If your holy book fails to match reality ...

[Skwim]

Come on. Religious-based terrorism. You know that.

I suggest you read my reply to Rival in post #3.



.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proper translation by whose reckoning? That Rabbinical Judaism considers the Masoretic text as the authoritative version is meaningless unless you recognize rabbinical authority. To claim that the Christians who recognize the Septuagint are wrong, because the currently surviving sect of Judaism says so is textbook question begging. Personally, I don't have any real preference for either as the Church has used both in its history. But I would never question the Eastern Orthodox over their use of the Septuagint simply because modern Rabbinical Judaism has a differing view. If I cared for what the Rabbis think I'd convert to their religion.

The author of Matthew manufactured fulfilled prophecies. One of them was the non-prophecy of a virgin birth based upon a misinterpretation.

 

[Glaurung]

The author of Matthew manufactured fulfilled prophecies. One of them was the non-prophecy of a virgin birth based upon a misinterpretation.

You're free to believe that, and I'm free to dismiss your views. Nonetheless, the issue I am trying to get at is not the veracity of Christian beliefs per se, but rather the baseless deference to Rabbinic Judaism as the unquestionable authority in all things related to the Old Testament texts. That our respective faiths share some texts in common does not mean we share a common authority. The Pharisees (who would form the basis of Rabbinic Judaism) were simply one group out of many, as were the Christians. What we call Jewish orthodoxy today does not predate Christianity, and the merely assumed veracity of it over Christianity is pure question begging.

My faith lies in the Apostles and the teaching Magisterium established by Christ. Not in the men who would codify an opposing religion. Be it Rabbinic Judaism, Islam or Baha'i Faith none of these traditions commands any deference from me. Christianity is not an offshoot of Modern Judaism. Both faiths emerged contemporaneously as different answers to the question of Christ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're free to believe that, and I'm free to dismiss your views. Nonetheless, the issue I am trying to get at is not the veracity of Christian beliefs per se, but rather the baseless deference to Rabbinic Judaism as the unquestionable authority in all things related to the Old Testament texts. That our respective faiths share some texts in common does not mean we share a common authority. The Pharisees (who would form the basis of Rabbinic Judaism) were simply one group out of many, as were the Christians. What we call Jewish orthodoxy today does not predate Christianity, and the merely assumed veracity of it over Christianity is pure question begging.

My faith lies in the Apostles and the teaching Magisterium established by Christ. Not in the men who would codify an opposing religion. Be it Rabbinic Judaism, Islam or Baha'i Faith none of these traditions commands any deference from me. Christianity is not an offshoot of Modern Judaism. Both faiths emerged contemporaneously as different answers to the question of Christ.

If one investigates the quotes, reads the supposed prophecies in context and studies the history of the area it is the only conclusion. A person is free to hold irrational beliefs, but one cannot complain when others disrespect them for that. That conclusion is not drawn only upon the errors in translation that occurred at times.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Only the misinterpretations are flawed.

 

[ManSinha]

Yeah, that's true.

I loved the Bible stories when I was a kid.. Also Aesop;s Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales....

But after age ten I just couldn't say Jonah sat inside a whale for 3 days with a straight face.

I have heard it said "Without Resurrection - Christianity's premise to save - would collapse like a house of cards"

However - I have personal friends who left the church when the first child abuse reports came in - they could not reconcile them and chose to leave

However I am uncertain whether those who preach and proselytize would ever openly accept this - given the significant setback they would have to their message for the non-believers

 

[sooda]

I have heard it said "Without Resurrection - Christianity's premise to save - would collapse like a house of cards"

However - I have personal friends who left the church when the first child abuse reports came in - they could not reconcile them and chose to leave

However I am uncertain whether those who preach and proselytize would ever openly accept this - given the significant setback they would have to their message for the non-believers

Resurrection is critical for most Christians.

I'm not Catholic and I have close Catholic friends (and family). They are utterly disgusted with the priests and have been for over 20 years so this latest revelation is not all they have endured. But, I think they will stick it out.

 

[Ellen Brown]

In several discussions here recently, religious participants appear to privilege scripture over reality.

Creationist organizations even state this openly in their "statements of faith"

Recent examples here involve the Noachian flood and claims that ordinary processes can transmute elements.

How can people honestly sustain such intellectual dishonesty?

If your holy book says the moon is made of cheese, will you take crackers when you go there?

I lack actual words for what you describe. Perhaps it is a sort of Anthropological Psychology? In every belief system I've been exposed to, somewhere along the line, someone gets the idea that their belief system is superior. Despite this, we are all judged for our own thoughts, deeds and words. And, admittedly there is scripture that could inspire me to feel that way about what I believe. It is really clear that no human will ever love and accept me completely. God has the absolute right to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only the misinterpretations are flawed.

So a literal interpretation is flawed. You might have a point there. A literal interpretation of the Bible is the fastest way to refute it.

 

[Augustus]

A literal interpretation of the Bible is the fastest way to refute it.

That's actually been something argued for by Christian theologians for 1800 years.

 

[charlie sc]

I lack actual words for what you describe. Perhaps it is a sort of Anthropological Psychology? In every belief system I've been exposed to, somewhere along the line, someone gets the idea that their belief system is superior.

Yes, but religious people think their belief is even more superior than others.

This is pretty good video on beliefs vs facts. However, what the video doesn't tell you is that the study they used to make this video found religious people tended to use different parts of their brain when looking at religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs compared to atheists.
They found that those brain regions were associated with strong emotions and absolute certainty, which were even comparable to strong political beliefs.

 

[Audie]

In several discussions here recently, religious participants appear to privilege scripture over reality.

Creationist organizations even state this openly in their "statements of faith"

Recent examples here involve the Noachian flood and claims that ordinary processes can transmute elements.

How can people honestly sustain such intellectual dishonesty?

If your holy book says the moon is made of cheese, will you take crackers when you go there?

One thing people will say is that it is honest to state
that what bible seems to say comes before dara.

And, of course, in failing to understand what intellectual
honesty is even about, deny that it is dishonest to ignore dsta.

 

[Audie]

People are free to believe whatever they want to believe as long as it hurts no-one.

Quite true, but O.T.

 

[Audie]

Actually, I think that believing everything you were ever taught makes you a sheep. To be a dissenter from mainstream education makes one much less of a sheep, regardless of the alternate belief.

Really? You see no distinction between sheepishly
following a cult that "dissents from mainstream"
(like, say, 2+2 =4) and an intellegent dissent like, say,
learning on one's own that the whitewashed version
of history being taught is b.s.?

 

[Audie]

Come on. Religious-based terrorism. You know that.

Do you know the diff between belief and action?

 

[Audie]

Wouldn't know. I don't have that problem. The holy book I believe is true.

As for your further comments. I'll just say you don't in fact know everything and leave it at that.

And your chosen version of what it says is also true. Dont
leave out personal infallibility from this!

Is it, btw, necessary to know "everything"
to know that 2 plus 2 is not 37?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you know the diff between belief and action?

What do you think?

I was just giving an example of both that are tied together.... The religion-based part of terrorism tells the believers, "if you kill the infidel, you'll have treasures w/ God." The terrorism is the action. To receive those treasures, what do those believers need to do?

Their faith in that belief is the motivation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think?

I was just giving an example of both that are tied together.... The religion-based part of terrorism tells the believers, "if you kill the infidel, you'll have treasures w/ God." The terrorism is the action. To receive those treasures, what do those believers need to do?

Their faith in that belief is the motivation.

And how is that different from your faith? I know that you are unwilling to throw out the myths of the Old Testament. That means you cannot throw out the "morals" of the Old Testament either, if you want to be consistent.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And how is that different from your faith?

Quite. My God tells me, through His Son Jesus, to love people, not hate and kill them. -- Matthew 5:44; John 13:34-35.

I know that you are unwilling to throw out the myths of the Old Testament. That means you cannot throw out the "morals" of the Old Testament either, if you want to be consistent.

Those were Jehovah God's judgments.
If people were not willing to obey Him even after they knew what the outcome would be, as Rahab revealed (Joshua 2:9-11), and still were going to try and destroy the Israelites, His people, their destruction was on them. (However, if they chose to listen as did the Gibeonites, then Jehovah was merciful.) He created the Earth, so He can choose who he wants to live on it.

But we're not Israelites.
As Christians, we're under the Law of Christ...to love others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite. My God tells me, through His Son Jesus, to love people, not hate and kill them. -- Matthew 5:44; John 13:34-35.



Those were Jehovah God's judgments.
If people were not willing to obey Him even after they knew what the outcome would be, as Rahab revealed (Joshua 2:9-11), and still were going to try and destroy the Israelites, His people, their destruction was on them. (However, if they chose to listen as did the Gibeonites, then Jehovah was merciful.) He created the Earth, so He can choose who he wants to live on it.

But we're not Israelites.


As Christians, we're under the Law of Christ...to love others.

Now you are guilty of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe. Why do you not reject the myths of Genesis as you reject the morals of the Old Testament version of God. Though the New Testament does advocate violence as well. It all matters on which parts of the Bible one picks and chooses.