How else can you explain the continuous growth of the Christian Chruch? compared to other religions, it is one of the few religions that have survived more than 2000 years. yet is the only religion that cares for the worshiper. Ex. a man is stuck in an old well and he is drowning. along comes Confucius and says, "you should have listened and obeyed my teaching, but now... good riddance" and he goes away, next comes Siddartha Gautama (Buddha) and says, " well, you are not enlightened, so I can't help you.
you are still strugling to get out, shout, paddle,...in short, you try every thing to get out. you try drugs in your pocket, but they only add to the problem. you try sex, but it doesn't work. you pull out you wallet and check that you have enough money. so you sign a $10,000 check and start shouting to someone to pull you out. so here comes your boss, and says that he will pull you out if you give the check in the pail that you are grabbing to. so you do it, but he starts to run away with the check and leaves the pail in the surface.
minutes later you are getting ready to die, because the walls are slippery, the well is so wide, you can't get out by yourself, and it's extremely deep. you were told that the well is 125 ft deep.
here then comes Jesus and throws a rope with a metal bar securely tied to it and shouts. "Grab on, I'll get you out!"
so the question is: Do you grab the rope or not?
...
You left the right answer off of the list of choices.
"Can't prove if he does or doesn't exist."
Believing in God is an act of faith. There is no proof of God.
If you believe in God, you tend to see signs of Him in the things around you. If you don't believe, you don't see those signs.
It's not logical. Don't try to make it logical.
must ... resist ... urge ....
.... too ... much ... real .... work .... to do
must ... not ... post .... 90 pages ..... dissertation ..... on religious ..... philosophy.
-sm
Originally posted by glatt
Believing in God is an act of faith. There is no proof of God.
If you believe in God, you tend to see signs of Him in the things around you. If you don't believe, you don't see those signs.
It's not logical. Don't try to make it logical.
So is he asking for an assertion of faith or an attempt at an empirical proof?
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
[snip] I believe that God does exist. < that right there, my friends, is a PERIOD. get it? P-E-R-I-O-D.[snip]
...
So we have to stop right there, at the "PERIOD. get it?", and you, TR can go right on and argue your case?
No no no no, no fair. Of course, you can believe what you will, Tomas, but why should I read your post? (I didn't). I, too, can believe what I will.
[smug]And I won't even ask you to read about it.[/smug]
[SIZE=1]Edited to make the SMUG stand out a bit more![/SIZE]
[COLOR=indigo]Assertation of faith.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
must ... resist ... urge ....
.... too ... much ... real .... work .... to do
must ... not ... post .... 90 pages ..... dissertation ..... on religious ..... philosophy.
-sm
You know you wanna....Do it! DO IT!
Besides, I love reading your posts. You have a great way of expressing your ideas.
Sidhe
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Assertation of faith.[/COLOR]
Faith requires no proof and asserts against contradictory evidence (without proof).
So what is the point?
the Problem is that some people, don't have faith at all. that they want proof.
of course faith is required. I mean, the rope that JC threw is not logical, and it shouldn't be. because the order ot this realm is not the same order in eternal places like Hevaen or Hell.
While I'm sure others can do a better job and I'm simply not patient enough to do it throughly:
So tell me, has any one ever applied any single significant amount of energy to the Earth so that it may keep on spinning?
Gravity of the sun?
how else can you explain the perfect turn of the Earth aroud the Sun and about itself?you think is not important right? wrong! if the Earth were to stop, the lit side would rise to tempertatures up to 145*F whilst the dark side becomes as cold as the Antartica. So tell me, has any one ever applied any single significant amount of energy to the Earth so that it may keep on spinning?
How many galaxies, how many solar systems how many planets....
How else can you explain the almost natural shape in the stars of Orion, of Leo, of the Ursa major with the big dipper? they look almost realistic, right? Check an astronomy atlas if in doubt.
See above.
and I really want to know what you're doing down a well with a hooker, a checkbook, a pen and a line of cocaine. Secondly, like most other diseases the church is in recession in the developed world and growing in the 3rd world.
Argh, I can't be bothered, someone do this properly, it doesn't look like a real challange.
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
the Problem is that some people, don't have faith at all. that they want proof.
of course faith is required. I mean, the rope that JC threw is not logical, and it shouldn't be. because the order ot this realm is not the same order in eternal places like Hevaen or Hell.
Ah, well, there you go.
The only good thing about this thread is about can vote that god does and doesn't exist. I like that kind of pluralism in thought.
Tomas, if you are going to bring other spiritual beliefs into your little story, you need to at least understand what you are talking about. Buddhism has been around longer than Christianity, by the way. If the Buddha happened to be strolling past your person stuck in the well, he would simply pull the person out, no questions asked; and go on his way. He would not demand that this person become enlightened either before or afterward.
You cannot give empirical scientific proof of the existance of God. The examples you site are proof of the laws of physics and evolutionary science. Your statement that man is the apex of creation is parochial, at best. Man is busily destroying whatever God may have created here on earth.
Either you believe in God or you don't. This is why its called "faith" in God.
God doesn't want to be proven. How else can he discern the faithful?
Speaking of Buddha, do we have any Buddhists here?
Bigfoot must exist. I know there are no bigfoot bones, and no proof, but there are trees and rocks and mountains and only bigfoot could have made them so that proves he must exist. Look at the perfect shape of a pinecone and tell me there's no bigfoot to create it.
How else could we have trees and rocks and mountains if bigfoot didn't create them?
Jag, out of curiousity, from what I'fe read of Buddhism it seems to me that it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Is that accurate?
I imagine Christianity can be argued to be a philosophy as well, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that my understanding of Buddhism indicates that there is no faith in a diety required. That Buddha is treated as more of an enlightened man, deserving of admiration and respect, but no more so than any other "good" person.
this is the only post i will enter on this thread and then i don't think i will ever read it again - because i really like most of what lumberjim says, but if you aren't aware TR - you are jumping up and down on LJ's asshole button.
here is my view: God exists. I believe in the trinity, I believe in salvation, I believe in the crucifixion and resurrection.
I believe - this means it is not proven. It is my FAITH.
something that requires faith by necessity isn't proveable or unproveable. if it was we'd look up the answer and say, "oh there it is." then it is no longer faith, it is knowledge.
I have faith in christ's redeeming blood. i have knowledge that this can't be proven during my life.
You cannot give empirical scientific proof of the existance of God.
Nonsense, I'm right here.:)
I just subscribe to the idea of a very elaborate deus ex machina..
Nonsense, I'm right here
And that proves there's a god because.......?
Some people just don't get it. Your existance doesn't prove there's a god. Pointing to a tree or a bird or even your central nervous system doesn't prove there's a god. That is no different than saying you can prove that people were put on earth by UFO Aliens because we're here. It's circular logic and holds no merit.
I have no "faith" in anything that can't be proven to exist. Introduce me to the being you call god and let me see him or her face to face and let me test this so-called diety. Then and only then will I believe there's a god. Don't point to a deed you attribute to god. Don't point to a footprint and claim it was made by God. Let me meet god and see him do something that only "god" can do and I'll have all the faith in the world. Until you do provide such evidence, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the believers.
Belief is not provable. The moment you do it stops being faith and the bottom kind of falls out of religion.
I just subscribe to the idea of a very elaborate deus ex machina..
I think a lot of people have that: the faith that
somehow, somewhere, there's gonna be a miracle that will get me out of all of this shit.Radar, who shit on your muffin this morning?
Bruce was joking.
Undertoad, I was thinking that this morning while I was doing an inspection of a sewer, and I was 6 metres down a manhole.
Although perhaps I was thinking of "shit" in a slightly more literal sense.
Originally posted by Radar
And that proves there's a god because.......?
Of course, one person has to fail to get the joke.
I bet God gets all the jokes.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
I bet God gets all the jokes.
I imagine Bruce could answer that one. :D
"God Shuffled His Feet"
--Crash Test Dummies
After seven days
He was quite tired so God said:
"Let there be a day
Just for picnics, with wine and bread"
He gathered up some people he had made
Created blanket and laid back in the shade
The people sipped their wine
And what with God there, they asked him questions
Like: do you have to eat
Or get your hair cut in heaven?
And if your eye got poked out in this life
Would it be waiting up in heaven with your wife?
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
So he said:"Once there was a boy
Who woke up with blue hair
To him it was a joy
Until he ran out into the warm air
He thought of how his friend would come to see;
And would they laugh, or had he got some strange disease?
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
The people sat waiting
Out on their blankets in the garden
But God said nothing
So someone asked him:"I beg your pardon:
I'm not quite clear about what you just spoke
What that a parable, or a very subtle joke?"
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
if we find the person who gets all the jokes does that prove the existence of God?
Originally posted by perth
Speaking of Buddha, do we have any Buddhists here?
Well, there's me, but I am the humblest of "stream entrants." ;)
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Nonsense, I'm right here.:)
"Namaste'", Bruce. The Buddha Nature within me salutes the Buddha Nature within you. ;)
faith in humanity...but the damn power hungry religious zealots and evangelists keep warping it.
Originally posted by perth
Jag, out of curiousity, from what I'fe read of Buddhism it seems to me that it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Is that accurate?
I imagine Christianity can be argued to be a philosophy as well, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that my understanding of Buddhism indicates that there is no faith in a diety required. That Buddha is treated as more of an enlightened man, deserving of admiration and respect, but no more so than any other "good" person.
Since Jag has probably gone to sleep and I have nothing better to do, I'll attempt to answer your question, Perth.
Buddhism in its purest form is very akin to philosophy. The Buddha himself never claimed to be a deity. When asked what he was, the Buddha merely replied, "I am awake." In one of the Buddhist teaching stories the students of the Buddha asked him about God and the after life. The Buddha replied, "Some things are unknowable by man. What you must concentrate on is what you are doing now, in this moment. You worry about this or that. This may happen, now that. This may be the afterlife or that. A man who occupies his mind so throws his life away because he no longer lives in this moment. It is in this moment which we live. Nothing else need concern you."
There are no Buddhist equivalents to our Christian missionaries. Buddhists believe that if you wish to follow the Buddha's teachings (the dharma), you may do so. If you wish to follow some other path that's fine also. Buddhist monks did travel in much of India and China and Japan. The people of these regions altered Buddhist thought to meet their own needs. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is very mystical with many Bodisattva's (Saints - sort of) and different manifestations of the Buddha which are worshipped as deities. Even Tibetan Buddhism, however, adheres to the basic Buddist teachings of the "4 Noble Truths" and the "Eightfold Noble Path" and "anhimsa" or non harming of all living beings.
End of lecture. If you want to know more than that its readily available thru a google search on the internet.;)
Thou art god.
Drink deeply.
marichiko is right, I had gone to bed and she's done a good job of answering the question too.
I find buddhist philosophy rather enlightened (not intended as a bad pun or sorts) and have found it helpful in dealing with the world, to date the happiest/most content people I have met have been buddhist monks.
The vibe I get from Buddists is, don't worry, be happy, take everything in stride and it will be what it will be.
Bet the Gumint would like us all to be Buddists.:)
Originally posted by Radar
Bigfoot must exist. I know there are no bigfoot bones, and no proof, but there are trees and rocks and mountains and only bigfoot could have made them so that proves he must exist. Look at the perfect shape of a pinecone and tell me there's no bigfoot to create it.
How else could we have trees and rocks and mountains if bigfoot didn't create them?
NICE!
but i bet bigfoot won't condemn you to an eternity of tortuous damnation if you fail to believe in him in this life.
tom, your post is indicitive of the idiocy of most christians that give their religion a bad name.
not to say that there aren't any christians that understand the personal nature of spirituality and respect other people's belief systems. there are several here that "get it". you, apparently are not among them. When you put up a poll like that, and then give us "the right answer".....what's the point of the poll?
the fact that you have faith in The Lord is fine and dandy with me....I hope you and God have a fine time up in heaven if you don't fuck it up in this 60+ years that you'll live on earth. But don't try to tell me that I'm wrong about what I believe and you're right. thats just stupid and hypocritical.
the natural phenomenon that you listed as proof could just as likely be coincedental. In fact, it's more likely that they are...mathmatically speaking. I mean, listing the constellations as proof? what are you retarded? we drew pictures around the stars, and wrote the stories to go with them.....and they only
vaguely resemble the characters or GODS (non christian gods, of course) that they were originally named for. that's not proof! it's not even admissable as evidence......
sorry... i wasn't done yet....
if the natural world is proof enough for you, that's just super.
it's not for me. I think "god's" involvement in our planet ended when he/she/it created whatever went BANG in the big bang.....but i can't prove it.
But don't try to tell me that I'm wrong about what I believe and you're right. thats just stupid and hypocritical.
Jim, you have to understand, that to be a true Christian, a person has to have absolute faith. If they say “that’s what I believe, but I could be wrong and you could be right”, then they don’t have absolute faith, hence are not true Christians. While I do maintain that Christians that feel they must save everyone else’s soul, are the most obnoxious people on earth, I understand why they can’t accept that you *might* be right in your beliefs. It’s a catch 22. What you believe, you’ve derived by what you feel is a logical thought process and apparently are offended that they won’t say you could be right, therefore casting aspersions on your thinking ability. But that’s not true. Actually it would be hypocritical of them to say you might be right.:)
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Jim, you have to understand, that to be a true Christian, a person has to have absolute faith. If they say “that’s what I believe, but I could be wrong and you could be right”, then they don’t have absolute faith, hence are not true Christians. While I do maintain that Christians that feel they must save everyone else’s soul, are the most obnoxious people on earth, I understand why they can’t accept that you *might* be right in your beliefs. It’s a catch 22. What you believe, you’ve derived by what you feel is a logical thought process and apparently are offended that they won’t say you could be right, therefore casting aspersions on your thinking ability. But that’s not true. Actually it would be hypocritical of them to say you might be right.:)
i can't beleive that that never dawned on me. what a razors edge to walk.....thanks, bruce
i understand better now. no, really. thanks
Actually, Christians are OK. It's the other 9x% that *think* they are Christians, that fuck everything up.:haha:
Too true, good christians aren't bad people, they do however hold the most boring new years eve parties ever in the history of mankind, just a warning.
Not to mention the worst weddings.
No alcohol, no music, no dancing at the reception.
One of my coworkers is going to one of these this weekend.
There's also usually at least one male relative who gets overtaken by fervor in the midst of either the service or reception and stands up and makes the speech about how it is the duty of the wife to submit to her husband, etc.
People know not to invite me to such weddings.
The combination of firearms and access to perscription drugs would indeed suggest that be wise ;)
In other Christian news, Creed just broke up.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
In other Christian news, Creed just broke up.
THEY WERE CHRISTIANS?
now i know why i never liked their stuff.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
The vibe I get from Buddists is, don't worry, be happy, take everything in stride and it will be what it will be.
Bet the Gumint would like us all to be Buddists.:)
Actually, the government would be extremely upset to wake up one morning to discover that the population had turned Buddhist over night. Since Buddhists believe in anhimsa or non-harming, there would be no one to serve in the military. The government might draft them, but they wouldn't turn their weapons on another human being. That is why it was so easy for the Chinese to walk over Buddhist Tibet (and I'm not here to argue whether pacifism is good or bad, just stating a tenet of Buddhist belief). The cattlemen's association would have to become the diaryman's association, and poultry farmers would have to switch to the egg business since Buddhist's are vegetarian. There would be no one willing to work in the arms industry or anything related to the defense industry. All in all, I don't think Uncle Sam would be too pleased. I wonder what would happen to the concept of freedom of religion in the event of such a miraculous mass conversion? ;)
Originally posted by marichiko
The cattlemen's association would have to become the diaryman's association, and poultry farmers would have to switch to the egg business since Buddhist's are vegetarian.
are eggs vegetables?
I believe eggs are a type of nut.
Originally posted by lumberjim
are eggs vegetables?
Some Buudhists will eat them. I guess you'd have to check with the Dali Lama if you were really worried about this (or possibly the abortion thread).
;)
Nope, fish are out - defiantely living beings not to be harmed.
Only if taken from the fish in a painless mannr. Many Buddhists enjoy the occasional scrambled eggs and caviar breakfast.;)
Many buddhists must then live in a bizarre fantasyland, where salmon are not killed to have the eggs scraped out of their innards.
I drink from the pool of wisdom that is buddhism.
I often begin meditations by reflecting on the words of the Daily Lama ... (my own joke-name for a day book of quotes by the Dalai Lama)
I however, eat from the table of Odin. Another haunch of oxen, please? And can I have fries with that?
Part of the Daili Lama's advice for the new millenium was "Know the rules thoroughly, so that you may break them properly".:)
Originally posted by wolf
Many buddhists must then live in a bizarre fantasyland, where salmon are not killed to have the eggs scraped out of their innards.
I drink from the pool of wisdom that is buddhism.
I often begin meditations by reflecting on the words of the Daily Lama ... (my own joke-name for a day book of quotes by the Dalai Lama)
I however, eat from the table of Odin. Another haunch of oxen, please? And can I have fries with that?
That was a joke, Wolf. Hello?
And you're welcome to eat whatever you please.
Can't y'all see it. I know that I Ridiculized a bit the Faith essensialism in Christianity; But, can't you see I;m talking to the people of materialistic minds and hearts.
<sigh> BTW, I started to ponder, And as far as I'm concerned, Buddhism cannot ever reach universal proportions, since what's happiness to one man is always going to be remorsement, distress, or even obnoxious to the person right beside you. (Imagine Bush if all the troops became pacifists... Better, not.)
still, there is a book that I've heard is truly life changing. The Purpose Driven Life By Rick Warren. If you are a person who wants to live that has a purpose, this is it.
You mean, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church?
"My prayer is that this website will help you as you pursue God's purpose for your life. You were created by God for a very specific reason, and only you are qualified to fulfill the mission God has placed within your very DNA.
The Bible teaches that God created you with five purposes in mind:
Worship - you were planned for God's pleasure.
Fellowship - you were formed to be part of God's family.
Discipleship - you were created to become like Christ.
Ministry - you were shaped for God's service.
Mission - you were made to tell others about Christ.
The Bible says, "David served God's purpose in his own generation." I can't think of a better epitaph. That's what I want for my life - that when I die people will say, "He served God's purpose in his generation."
And that's what I want people to say about you, that you served God's purpose in your generation. I hope this website encourages you on your journey."
All that for the rock-bottom price of $10.99 US?
Faith is getting cheaper!
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
Can't y'all see it. I know that I Ridiculized a bit the Faith essensialism in Christianity; But, can't you see I;m talking to the people of materialistic minds and hearts.
<sigh> BTW, I started to ponder, And as far as I'm concerned, Buddhism cannot ever reach universal proportions, since what's happiness to one man is always going to be remorsement, distress, or even obnoxious to the person right beside you. (Imagine Bush if all the troops became pacifists... Better, not.)
still, there is a book that I've heard is truly life changing. The Purpose Driven Life By Rick Warren. If you are a person who wants to live that has a purpose, this is it.
Tomas, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about here. One thing you need to understand. You cannot argue a topic on the basis of your own preconcieved notions. If you don't understand something, its better to ask about it or else remain silent.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
You mean, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church?
right>!!!
Tomas, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about here. One thing you need to understand. You cannot argue a topic on the basis of your own preconcieved notions. If you don't understand something, its better to ask about it or else remain silent.
Well, You know that I rather ask than remain silent (I have remained silent for the last 6 yrs and it didn't work)
???What am I talking about???:D
seriously, let me open the gasket up a bit. What do you think Matthew 25: 34 means?
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
Well, You know that I rather ask than remain silent (I have remained silent for the last 6 yrs and it didn't work)
???What am I talking about???:D
seriously, let me open the gasket up a bit. What do you think Matthew 25: 34 means?
Only God knows.;)
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
Well, You know that I rather ask than remain silent (I have remained silent for the last 6 yrs and it didn't work)
???What am I talking about???:D
seriously, let me open the gasket up a bit. What do you think Matthew 25: 34 means?
that's it. I've had it. I can appreciate that you want to discuss this. I can even appreciate that you want to sound as if you know what the hell you're on about. But c'mon. Seriously.
Can't y'all see it. I know that I Ridiculized a bit the Faith essensialism in Christianity; But, can't you see I;m talking to the people of materialistic minds and hearts.
If you can't even put together a coherent sentence, how can you expect any of us to argue religion with you? I know English is your second language and everything, but I don't think that's the problem here. You're whole argument thus far has been "Just Because!" or " Because it says so in the bible. Look, this guy says it, and it was a really long time ago, so it HAS to be right."
Come up with something better.
I begin to think you are excersizing a habit of starting a thread and taking a ridiculous stance ( ala food is better than sex as told by a virgin) just to get people arguing with you. Are you just bored? You shouldn't start a conversation about something you either have little knowledge of, or are unable to articulate, and then speak in tones that come from a position of one who knows the answer before he hears the question. You just sound closedminded and simple. Fess up. you're basically argument trolling, aren't you?.
Matthew 25:34
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. "
Death to lefties!
im surprised that there WAS a Matthew 25:34. I was relatively sure he just pulled that out of the sky as a diversion. What the hell does it have to do with what we're talking about? Wait. What the fuck ARE we talking about anyway?! I've been busy punching myself in the eye over how to ridiculize something.
It would be better to remember Timothy 2 : 23
"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. "
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
It would be better to remember Timothy 2 : 23
"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. "
hmmm.. I like that one. Its pointless to argue with someone who takes refuge behind the Bible as the final, ultimate truth; written by God. If that is their belief, I have no problem with it. However, that is NOT my belief, and I have a real problem with people who try to shove it down my throat. If I'm willing to let them alone, I don't see why they can't return the favor and leave ME alone.
Let us not forget USMC 19:71 -
"Yea, tho I walk thru the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no Evil, for I AM the meanest muthafucka in the Valley"
Or the ever popular Ezekiel 25:17 -
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the Valley of Darkness; for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And, I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers! And, you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"
Or, as my closing argument, a reading from the Holy Book Of Antioch -
"And the Lord spoke, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
I certainly hope that this has cleared up many of the questions that you have.
Go in Peace, and bring back a pizza.
Pepperoni, black olives, and extra cheese.
And a 2 litre of Pepsi.
And if you're not back in 30 minutes, it's free.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Jim, you have to understand, that to be a true Christian, a person has to have absolute faith. If they say “that’s what I believe, but I could be wrong and you could be right”, then they don’t have absolute faith, hence are not true Christians. While I do maintain that Christians that feel they must save everyone else’s soul, are the most obnoxious people on earth, I understand why they can’t accept that you *might* be right in your beliefs.
[COLOR=indigo]I agree with that. A true Christian *does* have absolute faith in God and Jesus Christ and the Bible as infallable word of God.
Also, true Christians *are* concerned for the salvation of their fellow man. They have to be. It was said so many times in the bible to "go and bring them unto me..." and it's a function of the true christian's love for his fellow man... If you love all men (and women), then you don't want to see them miss out on eternal life. Therefore, if you love them, you'll try to lead them to God.
Now, you can be obnoxious about it, like Kirk Cameron and his "Way of the Master", which tries to scare people into becoming Christians, but IMO, that is the wrong reason to become a Christian. (It's a reason, but it shouldn't be the only reason.) IMO, you should become a Christian because you want to have a personal, loving reasonship with the marvelous God that created you, and has a purpose for you. Yes, you have to follow some rules...but if you follow the first one Jesus told us was most important, "Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength. That is the first and great commandment," (Mark 12:30) then you will naturally follow the rest.
You can't be a homosexual (just as an easy example) and love God. The arguement that God loves the sinner but not the sin is true. IMO, though, the homosexual (that engages in sexual activity) that says he's a Christian is a liar. If you're a Christian, and you are loving God with all of you and you know from the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, then you will not practice (or "give in" to) your sinful nature because you LOVE god, and you don't want to disappoint him. It's a choice you make. Yes, you're forgiven thru Jesus, but that doesn't mean you can purposely ignore the rules. (Catholics do this alot.) I know one or two people that are gay that have made a choice not to have sex because it's a sin against God. They still find men attractive, but they have made a choice NOT to give in to the wants of the flesh, in order to receive the gifts Jesus promised. THAT is a true Christian.
So yeah, I have a problem with most "evangelists" that try to scare folks to Christ. That is particularly the reason people get saved, then "fall off the Jesus truck". True Love is forever, fear is fleeting. [/COLOR]
Onyx Cougar Reminded us:
[color=indigo]"Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength. That is the first and great commandment," (Mark 12:30) then you will naturally follow the rest. [/color]
Thing is, you see, I do ...
Just not the Fellow that inspired Mark to write.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
You can't be a homosexual (just as an easy example) and love God. The arguement that God loves the sinner but not the sin is true. IMO, though, the homosexual (that engages in sexual activity) that says he's a Christian is a liar. [/COLOR]
that's fucked up. who the fuck are you to say that you can;t love god if you're gay? talk about having an asshole button. please tell me you're being sarcastic and I just missed the joke. jesus christ. Why does our physical sexual appetite have ANYTHING to do with the ability to believe in and love the lord with all of your heart? Here again, is an example of an otherwise lucent and intelligent person saying something completely stupid and hypocritical about the GOD they worship. I'll buy that you have to believe without question that he's god, and even that jesus was your savior and all of that crap that i dont personally believe. I used to struggle with that, but bruce cleared it up for me pretty well. But this? get the fuck outa here. you cant love god because your attracted to the same sex? well who made you attracted to the same sex in the first place? You can;t fake that kind of thing. it is or it isnt. and while i throw the word "gay" around, and call people "homo" as a joking insult, when it comes down to it, i have as much respect for their choices as i do for mine. If they want to worship the christian god, and even thank Him for the pool boy he sent them with the beautiful gay ass, then God bless them. Dont you get it? your religion is between you and your god. the homosexual's religion is between him and his god. you can;t tell him he can;t love god 100% because you dont understand his sexual motivation. take that shit back.
oh wait. are you telling me that God is prejudiced? that Christianity is not an equal opportunity religion? Are black people allowed to be real christians? How about women? i'm just sure there's some grossly sexist line in the bible that says something stupid about a woman being the property of her husband. think for yourself. love your god. believe beyond all proof to the contrary. dont be stupid about it though.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
Also, true Christians *are* concerned for the salvation of their fellow man. They have to be. It was said so many times in the bible to "go and bring them unto me..." and it's a function of the true christian's love for his fellow man... If you love all men (and women), then you don't want to see them miss out on eternal life. Therefore, if you love them, you'll try to lead them to God.
[/COLOR]
Buddhists believe something similiar. In fact, many Buddhist's take something called the "Bodisattva Vow" which I will paraphrase here (the original is rather long): "I vow to never attain perfect enlightenment until every single being also attains perfect enlightenment. I vow that I shall return to this life time and again to help all beings until at last they all attain enlightenment, all suffering at end." That means you're in this life thing for the duration and will never take the easy way out by floating off to heaven (Nirvana) as long as so much as a butterfly still lives on in this world of suffering. That's a pretty heavy duty commitment to make, and an extremely selfless one. Buddhist's believe in attraction, not promotion, so they don't go door to door asking people if they believe in the Dharma. They figure when a soul is ready for it, the heart will open up of its own accord. This seems to me like a far gentler and loving approach.
Well, let's see:
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
Alright, eunuchs and bastards are out,
"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
Hope you're not wearing pants right now, Onyx.
"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
hmm..
"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
Bet you didn't know that your menstrual cycle was called "your sickness", eh?
"And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."
Genesis 19:31
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.
I don't buy this crap where you can believe part of the bible and not other parts. The ENTIRE bible is composed of INTERPRETATIONS of events which transpired. Some are exaggerating, some are insane, some could be accurate. True path to God should be through yourself, not the accounts of a bunch of selectively-included gospels, which all have their own slant.
Believing that homosexuals are evil because Genesis told you so is like believing butternut Squash are made of gold because a hobo said he saw it once in 'nam.
[COLOR=indigo]Let me clarify, since your panties are in a bunch and you've done the usual "take it to the nth degree, nevermind what was meant..."
Let's say you and I are married. We are deeply in love.
We have a dog. I love the dog. I've had this dog since before I married you. I really love this dog.
You kill the dog because it has a color fur you don't like.
How can you say you love me when you killed my dog?
Either (1) You had no thought to how I would feel, so you don't love me, or (2) You thought about it but don't care. So you don't love me.
If you love God, if you truly love Him, not just say you do, then you WANT to do everything in your power to please Him, and NOT do those things which displease him.
He has told us in the Bible (more than once) that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION unto HIM. Don't get pissed off at me because God doesn't like it.
There are, as I said before, gay men that I know that have forsaken the want of their human, sinful flesh because they put GOD'S wants first. They love God more than they love sex.
[/color]
oh wait. are you telling me that God is prejudiced?
[color=indigo]
Yup. He hates sin. Can't stand it. Will not let it be around him. That's why Jesus died on the cross. To wash sins away and bridge that gap between you and God.
[/color]
that Christianity is not an equal opportunity religion?
[color=indigo]
Of course it is. I could quote about 100 verses about how all people are loved of God.
If you love God, you follow the rules. I don't understand how you make the jump to "not an Equal Oppurtunity religion". Everyone is welcome and everyone has to follow the SAME rules. You don't get a special set of rules because you're gay or because you're black. It's the same set of rules for everyone. That seems VERY Equal Opportunity to me.
I do think for myself, and faith is the belief without proof, and I don't think there is any stupidity involved.
Unless you count people being closeminded and not being responsible for their own actions. IMO, that's stupidity.
[/COLOR]
I understand where you're coming from Onyx, but you do realize how contradictory the Bible is, right?
Originally posted by lumberjim
are eggs vegetables?
Only if you're Jewish. In Judaism, eggs and fish are lumped in with grains and vegetables into the Pareve category, which means they are not milk or meat and can be eaten with either.
Jewish dietary laws prohibit mixing meat and milk.
Absolute vegetarians (Vegans) do not eat meat, eggs, fish, or dairy.
There is a term (octo-lavo?) for vegetarians who include eggs and milk.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Believing that homosexuals are evil because Genesis told you so is like believing butternut Squash are made of gold because a hobo said he saw it once in 'nam.
LMAO!:D
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Believing that homosexuals are evil because Genesis told you so is like believing butternut Squash are made of gold because a hobo said he saw it once in 'nam.
[COLOR=indigo]I never said homosexuals are evil. GOD said the ACT is sin. There's a big difference. God loves the sinner, hates the sin. He loves homosexuals, but hates the fact that they commit the sin of practicing homosexuality. I don't understand why that is a difficult concept for some people.
The rest I'll think about and post a reply on after I've looked some stuff up.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by sycamore
I understand where you're coming from Onyx, but you do realize how contradictory the Bible is, right?
[COLOR=indigo]Yes, I realize it says one thing in the old testament and something else in the new, and I'm going to look up specific examples and get back to ya'll on that.[/COLOR]
You missed my point. I'm saying that you only THINK God says homosexuality is a sin, because you read it in a bible which is composed of the accounts of other people!
[COLOR=indigo]I would like to point out, however....that at no time did God say it was ok to commit homosexual practices, and also, at no time, did he say that he didn't love everyone. Also, there was always some sacrifice that had to be made to atone for sin. Those things never changed.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
You missed my point. I'm saying that you only THINK God says homosexuality is a sin, because you read it in a bible which is composed of the accounts of other people!
[COLOR=indigo]Well, to be a Christian, you have to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. You either believe that or you don't. If you don't, you have no basis upon which to be Christian. If one part is wrong, the rest is open to question.
So while YOU believe that the Bible is nothing but a bunch of stories, Christians believe it's the word of god, therefore, since the Word of God say homosexuality is a sin, Christians will believe homosexuality is a sin.
You, as an individual, believe what you want. That's what free will is all about.
[/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Well, to be a Christian, you have to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. You either believe that or you don't.
I disagree. The core concept of Christianity is the that Jesus Christ is the son of God.
(EDIT: Changed some of the words I used.)
Originally posted by sycamore
I disagree. The real basis for Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God.
[COLOR=indigo]But if it wasn't for the bible, how do you know?[/COLOR]
Maybe the Bible is a set of accounts and philosophical guidelines, rather than God dictating to a bunch of blokes.
How is that so hard to comprehend?
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
But if it wasn't for the bible, how do you know?
Word of mouth
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Maybe the Bible is a set of accounts and philosophical guidelines, rather than God dictating to a bunch of blokes.
How is that so hard to comprehend?
[COLOR=indigo]Your idea isn't hard to comprehend.
Why is the thought that the Holy Spirit told these people what to write and protected it so hard to comprehend?
It's not comprehension that is the problem. It's what you believe.
If a bunch of guys sat down and wrote a bunch of stories, why should Christians follow any of it? Why should anyone believe ANY of it? At what point does allegory and parable separate itself from the stuff that really happened?
But if God inspired all those people, and it really is the infallible word of God, shouldn't all Christians follow it as such? If it is a literal and historical document, to be completely trusted, then it becomes a manual for God, and becomes above the level of man and his fallible nature.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by sycamore
Word of mouth
[COLOR=indigo]From who's mouth?[/COLOR]
Priests/ministers/reverends/whatever
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Maybe the Bible is a set of accounts and philosophical guidelines, rather than God dictating to a bunch of blokes.
How is that so hard to comprehend?
Catholics actually take a
contextual interpretation of the Bible. That is, they do not take it word-for-word.
Originally posted by sycamore
Catholics actually take a [b]contextual interpretation of the Bible. That is, they do not take it word-for-word. [/B]
[COLOR=indigo]I agree. And Catholics also do a bunch of stuff, IMO that is wrong, according to the bible.
(1)Worshipping Mary and the saints. (That's a biblical nono.)
(2)Praying the rosary (jesus said not to recite prayers over and over, but to mean them.)
(3)Adding to the word of God. (Biblical nono.) (Mormons also do this)
(4)The pope is not infallible or without sin.
There's a whole lot more, but my big problem with Catholicism are those. There are a whole bunch of websites that will list hundreds of things Catholics do that is not in the bible, and it's because they don't follow it word for word.
I think that's wrong.
[/COLOR]
Keep in mind the old testement and it's bearing on us, other than background information, is moot. It was a covenant with the Jews, which was broken, so God started all over again with Jesus and the new testement.
Even if God inspired the bible to be written through his agents, it's been translated so many times, who knows what it said originally. And if God guided the translations, there wouldn't be so many conflicting versions.;)
Originally posted by sycamore
Priests/ministers/reverends/whatever
[COLOR=indigo]Where did they get their information? How do you know it's accurately been handed down for 2000 years with no mistakes?
It's in the bible. Come on, Syc, you know very well that verbal communication changes from one person to another....
[/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Where did they get their information?
It all goes back to St. Peter, who rolled with JC.
How do you know it's accurately been handed down for 2000 years with no mistakes?
I don't...keep in mind that I'm not a Christian, so it's not about me.
Come on, Syc, you know very well that verbal communication changes from one person to another....
Exactly.
What's your point?
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Keep in mind the old testement and it's bearing on us, other than background information, is moot. It was a covenant with the Jews, which was broken, so God started all over again with Jesus and the new testement.
Even if God inspired the bible to be written through his agents, it's been translated so many times, who knows what it said originally. And if God guided the translations, there wouldn't be so many conflicting versions.;)
[COLOR=indigo]Which was my main problem with the Bible to start with.
This is a link regarding the irreancy of scripture
This is a link regarding all the different copies
This is a link about why there are different translations.
[/color]
[COLOR=indigo]My point is: God wants people to come to Him through Jesus' sacrifice, and he had it all written down so that fallible humans couldn't mess up what the rules were, or what we needed to know, due to what gets lost in purely oral tradition.[/COLOR]
Maybe...but no one can say for certain.
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.
[COLOR=indigo](wonders where slarti and mrnoodle are....)[/COLOR]
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?
Originally posted by sycamore
Maybe...but no one can say for certain.
[COLOR=indigo]Agreed. You either have faith in it as the unerring word of God or you don't.[/COLOR]
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.
[COLOR=indigo]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.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by jaguar
While on the topic, why the hell is god always he? Do christians think god has a wang?
[COLOR=indigo]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.
[/COLOR]
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[COLOR=indigo]
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.[/COLOR]
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.
[COLOR=indigo]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.[/COLOR]
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[color=indigo]
Incorrect scripture reference. Please correct.
[/color]
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[COLOR=indigo]This was only for a certain period of time, I think.. until a sacrifice was made to "cleanse them" of their uncleanness, not forever.
[/COLOR]
Bet you didn't know that your menstrual cycle was called "your sickness", eh?
[color=indigo]Actually yes, I did. Why would you think I didn't?[/color]
(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.
[color=indigo]
Where does it say that is was ok for them to do that?
[/color]
Originally posted by jaguar
and how is it that they get that interpretation?
[color=indigo]
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.
[/color]
Originally posted by marichiko
Stuff like this is part of the reason why I became Buddhist.;)
[COLOR=indigo]I'd love to see everyone questioning and picking apart the Buddhist faith as hard as they question the Christian faith.[/COLOR]
They don't because it isn't really faith, or at least does not require it. A simple philosophy, that is all.
I cannot speak for anyone else but I would consider myself at least somewhat buddhist yet I hold no stick with multiple heavens and hells or even really with reincarnation in general. For me buddhism is simply a philosophy that helps me along.
So, to draw a conclusion, you base your faith on the consensus of of a bunch of guys translating dead languages?
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I'd love to see everyone questioning and picking apart the Buddhist faith as hard as they question the Christian faith.[/COLOR]
Why do you think they don't? For one, Buddhists don't run around condemning everyone to hell who doesn't believe as they do. For another, the teachings of the Buddha are considered the teachings of a great man, not God. I might spout verses from
The Dhammapada , (the essential teachings of the Buddha), but these words are not considered the words of God, the way the Bible is.
Like Christianity, Buddhism has many offshoots or sects. But if you go back to the original Pali texts which transcribe the words of the Buddha, nowhere does he cast anyone into hell. He never claimed such powers. He did admonish his followers that if they were to continue to lead lives of ignorance and do things which brought harm upon others, they would pay for such actions in the form of "karma." (a word I hate to even bring up, it has been so over-used and so misunderstood) In other words, if you lead a life devoted solely to your own pleasures, stealing from this person, abusing that one; your actions will come back on you. No one will trust you, and you will have few friends; and should you one day need the help of those around you, you may find that no one wishes to reach a hand out to you.
In Zen Buddhism (one of the "purest" forms), there are no devils or angels or anything else. As I noted in an earlier post, some forms of Buddhism do embody many of the aspects of the old folk religions of the area where they sprang up. Tibetan Buddhism is a good example of this. However, even Tibetan Buddhists don't condemn the world at large to go to hell for not following the teachings of the Buddha. When's the last time you ever heard the Dali Llama say, "Repent or else!"?
[COLOR=indigo]Good points! Thanks! I think I'm just frustrated.
I'm used to taking the other side in debates, and my experience on the "Christian" side of the debate is far more enlightening than I imagined it would be.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=indigo]Thought this was interesting, in response to Jim:
[/COLOR]
that's fucked up. who the fuck are you to say that you can;t love god if you're gay? talk about having an asshole button. please tell me you're being sarcastic and I just missed the joke. jesus christ. Why does our physical sexual appetite have ANYTHING to do with the ability to believe in and love the lord with all of your heart? Here again, is an example of an otherwise lucent and intelligent person saying something completely stupid and hypocritical about the GOD they worship.
[color=indigo]I'm not anyone to say that you can't love god if you're gay. But Jesus is. And he said:[/color]
John, Chapter 14
21The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who [really] loves Me; and whoever [really] loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I [too] will love him and will show (reveal, manifest) Myself to him. [I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him.]
23Jesus answered, If a person [really] loves Me, he will keep My word [obey My teaching]; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home (abode, special dwelling place) with him.
24Anyone who does not [really] love Me does not observe and obey My teaching. And the teaching which you hear and heed is not Mine, but [comes] from the Father Who sent Me.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
[COLOR=indigo]I'd appreciate not being called hypocritical.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Which was my main problem with the Bible to start with.
This is a link regarding the irreancy of scripture
This is a link regarding all the different copies
This is a link about why there are different translations.
[/color]
The first link says the bible is true because the bible says so. C'mon.
The second link says the new testament is accurate because Jesus said the old testament was accurate. Yeah, sure.
""Which translation is best?", there can be no singular answer. I suggest that every Christian who is serious about studying the Bible own at least two translations. He should have at least one dynamic equivalence translation (or phrase-for-phrase) and one formal equivalence translation (that is, word-for-word translation). In fact, it would be good to have two dynamic equivalence translations--because in this type of translation, the translator is also the interpreter. If his interpretation is correct, it can only clarify the meaning of the text; if it is incorrect, then it only clarifies the interpretation of the translator!"
So none of them are right.
[COLOR=indigo]I have 3 translations, King James, Amplified and New Internation Version.
For some reason, the NIV deletes certain verses altogether. It doesn't change the numbering of the rest of the verses, it just skips a verse. I don't know why it does that.
I like the amplified because it takes all those words that don't have a direct english translation and gives you multiple words to help you understand the original greek or hebrew.
After I get good at Russian and Croatian, I think I'ma go for greek.
I've also been checking out Shavian English....that's a trip....[/COLOR]
Do all 3 bibles have the same 10 commandments?:confused:
[COLOR=indigo]Essentially. Listed here:[/COLOR]
Amplified Bible
Exodus 20
1THEN GOD spoke all these words:
2I am the Lord your God, Who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3You shall have no other gods before or besides Me.
4You shall not make yourself any graven image [to worship it] or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me,(1)
6But showing mercy and steadfast love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7You shall not use or repeat the name of the Lord your God in vain [that is, lightly or frivolously, in false affirmations or profanely]; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
8[Earnestly] remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (withdrawn from common employment and dedicated to God).
9Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your domestic animals, or the sojourner within your gates.
11For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it [set it apart for His purposes].
12Regard (treat with honor, due obedience, and courtesy) your father and mother, that your days may be long in the land the Lord your God gives you.
13You shall not commit murder.
14You shall not commit [1] adultery.(2)
15You shall not steal.(3)
16You shall not witness falsely against your neighbor.(4)
17You shall not covet your neighbor's house, your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.(5)
KJV
Exodus 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
NIV
Exodus 20
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [1] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
New American Standard Bible
Exodus 20
The Ten Commandments
1 Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2 "(1) I am the LORD your God, (2) who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 "(3) You shall have no other (4) gods [1] before Me.
4 "(5) You shall not make for yourself [2] an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5 "(6) You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a (7) jealous God, (8) visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to (9) thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 "(10) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8 "Remember (11) the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "(12) Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it (13) you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "(14) For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "(15) Honor your father and your mother, that your (16) days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
13 "(17) You shall not murder.
14 "(18) You shall not commit adultery.
15 "(19) You shall not steal.
16 "(20) You shall not bear false witness against your (21) neighbor.
17 "(22) You shall not covet your neighbor's house; (23) you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I have 3 translations, King James, Amplified and New Internation Version.
For some reason, the NIV deletes certain verses altogether. It doesn't change the numbering of the rest of the verses, it just skips a verse. I don't know why it does that.[/COLOR]
Which one is the infallible word of God?
[COLOR=indigo]My KJV Study bible has this table:[/COLOR]
<table>
<tr><td>The Ten Commandments Said</td><td>Jesus Said:</td></tr>
<tr><td>Exodus 20:3 Have no other gods before me.</td><td>Matthew 4:10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.</td><td>Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take teh name of the lord thy god in vain.</td><td>Matthew 5:34 Swear not at all, neither by heaven; for it is God's throne.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Exodus 20:8 Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.</td><td>Mark 2:27-28 the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the son of man is lord also of the Sabbath.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother.</td><td>Matthew 10:37 Him that loveth father and mother over me is not worthy of me.</td></tr>
</table>
etc.....
Which one is the infallible word of God?
[color=indigo]
The original text. Unfortunetly, I can't read Greek nor Hebrew, so I depend on other people to translate the text of the original documents for me. God didn't write in English. Sorry.[/color]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I have 3 translations, King James, Amplified and New Internation Version.
For some reason, the NIV deletes certain verses altogether. It doesn't change the numbering of the rest of the verses, it just skips a verse. I don't know why it does that.
[/COLOR]
Ok, here's the history. In about the mid 400's the church at Constantinople started gathering together all the extant manuscripts to form the "authorized text" of the scriptures. They used a technique called "conflation", which is, rather than delete any part of the text that might be accurate, they would try to retain any alternate language in the final form. If one text said one thing, and another text said something else, they would insert both into the new, conflated, authorized text.
From that point, there were several, several copies of the new authorized text made, and spread throughout the churches. Fast-forward 1200 years, and when King James commissioned a new translation, they used a very simple method for deciding which words to use from the existing manuscripts. They looked at every available manuscript, and counted up how many used each version of an alternate text.
The problem is, the “Eastern Texts” weighed unusually high in the numerical count, but they were all essentially copies of the same Constantinople conflation. The discipline of textual criticism has increased exponentially in the intervening years, and we keep discovering older and better ancient manuscripts. In newer translations, the rubric for deciding which alternate words to use relies heavily on evaluating the value of the source material, not just on a numerical count of manuscripts that have each version.
It’s worth noting that we’re talking about very, very few aberrations here. The preservation of the text is of a level unseen in any other ancient text. There are existing copies that appear to be as original as 3rd generational copies (early to mid 2nd Century), within 100 years of their probable writing dates. We have extant copies prior to the 300’s spread as far as the Coptic churches in Egypt all the way to Russia In the north, spanning Europe, in substantial agreement. Where they disagree, they are almost always clerical errors that are easily deduced (leaving off a movable nou vowel, a drop of ink that gets interpreted as an accent). Where they contain substantial linguistic differences that pertain to matters of theology, they never stand alone. There is no orthodox theology of the church that rests solely on verses that have textual errors.
We will never all agree on the value, or the purpose, of the New Testament writings. But let’s at least put to bed the argument that it was poorly translated and can never be understood because it’s riddled with errors. Let’s at least recognize that it is a feat of preservation and transmission unrivaled in the world of literature.
I can take a manuscript written 1750 years ago, sit in a locked room, and translate it into English, and hand you something that looks substantially like any modern English translation that you can buy at Borders. We have an amazing textual record. We should trust our English translations to say and mean substantially the same thing as the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts.
-sm
[I told you if it was an inch, it was a mile. I apologize ahead of time, because if I’m going to be in on this discussion, it will never be succinct. It’s just too complex for that.]
[COLOR=indigo]Thank you, thank you, and thank you.[/COLOR]
First Tables of Stone (Exodus 20)
("which Moses didst break")
Second Tables of Stone (Exodus 34)
("the words that were on the first")
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. You shall not kill.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. You shall not steal.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. You shall not covet.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
Protestant
Catholic
Hebrew
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
King James Bible, issued by the American Bible Society.
Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri, "published with Ecclesiastical approval" and bearing the imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop, New York. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1922.
Yet the all came from the same source.
[COLOR=indigo]I think it's interesting how the protestant and hebrew are nearly identical, but the Catholics are completely out of sync.
Also interesting is that they left out commandment 2, about the graven images.
[/COLOR]
The Roman Catholic Church is all ABOUT graven images.
If it weren't for all the graven images, a Catholic Church would have need of an interior decorator to do something about all those empty niches.
let me set some things straight a bit (if I can)
1. Matt 25:34 refers to the parable of the sheep and goats. Does anyone notice that it says "...receive the inheritance, the Kingdom prepared since the creation of the world." (forgive me if I paraphrased) Now, think about this.
if the universe that we were created on was created in 6 working days, and the kingdom is still being built ever since the first day, how much more marvelous and uniscrutable do you think it is compared to the world we still struggle to understand?
2. I apologize for starting threads like "Should Tomas be booted off the cellar" and "Yum or Ahh...your choice" it's not that I'm bored ar have nothing else better to do. Is that this is my first time in a Forum. (that explains the first 6-7 new threads that I made.
3. I'll have to sign AOL off in next week. which means I'll not be talking to you for a while. (Enjoy the time, I know that I am, [like Lionel in Signs says, "a class A screw up"]
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
let me set some things straight a bit (if I can)
1. Matt 25:34 refers to the parable of the sheep and goats. Does anyone notice that it says "...receive the inheritance, the Kingdom prepared since the creation of the world." (forgive me if I paraphrased) Now, think about this.
if the universe that we were created on was created in 6 working days, and the kingdom is still being built ever since the first day, how much more marvelous and uniscrutable do you think it is compared to the world we still struggle to understand?
Tomas, the big problem here is that no one, probably yourself included, is sure what point you're trying to make.
one word Perth.>>>>>>>>>>>>>Church
to that, add anything you like, like
1. I think poor people attend church more often than rich
or
2. The Roman Catholic Church is out of Sync with the hebrews and the protestants.
or
3. The Catholics are all about graven images, if not, they would need to hire a interios designer to design their church
(sorry I didn't quote, I just paraphrased)
It is that simple
Guess what? You still don't make any sense.
this might be an appropriate time to reference some of my
earlier remarks .
arrrgh. If you're a fideist, and you think that faith is in contrast to logic, then please don’t even try to borrow the language of philosophy. It makes it difficult for the rest of us.
If you’re a rational exegete of religious thought, then please structure your arguments that way. There are really good answers to some of these questions. Don’t settle for bad ones. I’m not talking in terms of this debate, I mean in life. Don’t settle for bad reasons to believe good things.
Trust me. There’s a difference.
-sm
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
let me set some things straight a bit (if I can)
2. I apologize for starting threads like "Should Tomas be booted off the cellar" and "Yum or Ahh...your choice" it's not that I'm bored ar have nothing else better to do. Is that this is my first time in a Forum. (that explains the first 6-7 new threads that I made.
3. I'll have to sign AOL off in next week. which means I'll not be talking to you for a while. (Enjoy the time, I know that I am, [like Lionel in Signs says, "a class A screw up"]
Hey, Look, Tomas, you are NOT a "class A screw up." You are 15. You live in a different country. You are not posting in your own language (I hate to think what a mess I would make if I tried posting on a discussion board in Spain using Spanish). You made some mistakes as a results of these things. You also have some different viewpoints in part due to your age and your culture. I've gotten annoyed at you at times, but you have also been an interesting addition to the board. I will miss you, even if no one else does.
By the way, if you get another AOL disk, load it on your computer, and use a different user name and telephone number (like if you have a laptop that you can plug in at a friend's house), they'll give you another free three months. (I know, everyone's going to condemn me for "playing the system", but its AOL's own fault for flooding the world with those free disks. I'm sure they make it back in advertizing).
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
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.
[/COLOR]
I bet God is a great lay.
as for the rest of it, all I can say is that the more I learn about Christianity, the less I like it. Cougar, I'll bet you $10 that the bible is NOT the word of God. When we die, we'll ask him, and you can pay up. Know what I'm sayin'?
I would like to speak as someone outside of organized religion. I don't believe in it, but I do believe that there is something going on in the ether beyond our understanding.
As such, this is my view of the "10 Commandments"
KJV
Exodus 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
(Whom did he speak to, and was he quoted correctly?)
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
(So, God freed the Jews from slavery?)
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(What about all the good people who, before the writing of this biblical statement, worshiped a god of the sun, a god of the rain, a god of the harvest, ect....?)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
(No graven image of any thing in heaven? Then why are there graven images of The Christ in Catholic Churches?)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
(OK... don't bow down to the graven images... but why do people bow or kneel in front of the cross when receiving "holy communion"?)
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
(Thousands? Not alot of people in the afterlife....)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
(Anyone who has said "goddamn" is going to Hell? Oops, I know where I'm headed...)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(Go to your house of worship on the sabbath, ok, I get that)
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(OK, I'm with you so far...)
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(Now, it says, quite clearly NO-ONE shall work on the sabbath. Now, what about waitresses, busboys, cooks, ect., who work on the sabbath? Cops and firemen work on the sabbath. EMTs, too. Delivery people, longshoremen, teamsters. Am I to assume that ALL these people have broken the commandment and are going to Hell?)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(The Lord is one great contractor. I need the tilework in my bathroom done. What d'ya thing He'd charge?)
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
(What if your parents were the ones who killed their kids? Like Susan Smith? Does the "honour" still have to be given?)
13 Thou shalt not kill.
(Some of the most brutal killings have been committed in the name of God. Note "The Inquisition".)
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
(So, I guess Jim Bakker won't be in Heaven?)
15 Thou shalt not steal.
(See #14)
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
(In other words, if you lie once, you're going to Hell?)
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
(If I'm not to covet anything, then consumerism is the downfall of mankind.)
Well, this is my view of it, and I know that someone is gonna rail on it.
Originally posted by lumberjim:
"I bet God is a great lay."
I would think so. If you saw "Dogma", you'd see that God is Alanis Morrisette. And I think she's a great lay.
[COLOR=indigo]I'm not in an "organized religion" either.
And Jim...You're on....
Then again, if I'm right and you're wrong, I won't be able to get my money.... but I'll get to hang out with Pimp Daddy J, so it's all good.[/COLOR]
Although not if he's gay, right?
You'd be buggered then, right?
Not if he's gay OR eats shrimp.
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
Now, think about this: if the universe that we were created on was created in 6 working days...
How can you create the universe in 6 working days when the earth and sun haven't even formed yet? Our sun is a third generation sun, btw. And are you talking about an earth day before or after a planet the size of mars slammed into the side of the earth creating the moon and our current axis and rotational pattern? I just can't take this Genesis literally without all the facts, you know.
Furthermore, God wasn't talking to Einstein when he dictated the bible - he was talking to sheep herders so its remotely possible he dumbed-down some stuff to make his point.
It never ceases to amaze me how some folk can read a book that is chock full of metaphors, symbols, allegories, etc. that have been translated over and over and over and take every freakin word as though it was the exact word that God used and meant. I can even overlook when people do that but when they use literal interpretation to prove a point, its all I can do to keep my head from exploding.
Its a devinely inspired text. Without the Grace of God, its meaning will be hidden from you. There is no "absolute" version of the bible. You claim to be a person of faith yet your determination to supplant faith with facts betrays you.
You want to know what the Bible says? Ask God. If you are a person of faith, he'll tell you.
If you are a person of faith
or in need of some TLC by wolf or have ingested certain substances.
Originally posted by jaguar
or in need of some TLC by wolf or have ingested certain substances.
Or if you listen to Black Sabbath backwards at 78 :)
Originally posted by Beestie
You want to know what the Bible says? Ask God. If you are a person of faith, he'll tell you.
this leaves no room for the preists to control you, though. If they aren't in a position of authority to translate the "wordofGod" to us minions, and your persoal faith is all you need, what the hell do you have to go to church for?
and does god speak english now? word of god! give me a fucking break. try "word of some relatively smarter guy that had a good vocabulary and a clear vision of how he thought people should see religion."
The nice thing about not being christian, is I want to know what god/dess things about something ... I ask.
Oh, and then I make up my OWN mind about my course of action.
But I have always loved watching you guys go at it.
:)
If only I had a microwave ... this needs popcorn.
I'll just go back to playing those cool games.
Or if you listen to Black Sabbath backwards at 78
I did list 'if you need some TLC by wolf' ;)
Originally posted by lumberjim this leaves no room for the preists to control you, though. If they aren't in a position of authority to translate the "wordofGod" to us minions, and your persoal faith is all you need, what the hell do you have to go to church for?
True. Something I struggle with nowadays. I was raised Catholic but have since decided that maybe I need to do things my own way. I really struggle with what to do with my kids. I don't want to raise them in the same dogmaSphere I was raised in but do want to raise them Christianlike.
and does god speak english now? word of god! give me a fucking break. try "word of some relatively smarter guy that had a good vocabulary and a clear vision of how he thought people should see religion."
If God did not (however indirectly) write or inspire the Bible, then that pretty much wraps it up for the existance of any religion - organized or otherwise. Since the Bible pretty much defines the relationship between people and God, to proclaim the Bible a forgery is to eliminate God altogether or, at least, to render the relationship non-existant.
If God did not (however indirectly) write or inspire the Bible, then that pretty much wraps it up for the existance of any religion - organized or otherwise.
You might want to clarify this. I may be misinterpreting but it sounds as though you're saying that if the bible is not divine inspiration, then it invalidates not only christianity, but every other religion on the planet. Hindu, Buddhism (still not quite clear on whether this is a "religion"), paganism, etc.
Originally posted by perth You might want to clarify this. I may be misinterpreting but it sounds as though you're saying that if the bible is not divine inspiration, then it invalidates not only christianity, but every other religion on the planet. Hindu, Buddhism (still not quite clear on whether this is a "religion"), paganism, etc. [/B]
I'm saying that LJ's point, taken to its reasonable conclusion invalidates the idea of any religion
based upon a devinely inspired text or artifact since LJ rules out the possibility of such a thing (as I understand his point). I can't think of any religions that don't have such an artifact or text but if there is one than no, LJ's point (as I understand it) does not invalidate that religion.
Eastern philosophies (Buddhism, Taoism, Hunduism, etc.) were not included in my extension of LJ's point.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. :)
yeah, I have no objection to christians saying that "this is A path to being a good christian" I even agree with most of the rules...MOST of them. but to say that the King James Bible or the emoticon bible cougar uses is the word of god? Are those disgusting little comic book versions the word of god too? what;s the difference, then? how do we know that the translators aren't as effed up as the dork that writes those?
beestie, you;re right. the word of god is in your head if you can only hear it. No need to read someone else's interpretation. halleluiah! can i get an amen?
Originally posted by wolf
The nice thing about not being christian, is I want to know what god/dess things about something ... I ask.
Oh, and then I make up my OWN mind about my course of action.
But I have always loved watching you guys go at it.
:)
If only I had a microwave ... this needs popcorn.
I'll just go back to playing those cool games.
Wolf, on this one, I SO agree with you! Hey, can you pass me some of that popcorn? :D
look. Let me give you an example.
write the following sentence in different words, sinonyms are allowed but cannot be used more than 3 times in a row, and see how the meaning remains.
Ok, here it is. The cat was not eating pork in the backyard.
The Word can change in individual words, yet it will never loose its meaning.
Now try it countless times, over a period of 2000 years, and have the process managed by several competing governments.
the black shadow was not devouring the boar in the wild lands behind the village
the kitten was not nibbling on the pork chop on the patio out the back.
more like:
The dude was not eating pigflesh out back, because the lord sayeth that thou shalt only eateth of the swine in the fronteth yard. sezme.
Originally posted by lumberjim
more like:
The dude was not eating pigflesh out back, because the lord sayeth that thou shalt only eateth of the swine in the fronteth yard. sezme.
is the Backeth. not fronteth
either way the point is made, do it a few times between languages and you've lost most of the meaning.
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
is the Backeth. not fronteth
tomas, i;m illustrating that my perception of what the message is ...is that the cat was not eating out back because my motivation tells me that it is only ok out front. therefore, as the translator, i have imbued the message with my belief that front yard pork is good, while back yard pork is bad. now do you see? your seemingly inane example can be twisted against you just like the "word of god" can be. try again.
no, i take that back. don't try again. quit now while you're behind.
From "
Lost in Translation":
N'a, of which it is not afterwords eats the pig to him, him leaves
That's with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.
Without:
The cat did not eat a pig in the patio.
But that's not nearly as much fun. And it appears to only use Latin-based languages (French, German, Italian, Portuguese[maybe not Latin-based?]).
Just for the heck of it, I tried translating the phrase into old English (which is what we would have all been posting in 2,000 years ago). Upon reflection, I take that back. We most likely would have been posting in Latin which was the "lingua franka" of the times. But what the hey. My point still remains.
"Se deor hwaet maew nic forswelgan flaescmete swin in se geard ongean."
Before any PhD's in old English jump my case, its as grammatically correct as I could figure (I used the rules for German grammar since old English resembles that language more closely). It means:
"The animal that meows did not eat the flesh of a swine in the back yard." (for some reason I couldn't find a translation for "cat" anywhere).
Now factor in tranlating that into the Greek of 2,000 years ago, then translating that into Latin then Middle English then modern English. You gonna tell me something might not have got lost along the way? Get out of here!
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Was the cat gay?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.;)
Originally posted by marichiko
Now factor in tranlating that into the Greek of 2,000 years ago, then translating that into Latin then Middle English then modern English. You gonna tell me something might not have got lost along the way? Get out of here!
That's not even remotely what happened. Our modern English translations were translated directly from the existing Greek manuscripts, which date back to the 200-400’s CE. It’s not like Bruce Metzger and the rest of the translation team for the NIV started with the King James, and just started picking and choosing new words. We have an amazing textual record that’s in the original language, and dates back in some cases to within 100 years of the original writing.
The Nestle-Aland text is a compilation of the oldest and best available Greek manuscripts, written itself in Greek. It’s the starting place for most modern English translations.
As I’ve said, the argument for accuracy is different than the argument for inspiration. Ask any serious scholar of ancient literature, particularly of Greco-Roman literature, and they will tell you that the textual basis for the New Testament is by far the strongest of any ancient work. They’ll give you reasons why they think it had different authorship, or involved theological editing, but they won’t argue substantial transmission and translation errors. The text was transmitted and is translated remarkably well.
Choose other reasons for disbelieving it. This one’s no good.
-sm
What about all the gospels that weren't included in the bible, and contradict it?
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
That's not even remotely what happened. Our modern English translations were translated directly from the existing Greek manuscripts, which date back to the 200-400’s CE. It’s not like Bruce Metzger and the rest of the translation team for the NIV started with the King James, and just started picking and choosing new words. We have an amazing textual record that’s in the original language, and dates back in some cases to within 100 years of the original writing.
The Nestle-Aland text is a compilation of the oldest and best available Greek manuscripts, written itself in Greek. It’s the starting place for most modern English translations.
As I’ve said, the argument for accuracy is different than the argument for inspiration. Ask any serious scholar of ancient literature, particularly of Greco-Roman literature, and they will tell you that the textual basis for the New Testament is by far the strongest of any ancient work. They’ll give you reasons why they think it had different authorship, or involved theological editing, but they won’t argue substantial transmission and translation errors. The text was transmitted and is translated remarkably well.
Choose other reasons for disbelieving it. This one’s no good.
-sm
OK But was the old Testament originally written in Greek? Did Jesus speak in Greek?:confused:
Originally posted by marichiko
OK But was the old Testament originally written in Greek? Did Jesus speak in Greek?:confused:
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew – I’m not nearly as familiar with the textual record for the OT as I am for the NT, but I do know that the Jewish priestly cult was meticulous about their copying methods, to the point where they had a letter count for each line of each scroll, and it had to be checked by multiple people. Remember, this is a nation that believes that it’s text is the literal Word of God. It makes sense that they would place a very high value on the transmission of the text.
Palestine at the time Jesus lived was Quadra-lingual (don't even know if that's a word - we'll assume it is. :) ) Hebrew was the language spoken in religious circles, the temple and synagogues around the country. Aramaic was the indigenous language, the local language of the northern part of the country, up around the Sea of Galilee. Greek was the trade language used throughout the near east, and would have been commonly understood by everyone – Greece ruled that whole part of the world just a few years earlier. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire.
We don’t know what language Jesus spoke, but we can make some educated guesses. He undoubtedly spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, since he grew up in the North and had religious training. He probably spoke Greek, since some of the quotes in the New Testament are word-plays and puns that only make sense in Greek.
-sm
(BTW, forgive me if I'm slipping into professor mode. It's one of those things where education and passion cross)
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
We have an amazing textual record that’s in the original language, and dates back in some cases to within 100 years of the original writing.
~snip~
Choose other reasons for disbelieving it. This one’s no good.
-sm
why? There's 100 perfectly good reasons right here.
Go back in time to the days of Jesus. Picture it as best you can. You attend a sermon given by christ almighty. Would you remember all that he said? word for freaking word? Maybe it was a particularly meaningful sermon that really touched you and showed you the beginning of the path to heaven and the Lord's Bounty. Do you think you'd catch every bit of meaning? What if you tried to convey that message you heard to a friend? you may think that you've gotten your message across pretty well, and if you know your friend, you probably did. Now your friend goes home and tells his kids what you told him, and then they tell their kids what they understood it to mean when they are of an age. Many people heard that same sermon, and it is famous and retold countless times mouth to ear. Now somebody learned catches wind of this, and writes it down as a testament to the speaker of the original sermon (JC) in a way that makes good sense to HIM ( the writer, not god). Years later, it is collected amongst many texts like it, that deal with the same topic, written by other learned fellows ( mostly with beards)*
How could there NOT be a smearing of the mesage? Perhaps half of the real message that JC gave was understood by the time that it was first inked. Maybe. Now, 2000 years later, and
only god knows how many translations, we're stupidly arguing about the bible being the word of god, for chrissakes. do the math. it just doesn't float.
Now, if you're saying that the words written in the bible can open your eyes to the beauty and joy and love around you, and make you savor every breath you take, and that's what you mean by it being the word of God, then I say, Hell yeah. party on, Jesus. But don't exclude people from your club for stupid control related reasons, or fear or jealousy or money. God would not have wanted that, and Jesus wouldn't have said he did. and any asshole translator or preist that put that shit in the bible about it
should torture himself in his own litle imagined hell for a good long while until he's ready to come back to earth and learn a lesson about humility.
*[SIZE=1]never trust a white man with a beard[/SIZE]
do you think there were any misspelled words in the "original" bible? any typos? grammatical errors? hmmm? wonder how well god wrote that "first bible"? word of god....literally....bah! god doesn't even have a tongue. or teeth. I fart in your general direction
Bible translation gets a lot of discussion in pagan circles ... Why?
Mostly because of that one passage in the old testament which appears to be a command of the lord to kill pagans outright ... "Thall shalt not suffer a witch to live." (funny thing for the same god that exhorts "thou shalt not kill" to say, eh?)
Anyway, conventional pagan wisdom declares that the "original" text was supposedly "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live," but Good Old King James was on an anti-witch kick at the time and that bit was put in there because of it.
And no, I've never bothered to check snopes on this one. I don't much worry about it one way or the other. Some motherfucker who's trying not to suffer me to live is going to end up suffering some bilateral lead therapy hisownself.
Originally posted by lumberjim
Now, 2000 years later, and only god knows how many translations,
OK, I'm trying to make a very, very limited, and very specific point here. I'm not saying that the authors were right. I'm not saying they were accurate. I'm not saying that God himself whispered the right words into the ear of the guy who wrote the book. I’m not even saying that there’s anything of value in the texts.
My only argument is that the chain of custody from the authors to us is very accurate. The preponderance of the evidence makes it more reasonable to believe that we have substantially the same text today as what was written down by the author when he originally put pen to scroll.
We do not have
god knows how many translations in succession; each translation is only one step away from the original language, and the original language documents that exist are very, very good.
This is not an issue of belief, or of faith. This is a matter of textual criticism. There are standard rubrics for analyzing how close an existing text is to what the author originally wrote. The New Testament documents are off the charts on those rubrics.
-sm
ok. that's very impressive. as accurate as it could reasonably be, you say. fine. that's your entire point? I'll concede it. my point can be summed up as: "GIGO"
Originally posted by lumberjim
ok. that's very impressive. as accurate as it could reasonably be, you say. fine. that's your entire point? I'll concede it. my point can be summed up as: "GIGO"
Fair enough; that's a different discussion. I just reached my multi-clausal sentence quotient for the week, so we'll have to catch that one on another thread.
-sm
do you think there were any misspelled words in the "original" bible? any typos? grammatical errors? hmmm? wonder how well god wrote that "first bible"? word of god....literally....bah! god doesn't even have a tongue. or teeth. I fart in your general direction
But he has a dick, go figure..
Catholics have this really cool thing called "transubstantiation" (spelling?).
What that is, as I understand it, is when someone takes their holy wafer and sip of wine, it transforms into the ACTUAL blood and body of The Christ.
Let me repeat that, for it bears repeating.
The wafer and wine turn into the actual, physical manifestation of Jesus.
A mouthful of 2000 year old corpse.
If this is the way that Catholics view this event, are they aware, then, that the Church supports and practices cannibalism?
Don't say "IT'S NOT CANNIBALISM!"
Cannibalism is the eating of the flesh of the same species.
"Transubstantiation" turns the wafer and wine into flesh and blood, which is then eaten.
Cannibalism.
Another big news story of year concerned the ecumenical council in Rome, known as Vatican II. Among the things they did in an attempt to make the church more commercial was to introduce the vernacular into portions of the mass, to replace Latin, and to widen somewhat the range of music permissible in the liturgy, but I feel that if they really want to sell the product, in this secular age, what they ought to do is to redo some of the liturgical music in popular song forms. I have a modest example here. It's called The Vatican Rag.
First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.
Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!
So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman,
Ave Maria,
Gee it's good to see ya,
Gettin' ecstatic an'
Sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican Rag!
Tom Lehrer rocks.
Tom Lehrer is one of my personal heroes. I was so thrilled when Rhino released all his stuff together in one box set, even the songs from the old children's show.
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew – I’m not nearly as familiar with the textual record for the OT as I am for the NT, but I do know that the Jewish priestly cult was meticulous about their copying methods, to the point where they had a letter count for each line of each scroll, and it had to be checked by multiple people. Remember, this is a nation that believes that it’s text is the literal Word of God. It makes sense that they would place a very high value on the transmission of the text.
Palestine at the time Jesus lived was Quadra-lingual (don't even know if that's a word - we'll assume it is. :) ) Hebrew was the language spoken in religious circles, the temple and synagogues around the country. Aramaic was the indigenous language, the local language of the northern part of the country, up around the Sea of Galilee. Greek was the trade language used throughout the near east, and would have been commonly understood by everyone – Greece ruled that whole part of the world just a few years earlier. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire.
We don’t know what language Jesus spoke, but we can make some educated guesses. He undoubtedly spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, since he grew up in the North and had religious training. He probably spoke Greek, since some of the quotes in the New Testament are word-plays and puns that only make sense in Greek.
-sm
(BTW, forgive me if I'm slipping into professor mode. It's one of those things where education and passion cross)
But then don't we still have the translation problem Hebrew to Greek to English or possibly even Aramaic to Greek to English? Maybe the Greek texts are as wonderful as you say. I'm not going to argue something I know nothing of. But I do know Jewish rabbi's have a long tradition of arguing the Torah. Learned Jewish scholars were doing the same thing thousands of years ago. Entire books were left out of the Jewish canon depending on who won these disputes. Like have you ever seen the texts that refer to Sophia? Jewish scholars at the time felt that references to Sophia might enourage a return to some sort of fertility rites, so all mention of her was left out of the official Jewish writing. How do we know that the Hebrew texts which survived to be translated in Greek were really the "correct" ones. Maybe a rabbi with an ax to grind burned the ones that were actually the official version. That probably didn't happen, but you have to admit that its at least a possibility.
And were Mathew, Mark, Luke and John trained stenographers? Three of them weren't anyhow. Look at the differences in the Gospels. OK, say they were following Jesus around with pieces of parchment and quill pens (or whatever the writing implements were in Jesus' time. Did they translate Aramaic into Greek on the fly as they took down their notes? If so, how good were their translations? If they wrote them later, how good were their memories? I've sat in classes and taken painstaking notes and then gone home and re-written them to keep them fresh in my mind, but even back in the days when my memory was far more functional than it is now, I couldn't have given a verbatim transcript of exactly what the professor said.
Perhaps religion is one massively complex game of Telephone!
And were Mathew, Mark, Luke and John trained stenographers?
Isnt there some suggestion that one of them was totally doolally? The one who predicted armageddon.....it certainly would explain a lot :P
Originally posted by Undertoad
No... BANANAPHONE!
Now THIS is a quality thread hijack.
ring ring ring ring ring ring ring BANANAPHONE
Originally posted by DanaC
Isnt there some suggestion that one of them was totally doolally? The one who predicted armageddon.....it certainly would explain a lot :P
Revelations is classic lunatic ravings.
Sort of like...if Tim Burton wrote a gospel.
Originally posted by Undertoad
No... BANANAPHONE!
My cellular, bananular phoooooooooooooooooooone...
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Revelations is classic lunatic ravings.
Wow. Talk about presenting unsubstantiated opinions-as-fact.
Revelation (singular, not plural) is part of a genre of literature called Apocalyptic. It’s by no means limited to Judeo-Christian literature. The genius of John’s writing is that he picks up threads from Daniel, Isaiah, and Habakkuk and weaves them together into a compelling narrative.
How arrogant is it to assume that because something is nonsensical to us, it must be the ravings of a lunatic. Are you a 1st Century Diasporic Jew living in Asia Minor? How do you know what images and themes were coherent to his readers?
Revelation is a political commentary; the imagery that John uses was established by the writings of the late Babylonian era prophets. He doesn’t actually mean a 4 headed beast with 7 horns – he’s using that image in the same way Daniel used it, but he’s reapplying it to the Roman empire. His readers understood exactly what he was referencing.
-sm
about the hebrew. (by the way, if there are any jewish people in this conversation, please help me out)
a word in hebrew can be equated to a picture, it's worth a 1000 images or ideas. anything related to that word could apply, (that's why we have masoteric texts)
here is an example I'm going to list the different meanings and ideas to a certain word in English and in Hebrew. the word is sword
English
[list=1]
[*]a weapon (as a cutlass or a rapier) with a long blade used for cutting or thrusting often used as a symbol of authority.
[/list=1]
Hebrew
[list=1]
[*]a weapon
[*]authority
[*]a king
[*]a battle
[*]bloodshed
[*]war
[*]a merciless warrior
[*]violence
[*]etc, etc, etc.
[/list=1]
if that is not enough, the hebrew people aplied a certain numerical value to each letter. Thus words were equated with numbers. words that had the same numerical value were believed to be interconected somehow.
I was going to come up with the Idea of arranging the marriage between the alphabet and the numbers, but then I find that that idea was conceived by the hebrew 2 or 3 thousand years ago.
the same happened with an idea I had about a flexible, tubular device that could transpor light. comes up that someone else had that I idea already (Fiber Optics)
(Sigh)
Hence the "Sacred Geometries" crap that bizarre religious people keep mentioning to me.
Girl: He's always talking about Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, but sometimes I want to talk about something else! Like, what if I want to talk about geometry?
Me: That's freaking awesome. You talked about geometry at the dinner table?
I spend the next half hour devising a geometry problem based on a sketch on a wall.
Girl: Oh, no, I meant Sacred Geometries.
Me: Mlargh!
nope. Just because a shape is cool, it does not mean it has something to do with religion, let alone sacredness
How old is she???????
Yeah, Its even the most nonsensical nonsense of all the nonsensical nonsences of this nonsensical nonsence that we call Earth.
it's like. wow you created that square? c'mon, let's all worship it and ask for it to rain.
(chanting)
Oh, square. Oh square
Help us if you care
Give us some rain to spare
Oh, Square. Oh, Square
With your angles four
And your sides all straight
Give us some rain out of your tour
With all your power and might.
Oh, square, big square
You hold the cardinal points in place
North and west are there
East and South are a maze
... Yeah, That'll be the day...
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Wow. Talk about presenting unsubstantiated opinions-as-fact.
Revelation (singular, not plural) is part of a genre of literature called Apocalyptic. It’s by no means limited to Judeo-Christian literature. The genius of John’s writing is that he picks up threads from Daniel, Isaiah, and Habakkuk and weaves them together into a compelling narrative.
How arrogant is it to assume that because something is nonsensical to us, it must be the ravings of a lunatic. Are you a 1st Century Diasporic Jew living in Asia Minor? How do you know what images and themes were coherent to his readers?
Revelation is a political commentary; the imagery that John uses was established by the writings of the late Babylonian era prophets. He doesn’t actually mean a 4 headed beast with 7 horns – he’s using that image in the same way Daniel used it, but he’s reapplying it to the Roman empire. His readers understood exactly what he was referencing.
-sm
Well, in case it slipped your notice, his readers today don't have the faintest idea. I think one is fairly safe in questioning the sanity of some religous nut who literally expects 7 horned beasts to be lurking behind every street corner. And there are plenty of people who think just that. Surely, you've noticed one or two of them on the streets of L.A. pontificating to themselves, or do you just order your driver to speed up and pull the shade on the window of your limo?
She was 27. Her friend who was 18 thought I was cute (for making the geometry problem).
Originally posted by marichiko
Well, in case it slipped your notice, his readers today don't have the faintest idea. I think one is fairly safe in questioning the sanity of some religous nut who literally expects 7 horned beasts to be lurking behind every street corner. And there are plenty of people who think just that. Surely, you've noticed one or two of them on the streets of L.A. pontificating to themselves, or do you just order your driver to speed up and pull the shade on the window of your limo?
No arguments there. Some people take wild flying leaps with it. It just raises my hackles when people try to import a 21st Century western worldview to a 1st Century near eastern text, and then call it the ravings of a lunatic when it doesn't make sense to them.
The text does make a great deal of sense, and it's not even that difficult to track down John's imagery. It's literalism that kills it.
And my limo doesn't have shades. I'm a white male, so I just call our special direct number to the police, and have them clear the undesirables off the sidewalk before I drive down that route. No reason why I should have to obstruct my view of the city just because some guy chose to look disheveled that day. It's much easier on me this way.
-sm
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
And my limo doesn't have shades. I'm a white male, so I just call our special direct number to the police, and have them clear the undesirables off the sidewalk before I drive down that route. No reason why I should have to obstruct my view of the city just because some guy chose to look disheveled that day. It's much easier on me this way.
-sm
dude get with it. i just hired a team of guys to walk in front of my motorcade. they beat the undesirables with nightsticks. every other block they carefully position one under my wheel - although i don't think that is completely necessary; it's really just kind of for fun.
oh, BTW, did you get your "white guy monthly check" yet? mine looked a little short so i think we may not have oppressed enough people last month.
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
And my limo doesn't have shades. I'm a white male, so I just call our special direct number to the police, and have them clear the undesirables off the sidewalk before I drive down that route. No reason why I should have to obstruct my view of the city just because some guy chose to look disheveled that day. It's much easier on me this way.
-sm
Nice reply! That really was most excellent. In the words of Ezra Pound, I salute "the greater master.";)
mari, i have this nagging feeling that if you and I met we would be friends. That bothers me a great deal, because it means that at some point, I'm going to have to ask you to forgive me for treating you as an abstraction, and saying hurtful and inaccurate things to you in other threads.
Just giving you fair warning.
-sm
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
mari, i have this nagging feeling that if you and I met we would be friends. That bothers me a great deal, because it means that at some point, I'm going to have to ask you to forgive me for treating you as an abstraction, and saying hurtful and inaccurate things to you in other threads.
Just giving you fair warning.
-sm
Hey, SM, its cool, man. You are not alone in the abstraction game. Its easy to do with someone when you happen to have a political disagreement with them. I've done it to you, too, now haven't I? Yeah, I bet if we met in real life we would probably appreciate one another as human beings, although I bet we'd have some heated political debates. You've got a great sense of humor and you're obviously well-educated, and I do appreciate that in an opponent. Of course, I'm still going to meet your conservative observations with my liberal replies, but what fun would it be if we all agreed on everything?;)
WHY DID THIS THREAD BECAME A DATING PAVILLION????!!!!!
some of the replies that I read wer incoherent and nonsensical to me. can Anyone explain what has just happened?
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
WHY DID THIS THREAD BECAME A DATING PAVILLION????!!!!!
some of the replies that I read wer incoherent and nonsensical to me. can Anyone explain what has just happened?
were they posted by tomas rueda? don't worry, you're not alone.
oh. nevermind
If you met in real life would you still call him "opponent"?
Of course you UNDERSTAND about the PLAIDS in the SPIN CYCLE?
I'm totally DESPONDENT over the LIBYAN situation and the price of CHICKEN.
If you met in real life would you still call him "opponent"?
who/what the hell are you talking about, ut?
oh. duh.
my armchair has been acting up lately, and i missed the forensics of that quip. allow me to get my thoughts into a collostomy bag and attempt to reparte the banjofication of said victories. ahem.
forsooth, i am but a pebble in the road of life, and thou art my steamroller, baby. my steamroller, baby.
Originally posted by Undertoad
If you met in real life would you still call him "opponent"?
I'd assume so. We are. We oppose each other on almost every subject.
-sm
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
I'd assume so. We are. We oppose each other on almost every subject.
-sm
"I'm a cement mixer
A churnin' urn of burnin funk
I'm a cement mixer ooh boy
A churnin' urn of burnin funk
Hey I'm a demolition derby
A hefty hunk of steamin' junk hey
I'm a na-palm bomb lord
Guaranteed to blow your mind
I'm a na-palm bomb gonna blow your mind
If I can't have your love love
There won't be won't be nothin' left behind"
And you may call me
[COLOR=red]MS[/COLOR] Opponent, SM. ;)
Tomas, I know you are at an age where your mind tends toward just one thing (food!), but I assure you, it is highly unlikely that you will see me and SM with our arms linked on the next cover of Rolling Stone. Not only is he married, he is far too young for me, and I've already had my obligatory fling with a "younger man." The thought of me and SM on a date is rather amusing, though. I can see it now, him dressed in a tux ordering the driver of his limo to stop at the homeless shelter in the worst part of L.A. I come out in my rags with my food stamp card clutched in my hot little hand. We head to the nearest market and use the card to buy crablegs and champaign with which we toast one another in the interior of the limo - a romance right out of NATIONAL LAMPOON!
LJ, your just jealous that two people can agree to disagree and be civilized about it.
Originally posted by marichiko
LJ, your just jealous that two people can agree to disagree and be civilized about it.
actually, i was all fucked up. I had no idea what ut was talking about, even after looking for reference to the word "opponent" then HM made a nonsense reply, and i thought i had missed the joke ut had made to tomas who accused US of beong nonsensical.........then sm replied, and i found the word "opponent" \\now i look REALLY stupid.
i can agree to disagree with the best of them. and i won't piss about it for two days afterwards, either. but then again, you probably don't remember doing that :)
- i am scary talented at being a wiseass, no?
Originally posted by lumberjim
actually, i was all fucked up. I had no idea what ut was talking about, even after looking for reference to the word "opponent" then HM made a nonsense reply, and i thought i had missed the joke ut had made to tomas who accused US of beong nonsensical.........then sm replied, and i found the word "opponent" \\now i look REALLY stupid.
i can agree to disagree with the best of them. and i won't piss about it for two days afterwards, either. but then again, you probably don't remember doing that :)
- i am scary talented at being a wiseass, no?
LJ, you're one of the best wiseasses around and a very sly tactician. There. Feel better now?
:cool:
if i was in the room with you, i'd give you a big sloppy kiss.
And I'd give you a nice friendly slap for getting fresh.;)
Originally posted by marichiko
Tomas, I know you are at an age where your mind tends toward just one thing (food!), but I assure you, it is highly unlikely that you will see me and SM with our arms linked on the next cover of Rolling Stone. Not only is he married, he is far too young for me, and I've already had my obligatory fling with a "younger man." The thought of me and SM on a date is rather amusing, though. I can see it now, him dressed in a tux ordering the driver of his limo to stop at the homeless shelter in the worst part of L.A. I come out in my rags with my food stamp card clutched in my hot little hand. We head to the nearest market and use the card to buy crablegs and champaign with which we toast one another in the interior of the limo - a romance right out of NATIONAL LAMPOON!
LJ, your just jealous that two people can agree to disagree and be civilized about it.
oh, first. I'm sorry, I thought Marichiko was a lady (I thought that the part
mari- was from the spanish Maria) thus I thought that you were a latino girl. My apologies. (no, neither I said that y'all were gay, I had no grounds to base that thought)
second. If my mind tends to concentrate to a single node in contrast to the adult mind that focuses on multiple nodes, Does that mean that the myth is true (men are only able to concentrate on one task at a time while women can concentrate on multiple tasks and come with equal or better results that men.)?
Marichiko IS a lady.
So is Jim.
ROFL......
only when i go out with you, sweetheart!
Please! Not in front of the children!
OOHH, MYY GOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH THAT'S NOT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
UT, I think that you have to add to the cellar that when they sign in, [SIZE=4]THAT THEY SAY WHAT GENDER ARE THEY, BECAUSE THIS IS NUTS!![/SIZE]
Pobre Tomas...lo hemos confundido totalmente.
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
UT, I think that you have to add to the cellar that when they sign in, [SIZE=4]THAT THEY SAY WHAT GENDER ARE THEY, BECAUSE THIS IS NUTS!![/SIZE]
why, tom? do you treat men and women differently? if you can't figure it out from context, you deserve to be in the dark.
just behave as if we were all hermaphrodites. You do know what a hermaphrodite is, right?
yes, but no, I wont.
I mean. It's all begining to sound somethin other than straight.
no one told you that this was a "gay" message board?
didn't you read your registration confirmation?
we only call it the cellar, because "the closet" was taken
Should we tell him about the transgendered folk on here?
i was saving that for a special occasion, but now that "the cat is out of the bag" [size=1]snicker[/size], you might as well.
So, yeah...one of co-founders of this board is a woman who used to be a man. Another longtime poster (though not around that much anymore) is also a former man. And we have a few gay folk around, a few bi people, some BDSM peeps...
In short, we're just like society.
Originally posted by lumberjim
no one told you that this was a "gay" message board?
didn't you read your registration confirmation?
we only call it the cellar, because "the closet" was taken
i READ THAT... (sigh) the computer that supports this website is contained in a cellar. I know.
BTW, there IS a difference between "told" and "imply"
told is when one says with plain words straightforward an idea using no similies, metaphors, or crooked ideas.
Ex. the cat was eating pork in the backyard.
implied is when one says with crooked words an thought that leads to another idea. thus is secret to those who don't know the connection between the ideas.
ex. (to husband) honey, the cat's sick again. and there are no ham sandwiches today. I got to go to the patio and clean it up.
BTW, just to make it straight, I'm a latino 16yr/old boy.
but the question is whether you'll come back here in 14 years as a 30y.o woman.
Originally posted by Tomas Rueda
BTW, just to make it straight, I'm a latino 16yr/old boy.
Tomas, I hope you understand that everyone is joking. Your English may not be good enough yet to pick up on everything. Yes, I am a girl. The cellar is just a place where people can come discuss things if they can handle the occasioal burst of small arms fire from the direction of their computer screens. Don't take all the teasing too much to heart. We tease everybody!;)
Originally posted by jaguar
but the question is whether you'll come back here in 14 years as a 30y.o woman.
Before you have a meltdown, Tomas, I'm a chick too. Original Equipment.
There are pictures.
Pictures of the original equipment? where, where?:yum:
I know. that was all a big misunderstanding. but there is still circumstancial evidence that y'all implied something else. (sigh):rolleyes:
Well, I'll have to cancel AOL by either This Thursday or Friday. Tell me, what do y'all think about net zero?
but back to the main discourse.
the kitten was occupied in something else besides consuming roasted pig in the back of the house.
is any body keeping the next sentence?
Yes, I am.
Referring back to the hungry kitten, are we using the actual term "pig" to mean roast pork?
Or is it in reference ot the slang term for police?
Or, as I am hoping, is the word "pig" in the same usage as some of the Island cultures, where the term "long pig" is used to decribe human meat?
I'm hoping for Option 3.
I have a lot of A1 Steak Sauce.............
This years 4th of July BBQ is gonna be sweet...........
Oh, Yuck.
Pig, pork, swine. anything that has to do with a carnivorous animal with a protuded probobscis and is used for mass consumption fits right in.
hello kitty was putting her make-up in the back of the yard, not eating pork.
A feline cared more to taste some pork in the backyard than anything else. (I can continue if thou so wouldst desire)
The Daili Lama didn't say this. A quick check of any "hoax" or "chainmail" website would reveal that this gem, going around the 'net yet again, was actually penned by, surprise, a Westerner, Mr. Jackson Brown and H. Jackson Brown, Jr. in their publication Life's Little Instruction Book.
Come on! There's no excuse for this sloppiness! :D
These aren't getting buried deep enough, Marge. The dog's still finding em.
WTF?
I read back about 30 post's worth and this was a cool thread, actually. I sure as hell don't know what Inklings is referring to or why he would choose to respond to a thread that had decomposed for more than a year.
Inklings, shouldn't you be worried about those who are currently taking the Dali Lama's name in vain rather than those who did so in the past? You, know, "be in this very moment" and all that? :rolleyes:
I went from page one, where the original question was asked, and I am now skipping to the end where I can give my answer.
No.
Yes, the Goddess exists. More later.
Alright, another Goddess worshipper! Welcome to our small, but growing, number!
Alright, another Goddess worshipper! Welcome to our small, but growing, number!
Quality, not quantity. BB
:thumb:
{cartman}Hippies... Hippies everywhere!{/cartman}
The born again experance for me was a physical movement, a rush more intence than anything I have ever experanced. Doubt if you will, but for me God is very real.
correct my spelling if you must
Very interesting. I used to be a "Christian" but the inconsistencies in the bible, in churches and other musings have led me to believe that if there is a Goddess/God - she is pissed at us and is leaving us alone to our own devices, is not omnipotent, or just doesn't care. Maybe we should just live life the best we can and leave everyone else alone.
Completely irrelevant but when someone says they're born again, I have this urge to ask them: "So you believe in reincarnation?"
What about the idea that there's isn't a "God" with a plan, but there is some "higher power"? And I don't mean "intelligent design" stuff... I'm talking about the idea of a "higher power" analogous to "the force" in Star Wars, Chi in Doaism. Something more akin to 'gravity', than to 'omnipotent man in the sky'.
Of course you could go the Douglas Adams route.... not only was he atheist, he was militantly atheist. There is nothing more than what you see in front of you, and when you die you're dust in a box. Life is nothing more than electrical impulses passing through conductive substances orderly arranged in neat little cells. All bunched together.
*shrug* I could see the potential for any of the 3 camps to be "right".
1) All powerful man-in-the-sky
2) Yoda
3) Electric soup
Intelligent gravity?
A fifth
fundamental force: Strong, Electomagnetic, Weak, Gravity, Smart
Wow this is an old post...
Anyways, where's the "I don't know" option? I'm agnostic, so that would be the best option for me.
only a sexual deviant would be afraid to state his/her opinion.
you, laeb., must be a deviant.
[chanelling tw----/weird, weird. must secretly lust for tw...which causes so many problems...for example, am I lusting for myself?/end chanelling of tw]
