Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
    That comes from the other forums that I frequent. It's a Star Wars thing (EVIL GALACTIC EMPIRE). We also do it for RIGHT-WING RADIO and such.



    FNC has had tons of pundits on talking about how Ratz getting elected is bad, it will cause a regression in the Church, etc.
    ZHDD, sweetie, love-muffin, my dear and wonderful friend...FNC is by no means LIBERAL MEDIA. They're banging the drum for one reason and one reason only. RATINGS. That's all FNC cares about. I know, I work for News Corp. They would sell themselves to the extremists (which they have), or even sell their grandmothers to the devil for controversially created info-tainment. It ain't news, Margaret, it's crap.

    CE
    Anthony Flessas
    Writer/Producer/Director,
    SP Pictures


    I have no avatar! I walk in mystery and need nothing to represent who and what I am!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by colonyearth
      ZHDD, sweetie, love-muffin, my dear and wonderful friend...FNC is by no means LIBERAL MEDIA. They're banging the drum for one reason and one reason only. RATINGS. That's all FNC cares about. I know, I work for News Corp. They would sell themselves to the extremists (which they have), or even sell their grandmothers to the devil for controversially created info-tainment. It ain't news, Margaret, it's crap.
      Never said they were. I just said that they were talking about it a lot, and I know because I watch FNC a lot. And the ratings are very important not only for advertising revenue, but also because if the ratings are up during a 1/4 hour, it means the audience wants to hear the stories there, so they can gauge which issues are important to the public.
      Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

      Comment


      • #78
        Now for my 2 cents

        I came into this thread a little late too, so please bear with me as I respond to several things that were said.....

        Originally posted by Redrake

        What was he sorry for? Is simple. During WWII Catholic church didn't lift a finger for Jews exterminated by the nazis. This was a thing that jews never forget. Until John Paul II become Pope, there weren't any diplomatic relations between Israel and Vatican. He was also a Polish, many jews were taken from Poland during the war. Polish people weren't guilty, but he felt responsible for not saying a word against the extermination of the jews.
        That is not the only thing the Catholics had to apologize for dealing with the Holocaust. During the war the Catholic church rescued Jewish children and were ôadoptedö by Catholic families. As you can imagine, many Jewish families would have been happy their children be kept with people of a different religion rather than be killed. However, when many of the same families survived the Holocaust, the church (as policy) refused to allow them to return to their families/relatives, citing that they were better off being ôChristianö.

        Originally posted by Jan

        This is a serious question, even if it sound's flippant:
        Would somebody please explain to me how a book that's been 'revised' translated, re-translated and edited can still be accepted as the unvarnished word of God? I've seen picture Bibles, 'Good News' Bibles, modern language Bibles, King James Bibles and I'm sorry but they do *not* all say the same thing, nor even keep the same tone. And that's just in my lifetime. How can anybody believe that the message hasn't changed in 2,000 years??

        Jan
        I completely agree with you, Jan. I was raised Southern Baptist, and later converted to Judaism. If you want to read a ôvirtually unchangedö version of the Bible (Old Testament, anyway) pick up an English translation of the Hebrew bible (Torah). It is very interesting to see how many Christian doctrines are based on ôloosely translatedö quotes from the old testament (specifically the prophesy foretelling the Messiah). People may scoff that this is true, but remember the Dead Sea Scrolls? When they were discovered (they date back to around Jesus ChristÆs time, I think) they were compared to modern copies of the Torah and were found to be for all intents and purposes THE SAME. Not so of the ôNew Testamentö. It has been translated, retranslated and edited to suit many a ruler (King James, anyone?) and religious fervor.

        On the same note, I (as well as my Rabbi) canÆt blindly look at the Torah as word for word truth no matter what. There are stories to be accepted as learning parables, teachings, etc.

        As far as I know, there is no mention in the Torah of lesbianism being forbidden (probably because the Torah was written down and copied almost exclusively by men) and I also find it interesting that not only is male sex forbidden, but also masturbation. Boyàthere is a lot of us on our way in a handbasket.

        ThatÆs my 2 cents, hope I didnÆt offend many people. IÆll get off my soapbox now.
        Last edited by B5sweepsfan; 05-23-2005, 09:15 AM. Reason: correcting my typos!!!
        You can't win if you don't play!!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by B5sweepsfan
          That is not the only thing the Catholics had to apologize for dealing with the Holocaust. During the war the Catholic church rescued Jewish children and were ôadoptedö by Catholic families. As you can imagine, many Jewish families would have been happy their children be kept with people of a different religion rather than be killed. However, when many of the same families survived the Holocaust, the church (as policy) refused to allow them to return to their families/relatives, citing that they were better off being ôChristianö.
          One of those adopted children is the Cardinal of Paris. I always have this perverse desire to see him being elevated to Pope one day.

          Originally posted by B5sweepsfan
          I completely agree with you, Jan. I was raised Southern Baptist, and later converted to Judaism. If you want to read a ôvirtually unchangedö version of the Bible (Old Testament, anyway) pick up an English translation of the Hebrew bible (Torah). It is very interesting to see how many Christian doctrines are based on ôloosely translatedö quotes from the old testament (specifically the prophesy foretelling the Messiah). People may scoff that this is true, but remember the Dead Sea Scrolls? When they were discovered (they date back to around Jesus ChristÆs time, I think) they were compared to modern copies of the Torah and were found to be for all intents and purposes THE SAME. Not so of the ôNew Testamentö. It has been translated, retranslated and edited to suit many a ruler (King James, anyone?) and religious fervor.
          Having converted myself (I like to joke that I am the only Jewish person that I know who has a Preist as my godfather), I would be interested in hearing about your journey. Of course a PM may be a better forum for that so if you do feel like sharing feel free to PM me.

          On a historical level, the first translation of the Bible was from Hebrew to Greek and it was then translated from Greek into Latin. Because it's a translation of a translation things such as the virgin birth are a misunderstanding from what the hebrew word really means.

          Cheers,
          thebaron
          ---
          Co-host of The Second Time Around podcast
          www.benedictfamily.org/podcast

          Comment


          • #80
            This is a serious question, even if it sound's flippant:
            Would somebody please explain to me how a book that's been 'revised' translated, re-translated and edited can still be accepted as the unvarnished word of God? I've seen picture Bibles, 'Good News' Bibles, modern language Bibles, King James Bibles and I'm sorry but they do *not* all say the same thing, nor even keep the same tone. And that's just in my lifetime. How can anybody believe that the message hasn't changed in 2,000 years??
            There's a Jack Chick comic on this...
            Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

            Comment


            • #81
              hahahaha. If I didn't believe that Jack Chick believes the tripe he spews in those tracts, my post could just be laughter
              RIP Coach Larry Finch
              Thank you Memphis Grizzlies for a great season.
              Play like your fake girlfriend died today - new Notre Dame motivational sign

              Comment


              • #82
                My god that man is a nutbar. Reading some of Jack Chck's stuff was the lowest thing I've ever asked of my brain. Please don't invoke his name here, whether it was intended as a joke or intended seriously.
                Radhil Trebors
                Persona Under Construction

                Comment


                • #83
                  Oh...my. I'd never heard of him before. I think some woman at the grocery store tried to give me one of those last week. With apologies to any true believers looking on, I find proselytizers extremely distateful.

                  Jan
                  "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Jan
                    Oh...my. I'd never heard of him before. I think some woman at the grocery store tried to give me one of those last week. With apologies to any true believers looking on, I find proselytizers extremely distateful.

                    Jan
                    Proselytizers can be very effective in turning people away from religion.
                    I know, some have almost succeeded in making me agnostic.


                    On the matter of translation of the Bible, all the Catholic bibles I've seen tend to have footnotes indicating where problems of translation and even uncertainties in translation occur (some footnotes in addition provide context on history, theology, etc., where necessary).
                    Comparing the different translations of the same passage can be illuminating, sometimes leading to a better understanding of the meaning, sometimes just showing how near impossible it is to understand and translate something written so long ago. The phrasing of whole verses can be so different that you could doubt they are from the same source. And these are Bibles that have texts suppervised and approved (the "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur") by a hierarch... I can only imagine how bigger the differences would be between the Jewish and the several Christian versions of the Old Testament.

                    Some of the Catholic bibles are supposed to be direct translations from the original greek (or Hebrew or other language) sources available.

                    Of course you can argue that since this is done by a committee under the supervision of the Catholic Church the translation has an inherent bias...
                    And intellectually I'd have to agree with that.

                    My point is simply that if any Christian church wanted to they could go and have a new translation from the most original sources.
                    The ones that would have the most to loose would be those that insist in a literal interpretation of their version of the Bible. The simple correction of one word might well jeopardize an entire line of theological speculation.

                    BTW, does anyone know what version of the Jewish and Christian Bible books is considered canon in the Muslim holy books?
                    Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase
                    James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Capt.Montoya
                      BTW, does anyone know what version of the Jewish and Christian Bible books is considered canon in the Muslim holy books?
                      IIRC the Old Testemite (my spelling sucks, sorry) but only up to the point where Abraham was going to sacrafice Issac. According to the Koran it was Ishmael who was going to be sacraficed.
                      ---
                      Co-host of The Second Time Around podcast
                      www.benedictfamily.org/podcast

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Capt.Montoya
                        BTW, does anyone know what version of the Jewish and Christian Bible books is considered canon in the Muslim holy books?
                        Also, some of Jesus' teachings are considered "canon" in that a lot of the Koran is in RESPONSE to Jesus. So whenever you hear a Muslim claim that Jesus is all over the Koran, it isn't what you think...
                        Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by WillieStealandHowe
                          As another aside, "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. In the Hebrew, the word "ratsach" means murder. It's been a while since I read the Bible, but Leviticus has hundreds of laws, some of which demand the life of an individual who breaks them. There are also instances where god gives his approval or even tells his followers to kill, such as telling Saul to utterly wipe out the Amalekites, even down to the animals..
                          I just wanted to clarify one thing about the biblical death penality, it wasn't some kind of vigalentee justice, and not held a court of law like we know. One of the requirements that were needed in order for the death penality to be handed out were: Two wittnesses see the act and warn the person that they would be liable for punishment X (in this case death).

                          The witnesses went through a rigerous questioining by the court and if their stories didn't match up then there would be no death penality. And the death penality was not handed out all that often. In fact the Talmud says that if a court killed once in 70 years, it is called a "court of killers".
                          ---
                          Co-host of The Second Time Around podcast
                          www.benedictfamily.org/podcast

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by thebaron
                            I just wanted to clarify one thing about the biblical death penality, it wasn't some kind of vigalentee justice, and not held a court of law like we know. One of the requirements that were needed in order for the death penality to be handed out were: Two wittnesses see the act and warn the person that they would be liable for punishment X (in this case death).

                            The witnesses went through a rigerous questioining by the court and if their stories didn't match up then there would be no death penality. And the death penality was not handed out all that often. In fact the Talmud says that if a court killed once in 70 years, it is called a "court of killers".
                            But those were vastly different times than we live in now. I for one do not think that the Bible is meant to be followed literally and to the tee.

                            For example, some of the letters in the New Testament were specifically sent to certain churches. I mean, there are things to learn from them, but Paul wrote to one of the churches and told them to silence their women during church service. The Church of Christ denomination took that to mean that women aren't allowed to speak in church.
                            Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
                              But those were vastly different times than we live in now. I for one do not think that the Bible is meant to be followed literally and to the tee.

                              For example, some of the letters in the New Testament were specifically sent to certain churches. I mean, there are things to learn from them, but Paul wrote to one of the churches and told them to silence their women during church service. The Church of Christ denomination took that to mean that women aren't allowed to speak in church.
                              IMO, you are correct. The bible isn't a literal book. In the Jewish Theological sense, there are many verses that don't mean what is written in the Bible. This is Written Law and the Oral Law.

                              A classic example of that is the verse "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The oral law (Talmud) teaches that it actually means the value of the eye that was damaged in addition to the doctor's bills, pain and suffering, and embarrassment for the injury.
                              ---
                              Co-host of The Second Time Around podcast
                              www.benedictfamily.org/podcast

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                <unearths old thread, shakes it out, dusts it off>

                                Well. Color me disgusted...but not surprised. From a Reuters news story about Pat Robertson's latest:

                                "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

                                "And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.
                                <insert emoticon for gagging here> So it guess what he's saying is that whole free will thing was just a joke, huh? I thought the veangful god thing had gone out of fashion with the Old Testament.

                                Jan
                                "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X