Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > This is not anti-religious flamebait. Repeat: NOT anti-religious flamebait.

This is not anti-religious flamebait. Repeat: NOT anti-religious flamebait.
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Quetzlzacatenango
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2002, 11:34 PM
 
Fresh from Fark: New book about what the Bible got wrong.

And it's Vatican Approved!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2002, 11:39 PM
 
where does it say vatican approved?

also...imagine the billions that read the book from 0001-2001 that believed every work from front to back

do they go straight to hell for reading fake truths and believing in it? or has christianity been one big practical monk joke from the beginning?
snappy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2002, 11:44 PM
 
what about all the people who lived before the so called year 0?

Do they go to hell because jebus* wasn't born yet?

* Homer Simpson
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:31 AM
 
Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
Fresh from Fark: New book about what the Bible got wrong.

And it's Vatican Approved!
Dude, the Catholic Church doesn't even claim that the Bible is historically accurate. I went to Catholic School for 12 years and we were taught not to take the Bible literal. The analogy used was that of a portrait versus a photograph. A photo is like a history book; it is used to record factual information. The photo can be used to reference exact measurements of the subject. A portrait is an image delivered via an artist's interpretation. It serves the function of conveying emotion and an attitude. Two different purposes, yet they both resemble each other.

"Sing it again, rookie beyach."
My website
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:35 AM
 
most serious theologians don't take the bible (or torah) literally at all times. I know--I've studied with lots of them.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:43 AM
 
Backed by the vatican doesn't say much to me. These are the same people who make apologetic remarks and excuses about their own molesting kids.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 03:02 AM
 
it's satire. just read the last sentence:

"if Eve ate a fruit in the Garden of Eden, it was an orange or a fig, not an apple."

because everyone knows that the soil in the garden of eden was friendlier to citrus. and that Adam was allergic to apples.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 05:08 AM
 
My God... you are not meant to take the Bible literally. It's the meaning of the stories.

Seriously, what difference does it make if it was an Apple tree or a Fig tree. None. It's besides the point of the story, that man is prone sin.

You don't have to be Catholic to go to heaven, according to Catholic teaching.
In vino veritas.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 05:26 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
My God... you are not meant to take the Bible literally. It's the meaning of the stories.
Now if we could only agree on the meaning of the stories.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Seriously, what difference does it make if it was an Apple tree or a Fig tree. None. It's besides the point of the story, that man is prone sin.
Speak for yourself.

Originally posted by undotwa:
You don't have to be Catholic to go to heaven, according to Catholic teaching.
In fact, I'd say being Catholic greatly reduces your chances.

I don't mean this as anti-religious flamebait but **** religious people are stupid.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 07:13 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
My God... you are not meant to take the Bible literally.
Really!?! I must have missed that part of the Bible that says that.

Care to point me to it?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 07:29 AM
 
Interesting.

About half the "contradictions" they mention in the article touch on things the Bible never even mentions. For example, "Jesus was short and unattractive" doesn't contradict anything scriptural, given the the Bible never gives a physical description of Jesus. It may contradict a few Church traditions, but that would be it. Likewise with Jesus not being born on December 25; a date was never given, and indeed, the circumstances mentioned as surrounding the birth would have made that date rather unlikely (this particular bit of information, by the way, is nothing new).

However, there are some other, rather intriguing, assertions made, such as David not killing Goliath. I'd like to see how they arrived at those. Honest curiosity here.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 07:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:

I don't mean this as anti-religious flamebait but **** religious people are stupid.
I don't mean this as anti-Face ache flamebait, but your opinions ae irrelevant.

     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 08:35 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Interesting.

About half the "contradictions" they mention in the article touch on things the Bible never even mentions. For example, "Jesus was short and unattractive" doesn't contradict anything scriptural, given the the Bible never gives a physical description of Jesus. It may contradict a few Church traditions, but that would be it. Likewise with Jesus not being born on December 25; a date was never given, and indeed, the circumstances mentioned as surrounding the birth would have made that date rather unlikely (this particular bit of information, by the way, is nothing new).

However, there are some other, rather intriguing, assertions made, such as David not killing Goliath. I'd like to see how they arrived at those. Honest curiosity here.
I haven't read the article, but I think it's in Isiah that there is a description of what Christ would look like... it says nothing about short, but it does say that he wouldn't be anything special to look at. We can look at other clues and have an idea... for instance, everyone in that time was short campared to us, especially in that region... obviously he looked jewish, had a beard and would have dressed like a rabbi. He was also, probably very muscular. Tradition says that, as a carpenter, he made yokes for oxen; the word translated carpenter coule also be translated builder... which menas it's possible that he worked with stone (don't find too many wood homes from first century Judea)... None of this was really taken into consideration when people started painting picture of Jesus though. Heck, most people show pictures of him with blue eyes.

Also, in readin the Bible, you have to try to understand the types of literature you're looking at. The Psalms are peotry, Leviticus is a law book, Genesis is a recording of history. The Prophets are prophetic writings (which can contain alagory, descriptions of visions and other stuff that may or may not be literal). In the NT you have letters and biographies and even apocoliptic writing. To best understand what the Bible is saying you have read a little about what each of these styles do and mean and then interpret the Bible accordingly. I hate saying that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, because that leaves the door open to dismissing the whole thing because you want to. Certain parts are very literal, others are not... but you have to study a little to figure out which is which.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 09:05 AM
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by undotwa:
My God... you are not meant to take the Bible literally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really!?! I must have missed that part of the Bible that says that.

Care to point me to it?

AFAIR, Jesus "talked in parables", and parables are not intended to be construed literally.

Y no entienden nada... ¡y cómo se divierten!...
     
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 09:13 AM
 
ah, on a sidenote:
From the article about the book:
Based on their study of original sacred texts, Elisabetta Broli and Roberto Beretta's book
The authors are Broli and Beretta.
In Spanish (Argentine) Broli is the "lunfardo" (a kind of slang or tango argot) for "libro" (book).
Also, Beretta is similar to "berreta" a lunfardo adjective for "cheap and of a low quality". So "broli berreta" is more or less "cheap book". Coincidence?

Y no entienden nada... ¡y cómo se divierten!...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 11:02 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
My God... you are not meant to take the Bible literally. It's the meaning of the stories.

Seriously, what difference does it make if it was an Apple tree or a Fig tree. None. It's besides the point of the story, that man is prone sin.

You don't have to be Catholic to go to heaven, according to Catholic teaching.
Man is only prone to sin if someone makes up a bunch of rules and says if you break em, your a sinner. Remove the rules, remove the sin. You can argue that these rules are: a) made up to keep people living humble lives so that they don't question autocratic rulers.. and b) the people who made the rules never followed them anyway.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 11:30 AM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Man is only prone to sin if someone makes up a bunch of rules and says if you break em, your a sinner. Remove the rules, remove the sin. You can argue that these rules are: a) made up to keep people living humble lives so that they don't question autocratic rulers.. and b) the people who made the rules never followed them anyway.
his is excellent OT idea of sin... supported by many passages of the NT ("the law os sin and death..."). The problem is that's it's not a complete picture. The revelation of God through the Bible is progressive. Abraham didn't see as much as Moses, who didn't see as much as David... At time progresses God revealed more Himself to His people. Not that we have a full picture now, but we have a sufficient picture. Sin, by the NT standard is not merely something you do... it's can be discribed as missing the mark. We cannot live up to the standard of God, because He is perfect (or the sum of all perfections, some say), the Law of the OT was, in part, there to show us this.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 11:41 AM
 
Originally posted by Miniryu:


Dude, the Catholic Church doesn't even claim that the Bible is historically accurate. I went to Catholic School for 12 years and we were taught not to take the Bible literal. The analogy used was that of a portrait versus a photograph. A photo is like a history book; it is used to record factual information. The photo can be used to reference exact measurements of the subject. A portrait is an image delivered via an artist's interpretation. It serves the function of conveying emotion and an attitude. Two different purposes, yet they both resemble each other.

That's what I was taught...

but your goin to hell in this forum for saying that. Everyone here is religous and belives that thou shall stone gays and single mothers.


Personally, it's a book with some morals on how to live your life.


I have no plans to stone people to death. Even if I am alone with that.


I learned 11things from the bible

1-10 (Ten Commandments)
11 Tolerance towards others


That's all I plan to take away from it.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 11:55 AM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That's what I was taught...

but your goin to hell in this forum for saying that. Everyone here is religous and belives that thou shall stone gays and single mothers.
If that's the impression I have given you through my postings here and the way in which I've dealt with anyone (including, and especially Ca$h) on these forums... Please accept my sincerest apologies.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 12:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


If that's the impression I have given you through my postings here and the way in which I've dealt with anyone (including, and especially Ca$h) on these forums... Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Nonsense. You haven't. You and Lerkfish have been models of self restraint when it comes to talking about your faith. You're a devout Christian. That's cool. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 12:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


If that's the impression I have given you through my postings here and the way in which I've dealt with anyone (including, and especially Ca$h) on these forums... Please accept my sincerest apologies.
Wasn't directed at you.

Several in this forum believe in the bible as word for word "stone" means "stone"...
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Nai no Kami:



AFAIR, Jesus "talked in parables", and parables are not intended to be construed literally.
Er the parables are supposed to be teachings. Not everything in the Bible is a parable.

I was told th Bible wasn't to be takin literally.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:23 PM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Man is only prone to sin if someone makes up a bunch of rules and says if you break em, your a sinner. Remove the rules, remove the sin. You can argue that these rules are: a) made up to keep people living humble lives so that they don't question autocratic rulers.. and b) the people who made the rules never followed them anyway.
Sin didn't exist until man broke the rules.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:24 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:


Wasn't directed at you.

Several in this forum believe in the bible as word for word "stone" means "stone"...
And what is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.BTW your example was a bit on the bizarro scale. I don't think anyone Christians mentioned stoning anyone. I do believe I mentioned he who is sinless cast the first stone.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:25 PM
 
reposted here just because

From George Carlin:

"Religion has actually convinced people that there is an invisable man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do.

And if you do any of it, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and buring and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever until the end of time.

But he loves you."


"...and everything he makes....dies"
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:27 PM
 
Oh great, now we are getting George Carlin quotes.

He has the outmost knowledge about spiritual matters.

Yes folks, yet another Christian bashing thread.


You know, why do people who don't beleive, feel thy need to belittle and force their opinion on those who do?

Trying to convince yourself?
That is the only reason I can think of.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:39 PM
 
Zimphire
I take it you do believe in an invisible man...hey whatever floats your boat

If there is a god let him strike me down...

ahhhhhh!!!...must....stay....on....line....
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:43 PM
 
Originally posted by ironknee:
reposted here just because

From George Carlin:

"Religion has actually convinced people that there is an invisable man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do.

And if you do any of it, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and buring and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever until the end of time.

But he loves you."


"...and everything he makes....dies"
I like George Carlin, I won tickets to see him in concert once. I think he's very thought-provoking at his best, and scatalogical at his worst.

the only problem with the above quote is it makes several assumptions, but the main one that I think is wrong is the assumption that death is the end. If you believe in the "invisible man" enough to be annoyed at him, then you should also better understand the message...basically that death is only the transition to the next, better life.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 01:59 PM
 
Zimphire dixit:
Oh great, now we are getting George Carlin quotes.

He has the outmost knowledge about spiritual matters.

Yes folks, yet another Christian bashing thread.


You know, why do people who don't beleive, feel thy need to belittle and force their opinion on those who do?

Trying to convince yourself?
That is the only reason I can think of.
Even I don't share your beliefs, I am with you here. Let me explain: I used to be a hardcore roman catholic (mass every sunday, etc). Now, because of personal and even ohilosophical reasons, I am not. In fact, I am fully dissapointed with the Roman Church and with the idea of religion in whole. Back in my catholic years (from childhood to high school) I read a lot of theology and philosophy books and I felt I could beat anyone who was "wrong"; in fact, I was eager to. The opportunity never came (thank God, hehe). Now I feel shame every time I remember that (me against the ill-faith people). Now, one of the main reasons against religion (this excludes the belief or not in a god) is its idea of certainty. A little back on topic, now I see non religious people in this thread behaving just like religious fanatics, but with "invert colors".
I would really like to discuss with someone that believes that the Bible is to be construed literally, but I dont want to change his view. I want to know why does he believe that. If he has good arguments, I will be enriched; if he does not, it doesnt matter.
Reading this threads I often feel that non religious people here try demonstrate how idiotic the other's beliefs are. Hence it seems that they are both the same. Absolutism goes inside people, and religion is just an excuse to unleash it. I bet many of the non religious posters here would be Inquisitors if I added religion in their lives.
Why don't we share the cause of our beliefs and disbeliefs instead?

Y no entienden nada... ¡y cómo se divierten!...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 02:32 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:


the only problem with the above quote is it makes several assumptions, but the main one that I think is wrong is the assumption that death is the end. If you believe in the "invisible man" enough to be annoyed at him, then you should also better understand the message...basically that death is only the transition to the next, better life.
respectfully, isn't it also an assumption that there is a "next life"? As far as I know noone has proven either way. And what's wrong with this life that the next one will be better?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 03:24 PM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Man is only prone to sin if someone makes up a bunch of rules and says if you break em, your a sinner. Remove the rules, remove the sin. You can argue that these rules are: a) made up to keep people living humble lives so that they don't question autocratic rulers.. and b) the people who made the rules never followed them anyway.
The real question is to have "positive" rules giving a "pleasurable" sense of order - which is not the case for the "biblic" rules. That's also why historically, IMO, Christianity, churches of various kinds, etc. have led to so much oppression: "negative" rules <=> violence (both psychological and physical).

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 03:52 PM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:

Nonsense. You haven't. You and Lerkfish have been models of self restraint when it comes to talking about your faith. You're a devout Christian. That's cool. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Thank you. I try to not make blanket statements, but the sort of thing that sparked my reply (to which you replied) are very common on these boards when we start to talk about Christianity, or to be fair any religious group. The thing is, if you classify Lerk and I as you have, I can only assume Hinson, and Mil fits in there too (since the quality of their posts have been highly praised)... This doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for the many, most and all assertions some people tend to make around here. I think the tone in these threads has vastly improved of late, but to be honest... my perception of the Christians on this board has been very good (for the most part). But that's from my perspective.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 03:56 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:


Wasn't directed at you.

Several in this forum believe in the bible as word for word "stone" means "stone"...
In some cases it does mena exactly what it says... in others it expresses principles through parable, poetry, alagory or real life stories. It's not as simple as yes the Bible is literal or no it is not. It's also too simplistic to say that the "negative rules" are the downfall of religion, the two greatest commandments (from the OT and NT) are positive... love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your strength, and the second is likewise love your neighbor as yourself.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 05:35 PM
 
Originally posted by ironknee:


respectfully, isn't it also an assumption that there is a "next life"? As far as I know noone has proven either way. And what's wrong with this life that the next one will be better?
I didn't articulate my point well enough. for one thing I said "I think" which means that is my world view.
For another thing, you missed my point about carlin's complaint. It is based the assumption there IS a god (else why complain about his practices?), so it only accepts half of the message. IF there is a god, and IF the bible delivers this message, to stop at death is like removing the last five chapters of a mystery.

In other words, either be agnostic and think God doesn't exist, in which case, no need to complain about something that isn't there, or believe he exists and accepts what he says. To believe he exists and what he says is true (about sin, etc,) then why shut your ears to the rest of the message?

that's my point, not communicated very well.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 06:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:


And what is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.BTW your example was a bit on the bizarro scale. I don't think anyone Christians mentioned stoning anyone. I do believe I mentioned he who is sinless cast the first stone.
Actually, when I was in 5th grade we had a class debate over a bishop who told a congregation during mass to kill gays after reading from the bible..... He was later diciplined and appologized. Because that was quite some time ago (and may have been old then) I won't even bother finding a link to an article. My guess would be early 90's, most likely 80's or 70's.

... it was just part of a "use your head" type thing we did. Kind of a "you must question your faith to truly understand it".



If you don't find anything wrong with stoning people.


Well hey... Why are you anti-death penalty?


Perhaps if it only applied to homosexuals?
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 07:08 PM
 
Sorry... premature submission (not related to my premature ejaculation problem):


Perhaps this taking religous text to literal is what caused 9/11 for those who believe Islam is the root of all evil in this world?

Anyone who ever claimed that taking it literally was correct was later a terrorist or militant, or just plain wacco.... Think Waco.


I only take morals out of it. That's it.


Scary that people analize word for word when translations between bibles are so different. I have picked up bibles and looked at certain quotes to find them quite different. Just off hand:

(My personal favorite)
He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him
- Genesis 16:12

Look it up in a bible that you have... Written the same?

The most popular one ever:

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me"

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no
evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff--they comfort me. "

Shadow comes from? Could mean? Just added for kicks? Why omitted? End of the world? God overlooking? Evil? WTF is the descrepency?

Taking it literal is playing with fire.

Every line is like that. Take it to literal is dangerous.






Originally posted by Lerkfish:


I like George Carlin, I won tickets to see him in concert once. I think he's very thought-provoking at his best, and scatalogical at his worst.

the only problem with the above quote is it makes several assumptions, but the main one that I think is wrong is the assumption that death is the end. If you believe in the "invisible man" enough to be annoyed at him, then you should also better understand the message...basically that death is only the transition to the next, better life.
Carlin Ruls. Went to "Complaints and Grevences" since my dad works for HBO and managed to land tickets. Best night of my life. (Stomach was sore for days after.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 07:15 PM
 
Once again, worth comment...

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


In some cases it does mena exactly what it says... in others it expresses principles through parable, poetry, alagory or real life stories. It's not as simple as yes the Bible is literal or no it is not. It's also too simplistic to say that the "negative rules" are the downfall of religion, the two greatest commandments (from the OT and NT) are positive... love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your strength, and the second is likewise love your neighbor as yourself.
I agree with you.

I said above I believe in the comandments.


What I am against is people who take everything word for word, and read between the lines based on the words. That is where it gets distorted.

If you want to do that... you can make a very valid arguement that Hitler carried out Gods work... or that the Taliban did... or that Al-Queda did... or the Mafia did... or anyone you want. It's the easiest text to distort.

That is where the danger lies. When people start taking it to literal and analyze it to much.

Once again, I believe in the morals, etc that it depicts....

But once people start taking it and applying it to what they want.... Christianity becomes distorted...

That is what has happended to Islam in some cases. People take and distort it. Once again it says what you want it to if you look hard enough.


I have taken the morals (10 commandments, Jesus's teachings).. but unlike most Christians I will not sit and take the bible word for word, exactly as stated, and infer what is between the lines.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 08:20 PM
 
Woa, I had to enlarge the text to make sure I am reading it right.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

I didn't articulate my point well enough. for one thing I said "I think" which means that is my world view.
That's cool.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

For another thing, you missed my point about carlin's complaint. It is based the assumption there IS a god (else why complain about his practices?),
Sorry to break it to you but Carlin does NOT believe in the invisible man. His rutine is about how dopey religion is.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

so it only accepts half of the message. IF there is a god, and IF the bible delivers this message, to stop at death is like removing the last five chapters of a mystery.
the line about how everything god makes dies, is a stab at how god can't make anything that lasts (even though he is suppose to be the ultimate creator). I know it's taken out of context and I'm not here to defend carlin's work. His work doesn't need me to defend it.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

In other words, either be agnostic and think God doesn't exist, in which case, no need to complain about something that isn't there, or believe he exists and accepts what he says. To believe he exists and what he says is true (about sin, etc,) then why shut your ears to the rest of the message?
So therefore, if i don't believe in, say, communism or the SF Giants, or anything for that matter, I shouldn't say my point of view? As carlin said his? It would be refreshing if god believers like your falwell or robertson etc would stop complaining about non believers,

ie "We deserved it (9-11)...I think it's (because of) the ACLU, the pegans, the abortionists, the feminists, the gays..." -falwell

Forgive me if I sound astonished at your post...I must be reading it wrong
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 09:30 PM
 
Originally posted by ironknee:
Forgive me if I sound astonished at your post...I must be reading it wrong
yes. you are, but that's ok. I could make another run at explaining it, but I doubt it would do any good.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 09:33 PM
 
btw, this thread is mislabeled.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 09:46 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:


Sin didn't exist until man broke the rules.
But you see, this is a catch 22. You say sin didn't exist until the "original sin", however how could such a rule (which if you break, you are a sinner) exist if sin wasn't there in the first place? Like I said, the concept of sin is really a set of rules that we are told not to break. I grasp the idea that in the new testement, sin is more clearly defined as missing the mark, so to speak, but that still means that there are a bunch of rules that we are not to break, lest we never live up to God's prefection.

I have a perfect question for those who believe in original sin. God created Eden, and also created Man to live in this garden. Why then, would he put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, if Man was never supposed to eat from it? That's like putting a toy in front of a child and saying don't touch it, then leaving the child alone with the toy. What happens? The kid goes right for the forbidden toy. God is either tempting Man, or God is completely daft.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 09:56 PM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
God is either tempting Man, or God is completely daft.
You're assuming its either/or. Those may not be the only two possible explanations.

another possible one is that if God created man for fellowship, then like a father, he could be teaching us. Encouraging us to make our own choices and learn from the consequences.

I heard a very good sermon once about when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son. The pastor looked at it from a lot of different angles. In one way, you could ask "why would God test Abraham's faith and then let him off the hook when he knew Abraham would be faithful anyways?" and the pastor said "maybe God did not need to find out the strength of Abraham's faith. Maybe Abraham did."
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 10:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:


You're assuming its either/or. Those may not be the only two possible explanations.

another possible one is that if God created man for fellowship, then like a father, he could be teaching us. Encouraging us to make our own choices and learn from the consequences.

I heard a very good sermon once about when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son. The pastor looked at it from a lot of different angles. In one way, you could ask "why would God test Abraham's faith and then let him off the hook when he knew Abraham would be faithful anyways?" and the pastor said "maybe God did not need to find out the strength of Abraham's faith. Maybe Abraham did."
I agree with that analysis. Honestly, I don't believe our lives are about learning the power we have to do wrong, and learn from our wrong-doing. Although, learning consequences is important in our lives, I hardly believe our lives should be centered around the idea that "we did something bad, and now we have to pay for it". Thats almost too negative for me.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 11:54 PM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I have a perfect question for those who believe in original sin. God created Eden, and also created Man to live in this garden. Why then, would he put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, if Man was never supposed to eat from it? That's like putting a toy in front of a child and saying don't touch it, then leaving the child alone with the toy. What happens? The kid goes right for the forbidden toy. God is either tempting Man, or God is completely daft.
No... What would be the point in creating a creature with the ability to make a choice and then not give it the option to not obey you? Free will is useless if we do not the oportunity to use it.

If you read the first chapter of the book of Job you see this dialogue between God and Satan, and if you don't pay attention you'll go on to think about the rest of the book as this cosmic wager between the two. In reality, Job is not the one on trial, God is. The basic assumption in the Book is that God is not worthy of our love, adoration or praise because He is who He is, but only because He gives us stuff. Job is then the unlucky soul that Satan is allowed to test his theory on. I bring that up becuase the analogy God uses to show us our relationship to Him is that we are His children. Maybe that makes more sense when you have kids, but I want my children to grow to love me for me, not what I do or what I provide, just because I'm Daddy (or Aba).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2002, 11:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:


yes. you are, but that's ok. I could make another run at explaining it, but I doubt it would do any good.
Sigh....
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2002, 12:11 AM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
What I am against is people who take everything word for word, and read between the lines based on the words. That is where it gets distorted.
I agree there is a great open door to distort scripture to your will when you start saying it's all significant, but... who's going to pick which parts are important?

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
If you want to do that... you can make a very valid arguement that Hitler carried out Gods work... or that the Taliban did... or that Al-Queda did... or the Mafia did... or anyone you want. It's the easiest text to distort.

That is where the danger lies. When people start taking it to literal and analyze it to much.
Where do you draw the line? Study the original languages, and gather information on the older manuscripts... there are thousands of them. I'll look into the 23rd Pslam thing tomorrow, but I've covered such things before. Most textual variations are similar to that, an added word or a phrase copied twice by mistake. There in a very small percentage of the many early manuscripts we have and none of them effect significant doctrines of the church (I'm not Catholic I think they have enough doctrinal problems without questioning their version of the Bible). Even so, the Pslams are poetry... not especially good poetry in English When David mentions the "circle of the earth", he's not proclaiming the world is flat... he's using poetic imagery. In the 23rd Psalm he's not making theological statements about death, but how God is his comforter, and provider. It seems as if you're saying we shouldn't study the language, or the culture in which it was written or the genre because we could bend it to our will by doing so. I think by trying to get the clearest picture of what the author was saying it only takes power away from the personal interpretation of those reading.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Once again, I believe in the morals, etc that it depicts....
I have taken the morals (10 commandments, Jesus's teachings).. but unlike most Christians I will not sit and take the bible word for word, exactly as stated, and infer what is between the lines.
but there are a lot more moral teaching than the 10 commandments and Jesus in the Bible... The prophets, the epistles... they provide apodictic law, then the many of the rest of the books hold principles (didactic law I think) that we can apply...

<edit> As a side note on the Catholic church...The Roman Catholic church doesn't have what I'd consider to be a high view of scripture anyway, they believe the Pope can provide revelation from God that over-rules scripture. That power flows down from the Pope (in their doctrine) but I don't really understand how far down it flows.. ie if your local priest can reallyclaim that stoning a homosexual is a revelation from God. I think the only way to protect against people using the Bible, or any religious text, for their own gain is to have the people capable and willing to study on their own.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2002, 01:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Chuckmcd:

I agree there is a great open door to distort scripture to your will when you start saying it's all significant, but... who's going to pick which parts are important?
I think it's up to the individual to decide. But one should be taught that this decision needs to be made. One should also be informed as to the enigma involving the history of the Bible and it's true origin. There is pleanty of room for modifications to have been made.

I've stated several times in the past week here that I have taken general morals, but refuse to really read into it. That's my decision.

Unfortunately too many don't even know that the text wasn't orignally english, and it's history. Many take it as a literary work written recently for a high school class to analyze.

Where do you draw the line? Study the original languages, and gather information on the older manuscripts... there are thousands of them. I'll look into the 23rd Pslam thing tomorrow, but I've covered such things before. Most textual variations are similar to that, an added word or a phrase copied twice by mistake. There in a very small percentage of the many early manuscripts we have and none of them effect significant doctrines of the church (I'm not Catholic I think they have enough doctrinal problems without questioning their version of the Bible). Even so, the Pslams are poetry... not especially good poetry in English When David mentions the "circle of the earth", he's not proclaiming the world is flat... he's using poetic imagery. In the 23rd Psalm he's not making theological statements about death, but how God is his comforter, and provider. It seems as if you're saying we shouldn't study the language, or the culture in which it was written or the genre because we could bend it to our will by doing so. I think by trying to get the clearest picture of what the author was saying it only takes power away from the personal interpretation of those reading.
It's up to interpretation, not literal reading. My point exactly. A point that many don't see.



but there are a lot more moral teaching than the 10 commandments and Jesus in the Bible... The prophets, the epistles... they provide apodictic law, then the many of the rest of the books hold principles (didactic law I think) that we can apply...
Personally, I think they are all variants of the big 10... but that's my interpretation. Yours of course may be different.

<edit> As a side note on the Catholic church...The Roman Catholic church doesn't have what I'd consider to be a high view of scripture anyway, they believe the Pope can provide revelation from God that over-rules scripture. That power flows down from the Pope (in their doctrine) but I don't really understand how far down it flows.. ie if your local priest can reallyclaim that stoning a homosexual is a revelation from God. I think the only way to protect against people using the Bible, or any religious text, for their own gain is to have the people capable and willing to study on their own. [/B]
Again I agree 100% with you. The Roman Catholic Church manipluates the bible to meet their needs....

<sidenote>
... one should note chastity is a new occurance in the church... despite common belief it wasn't too long ago that priests could marry... on Pope had erectile disfunction and decided "if I can't do it, nobody can"... therefore "Thou Shall not have sex as a priest" become a new Psalm.</sidenote>


I think one should be taught similar to what was infered to me by one, and only one teacher. Read for yourself, and take the moral of the story. It's not intended to take word for word. If you do, you can take it any way you want. The Bible is like the open sea... if you look long and hard, long enough, you will see what you want (land if your a sailor).

Religon is SELF DISCOVERY. That has been my decision over the years. I think I am closer to understanding my faith now than I was when I went to church more often. I don't need a mortal telling me what God says and does. I am capable of reading and deciding what I should do with my life. I am capable of praying and being respectful on my own. While less of an official Catholic these days, I think I am in fact closer to God than ever. For once I am closer to understanding rather than being told. There is a grand canyon of difference there.

The Bible is my number 1 tool, the second is world experience, and application. Combining the morals to real world is a learning experience that Sunday mass just won't help with.

Not saying that I won't go to church again, I go on occasion... just not weekly.

You can read, and you can read between the lines. Nobody poof read between the lines. Especially through translation. So you read garbage if you try.


A man once asked "what can I do to ensure I go to heaven"... another priest replied "be a humble loving man who respects all and earns the respect of others, and you will earn the respect of god."

Someone told me that years ago and it still stuck with me. That IMHO is the best summary of the bible's teaching. Granted there is more if you read, but it all bundles up into that.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2002, 01:09 AM
 
Is it me, or have we discussed these points over and over again ad nauseam?

No one is going to change their minds.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2002, 01:14 AM
 
No catholic should take the bible word for word. In fact, one thing that is quite controversial is that the bible talks about Jesus's 'brothers'. Now, if Jesus had full blood brothers that means Mary MUST not of been a virgin (immaculate conception remember). So, the Catholic church teaches to make it out as 'cousins', close relatives but not actually brothers.

Remember, language has changed, and the Bible's words don't change as quickly. So you really must try to think like the author, in his time before coming to a conclusion. Stoning people in those days was normal. Today we will think that is barbaric, and not even the Jews of today will approve of that. Catholicism changed greatly after the breakdown of the Pope's power and feudal society. They started to teach again what Jesus taught all along - it's just that the church became very corrupt in the Middle Ages and too rich for it's own good and started to care less about the people and try to get as much wealth for itself. So the Church's core teachings never changed it's just that the Church itself wasn't exactly the most shining example of purity. But afterall, these guys are human and the Pope has said sorry for the crusades in the Middle Ages countless times, and it will be impossible for the Church to build up the wealth it once had. All it has now is the Vatican City and the land it's dioceses own. The church is much more community focused now and donates tons of aid to 3rd world countries, and has thousands of social programs around the world...
In vino veritas.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2002, 01:19 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
No catholic should take the bible word for word. In fact, one thing that is quite controversial is that the bible talks about Jesus's 'brothers'. Now, if Jesus had full blood brothers that means Mary MUST not of been a virgin (immaculate conception remember). So, the Catholic church teaches to make it out as 'cousins', close relatives but not actually brothers.
Jesus was her first son. He had younger brothers. That would not dismiss the immaculate conception.

Remember, language has changed, and the Bible's words don't change as quickly. So you really must try to think like the author, in his time before coming to a conclusion. Stoning people in those days was normal. Today we will think that is barbaric, and not even the Jews of today will approve of that.
Well it's a good thing that Christianity has taught against it the past 2 thousand years.

Catholicism changed greatly after the breakdown of the Pope's power and feudal society. They started to teach again what Jesus taught all along - it's just that the church became very corrupt in the Middle Ages and too rich for it's own good and started to care less about the people and try to get as much wealth for itself.

Yup just like the Bible said it would.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2