PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
I think of religion as a form of hysteria, much like that which you would expect to find in a flamboyant drag queen.
This is why you need to be careful around religious people. They aren't properly grounded and they can be dangerous.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Indeed, contact may result in static shock!
Hahaha, oh wow, you just made my day/night/sleep
Rofl. A mind numbing shock.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I began my study of the Bible in an attempt to debunk it, thinking, wrongly I now know, that organized religion was a good representation of it. Having discovered that the Bible had been grossly misrepresented by apostate pagan influenced myth - 16 years of intense study later I can say that if the Bible itself was demonstrated to me to be in error, aside from translational anomalies and spurious scriptures known and easily obtainable as such I would have no choice but to acknowledge God's nonexistence.
Would you admit to having any doubts whatever about the veracity of the bible or do you think it in its entirety, to be the inspired word of god?
If you have doubts, in what areas (just general) do they fall?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
To put it simply the writing of the Bible was inspired but the translation wasn't. The Bible itself warns to test even the inspired expression. There are spurious verses and mistranslations. There is no perfect translation and there really needn't be. I have no doubt about the veracity of the Bible, even the most inaccurate translations though the more you learn the less impact various translations have directly upon your knowledge and trust in the Bible itself. All of that becomes somewhat like trusting in a friend, knowing what they mean when they don't express it as clearly as they could have.
Except it contradicts itself there.
Ephesians 5:6 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience"
Numbers 15:39 "Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes"
1 Corinthians 1:19 "For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Now, I fully expect you to say as an "unwashed heathen" that I don't understand the passages or I'm taking them out of context. So be it. If that is your counter argument, let me point out the slippery slope you're placing yourself against. As soon as you say that Christians and atheists don't understand the real meaning of the Bible but you do, you position yourself unfavorably in the eyes of both. You become a cult leader waiting to happen. Personally, I'd like you to establish yourself as an authoritative figure on the subject by, at the least, giving qualification as to when and where you studied ancient Greek and Hebrew.
Finally, by saying that there is no perfect translation and needn't be, you're contradicting the link you gave regarding the existence of hell. The entire article is based upon different translations of the original words used. Why such apparent contradiction?
Yea, I can't tell you how many drag queens I've heard on the news blowing up buses and slamming planes into buildings and murdering abortion doctors. I think the worst you'd have to worry about drag queens is a fashion faux pas.
Being famboyant isn't a crime. Being willfully ignorant IS dangerous.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Good post, Jonathan.
The verse I was suggesting was 1 John 4:1: "Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world."
I can't honestly see where that is a contradiction there or with the scriptures you gave. Perhaps you could elaborate on that? As for the slippery slope, well that is the path I know best. I do understand the Bible and Christians and atheists don't, if that puts me in an unfavorable position with both groups, and it most certainly does, then they should call me out on it. If I am wrong I will gladly admit it and adjust my thinking accordingly. It has happened a few times in the past and it will happen again.
My qualification as to when and where I studied ancient Greek and Hebrew are exactly where I would like them to be. I taught myself just as I taught myself the Bible. I wouldn't have it any other way. Again, if you doubt my abilities call them out. I won't ask for your credentials for you to do so I feel confident against them as well as I would your own thoughts on the subject.
The perfect translation . . . in example with the link I gave regarding hell, as the article there pointed out, the old English word hell isn't in question, so the 1611 translation of the KJV used the word hell in the case of the Hebrew sheol and Greek haides justifiably. The case of the Greek Gehenna and tartarus not so much, but if 1 John 4:1 warns to test the inspired expression who's fault is it, the translator or the reader? Especially given the distinction between a version and a literal translation.
David, does this mean that to a certain extent, you are interpreting the text?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that because I would think the answer an obvious one. Of course I'm interpreting the text, anyone that reads it is, to a greater or lesser extent doing just that, are they not?
I admit but I contend christians use their onboard moral template to interpret the bible, weeding out what they consider inappropriate. My motivations are obvious enough. I think god is a product of people and this particular god is the product of a people increasingly distant in time and relevance. Our morality has evolved and this need to interpret their text, to filter it, suggests the human executive function is operating at a level above the bible. Judging it. What this means is that christians are using the bible to support things they already know.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I suppose, if they give the Bible any attention at all. Not me, I am interested in what the Bible has to say. For the most part it is an example of sin, so weeding out what they consider inappropriate would explain their profound ignorance as well as their moral selfrighteousness. Jesus having said the sinners would enter into paradise before the believers could as well have been directed at any of the modern day Christians.
The trouble with that is that if you take a look at the people who wrote the Bible they were no more of a good example than the modern day Christian. Moses wrote the Pentateuch and wasn't even allowed in the promised land. What do you think he got out of it, a control of the people? Ha! Yeah that was a success. I think you are trying to justify or rationalize away the existance of a work which you most likely don't understand.
Well, they are not doing a very good job of it or they just don't know much. What, 90% of their teaching comes from outside of the Bible.
So what you're saying is that because of imperfections in the Bible, you sometimes have to interpret it to mean what you think it ought to mean?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Of course not. What I'm saying is that is that there are so many manuscripts that were carefully copied that in 1000 years of translation we see, for example, one chapter of Isaiah, three letters out of place which constitute one word meaning "light" which doesn't effect the meaning of the text, however, where there are mistakes or sometimes not even mistakes but a case where the meaning or specifically the common usage of a word changes or there is a portion that suddenly appears where it didn't exist previously these things are easily researched.
For example, the story where the people bring to Jesus a known prostitute and they want his approval to stone her and he says "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Never happened. It was added on much later and is easily identified as such.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Fun! Fun! Fun! Till the daddy takes the tiara away, huh?
I can dig it.
The proper neurons firing in a specific order might do the trick.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Matthew 5:22.
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Interesting...
Matthew 23:17, 23:19, Luke 11:40, 24:25, Romans 1:21/22, 1 Corinthians 15:36, Galatians 3:1.