Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

[Angelique]

No, not following is not the same as ignoring or disbelieving. I pay attention to the parts in the Bible that may not directly apply to me. I believe these passages are there for a reason, a good reason, and taken within proper context, I could benefit from them. But I don't follow Jewish regulations because I am not Jewish. Doesn't mean I don't believe in them or ignore them.

[fourpawsonthefloor]

Originally posted by Elwing
. But sometimes indiginous witch doctor faiths mix with christianity, and this seems to be the unfortunate result of it. There is a connection to witchcraft, and reports seem to come from the same parts of africa that have had reports of penis stealing witches

I knew Mikey was up to no good;)

HAH - Most women know how to shrink penises with a "handshake" or other assorted means too...hopefully they won't catch onto that .

However it is another illustration on how highly esteemed an organ it is, and what lengths men will go to protect it. The thing about the "chill" and then finding shrinkage makes me wonder a little - I mean, c'mon guys - just go have a warm bath and that sucker will pop right out again.

Paws

[Crawler]

Originally posted by Elwing

And the bible is defenitely clear on child sacrifice, with Isaac and everything.

But it also asks that all first-born, human and animal, be sacrificed/redeemed. (Exodus 13) It DOES explain that an ass can be redeemed through the sacrifice of a sheep, and goes on to say that your first-born child can also be redeemed (though it doesn't name a price.) Now, this is NOT a blatant endorsement of child sacrifice, but you could read it as such.

Just like a lot of the Bible, you can take it as you will and twist it for your own purposes.

I'm NOT saying that Christianity endorses human sacrifice. I'm saying that it COULD, if you wanted it to.

Originally posted by Angelique

No, not following is not the same as ignoring or disbelieving. I pay attention to the parts in the Bible that may not directly apply to me. I believe these passages are there for a reason, a good reason, and taken within proper context, I could benefit from them. But I don't follow Jewish regulations because I am not Jewish. Doesn't mean I don't believe in them or ignore them.

Not following is ignoring in this instance. You must be aware of something to ignore it, so by definition* being aware of a rule and not following it is ignoring it.

And you don't follow the "Jewish rules" (which the Old Testament IS a part of the Bible and these same "Jewish rules" are repeatedly called upon in modern Christian arguments, such as that against Homosexuality) because you don't believe in the Jewish faith. Therefore you don't follow them because you don't believe in them.

If you're going to play the semantics game, you should be more careful with your own wording.

Simply put, the article did not mention that most Christians do not believe in human sacrifice because the audience it is aimed at is, at the very least, familiar with Christianity.

First rule of writing, especially in journalism is "know your audience."

* "to ignore" is defined as "to refuse to acknowledge" or "to bar from attention or consideration" and counts "to snub", "to disregard", and "to brush aside" as synonyms.

EDIT: Edited at 11:20 AM to change size of definition text.

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Crash Tofu]

[Angelique]

Okay, but not following a rule because it doesn't apply (and by the way, condemnation of homosexual conduct is one of many things repeated in the NT, so it does still apply) is not the same as refusing to acknowledge, barring from attention or consideration, snubbing, disregarding, or brushing aside.

I don't ignore specifically Jewish regulations (and not all the OT applies only to Jews, I might add) any more than I ignore laws requiring signing up for selective service. Not the best example, as I generally disagree with military conscription. But if, heaven forbid, a draft is ever again necessary, I also think limiting it to men is sexist. Nonetheless, signing up for selective service at 18 is an example of a rule that I neither follow nor ignore. I can fully acknowledge and consider any rule and still not follow it if it doesn't apply specifically to me.

Also, I think it's rather prejudicial to automatically assume a culturally and religiously diverse audience, or an audience that is largely secular, is going to know that people who've committed these atrocities do not accurately represent Christianity. Especially when you consider how many people think Christianity is accurately represented by the likes of the IRA (or their counterparts on the other end of the political spectrum, the Orange Order and the UVF), the Spanish Inquisition, or Hitler.



[Edited on 10/3/06 by Angelique]

[Crawler]

Many of the original "Jewish regulations" are repeated in the New Testament...and if you apply that label as a reason not to adhere to them in the Old Testament, you must also apply them to those rules in the New Testament.

Why?

Because, in most cases (maybe ALL cases, I'd have to check) they were added to the Bible by Paul, a Jew. He never let go of most of the Jewish rules and that is why they appear again in the NT.

So they would still be "Jewish regulations."

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

As for the other point: those people are still, technically, Christians. You may not like it and may want to push them out of your faith, but they still believe in the Bible (or profess to, which is what we've been talking about) and so are Christian.

Are they the Majority? No. And no one was saying so.

A branch is still part of the tree. A stick is still made of wood. Even a diseased branch is still part of the tree.

And secular or not, the audience of that article is, at the very least, English-speaking. Anyone included in the "English-speaking world" has come into contact with Christianity at some point in their lives. If statistics are to be believed, somewhere around 70% of the people who could even READ that article claim themselves to be Christian of some sort.

The other 30% is almost guaranteed to have been raised in a society in which Christianity is the predominant religion and so the likelihood that they would even have an inkling that a small sect like that would be representative of Christianity as a greater whole is tiny. So small as to be inconsequential enough to ignore.

EDIT: Edited to add final point about English at 1:18 PM.

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Crash Tofu]

[Bamfette]

Angelique, what your argument boils down to here here is merely the 'No True Scotsman' argument. You are arguing that YOUR view of Christianity is the 'right' view, and that people who follow the bible differently are not 'true Christians' when, even if you (and most people) find them to be very distasteful, they are still professing a belief in the bible and Jesus, even if they do it in a different way than you do, which makes them Christians.

How can you even argue that the Spanish Inquisition didn't represent Christianity? it was FUNDED BY THE CHURCH! it was horrible, yeah, but it was reprsentative of Christianity, like it or not. just like these people are. a bizarre, horribly brutal offbranch of Christianity, but Christianity nonetheless.

Look at it this way. In the original article I linked to, it was Hindus practicing the sacrifice. I think we all know, despite not being Hindu ourselves, that the vast majority of Hindus do not practice ritual human sacrifice to Kali. Just like the vast majority of people wont think that human sacrifice is a normal Christian practice. But that does not stop these people from being Hindu. They believe, freverently, in the Hindu gods and listened to a Hindu priest for direction. They are Hindus, albeit misguided ones.


[Edited on 10/3/06 by Bamfette]

[Angelique]

Okay, but professing belief in the Bible and actually reading and applying it are two different things. I'm not quibbling with people who read and interpret the Bible differently. I'm talking about people who say they believe in the Bible, but obviously haven't read enough of it to know that Christianity is diametrically opposed to human sacrifice and sorcery. It takes more that merely saying someone is Christian to make it so.

The Spanish Inquisition is so called because it was not the Vatican's Inquisition, and it was set up for political rather than religious purposes.

And finally, yes, Paul was a Jew. But he was also of the opinion reached at the Council of Jerusalem that non-Jewish Christians did not need to convert to Judaism and follow specifically Jewish regulations. So it stands to reason that the OT proscriptions he'd repeat in his letters, which were to both Jewish and non-Jewish believers, apply to Jews and non-Jews alike.

[Bamfette]

I'm convinced. You're simply bcoming up wiht EXCUSES so you don't have to associate yourself with people who used your religion in a way you disagree with.

[Angelique]

I'm not coming up with excuses. I believe it when Muslims tell me that the 9-11 hijackers do not represent real Islam, too.

[NachtcGleiskette]

*insert pencil in ear. Push as hard as possible until it reaches brain* Ahh there we go...

I see Bamfette's point, and can understand where you're not seeing it Angelique. Here it is, in very simple English:

Just because a faction of Christians does not choose to believe the same parts of the Bible as you does not make them any less Christian. And I find you making a statement such as "but obviously haven't read enough of it to know that Christianity is diametrically opposed to human sacrifice and sorcery" a bit unfair because maybe they HAVE read the whole Bible. I've read it, and the book is chock full off contradictions and things we today would find morally reprehensible. So how do we choose what from this book to believe/follow? And how do we decide it's right?

And a whole lot of muslims may not agree with what happened on 9/11, but that doesn't make the people who did it any less muslim. Just like you not agreeing in human sacrifice does not make a faction of Christians who do it any less Christian..

So it comes down to this: Do you have a point, or is this just another example of arguing for the sake of arguing?

Edited to add as an aside:
We all know the Bible does not condone homosexuality. So, basically by what you've told us today, that means any practising homosexual Christian is, in fact, not a Christian, because they practise a lifestyle that the Bible rejects. Correct?

[Edited on 11/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

[Saint Kurt]

I think I hate this thread, I really do... To me religion is a personal thing that when discussed is more like a sharing of personal experiences rather than something to be argued about. However, that doesn't mean I don't think others should have the opportunity to argue.

I do think I might be able to clear up some of the confusion with how Leviticus and the "Pentatuch" or "The Torah" as it stands in the Old Testament is interpreted by those who follow Christ as the Messiah (ie. Christians). I'm not adding or subtracting from anyone's points. Consider this a moderation action.



In the beginning, Moses wrote 5 documents which are known now by Christians as "The Pentatuch" and Jews as "The Torah". These documents are a collection of religious mythology (Genesis), historical adventure story (Exodus), and a constitution of sorts (Levitacus). The final 2 books: Numbers and Deuteronomy are essentially a census of the people who settled in Israel (Numbers) and an epilogue with a reminder of the laws set forth in Levitacus (Deuteronomy - literally "second laws").

So, these are what the Jews had to start with; these 5 books that Moses wrote and to this day they are the sum total of the Torah and provision of Jewish law. (The Jews then interprete this via The Talmud, a sort of "outside law book". The only parallel I can draw is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but that's only due to limited experience on my part.) Within Levitacus are such common Jewish customs as circumcision, keeping a kosher house, the bas mitzvah, marrying within the faith etc. Also contained within Levitacus are some stricter laws and these include keeping one's beard unshorn, the right to sell one's daughter into slavery, and the big one - that homosexuality is an abomonation.

Now, there is more than that in Levitacus too. There is a whole set of instructions on "holocausts" or burnt offerings - what to sacrifice and when. I don't know of anyone, Jewish or Christian who burns sacrificial offerings to God these days, but if you read Psalms, prayers written at the time of King David, it used to happen all the time. There is also a set of instructions for the building of this mysterious "tabernacle" thing. It is fairly universally believed within most* denominations of Christianity that the books of the Old Testament prophesize the coming of Jesus and the Tabernacle is the "big clue". (* I say "most" because I am not an expert on Christianity. I was part of a multidemoninational Christian Bible study group for a semester at school though and they all seemed to believe this.) So, Leviticus is not a set of laws that 100% have to be followed (or 100% have been followed), but they do form the basis from which the current customs of Judaism come.

So, at the point of the founding of Isreal, Jews had The Torah or "The Law". They didn't stop writing though; many other books were written. Many "Historical Books" are included in the Old Testament and these are histories of Jewish civilization before Christ. Also included are books like "Job" and "Psalms" which are basically books of prayers and religious writing. The final section of the Old Testament include the Prophetic books. These books do not contain laws or histories, but are writings of prophets who saw the coming of the Messiah.

So the many many books in the Old Testament do not represent the Jews creating more laws for themselves (or changing their laws) nor do they represent any forms of Christian doctrine. They are simply there as a record of what came before.

Christian law and doctrine begins with The Gospels which also begin the New Testament. The first 4 books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are firsthand accounts from 4 people of the life and ministry of Jesus. Like The Torah for the Jews, they are the "Big Deal" for Christians since this is the life of their savior. First and foremost, this is where Christians get their "laws" from. (Though the New Testament lacks a "constitution book" like Levitacus.)

The rest of the New Testament is a lot like the historical books and writings of the Old Testament. There is Acts which is a brief history of the doings of early Christians and then it goes right into a whole bunch of books that are really "letters" from various Apostles to various other peoples. (This section is known as the "Epistles") Most of these letters were written by Paul who, if you want to get picky, is the real reason for the spread of Christianity, not Jesus. These letters are named for who Paul was writing to (such as the Corinthians or the Romans).

Now if you've gotten this far, that's good, because this is where it gets really important. One of the things Paul says over and over again is cast aside the laws you have known as Jews, as Christians you shall follow a new set of laws. Most often Paul is preaching to the Jews and the earliest Christians were all converted Jews. All the Apostles were Jews, Mary and Joseph were Jews and so was Jesus himself. All of these very early New Testament people all followed Jewish laws and then upon accepting Jesus as the son of God essentially created a new sect of Judaism that was fundamentally different than the Judaism that came before it in that it believed the messiah to have come. This meant casting aside practices such as circumcision** as well as the rest of Leviticus as a law book.

The relationship between Judaism and Christianity is quite fascinating. They both believe in the same God and they both have the 10 commandments (they were given to Moses in Exodus), but the Jews have a "covenant" or a special relationship with God based upon that moment in Exodus whereas Christians take it one step further, believing that God later sent his son to save a humanity that had fallen into sin after that convenant was made. This is why The Torah and a large collection of Jewish historical writing is present in the bible, yet the majority of the doctrine Christians follow is in the second half (the New Testament). Jews still read the Torah and await the Messiah to arrive. Christians read the Gospels and wait for Jesus to return. Both religions share the same "God, the Father" and so their doctrines and laws are forever intertwined as they are.

This can be summed up (because it has to be) by turning all Christians into Catholics for a moment. (sorry) Before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century all Christians were Catholics anyway and like the Jews with the Talmud, they didn't go directly to the Bible for their laws - they went to "The Catechism". The Catechism is like a big book of rules for Catholics and in it, it says that homosexuals are not an abomination, but that like all non-married people should hold themselves to abstinence. It says nothing about not eating pork, but it says not to eat meat on Fridays during Lent. It doesn't require circumcision, but it doesn't say you shouldn't do it either. There's nothing in it at all about ritual sacrifical offerings. There's a whole bunch of stuff about the 7 sacraments that is unique to Catholicism much of which is an interpretation of what Jesus says in the Gospels. In other words, it's where the real Christian doctrine is located. (Note that I am sticking with pre-reformation Christianity here because I disagree with the current practice that certain sects have of "picking and choosing" things from the bible to oppose or approve that are really part of a modern political agenda.)

Returning Christians to their eccumenical state... Christianity and Judaism are two distinct religions with the same roots. Within the Bible is contained the sum total of Jewish doctrine and law, but it is specifically NOT followed by followers of Christ - it is there for interpretation and to stand as a record that throughout Jewish history, they knew the Messiah was coming even if they themselves chose not to accept him as theirs.

Okay, I'm done.



**A funny historical fact: January First is a Catholic Holiday. After 1962 it was called "Mary, Mother of God", one of the changes made by Vatican II. Note that it is celebrated 8 days after the birth of Jesus. In Judaism, 8 days after the birth of a boy is the traditional length of time to wait before circumcising. In the original Catholic liturgy, the January 1st holiday was "The Circumcision of Our Lord". Call me immature, but I find the idea of a whole church full of people celebrating the cutting of a foreskin funny for some reason.




That should give you some meat with which to argue. I tried to stay as neutral as possible. (Probably because while writing this I was eating lactose free, vegetarian, kosher for passover macaroons - talk about your politically/religiously correct non-offensive food.)

Oh, and please argue with fish this coming Friday if you don't mind, since it's Lent. Thanks.

-e


Sources:
"The Catholic Source Book" - Rev Peter Klein
"The New American Bible" - Oxford Ed.
"The Lit. of the Hours - Roman Rite" - Vol 1 (Advent)

[fourpawsonthefloor]

LOL...very funny and informative Em!

The whole thing about celebrating Jesus's circumcision is funny too. It was my understanding that origionally circumcision was not the removal of the entire foreskin, but rather just the tip of it. When young Jewish males started tugging the remnants down (to look like the other guys in the baths ect...funny how some things will always stay the same - like fitting in) they made the decision to whack the whole puppy off to make sure there could be no doubt. This info was from a special that I watched on circumcision (was actually pretty anti-circumcision) and it was very interesting. What I want to know is WHO thought that up...

Paws

[LadyErin]

Originally posted by Angelique
Okay, but professing belief in the Bible and actually reading and applying it are two different things. I'm not quibbling with people who read and interpret the Bible differently. I'm talking about people who say they believe in the Bible, but obviously haven't read enough of it to know that Christianity is diametrically opposed to human sacrifice and sorcery. It takes more that merely saying someone is Christian to make it so.

*takes a huge, deep, slow breath* At the sake of starting something...Have you read the bible? Not the English translation(s) but the orginal? Because, if not, you are relying on someone elses' reading of it. And as that is the case, how do you know what it really says?

[Angelique]

Well, if someone taught me a foreign language, how do I know what they're really teaching me is accurate? I know enough of Hebrew to get the gist of things (unfortunately not as much of Amamaic and Koine), and trust with a degree of certainty that the scholars and translators that have worked on each translation got it fairly correct.

Granted, linguistic differences highlight things differently, but I'm smart enough to take that into account- as well as to read Bibles with thorough footnotes that include things like alternate translations of words that might not be interpreted literally from, say, Hebrew to English.

(What I like is reading the Bible in other langugages besides the originals or English, too. German and Spanish also word certain passages differently. But the gist is the same.)

[HoodedMan]

What happened while I was gone? Good Lord. Time for me to step in and step out yet again.

What bothers me about this report, besides the obvious, is the omission of the fact that Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, categorically reject things like child sacrifice or spell casting.

Genesis 22, dear. Child sacrifice has been ordered by the Lord.

Jill, I wouldn't say Christians ignore any part of the Bible. The different denominations come from interpreting certain parts differently or downplaying the importance of some parts, but never from ignoring any part.

Well, here are some fun passages that seem to be often downplayed. You can ignore the ones from the Old Testament if you'd like; I haven't heard before what SK says about the Old Testament but it doesn't affect my view.

I really hope you've never cursed or blasphemed in your life. It's never forgiven; forget the omnibenevolent God (Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29).

Really, why isn't it publicised more that people who believe in God suddenly become fountains of water (John 3:38)? I don't know what comes out of you, but what comes out of me isn't water. Plus they never can be poisoned; I could use that ability (Mark 16:17-18). Plus, they can stomp around on scorpions and snakes and the like and never get hurt (Luke 10:19). Why aren't they all snapped up to be herpetologists? It'd be stupid to put someone else's life in danger when you can't get hurt. And forget the amendment prohibiting slavery; doesn't apply if you're a Christian (Leviticus 25:44). You can even sell your own children into slavery (Exodus 21:7)!

Oh. And apparently 1 Corinthians 7:29 is downplayed; I still know of Christians who have sex. No no. Leviticus 15:19-24 is downplayed too, apparently. I'm pretty sure I know of a few Christians who have touched women during their period. And some husbands even allow their women to talk! That's nonsense; you stop it right now (Timothy 2:11-12). Christians go to church when they don't have 20/20 vision, too. That's another no-no. The Bible (Leviticus 21:20) told me so.

Apparently Leviticus 11:6-8 is merely downplayed if you're a good football player; oh, but it isn't ignored, oh no. All football players are non-Christian unless they're wearing gloves. So are people who get their hair cut (Leviticus 19:27). Farmers aren't Christian if they plant two crops in the same field; that's a no-no (Leviticus 19:19). And let's not get started on dietary restrictions.

Really, do all Christians give money to whoever asks (Luke 6:30, Matthew 5:42, Luke 6:45)? I asked a reverend for a hundred bucks once. He wasn't exactly compliant with God's law. If your local believer can't heal the sick and raise the dead, he's a phony. Check with Matthew 10:18 for their credentials. Might as well check with Luke 14:26 too. Remember they have to hate their entire family and themself. And why wouldn't they hate their families? All of them seem to have serious family problems (Matthew 10:21-22). Oh, and you have to remember, they must be fools for Christ (1 Corinthians 3:18). I don't know about you, but I don't listen to fools.

I hope you believe all that, Angelique. I don't know about you, but it seems pretty complicated to me. None of those are specific Jewish regulations. The Bible is for Christians. You CAN't just say a rule doesn't apply anymore.

Would you like to discuss the contradictions in the Bible? I can tell you about those too, if you have enough time. The Bible is an outdated book that deals with farming and slavery and such that no longer exist. It's the law book of an ancient society. And it's more self-contradictory than a Christian. Don't tell me I have to follow it.

Look, I really don't want to offend any Christians here. But I just can't believe how much stock people put in the Bible, especially people who have not read it in its entirety. This is simply a response to Angelique's arguments, not the entire discussion.

[Saint Kurt]

I don't want to be dictatorial here or put limitations on what you can and can't talk about. And I won't. What I will request is that the conversation is kept civil and that criticisms aren't aimed as personal attacks at one person for I think we can all agree that Angelique is not the only Christian who might read the bible.

On the subject of the bible, I would also ask that when discussing any religion's texts that they be treated with some respect even if you yourself don't believe in that religion or respect that particular religion. I posted that delibrately neutral explanation of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments for two reasons, the first was because the expectations of Christian adherence to every single word in the bible was unrealistic and second, because no one seemed to understand that regardless of one's belief in the bible it remains a historical document. It is one thing to argue about the religious implications of marriage or abortion (or what have you) in modern society, but it is another entirely to discuss the roots of religions that are ancient.

In other words, if you want to play theology scholar I say "go for it", but do your research. Asking the question "But how do you know if it's really true if you haven't read the bible in its original language?" sounds powerful, but is almost meaningless since it was written in languages (yes, plural) that are not even spoken today, not to mention the fact that the bible was written over hundreds of years by different people in different cultures. There IS no original language. (I could also bring up that even if we could read it, we'd also need to be historians to understand the cultural references.) The translation history is absolutely fascinating and is a five minute read in Wikipedia.

This goes for the bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Dhammapada, the Zen Koan, and any other books I may have missed. They may not be special to you, but they are special to someone.

Let me show you why I say this:

Matthew 12:31
"Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."
The first part of the sentence is clear to me as far as forgiveness of sins goes. This is part of an explanation of who Satan is. Blasphemy against the spirit refers to an act of Satan against God.

Mark 3:29
Funny, Mark 3:28 says: "Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them." Once again, another explanation of Satan. Remember that first 4 books of the New Testament are the same story being told 4 different times by 4 different people.

John 3:38
Unfortunately Chapter 3 of the book of John stops at verse 36.

Mark 16:17-18
Actually, this is referring to the 12 apostles only - it's not saying that everyone who believes in God is "poison and snake proof".

Corinthians 7:29
Context is kind of important. This is a letter from Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. It is one example in a series about not becoming bound to material things unless they serve the greater glory of God. (Remember, this IS the bible.) 7:23 says "You have been purchased at a price. Do not become slaves to human beings." and then are a series of suggestions including not having sex with your wife unless it is for procreation (7:29). Catholics (who are Christians) are still called to adhere to this law.

Timothy 2:11-12
I don't know what this has to do with wives not talking since it is about Jesus.
"This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him;
if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us."

Luke 6:30
This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It says: "Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back." It's Jesus' big hippie speech and doesn't say anything about money. The next line happens to be "Do to others as you would have them do to you." which I think just about everyone agrees with.

Matthew 10:18
says: "and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans." I don't understand how it relates to credentials of believers unless the author once again confused the 12 apostles with All Christians Ever to Walk the Earth again.


Okay, I'm bored of this. (And I didn't even do the Leviticus passages since nitpicking in Leviticus is like winning the Special Olympics.)

The point I am making is that whoever wrote about the downplaying of these passages was probably not Northstar and Northstar posted it without actually reading the passages in the bible first. I'd never read most of them either and I only started looking them up because I was curious. I probably own the most infrequently read bible on the planet so I figured why not? And everytime I see one of these "isn't the bible dumb and irrational" lists and I bother to look some of the passages up it's the same damn thing: Everything looks stupid when taken out of context.

When people come to this board and take Chuck Austen out of context, it's annoying. When they talk about Claremont, or Bendis, or Morrison out of context, it's annoying. When they talk about Nightcrawler, or Nocturne, or whoever your favorite character is, out of context, it's annoying. One of the most annoying and disrespectful things to me is to have someone start a debate about something they have not taken the time to fully explore.

So I humbly ask everybody, because we want to remain open to all topics, please take a moment to check your sources and chose your words so that all minds remain open to your ideas and no offense is taken.

Thank you,
-e

[HoodedMan]

the first was because the expectations of Christian adherence to every single word in the bible was unrealistic...

Well, it seemed to me that that was exactly what Angelique was saying, that Christians adhered to every word in the Bible. I'm aware all of those verses have multiple interpretations.

The first part of the sentence is clear to me as far as forgiveness of sins goes. This is part of an explanation of who Satan is. Blasphemy against the spirit refers to an act of Satan against God.

I didn't quite follow that, but I'll trust it as truth. As for the disciples, some say it refers to the twelve disciples, some say it refers to them and all future disciples, some say that verse doesn't exist at all. "The most reliable" early manuscripts and other witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20, from my reading. Applies to Matthew 10:18 again.

John 3:38 I'll have to look up again. I must have mixed up something when I wrote it down. It happens. I Corinthians 7:29 is just fun for literal reading as I was saying because it says men should live as if they had no wives. If they have no wives, they can't have sex with women. And so the race dies out. Or would, if the time wasn't short.

1 Timothy 2:11-12: (Sorry about the ambiguous name):
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

In fact, let's have the rest, for context's sake.

13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Sounds like fingerpointing to me. But there you go. Luke 6:30 can apply to money as well as anything else.

I actually did read the passages in the Bible first, but was pointed to them by other people. Those were my words, and I still believe them. I understand there are multiple interpretations; I was just poking fun at how it could be read literally; I understand that no Christians do so, though it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Some of the interpretations made to defend these verses often seem longwinded and akward to me, but that's just me.

But it seems to me that others have taken a long time to read the Bible (I've read it cover-to-cover, but haven't bothered to try to reconcile it with itself.) I'm not going to continue on this subject, I just thought it made for interesting reading.

[LadyErin]

Originally posted by Angelique
Well, if someone taught me a foreign language, how do I know what they're really teaching me is accurate? I know enough of Hebrew to get the gist of things (unfortunately not as much of Amamaic and Koine), and trust with a degree of certainty that the scholars and translators that have worked on each translation got it fairly correct.

Granted, linguistic differences highlight things differently, but I'm smart enough to take that into account- as well as to read Bibles with thorough footnotes that include things like alternate translations of words that might not be interpreted literally from, say, Hebrew to English.

(What I like is reading the Bible in other langugages besides the originals or English, too. German and Spanish also word certain passages differently. But the gist is the same.)

You know if the teaching is correct because you use it. But I did ask (perhaps too bluntly) because I was curious. Based on the other statements you made, I wondered. But I am very glad to hear that you do study to double check, so many do not.

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
In other words, if you want to play theology scholar I say "go for it", but do your research. Asking the question "But how do you know if it's really true if you haven't read the bible in its original language?" sounds powerful, but is almost meaningless since it was written in languages (yes, plural) that are not even spoken today, not to mention the fact that the bible was written over hundreds of years by different people in different cultures. There IS no original language. (I could also bring up that even if we could read it, we'd also need to be historians to understand the cultural references.) The translation history is absolutely fascinating and is a five minute read in Wikipedia.

Uhm...actaully...that was my point. Just wasn't a good way for me to phrase it.

[Saint Kurt]

originally posted by Northstar
I actually did read the passages in the Bible first, but was pointed to them by other people. Those were my words, and I still believe them. I understand there are multiple interpretations; I was just poking fun at how it could be read literally; I understand that no Christians do so, though it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Some of the interpretations made to defend these verses often seem longwinded and akward to me, but that's just me.

You did write that? I'm impressed - I totally thought it was one of those things that's been floating around the internet for years. (Like the Dr. Laura one that's about Leviticus that drives me nuts because it's meant to slam the bible and ends up being super anti-semitic instead.) You completely had me convinced. As for long winded explanations and interpretations - I think that's where the translation is important. Like what Angelique was saying, it's more than just getting words right when translating a foreign language, it's getting the fundamental meaning right. And the bible is one seriously foreign book both in language, culture, and time.

But it seems to me that others have taken a long time to read the Bible (I've read it cover-to-cover, but haven't bothered to try to reconcile it with itself.) I'm not going to continue on this subject, I just thought it made for interesting reading.

It does make for interesting reading. I just felt like, if we were going to go down this path, with any religion's spiritual writings, it would be best to warn about "bad scholarship" now rather than clean up a mess later. I've never read the bible cover to cover (and I don't think I want to, but it's cool that you have). I recognize that what's inside has value to both Jews and Christians and that's enough for me.

And I do understand what both you and LadyErin are trying to say. The Onion article that Elwing posted actually puts it into perspective really well. Sometimes it feels like too much attention is placed on a book that IS ancient and foreign and doesn't seem to relate to the modern world at all. "Why?" is not a bad question to ask.

-e

[NachtcGleiskette]

http://community.livejournal.com/debate ... 1#comments

I found this over at bkv's board and thought it might lighten the mood.

I wonder if he is part of the Holy sect of Burninators?

edited to add:

I've been reading this more and more. This kid is insane! Some of the better points are that Dragons never existed. So how the hell are you spiritually a dragon? How the hell did the spirit of a fake creature make its way into your human body? I love the "d&d and anime" thing someone said, and someone else actually was like "Yeah, so what?" Like basing your religion off the latest episode of Inuyasha is completely valid.....

And the fake science in this boggles the mind:

How do you know that what we know as the Dragon wasn't actually a specific variety of dinosaur?

Hear me out. It is quite possible that some dinosaurs digestive system produced flammable gases, that exited through the mouth(imagine it as a high-methane backwards fart). It is also known that it is quite possible for living beings to produce and discharge large amounts of electricity(look at the electric eel). Producing a spark across the mouth as it belches methane could easily produce a fireball. The digestive system and the organs that produce and discharge the electricity would not have survived the fossilization process- To prove or disprove this theory would require a fully preserved corpse, which isn't likely to happen.

Though, I love the movement this has sparked....I've come to the conclusion that I, too, am spiritually an Ewok.



[Edited on 21/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

[idsunki]

Yeah, that whole Otherkin/Dragonkin whatever thing is a very strange religion/lifestyle I've been seeing lately.

I was actually curious about them for awhile, but one of the forums or mailing lists (I forget which) that I tried to apply for (they had, understandably, started requiring registration) wouldn't let me on because I admitted I was a regular ordinary human that was interested in learning more. Now I just settle for a sort of "meh" attitude whenever I hear about it.

I mean c'mon, we've all seen Flight of Dragons, we get the science of dragons.

As an aside, I saw a bumper sticker that I know a few of you here would appreciate - "Just another soulless atheist searching for world peace and harmony."

[NachtcGleiskette]

Idsunki, are you aware of your spiritual specie? Are you in tune with the form your spirit takes? I have a friend you should talk to:

[Bamfette]

As long as they're not hurting anyone, the 'Otherkin' can believe whatever they want, as far as i'm concerned...

(though I do find it pretty weird. more like a fantasy that got out of hand)

anyway...... I wanted to share something i've been following the past couple weeks. the eBay Atheist. See, there's this guy, an atheist, and he sold his soul on eBay. by that i mean, for every $10 of the winning bid, he woud attend an hour of church services. it was bought by a pastor for $504, who wanted to publicise the whole deal...

http://tinyurl.com/evm2v


here'e the website the ebay auction wanted him to contribute to: http://off-the-map.org/atheist/

and his personal blog:
http://www.ebayatheist.blogspot.com/

just curious what people think.... most atheists i've seen hate the idea, think it's giving the wrong message, (they don't want to be seen as convertable) and they think the guy gives a poor face to atheism, that he's not really that great at presenting what atheism is all about... some even think he's a Christian posing as an atheist and that at the end he will get 'converted' and show the world that religion's the best way and blah blah. (I've heard that he held a chair position on a Secular Students Alliance, and if that was the plan, he a) wouldn't be so critical of so many church services so far, and b) it would not have lasted this long, he would have 'converted' by now, so I highly doubt that. but it's being said.) but the atheism LJ community is a prety cynical crowd, I subscribe msotly for the news stories that get posted, i don't actually like or agree most of the people there. so whatever. I've been following his blog, and while i don't agree with everything he says, generally, he seems like a nice guy, and well informed. but right now, i am interested on perspectives on this other than atheist...

[NachtcGleiskette]

When i first heard about it, I thought it was a pretty clever way to make some money....

I don't want to come off sounding offensive, or anything of the like, because this isn't me being snarky or whathaveyou, but just me knowing very little about atheism: But I always thought atheism was a more personal thing than other faiths. Let me clarify before I get jumped . Like, Christianity has a book you abide by, there are rules, guidelines to worship, etc. Atheism is more just you have decided that you don't believe x,y,z. So, I don't get people being upset over him fucking with the reputation of Atheism. I mean, I do get it, but who cares?

My point is: unlike in other belief systems, how do the actions of one atheist reflect all atheists? Since, from what I've seen/heard, Atheism and how it's believed/practised is a far more case by case basis...

Does this make sense? In the way I want it to? It's, like, 7 am and I fear I'm incoherent

[Bamfette]

I agree with you. I think he did it as a lark, it went further than he expected, but he's following through with it in the best way he can. I think it presents a nice message of creating understanding and partnership between two vastly different groups of people... this atheist is working with a minister, and they have by all appearances become friends, they accept eachothers beliefs (the minister has said publicly he's not out to convert, but to educate) working towards a common goal. i think that's a good thing.

I think where the ones who are upset are coming from is... they want people to accept them, so any atheist that puts him/herself out there as a public spokesperson of sorts better be making a GOOD impression in their opinion. Present what they believe it represents, be likeable, be intelligent, etc. all at the same time. They get very critical of public portrayals because they want every aspect to try and show people what we are and what we're not. In this particular case, the main issue seems to be, they want to be seen as secure in their beliefs. And this guys 'try and convert me!' auction gives a message (in some peoples eyes) that we we all WANT to be converted, when in reality we are generally very secure and happy with our non-belief. They just can't seem to grasp that the guy meant it tongue in cheek. (or are worried others wont understand that)

Also, some of the militant atheist types are very critical of intelligence, and some have labeled the guy an 'idiot' for a number of reasons, and is therefore unworthy to be an atheist spokesperson.

Like I said, it's not something I agree with. But I think that's where at least some of these people are coming from.

Right now, atheists are one of the last minorities where it's socially acceptable to openly mock, deride, discriminate and otherwise act like an ass towards, and we are the least trusted group in America. so it's made some people kinda touchy. some activist atheists take this really seriously.... and they should, it's a situation that should stop. but some take it a bit TOO seriously sometimes...

But yeah. Atheism is very personal, so it's hard to say the group as a whole feels a certain way, as we all arrived at the position for a wide variety of reasons, and we only share one thing in common; a lack of belief in a god. Beyond that, opinions and beliefs can vary greatly. HOWEVER, we are bound in that we are generally hated by a large number of people, which makes us want to put something out there that says 'see? we're not so bad!' except that because we all have such wildly different opinions, no one can agree what that should be. But I think that's where the ones who are upset are coming from. They want the absolute best face to be presented, but they have some unreasonably high expectations sometimes.

though, on the subject of atheism being a personal thing... it is. but there are organizations and philosophies, most notably Secular Humanism which gives some atheists a common ground, a central voice, and sense of community which we would otherwise miss out on, lacking things like churches. But it's by no means universal, and the groups can vary, Secular Humanism is just the one I am most familiar with, and I would count myself as a Secular Humanist, but there are others. Some atheists/agnostics go to UU congrgations for the sense of community for instance. some are Buddhists. Some just join activist groups like Greenpeace, or whatever. many don't join or associate themselves with anything at all.... so. there is that, to give some atheists a common outlook. i guess it's a bit like different deniminations of Christianity, in a weird way. but not quite.

ps. you should all watch this... http://www.randytv.com/coreylan.html


[Edited on 23/3/06 by Bamfette]