Posted by formatc on Monday February 8, 2010 @ 02:14pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Hey dude, I am right there with you on some of the hows and whys of your deletion plans, but was curious if you would be interested in continuing the conversation here. I'm actually quite interested in what volt's comments, as he dropped the hint that he had something to say. Besides that, this is one of the few places where we can talk about shit like this without having someone go psycho nutbag about it... except maybe krux... because of his mormon roots and all

Sorry, checked out of the world for a few days. Hell yeah I am ready to continue the discussion. I'd caveat it with the fact I am only so-so in philosophical discourse. Your assessment of psycho-nutbag is 100% correct. There are just too many places where discussions about politics and especially religion will hurt someone's little feelings.

Without further ado....

Posted by Caliber on Monday February 8, 2010 @ 09:33pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Hey dude, I am right there with you on some of the hows and whys of your deletion plans, but was curious if you would be interested in continuing the conversation here. I'm actually quite interested in what volt's comments, as he dropped the hint that he had something to say. Besides that, this is one of the few places where we can talk about shit like this without having someone go psycho nutbag about it... except maybe krux... because of his mormon roots and all

Sorry, checked out of the world for a few days. Hell yeah I am ready to continue the discussion. I'd caveat it with the fact I am only so-so in philosophical discourse. Your assessment of psycho-nutbag is 100% correct. There are just too many places where discussions about politics and especially religion will hurt someone's little feelings.

Without further ado....

Most of us saw the post, but there are a few that might have missed it. Also, your original post had some crypticness to it. If you would be so kind as to restate the problem for everyone, I'd appreciate...

So, my first question for you would be have you reconciled this personally? Was it just something that stuck out or was there something specific about it that didn't already haunt you from Leviticus?

Posted by formatc on Monday February 8, 2010 @ 10:43pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Hey dude, I am right there with you on some of the hows and whys of your deletion plans, but was curious if you would be interested in continuing the conversation here. I'm actually quite interested in what volt's comments, as he dropped the hint that he had something to say. Besides that, this is one of the few places where we can talk about shit like this without having someone go psycho nutbag about it... except maybe krux... because of his mormon roots and all

Sorry, checked out of the world for a few days. Hell yeah I am ready to continue the discussion. I'd caveat it with the fact I am only so-so in philosophical discourse. Your assessment of psycho-nutbag is 100% correct. There are just too many places where discussions about politics and especially religion will hurt someone's little feelings.

Without further ado....

Most of us saw the post, but there are a few that might have missed it. Also, your original post had some crypticness to it. If you would be so kind as to restate the problem for everyone, I'd appreciate...

So, my first question for you would be have you reconciled this personally? Was it just something that stuck out or was there something specific about it that didn't already haunt you from Leviticus?

So, the scripture was from Deuteronomy 13. I think it is just before or just after the X commandments.It talks about how you should kill, draw first blood, anyone in your neighborhood, or even in your family who brings in a false god into your home.

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday February 9, 2010 @ 07:24am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

So, the scripture was from Deuteronomy 13. I think it is just before or just after the X commandments.It talks about how you should kill, draw first blood, anyone in your neighborhood, or even in your family who brings in a false god into your home.

Remember that Ancient Israel was living under a theocratic government. It's not hard to see why their laws would include killing anyone who brought other gods into their "camp". Like Caliber, I'm curious what specifically brought this to your mind or why it became a topic of concern.

Posted by Caliber on Tuesday February 9, 2010 @ 10:55am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

So, the scripture was from Deuteronomy 13. I think it is just before or just after the X commandments.It talks about how you should kill, draw first blood, anyone in your neighborhood, or even in your family who brings in a false god into your home.

Remember that Ancient Israel was living under a theocratic government. It's not hard to see why their laws would include killing anyone who brought other gods into their "camp". Like Caliber, I'm curious what specifically brought this to your mind or why it became a topic of concern.

From my own perspective, I find the passages to be detrimental to the later Christian message that states that the bible should be taken as an unalterable document. In this case we have a story that defines the most fundamental laws of the Hebrews (the 10 commandments) that is followed almost immediately by a new set of laws that breach one of those fundamental laws. So first, is there a flaw in this interpretation, and second how do we know which rule is the one to be followed?

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @ 07:24am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

From my own perspective, I find the passages to be detrimental to the later Christian message that states that the bible should be taken as an unalterable document. In this case we have a story that defines the most fundamental laws of the Hebrews (the 10 commandments) that is followed almost immediately by a new set of laws that breach one of those fundamental laws. So first, is there a flaw in this interpretation, and second how do we know which rule is the one to be followed?

I would argue that there is a flaw in the interpretation, specifically on the commandment "Thou shall not kill" (I assume this is what you are referring to). There are clearly many kinds of ways in ending a person's life: malicious murder, warfare, judicial execution, accident/negligence, etc. The ten commandments were designed to be a summary of the rules overall, but the extensive development of this summary given in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy clarifies any questions on them. For instance, there are many instances where Jehovah demands killing: war and capital punishment come to mind. Thus, the ten commandment to "not kill" is probably better understood in our modern language as "thou shall not murder". Deut 19:11-13 gives a clear example here, with the expanded sentence concerning the "guilt of shedding innocent blood". Most modern translations have the ten commandment as "thou shall not murder" as scholarship on the language and understanding of context has made clear.

Another thing to keep in mind with reference to the Bible is that the rules change over time. Each period of history has specific guidelines as to how God is to be worshipped and what is right or wrong during that age. I make the analogy to a coach in a football game: sometimes playing defense, sometimes offense, sometimes special teams, but always the same coach with the same plan. So just as one example (with approximations here for brevity): sacrificing animals as atonement for sin was done by the person directly before God from Adam to Noah, was done by the head of a household/father from Noah to Moses, was done by the Levitical priests from Moses to Jesus, and now is no longer done because Jesus as Messiah represented the final, real sacrifice for sin.

So I can say that the Bible is an unalterable, completely correct collection of writings that are inerrant and without contradiction, as I propose that historical context and literary context solve most of the "contradictions" that people talk about. This doesn't address the faith aspect of course, as that really is the point of the whole, but it addresses most of the Bible-as-literature concerns.

Posted by Caliber on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @ 11:20am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

From my own perspective, I find the passages to be detrimental to the later Christian message that states that the bible should be taken as an unalterable document. In this case we have a story that defines the most fundamental laws of the Hebrews (the 10 commandments) that is followed almost immediately by a new set of laws that breach one of those fundamental laws. So first, is there a flaw in this interpretation, and second how do we know which rule is the one to be followed?

I would argue that there is a flaw in the interpretation, specifically on the commandment "Thou shall not kill" (I assume this is what you are referring to). There are clearly many kinds of ways in ending a person's life: malicious murder, warfare, judicial execution, accident/negligence, etc. The ten commandments were designed to be a summary of the rules overall, but the extensive development of this summary given in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy clarifies any questions on them. For instance, there are many instances where Jehovah demands killing: war and capital punishment come to mind. Thus, the ten commandment to "not kill" is probably better understood in our modern language as "thou shall not murder". Deut 19:11-13 gives a clear example here, with the expanded sentence concerning the "guilt of shedding innocent blood". Most modern translations have the ten commandment as "thou shall not murder" as scholarship on the language and understanding of context has made clear.

Which brings up the concept of "innocent." I will not pretend to remember if there is a definition for innocent in the Bible, though it seems to be a definition based on omission (if I didn't tell you to kill them, then they are innocent, which I think leaves like 30 motherfuckers). Also, there are stories (David is my prime example here) were someone revered in the Bible blatantly murders. While there are often repercussions, they are seldom at the level of what has been commanded before.

Also, I wonder, is there "wiggle room." For instance, a child picks up a doll it found while outside. The parents recognize this doll as an icon of a religion other than their own. By writ, they must slaughter their 3 year old for bringing false gods into the home. Now lets assume there is a definition of innocent that I am unaware of (likely). Which law trumps in this case, because Duet seems pretty cut and dry.

Another thing to keep in mind with reference to the Bible is that the rules change over time. Each period of history has specific guidelines as to how God is to be worshipped and what is right or wrong during that age. I make the analogy to a coach in a football game: sometimes playing defense, sometimes offense, sometimes special teams, but always the same coach with the same plan. So just as one example (with approximations here for brevity): sacrificing animals as atonement for sin was done by the person directly before God from Adam to Noah, was done by the head of a household/father from Noah to Moses, was done by the Levitical priests from Moses to Jesus, and now is no longer done because Jesus as Messiah represented the final, real sacrifice for sin.

This is one of those arguments that we have discussed in the past to an impasse. I just don't understand how a timeless god would allow such actions in the past. That is unless the individual is seen not as a whole entity. If that's the case, then sure, I can see that peoples of the past served to teach lessons to peoples of the future. Kind of hard to swallow from a "free will" perspective. We have already beat this one to death in the past, but maybe others want your perspective and have something to add...

So I can say that the Bible is an unalterable, completely correct collection of writings that are inerrant and without contradiction, as I propose that historical context and literary context solve most of the "contradictions" that people talk about. This doesn't address the faith aspect of course, as that really is the point of the whole, but it addresses most of the Bible-as-literature concerns.

So, by this rationale, why include the obsolete data. If they serve only as literary elements, why include them in the holy text. It isn't like there aren't tons of documents from that time that were excluded, some of which were fine stories from a moral perspective. Of course this seems to be the case with other holy texts, the koran being a prime example, were two documents contain the same stories and characters, but leave out choice bits.

Posted by voltaic on Thursday February 11, 2010 @ 07:34am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Which brings up the concept of "innocent." I will not pretend to remember if there is a definition for innocent in the Bible, though it seems to be a definition based on omission (if I didn't tell you to kill them, then they are innocent, which I think leaves like 30 motherfuckers).
Also, I wonder, is there "wiggle room." For instance, a child picks up a doll it found while outside. The parents recognize this doll as an icon of a religion other than their own. By writ, they must slaughter their 3 year old for bringing false gods into the home. Now lets assume there is a definition of innocent that I am unaware of (likely). Which law trumps in this case, because Duet seems pretty cut and dry.

One thing that Ancient Israel had, that we don't, is an entire priesthood of scholars who interpreted the Mosaic Law in cases where things weren't clear. Presumably, someone who spent all of his time learning about Jehovah would have an idea of how to decide who was innocent and who was not in each and every case that was brought before them. And no one was ever innocent of everything, since everyone had to participate in sacrifices and such, so yeah. There were even times when someone could be a blatant murderer and get away with it; for instance the Law required two witnesses to convict someone, so if there was only one witness he wouldn't be executed. Furthermore we don't have the entire Law today in the OT or Jewish Torah or anywhere else. The Bible itself says that there were two parts to the Law: the written and the oral tradition, and we clearly don't have the latter (or not much of it anyway).

Also, there are stories (David is my prime example here) were someone revered in the Bible blatantly murders. While there are often repercussions, they are seldom at the level of what has been commanded before.

That's true, and the Bible never excuses or endorses those acts even if for some reason the normal punishment wasn't carried out. One thing I find compelling about the Bible (OT and NT) compared to other holy books is that the participants, while revered, are totally flawed. We get to see Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, Peter, and all the rest of them fall flat on their faces. We get to see over and over that even the best humans (in terms of our respect and reverence) are totally flawed by nature and that only through the one unique unflawed person, Jesus Christ, can we hope to be made righteous before God. Every other holy book I know of lauds the various prophets and progenitors and definitely does not spend hundreds of words talking about their fuckups.

It just seems more intellectually honest, from a plain history point of view. Like reading a book about some revered Founding Father like George Washington and leaving out all the bad parts. heh.

This is one of those arguments that we have discussed in the past to an impasse. I just don't understand how a timeless god would allow such actions in the past. That is unless the individual is seen not as a whole entity. If that's the case, then sure, I can see that peoples of the past served to teach lessons to peoples of the future. Kind of hard to swallow from a "free will" perspective. We have already beat this one to death in the past, but maybe others want your perspective and have something to add...

I may not fully understand the question. Why would a timeless god be prevented from having different administrations in different times of history? How does this challenge the concept of free will?

So, by this rationale, why include the obsolete data. If they serve only as literary elements, why include them in the holy text. It isn't like there aren't tons of documents from that time that were excluded, some of which were fine stories from a moral perspective. Of course this seems to be the case with other holy texts, the koran being a prime example, were two documents contain the same stories and characters, but leave out choice bits.

I'm not saying that they are literary only. They still teach us today about the same person of God, through how He operated in the past. If one is willing to agree with the rather uncontroversial statement that the Messiah is the central figure of the Bible, then it makes sense to include stuff from before, to whit: prophecies concerning Him and stories of those who worshipped Him, and then a little bit of history about those prophets and worshippers; followed by stuff during and after, specifically: His life, the disciples He called on earth, and then what happened soon afterwards. I think your point is interesting and it speaks to a futher question: why does the OT span 1500ish years (excluding the first half of Genesis) whereas the NT spans like 50?

Posted by Caliber on Thursday February 11, 2010 @ 01:50pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

One thing that Ancient Israel had, that we don't, is an entire priesthood of scholars who interpreted the Mosaic Law in cases where things weren't clear. Presumably, someone who spent all of his time learning about Jehovah would have an idea of how to decide who was innocent and who was not in each and every case that was brought before them. And no one was ever innocent of everything, since everyone had to participate in sacrifices and such, so yeah. There were even times when someone could be a blatant murderer and get away with it; for instance the Law required two witnesses to convict someone, so if there was only one witness he wouldn't be executed. Furthermore we don't have the entire Law today in the OT or Jewish Torah or anywhere else. The Bible itself says that there were two parts to the Law: the written and the oral tradition, and we clearly don't have the latter (or not much of it anyway).

I guess my follow on question to that would be "what do we do with half-a-book?" If there is such a significant amount missing, how can people base their lives on that and only that? Also, does unalterable mean you cannot take away but allow for adding to? For instance, the Bible as Canonized by the Catholics is different than the one interpreted by the Lutherans. The Dead Sea Scrolls are said to be the writings of Jesus himself. The Torah includes a bunch more than the OT. Not trying to call you out on this, but I am curious who got to decide which version is the "right" version.

My big issue isn't with the Bible itself as either a holy text (even though I haven't faith, admittedly) or as a historical document. Its the call for it to be unalterable and unquestionable. What method and reasoning did you use to choose the text (and which version/translation/canonization)?

I think it might be important to note for those that haven't sat in on our conversations on the subject that I consider almost all holy scripts to be wholly valid philosophical works, whether I agree with them or not.

Also, there are stories (David is my prime example here) were someone revered in the Bible blatantly murders. While there are often repercussions, they are seldom at the level of what has been commanded before.

That's true, and the Bible never excuses or endorses those acts even if for some reason the normal punishment wasn't carried out. One thing I find compelling about the Bible (OT and NT) compared to other holy books is that the participants, while revered, are totally flawed. We get to see Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, Peter, and all the rest of them fall flat on their faces. We get to see over and over that even the best humans (in terms of our respect and reverence) are totally flawed by nature and that only through the one unique unflawed person, Jesus Christ, can we hope to be made righteous before God. Every other holy book I know of lauds the various prophets and progenitors and definitely does not spend hundreds of words talking about their fuckups.

While commendable, the question this sparks in my mind is the "why is that person or another better than the poor bastards that got turned to salt for taking a peek over their shoulder?" While I will admit I have never heard or read any passage that states all persons are created equal, it makes me wonder what hope is inspired by the knowledge that some can get away with anything, but everyone else is hosed (specifically speaking of the old testament, since thanks to Jesus, a great deal of equalizing was done). The kind of leads back to the "why bother" question concerning the old testament. Why consider it anything more than some stories of Israel's past greatly superseded by the later works.

It just seems more intellectually honest, from a plain history point of view. Like reading a book about some revered Founding Father like George Washington and leaving out all the bad parts. heh.

No doubt. Its why I love books like "Burr" and some of the "true history" books that I have read.

This is one of those arguments that we have discussed in the past to an impasse. I just don't understand how a timeless god would allow such actions in the past. That is unless the individual is seen not as a whole entity. If that's the case, then sure, I can see that peoples of the past served to teach lessons to peoples of the future. Kind of hard to swallow from a "free will" perspective. We have already beat this one to death in the past, but maybe others want your perspective and have something to add...

I may not fully understand the question. Why would a timeless god be prevented from having different administrations in different times of history? How does this challenge the concept of free will?

Nothing... that's kind of my point. Absolutely nothing we do or write could possibly change omnipotency or omniscience. Therefore, how does changing the rules over the course of history help us in becoming better, and why were the documents allowed to be changed up until the A.D.? Do we affect doctrine like Buddy Jesus, or are we tied to going about being Saved in the same vein as the Nazerenes or early Catholics? I'd love to think that it all ended with Jesus, since he did a lot of the work for everybody, but we have so many writings from after his death, that becomes moot.

I'm not saying that they are literary only. They still teach us today about the same person of God, through how He operated in the past. If one is willing to agree with the rather uncontroversial statement that the Messiah is the central figure of the Bible, then it makes sense to include stuff from before, to whit: prophecies concerning Him and stories of those who worshipped Him, and then a little bit of history about those prophets and worshippers; followed by stuff during and after, specifically: His life, the disciples He called on earth, and then what happened soon afterwards. I think your point is interesting and it speaks to a futher question: why does the OT span 1500ish years (excluding the first half of Genesis) whereas the NT spans like 50?

Again, to kind of set up my bottom line. The only real issue I have and the part I just can't seem to get my head wrapped around is the concept of unalterability. So many of these little questions could be solved just by allowing for a change through time of the understanding of God and that Jesus came along (as the central character) and answered those questions for us, so to speak.

Posted by voltaic on Friday February 12, 2010 @ 08:32am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I guess my follow on question to that would be "what do we do with half-a-book?" If there is such a significant amount missing, how can people base their lives on that and only that?

I contend that Christians shouldn't base their lives on the OT in this day and age (though that doesn't stop many from doing so, or at least picking out the parts they like). The point of Jesus is that the old stuff is gone, the new stuff is here. We still receive information from the OT, but it's just informational backfill if you will and not for us to live by per se. This is a good chunk of Paul's theology in the NT plus the book of Hebrews (which may or may not have been written by Paul).

Also, does unalterable mean you cannot take away but allow for adding to? For instance, the Bible as Canonized by the Catholics is different than the one interpreted by the Lutherans. The Dead Sea Scrolls are said to be the writings of Jesus himself. The Torah includes a bunch more than the OT. Not trying to call you out on this, but I am curious who got to decide which version is the "right" version.

My big issue isn't with the Bible itself as either a holy text (even though I haven't faith, admittedly) or as a historical document. Its the call for it to be unalterable and unquestionable. What method and reasoning did you use to choose the text (and which version/translation/canonization)?

First, some corrections. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by Jesus (some were like 200 years before his birth hehe), and I'd be curious to see even one reasonable source claiming that. Also, the Torah is only the first five books of the Christian OT, nothing more and nothing less, and I'd be curious to see any reasonable source saying otherwise. Not trying to call you out but I think that confusion like this might be part of the problem people have with how the Bible was put together.

Second, the way that the Bible was itself put together, meaning which "books" were included in the final "book", is not as remotely as controversial as many like to make it out to be, as I pointed out to Format C: above. The problem is that an archaeologist will find some fragments of a document, the document lists different books of the Bible, and all of a sudden everyone freaks out about the whole thing and how there's all this controversy in the early church and etc. Seriously, I think there were like five "books" total that were controversial to any extent; not missing from one list or another, but actually controversial. And those were all resolved by 200ish AD. I'm excluding later stuff that has come from the Vatican because their shit changes every other century and as a Protestant, I don't agree with their junk.

That's true, and the Bible never excuses or endorses those acts even if for some reason the normal punishment wasn't carried out. One thing I find compelling about the Bible (OT and NT) compared to other holy books is that the participants, while revered, are totally flawed. We get to see Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, Peter, and all the rest of them fall flat on their faces. We get to see over and over that even the best humans (in terms of our respect and reverence) are totally flawed by nature and that only through the one unique unflawed person, Jesus Christ, can we hope to be made righteous before God. Every other holy book I know of lauds the various prophets and progenitors and definitely does not spend hundreds of words talking about their fuckups.

While commendable, the question this sparks in my mind is the "why is that person or another better than the poor bastards that got turned to salt for taking a peek over their shoulder?" While I will admit I have never heard or read any passage that states all persons are created equal, it makes me wonder what hope is inspired by the knowledge that some can get away with anything, but everyone else is hosed (specifically speaking of the old testament, since thanks to Jesus, a great deal of equalizing was done). The kind of leads back to the "why bother" question concerning the old testament. Why consider it anything more than some stories of Israel's past greatly superseded by the later works.

That's just it. The Bible doesn't call these people better. There is no verse that says "Abraham was the best!" or anything in that spirit. Their failures even of their fathers/founders are documented so that the grace of their God can be shown even more. I'd also take serious exception with the "getting away with anything" contention, as the OT records quite harsh punishments of varying stripes even to David, Moses, Abraham, etc. for their fuckups. For example, Moses led the nascent Israel through the desert for 40 years and because one time... one time... he made a mistake, he was not allowed to actually enter the promised land. David's fisrt child by Bathsheeba died shortly after being born. And so on.

I may not fully understand the question. Why would a timeless god be prevented from having different administrations in different times of history? How does this challenge the concept of free will?

Nothing... that's kind of my point. Absolutely nothing we do or write could possibly change omnipotency or omniscience. Therefore, how does changing the rules over the course of history help us in becoming better, and why were the documents allowed to be changed up until the A.D.? Do we affect doctrine like Buddy Jesus, or are we tied to going about being Saved in the same vein as the Nazerenes or early Catholics? I'd love to think that it all ended with Jesus, since he did a lot of the work for everybody, but we have so many writings from after his death, that becomes moot.

It doesn't help us in becoming better. This is the message of the Bible (OT and NT). We are all flawed. None can stand before a righteous God and claim perfection.

Good question about salvation. The interesting point of Scripture is that even though various other aspects of worship or spirituality have changed over history, the means of salvation never has. It is always faith alone in Christ alone. Of course, in the OT they didn't know his name would be Jesus or something, but by believing the Messiah would save them was the same requirement. The only real difference is now we have it in the past tense: what he DID do rather than what he WOULD do.

In some sense, it did all end with Jesus. His substitutionary death on our behalf was the central even in all of history, in that it removed the barrier keeping us from having a relationship with God. This is part of the reason we don't have rituals and sacrifices as I mentioned before. Books in the NT after the Gospels are basically just recollection, teaching, and theology about the Christ, just as books in the OT are basically just prophecy, teaching, and theology pointing to the Messiah. As you say, He did all the work for everybody. The whole rest of the Bible is simply telling us why we should believe in His work and identify with it, and historical examples (before and after Him) of those who did.

Again, to kind of set up my bottom line. The only real issue I have and the part I just can't seem to get my head wrapped around is the concept of unalterability. So many of these little questions could be solved just by allowing for a change through time of the understanding of God and that Jesus came along (as the central character) and answered those questions for us, so to speak.

OK, I think I'm finally understanding what you mean. If the Bible is unalterable, how did they add writings to it over 1500 and then another 100 years? That's a fair question. Obviously it wasn't unalterable from the beginning. There's a study (which is both secular history as well as faith-based) that teaches when the Bible was still being added to and by whom. Various groups over the centuries had to decide which books were canonical and which were not. Obviously different groups had to work from different points of view and times; the criteria for which books of Israel's history to add (Kings, Chronichles, etc) are different than which of Paul's letters to include in the NT (and many didn't make it). I don't have the answer.

Posted by Caliber on Friday February 12, 2010 @ 07:49pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

This is getting long in the tooth, so please excuse the snips (I highly recommend that everyone thoroughly read volt's previous points before moving to my replies). I'm not sure if anyone else is participating or if its turning into tl;dr.

Also, I would like to say that, after proofreading, I want to emphasize that there is none of my usual sarcasm included. Please take all my comments at face value.

What method and reasoning did you use to choose the text (and which version/translation/canonization)?

Bible was put together.

Conceded on both counts. My info on some of the scrolls was hearsay and the Torah bit was including other Jewish works that I had always lumped together. Unfortunately neither point really cures my initial issue, which is and always has been the unchanging-ness law. Also, I noticed that you may have missed my last question here, so I left it unsnipped for consideration...

I don't agree with their junk.

Other than the wacky Catholics, I didn't even know there were any controversial books. So which books are now considered "The Bible?"

David's fisrt child by Bathsheeba died shortly after being born. And so on.

I guess this is my modern perception, but if there is a king, a class the king commands, slaves, and people who believers have been ordered to kill, I see that as stratifying. Also, by saying "getting away with," I would like to imply that I meant that the punishments, no matter how ugly, are rarely equal to being stoned to death. This was something you were supposed to do to your best friend if they spoke of a philosophy other than the one prescribed by... who exactly?

Moses was directly disobedient to God and he was allowed to live, in exile yes, but no rocks. Lots of kids die stillborn or die shortly after childbirth. Even more so in the past (usually taking the mother with them). Did those people order men to their death so they can sleep with their wives? I'm being purposefully harsh here because David, in particular, is one of those that I saw as more than just flawed... he was evil. Yet, he is considered a righteous man and is said to have penned at least a portion of Psalms.

We have already discussed that the OT is the out and the NT is the in, but I still find David's reverence (no matter how severe the punishments) to be antithetical to a righteous message.

Bible is simply telling us why we should believe in His work and identify with it, and historical examples (before and after Him) of those who did.

Which brings us full circle. If God (and his Trinity), are righteous, omnipotent and timeless, why bother with us? Why change the rules (assuming that all of history and the future is insignificant in the light of eternity)? We can't say that it was an experiment, or even a way to pass the time as those would be fundamentally ludicrous concepts to a perfect being (in this case, I am doing as so many do and assuming I can even begin to understand such things with my finite mind). And, since its been brought up, if we can't understand, then why try? Why are there teachings and preachers and holy work if there is simply no way we could ever come to understand such an infinite entity?

I digress. I understand we are discussing the Bible specifically, but thought I would throw that out there.

I don't have the answer.

Fair enough. And to be fair, this is a point that I often get stuck on regardless of the rational-mindedness of the fellow. It makes it difficult for both parties because I am unwillingly to proceed past this point. In affect, my mind is already made up as is the other party and further discussion usually only fuels dissent rather than actually accomplishes anything. This is, of course, why I have in recent history followed the unspoken rule between us that this subject, while not necessarily taboo, is best avoided.

Posted by voltaic on Saturday February 13, 2010 @ 09:14am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Conceded on both counts. My info on some of the scrolls was hearsay and the Torah bit was including other Jewish works that I had always lumped together. Unfortunately neither point really cures my initial issue, which is and always has been the unchanging-ness law. Also, I noticed that you may have missed my last question here, so I left it unsnipped for consideration...

Well I did address the unchanging-ness a little bit after that. As I said, there's an entire realm of study on how the OT was "finished" and why it is generally accepted that the Bible (OT + NT) is now finished. My final answer was: I don't know all the details. :)

Other than the wacky Catholics, I didn't even know there were any controversial books. So which books are now considered "The Bible?"

That's just it. Most of the controversies were back in the beginning maybe the first 300 years after Jesus (as Joe alluded to earlier). And those who were there at the time of the Apostles or who were one to two steps removed (we call them Church Fathers or Apostolic Fathers) discerned which to include and exclude. The controversies you get nowadays are by people who get their panties in a bunch when some new epistle or gospel is found and want to somehow backfill it in. We see the same thing with lost paintings and other art all the time. I mean, consider how many years and scholars it would take to add some newly discovered Shakespearean work to his official corpus; not exactly a task for the team who discovered it (cash-in) and a few blog-quality supporters.

The books that have been controversial since the beginning, though, are basically called Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books. And there are a few different ones depending on the denomination. Even certain Protestant groups have books they like to include or exclude, then the Catholics, then the Eastern Orthodox as well. Furthermore, there are plenty of letters from the era which were definitely written by early Christians but were never considered canonical by anyone but are still considered good material, either for historical or homiletic value. 1 Clement comes to mind.

To answer what books are in the Bible, just go look at a Bible from the bookstore and peep. You'll get maybe two main variations: the "Protestant" Bible and the "Catholic" Bible. (shrug)

I guess this is my modern perception, but if there is a king, a class the king commands, slaves, and people who believers have been ordered to kill, I see that as stratifying. Also, by saying "getting away with," I would like to imply that I meant that the punishments, no matter how ugly, are rarely equal to being stoned to death. This was something you were supposed to do to your best friend if they spoke of a philosophy other than the one prescribed by... who exactly?

Well hang on here, I don't know the passage that says you stone someone to death for talking about something. The passages are clearly about worshiping other gods, not talking about them. Which makes sense since the very rules in the Mosaic Law talk about them. ;)

I don't dispute that there is stratification of the population. One line of thought about the different eras of history (in terms of spiritual living, etc) is that God does not command things that are vastly different from the general social order of things. So in a world culture where tribal war, slavery, and so forth were common, God put in place rules to follow him given that paradigm. Thus, given that neighboring tribes are likely to attack you in war or socially, here's a list of rules to follow for dealing with them and if you follow me you will succeed says the Lord your God. And given that there are no refrigerators then here are the rules on what foods you can eat, and if you follow me you will prosper says the Lord your God. And given that you live in the desert and these types of disease are prevalent, here are the rules for dealing with leprosy and dead animals and hygiene, and if you follow me you will prosper says the Lord your God. And so on. We nowadays twist this around in hindsight and say that Jehovah was promoting war and slavery and debasing women and so on, but all of these things are quite easy to show examples that they are not the case.

One thing to note about the Mosaic Law is that there were various parts to it dealing with different aspect of Israeli life. Some were spiritual (and these broken down differently for priests and for the people) but most were social: hygiene, agriculture, civil and criminal law, economics, etc.

Moses was directly disobedient to God and he was allowed to live, in exile yes, but no rocks. Lots of kids die stillborn or die shortly after childbirth. Even more so in the past (usually taking the mother with them). Did those people order men to their death so they can sleep with their wives? I'm being purposefully harsh here because David, in particular, is one of those that I saw as more than just flawed... he was evil. Yet, he is considered a righteous man and is said to have penned at least a portion of Psalms.

I'm having trouble following the thought here but let me try and answer just by focusing on David. David was not a righteous man because of himself, he was declared righteous because he followed Jehovah. This is actually exactly the same as Christians today; many verses in the NT talk about how despite our continued failure to do what is right, etc., God considers us to be righteous by virtue of our identifying with His Son, Jesus Christ, who was perfectly righteous. Of course, now you're thinking paradox: how can you be righteous when you are unrighteous? This is the "struggle" if you will of a believer's life. Trying to live right even while we are still in a body of sin. We are "positionally" righteous even though we are "experientially" still flawed. This gets into more deep theology. But the point is, even though David was flawed and sinned constantly in his whole life (like all of us), he did his best in following Jehovah and so Jehovah translated that faith and desire into a righteous reckoning. All the Bible was written by unrighteous people, again this is the great difference between Christianity and other religions: none of its followers are somehow better than any others. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We have already discussed that the OT is the out and the NT is the in, but I still find David's reverence (no matter how severe the punishments) to be antithetical to a righteous message.

Maybe the message is no matter how bad of a fuckup we are, there's always a gracious and patient God waiting for us to acknowledge our need for His power and forgiveness and salvation. Maybe the message is that we don't have a righteous message of our own, but rather than one has been provided for us even though we totally fail.

Which brings us full circle. If God (and his Trinity), are righteous, omnipotent and timeless, why bother with us? Why change the rules (assuming that all of history and the future is insignificant in the light of eternity)? We can't say that it was an experiment, or even a way to pass the time as those would be fundamentally ludicrous concepts to a perfect being (in this case, I am doing as so many do and assuming I can even begin to understand such things with my finite mind). And, since its been brought up, if we can't understand, then why try? Why are there teachings and preachers and holy work if there is simply no way we could ever come to understand such an infinite entity?

Maybe you insist on understanding too much too quickly. Tackle one part at a time: say, your last sentence above. Why all the stuff? I'd submit a possible answer: because by learning about the grace and love and forgiveness of God, we do start to understand tidbits of the infinite entity. Jesus said that if we understand Him, we understand the Father. Jesus is understandable (or at least far more approachable in understanding), so maybe that's a good place to begin. And perhaps we will begin to understand small bits of why He did what He did on our behalf despite our failures. There are many theories as to why the whole thing began but in my opinion, Christianity is best started from now going backwards and not the beginning going forwards.

I digress. I understand we are discussing the Bible specifically, but thought I would throw that out there.

Fair enough. And to be fair, this is a point that I often get stuck on regardless of the rational-mindedness of the fellow. It makes it difficult for both parties because I am unwillingly to proceed past this point. In affect, my mind is already made up as is the other party and further discussion usually only fuels dissent rather than actually accomplishes anything. This is, of course, why I have in recent history followed the unspoken rule between us that this subject, while not necessarily taboo, is best avoided.

I don't mind discussing it. I think it's a good question, but I also think that it's a poor decision to disagree with a body of thought because one doesn't have detailed specific answers to every question from the get-go. ;)

Posted by Caliber on Saturday February 13, 2010 @ 10:47am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

supporters.

The difference being that these are not works that are driving the faith of nations...

See, this is my problem. This is why I avoid religious topics. When linear analysis is forced to give way to faith, I lose my capacity for objectivity. I see the same truth within those of great faith. There will come a point in a conversation where faith is necessary to conceptualize some point or another. They become frustrated because they cannot move forward without this concept being realized. Its usually better for me to just shake hands, say "good game" and be on my way.

All jokes and such aside, I really don't begrudge those of faith (regardless of their particular bent). I just don't understand it. Its like teaching calculus to a woman :)

them. ;)

Perhaps I'm taking this out of context, but it seems pretty clear to me

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." (Duet 13-5 taken from King James, verified via my hard copy Men's Study Bible)

etc.

*banging head on the wall* See brother, if they would just allow for such changes through time (as you said, based on local paradigm), or, and I know I'm treading dangerous ground, but if there was the allowed possibility that God was an extremely powerful being, but lacked such things as omnipotence, I could definitely see truth in it all.

God.

Since the righteous topic will take us into another direction which we can later discuss (suffice it to say I see your point that righteousness could possibly be defined as "believing in God," not "following God's law"), I'll stick with the issue of who penned the Bible. My question being that if we admit that the Bible was penned by flawed humans, how can we think that it is a valid tome for us to base our life on?

Actually, don't answer that. This has become a volt/cal discussion, which I specifically was hoping to avoid. I would like someone else to answer. Why do the rest of you believe the Bible is true and absolute?

fail.

Except the poor nameless bastard who is slaughtered at the river for not speaking good Hebrew. Stealth would have been fucked :)

forwards.

I see what you are saying. I can see some rationale in "case lesson" learning.

get-go. ;)

Think of theology as a bottleneck science. There comes a point where you cannot proceed without faith. It really is that simple. Once the literature, physical historical and allegorical interpretations have been done, you have to "take the leap" so to speak to continue your studies.

From your point of view (excuse me for my assumptions), this is like having the answer before reading a riddle. If you are already faithful, there is not blockage. You simply study your theology without the bottleneck. For those who are not faithful, we are forced to seek our faith in the first half of our study. If we fail, then our study is broken. To make matters worse, when we seek faith outside those studies, we are often confronted by those that already have faith and therefore do not understand what the problem is ("How could you not know the answer to such an easy riddle? Are you stupid or something?" That sort of thing). This is true of many scientific studies (if you don't believe in atoms, then studying quarks isn't going to help you much... If you can't figure out the area under the curve, then figuring out the change of the area under the curve is impossible...). This isn't to say their might not be workarounds (for instance, multiplication by adding). But sometimes, you simply need one piece of information to understand another (if you only read Greek, an English passage isn't going to go over well).

So, it isn't a "from the get-go" issue. I have been studying theology at least as long as you have. The difference is that I have reached my bottleneck, one that you didn't have to worry about. Even if you have seen crises of faith, you were likely well past your bottleneck by that point and had already experienced faith in the past.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday February 14, 2010 @ 08:03am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Quoting only one word of my previous post made it really hard to follow the thought, by the way. At least gimme a sentence or something. hehe

supporters.

The difference being that these are not works that are driving the faith of nations...

See, this is my problem. This is why I avoid religious topics. When linear analysis is forced to give way to faith, I lose my capacity for objectivity. I see the same truth within those of great faith. There will come a point in a conversation where faith is necessary to conceptualize some point or another. They become frustrated because they cannot move forward without this concept being realized. Its usually better for me to just shake hands, say "good game" and be on my way.

I am totally lost here.

All jokes and such aside, I really don't begrudge those of faith (regardless of their particular bent). I just don't understand it. Its like teaching calculus to a woman :)

Surely you have some faith. You believe that you're doing the best you can for Jaz for example. How can that be proven? It can't. But maybe you can understand that you do guide your decisions by it, by a belief, by a hope, by a faith.

them. ;)

Perhaps I'm taking this out of context, but it seems pretty clear to me

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." (Duet 13-5 taken from King James, verified via my hard copy Men's Study Bible)

Yeah it is clear. It isn't academic discussion, it is one Jew trying to actively turn another Jew from the worship of Jehovah. That's quite different from baby brought home a dolly, in my interpretation. Now, to be fair, they had "lawyers" of the Mosaic Law of the time to make determinations on things that were unclear, as I've said.

etc.

*banging head on the wall* See brother, if they would just allow for such changes through time (as you said, based on local paradigm), or, and I know I'm treading dangerous ground, but if there was the allowed possibility that God was an extremely powerful being, but lacked such things as omnipotence, I could definitely see truth in it all.

Who is the "they" that doesn't acknowledge changes over time? Except for extremely small, fringe groups (like those who claim the King James is the only inspired word and that Paul used it!) who are these people? There are something like 2 billion Protestants and Catholics in the world so I'm hoping that "they" are a group of some significant size to be swaying your opinion so mightily. And we know that the Catholic Church embraces change over time, so that's like half of it right there.

fail.

Except the poor nameless bastard who is slaughtered at the river for not speaking good Hebrew. Stealth would have been fucked :)

?

get-go. ;)

Think of theology as a bottleneck science. There comes a point where you cannot proceed without faith. It really is that simple. Once the literature, physical historical and allegorical interpretations have been done, you have to "take the leap" so to speak to continue your studies.

That is 100% correct.

From your point of view (excuse me for my assumptions), this is like having the answer before reading a riddle. If you are already faithful, there is not blockage. You simply study your theology without the bottleneck. For those who are not faithful, we are forced to seek our faith in the first half of our study. If we fail, then our study is broken. To make matters worse, when we seek faith outside those studies, we are often confronted by those that already have faith and therefore do not understand what the problem is ("How could you not know the answer to such an easy riddle? Are you stupid or something?" That sort of thing). This is true of many scientific studies (if you don't believe in atoms, then studying quarks isn't going to help you much... If you can't figure out the area under the curve, then figuring out the change of the area under the curve is impossible...). This isn't to say their might not be workarounds (for instance, multiplication by adding). But sometimes, you simply need one piece of information to understand another (if you only read Greek, an English passage isn't going to go over well).

So, it isn't a "from the get-go" issue. I have been studying theology at least as long as you have. The difference is that I have reached my bottleneck, one that you didn't have to worry about. Even if you have seen crises of faith, you were likely well past your bottleneck by that point and had already experienced faith in the past.

Well I agree with everything you said but I think we differ on certain implications. The bottleneck of faith (good name BTW) isn't a faith in the whole damn thing, faith that all of my points are cogent, etc. To frame it against a common strawman I hear: You don't have to believe that Noah built the ark to follow Jesus. You don't have to believe that the Bible should be interpreted this way or that. You don't have to believe that David was cool or not. The single point of faith is the center of the Bible: you have to believe that Jesus paid the price demanded by a holy God for the sin of all mankind through His death. This is the single point of faith that matters and there are hundreds of Bible verses (OT and NT) that say so. This is the faith (or rejection) by which we make our eternal choice. Having believed this, one has passed the bottleneck. And if it makes any difference dude, many of the things I used to believe about the Bible and Christianity (past this bottleneck) are quite changed from 10, 15, 20 years ago. heheh.

Having passed the bottleneck, all the other things open up. I'd make the analogy that it's something like differentiation/integration in calculus. Once you've got that down, almost the whole world of mathematics opens up to you.

Posted by formatc on Tuesday February 9, 2010 @ 11:30am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

So, the scripture was from Deuteronomy 13. I think it is just before or just after the X commandments.It talks about how you should kill, draw first blood, anyone in your neighborhood, or even in your family who brings in a false god into your home.

Remember that Ancient Israel was living under a theocratic government. It's not hard to see why their laws would include killing anyone who brought other gods into their "camp". Like Caliber, I'm curious what specifically brought this to your mind or why it became a topic of concern.

From my own perspective, I find the passages to be detrimental to the later Christian message that states that the bible should be taken as an unalterable document. In this case we have a story that defines the most fundamental laws of the Hebrews (the 10 commandments) that is followed almost immediately by a new set of laws that breach one of those fundamental laws. So first, is there a flaw in this interpretation, and second how do we know which rule is the one to be followed?

This, to answer Mad Arab's preceding question, is exactly why I bring it up. I have stumbled upon several contradictions throughout the bible. It was passages like these that scare me about the "infallible" types in the world. This and similar entries on other religious scriptures would seemingly keep the world in an eternal war of the "righteous." Lest these entries be conveniently overlooked, I think the message of most churches and the official canonization of certain books is completely flawed.

I wonder how long it would take for some idiot to latch on to this and use it as a defense to murder?

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @ 07:33am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

This, to answer Mad Arab's preceding question, is exactly why I bring it up. I have stumbled upon several contradictions throughout the bible. It was passages like these that scare me about the "infallible" types in the world. This and similar entries on other religious scriptures would seemingly keep the world in an eternal war of the "righteous." Lest these entries be conveniently overlooked, I think the message of most churches and the official canonization of certain books is completely flawed.

I'm interested to read the contradictions you have found. I've looked at many websites that propose many contradictions, and they usually don't take into account the things I just mentioned or they look at poor translations. There are some great examples of this: the King James Version for instance talks about the livestock in Egypt being destroyed in the plagues of Exodus, and then of course a few pages later Israel is leaving Egypt with all this livestock. WTF. Well, the answer is that the translation is poor: the word used for livestock in the one passage is different than the other, and so the author was discussing two different populations of animals (this is borne out by further uses of the two distinct words elsewhere in scripture). So in that case, that's just a bad translation.

The word is inerrant. People are not. Jesus Himself said that there would be those who claim to follow Him, but He never even knew them, in Matt 7:21-23. There's alot of the same in Jeremiah as well for some OT flavor. I totally, completely, 100% agree that most churches are quite flawed.

I wonder how long it would take for some idiot to latch on to this and use it as a defense to murder?

Already been done, dude. Check into some of these wackos who kill abortion doctors with the rationalization that they're justified in deadly force because they are saving future babies.

Posted by formatc on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @ 01:57pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

This, to answer [Voltaic's] preceding question, is exactly why I bring it up. I have stumbled upon several contradictions throughout the bible. It was passages like these that scare me about the "infallible" types in the world. This and similar entries on other religious scriptures would seemingly keep the world in an eternal war of the "righteous." Lest these entries be conveniently overlooked, I think the message of most churches and the official canonization of certain books is completely flawed.

I'm interested to read the contradictions you have found. I've looked at many websites that propose many contradictions, and they usually don't take into account the things I just mentioned or they look at poor translations. There are some great examples of this: the King James Version for instance talks about the livestock in Egypt being destroyed in the plagues of Exodus, and then of course a few pages later Israel is leaving Egypt with all this livestock. WTF. Well, the answer is that the translation is poor: the word used for livestock in the one passage is different than the other, and so the author was discussing two different populations of animals (this is borne out by further uses of the two distinct words elsewhere in scripture). So in that case, that's just a bad translation.

As a less-than-biblical-scholar, this is what I am talking about. I read from a single translation (usually either KJV, NKJV, or NIV), and see these contradictions. The whole Ten Commandments thing, especially regarding Kill, I agree should be contextualized as Murder. My guess is you hit the nail on the head. FWIW, I concede my ignorance.

Here is something to ponder. The commandment about not using/taking/invoking the Lord's name in vane, what name? God? The Lord? YHWH? Addonai? My guess, to the letter of the law, it would be actually pronouncing YHWH.

The word is inerrant. People are not. Jesus Himself said that there would be those who claim to follow Him, but He never even knew them, in Matt 7:21-23. There's alot of the same in Jeremiah as well for some OT flavor. I totally, completely, 100% agree that most churches are quite flawed.

Which word? The edited, translated, canonized version from the Council of Nicea? The Gospels that were possibly penned by some speculation some 300 years after the deaths of the Apostles they are about? It is difficult to argue if the original Word is inerrant. It would seem easy to believe the Word contained in the Bible we buy today may have a flaw or two.

I'd like to find a church led by a biblical scholar. However, it seems biblical scholars are in short supply in the local clergy in "my neck of the woods."

Posted by voltaic on Thursday February 11, 2010 @ 08:19am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm interested to read the contradictions you have found. I've looked at many websites that propose many contradictions, and they usually don't take into account the things I just mentioned or they look at poor translations. There are some great examples of this: the King James Version for instance talks about the livestock in Egypt being destroyed in the plagues of Exodus, and then of course a few pages later Israel is leaving Egypt with all this livestock. WTF. Well, the answer is that the translation is poor: the word used for livestock in the one passage is different than the other, and so the author was discussing two different populations of animals (this is borne out by further uses of the two distinct words elsewhere in scripture). So in that case, that's just a bad translation.

As a less-than-biblical-scholar, this is what I am talking about. I read from a single translation (usually either KJV, NKJV, or NIV), and see these contradictions. The whole Ten Commandments thing, especially regarding Kill, I agree should be contextualized as Murder. My guess is you hit the nail on the head. FWIW, I concede my ignorance.

Well there's no need to be self-deprecating about it. Most people out there who disagree with something will take the easiest path to illustrating why they disagree with it. I mean political discourse is rife with this. The same thing happens, really, with religious discourse. Find ten websites* with lists of problems with religion X, and I will bet you a buck that eight of those ten basically copy and paste from each other. I mean this to include any religion as well, so anti-Islam sites are as guity as anti-Christian ones.

* There's a joke here about how assuming websites are good sources is, itself, a form of intellectual laziness. heh. But it is, without a doubt, a good way to begin.

For further irony, note that vituperative defenders also generally base their own thoughts on a similar lack of investigation. So when I tell a bunch of people that Islam is, according to the Koran, a religion of hatred, all the white-bread politically correct mofos who have jumped on the 9/11-backlash-backlash bandwagon come in to tell me why it's a religion of peace and just because group X does this doesn't characterize the whole. I then provide for them multiple quotes as translated by Arab Muslims and these same people who were so quick to defend something they don't understand even on the surface then have to resort to "well that's not how you interpret it". So now someone who doesn't follow a religion and in fact doesn't even know what its holy book says is going to educate me on interpreting the plain language? Yeah.

And it's the same in reverse. When I tell some nominative Christians why I disagree with some political position, I get called out as I dunno, a fag lover or kowtowing to evolution or something which to them is the worst insult they can think of. But then I give them (in some cases, dozens!) scriptures showing what Jesus and His followers said and did and believed, and they bust out some contrived interpretation of a single line in Hosea or another book in the OT which not only ignores context, etc. as we discussed above, but manages to somehow "override" the plain reading of multiple scriptures that clearly and contextually apply to people who claim to follow Jesus today.

</rant> OK clearly I'm airing some issues I have with others. Hopefully those really long sentences aren't too confusing.

Here is something to ponder. The commandment about not using/taking/invoking the Lord's name in vane, what name? God? The Lord? YHWH? Addonai? My guess, to the letter of the law, it would be actually pronouncing YHWH.

What does "taking a name in vain" actually mean? Swearing an oath? Cussing? Let me blow your mind further, friend. I did not come up with this, but it's awesome. When someone gets married, we say that the wife "takes the name of" her husband, identifying with him by changing her last name. So there's another question: maybe all the swearing and cussing stuff is a wholly unrelated red herring, and the commandment meant don't call yourself a Jew (Christian) unless you actually are one!

But getting back to your question, that's a good question. What was "the God of the Old Testament" called before Moses? He was called "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (presumably He was called something else before those three). Moses asked God what is His name, and God said "I AM". And yeah, add in your words: Jehovah/YHWH, Adonia, etc. Which ones are titles instead of quote-unquote "names"? Consider this: what was Jesus' name? Well clearly his first name (as we would say) is Jesus. How would the people of the day referred to him? Probably Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph. What is the word "Christ"? Well, it's the greek form of the Hebrew Messiah, so it's a title; but it later became part of His name: Jesus Christ, kind of like how we would say Dr. Smith. And what about Lord? Also a title, sometimes included with his name: Lord Jesus Christ. Sometimes just Lord Jesus. Sometimes just Christ. Etc.

You guys have some great things to ponder. I submit to you that these thoughts are just the beginning of the length, and breadth, and depth of the knowledge of God.

Which word? The edited, translated, canonized version from the Council of Nicea? The Gospels that were possibly penned by some speculation some 300 years after the deaths of the Apostles they are about? It is difficult to argue if the original Word is inerrant. It would seem easy to believe the Word contained in the Bible we buy today may have a flaw or two.

The Council of Nicea really didn't have much to do with the canonization of the Bible. Keeping in mind that for the first 100 years or so, most of the "books" of the NT were circulated as individual letters or essays and weren't really compiled together until later. However your information on the Gospels (for instance) is way off bro, by about 250 years. There are multiple sources who talk about the various episltes and gospels well before 350AD (approx 300 years after Apostels started dying off), as well as a damn fine list of extant works. You should check out the FuckWiki list here just to see how much has survived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_papyrus

I'd like to find a church led by a biblical scholar. However, it seems biblical scholars are in short supply in the local clergy in "my neck of the woods."

Where do you live again?

Posted by formatc on Friday February 12, 2010 @ 10:11am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

For further irony, note that vituperative defenders also generally base their own thoughts on a similar lack of investigation. So when I tell a bunch of people that Islam is, according to the Koran, a religion of hatred, all the white-bread politically correct mofos who have jumped on the 9/11-backlash-backlash bandwagon come in to tell me why it's a religion of peace and just because group X does this doesn't characterize the whole. I then provide for them multiple quotes as translated by Arab Muslims and these same people who were so quick to defend something they don't understand even on the surface then have to resort to "well that's not how you interpret it". So now someone who doesn't follow a religion and in fact doesn't even know what its holy book says is going to educate me on interpreting the plain language? Yeah.

And it's the same in reverse. When I tell some nominative Christians why I disagree with some political position, I get called out as I dunno, a fag lover or kowtowing to evolution or something which to them is the worst insult they can think of. But then I give them (in some cases, dozens!) scriptures showing what Jesus and His followers said and did and believed, and they bust out some contrived interpretation of a single line in Hosea or another book in the OT which not only ignores context, etc. as we discussed above, but manages to somehow "override" the plain reading of multiple scriptures that clearly and contextually apply to people who claim to follow Jesus today.

I live in this hell you describe (no pun intended).

Here is something to ponder. The commandment about not using/taking/invoking the Lord's name in vane, what name? God? The Lord? YHWH? Addonai? My guess, to the letter of the law, it would be actually pronouncing YHWH.

What does "taking a name in vain" actually mean? Swearing an oath? Cussing? Let me blow your mind further, friend. I did not come up with this, but it's awesome. When someone gets married, we say that the wife "takes the name of" her husband, identifying with him by changing her last name. So there's another question: maybe all the swearing and cussing stuff is a wholly unrelated red herring, and the commandment meant don't call yourself a Jew (Christian) unless you actually are one!

According to Jewish Mysticism (as little as I know about it), invoking the true name of God by pronouncing it is said to, well, "do stuff." To do so in vain would be like dialing 911 because you cannot get the lid off a jar of pickles. (I have fun with my metaphors)

But getting back to your question, that's a good question. What was "the God of the Old Testament" called before Moses? He was called "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (presumably He was called something else before those three). Moses asked God what is His name, and God said "I AM". And yeah, add in your words: Jehovah/YHWH, Adonia, etc. Which ones are titles instead of quote-unquote "names"? Consider this: what was Jesus' name? Well clearly his first name (as we would say) is Jesus. How would the people of the day referred to him? Probably Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph. What is the word "Christ"? Well, it's the greek form of the Hebrew Messiah, so it's a title; but it later became part of His name: Jesus Christ, kind of like how we would say Dr. Smith. And what about Lord? Also a title, sometimes included with his name: Lord Jesus Christ. Sometimes just Lord Jesus. Sometimes just Christ. Etc.

I was under the impression that his "given" name was/pronounced Yeshua, a late Aramaic pronunciation. Jesus was the latin translation. After some very brief research, it seems no one really knows because of the many languages spoken in the area at the time.

You guys have some great things to ponder. I submit to you that these thoughts are just the beginning of the length, and breadth, and depth of the knowledge of God.

Which word? The edited, translated, canonized version from the Council of Nicea? The Gospels that were possibly penned by some speculation some 300 years after the deaths of the Apostles they are about? It is difficult to argue if the original Word is inerrant. It would seem easy to believe the Word contained in the Bible we buy today may have a flaw or two.

The Council of Nicea really didn't have much to do with the canonization of the Bible. Keeping in mind that for the first 100 years or so, most of the "books" of the NT were circulated as individual letters or essays and weren't really compiled together until later. However your information on the Gospels (for instance) is way off bro, by about 250 years. There are multiple sources who talk about the various episltes and gospels well before 350AD (approx 300 years after Apostels started dying off), as well as a damn fine list of extant works. You should check out the FuckWiki list here just to see how much has survived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_papyrus

I'd like to find a church led by a biblical scholar. However, it seems biblical scholars are in short supply in the local clergy in "my neck of the woods."

Where do you live again?

Springfield, MO.

Posted by voltaic on Saturday February 13, 2010 @ 09:32am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I live in this hell you describe (no pun intended).

Me too, man.

According to Jewish Mysticism (as little as I know about it), invoking the true name of God by pronouncing it is said to, well, "do stuff." To do so in vain would be like dialing 911 because you cannot get the lid off a jar of pickles. (I have fun with my metaphors)

In my view, that's assigning too much importance to the thing rather than the representative concept. Kind of like Nehushtan.

I was under the impression that his "given" name was/pronounced Yeshua, a late Aramaic pronunciation. Jesus was the latin translation. After some very brief research, it seems no one really knows because of the many languages spoken in the area at the time.

Well that's just bickering over native speakers. I mean is the name pronounced Peter (English) or Pyotr (Russian)? Big effing deal. heheh.

Springfield, MO.

I don't have any links to anyone in the area but I will look further. Turns out I have a few in Arkansas though! heh.

Posted by Stealth on Tuesday February 9, 2010 @ 03:54pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

This, to answer Mad Arab's preceding question

Where is this? Did some things get deleted?

Posted by MadArab on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @ 05:37am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

This, to answer Mad Arab's preceding question

Where is this? Did some things get deleted?

That's what I was saying... since I've been away in middle Florida for the past week away from the world. So happy to be home... now down to some reading.

Posted by formatc on Tuesday February 9, 2010 @ 04:54pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

This, to answer Mad Arab's preceding question

Where is this? Did some things get deleted?

Actually, no. Screw up on my part. The question was actually posed by Voltaic. Oops.

Posted by Caliber on Tuesday February 9, 2010 @ 02:52pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I wonder how long it would take for some idiot to latch on to this and use it as a defense to murder?

I want to wait on volt before I make any assumptions, but I do want to answer this question for you. Apparently in cases of "doctor killings," legitimate lawyers have used biblical passages as a defense for the killers. I did a quick search and found some information about the Dr. Tiller murder, but didn't dig too deep. I figure to answer your question, which is most certainly rhetorical, I only needed to find one hard example.

I will say this. Much like the anti-homosexual & pro-slavery passages in Leviticus, there is a historical context that is left out in the majority of arguments. Unfortunately, the entire document is at least several hundred years old (for the Catholic "insertions") to a couple thousand for legitimate compilations. So where is the line drawn on what applies now and what applied then?

Posted by Krux on Thursday February 4, 2010 @ 10:46am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Hey dude, I am right there with you on some of the hows and whys of your deletion plans, but was curious if you would be interested in continuing the conversation here. I'm actually quite interested in what volt's comments, as he dropped the hint that he had something to say. Besides that, this is one of the few places where we can talk about shit like this without having someone go psycho nutbag about it... except maybe krux... because of his mormon roots and all

Well that's only because the Mormons let you sleep with multiple chicks at once. Have you seen Big Love?

Posted by unicron on Thursday February 4, 2010 @ 12:02pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Well that's only because the Mormons let you sleep with multiple chicks at once. Have you seen Big Love?

The sluttiest chicks I've ever known were Mormons.

Posted by Ghostalker on Monday February 8, 2010 @ 10:20am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The sluttiest chicks I've ever known were Mormons.

I cant believe I'm saying this.... Agreed. Although I suspect you may have added an extra "m" .

Posted by Krux on Monday February 8, 2010 @ 12:00pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +1  

 

 

]

The sluttiest chicks I've ever known were Mormons.

I cant believe I'm saying this.... Agreed. Although I suspect you may have added an extra "m" .

Dude, the Ormons are freaky in bed. Though you do have to deal with their wanting to sacrifice young virgin girls to Cthulhu.