 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
 Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| starchild wrote: | To me it is very obvious, and the only thing that really makes sense.
How do you know how people react to things anyway, or what they find acceptable. People react differently to different things. If people can't accept it, it could be bechause they are afraid to think outside the box, set up by everything around them, rather than making up their own minds.
Religion doesn't seem to satisfy the people, or help the world much anyway does it?
Where I live, people don't go to church at all. So that tells me that theres's something not right with Christianity, but that's just me. People doesn't seem to get anything out of it.
The church have pretty much suppressed people more than liberating them, with their boxed up dogmas, take for instance the witch haunts. Now wasn't Jesus anti violence? |
There is no reason to accept the gnostic gospels as original because they do not carry the same message. You're just trying to find an excuse to enter an "anti-christian dogma" stance. Why would anyone accept a gospel which doesn't speak of the resurrection when the earlier ones agree to it, albeit with difference endings? You seem like the Muslims whom are bent on forcing the Gospel of Barnabas on the Christians by saying "See? Your Christ didn't return from the dead!" even though the gospel is clearly unauthentic. The mystic influences is blatant on the gnostic gospels, while it is not so obvious in the accepted gospels. The Mandaeans accept John the Baptist before Jesus (whom to them was a liar and deceiver). What gospel did they fall upon?
You are also forgetting that in Gnostic Bibles Elohim is considered Yaltabaoth, that is the demierge. Why would Jesus' followers consider Christ to be the son of the Demiurge?
Jesus didn't seem so anti-violent when he came upon the people defiling the Temple.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | | What's a YEC? |
Young-Earth Creationist. Someone who believe the Earth came is 6000 years old and that evolution is an atheistic conspiracy to destroy Christianity. One interesting estimate places the date of creation at October 23 4004 BC at 9:00 AM. |
But I'm not a YEC.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kilroy
Establishment knows whats best
Joined: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 10475
Location: Driving the Last Spike
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Speckles wrote: | I'm United Church of Canada, and it takes pretty much the same approach as Orwell's. Our pastor even like to sermonize about where the repeated translations have taken the orginal writings way out of context. Apparently if you read Creation in the orginal Hebrew, half the time god is refered to as feminine  |
it is impossible God is a man or woman
it would be a both and neither thing-not human but, we could never conceive what he/she would look like-so it took a form we could wrap our heads around-people got confused-the bible re-written-sh** taken out
I mean originally there was a woman who had a book in the bible
Mary (the prostitute there-many think was married to Jesus)
_________________
Hail Saltandor
supporter for the cure |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 hmm
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kilroy
Establishment knows whats best
Joined: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 10475
Location: Driving the Last Spike
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | hmm |
well what do you think then
share your views instead of mocking others 
_________________
Hail Saltandor
supporter for the cure |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy wrote: |
well what do you think then
share your views instead of mocking others |
Who is mocking who?
Either way, since you asked I'll respond to your post:
You cannot apply gender to the Creator. He has no image, we cannot conceive any image to apply to to Him. Therefore when we in English use HE is is mainly because we have taken Him as a Father to the people or as a Master. Many use She and it is acceptable however not the norm and unless explained is mostly a Pagan thing. Like Shakti is given the attribute of female while Shiv is male. Mainly it is due to language as other languages apply gender to things. In English we do the same, but it isn't always agreed upon (like attributing female/male names to our vehicles and other objects).
The applying of gender/sex is grammatical and has nothing to do with actual gender. This is something useful and interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God
What exactly are you referring to in the latter part? What was rewritten? What woman who "had a book"? For all I know, Jesus didn't have any wives and the prostitute never had a name.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jainaday
in uncertain taste
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 1348
Location: in the They
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: a non-inflamitory question for any christians- |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Jainaday wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | Jainaday wrote: | Have you ever had any trouble accepting the inferior status of women that most common understandings of the bible imply?
|
Flawed premise. You've placed an answer within the question itself, negating its purpose.
And thank you for being non-inflamatory. Few grace us with that. |
I'm tempted--in the most playful of ways-- to say, "learn to effing read, Ragtime. 
(also, you're welcome.)
I didn't make a conclusive statement about the bible's actual teachings--I asked how people deal with certain common interpretations that are, indeed, out there and fairly frequent. |
The phrase "the inferior status of women that most common understandings of the bible imply" is leading the witness, so to speak.
The most common understandings of the Bible (capital "B", by the way -- I'm tempted to say "Learn to read, jainaday") do not include women having an "inferior" status, as you claim.
We can continue with the discussion once you correct your premise. |
To some of us, the bible is literature, not scripture.
My premise is what I intended it to me. I'm not asking about the content of the bible, only about how people deal with certain interpretations of it which I have commonly encountered. If you have a less pre-emptive way to ask that, I'm curious to know what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kilroy
Establishment knows whats best
Joined: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 10475
Location: Driving the Last Spike
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many-in the new testiment there was a woman-I think she was a prostitute or an adulterer
the townsfolk were gonna stone her and Jesus said his little "he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing
mary Magdoline I think was her name
it was said-she had a book in the original bible
but it was removed
it is known that about a third of the bible was removed in the middle ages
and it was changed-when translated all those times
the middle ages ruined christianity
_________________
Hail Saltandor
supporter for the cure |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jainaday
in uncertain taste
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 1348
Location: in the They
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| starchild wrote: |
Religion doesn't seem to satisfy the people, or help the world much anyway does it?
Where I live, people don't go to church at all. So that tells me that theres's something not right with Christianity, but that's just me. People doesn't seem to get anything out of it. |
While various churches have certainly done a lot of harm across history, you do seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions.. . you ignore the cultural closeness that worship communities have and the positives that can bring--such as the catholic church being active, powerful positive influence for social change in Africa and South America--and at the same time essentially stating that because people where you live don't engage in a practice, it has no value.
I am not persuaded by your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jainaday
in uncertain taste
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 1348
Location: in the They
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Jainaday wrote: | | Jainaday wrote: | | So-- am I correct in my summary that all who have posted have come to terms with this by assuming that it's a matter of mistranslation or differing times, rather than what the bible was actually intended to say? |
May I have the requested clarification please? |
Differing times and differing interpretations. Translations haven't made any significant impact, as those have been very reliable over the centuries. Besides, the clergy often learns to read biblical texts in the original, so translation CAN'T be an issue for them. I would say that in the past people have twisted the Bible to put women in an inferior position. |
Thank you. I really appreciate your straightforward input.
How have you come to the conclusion that biblical translation has been reliable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy wrote: | Many-in the new testiment there was a woman-I think she was a prostitute or an adulterer
the townsfolk were gonna stone her and Jesus said his little "he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing
mary Magdoline I think was her name
it was said-she had a book in the original bible
but it was removed
it is known that about a third of the bible was removed in the middle ages
and it was changed-when translated all those times
the middle ages ruined christianity |
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is an apocryphal and is actually a part of the Gnostic Gospels. It was never a part of the original bible.
And about her being the prostitute: The Prostitute in John 7-8 is unnamed. The belief comes from a sermon by Pope Gregory I where he "identified" Mary Magdalene to be many women, including another Mary, in the bible.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kilroy
Establishment knows whats best
Joined: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 10475
Location: Driving the Last Spike
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well I'd say for a non christian I have some okay knowledge of christianity
_________________
Hail Saltandor
supporter for the cure |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: a non-inflamitory question for any christians- |
|
|
| Jainaday wrote: |
To some of us, the bible is literature, not scripture.
My premise is what I intended it to me. I'm not asking about the content of the bible, only about how people deal with certain interpretations of it which I have commonly encountered. If you have a less pre-emptive way to ask that, I'm curious to know what it is. |
If the bible is only literature then what are you worrying about?
Translations in my opinion are NOT reliable. They are interpretations. Unless a translation has excerpts, quotes, original verse, definitions, and separate information of the mythologies, it is not trustworthy. It must have a thorough explanation of the text.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8977
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Really? I always thought it would have been closer to noon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 19
Posts: 4454
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | | What's a YEC? |
Young-Earth Creationist. Someone who believe the Earth came is 6000 years old and that evolution is an atheistic conspiracy to destroy Christianity. One interesting estimate places the date of creation at October 23 4004 BC at 9:00 AM. |
But I'm not a YEC. |
Maybe not the variety that believes in a date of creation at 23-10-4004BC, but unless you were just playing devil's advocate for about two solid weeks of nonstop debate, you are a YEC. Or are you one of those "old-Earth creationists?" Either way, my initial comment on the hypocrisy of your post stands.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
