responding to common objections to bible

[Sigurd]

what was the link with communism? :P

Yeah.. you guys moves too fast over to other topics...

I did however find the Entrance Hall version of the What are your Beliefs? thread.

[HopAlongBunny]

what was the link with communism? :P

As a faith system, along with Milton Friedman economics (or most "pure" economic theories) it belongs in any discussion of theism.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah.. you guys moves too fast over to other topics...

I did however find the Entrance Hall version of the What are your Beliefs? thread.

Wow, we have come a long way. Today a poll like that would be seen as retarded, with the underlying assumption of everyone having a stake in the Jewish God.

With that said, we need more buddhists on here... PRETTY PLEASE CA, make a Asian set game, so we can get some actual THINKERS in here.

[Sigurd]

Wow, we have come a long way.

Actually...

IMO the debates were of better quality 10 years back.

[Hax]

What makes you think Buddhism isn't as prone to prejudiced and knee-jerk thinking?

[Kadagar_AV]

What makes you think Buddhism isn't as prone to prejudiced and knee-jerk thinking?

Nothing.

However, the basics of the Asian religions I read up on are way more based on thinking, and not dogma. And I honestly believe their memes would create a better world than the monotheistic memes we in the west transfer.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not hardly. That's just the language/cultural barrier making you think its more cerebral. Buddhism was twisted to suit the purposes of the authorities all over Asia for centuries and centuries. Any philosophy can be twisted. Even the practical philosophy of science can be twisted by hubris without even the aid of government, as when people presume to know how the universe works beyond what we've already discovered.

I'm not so sure you are right. Remember that Swedish is what I read the majority of texts in, so it's as much a language barrier between the different religions original texts.

I would say Daoism is the official religion that most touched my soul.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Daoist by any means. However, going through their texts and tales brings a peace to my heart that no other scripture has.

For each his own? I'm just saying I wish we had more of those thinkers around here


EDIT: As to your edit, my reply about "might be a god.... ... ..." I was solely answering the topic. Thus, nah, no bias towards it.
And I don't "believe" in Daoism, I have just said that those are the religious texts that touch my heart and mind the most, and make me think about my life choices the most

[Kadagar_AV]

see edit :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Buddhists have their moments. Look at what's going on in Sri Lanka these days.

Attacking Muslims with stones, calling for racial purity and a boycott of Muslim businesses...

And I have to agree the quality of the debate here looks poorer than what it was 10 years ago, though I wasn't around then. I mean, consider the OP and his following posts in this thread...

[Kadagar_AV]

I guess what I mean is:

I have read ALL of the bigger scriptures, and Daoism is the closest I could find that both enlightened me and gave me peace of mind.

I don't care about how the religions have been USED, the practical implications, or anything like that. I am just saying that Daoism is what make me read the texts with a smile on my face and sunshine in my heart.

It sure as **** beat reading about the walls of Jericho, or gang rapes - that is the Bible.

[Kadagar_AV]

And what I mean is that all of these texts are out of context, re-translated, and only as good as you make them.

... And what I mean is that you are wrong.

A text is created in symbiosis between the text and the reader. I am not saying the reader is unimportant, but to hear you say the text is unimportant is laughable.

However, time for me to go... "Last day of skiing" party... I will get roaring drunk and quite possibly have sexual intercourse with a girl or two :)

[Kadagar_AV]

I didn't say the text was unimportant, I said your understanding of the text is false.

And I said that a text is made in symbiosis between reader and writer, so how can my understanding of it be false?

It's my understanding, aaaiiiight?

[The Stranger]

dont let the pope hear you :P

[Kadagar_AV]

Your understanding of your understanding is just fine. Your understanding of Daoism is another thing entirely.

I guess you have deeper insights than me, then

I'm just a stupid ski instructor living on the mountain I love, spending my days doing the things I like. Speaking of that, I am REALLY late for a night of fun.

Have a nice evening, I sure intend to

[Ironside]

I did. You missed my mark. English to Swedish doesn't work too well either, I guess.

You're familiar with the Scientific Method right? Surely nobody needs a lesson in that? The practical language of science has no bias. Thus the purely scientific approach to God is "Might be, Might not Be, can't prove it either way." That isn't my opinion, that's fact. My opinion (or, better yet, my Beliefs) are something else entirely.

The scientific approach is also to reject everything that can't be proven either way. "Can't be proven either way, yet" works though.

That's because can't be proven either way puts God at the same position as the Lord of Nightmares, the Flying Spagetti Monster or an invisible garden gnome guardian. And it has to be rejected that way, since you can never prove or disprove that the laws of physics suddenly act differently when you aren't watching for no reason.

So the scientific answer is that the god-hypothesis has to be rejectd due to lack of correlating data. Come back when new data has been found.

[The Stranger]

nvrmind. misread.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's right. Scientifically. And Science is just a proven method of observing the universe and drawing conclusions from your observations. We all have beliefs that go beyond what we've measured and observed. If you say otherwise you're a liar or a robot. Worst of all are those who use Science as a belief system and don't even realize they are doing it; for they ruin both belief systems and science in the process.

**** yes, it is right SCIENTIFICALLY.

That is the tool we humans have to separate facts from madness, ill founded ideas from well founded ideas. In ANY manner I might add.

If, oh pretty pretty PRETTY PRETTY please (with sugar on top) one of the multitude of religions come forthright and explain and SOMEWHAT prove why the rest of the world should adhere to their version, I would be the first one to

As it is, I just go

[Greyblades]

**** yes, it is right SCIENTIFICALLY.

That is the tool we humans have to separate facts from madness, ill founded ideas from well founded ideas. In ANY manner I might add.

If, oh pretty pretty PRETTY PRETTY please (with sugar on top) one of the multitude of religions come forthright and explain and SOMEWHAT prove why the rest of the world should adhere to their version, I would be the first one to

As it is, I just go

Agnostics don't have to go to church.

Welcome to the fold, maybe, brother

[Kadagar_AV]

Where in any of my posts did you get the idea that I was trying to convert you Kad?

I didn't.

I just met your arguments on a forum, with my own way of reasoning :)

[Sigurd]

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

[total relism]

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups. Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.


I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

[Sigurd]

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups.

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.

I can link the post.

I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

[total relism]

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

I can link the post.


Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.



I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.


acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.


romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.


translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.


jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.


yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

[Hax]

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.

This explains so much​.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This explains so much​.

Pah, I can post coherent theology drunk - it's no excuse.

[Papewaio]

Pah, I can post coherent theology drunk - it's no excuse.

Coherent while drunk is possible. Much like playing pool after a couple of drinks.

Coherent theology on the other hand ...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Coherent while drunk is possible. Much like playing pool after a couple of drinks.

Coherent theology on the other hand ...

Yeah, you can't come into my shop and tell me how to run it when I'm a grocer and you're a butcher.

For obvious reasons.

[Sigurd]

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.

*cough*

I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.

Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.

acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.

romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?

translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.

jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.

Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.

yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?

[Kadagar_AV]

Well you'll never understand my point of view on religion if you think I'm trying to convert you.

I don't.

Doesn't make you a very good christian though ;)

[Hax]

In this thread: non-religious people telling religious people how their religion works.