Author Topic: Religion chat anyone  (Read 9664 times)

Didache

  • Iokan (+1)
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Religion chat anyone
« on: February 09, 2009, 02:25:03 am »
A few of you may be familiar with the NY times best selling book , "Misquoting Jesus" that came out a few years ago that deal with how over time scribes changed the text of the bible. well guess what... Ehrman is at it again! In his latest book "Jesus Interupted" Ehrman will deal with the contradictions in the bible that scholars have known about for years but us avergae folks dont. anyways heres the link enjoy! :)

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061173936/Jesus_Interrupted/index.aspx

FouCapitan

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Whatever it is, I'm against it.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2009, 02:40:14 am »
A few of you may be familiar with the NY times best selling book , "Misquoting Jesus" that came out a few years ago that deal with how over time scribes changed the text of the bible. well guess what... Ahriman is at it again! In his latest book "Jesus Interupted" Ahriman will deal with the contradictions in the bible that scholars have known about for years but us avergae folks dont. anyways heres the link enjoy! :)

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061173936/Jesus_Interrupted/index.aspx
Well seeing as the Bible is a collection of different books written by multitudes of writers over a span of several hundred to thousand years, re-translated multiple times and gathered together by churches usually at their own discretion, of course there's going to be contradictions.

One important thing to note though, is most of the contradictions are between the Old Testament (Jewish scripture) and the New Testament (Christian Scripture)  I forget the passage, but there is one statement in the New Testament that basically declares the new scripture to replace previous laws and customs of the Old Testament.  So while they're all included in the scripture, not all of the older statements are considered law by current Christians.  This is one reason for the many denominations, seeing as most people will pick and choose which rules they wish to follow.

As for me, I'm Lutheran, haven't been to a sermon in 2 1/2 years, and don't care how anyone else wants to be religiously unless it conflicts strongly with others.

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2009, 02:51:33 am »
And the Compendium was getting along perfectly peaceably until February 9 at 02:25:03 AM. I thought rainbows were proof we'd never have to go through this again...heh heh heh.

Newer members can probably look forward to debate conducted with full passion.

As for the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments Fou, there's a part in the New Testament (Matthew 5:17) in which Jesus is reported as proclaiming himself the "fulfillment of the law of the Prophets," according to the King James translation at any rate. It's really odd, seeing as Jesus goes against specific Old Testament provisions such as the stoning of prostitutes. I always viewed Jesus as the ultimate white-hat rebel anyway.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 06:17:27 pm by FaustWolf »

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8340
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2009, 02:56:15 am »
Is this serious? It sounds like he's just plugging someone's book...>_>

I'm fairly sure there's already a religious thread, right? I remember ignoring it not too long ago...

KebreI

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • A true man never dies, even when he's killed
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2009, 03:08:17 am »
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,3151.0.html

For threads that are just pictures, links, or in this case blatant advertising please us that thread.

And V I haven't seen a thread in a long time, I do wish they'd come up again they're a fantastic read!
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 03:15:53 am by KebreI »

HyperNerd

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • In Guardia we trust
    • View Profile
    • Surreal Squad homepage
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2009, 03:12:11 am »
I HAVE NO RELIGION EXCEPT FOR THE SACRED HIGH POWA OF THE VIDEO GAME CHURCH. ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS HIGH GOD PAC-MAN, IN WONDERFUL ARCADE LAND, THE NINTH LEVEL OF HEAVEN. HOWEVER, HIGHER THAN THIS IS THE REALM OF RPG. OH ALL MIGHTY PAC-MAN, SEND EVERY ONE OF US HUMBLE CHRONO COMPENDIUMITES TO THAT LEVEL!!!

[/stupidity]

 After realizing religion is just another thing for people to bother me for, I dumped it. (HINT: I was Jewish.)
I am now lacking a religion, which I believe is called being Agnostic.

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8340
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2009, 03:44:47 am »
Well, if it's going to actually be a thread, then...Religious I am not, but would probably describe myself as openly agnostic. Faith interests me as a concept. People who believe and have a religious fervor especially. Not in a way an atheist might in order to rebuke them (stereotype, huzzah!), but more in a way that I enjoy seeing someone so devoted to something and believe in something that, when you get down to it, is make believe. They don't require proof and there's something beautiful in that, I think. I would love to one day travel and, not study, but maybe just experience some of the different faiths of the world.

Prince Janus

  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 716
  • What?? what do you want?
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2009, 04:06:09 am »
 The flying Spaghetti monster is often misquoted as being swedish.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2009, 04:46:39 am »
Religion is oppression, and faith is a psychological disorder.

There.

Edit: Faith in your own human potential is exempt unless delusional. Even then, maybe you'll prove that something that seems delusional is, in fact, possible, like people who invented airplanes or did extraordinary things.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 05:40:03 am by ZeaLitY »

Shee

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 942
  • Sheeeeeeit
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2009, 05:58:49 am »
Religion is oppression, and faith is a psychological disorder.

There.

Edit: Faith in your own human potential is exempt unless delusional. Even then, maybe you'll prove that something that seems delusional is, in fact, possible, like people who invented airplanes or did extraordinary things.

A little....sweeping...of a comment?  Human intepretation of religion can lead to oppression, I would say is a more true statement.  i don't know if true is the right word there.  Regardless...I try to lead a "to each his/her own" policy, but like everyone else I'm not perfect.  i was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school through high school.  I do not practice now, but really should I feel.

Z, i'm not trying to break balls or yell atcha...I think i'm more hurt than anything else....faith has done a lot for me.  i'm not trying to say I'm better/worse.....high road/low road.....my initial reaction was "faith takes balls. grow some."  I think that's a little infantile and crass for the situation.  Maybe "dating takes balls.  grow some" is more appropriate for that comment.  Is the Catholic Church responsible for some heinous shit in histroy?  You bet.  Name someone who isn't...

what I mean is at it's base, it's a beautiful thing to me.  No matter how bad you fuck up...NO MATTER HOW BAD...find yourself to be remorseful and God will forgive you.  God loves you.  Stop stealing each others crap, stop fucking each other all the time without committment, stop killing each other, espeacially stop killing each other over nothing, don't let money/sex/drugs/booze/clothes/etc/etc/etc become the "God" in your life that runs your life, honor your family...I'm paraphrasing and starting to rant but, these are good things, are they not?  Are these not things we can all live by, whether they go by Commandments or Common Decency?

As for Agnostics, my feeling about them is "I believe in something, but don't have the balls to tell anyone what"Again, infantile and crass...but I'm not perfect  8)  Oi...to each their own...if you find happiness in anything you will be envied.

Sheeit, I KNOW i could be a better person.  it's not eve up for debate, so don't take this as some elitist crap.  jjust trying to say my piece, which was, at it's core, religion is a good thing that has been distorted by the innane imperfections of humans.  if you made it this far in the post, than I hope you understand.  And yea, I guess i could've just typed that bit there, but I felt the need to go all out on this one.

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8340
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2009, 09:20:18 am »
Stop stealing each others crap, stop fucking each other all the time without committment, stop killing each other, espeacially stop killing each other over nothing, don't let money/sex/drugs/booze/clothes/etc/etc/etc become the "God" in your life that runs your life, honor your family...I'm paraphrasing and starting to rant but, these are good things, are they not?  Are these not things we can all live by, whether they go by Commandments or Common Decency?

I could agree with most of it except for the sex without commitment bit. I don't care if anyone (even me) has sex without being committed...Of course, as long as both parties are aware of said circumstances...>_>

I also don't care if people do w/e drugs or drink, but I'd rather them do it in a way that doesn't impact me like, y'know, not doing it while they're driving or something. Otherwise, go ahead & do whatever you want with your body...just remember, you only get one...! Unless you're Hindu...? Or turn cyborg...? Or use some of that fancy stem cell magic...? :lol:

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2009, 10:44:38 am »
And the Compendium was getting along perfectly pleaceably until February 9 at 02:25:03 AM. I thought rainbows were proof we'd never have to go through this again...heh heh heh.

Newer members can probably look forward to debate conducted with full passion.

As for the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments Fou, there's a part in the New Testament (Matthew 5:17) in which Jesus is reported as proclaiming himself the "fulfillment of the law of the Prophets," according to the King James translation at any rate. It's really odd, seeing as Jesus goes against specific Old Testament provisions such as the stoning of prostitutes. I always viewed Jesus as the ultimate white-hat rebel anyway.

Well, not that I know the text off hand, but I'm assuming the word there is teleo. In that case, it definitely does not mean going against, but really fulfilling or completing.

I can explain the concept of the Law as opposed to Grace, and all that, if you guys want me too. Much to the chagrin of ZeaLitY and Lord J I'm still a rather staunch Christian (and Lutheran - I describe myself as 'religious but not spiritual', heh), and seeing as my father's a theologian, have a pretty good understanding of the underlying theological beliefs which most people either don't understand or get confused.

Of course, it is true that what exists as a 'bible' is made out choice and selection over the years. The main criterion in this is the selection of words that follow a single trend, that are unified in message. This might seem arbitrary, but if you are working with such a complicated concept as a religious system, one must take such things as best exemplify the central core of the belief. This would be so in any field. For example, if you were to select books on archaeology, you'd hardly wish to include the likes of the pseudoarchaeologists who claim that civilization originated on Atlantis and that sorta crap. In Christian works the gnostics might be viewed as such extreme outliers. They might be an interesting academic exercise to examine, but have no useful basis when trying to understand the core views.

As for mistranslations and misquotes, that's one that's been brought up often and, though I'm not sure of this man's credentials, is usually a statement made by people who have very little understanding of languages and manuscript traditions. The manuscripts of the Bible are amongst the most secure of antiquity, and scribal copying is far more accurate than you might imagine... as, indeed, is our ability to reconstruct errors. This ability increases manifoldly with the possession of multiple manuscripts, something that cannot be said, for example, with Aeschylus, but with the Bible is copious. Maniscript errors and alterations of that sort, misinterpretations and what not, at least on the basic level, can be almost wholly discounted when speaking of the Bible on purely academic grounds. If you really wish to see the discrepencies, all you've gotta do is get a Greek version of the NT with a full scholia on the bottom. It'll mention each and ever manuscript difference. This is the case when you're reading any ancient work in the source language.

Are there contradictions? Difficult to answer. I would think yes there are, because in that he's right. There are slightly different views on the matter by different writers. It's plain from the text that even in the generation after Jesus there were manifold different views on the matter. This is the case with anything. However, much of the difference that is evident in the NT is not one of theological distinction, but a difference in style, world view, and philosophy. For example, Paul has remarkably Stoic overtones that aren't evident in the gospels; Luke writes as someone incredibly well trained and versed in ancient Classical Greek.

I'll continue this later, as now I've gotta run off to class. But the issue of 'picking and choosing' of which laws to follow is not so clear cut, and at its heart what I would call true Christianity is not a system of law. This is the concept of the fulfillment of the law. The idea is that the law of the Old Testament is impossible to follow, and the judgment levelled by this is death. However, Jesus by His death takes the place of the just death (a sort of scapegoat), therefore rendering the application of the Law done. This is what Faith does. Imagine if someone before a court of law was convicted, and sentenced to death. Now, imagine another person standing up and saying they would take the sentence of death in that person's place. This is the concept we work by.

Jesus was not a rebel. He was a reformer. He reformed - look at the word literally, re-form - what had become confused and based on a law which no one could ever fulfill.

FouCapitan

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Whatever it is, I'm against it.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2009, 12:04:05 pm »
I can explain the concept of the Law as opposed to Grace, and all that, if you guys want me too. Much to the chagrin of ZeaLitY and Lord J I'm still a rather staunch Christian (and Lutheran - I describe myself as 'religious but not spiritual', heh), and seeing as my father's a theologian, have a pretty good understanding of the underlying theological beliefs which most people either don't understand or get confused.
Hooray for fellow Lutherans on a message board.

Very good insights Dan (Didn't quote all due to massive quotes being annoying).  I really should sit down one of these days and give the scripture a full read through.  To date the only books I've completed reading are Genesis (In a failed attempt to give it a full read though which ended a quarter of the way through Exodus) and Revelations (Which is easily one of the most interesting reads in existence and possibly the most controversial to its meanings at times).

One thing I find interesting is the attitude of Lutherans compared to other protestant denominations and Catholicism towards other walks of life.  Baptists and many other protestants seem to be the most vehement in regards to going on the warpath over issues such as homosexuality and abortion, and Catholics seem to concentrate on defining right and wrong in what seems to be PSAs from the Vatican.  Lutherans on the other hand, don't seem to be up in arms over anything in modern society, or if they are it's not as well documented.

More annoying that zealous Christians, on the other hand, are zealous athiests who instantly brand anyone with a drop of faith to be idiots.  No attempts to listen to reasonings or beliefs, just instant idiocy for anyone who believes that the universe and all life within it was made by something other than science.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2009, 01:05:22 pm »
Well seeing as the Bible is a collection of different books written by multitudes of writers over a span of several hundred to thousand years, re-translated multiple times and gathered together by churches usually at their own discretion, of course there's going to be contradictions.

Heh, I might actually be work with Prof. Ehrman if I get accepted to UNC Chapel Hill's program this fall.

While I haven't read his books, there is a historical truth to what he is generally saying. St. Jerome first translated the Bible into Latin (the common language at the time) using as original of texts as he could obtain. However, since then, the majority of other translations and retranslations have been based on Jerome's translation, the septuagint (aka, Greek translations of old testament), etc. It wasn't until Martin Luther that there was a serious return to original sources (and one might note, Luther was not a fan of the book of James). Even then, the practice of retranslation original texts has not been strictly followed since. However, I would have to depart from Ehrman there; the texts are fairly stable and show little to no signs of intentional modification.

Certainly, large sections of the gospels have been misquoted (I am assuming he limited himself to the Gospels, since the other books of the New Testament do not include direct many statements by Jesus, unless one counts the vision of Saul and the book of Revelations). However, by in large, the New Testament and the Old Testament are the two most "accurate" historical records in existence. I say "accurate" only in the preservation of original form; accurate in terms of spiritual or historical truths is something I am not here commenting on.

For one, the modern and commonly accepted books of the bible we cited as being divinely inspired and referenced by early Church fathers. If I am recalling correctly, the books commonly held to be canon were established as early as the second century. Additionally, even if a single original text did not survive, the entire new testament could be reconstructed based on the quotations provided by Church fathers. However, that is not the case; the earliest texts date from the first and second centuries (though to be fair, there is debate in historical circles regarding this; some place the earliest texts at the 4th century or later).  Additionally, there are quite literally hundreds of copies of the texts (many complete, some not) dating from early periods as well.

To put this into perspective, most historical records from this time period exist in small numbers (10~30 copies, if we are lucky, usually less) and those records are of late origin (usually the earliest copies date to around 300+ years after the events, but 1000+ years is hardly uncommon).

Then of course there are the extra-canonical texts (Apocrypha, etc). Jerome excluded books that were not written in the original language (such as Greek books of the old testament) and those that were of limited acceptance. These books of the bible were not said to have been irreligious, rather they did not hold the same authority as more reliable works. They were said to still potentially be valuable resources. However, as time went on, these books were included less and less, until we get to the modern era in which most Christians are unaware of them and disregard them when they are so aware.

There is another consideration that is important to this matter; that of linguistics. It is incredibly difficult for a later writer to mimic earlier writing styles. The bible shows few to no such traces (I only qualify the statement because I am far from an expert in the field). To offer an example; words change meanings fairly often; it is a common mistake of manufactured and altered works that words are used to mean something that, at the intended time period, would not have meant that. Static as we use it today means without change. The original Greek word from which we get Static means something closer to "unceasing chaos and revolution." And of course, revolution as something that means change is a fairly modern definition as well. Other markers of tampering are in lettering, spelling, grammar, etc.

Something to note, is that Ehrman is approaching a historical issue from a non-historical background (he is a Religious Studies professor, as opposed to History professor). While this should not look ill-favorably on his work, it should raise the expectation in the reader to find collaborations with historians, citations of academic historical works, etc. A different perspective is often invaluable in academic study, but one has to be extra careful in working significantly outside one’s field of expertise (and in turn reading works by individuals outside their field of expertise).

One thing I find interesting is the attitude of Lutherans compared to other protestant denominations and Catholicism towards other walks of life.  Baptists and many other protestants seem to be the most vehement in regards to going on the warpath over issues such as homosexuality and abortion, and Catholics seem to concentrate on defining right and wrong in what seems to be PSAs from the Vatican.  Lutherans on the other hand, don't seem to be up in arms over anything in modern society, or if they are it's not as well documented.

Heh, studying the various Christian sects and how they split off, merged, and changed over the years is incredibly fascinating. Lutherans were the first wave of reform from the old Catholic church and though quite different at the time, compared to later revolutions they are still fairly similar. The anabaptists were after that and tended to break with traditional whole hog (said by someone who grew up in a Baptists church). Luther had a respect for tradition and seemed to generally want tradition to conform to scripture, but anabaptists saw tradition as inherently flawed.

Then there are those of the evangelical movement. You can generally tell how radical a church is by what they define spiritual gifts as. These groups include Vineyard churches and others that are generally seen a "ultra conservative" and "anti-this or that." I actually find it hilarious that the most radical Christian sects are seen as the most "conservative."

Anywho, Methodists (of which, as of yesterday, I am now counted among) are also a fairly peaceable bunch. Started by John Wesley, the sect generally says that changes should be made only after due consideration (so don't throw out tradition hastily, but don't cling onto tradition either). They also generally have the approach of: "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2009, 01:35:18 pm »
More annoying that zealous Christians, on the other hand, are zealous athiests who instantly brand anyone with a drop of faith to be idiots.  No attempts to listen to reasonings or beliefs, just instant idiocy for anyone who believes that the universe and all life within it was made by something other than science.



I've yet to see where there's reason in "the mystical tribal sky deity image created all this in the blink of an eye, loved us though promised hell for disbelief, then left a load of contradictory evidence just to make things interesting."

Zealous religious people rape, murder, oppress, and carry out holy wars on terra firma for promise of heaven. Zealous atheists want people to care about THIS world.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 01:37:11 pm by ZeaLitY »