Nowhere did I mention blind faith, and nowhere did I contradict myself.
I simply stated forcing ones belief on another should not be done. And in regards to where do you draw the line, there is no blanket rule on this. SMD and I may stop at different places, as he might think he is supposed to only go so far and I may think I should go just a step further, or not quiet as far as he, etc etc.
Please point out to me where the Scriptures are in cosnsistant.
Surely through questioning they will come to a deeper understanding.
Questioning as in wondering if this is really true or not or questioning as in trying to understand the inteneded meaning?
Aerosmitten wrote:Nowhere did I mention blind faith, and nowhere did I contradict myself.
I simply stated forcing ones belief on another should not be done. And in regards to where do you draw the line, there is no blanket rule on this. SMD and I may stop at different places, as he might think he is supposed to only go so far and I may think I should go just a step further, or not quiet as far as he, etc etc.
Please point out to me where the Scriptures are in cosnsistant.
Surely through questioning they will come to a deeper understanding.
Questioning as in wondering if this is really true or not or questioning as in trying to understand the inteneded meaning?
I never suggested that there were inconsistancies in religous texts, only in the way that they are interpreted by differeing branches of those faiths. For example, Roman Catholic and Church of England are both supposed to worship the same Divine Trinity and use the same texts in their faith. However, there are many differences in doctrine causing a deep current of bitterness that still divides the two.
However, there are bound to be at least some inconsistancies in there. I don't know the Bible word perfect so I can't pull one out of the hat. What you have to take into account is that the Bible of today is an English (or Spanish or German or French or whatever language) translation of a latin translation of an ancient Greek translation of an ancient Hebrew or Aramaic text. Not only have there been major changes in the world view, which affects greatly our spoken and written language, but there are also grammatical and syntax based differences between all languages. No translator can translate a piece of text verbatim as it would be non-sensical. What a translator has do is put their best interpretation of what is written in the original language.
Now, the bibles of today are not the work of one person. They are put together by teams of biblical scholars who are working from previous translations. Now, suppose someone working on one section interprets a particular phrase one way and another interprets the same phrase, somewhere else, a different way. You are going to get inconsistancies crop up. It is the nature of translation, especially when more than one person is working on the text.
As to the first part of your post. I never accused you of blind faith nor of contradicting yourself. In fact, I was complementing you on your clarity of vision.
My reference to blind faith was to clear up a misunderstanding Sir Myghin had with regard to my meaning of the phrase. If you reread my post, you will note that I mentioned no names nor did I accuse anyone of following their faith blindly. I was talkling in a generic fashion as I have no wish to offend anyone. My reference to you in that post was with regard to your comment about the problems inherent in 'forcing' a belief system when you would not take kindly to them doing the same back to you.
I have made no accusations against anyone here nor have I been critical of anyone's belief. I have tried to explain why I don't share those beliefs in what I hope is an objective way.
As for inconsistancies, I did not mention any faith in particular. Once again I was talking about faith in a general fashion. I cannot say if a particular faith has inconsistancies at its core because I probably don't know enough detail. However, in talking to people about their faith, any faith, I have found many of them contradict themselves about what their faith stands for as many times in five minutes.
'Do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?'
Dang, Slaine, I wish you and I could sit down in a quiet setting and talk about this stuff. So many of those are questions that I enjoy answering and discussing. They're good and thoughtful questions. But I just can't do it in a public forum like this.
Throwing political opinions around is one thing. After all, it's only politics, eh? No matter what happens politically, it just can't effect me for more than another 50 years or so, because I'm going to die. And yeah, I want to leave a better world for my children so I pay attention to politics, but in the end they going to die too.
But when it comes to eternal things, things of the spirit, those are just so deep, sensitive, and personal... this just isn't a place where I would want to discuss them.
Last edited by ElfDude on Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think therein does lie one of the main differences between you and I. Due to my position as an agnostic, spiritual matters are no more personal than secular matters in my mind. I enjoy discussing them as much as I enjoy discussing anything else - simply for the sake of the subject and the debate. Give me a quiet room, a willing opponent and a decent subject and I can talk for hours. Even if I know little about the subject in hand, I will play devil's advocate (no pun intended there - no do I impersonate others on the forum ) simply to get people to examine their own viewpoint for any flaws that may be there. However, I often benefit from this in three ways.
1) I often get a damn good debate out of the time spent.
2) It allows me to get to know the other person a little better.
3) i get to learn something about the subject in hand and (at the risk of sounding pompous) I really do believe that a day in which you learn something has not been wasted.
Of course it can backfire. I've been in a few discussions where both of us have been playing DA. That gets confusing and little headway is made.
'Do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?'
Slaine, one correction: The Bibles today are English or whatever language translations from the Greek (New Testament) or the Hebrew or Aramaic (Old Testament). WE have plenty of original language manuscripts to translate from.
Slaine mac Roth wrote:I think therein does lie one of the main differences between you and I. Due to my position as an agnostic, spiritual matters are no more personal than secular matters in my mind.
But surely there are things in your life that are too personal to discuss in a setting like this...
awip2062 wrote:Slaine, one correction: The Bibles today are English or whatever language translations from the Greek (New Testament) or the Hebrew or Aramaic (Old Testament). WE have plenty of original language manuscripts to translate from.
I'm not sure if I quite follow the point you're making here but I'll answer the best I can. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The bibles of today, I would assume, rarely go back to the original sources. Presumeably, the original manuscripts are in too fragile a condition for any sort of work to be done with them so the teams preparing new editions of the bible will work from the previous translation work done in the past.
If so, then they are still working from translations of translations of, possibly, translations to the nth degree. This type of process leads to errors and inconsistancies. Just look at folklore that is passed down orally or the simple child's game of Chinese Whispers. The further down the line something goes, the more it is distorted from its original meaning and the earlier a distortion occurs, the more pronounced it becomes.
Sadly, this is a fact of life and there is no way to get away from it. The only way to minimise these distortions is work from the original text and, even so, that is a merely a case of damage limitation.
'Do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?'
We have multiple copies of all the books of the Bible. You would be suprised at the consistancy within them. I believe the oldest complete book that we have is Isaiah, an Old Testament book, and when it was found and compared with newer copies of the same book, the people were amazed at how few mistakes were in the newer. And none of the mistakes were such that a difference had been made in overall meaning.
I know this sounds incredible, but if you start with the premise of a God that can create the universe and life merely by speaking, how hard would it be to keep His written word accurate?
I guess there?s one thought I?m willing to share here. It is often asked why Christians feel the need to force their beliefs on others. It makes me sad every time I hear a story of a Christian behaving that way. Well? it?s not unique to Christians. As far as I know, every major religion (for lack of a better word), with the exception of Judaism, proselytizes. They do it in different methods, of course. Radical Islam tells you that you must convert, and if you don?t, they kill you. Nice.
Anyway, in the case of Christians, there are two things going on. One has to do with the words of the Savior, who, after his resurrection instructed his apostles saying, ?go? and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
?Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world?.
A more intimate version of the same message is recorded where Jesus and Peter were sitting quietly on the shore of Galilee and Jesus asked Peter three times, ?Lovest thou me?? And each time Peter would say, ?Thou knowest that I love thee.? And in response each time the Savior said, ?Feed my lambs? or ?Feed my sheep?.
So, on one hand, Christians try to spread the Gospel because they?ve been instructed to do so.
On another level, it tends to be the nature of most of us, when we find something that we really like and that makes us happy, we want to share it. I remember when a friend approached me with a Rush album? ?You gotta hear this!? Another friend did it later with a different Rush album. Not only did I end up hooked on Rush, but I liked them so much that I presented them to lots of other people. We find something wonderful and we want to share it. That?s pretty normal.
I remember reading an authorized U2 biography. At one point they had a friend come to them saying, ?You gotta come and hear this guy!? They went to a class where a guy was teaching lessons from the Bible, without any denominational affiliation. Now Bono, living in Dublin, with one parent Catholic and one Protestant, had had no religion in his life and was convinced (quite understandably) that organized religion was nothing but trouble. But in a very short time, he, Edge, and Larry, had discovered that while certain churches may behave badly, the Gospel of Christ was something important and special, and they embraced it in their own way. That teacher was doing something right. And I like the way Bono approaches it in his lyrics. He never forces anything on the listener, but presents stuff in a subtle way. Like the song ?End of the World?? on the surface it just sounds like a song about a loving relationship gone bad. Then, when they?re about to play it live, Bono quietly says, ?This is Judas?, the lyrics take on a whole new meaning and become very stirring.
Slaine, you once mentioned a couple of Christian women chewing you out because you were living with your lady, unmarried, and you had kids. ?Look at what kind of rotten sinful example you?re setting for those children!!!? Something like that. I just cringed when I heard that. That?s not ?Feed my lambs?, that?s more like running into the pasture and screaming, ?YOU STUPID LAMBS!!!? and chasing them around while you?re yelling at them. In private, Schuette has mentioned to me Mormon missionaries in Scotland being belligerent with people. That one really bugged me. Having been one myself, I know that is the polar opposite of how those missionaries are taught to behave.
But we have to remember we?re all just people. No one here on this earth is perfect. I?m really sorry for those of you who have had zealot Christians in your face being obnoxious. The Gospel can only be shared with love, or it can become quite offensive.
I can see a lot of sense in what you're saying there Elfie.
As I have said, I have no problem with people telling me about what they believe. The case of the Rush albums sums matters up perfectly - I do the same. The difference comes when it is forced upon you.
To continue the same analogy, imagine someone comes up to you with a newly released album and says "You've got to listen to this." Fair enough. However, what if they say to you "Listen to this and think that the band are the greatest in the world otherwise you are incredibly stupid and you're life will have no meaning." I think any right minded person would tell them to take that album and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
That is how I feel when approached by the majority of religous groups - whether they be in the street, on the internet or the door to door people who come across like double-glazing salesmen (known in some areas of the UK as 'Sceptic Knuckles').
By all means tell people of your faith. But know when your 'spreading of the word' becomes harrasment.
'Do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?'
Slaine mac Roth wrote:
To continue the same analogy, imagine someone comes up to you with a newly released album and says "You've got to listen to this." Fair enough. However, what if they say to you "Listen to this and think that the band are the greatest in the world otherwise you are incredibly stupid and you're life will have no meaning." I think any right minded person would tell them to take that album and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
) simply to get people to examine their own viewpoint for any flaws that may be there. However, I often benefit from this in three ways.
