Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Guiscard]

Hi Guiscard, MeDeFe,


Jenos Ridan, Haven't spoken to you before, nice to meet you.

Wow step away for twenty four hours and things just really have a way of going on and on! I think, however, that both of you are missing my overall point. You both have spoken with me before, and at no time have I told that you are wrong to embrace atheism, if in fact you do. To believe or not is a personal choice, and I'm not about to try to make that choice for you.

That being said, I'm just here defending my beliefs. I was responding to someone who said that the Church (I'm assuming he meant Christendom in general) was "lying through their teeth about anything having to do with God". Of course he qualified it with "had a motive" which is just a backhanded way of saying it, and providing an out if things get too hot. Now you guys have gone on for several pages about exactly what I predicted you'd go on about. That is translations. Well....yeah when your worldview is accepted all over the world you tend to have to translate scripture, and yes when you translate there are choices about specific meanings. This doesn't mean that there was any intention to overtly dupe anyone. To say otherwise is a direct attempt to ascribe a motive to someone you never met (actually don't even know the name of) and have no independent source information on. In short, you can't do that. Whatever you think is likely, however much you would like to believe otherwise. You cannot know what a long dead, nameless transcriber was thinking when he made a choice in a Scriptorium over a millennia ago, and no one around him took any notice. Neither can I, but what I can do is shed a little light on the Christian mindset and attitude toward scripture.
Guiscard, you have some interesting views, however I think that from a position of not believing you are ascribing atheistic motives to believers. That is thinking that we'd presume to think "we have to (spread the faith, condemn homosexuality, fill church coffers, etc.) so we need to change this to mean that so that it will be 'clearer what God meant'". From a believer’s point of view, this is blasphemy and we believe that we'd go to Hell for it. Imagine someone who grew up with a deep love of Davinci’s artwork. He gets a job restoring the portraits. He’s going to say to himself “Ya know, I always thought a little red would go better here, and I’ll just make this person look a little happier”? I don’t think so. How much less if Davinci was looking over his shoulder? It’s even less likely when he views the subject with reverence rather than respect.
The opposite stance seems much more likely, we want the scripture to be as true to the original texts as possible. This can be seen if you open an NIV Holy Bible and look at all of the footnotes “some earlier texts say ------”, and it is usually only one word difference. The scriptures are sacred to us. Please don’t misunderstand this by attributing devious motives to people that you never met.


I for one would rather see the entire worldview fall that put one word in the mouth of God. God is entirely capable of speaking for himself, through the scriptures, and doesn’t need my help. To say that they are lies, understandably, gets my dander up a little. I dispute it and once again challenge you to show something beyond differeing translations (which are common to all translated works). Christians & Jews have gone beyond a good faith effort to keep these scriptures faithfully. Remember according to our beliefs, to tamper with them would be to put ourselves above God. That is contrary to the whole premise of the faith. It might be tempting to invent some altruistic sort willing to sacrifice his own soul for the good of the Church, but this flys in the face of our beliefs as well. IF one goes down that road then whatever comes from it is of the devil and will come to no good. Christians would not take that point of view it would instead be seen as a senseless waste. "He didn't have strong enough faith and turned to the devil; let's toss out what he was working on, it's tainted"

I'm afraid this whole issue is tempered by my Atheism, and I can't get away from that, but then on the other hand your view is tempered by your Christianity. I know I haven't met the scribes or the Bishops who agreed on canonisation, but I have extensively studied medieval history (I am currently a research student at University), and in the same way you have a greater knowledge of science I do have a pretty good knowledge of the Early Christian and Medieval church. It was intensely corrupt, there was power politics, infighting, intensive disagreements about dogma... The canonisation itself was, obviously, a move which suited those in power at the time best. It allowed them to outlaw those groups who were 'rebel' and didn't want to fit in with the general church (e.g. gnostics and arians) and label them as blasphemers. You automatically ascribe the Bishops of the early church the same pious faith as you have. I know for a fact that some of them were greedy black-mailing misogynist paedophiles from extensive source material that I have studied. I really am not trying to attack anyone's faith here, but just to show what my atheistic point of view is.

To be honest, I think we should move on now because your faith will always tell you that no-one would change the Bible and my atheism and historical study show me that people are corrupt and apply their own political motives to religion just as they do to law and economics.

[Ehriggn]

haha, its a photo-shopped image, but I thought you guys might get a kick out of it!

[Backglass]

[Ehriggn]

I'm not sure if this ones been worked or not.... I might believe it, but don't want to...

[Backglass]

I'm not sure if this ones been worked or not.... I might believe it, but don't want to...

They must be real...I found this one.

[Ehriggn]

ROTFL!! thats awesome!! really lol!!

[2dimes]

I believe Bono all ready addressed that one in the 1980s Glass.

[b.k. barunt]

Guiscard, to say that the early church (i.e. Roman Catholicism) selectively compiled the scriptures is a bit naive. The New Testament is full of verses that blatantly refute some basic teachings of the Catholic religion, hence the law that made possessing a copy of such in the common language a killing offence. If God truly was the author of the Bible, than he would have controlled the translators as he did the original writers. Evidently he did, because the church did not want anyone reading it.

[Guiscard]

Guiscard, to say that the early church (i.e. Roman Catholicism) selectively compiled the scriptures is a bit naive. The New Testament is full of verses that blatantly refute some basic teachings of the Catholic religion, hence the law that made possessing a copy of such in the common language a killing offence. If God truly was the author of the Bible, than he would have controlled the translators as he did the original writers. Evidently he did, because the church did not want anyone reading it.

I really don't think it is some major conspiracy type thing. People are taking me a little too seriously perhaps. I know there were many within the early church that were genuinely trying to further what they saw as the message of God and contributed to the Bible in a genuinely respectable way. I'm just trying to show, however, that there were some who used the compilation and canonisation of the Bible to further political power and acted in a less religious way. Much of this involved hammering out doctrine in the ecumenical councils and potential gospels which disagreed with the popular church line were thrown out. Its not a theory or a conspiracy, its a historical fact which I have researched extensively as part of a degree. Obviously there are parts of the Bible which don't agree completely with the Catholic churches policy, but there WAS at least an element of selection (whether it be at the hand of God or for more material gains).

[b.k. barunt]

The only disputed (by any serious scholars) part of the canonization was the Appocrypha, which was disallowed by St. Jerome when he translated the Latin Vulgate, and was not added until the council of Trent, some 1,000 years later (i could be wrong on the number of years by 1 or 2 hundred). The Appocrypha was added to support the doctrine of purgatory, for which there is no basis in the Bible, but it has brought in more money for the Roman Catholic church than any other doctrine. Other than that, there were no books added or taken away that are supported by any serious scholars.

[dnucci]

Dearest BK, Maybe not added nor taken away, but what about . . . found later? There are 9 parables that appear in all 4 gospels. The first of the gospels that was written was Mark, but most biblical scholars agree that Matthew took from Mark and they both took from some unknown gospel called the Gospel Q.

In 1945, two brothers in egypt happened upon some ancient ewers that contained something that is now called the Gospel of Thomas and is believed to be the Gospel Q. However, of course, because it was found too late, it is not in the Bible. Interestingly, this Gospel contains all of the parables usually thought to be attributable to Q. Two interesting parts of this story: (1) clearly this is an important writing that has been left out of the Bible. What are the implications of its inadvertant exclusion? (2) (and I think more importantly) the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic Gospel. It was created by the Essenes, a community with whom Jesus lived for some time. However, Gnosticism has been denounced by the church. Gnosticism is the belief that salvation can be achieved through study. The church has denounced this and taken the position that salvation can only be achieved through Faith and Grade (not even good works). Of course, the old Rabbinical tradition is one of study. Rabbi means "teacher" and it was a duty of the Jewish men of the day to study and debate intellectually scripture.

So, it is interesting to me that this Book and Way of Practice have been excluded from Catholicism given how closely their roots lie to Jesus himself.

Secondly (sorry for the long post), intent or conspiracy are not prerequisites to the corruption of the Grace or Word of Revealed Divinity. Whether ill-meaning is present or not, the Catholic Church is the biggest, wealthiest, and oldest organization on the planet. We all go to work when we aren't playing Risk. So, we all know that no matter how new or small an organization gets, politics evolve like mold in cheese. So, the politicism of the Church, which has inevitably warped the original message, must be acknowledged even if everyone had the best intentions in the world.

[Jenos Ridan]

Note "ordinary mortal", I was being ironic again, sorry. I have a hard time imagining the ordinary god-fearing scribe or monk or story-teller changing things in a book he sees as sacred, though. Granted, what a council of bishops might do is another question.

Who do you think copied and translated the Bible for the majority of its history? Just those people who had a vested interest in it...

What is this "hidden agenda" you're intent on searching for? Conspiricies are generally the work of fevered minds. What is the end being work towards here?

I think you misinterpret me a little... I don't think its some huge conspiracy or 'new world order' type thing, but you cannot argue that the Church have a vested interest in the Bible, as it is the direct representation of Gods word (to a theist) and therefore must be obeyed.

The books picked to be considered canon were those that were in line with the politically powerful within the church, and those that suggested a different way of thinking (e.g. those that suggested a more Arian or Gnostic viewpoint) were cast out. It isn't a conspiracy, just a non-spiritual interpretation. To many theists, the hand of God was guiding there choice but to many atheists it was the hand of popular power politics.

When we look at translation, the translation used is the one which most fits the 'Church line' on whatever issue it refers to. Translations (rather than canonisations) bring to the fore the issue of specific words such as those for homosexual I mentioned earlier. The translations fall into line with rising intolerance in Europe at the time (see Boswell's 'The Church and the Homosexual as a reasonable discussion of this issue.)

I'm sorry, but I was left with the impression of an agenda.

If any books were cast out during the Nicene Coucil, then they didn't belong in the first place. And they still don't. They are inconsistant with the message of scripture and therefore don't belong.

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

[Jenos Ridan]

Guiscard, to say that the early church (i.e. Roman Catholicism) selectively compiled the scriptures is a bit naive. The New Testament is full of verses that blatantly refute some basic teachings of the Catholic religion, hence the law that made possessing a copy of such in the common language a killing offence. If God truly was the author of the Bible, than he would have controlled the translators as he did the original writers. Evidently he did, because the church did not want anyone reading it.

That is how I understand the historical facts. Martin Luther has labeled a heratic for a) violating key Catholic doctrines and b) advocating the Bible be printed in local languages.

[vtmarik]

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

So, the one line in Leviticus, which everyone uses to condemn homosexuality, may have been written to slight the Romans?

It is well established that the various codes and laws in Leviticus were written during a time when these things were deemed necessary. This was a time where if you planted wheat and barley in the same row that both plants would die. How do you get someone to not do that anymore? Threaten them with death.

Everything in Leviticus has been left behind, practically, except for that one line about homosexuality.

Maybe its time we moved on from that anyhow?

[b.k. barunt]

Dearest BK, Maybe not added nor taken away, but what about . . . found later? There are 9 parables that appear in all 4 gospels. The first of the gospels that was written was Mark, but most biblical scholars agree that Matthew took from Mark and they both took from some unknown gospel called the Gospel Q.

In 1945, two brothers in egypt happened upon some ancient ewers that contained something that is now called the Gospel of Thomas and is believed to be the Gospel Q. However, of course, because it was found too late, it is not in the Bible. Interestingly, this Gospel contains all of the parables usually thought to be attributable to Q. Two interesting parts of this story: (1) clearly this is an important writing that has been left out of the Bible. What are the implications of its inadvertant exclusion? (2) (and I think more importantly) the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic Gospel. It was created by the Essenes, a community with whom Jesus lived for some time. However, Gnosticism has been denounced by the church. Gnosticism is the belief that salvation can be achieved through study. The church has denounced this and taken the position that salvation can only be achieved through Faith and Grade (not even good works). Of course, the old Rabbinical tradition is one of study. Rabbi means "teacher" and it was a duty of the Jewish men of the day to study and debate intellectually scripture.

So, it is interesting to me that this Book and Way of Practice have been excluded from Catholicism given how closely their roots lie to Jesus himself.

Secondly (sorry for the long post), intent or conspiracy are not prerequisites to the corruption of the Grace or Word of Revealed Divinity. Whether ill-meaning is present or not, the Catholic Church is the biggest, wealthiest, and oldest organization on the planet. We all go to work when we aren't playing Risk. So, we all know that no matter how new or small an organization gets, politics evolve like mold in cheese. So, the politicism of the Church, which has inevitably warped the original message, must be acknowledged even if everyone had the best intentions in the world.

dnucci, much of your post sounds like you picked it up from some sensationalist source like chariots of the gods or whatnot. I have heard of the "gospel of Q", as i have heard of the "Aquarian Gospel" - neither are respected by any serious scholars. Antiquity alone does not give validity to a writer or writing. All the New Testament books had validation from the church fathers who passed treasured parchments through the underground church at the time, none of which mentioned the "Gospel of Thomas". The "gospel of Q" is a myth started by the gnostics of the 4th century, and never validated in any manner whatsoever. Jesus spent time with a colony of Essenes? How do you or anyone else know this? Since the only source we have documenting Jesus' life is the New Testament, and it mentions nothing of this, i have to wonder about your sources.

[Jenos Ridan]

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

So, the one line in Leviticus, which everyone uses to condemn homosexuality, may have been written to slight the Romans?

It is well established that the various codes and laws in Leviticus were written during a time when these things were deemed necessary. This was a time where if you planted wheat and barley in the same row that both plants would die. How do you get someone to not do that anymore? Threaten them with death.

Everything in Leviticus has been left behind, practically, except for that one line about homosexuality.

Maybe its time we moved on from that anyhow?

Firstly, no. Just stating know well know it was by Jesus's time. Propably the Egyptians started it.

True, certain lines of text have little meaning these days, but then somewhere in Colosians I think the reason the dietary laws (among others) were thrown out.

[Backglass]

True, certain lines of text have little meaning these days, but then somewhere in Colosians I think the reason the dietary laws (among others) were thrown out.

So you just pick and choose the parts you like to fit the times?

How convenient!

And here I thought the whole thing was the word of a god. Wont he be pretty pissed off you aren't obeying the entire thing?

[Jenos Ridan]

True, certain lines of text have little meaning these days, but then somewhere in Colosians I think the reason the dietary laws (among others) were thrown out.

So you just pick and choose the parts you like to fit the times?

How convenient!

And here I thought the whole thing was the word of a god. Wont he be pretty pissed off you aren't obeying the entire thing?

The reason is in scripture, or did you not read that part ? Talk about picking and choosing ?

[Backglass]

True, certain lines of text have little meaning these days, but then somewhere in Colosians I think the reason the dietary laws (among others) were thrown out.

So you just pick and choose the parts you like to fit the times?

How convenient!

And here I thought the whole thing was the word of a god. Wont he be pretty pissed off you aren't obeying the entire thing?

The reason is in scripture, or did you not read that part ? Talk about picking and choosing ?

Why wouldn't an "all knowing", "all powerful" god, have his words written so they are valid in ALL times. He is omnipotent, so he saw this coming...right?

[b.k. barunt]

True, certain lines of text have little meaning these days, but then somewhere in Colosians I think the reason the dietary laws (among others) were thrown out.

So you just pick and choose the parts you like to fit the times?

How convenient!

And here I thought the whole thing was the word of a god. Wont he be pretty pissed off you aren't obeying the entire thing?

The reason is in scripture, or did you not read that part ? Talk about picking and choosing ?

Why wouldn't an "all knowing", "all powerful" god, have his words written so they are valid in ALL times. He is omnipotent, so he saw this coming...right?

I don't know why Jenos said that, but he was wrong, and you are (partially) right. The Bible, as the Word of God (not "a god", unless you are a Jehovah Witness) is timeless, and applies as a whole to all times and cultures. However, there is an Old Testament, or Covenant, and there is a New Testament. The purpose of the Old Covenant was to lead us to the New Covenant. Galatians 3:24&25 says that the law (of Moses) was our "schoolmaster to lead us to faith". Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster, and its purpose is fulfilled. Nothing was "thrown out". I'm not at all comfortable quoting from the Bible, as i crapped out years ago and do not follow the Lord, but before i crapped out i put thousands of hours into studying it, and my failure does not negate its truth. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of the scriptures, but the organized church sucks big time, and seems to be merely an arm of right wing politics nowadays. If you read the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) you'll see that the same situation was there when Jesus came - note his treatment of the religious leaders of the day.

[Jenos Ridan]

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

So, the one line in Leviticus, which everyone uses to condemn homosexuality, may have been written to slight the Romans?

It is well established that the various codes and laws in Leviticus were written during a time when these things were deemed necessary. This was a time where if you planted wheat and barley in the same row that both plants would die. How do you get someone to not do that anymore? Threaten them with death.

Everything in Leviticus has been left behind, practically, except for that one line about homosexuality.

Maybe its time we moved on from that anyhow?

Could I get the exact passage? I also seem to recall more than one.

[Jenos Ridan]

True, certain lines of text have little meaning these days, but then somewhere in Colosians I think the reason the dietary laws (among others) were thrown out.

So you just pick and choose the parts you like to fit the times?

How convenient!

And here I thought the whole thing was the word of a god. Wont he be pretty pissed off you aren't obeying the entire thing?

The reason is in scripture, or did you not read that part ? Talk about picking and choosing ?

Why wouldn't an "all knowing", "all powerful" god, have his words written so they are valid in ALL times. He is omnipotent, so he saw this coming...right?

I don't know why Jenos said that, but he was wrong, and you are (partially) right. The Bible, as the Word of God (not "a god", unless you are a Jehovah Witness) is timeless, and applies as a whole to all times and cultures. However, there is an Old Testament, or Covenant, and there is a New Testament. The purpose of the Old Covenant was to lead us to the New Covenant. Galatians 3:24&25 says that the law (of Moses) was our "schoolmaster to lead us to faith". Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster, and its purpose is fulfilled. Nothing was "thrown out". I'm not at all comfortable quoting from the Bible, as i crapped out years ago and do not follow the Lord, but before i crapped out i put thousands of hours into studying it, and my failure does not negate its truth. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of the scriptures, but the organized church sucks big time, and seems to be merely an arm of right wing politics nowadays. If you read the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) you'll see that the same situation was there when Jesus came - note his treatment of the religious leaders of the day.

My reason is, I'm frustrated at people who have an appearant agenda against faith. Not an excuse, just a rationale for the action.

Secondly, the law of Moses does not save, faith in Jesus does. Also why are we ignoring the verse about the dietary laws being overturned? I forget the exact verse save for it being in Colosians.

Lastly, sorry to hear about your loss of belief. But I'm glad you don't take the line of reasoning that spirituallity is a bad thing.

[b.k. barunt]

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

So, the one line in Leviticus, which everyone uses to condemn homosexuality, may have been written to slight the Romans?

It is well established that the various codes and laws in Leviticus were written during a time when these things were deemed necessary. This was a time where if you planted wheat and barley in the same row that both plants would die. How do you get someone to not do that anymore? Threaten them with death.

Everything in Leviticus has been left behind, practically, except for that one line about homosexuality.

Maybe its time we moved on from that anyhow?

Ok, if you would like a New Testament reference to homosexuality, look at Romans 1:26&27. 26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. That last part is kinda scary, considering the AIDS crisis.

[CrazyAnglican]

2 things (I'm somewhat in a hurry so this'll be very short)

The word "translations" was mentioned about one time on the previous page and half of the page before that one. That's hardly "going on".

Hi MeDeFe,

I merely meant to greet you yesterday. My post was really aimed at Guiscard who went into the whole Greek word for this and that scenario. So by going on and on I meant "Wow! I’m impressed 13 posts in less than 24 hours. I wonder if my main point was lost in the fray". It seems that it was.
My challenge is the same today as it was yesterday. Show me a canonical text that predates Christianity and has been significantly altered from that state as a result of Christian doctrine. Not by a subtle nuance mind you, or word here or there, these are common to any translated work. Show me a departure from the text. There are many of these texts extant (ie. The Dead Sea Scrolls, and many others) the Early Orthodox Church traveled on a sea of ink. It should be a simple thing to show this if it exists. What I said yesterday, and won't back down from today, is that you cannot do this because this alleged alteration didn't happen.
Before you go off on the idea that other translated works aren’t the basis for a religion, let’s look at some of them. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, Plato’s The Republic, Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, Machiavelli’s The Prince. All trivial works, I assume, nobody’s basing religions on them. No their basing governments and military strategies on them. Two things that can be a lot more important to your existence and happiness than the Bible Thumpers saying grace at the table next to yours at a restaurant.
You asserted that my example of “Beowulf” was a bad example:

First
Crazy_Anglican brings up a bad example of a book where there are different versions ..........I point out that it's a bad example and that the books (here: Beowulf and the bible) are completely different in the meaning people attached to them.

Based on nothing really more than (I’m paraphrasing) …but people actually believe the Bible. It’s an interesting point only the books you have an interest in refuting are admissible. This is very convienient for you, isn't it? Never mind that a book is essentially a book, and the translation process is essentially the same with any of them. It was perhaps even more rigorous with the Bible. I’m merely stating that you cannot refute the validity of the Bible based on supposed alterations that probably did not occur. If you, or Guiscard, would like to get back to the point and show me where these alterations occurred, I’m all ears.

Those are the beliefs you have been taught, you are ascribing beliefs to people you never knew, nor have any unbiased source about.

If you are asserting that I have committed the fallacy of arguing from omniscience please quote the lines. I stated that Guiscard could not attribute negative motives to the translators of the Bible. I did not attribute positive ones to them. I gave a hypothetical anecdote to illustrate the attitude of reverence that Christians tend to take toward the Bible. (Have you ever heard one arguing that it wasn’t to be revered?) Not quite out on a logical limb here am I? I also provided a couple of paragraphs, from my own viewpoint, about the attitudes and beliefs of Christians whom I have spoken with, but did so in a general statement rather than specifically quoting people you don’t know. If, however, there are many Christians who disagree with what I said then I will withdraw the statements. The fundamental point remains the same, though “People do not tend to mess around with scripture that we think is sacred”. You said something to this effect several times yesterday. I’m not sure why you object to me saying essentially the same thing.

[mr. incrediball]

all you people who are saying "if god exists why do we have wars, why do people die, why this, why that" think about it, if you were god, would you make evrything perfect, and god's immortal, imagine keeping the whole universe in perfect shape for all eternity, god probably god really bored and decided to go vengeful maniac on the universe.