ch19079 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 It's gonna be hard to correct all of the misconceptions. Evangelis are NOT evil, some are hypocrites and don't represent Christ well. Christianity is NOT violent, the BASIS of Christianity is love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Muslims ARE unstable, they don't believe thier God cares about them on a personal level. Judaism is more like Catholism... don't confuse ALL Christianity with Catholism. Organized religion is a problem, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. *There is ONE God (whether you accept it or not is fact). *You can NOT shape your life to appease God, he must shape it for you. *Heaven is real and for those who have accpeted Christ (another fact whether you believe it or not) 325566[/snapback] 1) how do you know their is 1 god? anyone who says they KNOW for a fact does not know that, and does not know what FACT means. 2) i can not follow any religion that will allow a serial killer or child molester to sit in jail for 30 years, and just befor he is exicuted, repents his sins and has a confession with a priest and gets in to heaven, while a good man who tries to live his life with morals and helping people is sent to hell simply because he does not blindly believe in "god" as writen by man thousands of years after jesus's death and has been edited and changed so many times that we have no idea what the original writer was actually trying to say. 3) and also, just because someone believes in god and heaven and goes to church on sunday, doesnt mean they are the nice good christians most people think. I find it asinine that people blindy trust people simply because they sit behind them in church on sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 "Organized religion" generally seems to get a bad rap. Some of it is well deserved, but I don't think all of it is. First, one must ask, what is the definition of "organized religion?" I personally don't think the definition of "organized religion" requires a denomination with a long tradition and history, though I am part of such a denomination. "Organized religion" is any time believers in some religious tradition gather together and develop some sort of structure which helps them function. With that as my definition of "organized religion," I think it is almost essential. For Christians it is not a question of "going to church." The Bible makes it clear that believers are the church. Using the imagery which the Bible does, the church is the Body of Christ, one can argue that the finger, which is part of the body, cannot survie if it remains detached from the body, nor can it function in the way that it is supposed to do. The Bible makes it clear that there are things which Jesus followers are supposed to do. They can not do those things effectively without some connection with other believers, some structure to help them cooperate in ministry and worship. I think my greatest concern over the abandonment of "organized religion," the gathering of Christians together for worship, teaching, and ministry is the fact that with each passing generation ignorance grows of the teachings of Christ and the tenets of the Christian faith. One poster decried the fact that most Christians don't know what Jesus taught. The plain fact of the matter is that when persons who believe in Jesus because their parents believed but don't go to some sort of Christian fellowship will pass on less of the faith than their parents passed to them until finally the children are taught either nothing or mostly misconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 1) how do you know their is 1 god? anyone who says they KNOW for a fact does not know that, and does not know what FACT means.2) i can not follow any religion that will allow a serial killer or child molester to sit in jail for 30 years, and just befor he is exicuted, repents his sins and has a confession with a priest and gets in to heaven, while a good man who tries to live his life with morals and helping people is sent to hell simply because he does not blindly believe in "god" as writen by man thousands of years after jesus's death and has been edited and changed so many times that we have no idea what the original writer was actually trying to say. 3) and also, just because someone believes in god and heaven and goes to church on sunday, doesnt mean they are the nice good christians most people think. I find it asinine that people blindy trust people simply because they sit behind them in church on sunday. 325599[/snapback] 1. That's why people of faith are called people of faith 2. The Bible wasn't written "thousands" of years after the death of Christ, we're only in the year 2005. As far as repentence, heaven, hell, and judgments, IMO nobody knows for sure how all that works. 3. Me too. That's why we have the God-given ability to think, rationalize, and choose our actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I no longer believe in God, heaven, or hell. Heaven is knowing you'll get another chance after kicking the winning FG wide right in the final seconds. Hell is always kicking it wide right. In terms of coping with death... I grieve my losses, but I'm consoled by the knowledge that all of us have been given a wonderful, if not fleeting, opportunity to live. The lives of my deceased loved ones still live in the memories of those of us who knew and loved them. I choose to accept the reality that I will never be in their company again, and as spring returns, I'm reminded of those I've buried. Their inability to hear the birds sing on a warm breeze won't keep the birds from singing. But if I allow the song and the breeze to act as a bookmark to my life, I can recall those I've lost. With each recollection I can create a heaven in which my loved ones live forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 If I need words, I really like Matthew 5:15, The Four Agreements, Kahlil Gibran, and the Three Laws of Robotics. 325588[/snapback] More people should read "The Prophet." On Religion Have I spoken this day of aught else? Is not religion all deeds and all reflection, And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom? Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations? Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?" All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self. He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked. The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin. And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage. The freest song comes not through bars and wires. And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn. Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Whenever you enter into it take with you your all. Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute, The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight. For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures. And take with you all men: For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair. And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children. And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain. You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 "Organized religion" generally seems to get a bad rap. Some of it is well deserved, but I don't think all of it is. First, one must ask, what is the definition of "organized religion?" I personally don't think the definition of "organized religion" requires a denomination with a long tradition and history, though I am part of such a denomination. "Organized religion" is any time believers in some religious tradition gather together and develop some sort of structure which helps them function. With that as my definition of "organized religion," I think it is almost essential. For Christians it is not a question of "going to church." The Bible makes it clear that believers are the church. Using the imagery which the Bible does, the church is the Body of Christ, one can argue that the finger, which is part of the body, cannot survie if it remains detached from the body, nor can it function in the way that it is supposed to do. The Bible makes it clear that there are things which Jesus followers are supposed to do. They can not do those things effectively without some connection with other believers, some structure to help them cooperate in ministry and worship. 325604[/snapback] when you say bible, can you be more specific? not to pick a fight or anything, but i dont see how someone can base their life off a book when most people can not agree what should be in the book to begin with. but on a serious note, im completly agenst the idea of "organized religon". ive grown up in a catholic family, and basicaly since im agenst it, i would like to read the bible (even thouh im not a big reader). but my problem is what book to read. some bibles include stuff, while others exclude it.. and so on. others translate words in to diffrent words and meanings. so one book translated in to 2 books by 2 seperate poeple could have 2 diffrent meanings. so any thaughts as to which book to get???? and please dont say "the king james bible"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 and please dont say "the king james bible"... 325612[/snapback] Why not? Seriously...it's the one I read, albiet my preference is for its literary rather than spiritual qualities. The "new" editions, where they try to translate it into every modern English argot short of ebonics, bug the living hell out of me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Why not? Seriously...it's the one I read, albiet my preference is for its literary rather than spiritual qualities. The "new" editions, where they try to translate it into every modern English argot short of ebonics, bug the living hell out of me... 325616[/snapback] because it was edited and changed, things cut out and put in by a king who wanted a divorce from his wife. not exactly the greatest foundation for a religion. (people base their religion off the bible, and the bible they choose has a reflection on their beliefs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 GOD is like a circle, whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. St. Bonaventure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 If people want to comment (Non-believers) how have you coped/would you cope with the death of a loved one? 325172[/snapback] You cope in knowing and acknowledging that all things die and we are no different. You miss the individual and remember them fondly, but I do not think of them as "going" anywhere. Their time of life expired like any other living thing and as will your own. We do not "need" religion or God to cope. We must acknowledge our own mortality and deal with that fear. It is an irrational fear, a you WILL one day die. Why spend our time worrying about the inevitible? I've always wondered why in a society that places much importance on intelligence and logical thought, it is acceptable or even "quaint" to suspend these qualities and express "deep belief" in religion or "God". Why can we not accept that we simply do not know the exact origin of Earth, our solar system and of our own species? The positive quest to know and discover is impeded by the illogical belief in an unprovable unscientific explanation. I personally take no solace or comfort in such an explanation. So I do not participate. I understand the difference between right and wrong and what is acceptable in a civilized society.I do not need a "religion" to guide me in these priciples. There are obviously answers to the mysteries of life and death, and we may never know these answers. Fine. I can live with that. The explanations presented by religion are too simplistic and unlikely to devote time and energy to. The "herd" mentality required to participate in religion seems like weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 because it was edited and changed, things cut out and put in by a king who wanted a divorce from his wife. 325632[/snapback] Are you sure you're not thinking about Henry VIII? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 because it was edited and changed, things cut out and put in by a king who wanted a divorce from his wife. not exactly the greatest foundation for a religion. I'm willing to be most versions are...the "modern" versions I've seen are hideous in that regard. And I remember a discussion I had with a minister at a bible church once who told me "You MUST take the Bible at its literal word! There is NO room for interpretation!" So, wise-ass that I am, I asked him "You mean you read it in the original Greek, Latin, and Hebrew then?" To his credit, he was smart enough to know that translation IS interpretation...to his detriment, he said some very un-Godly things in response. But by definition, the Bible's been changed throughout the ages, if only through multiple games of "Russian telephone". Accepting one non-original version over another at this point strikes me as...well, fallacious, really, though I will stipulate that some fallacies are more fallacious than others. (people base their religion off the bible, and the bible they choose has a reflection on their beliefs). 325632[/snapback] True enough...IF they base their religious beliefs on said bible. I've read both the Tao Te Ching and the Koran...neither of which makes me a Buddhist or a Muslim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 GOD is like a circle, whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. St. Bonaventure 325635[/snapback] In other words...God's like a circle if you take away every single concrete identifiable property of a circle. May as well say God's like a bowl of Jell-o...minus the water, gelatin, artificial colors and flavors, and the bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 when you say bible, can you be more specific? not to pick a fight or anything, but i dont see how someone can base their life off a book when most people can not agree what should be in the book to begin with. but on a serious note, im completly agenst the idea of "organized religon". ive grown up in a catholic family, and basicaly since im agenst it, i would like to read the bible (even thouh im not a big reader). but my problem is what book to read. some bibles include stuff, while others exclude it.. and so on. others translate words in to diffrent words and meanings. so one book translated in to 2 books by 2 seperate poeple could have 2 diffrent meanings. so any thaughts as to which book to get???? and please dont say "the king james bible"... 325612[/snapback] I happen to be protestant (United Methodist). The protestant canon ("canon" means having met the standards) does not include the "deuterocanonical works" sometimes called intertestamental or the apocrypha. We believe those books, while they might have valid things to say and are certainly worth reading, don't meet the standards to be considered Holy Scripture. I don't begrudge those who like the King James Version, but those who have minimal exposure to the Bible often find it very difficult to get a lot of meaning out of the KJV. Some modern translations that have been pretty widely accepted are the New International Version, The New King James Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the New Century Version. The Catholic translations: The Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible are also very good. As for what to read in the Bible, I would recommend reading some from the Old Testament,and some from the New Testament every day, and maybe a Psalm too. You may get bogged down in books like Numbers and Leviticus, but I think you might enjoy Genesis and Exodus, prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. From the New Testament I would recomend starting with the Gospel of John first. You can read the other three gospels too. Note that there is some duplication among the first three gospels. The Book of Acts gives the story of the infant Christian church, including the travels of the apostle Paul. The Book of Romans, and to a lesser extent the Book of Colossians give a good accounting of the teachings of Paul, who was the most important voice in the early church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some books, like Revelation you will find very confusing without lots of study and a fair amount of help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 The Lost Books of the Bible The Church View: In the Catholic Church the Bible is the Douay Bible consisting of 73 books. In the Protestant church only the 66 books approved by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618, which today is known as the Authorized King James Bible. The Bible View: Though there is no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the complete Bible in scripture there are over 20 books mentioned in the Bilble but not found there. This is proof that many have been removed and there is evidence that many more fell under the same fate. Interesting stuff, from the Bible-UFO Connection website... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 God for my purposes is any form of higher power325169[/snapback] I believe in SDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I'm willing to be most versions are...the "modern" versions I've seen are hideous in that regard. And I remember a discussion I had with a minister at a bible church once who told me "You MUST take the Bible at its literal word! There is NO room for interpretation!" So, wise-ass that I am, I asked him "You mean you read it in the original Greek, Latin, and Hebrew then?" To his credit, he was smart enough to know that translation IS interpretation...to his detriment, he said some very un-Godly things in response. But by definition, the Bible's been changed throughout the ages, if only through multiple games of "Russian telephone". Accepting one non-original version over another at this point strikes me as...well, fallacious, really, though I will stipulate that some fallacies are more fallacious than others. True enough...IF they base their religious beliefs on said bible. I've read both the Tao Te Ching and the Koran...neither of which makes me a Buddhist or a Muslim... 325647[/snapback] You are right in that there is no such thing as taking the Bible literally in the pure sense. Latin is not an original language of the Bible. The New Testament was originally written in "Koine" or "common" Greek. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though some parts, including the Book of Daniel were written in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew. Your depiction of the Bible as having been changed via "Russian telephone is not very accurate. Scholars working at translating the Dead Sea scrolls, many dating from several hundred years before Christ reveal remarkably few changes in comparison with manuscripts dating from hundreds of years later. Great care was obviously exercised in the work of copying in those days before the printing press. Different translations have more to do with different ways of interpreting words that occur in the original language than variations in manuscripts from which they were translated. The same challenge exists in translating modern works from one language to another. One word in German might be rendered a half dozen different ways in English. Sometimes I do word studies in the original language when there seems to be a word or phrase like that. If doing serious study, it's often good to have several translations available to catch those cases where there are multiple meanings in the original language. One of the problems with the King James Version, as opposed to modern versions is that the English language has changed. King James English can mislead those who arent' familiar with it. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. . ." Why shouldn't we want the Lord? What it means is that trusting in the Lord we will not have unmet needs. That is, we shall not be in want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apulshunny Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I do not believe in organized religion. All these different religions and different ways to approach belief tells me that all organized religion is too screwed up to follow. I avoid them. 325188[/snapback] After searching for my place in religion, I have grown to believe in "a God", but after that I follow my own moral values. I was raised Catholic, but found too many "rules" constricting and against things that I believed. After reading Exodus in the Bible, I found I did not believe in the vindictive God that was written about, so I've abandoned the faith. I feel that even organized religon is subject to personal interpretation, so I choose not to follow someone else's beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 You are right in that there is no such thing as taking the Bible literally in the pure sense. Latin is not an original language of the Bible. The New Testament was originally written in "Koine" or "common" Greek. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though some parts, including the Book of Daniel were written in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew. Even Paul's letters to the Romans? I have an easier time imagining those written in Latin than in Greek...and it was those specifically I had in mind when I mentioned Latin. Your depiction of the Bible as having been changed via "Russian telephone is not very accurate. Scholars working at translating the Dead Sea scrolls, many dating from several hundred years before Christ reveal remarkably few changes in comparison with manuscripts dating from hundreds of years later. Great care was obviously exercised in the work of copying in those days before the printing press. I could very well be inaccurate in this case (and I'm even willing to stipulate that you know more about it than I - which never happens )...and I know the care that was taken through the Middle Ages in copying over manuscripts (there is a reason Xerox's original trademark was a monk, after all). Still, "Russian telephone" is an unavoidable feature of human communication, and "remarkably few" changes are still changes. Different translations have more to do with different ways of interpreting words that occur in the original language than variations in manuscripts from which they were translated. I had no intention of suggesting otherwise. I've read modern works translated to English from other languages that have had their meanings changed significantly by the interpreters' choice of rendering vocabulary. As you said...multiple different translations help (I mentioned the Tao Te Ching earlier...I've got two translations of that, three of Sun Tzu, two of Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo). Ultimately, though, one must somehow try to read it in the original language to derive the original meaning (as I'm still trying to do with the Koran - Arabic's an unholy B word-mother of a written language). But even so...that leads to situations where works go through multiple translations in multiple languages. I would not be the least bit surprised if Hebrew portions of the Bible were subsequently translated to Greek, then Latin, then English, which leads to a LOT of room for interpretation of vocabulary alone (for a non-religious example, the Greek agora has a slightly different meaning from the Latin forum has a markedly different meaning from the English "market place". I'm not aware of any particular verse in the Bible where that translation would take place...but hypothetically a parable of Jesus delivered in the agora or forum would have a significantly different context than in a "market place"). And even within languages...I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the "modern" translations of the Bible I've seen weren't simply translations from the KJV into "modern" language...and despite being ostensibly the same language, they're practically different books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 because it was edited and changed, things cut out and put in by a king who wanted a divorce from his wife. not exactly the greatest foundation for a religion. (people base their religion off the bible, and the bible they choose has a reflection on their beliefs). 325632[/snapback] To say the Bible has been edited is a gross understatement. People need to stop quoting the damn Bible and start researching what has led to the present construction it's in. It's not a pretty history folks. Many early Christian scholars works were erased because their philosophy didn't jive with the prevailing wisdom. Personally, I'm not a fan of organized religion and most people allow their understanding/belief in God to be colored by the bad taste modern religion can leave in thier mouth. For those who have convinced themselves that everything we see has just randomly occured, go look up Max Planck (or Einstein): "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." Ok, done with my rant : ) And, just for the record, God doesn't hate anybody ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts