The SimTropolis House of Worship

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

I will beg to differ from this viewpoint. And, for the record, I am a once-fundamentalist evangelical Christian turned atheist.

How can you claim that Jesus (whose existence, once again for the record, I dispute) accomplished the 'feats of Christianity' in 33 years, when it in fact took years after his supposed death to even finish the Bible, and even longer for it to be assembled, and again longer to be debated/changed/rewritten/translated? I don't ask as a personal attack, but rather on the defense against this ludicrous mini-conversation about "satanism" that has erupted. You seem to be partially versed in your scripture, but rather ignorant of what "satanism" is and, I'm assuming, any non-Christian sect of belief. Clarification?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The whole notion of "accept Christ or go to hell" is ridiculously self-serving Christian cant.  Jesus said something about "In My Father's house there are many mansions..."  I have always taken this to mean that there is room in "paradise" for all.  Christ is supposed to be The Redeemer, not only for some exclusive sect but for all mankind.  All that "believe in Me or else" business was written long after His ministry.

The greatest virtue is Charity.  If you think this doesn't include everyone, there is something wrong with your beliefs.

[Darth Apple 54]

Jesus also said "I am the way, the life, and the truth. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I am not trying to be all "mean" or "exclusive." I am simply trying to preach truth according to the Bible. Universalism isn't taught in Scripture.

   Even so, Christ made it incredibly easy to get to heaven! I am not trying to be self-serving at all. You could debate this, and you can call me anything you like, but the truth is that there is only one way to heaven. If you believe that certain parts of the Bible are incorrect, what would lead you to believe that the other parts are correct? The entire Bible is without errors, and completely correct in everything that it teaches.

Crackdtoothgrin: Jesus could have completed his work in 33 years. All that he had to do was preform a bunch of good works, never sin, and then be crucified on a cross for our sin.

I also believe in Satanism to be any religion that affirms worship of the devil. It is a general term for me.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

You could debate this, and you can call me anything you like, but the truth is that there is only one way to heaven. quote>

The truth is that you believe there is only one way to heaven.  There are billions of people on the planet who believe differently and they are as sincere and devout in their beliefs as you are in yours.

If you believe that certain parts of the Bible are incorrect, what would lead you to believe that the other parts are correct? The entire Bible is without errors, and completely correct in everything that it teaches.  quote>

A highly debatable point which has been discussed earlier in this thread so there is no need to go through it again.

There is wisdom in the bible, even if some of it is couched in the form of parables.   I once got into a disagreement with a co-worker.  I was saying that the story of Jonah and the whale was part of Aesop's fables.   He insisted it was part of the bible.  Then I realized it was silly of me to argue the point because I knew that he knew the bible better than I did.  

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

The enitre Bible is correct? Without any errors?

Hmm...

How about the inconsistencies that plague the texts?

For instance,

Genesis 1:20-21:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

and

Genesis 1:26-27

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Clearly, the fauna of the world were created by God before man...

But wait!

Genesis 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Genesis 2:19

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

How can he create them before man, then, in the same book, create them afterward? Just curious...

That's only one example. The entire text is littered with inconsistencies.

*Adam died the exact same time he ate the fruit, but three chapters later managed to have lived 930 years. (Excluding, of course, that NO human could live that long.)

*God is anger, vengeance, murder, etc... Which is contradicted by the claims that he is the spirit, the very essence of love. This is one of the very common ones.

*God changes his mind (GE 6:6, EX:32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16)/God does not change his mind (NU 23:19, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17)

*God sows dicord (GE 11:7-9)/God hates those who sow discord (PR 6:16-19)

*Abraham had two sons (GE 16:15, 21:1-3; GA 4:22)/Abraham had only one son (HE 11:17)

I tire of giving examples. But, if you really prefer. I can give you hundreds. Literally, hundreds. Some could easily be written off as minor errors in translation perhaps. But, what percent? Really? Could the, as you claim, 'exact word of God, error-free" really have such glaringly obvious problems? Maybe he needs to hire a new spell-checker and a PR person.

But seriously, as a book with it's various 'ethics' and so on, it has some good points on love, morality, etc.. However, I dare you to find a book that doesn't have something that you can learn those from, even if it's only in contrast. I've learned more about life from living, reading, playing, loving, failing, than I ever have from a dusty collection of transcribed oral folktales that I spent 12 years studying before abandoning it, and for good reason.

Take it as an attack if you must, but I promise you that my 'aggressive atheism' is quite the opposite. It's very very much defensive. The religious may find it offensive to hear me say these things, but I also don't like hearing that my personal choices, which oftentimes are far far more benign than their 'matyrs/prophets/saints', are going to put me in some extradimensional torture pit with the same kind of people who commit murder and rape.

That  is offensive.

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Let's remember that this thread is not an "I'm Right, You're Wrong" thread. It is a discussion, not an argument. It is easy to fall into the trap (I've done it, myself). Anyway, let's keep it high level and general. There are too many lemmings...

quote>

I'm curious as to whether I'm being called a lemming, being accused of being too harsh on the kid, or whether it's 'moderator action' to prevent a flame war. In either case, I don't want to start an "e-fight" at all, but I'd be happy to finish it in private message to keep this thread open.

That being said, I'll limit my responses to ones that are more generalized until probed for a specific response.

Even if this isn't an "I'm right/You're wrong" thread, it is still highly divisive, and, by the tenets of Christianity, even if it's spouted in a rather benign way with a sense of smug self-satisfaction, quite literally puts me on the exact same level as a child molester. Am I the only one who can see the thinly-veiled proselytizing going on here? And don't I have a right to be offended?

I get personally attacked/harrassed on a semi-daily basis for not swallowing religion, with everything from outright "You're gonna burn!" to "Oh, well, Jesus will always be there for you when you change your mind", which is in no-doubt influenced by the fact that I live in the Bible Belt.

Anyways, without saying "You're wrong" outright, isn't the same effect reached with a simple "In my opinion" tagged on the end of the sentence or a "Well, I believe..." anyways? And if that's the case, is the entire current tenor of the thread just thinly-veiled (and sometimes not so thinly) attacks against each other's epistemology? I personally feel like I'm responding in kind, only without pretty makeup to hide the ugliness. I don't like to mince words.

And in response to blakesterville's definition of 'satanism' as he calls it, yes, that is a perfect way to describe 'theistic satanism,' which is by far the least common of belief structures that use the same name. More often than not, 'satanists' are agnostics or atheists who use the term 'satan' for it's rich etymological duality about human nature, as opposed to worshipping the supposed angel who fell from 'heaven.'

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I don't think it wise for a theist, particularly a Christian, to say this. The one commonly held belief among Christians is that man is too imperfect and limited in thought to know the mind of God. No believer of faith can say they know what God wants, because we cannot, supposedly, comprehend what He does. More to the point, no human can know the natur of God until said human is dead.quote>

I have lived around Christians of varying denominations my entire life and I have never heard one of them even remotely suggest such a thing.  Rather, they all believe the nature of God is very much knowable, in so much as has been revealed in the Bible.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I don't think it wise for a theist, particularly a Christian, to say this. The one commonly held belief among Christians is that man is too imperfect and limited in thought to know the mind of God. No believer of faith can say they know what God wants, because we cannot, supposedly, comprehend what He does. More to the point, no human can know the natur of God until said human is dead.quote>

I have lived around Christians of varying denominations my entire life and I have never heard one of them even remotely suggest such a thing.  Rather, they all believe the nature of God is very much knowable, in so much as has been revealed in the Bible.

quote>

Nothwithstanding the revealed word of the Bible, how can anyone think that the totality of God can be containing in a book?  The content of the Bible is for the consumption of mankind and has little to do with the totalitiy of the Creator.  It is a deadly sin of presumption to insist that all of God's thought and knowledge can be found on earth.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Nothwithstanding the revealed word of the Bible, how can anyone think that the totality of God can be containing in a book?  The content of the Bible is for the consumption of mankind and has little to do with the totalitiy of the Creator.  It is a deadly sin of presumption to insist that all of God's thought and knowledge can be found on earth.quote>

Personally, I don't know any that claim to know the entirety of the nature of God.  But at the same time, none of them would even suggest that God is not at least partly known; to do so would throw away their whole religion.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: hym

Personally, I don't know any that claim to know the entirety of the nature of God.  But at the same time, none of them would even suggest that God is not at least partly known; to do so would throw away their whole religion.

quote>

But how can one claim to know anything of a one-off, intransigent, extradimensional, omniscient 'being' that is supposedly responsible for the entirety of the known universe? Keep in mind he's responsible, in theory, for maintaining the fabric of the universe, and is said to be incapable of connecting with humans in the Bible on numerous occasions (hence the 'God-Man mythos' necessary to establish his 'human' element through his 'son'). This universe of his, of which he is supposedly the shepherd, contains billions upon billions of star systems, which contain an unknown (or even unknowable) amount of planets, and an unknown amount of life (arguable, obviously, as we have no evidenciary claim to such) of an unspecified type and developement, of which he is supposedly responsible for monitoring, maintaining, and categorizing, simultaneously, across the sphere of greater reality, and into perpetuity. Assuming that such a being exists, how can a finite individual being be so brash as to even claim, for a fraction of a second, that he understands at all, anything, that can come from such an alien mind, of incalculable intellect, sophistication, and perfection? I don't believe in God at all, but if one concedes that he does indeed exist, how in any rational mind could anyone be so bold as to claim him a kindred spirit? The thought processes alone behind a possibly infinite computational capacity would most certainly render any man insane, and this is not even considering the hundreds of text-based inconsistencies and contradictions to his 'infallible word.'

I'll give you an example, and if you can spot the reference, kudos:

A sphere in flatland (or 2-d world, or whatever you want to call it) will always look like a circle to it's denizens, no matter what. Even if the circle is shaded, it is only an approximation of 3 dimensions. Likewise, a higher dimensional being to us will always appear as an approximate, never capable of being 'understood' in the literal sense, rather being seen through it's 'effects,' if any at all.

Of course the apologist can try to claim that we, like 'God' are actually higher-dimensional beings by virtue of 'having a soul' that are given these bodies as vessels, but I would counter with "What proof do you have for a soul?" Quite honestly, except for the nebulous 'numinous perception' (of which there isn't the slightest empirical data, and uses allegorical and anecdotal mass hysteria to 'establish' itself), what proof is there?

If anyone has something that can be tested and proven true, to the effect of a soul's existence, I'll post it everywhere I know and eat crow over it for the rest of my life. I've been clinically dead twice in my life, once for almost ten minutes, and I can tell you there ain't another side. More of an extended DMT trip (which is scientifically replicable, I might add).

And, while I don't apologize for offending anyone, as these are my beliefs and I'm stating them, as per the ideal of the thread, I apolgize if it comes off as inflammatory. Trust me, if I was actually upset about this, it would probably lead to me getting banned.

[hym 358]

For the sake of simplicity and ease of argument, let's assume that I'm God and that I'm all powerful and whatnot.  Let's also assume that there is some guy named Joe who lives on Earth, but he doesn't know I exist.  Say I decide to have some fun one day and give Joe the scare of his life, so I appear to Joe and tell him to sleep with his eyes open because I know where he lives.  I haven't told Joe anything about me personally, yet he can logically deduce that I both exist and am capable of communicating with him, so he now knows a bit of information about me.  (He might also think I'm a jerk, but that's more of an opinion.)  Now let's say that I show up at Joe's home and tell him that I possess X characteristic.  Joe now knows something about my nature.  Joe can only claim to know what I tell him, but nevertheless, he does know something about me.

This is a very much cooked up example, but it helps explain where the logic is derived.  A human has no hope of understanding God on his own, but he is capable of at least partly understanding God if God is willing to explain himself to the human.  A lot of Christians believe that God has done this in the Bible; he has not explained everything about his nature, but he has explained some aspects of it so that humans are capable of understanding it.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Haha, that is a cooked-up example, but I'll roll with it.

Your argument assumes that God would be interested, or even capable, of communicating with a human. Human beings really are quite inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, and this all-powerful being would have literally nothing to gain from such an interaction, us being the 'blips' we are in the grand cosmology of the universe.

At this point I'm going to get solipsistic. In your example, God would still have to communicate to 'Joe' to describe X characteristic. But, without Joe being able to experience God through God's eyes, the closest he can get to understanding him is by allegory and comparison. That's all conversation is, is a comparison-based approximate of understanding. Without temporarily switching bodies or souls or whatever, Joe will still interpret the message how he sees fit, regardless of how directly God had attempted to communicate his intent. It's quite possible that the two would reach an immediate consensus and 'agree' on the common definition of what was being explained, but that would still be independently reached, as the two, necessarily comprising separate beings, would not ever actually truly 'know' what the other was saying, despite said agreement. If you claim that Joe would 'know' what God intended, as opposed to him assuming to know the described X characteristic as he interpreted the explanation, you've just humanized God, and rid him of power, or raised Joe to omniscience. Both are equally destructive to monotheism, or, hell, polytheism.

And all of this goes without mentioning the whole 'alien intellect' conundrum I brought up...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Darth Apple 54]

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

The enitre Bible is correct? Without any errors?

Hmm...

How about the inconsistencies that plague the texts?

For instance,

Genesis 1:20-21:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

and

Genesis 1:26-27

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Clearly, the fauna of the world were created by God before man...

But wait!

Genesis 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Genesis 2:19

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

How can he create them before man, then, in the same book, create them afterward? Just curious...

That's only one example. The entire text is littered with inconsistencies.

*Adam died the exact same time he ate the fruit, but three chapters later managed to have lived 930 years. (Excluding, of course, that NO human could live that long.)

*God is anger, vengeance, murder, etc... Which is contradicted by the claims that he is the spirit, the very essence of love. This is one of the very common ones.

*God changes his mind (GE 6:6, EX:32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16)/God does not change his mind (NU 23:19, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17)

*God sows dicord (GE 11:7-9)/God hates those who sow discord (PR 6:16-19)

*Abraham had two sons (GE 16:15, 21:1-3; GA 4:22)/Abraham had only one son (HE 11:17)

I tire of giving examples. But, if you really prefer. I can give you hundreds. Literally, hundreds. Some could easily be written off as minor errors in translation perhaps. But, what percent? Really? Could the, as you claim, 'exact word of God, error-free" really have such glaringly obvious problems? Maybe he needs to hire a new spell-checker and a PR person.

But seriously, as a book with it's various 'ethics' and so on, it has some good points on love, morality, etc.. However, I dare you to find a book that doesn't have something that you can learn those from, even if it's only in contrast. I've learned more about life from living, reading, playing, loving, failing, than I ever have from a dusty collection of transcribed oral folktales that I spent 12 years studying before abandoning it, and for good reason.

Take it as an attack if you must, but I promise you that my 'aggressive atheism' is quite the opposite. It's very very much defensive. The religious may find it offensive to hear me say these things, but I also don't like hearing that my personal choices, which oftentimes are far far more benign than their 'matyrs/prophets/saints', are going to put me in some extradimensional torture pit with the same kind of people who commit murder and rape.

Tha

t  is offensive.

 quote>

Well, to begin, with Abraham's two sons. Yeah, I doubted that for a while, until I looked at one study that shows that the greek word used can also be interpereted as the only one of its kind. I don't remember all of the details, but that could be what it means.

God also hates idolatry, and that is effectively what they were doing with the tower of bable -- practicing idolatry. God also hates sin, but He put the tree in the middle of the garden, most likely, so that we would follow Him because we want to, not because we have to.

This one is hard to understand, but God doesn't actually change His mind. I believe that He may give the appearance, at times, but I believe that God already knows what He's doing, and simply doesn't always reveal this to us immediatly.

God could have also called every living beast from the ground to come. Why did He create man last? I donno, but it is possible that God wanted His creating be complete for us. Also, dust? Aren't all things possible with God. If you continue to doubt it, the "dust" could have been very rich dirt, possibly. We are sort-of made of that, aren't we? The God who created the universe out of nothing can certainly create man out of dust! If God was that powerful to create the universe out of nothing, then couldn't God have allowed man to live for 930+ years? Surely, yes!

I know that it seems that I am contradicting myself here, but God is a righteous god, and a loving God. God can get angry, just as we can get angry. If you are angry at your family, does that mean you don't love them? I believe that God is a loving God, and wants us to come to Him. I believe that He gets angry with us, but is always ready to forgive us. And... Well, what about the Old Testament Saul? Didn't he repent? Well, we don't really know that he repented. He continued to live in his previous ways. He even consulted a medium near the end of his life. I don't know, but this may be an indication that Saul wasn't truly repented. Like I said, though, I don't know.  Grammatical errors may not actually be grammatical errors in the original language either. I haven't studied this point, but grammar errors may have arison during translation. Grammar rules vary from language to language.

I apologize if I seem rather offensive. I can get very passionate when it comes to this stuff. I don't mean to be offensive to non-Christians, though I present a Christian message.

[Boggy1 45]

I'ma jump in here really quickly.

blakesville: God can get angry? Anger is a human emotion. I'm sorry; but I just feel that that is wrong. Any diety must be, by definition, so far-apart from any possible interpretation by us humans, and any connection to our flaws. Anger is a human emotion; a flaw. Emotions are not ..god-like. Its just again putting human interpretations towards something which would be completely different to us; in all ways.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

I'ma jump in here really quickly.

blakesville: God can get angry? Anger is a human emotion. I'm sorry; but I just feel that that is wrong. Any diety must be, by definition, so far-apart from any possible interpretation by us humans, and any connection to our flaws. Anger is a human emotion; a flaw. Emotions are not ..god-like. Its just again putting human interpretations towards something which would be completely different to us; in all ways.quote>

The part that I never understood is that many interpretations portray God as emotionally immature, throwing temper tantrums, and generally acting like a bratty toddler.  How is that god-like?

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Well, to begin, with Abraham's two sons. Yeah, I doubted that for a while, until I looked at one study that shows that the greek word used can also be interpereted as the only one of its kind. I don't remember all of the details, but that could be what it means.

God also hates idolatry, and that is effectively what they were doing with the tower of bable -- practicing idolatry. God also hates sin, but He put the tree in the middle of the garden, most likely, so that we would follow Him because we want to, not because we have to.

This one is hard to understand, but God doesn't actually change His mind. I believe that He may give the appearance, at times, but I believe that God already knows what He's doing, and simply doesn't always reveal this to us immediatly.

God could have also called every living beast from the ground to come. Why did He create man last? I donno, but it is possible that God wanted His creating be complete for us. Also, dust? Aren't all things possible with God. If you continue to doubt it, the "dust" could have been very rich dirt, possibly. We are sort-of made of that, aren't we? The God who created the universe out of nothing can certainly create man out of dust! If God was that powerful to create the universe out of nothing, then couldn't God have allowed man to live for 930+ years? Surely, yes!

I know that it seems that I am contradicting myself here, but God is a righteous god, and a loving God. God can get angry, just as we can get angry. If you are angry at your family, does that mean you don't love them? I believe that God is a loving God, and wants us to come to Him. I believe that He gets angry with us, but is always ready to forgive us. And... Well, what about the Old Testament Saul? Didn't he repent? Well, we don't really know that he repented. He continued to live in his previous ways. He even consulted a medium near the end of his life. I don't know, but this may be an indication that Saul wasn't truly repented. Like I said, though, I don't know.  Grammatical errors may not actually be grammatical errors in the original language either. I haven't studied this point, but grammar errors may have arison during translation. Grammar rules vary from language to language.

I apologize if I seem rather offensive. I can get very passionate when it comes to this stuff. I don't mean to be offensive to non-Christians, though I present a Christian message.quote>

You don't seem to me to be offensive as a matter of course, just, and I apologize if this offends you, ignorant instead. You bypassed the entire point of my post and presented arguments with scripture as the only supporting evidence, which is also the only evidence supporting itself. If I told you I was God, because I said so, and a collection of independent works lacking evidence said so, would you believe me?

You've also deferred to the 'translation error' defense I've seen from religious apologists time and time again. Sorry,but that doesn't hold water.

Not bringing more examples of inconsistency into the topic, I'll just go with the ones I posted.

Abraham, like many other of the 'characters' in the scripture, is a creation from a series of folk-tales that are meant to drive a point home, and legitimize the primacy of theology in controlling the population. When it was written, it wasn't properly checked, and had little need to be, considering the people it affected were largely illterate.

The quips about God's nature were meant to be direct, and largely unrelated to one another as the came from separate traditions that were assembled piecemeal over the thousands of years the Old Testament was written, and the hundred or two years it took the bible to get pieced together. No one, at the time, thought to check for inconsistencies, which have since been found and brought to light.

This 'God of love' can be found condoning murder directly on several occasions, and I can quote where, should I need to. He can also be shown to display the same 'sins' that he punishes on several occasions, and, that too, I can also quote. These little facts get swept aside in favor of the apologist's favorite tools, the false virtues.

The veil of 'righteousness' is just one of the false virtues, along with 'piety' and 'faith' that serve to trick people into following unsubstantiated evidence like cattle to the slaughter.

If it makes you happy, roll with it. But, if you must, consider me a test to your faith. If you believe something, you have to really believe it. You can't toy around with it. And if all I do is strengthen your resolve, I'm also fine with that. Either way I'm unlikely to change your opinion, which isn't what I want to do anyways.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

At this point I'm going to get solipsistic. In your example, God would still have to communicate to 'Joe' to describe X characteristic. But, without Joe being able to experience God through God's eyes, the closest he can get to understanding him is by allegory and comparison. That's all conversation is, is a comparison-based approximate of understanding. Without temporarily switching bodies or souls or whatever, Joe will still interpret the message how he sees fit, regardless of how directly God had attempted to communicate his intent. It's quite possible that the two would reach an immediate consensus and 'agree' on the common definition of what was being explained, but that would still be independently reached, as the two, necessarily comprising separate beings, would not ever actually truly 'know' what the other was saying, despite said agreement. If you claim that Joe would 'know' what God intended, as opposed to him assuming to know the described X characteristic as he interpreted the explanation, you've just humanized God, and rid him of power, or raised Joe to omniscience. Both are equally destructive to monotheism, or, hell, polytheism.quote>

Fair enough.  I think the source of disagreement here stems from us using different criteria for what it means to "know" something.  From what I can tell, your criteria for "knowing" something requires a level of personal experience with it, in which case, I agree with you that no one can actually know anything about God.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Hym:  Your last paragraph is your downfall, so to speak. No insult intended, simply an observation that proves my point. =P

Barbarossaquote>

Which is fine.  I never said that the belief that God is knowable makes sense.  I was just trying to point something out and explain how the logic is developed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Now about the various books:  Both the Torah and the Bible are translations of translations of translations.  Both subject to human error in the translations and to the human interpretation and intentions of the translator.  Al Q'ran has been kept in Arabic and any devout Muslim will tell you it is the only way to read it.  However, some versions of Al Q' ran are sorted by length of verse text, which surely removes any continuity and leaves it open to interpretation.  What would happen to any book if it was sorted by paragraph length?

What I am pointing out, to put it succinctly, is that all of these books are doubtful and/or tainted.  All things considered, we might just as well believe in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

What I am pointing out, to put it succinctly, is that all of these books are doubtful and/or tainted.  All things considered, we might just as well believe in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

quote>

My point exactly. Discussion over the existence and/or nature of God is an entirely different matter, and one that yields far more fruitful results and debate than the tenets/content/continuity of any book on this planet.

I ain't knocking anyone for choosing what to believe in, but rather, in what I consider defense, responding in kind to what I consider proselytizing.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Now about the various books:  Both the Torah and the Bible are translations of translations of translations.  Both subject to human error in the translations and to the human interpretation and intentions of the translator.  Al Q'ran has been kept in Arabic and any devout Muslim will tell you it is the only way to read it.  However, some versions of Al Q' ran are sorted by length of verse text, which surely removes any continuity and leaves it open to interpretation.  What would happen to any book if it was sorted by paragraph length?

What I am pointing out, to put it succinctly, is that all of these books are doubtful and/or tainted.  All things considered, we might just as well believe in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

quote>

Not exactly true NB. The Dead Sea Scrolls have clearly shown, the old testament books are still completely in order after 2300 years. A recent archeoligical dig has uncovered the oldest known evidence of the Hebrew book of Isaiah, in written form and is dated to 2600 years old. This stone tablet has also been evidenced, to be completely accurate, with the modern day translation and given meaning of this book.

And,...you are still correct about one thing - The Bible is the most translated book on Earth and yet, it is also the most accurate book ever known, remaining consistant thoughout many centuries, while other less aged books have not accomplished this.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

So one book of the Old Testament is largely correct from 2,600 years ago until now? And the books are in the same order all these years later?

I guess that's true, depending on whether you're a Catholic or Protestant (46/47 or 39 books, respectively)... Or whether or not you take into account the Septuagint reorganization...

I really could go on.

It's not the most accurate book ever written. Although the Old Testament stays the 'truest' to it's source, it still has textual inconsistencies, historical innaccuracies, contradictions laced throughout, and all without even bringing up the New Testament (whichever of the multiple versions you prefer) or any other 'Apocrypha' or supplementary texts that exist in the long line of the Bible's history.

Is there really such a strong and pervasive element of denial among this world's monotheists about this?

(I'm speaking rhetorically, by the way...)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Al Q'ran has been kept in Arabic and any devout Muslim will tell you it is the only way to read it.  However, some versions of Al Q' ran are sorted by length of verse text, which surely removes any continuity and leaves it open to interpretation.  What would happen to any book if it was sorted by paragraph length?quote>

Well, the Koran is standardly published from its longest sura to its shortest, rather than in the order they were said to be presented to Mohammad, yes.

However, this does not cause problems with context and continuity as one might expect. The Koran, unlike the Bible, isn't trying to tell a story. Instead, it's basically one non-sequitur of moral guidance after another. You can pretty much randomly open it to any page and start reading from the beginning of a paragraph, and not worry about taking what you read out of context. Indeed, this is how it's meant to be read.

As with the Bible, though, there is historical context dealing with when and where it was written, and translation issues when not read in its original language. Which is why annotations are good to have.

On that note, apparently the Catholic church is working on a new standard English translation of the Bible, which will replace the current one that was implemented in the 60's post Vatican II.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

On that note, apparently the Catholic church is working on a new standard English translation of the Bible, which will replace the current one that was implemented in the 60's post Vatican II.

quote>

Which only shows that the winners write history.  Who knows what new Bowdlerisations will creep in this time.  Although I was raised Catholic, I still perfer the language and style in the King James version.  The Douay is nearly as good.  Its not broken, so why fix it?

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

On that note, apparently the Catholic church is working on a new standard English translation of the Bible, which will replace the current one that was implemented in the 60's post Vatican II.

quote>

I personally vote for the inclusion of 'Bootylicious' in at least one passage...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Nothing the revisors do will change the social position of women or anything else in history.  Life was short, dark and ugly. 

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Nothing the revisors do will change the social position of women or anything else in history.  Life was short, dark and ugly. 

quote>

Which is unfortunate. Not that they can't change that fact, because I'm definitely not an advocate for historical revisionism, but that it was a fact at all. It should be about time that everyone gets viewed as equals, but I see little to no difference today, only that the ugliness is given a facemask and quietly tucked under the rug. As part of my epistemic developement, and what makes it relevant to this thread (and not, say, the thread about racism) is that I see the disgusting footprint of monotheism all over it. Call that inflammatory or what you will, but it simply is what I consider an incontrovertible 'truth.' Whether or not anyone agrees, or on what they agree/disagree with, is likely the subject of an entirely different discussion...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Monotheism is the current rage.  Polytheism has receded into the background but at least is not being stamped out any more.  Many eastern religions are polytheistic, and there are some, like Wicca, that practice this among us today.  I find the idea of a big cheese attractive, but there are many flavours of cheese.  Often, a polytheism tries to map human behaviour onto the various deities.  This is surely an error.  Gods are gods, after all, and you can't have them being human, too.