8 of 8
8
Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible
Posted: 13 April 2006 07:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

I am sorry that the Bible was written in the time it was written. You guys are so on the ball. It would have been much clearer to the tribal people of the Middle east 3000 years ago if God revealed himself in present terms. Yes the Creation story would have been so much more effective if God explained quantum mechanics. How dare God command the Jews to kill the women and children of their enemies. It so unclean. He should have those children ripped out the mothers womb by the choice of the mother in a sterilized environment. Do you think we are less barbarous today? You call Christians sanctimonious. There is no holier than thou Christian who could light a candle by the sanctimony displayed by the freethinker.

You complain about the treatment of women by the Church. Yet I hear no complaints about the treatment of women by our culture. They are raped, abused and abandoned at unconscienable rates. Do you know what the number one statistic to track poverty is? It is single motherhood. You blame this on the Church as well. If only they weren’t against birth control. You blame the institution that prohibits sexual activity outside of marriage and prohibits divorce for the mistreatment of women. These prohibitions have been in place since the Church was instituted. They were a protection to women then and are now, but somehow these rules are now abuses to womenhood. 

I do not accept your false dichotomy Mia. I believe the Bible can be written by men and still be inspired by God. I believe the Bible can be read in the context of the time and still contain truth that transcends time. I believe this true of much of literature (not the inspired by God part but the transcending time part)

I will once again quote Thomas Aquinas on the senses of Scripture:

“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.  The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.” - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

[ Edited: 13 April 2006 07:42 PM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2006 07:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

“on the third day He rose again"that is what the Creed says.  Friday saturday sunday that is three. We call that kindergarten math. Keep at it Celsus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2006 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“frankr”]

I will once again quote Thomas Aquinas on the senses of Scripture:

“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.  The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.” - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Exactly! Its true until it isn’t. If someone proves it’s false, then abandon it, but claim it’s still true.

How much more proof needs to be uncovered to show that there is no truth in the bible? If someone could convince you that it’s all just myth and legend, could you then abandon it, or do we still claim that it’s all somehow still true.

Just remember, the difference between an atheist and a believer is one religion.

 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2006 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“frankr”]“on the third day He rose again"that is what the Creed says.  Friday saturday sunday that is three. We call that kindergarten math. Keep at it Celsus

Jeebus said that the Sun-of-Man would spend three days in the Earth, as Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale. 24x3=72. At most you’ve got 48.

Thats at least 5th grade math!

By the way, the Jewish Sabbath goes from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. As that Jeebus rose before sun-up on Sunday, that still only give you 2 days.

[ Edited: 13 April 2006 08:34 PM by ]
 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 April 2006 07:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“frankr”]
I believe the Bible can be read in the context of the time and still contain truth that transcends time. I believe this true of much of literature (not the inspired by God part but the transcending time part)

So God-written literature is comparable to other literature? I would think He would hold himself to a slightly higher standard… not to mention issuing periodic revisions somewhere along the line. Guess he’s not powerful enough to change all those books, though.


[quote author=“frank”]
... one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

 

???

So… official explanations can be altered or abandoned, simply to lure the unbeliever? Getting them to believe is more important than One Absolute Godly Truth?

_

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2006 04:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Frankr,

“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.” - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Remember, he added “and if you don’t buy it after our second request, we will burn you at the stake”. Reasonable guy.

You complain about the treatment of women by the Church. Yet I hear no complaints about the treatment of women by our culture. They are raped, abused and abandoned at unconscienable rates. Do you know what the number one statistic to track poverty is? It is single motherhood. You blame this on the Church as well. If only they weren’t against birth control.

You know, I was actually surprised to see that these problems of dysfunctional lives are more prevalent in the Bible belt. But frankr, I don’t really correlate it to religion. I think it’s related to an institutionalized ignorance. Of course I do see ignorance correlated to “churchiness”, in spite of a few sharp souls like yourself, frankr.

I believe the Bible can be written by men and still be inspired by God. I believe the Bible can be read in the context of the time and still contain truth that transcends time.

To take a line from Sam, I’m still waiting to hear a single God given truth that is demonstrably true and not already obvious.

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2006 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“frankr”]I am sorry that the Bible was written in the time it was written. You guys are so on the ball. It would have been much clearer to the tribal people of the Middle east 3000 years ago if God revealed himself in present terms.

The problem isn’t when it was written, it’s how it was written. Both the new and old testamints (Hey, wouldn’t that be a good name for a product, “TESTA-MINTS! Keeps your breath bibicaly fresh. IT’S A MIRACLE!) is that they were cobbled together from disparate accounts. The various authors had differing agendas and beliefs, but were crammed together like meats on an italian hoagie. Sometimes this leads to an unexpectedly harmony, but more often it leads to confusion. I mean, how does one find harmony between the Jesus of Mark, John and Paul, when Mark’s Jesus is mostly man, John’s Jesus is wholely divine, and Paul seems to have no clue about anything either of them wrote?

Other literature contemporaneous with the bible is easier to read. Ever read Gilgamesh? How about Homer and Hesiod? The Egyptian Book of the Dead? Even at their most poetic, or symbolic, their message is made clear. You just don’t hear scholars arguing over the meaning of certain passages in, say, Livy the way that they do the bible. Hell, Judaism has entire branches of scholarship that do nothing but expound on the various and hidden meanings of their text. The funny thing is, that Flavius Josephus practically rewrote the the Torah in his Antiquities of the Jews, and managed to write in a manor that was much easier to read.

I’m sure you will point out that this is not an apt analogy, as that no one believes in the Greek gods, nor feel that Gilgamesh is a true story. However, thats my point exactly. You want to see your texts as true, and all others as fables. I often believe it is the poorly written nature of much of the gospels that enable them to be “transcendent,” the fact that much of it comes across so fuzzy makes it easier to interpret it the way you want. Kind of like Nostradamus.

And quantum mechanics? Wouldn’t god know that all the cool kids are over that and now researching super-string theory? Catch up with the times, man!

 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2006 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

frankr:

homunculus
I think it only fair to read the stories in the context of the times in which they were written. It is very easy to point out the flaws of the past but a little more difficult to point out the flaws of our own time.

Frank, I do read Biblical passages in the contexts of the times. That’s the only reasonable way to approach it, right? The only conclusion I can come to is that the holy scriptures are not at all holy. They were written and inspired by no gods or God. If you disagree with my conclusion, please explain what in particular about ancient times required God to instruct His flock to disregard skills and abilities of more than half the human population? What early-human ignorance or savagery could possibly have made God portray the world as He did, with regard to sexism and racism?

Obviously I’m asking these questions rhetorically, not expecting my answers from you. I don’t even agree with the phrasing of the question, since early-human ignorance, in a Darwinian world view, is identically the same as modern-human ignorance, minus certain cultural training.

The OT God obviously concerned himself with extreme minutiae—i.e. food handling—but somehow failed to command His people to treat each other equally? It appears to me that God made a monumental blunder.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 8
8
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed