airdweller 0 #101 September 16, 2004 It's amazing how a troll can garner such a response.------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #102 September 16, 2004 Quote10. What is the punishment for someone who anoints a stranger with holy oil? (They are to be banished from the community.) “This shall be an [sic] holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations. . . . Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:31-33). QuoteNew International Version (NIV) Say to the Israelites, This is to be my sacred anointing oil for the generations to come. Do not pour it on men’s bodies and do not make any oil with the same formula. It is sacred, and you are to consider it sacred. Whoever puts it on anyone other than a priest must be cut off from his people. Exodus 30:31-33 Well, this particular brand of anointing oil was declared holy by God and he set some rules concerning it. As a child, you’d probably get really mad at me for sending you away to your room if I told you not to give your not do something and you did it anyway. Come on. It’s pretty straightforward. It sounds like the guy who wrote this top 10 list was getting tired and was stretching towards the end just to get the numbers. It was entertaining, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #103 September 16, 2004 QuoteI scanned it, and it doesn't condone carpet bombing, cluster bombing, or any other kind of civilian casualty inducing behaviour that Christian nations regularly participate in. Also, its quoting people, not God. God just said "Thou shalt not kill/murder" which is free from all the if's and but's which men seem to have subsequently appened which make the rule so much more flexible as to be nothing like the original statement. You mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #104 September 16, 2004 depends on which translation you're reading. the oldest texts use a word closest to murder rather than kill, which is different.*** The first "written" Bible (old testament) was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The first New Testament was in Koine Greek. It later got translated into Latin, then from latin to many modern languages. How anyone can claim that the version they are reading is TEXTUALLY ACCURATE when compared to the original document (which prior to being written was passed along orally) is beyond me. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language knows how some words can be mis-translated and mis-interpretated. Following the Bible to the letter certainly does not mean following the teaching of the original documents. At best, it means following one person's interpretation of them, that person being the one translating/writting/publishing it. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #105 September 16, 2004 QuoteAlso, its quoting people, not God. God just said "Thou shalt not kill/murder" which is free from all the if's and but's which men seem to have subsequently appened which make the rule so much more flexible as to be nothing like the original statement. You’re right. It is pretty clear cut in that “murder” is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #106 September 16, 2004 Quotedepends on which translation you're reading. the oldest texts use a word closest to murder rather than kill, which is different.*** The first "written" Bible (old testament) was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The first New Testament was in Koine Greek. It later got translated into Latin, then from latin to many modern languages. How anyone can claim that the version they are reading is TEXTUALLY ACCURATE when compared to the original document (which prior to being written was passed along orally) is beyond me. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language knows how some words can be mis-translated and mis-interpretated. Following the Bible to the letter certainly does not mean following the teaching of the original documents. At best, it means following one person's interpretation of them, that person being the one translating/writting/publishing it. Do your homework and you'll see. Seriously. I'd suggest a discussion thread from a while back called "Religious Based Intollerance" for some good information on the subject of reliability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peregrinerose 0 #107 September 16, 2004 QuoteYou mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? Does the winner really matter? Or the ethics? What about the constant barrage of napalm in Japan during ww2? More Japanese died that way than by Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. We won, our country's ass was saved, but those that were killed were primarily women and children, the innocents. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Luv2Fall 0 #108 September 16, 2004 "Premediated Murder" .......you are correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #109 September 16, 2004 QuoteDoes the winner really matter? Or the ethics? What about the constant barrage of napalm in Japan during ww2? More Japanese died that way than by Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. We won, our country's ass was saved, but those that were killed were primarily women and children, the innocents. No. You're right. I just threw that out there. There are ethics even in war. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if we were right in those instances and keep trying to make the best decisions we can in regard to what's Biblically sound. Motive is the key, IMO in reference to whether it is considered "murder" or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kaerock 1 #110 September 16, 2004 As the victims of war usually are the innocents. Wars are used by ruling elites to resolve disputes, at the expense of their population. Justifying it as religious mandate or mandated by god or some such is generally used to 'convince' the masses, those who would actually die for these disputes. -R QuoteQuoteYou mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? Does the winner really matter? Or the ethics? What about the constant barrage of napalm in Japan during ww2? More Japanese died that way than by Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. We won, our country's ass was saved, but those that were killed were primarily women and children, the innocents. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peregrinerose 0 #111 September 16, 2004 I read the entire rules of engagement thing and found it frighteningly warped. In a lot of ways. Using facts to support the arguement, by twisting things around. I'm definitely open to arguements along these lines, but I also want objective information, not taking history and geography and economics and bending the facts to fit the arguement. I detest the 'might is right' arguement that prevades this text. It used any way it could to justify US wars, and justify the winner of any war. History is written by the winners and is seldom the total facts. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #112 September 16, 2004 I'd suggest a discussion thread from a while back called "Religious Based Intollerance" for some good information on the subject of reliability.*** If I remember correctly, the thread addressed the issue of how much time lapsed between events happening and them being recorded in writing. I am alluding to the fact that the English Bible, which had to go through at least 2 layers of translation, is more than likely inaccurate compared to the original document. I would even venture in saying that the English Bible is different than the Spanish and French one. Although supposed to be the same "Book". Which makes its textual value questionable. I am not judging its spiritual value. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peregrinerose 0 #113 September 16, 2004 QuoteNo. You're right. I just threw that out there. There are ethics even in war. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if we were right in those instances and keep trying to make the best decisions we can in regard to what's Biblically sound. Motive is the key, IMO in reference to whether it is considered "murder" or not. Hey, I'm marking today on the calendar. Paj just said I was right about something!!! Napalm was blatant murder. There was no one of consequence killed. Those that ordered the attacks at the time and the pilots that flew the missions knew it. The problem was not with the Japanese, it was with the emperor dude at the time who was seriously messed up in the head. I read a lot of history, and some of the things done in the name of war, by people of all faiths, is truly disgusting. Christian rules of engagement are happy thoughs, but never practiced. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #114 September 16, 2004 QuoteYou mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? To be honest, I wasn't thinking that far back, but you're right. The defence at the time was that the end justified the means. I'm sure Churchill & co. believed that they had God on their side yet they were blatantly breaking a straight forward rule, as others have done many times since. If Christians can justify the Crusades, the Inquisition, the extermination of the Jews, the burning of Coventry and Dresden, Hiroshima, Vietnam & Iraq, then it seems there is very little that can't be deemed as OK in the eyes of God. I'm not sure I understand how executing murderers is ok either when locking them up would be self-defence enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kaerock 1 #115 September 16, 2004 It wasn't so much that he thought he had god on his side, it was that he said god was on his side to enlist the support of those that would actually be dying in the war, the poor and un-educated (generally the most religious demographic). This is a common M.O. of world leaders to organize their minions to carry out their agendas. -R Quote I'm sure Churchill & co. believed that they had God on their side yet they were blatantly breaking a straight forward rule, as others have done many times since. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #116 September 16, 2004 Quotethe poor and un-educated (generally the most religious demographic). Got anything to back up this? Sounds like the same crap the liberals push in reference to their supposed intellectual superiority and the republican's general ignorance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #117 September 16, 2004 If the percentages in this article are correct and I'm not declaring that they are, Evangelical Christians make up 46% of all Americans (at least what they associate themselves to be). That would be an extremely high percentage of poor and uneducated folks. God in the Newsroom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #118 September 16, 2004 QuoteIf I remember correctly, the thread addressed the issue of how much time lapsed between events happening and them being recorded in writing. I am alluding to the fact that the English Bible, which had to go through at least 2 layers of translation, is more than likely inaccurate compared to the original document. I would even venture in saying that the English Bible is different than the Spanish and French one. Although supposed to be the same "Book". Which makes its textual value questionable. I am not judging its spiritual value. I never said that there weren't inaccuracies that have crept into the text over the years or during the translations. However, I'd challenge you to compare them and find any discrepancies that challenge the core teachings of the Christian faith in any way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #119 September 16, 2004 Quote"Premediated Murder" .......you are correct. Abortion thread?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #120 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Premediated Murder" .......you are correct. Abortion thread? OUCH!!! That would hurt... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #121 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuotedepends on which translation you're reading. the oldest texts use a word closest to murder rather than kill, which is different.*** The first "written" Bible (old testament) was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The first New Testament was in Koine Greek. It later got translated into Latin, then from latin to many modern languages. How anyone can claim that the version they are reading is TEXTUALLY ACCURATE when compared to the original document (which prior to being written was passed along orally) is beyond me. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language knows how some words can be mis-translated and mis-interpretated. Following the Bible to the letter certainly does not mean following the teaching of the original documents. At best, it means following one person's interpretation of them, that person being the one translating/writting/publishing it. Do your homework and you'll see. Seriously. I'd suggest a discussion thread from a while back called "Religious Based Intollerance" for some good information on the subject of reliability. i still challenge you to find a single modern translation that puts the word 'poisoner' where it should be instead of 'witch' translation is greatly subject to interpretation. In fact there are alternative translations to many of the old testament books that imply there ARE multiple, separate ‘gods’ inherent in the Jewish (and therefore also the later Christian) religion. They are however completely denied by scholars in both religions because accepting that interpretation would undermine the modern belief system entirely. it would be lovely if someday a secular translator were to publish a version of the bible without the inherent 'faith' that the current translators have, but that would be quite a long endeavor simply to show that another religion (than the one you believe) has completely biased the translation of their texts towards their faith. i wish I knew how to get in touch with my friend Ahmed from college. In nearly every single study in the OT/NT religious survey courses and the later theology courses we took together, he would bring out inherient flaws in the 'accepted' translations we were looking at that completely affected the meaning... It got to the point where the professors would have to preface every study with "I know Ahmed, but we must look at the text 'as given', in this class" simply because you accept a translation as valid, in no way means it is the only one or even the most correct, particularly with text is translated with the INTENT to conform to a thought or belief system.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #122 September 16, 2004 Quotei still challenge you to find a single modern translation that puts the word 'poisoner' where it should be instead of 'witch' How would a mistranslation like that affect basic Christian doctrine? Basic Christian Doctrine Quotetranslation is greatly subject to interpretation. In fact there are alternative translations to many of the old testament books that imply there ARE multiple, separate ‘gods’ inherent in the Jewish (and therefore also the later Christian) religion. I don’t doubt that translation is subject to interpretation. That’s why I feel more comfortable going with what the “majority” of the experts say instead of those on the fringe. There’s also the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that makes the case against the Trinity. I wouldn’t put much clout in that either. QuoteThey are however completely denied by scholars in both religions because accepting that interpretation would undermine the modern belief system entirely. it would be lovely if someday a secular translator were to publish a version of the bible without the inherent 'faith' that the current translators have, but that would be quite a long endeavor simply to show that another religion (than the one you believe) has completely biased the translation of their texts towards their faith. You’re guessing at their motive by saying they wouldn’t accept something because it would undermine their established faith. You don’t know that. I also don’t believe it. This has got to be the most scrutinized thing in history. Everybody is watching everybody else to make sure that it is kept accurate. I dare say it’s always been that way. Quotesimply because you accept a translation as valid, in no way means it is the only one or even the most correct, I never said that my New International Version (NIV) is the one and only or the most correct. As a matter of fact, I think there are other ones that more accurately depict the intended “flavor” of what is trying to be said. Mine is just a bit easier for me to understand. It all goes back to the “roadmap” thing. If one doesn’t work for you, put it down and get another one. Quoteparticularly with text is translated with the INTENT to conform to a thought or belief system. Again, you’re guessing on motive. Conspiracy theory stuff. Gotta go for a while. Later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #123 September 16, 2004 QuoteYou’re guessing at their motive by saying they wouldn’t accept something because it would undermine their established faith QuoteThere’s also the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that makes the case against the Trinity. I wouldn’t put much clout in that either. right here you are doing it, denying a translation because it disagrees with your belief system. Quote This has got to be the most scrutinized thing in history. Everybody is watching everybody else to make sure that it is kept accurate. I dare say it’s always been that way. Quoteparticularly with text is translated with the INTENT to conform to a thought or belief system. find me one translation made solely by secular scholars (non believers) but it's not 'conspiracy theory' at all. Everything you read, see or perceive is filtered through your belief system. It is impossible for a believer to translate a text without that belief system affecting their thought process. The intent is implicit in the nature of the translators. (believers) In fact in the case of the NT, all writings that do/did not agree with what is accepted as the 'teachings of Christ' have been intentionally omitted. You dont see them at all!! This also applies to the canonization process the OT went through when the books were combined. This was deliberate action on the part of the church (believers) to create a document that agreed with their faith and the institution they were creating.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut did we ever hear from the people who, because of their infallible god and religion, kept insisting the world would end then, after the world didn't end? Did they come out and finally admit, "Well, the non-ending of the world despite our 'God's word' that it would end then does actually prove our religion to be baseless"? Actually the bible states that nobody, not even Christ knows the time when the end will occur. Those that claim to know are getting that information not by the words in the bible, but by their own twisted interpretations. Whether or not the date of the end falls in line with these interpretations neither proves nor disproves this religion. Here's another part of the problem: According to WHOM does the "bible state" that nobody, not even Christ, knows the time when the end will occur? See, YOU claim that in YOUR interpretation of the bible, it's not known. But how does that account for the scads of people who CLAIM that based on THEIR bible, they KNOW when it is, and they even make predictions of certain YEARS or certain DATES?! SEE?? I think it is FOOLISH to go believing in all this shit when it's so CLEARLY a bunch of "whatever I want to say is so is so" crap! You can't have so many people all claiming to be right, and all disagreeing with each other, and say that this is a valid system of belief based on TRUTH from GOD. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #125 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Are you prepared for your opinion of your friend to change, once you become more aware of what it is he believes?" QuoteWhat good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36 What good is it to gain lots of friends, money, and power at the expense of your own soul? How important are material things and shallow acquaintances in the long term? If he/she is going to be a true friend, he/she will accept you for who you are and will be tolerant of what you believe. My Dad told me when I was young that, when I grew up, I should be able to count the number of "true friends" that I had on one hand. Of course, I didn't believe him at the time but he was right! This has nothing to do with what I was asking. You've turned it around, apparently, and are looking at it from the point of view of the friend who is sharing a look at his faith, not from the poster's point of view. I was asking the poster if he is prepared to lose respect for the friend if he comes to feel that the friend is believing in a bunch of hooey religious crap! Pay attention! -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
pajarito 0 #103 September 16, 2004 QuoteI scanned it, and it doesn't condone carpet bombing, cluster bombing, or any other kind of civilian casualty inducing behaviour that Christian nations regularly participate in. Also, its quoting people, not God. God just said "Thou shalt not kill/murder" which is free from all the if's and but's which men seem to have subsequently appened which make the rule so much more flexible as to be nothing like the original statement. You mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #104 September 16, 2004 depends on which translation you're reading. the oldest texts use a word closest to murder rather than kill, which is different.*** The first "written" Bible (old testament) was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The first New Testament was in Koine Greek. It later got translated into Latin, then from latin to many modern languages. How anyone can claim that the version they are reading is TEXTUALLY ACCURATE when compared to the original document (which prior to being written was passed along orally) is beyond me. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language knows how some words can be mis-translated and mis-interpretated. Following the Bible to the letter certainly does not mean following the teaching of the original documents. At best, it means following one person's interpretation of them, that person being the one translating/writting/publishing it. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #105 September 16, 2004 QuoteAlso, its quoting people, not God. God just said "Thou shalt not kill/murder" which is free from all the if's and but's which men seem to have subsequently appened which make the rule so much more flexible as to be nothing like the original statement. You’re right. It is pretty clear cut in that “murder” is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #106 September 16, 2004 Quotedepends on which translation you're reading. the oldest texts use a word closest to murder rather than kill, which is different.*** The first "written" Bible (old testament) was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The first New Testament was in Koine Greek. It later got translated into Latin, then from latin to many modern languages. How anyone can claim that the version they are reading is TEXTUALLY ACCURATE when compared to the original document (which prior to being written was passed along orally) is beyond me. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language knows how some words can be mis-translated and mis-interpretated. Following the Bible to the letter certainly does not mean following the teaching of the original documents. At best, it means following one person's interpretation of them, that person being the one translating/writting/publishing it. Do your homework and you'll see. Seriously. I'd suggest a discussion thread from a while back called "Religious Based Intollerance" for some good information on the subject of reliability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #107 September 16, 2004 QuoteYou mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? Does the winner really matter? Or the ethics? What about the constant barrage of napalm in Japan during ww2? More Japanese died that way than by Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. We won, our country's ass was saved, but those that were killed were primarily women and children, the innocents. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luv2Fall 0 #108 September 16, 2004 "Premediated Murder" .......you are correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #109 September 16, 2004 QuoteDoes the winner really matter? Or the ethics? What about the constant barrage of napalm in Japan during ww2? More Japanese died that way than by Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. We won, our country's ass was saved, but those that were killed were primarily women and children, the innocents. No. You're right. I just threw that out there. There are ethics even in war. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if we were right in those instances and keep trying to make the best decisions we can in regard to what's Biblically sound. Motive is the key, IMO in reference to whether it is considered "murder" or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kaerock 1 #110 September 16, 2004 As the victims of war usually are the innocents. Wars are used by ruling elites to resolve disputes, at the expense of their population. Justifying it as religious mandate or mandated by god or some such is generally used to 'convince' the masses, those who would actually die for these disputes. -R QuoteQuoteYou mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? Does the winner really matter? Or the ethics? What about the constant barrage of napalm in Japan during ww2? More Japanese died that way than by Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. We won, our country's ass was saved, but those that were killed were primarily women and children, the innocents. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #111 September 16, 2004 I read the entire rules of engagement thing and found it frighteningly warped. In a lot of ways. Using facts to support the arguement, by twisting things around. I'm definitely open to arguements along these lines, but I also want objective information, not taking history and geography and economics and bending the facts to fit the arguement. I detest the 'might is right' arguement that prevades this text. It used any way it could to justify US wars, and justify the winner of any war. History is written by the winners and is seldom the total facts. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #112 September 16, 2004 I'd suggest a discussion thread from a while back called "Religious Based Intollerance" for some good information on the subject of reliability.*** If I remember correctly, the thread addressed the issue of how much time lapsed between events happening and them being recorded in writing. I am alluding to the fact that the English Bible, which had to go through at least 2 layers of translation, is more than likely inaccurate compared to the original document. I would even venture in saying that the English Bible is different than the Spanish and French one. Although supposed to be the same "Book". Which makes its textual value questionable. I am not judging its spiritual value. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #113 September 16, 2004 QuoteNo. You're right. I just threw that out there. There are ethics even in war. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if we were right in those instances and keep trying to make the best decisions we can in regard to what's Biblically sound. Motive is the key, IMO in reference to whether it is considered "murder" or not. Hey, I'm marking today on the calendar. Paj just said I was right about something!!! Napalm was blatant murder. There was no one of consequence killed. Those that ordered the attacks at the time and the pilots that flew the missions knew it. The problem was not with the Japanese, it was with the emperor dude at the time who was seriously messed up in the head. I read a lot of history, and some of the things done in the name of war, by people of all faiths, is truly disgusting. Christian rules of engagement are happy thoughs, but never practiced. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #114 September 16, 2004 QuoteYou mean the same type of carpet bombing that proved effective in defeating the Nazis and saving your country's ass? To be honest, I wasn't thinking that far back, but you're right. The defence at the time was that the end justified the means. I'm sure Churchill & co. believed that they had God on their side yet they were blatantly breaking a straight forward rule, as others have done many times since. If Christians can justify the Crusades, the Inquisition, the extermination of the Jews, the burning of Coventry and Dresden, Hiroshima, Vietnam & Iraq, then it seems there is very little that can't be deemed as OK in the eyes of God. I'm not sure I understand how executing murderers is ok either when locking them up would be self-defence enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kaerock 1 #115 September 16, 2004 It wasn't so much that he thought he had god on his side, it was that he said god was on his side to enlist the support of those that would actually be dying in the war, the poor and un-educated (generally the most religious demographic). This is a common M.O. of world leaders to organize their minions to carry out their agendas. -R Quote I'm sure Churchill & co. believed that they had God on their side yet they were blatantly breaking a straight forward rule, as others have done many times since. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #116 September 16, 2004 Quotethe poor and un-educated (generally the most religious demographic). Got anything to back up this? Sounds like the same crap the liberals push in reference to their supposed intellectual superiority and the republican's general ignorance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #117 September 16, 2004 If the percentages in this article are correct and I'm not declaring that they are, Evangelical Christians make up 46% of all Americans (at least what they associate themselves to be). That would be an extremely high percentage of poor and uneducated folks. God in the Newsroom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #118 September 16, 2004 QuoteIf I remember correctly, the thread addressed the issue of how much time lapsed between events happening and them being recorded in writing. I am alluding to the fact that the English Bible, which had to go through at least 2 layers of translation, is more than likely inaccurate compared to the original document. I would even venture in saying that the English Bible is different than the Spanish and French one. Although supposed to be the same "Book". Which makes its textual value questionable. I am not judging its spiritual value. I never said that there weren't inaccuracies that have crept into the text over the years or during the translations. However, I'd challenge you to compare them and find any discrepancies that challenge the core teachings of the Christian faith in any way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #119 September 16, 2004 Quote"Premediated Murder" .......you are correct. Abortion thread?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #120 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Premediated Murder" .......you are correct. Abortion thread? OUCH!!! That would hurt... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #121 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuotedepends on which translation you're reading. the oldest texts use a word closest to murder rather than kill, which is different.*** The first "written" Bible (old testament) was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The first New Testament was in Koine Greek. It later got translated into Latin, then from latin to many modern languages. How anyone can claim that the version they are reading is TEXTUALLY ACCURATE when compared to the original document (which prior to being written was passed along orally) is beyond me. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language knows how some words can be mis-translated and mis-interpretated. Following the Bible to the letter certainly does not mean following the teaching of the original documents. At best, it means following one person's interpretation of them, that person being the one translating/writting/publishing it. Do your homework and you'll see. Seriously. I'd suggest a discussion thread from a while back called "Religious Based Intollerance" for some good information on the subject of reliability. i still challenge you to find a single modern translation that puts the word 'poisoner' where it should be instead of 'witch' translation is greatly subject to interpretation. In fact there are alternative translations to many of the old testament books that imply there ARE multiple, separate ‘gods’ inherent in the Jewish (and therefore also the later Christian) religion. They are however completely denied by scholars in both religions because accepting that interpretation would undermine the modern belief system entirely. it would be lovely if someday a secular translator were to publish a version of the bible without the inherent 'faith' that the current translators have, but that would be quite a long endeavor simply to show that another religion (than the one you believe) has completely biased the translation of their texts towards their faith. i wish I knew how to get in touch with my friend Ahmed from college. In nearly every single study in the OT/NT religious survey courses and the later theology courses we took together, he would bring out inherient flaws in the 'accepted' translations we were looking at that completely affected the meaning... It got to the point where the professors would have to preface every study with "I know Ahmed, but we must look at the text 'as given', in this class" simply because you accept a translation as valid, in no way means it is the only one or even the most correct, particularly with text is translated with the INTENT to conform to a thought or belief system.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #122 September 16, 2004 Quotei still challenge you to find a single modern translation that puts the word 'poisoner' where it should be instead of 'witch' How would a mistranslation like that affect basic Christian doctrine? Basic Christian Doctrine Quotetranslation is greatly subject to interpretation. In fact there are alternative translations to many of the old testament books that imply there ARE multiple, separate ‘gods’ inherent in the Jewish (and therefore also the later Christian) religion. I don’t doubt that translation is subject to interpretation. That’s why I feel more comfortable going with what the “majority” of the experts say instead of those on the fringe. There’s also the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that makes the case against the Trinity. I wouldn’t put much clout in that either. QuoteThey are however completely denied by scholars in both religions because accepting that interpretation would undermine the modern belief system entirely. it would be lovely if someday a secular translator were to publish a version of the bible without the inherent 'faith' that the current translators have, but that would be quite a long endeavor simply to show that another religion (than the one you believe) has completely biased the translation of their texts towards their faith. You’re guessing at their motive by saying they wouldn’t accept something because it would undermine their established faith. You don’t know that. I also don’t believe it. This has got to be the most scrutinized thing in history. Everybody is watching everybody else to make sure that it is kept accurate. I dare say it’s always been that way. Quotesimply because you accept a translation as valid, in no way means it is the only one or even the most correct, I never said that my New International Version (NIV) is the one and only or the most correct. As a matter of fact, I think there are other ones that more accurately depict the intended “flavor” of what is trying to be said. Mine is just a bit easier for me to understand. It all goes back to the “roadmap” thing. If one doesn’t work for you, put it down and get another one. Quoteparticularly with text is translated with the INTENT to conform to a thought or belief system. Again, you’re guessing on motive. Conspiracy theory stuff. Gotta go for a while. Later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #123 September 16, 2004 QuoteYou’re guessing at their motive by saying they wouldn’t accept something because it would undermine their established faith QuoteThere’s also the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that makes the case against the Trinity. I wouldn’t put much clout in that either. right here you are doing it, denying a translation because it disagrees with your belief system. Quote This has got to be the most scrutinized thing in history. Everybody is watching everybody else to make sure that it is kept accurate. I dare say it’s always been that way. Quoteparticularly with text is translated with the INTENT to conform to a thought or belief system. find me one translation made solely by secular scholars (non believers) but it's not 'conspiracy theory' at all. Everything you read, see or perceive is filtered through your belief system. It is impossible for a believer to translate a text without that belief system affecting their thought process. The intent is implicit in the nature of the translators. (believers) In fact in the case of the NT, all writings that do/did not agree with what is accepted as the 'teachings of Christ' have been intentionally omitted. You dont see them at all!! This also applies to the canonization process the OT went through when the books were combined. This was deliberate action on the part of the church (believers) to create a document that agreed with their faith and the institution they were creating.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut did we ever hear from the people who, because of their infallible god and religion, kept insisting the world would end then, after the world didn't end? Did they come out and finally admit, "Well, the non-ending of the world despite our 'God's word' that it would end then does actually prove our religion to be baseless"? Actually the bible states that nobody, not even Christ knows the time when the end will occur. Those that claim to know are getting that information not by the words in the bible, but by their own twisted interpretations. Whether or not the date of the end falls in line with these interpretations neither proves nor disproves this religion. Here's another part of the problem: According to WHOM does the "bible state" that nobody, not even Christ, knows the time when the end will occur? See, YOU claim that in YOUR interpretation of the bible, it's not known. But how does that account for the scads of people who CLAIM that based on THEIR bible, they KNOW when it is, and they even make predictions of certain YEARS or certain DATES?! SEE?? I think it is FOOLISH to go believing in all this shit when it's so CLEARLY a bunch of "whatever I want to say is so is so" crap! You can't have so many people all claiming to be right, and all disagreeing with each other, and say that this is a valid system of belief based on TRUTH from GOD. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #125 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Are you prepared for your opinion of your friend to change, once you become more aware of what it is he believes?" QuoteWhat good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36 What good is it to gain lots of friends, money, and power at the expense of your own soul? How important are material things and shallow acquaintances in the long term? If he/she is going to be a true friend, he/she will accept you for who you are and will be tolerant of what you believe. My Dad told me when I was young that, when I grew up, I should be able to count the number of "true friends" that I had on one hand. Of course, I didn't believe him at the time but he was right! This has nothing to do with what I was asking. You've turned it around, apparently, and are looking at it from the point of view of the friend who is sharing a look at his faith, not from the poster's point of view. I was asking the poster if he is prepared to lose respect for the friend if he comes to feel that the friend is believing in a bunch of hooey religious crap! Pay attention! -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Zenister 0 #123 September 16, 2004 QuoteYou’re guessing at their motive by saying they wouldn’t accept something because it would undermine their established faith QuoteThere’s also the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that makes the case against the Trinity. I wouldn’t put much clout in that either. right here you are doing it, denying a translation because it disagrees with your belief system. Quote This has got to be the most scrutinized thing in history. Everybody is watching everybody else to make sure that it is kept accurate. I dare say it’s always been that way. Quoteparticularly with text is translated with the INTENT to conform to a thought or belief system. find me one translation made solely by secular scholars (non believers) but it's not 'conspiracy theory' at all. Everything you read, see or perceive is filtered through your belief system. It is impossible for a believer to translate a text without that belief system affecting their thought process. The intent is implicit in the nature of the translators. (believers) In fact in the case of the NT, all writings that do/did not agree with what is accepted as the 'teachings of Christ' have been intentionally omitted. You dont see them at all!! This also applies to the canonization process the OT went through when the books were combined. This was deliberate action on the part of the church (believers) to create a document that agreed with their faith and the institution they were creating.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut did we ever hear from the people who, because of their infallible god and religion, kept insisting the world would end then, after the world didn't end? Did they come out and finally admit, "Well, the non-ending of the world despite our 'God's word' that it would end then does actually prove our religion to be baseless"? Actually the bible states that nobody, not even Christ knows the time when the end will occur. Those that claim to know are getting that information not by the words in the bible, but by their own twisted interpretations. Whether or not the date of the end falls in line with these interpretations neither proves nor disproves this religion. Here's another part of the problem: According to WHOM does the "bible state" that nobody, not even Christ, knows the time when the end will occur? See, YOU claim that in YOUR interpretation of the bible, it's not known. But how does that account for the scads of people who CLAIM that based on THEIR bible, they KNOW when it is, and they even make predictions of certain YEARS or certain DATES?! SEE?? I think it is FOOLISH to go believing in all this shit when it's so CLEARLY a bunch of "whatever I want to say is so is so" crap! You can't have so many people all claiming to be right, and all disagreeing with each other, and say that this is a valid system of belief based on TRUTH from GOD. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #125 September 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Are you prepared for your opinion of your friend to change, once you become more aware of what it is he believes?" QuoteWhat good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36 What good is it to gain lots of friends, money, and power at the expense of your own soul? How important are material things and shallow acquaintances in the long term? If he/she is going to be a true friend, he/she will accept you for who you are and will be tolerant of what you believe. My Dad told me when I was young that, when I grew up, I should be able to count the number of "true friends" that I had on one hand. Of course, I didn't believe him at the time but he was right! This has nothing to do with what I was asking. You've turned it around, apparently, and are looking at it from the point of view of the friend who is sharing a look at his faith, not from the poster's point of view. I was asking the poster if he is prepared to lose respect for the friend if he comes to feel that the friend is believing in a bunch of hooey religious crap! Pay attention! -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
