Any Church Goers?

Off Topic
241

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What are your thoughts on the legitimacy of contacting “the other side” through means outside of the “law”? . . . . why not do it if you can manipulate your contact to your own liking? What makes the rules of operation so uniquely correct? [/quote]

How did Kind Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor turn out?[/quote]
Yeah but divination sounds pretty exciting, although Jesus supposedly did that for us. [/quote]

Your feckless attempts at syllogism border on the insipid.
[/quote] No way dude. Divination is not insipid at all. Regarding feckless, what would Jesus do? Divination. It’s a sound practice according to the J-ster.
[/quote]
Go on[/quote]

Actually, um, no. Jesus did not divine anything for us. Jesus was Divine. Divination infers some kind of ritual with the intent purpose of getting some sort of fortune-telling from a deity. Christianity, including Jesus, shuns divination as evil. The reference to King Saul is apt. Judaism rejected all forms of divination and fortune very early. Jesus, being Jewish and following the Law to the letter, would not have condoned any sort of divination.

243

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I think that reading the bible and interpreting it word for word is not a very smart idea.

I HIGHLY doubt that the original readings are the same as what you would read today, every person that has translated/re-written it has without a doubt added their own “flavour”. The bible should be used as a backbone of wisdom not a word for word “recipe” to guide you. There is a lot of things you can learn just by focusing on how a specific reading can be applicable/not applicable to make you a better person overall.[/quote]

I agree with your sentiment, not your rationale. For one, regarding the transcription of the texts from one manuscript to another, analysis of extant manuscripts from various eras of Christianity (and various regions) with the earliest extant texts and fragments reveals a remarkable degree of accuracy (between 90%-98%, depending on the analysis). This means that those who transcribed the Bible took their job very, very seriously (so much so that often, monks would copy notes in margins from ancient manuscripts, just in case).

Translation itself presents a different problem. The Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew (most of it) and Greek (some sections of Esther and Daniel), while the New Testament was written in Aramaic (Matthew) and Greek (everything else). Certain phrases and cultural idioms present in the originals are hard to translate into other languages. Translation is no small matter. For this reason, Jerome set out to consolidate all the books of the Bible into a universally accepted Latin translation (called the Vulgate). Until that time, numerous translations of the originals existed and each had their deficiencies. While some of Jerome’s contemporaries didn’t like it, most saw it for what it was, a masterpiece, a magnum opus, of an expert linguist. It is so accurate, that even some Orthodox Churches continue to read it along side the equivalent Greek text of the original (in keeping with an ancient tradition).

Interpretation of Scripture is not as simple as some would like to make it. While one cannot discount the words that are written, one has to consider why the human author chose that phrase instead of another. You cannot discount the particular literary tools and styles familiar with the intended audience and the author. Likewise, you can’t project modern literary styles onto ancient literature. Further, you can’t interpret Scripture in a vacuum, that is without understanding, or at least knowing, various interpretations of the same passages. The Bible itself warns of individual interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

244

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

It has happened far more often when, say, someone becomes a Christian.

[/quote]

Sure and that’s not right either.

[/quote]

I agree with you but then again our thoughts are subjective ones, no?
[/quote]

I would disagree that the sentiments you feel are subjective. The United States was founded on the fact that by virtue of their Humanity, all men were born with certain rights…among them freedom of conscience and freedom of Religion.

The problem that we have, not only in the US, but elsewhere, is that there are certain blowhards who want to push and push and push. I disagree with loudmouth atheists like Richard Dawkins as much as I disagree with loudmouth theists.

[/quote]

You don’t get it. My comment was just meant for Raj. He understands what I meant. You wouldn’t though because it has to do with our discussions elsewhere.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification…

On the other hand, others may not have understood, so I can take solace that I did not waste my oh-so-valuable time responding to an ‘inside joke.’

245

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I think that reading the bible and interpreting it word for word is not a very smart idea.

I HIGHLY doubt that the original readings are the same as what you would read today, every person that has translated/re-written it has without a doubt added their own “flavour”. The bible should be used as a backbone of wisdom not a word for word “recipe” to guide you. There is a lot of things you can learn just by focusing on how a specific reading can be applicable/not applicable to make you a better person overall.[/quote]

I agree with your sentiment, not your rationale. For one, regarding the transcription of the texts from one manuscript to another, analysis of extant manuscripts from various eras of Christianity (and various regions) with the earliest extant texts and fragments reveals a remarkable degree of accuracy (between 90%-98%, depending on the analysis). This means that those who transcribed the Bible took their job very, very seriously (so much so that often, monks would copy notes in margins from ancient manuscripts, just in case).

Translation itself presents a different problem. The Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew (most of it) and Greek (some sections of Esther and Daniel), while the New Testament was written in Aramaic (Matthew) and Greek (everything else). Certain phrases and cultural idioms present in the originals are hard to translate into other languages. Translation is no small matter. For this reason, Jerome set out to consolidate all the books of the Bible into a universally accepted Latin translation (called the Vulgate). Until that time, numerous translations of the originals existed and each had their deficiencies. While some of Jerome’s contemporaries didn’t like it, most saw it for what it was, a masterpiece, a magnum opus, of an expert linguist. It is so accurate, that even some Orthodox Churches continue to read it along side the equivalent Greek text of the original (in keeping with an ancient tradition).

Interpretation of Scripture is not as simple as some would like to make it. While one cannot discount the words that are written, one has to consider why the human author chose that phrase instead of another. You cannot discount the particular literary tools and styles familiar with the intended audience and the author. Likewise, you can’t project modern literary styles onto ancient literature. Further, you can’t interpret Scripture in a vacuum, that is without understanding, or at least knowing, various interpretations of the same passages. The Bible itself warns of individual interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[/quote]

I would just add to your excellent post that there is one other link in the linguistic chain; Jesus spoke Aramaic. Therefore, the original authors of the Greek New Testament had those same challenges as later translators of the written word, that of cultural idioms and colloquialisms.

246

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What are your thoughts on the legitimacy of contacting “the other side” through means outside of the “law”? . . . . why not do it if you can manipulate your contact to your own liking? What makes the rules of operation so uniquely correct? [/quote]

How did Kind Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor turn out?[/quote]
Yeah but divination sounds pretty exciting, although Jesus supposedly did that for us. [/quote]

Your feckless attempts at syllogism border on the insipid.
[/quote] No way dude. Divination is not insipid at all. Regarding feckless, what would Jesus do? Divination. It’s a sound practice according to the J-ster.
[/quote]
Go on[/quote]

Actually, um, no. Jesus did not divine anything for us. Jesus was Divine. Divination infers some kind of ritual with the intent purpose of getting some sort of fortune-telling from a deity. Christianity, including Jesus, shuns divination as evil. The reference to King Saul is apt. Judaism rejected all forms of divination and fortune very early. Jesus, being Jewish and following the Law to the letter, would not have condoned any sort of divination.
[/quote]
Jesus is the ultimate ritualistic blood sacrifice attempting to win favor from God and I bet the disciples casting their nets to the other side, Judas, Peter or whichever one and the rooster and all other folk privy to his “prophecies” would disagree.

Jesus is a “pagan” sacrifice who allegedly lets us ride his coat tails.

247

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I think that reading the bible and interpreting it word for word is not a very smart idea.

I HIGHLY doubt that the original readings are the same as what you would read today, every person that has translated/re-written it has without a doubt added their own “flavour”. The bible should be used as a backbone of wisdom not a word for word “recipe” to guide you. There is a lot of things you can learn just by focusing on how a specific reading can be applicable/not applicable to make you a better person overall.[/quote]

I agree with your sentiment, not your rationale. For one, regarding the transcription of the texts from one manuscript to another, analysis of extant manuscripts from various eras of Christianity (and various regions) with the earliest extant texts and fragments reveals a remarkable degree of accuracy (between 90%-98%, depending on the analysis). This means that those who transcribed the Bible took their job very, very seriously (so much so that often, monks would copy notes in margins from ancient manuscripts, just in case).

Translation itself presents a different problem. The Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew (most of it) and Greek (some sections of Esther and Daniel), while the New Testament was written in Aramaic (Matthew) and Greek (everything else). Certain phrases and cultural idioms present in the originals are hard to translate into other languages. Translation is no small matter. For this reason, Jerome set out to consolidate all the books of the Bible into a universally accepted Latin translation (called the Vulgate). Until that time, numerous translations of the originals existed and each had their deficiencies. While some of Jerome’s contemporaries didn’t like it, most saw it for what it was, a masterpiece, a magnum opus, of an expert linguist. It is so accurate, that even some Orthodox Churches continue to read it along side the equivalent Greek text of the original (in keeping with an ancient tradition).

Interpretation of Scripture is not as simple as some would like to make it. While one cannot discount the words that are written, one has to consider why the human author chose that phrase instead of another. You cannot discount the particular literary tools and styles familiar with the intended audience and the author. Likewise, you can’t project modern literary styles onto ancient literature. Further, you can’t interpret Scripture in a vacuum, that is without understanding, or at least knowing, various interpretations of the same passages. The Bible itself warns of individual interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[/quote]

I would just add to your excellent post that there is one other link in the linguistic chain; Jesus spoke Aramaic. Therefore, the original authors of the Greek New Testament had those same challenges as later translators of the written word, that of cultural idioms and colloquialisms.
[/quote]

Exactly. The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic (Jerome says he saw an Aramaic copy while he was translating the Vulgate), though the earliest extant sources are in Greek. Linguists have “reverse translated” the Greek text of Matthew into Aramaic, and found that the Aramaic version seems more natural. Those same linguists argue that the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was likely written in the late 30s, early 40 CE, by virtue of similar style, syntax and phrases in use in other extant Aramaic texts from that time period.

248

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What are your thoughts on the legitimacy of contacting “the other side” through means outside of the “law”? . . . . why not do it if you can manipulate your contact to your own liking? What makes the rules of operation so uniquely correct? [/quote]

How did Kind Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor turn out?[/quote]
Yeah but divination sounds pretty exciting, although Jesus supposedly did that for us. [/quote]

Your feckless attempts at syllogism border on the insipid.
[/quote] No way dude. Divination is not insipid at all. Regarding feckless, what would Jesus do? Divination. It’s a sound practice according to the J-ster.
[/quote]
Go on[/quote]

Actually, um, no. Jesus did not divine anything for us. Jesus was Divine. Divination infers some kind of ritual with the intent purpose of getting some sort of fortune-telling from a deity. Christianity, including Jesus, shuns divination as evil. The reference to King Saul is apt. Judaism rejected all forms of divination and fortune very early. Jesus, being Jewish and following the Law to the letter, would not have condoned any sort of divination.
[/quote]
Jesus is the ultimate ritualistic blood sacrifice attempting to win favor from God and I bet the disciples casting their nets to the other side, Judas, Peter or whichever one and the rooster and all other folk privy to his “prophecies” would disagree.

Jesus is a “pagan” sacrifice who allegedly lets us ride his coat tails. [/quote]

  1. Divination is contacting some deity/spirit for knowledge of the future. Ritualistic sacrifice and divination are not the same thing. In 1 Samuel, King Saul goes to the witch of Endor to find out if he will win against the Philistines. That is a form of divination. Other places in the Bible, other kings attempted to use divination to determine their fates. Each time, such attempts were condemned and usually resulted in not-so-pleasant consequences. Because of this, calling Jesus’ willing sacrifice ‘divination’ is stretching the definition of the term.

  2. If one simply looks at the fact that ancient pagans offered sacrifices to appease their gods, and Jews offered sacrifices to God, then what you say is basically accurate. But there are differences. Ancient pagan sacrifice was indeed done to placate a capricious god. So far as we can tell (based on the extant literature of ancient pagan myth), sacrifice was demanded to forestall some sort of punishment from an angry deity. Jewish sacrifice was entirely different. A reference from the “Miserere Me”, Psalm 51: “18 For if you had desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings you will not be delighted. 19 A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, you will not despise.” Jews had several different types of sacrifices: guilt offerings (to acknowledge and atone for guilt of some kind), thanksgiving offerings, sin offerings (done very few times a year, to atone for an individual’s, families’, clans’, tribes, and nations’ sins). The Paschal sacrifice, which is what Jesus is referred to in Christian circles, is neither of those: it is a remembrance of how God delivered Israel from the slavery of Egypt.

249

doT: Have you ever read The Gospel Light by George Lamsa? Lamsa was a native Aramaic speaker who translated the Aramaic Peshitta into English.

His book was hugely revelatory to me, as he explained what he believed were mistranslations and mistaken interpretations in the bible. It’s considered heresy by most Christians, but really made parts of the bible much more understandable to me.

250

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What are your thoughts on the legitimacy of contacting “the other side” through means outside of the “law”? . . . . why not do it if you can manipulate your contact to your own liking? What makes the rules of operation so uniquely correct? [/quote]

How did Kind Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor turn out?[/quote]
Yeah but divination sounds pretty exciting, although Jesus supposedly did that for us. [/quote]

Your feckless attempts at syllogism border on the insipid.
[/quote] No way dude. Divination is not insipid at all. Regarding feckless, what would Jesus do? Divination. It’s a sound practice according to the J-ster.
[/quote]
Go on[/quote]

Actually, um, no. Jesus did not divine anything for us. Jesus was Divine. Divination infers some kind of ritual with the intent purpose of getting some sort of fortune-telling from a deity. Christianity, including Jesus, shuns divination as evil. The reference to King Saul is apt. Judaism rejected all forms of divination and fortune very early. Jesus, being Jewish and following the Law to the letter, would not have condoned any sort of divination.
[/quote]
Jesus is the ultimate ritualistic blood sacrifice attempting to win favor from God and I bet the disciples casting their nets to the other side, Judas, Peter or whichever one and the rooster and all other folk privy to his “prophecies” would disagree.

Jesus is a “pagan” sacrifice who allegedly lets us ride his coat tails. [/quote]

  1. Divination is contacting some deity/spirit for knowledge of the future. Ritualistic sacrifice and divination are not the same thing. In 1 Samuel, King Saul goes to the witch of Endor to find out if he will win against the Philistines. That is a form of divination. Other places in the Bible, other kings attempted to use divination to determine their fates. Each time, such attempts were condemned and usually resulted in not-so-pleasant consequences. Because of this, calling Jesus’ willing sacrifice ‘divination’ is stretching the definition of the term.

  2. If one simply looks at the fact that ancient pagans offered sacrifices to appease their gods, and Jews offered sacrifices to God, then what you say is basically accurate. But there are differences. Ancient pagan sacrifice was indeed done to placate a capricious god. So far as we can tell (based on the extant literature of ancient pagan myth), sacrifice was demanded to forestall some sort of punishment from an angry deity. Jewish sacrifice was entirely different. A reference from the “Miserere Me”, Psalm 51: “18 For if you had desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings you will not be delighted. 19 A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, you will not despise.” Jews had several different types of sacrifices: guilt offerings (to acknowledge and atone for guilt of some kind), thanksgiving offerings, sin offerings (done very few times a year, to atone for an individual’s, families’, clans’, tribes, and nations’ sins). The Paschal sacrifice, which is what Jesus is referred to in Christian circles, is neither of those: it is a remembrance of how God delivered Israel from the slavery of Egypt.
    [/quote]

  1. Right. And often, ritualistic sacrifice is required for divination. Sacrifice aside, the bible is calling divination “prophecy” and you are hung up on semantics with an air of self-righteousness in believing prophecy is anything other than divination. You choose to put biblical divination on a pedastal above divination in other religions and cultures which is your right, but the difference is just in your head. You are giving it more weight through apologetic semantics because you want to.

  2. The biblical god is a capricious and punishing god indeed. One only needs to visit Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the flood story and a myriad of others, and see the corresponding sacrifices made to bring god back to his happy place.

The whole reason jesus came according to the tradition was to live perfectly, be sacrificed, allow believers to hop on his coat tails and bypass god’s wrath. He is the sacrificial “lamb of god”, nullifying the need to slaughter actual lambs as a form of appeasement. “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, â??Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29.

Jesus is a guilt offering, and was discussed as such through old testament divinations, one such “prophecy” is “Yet it was the lordâ??s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.” Isiah 53:10.

Sin, in the christian tradition, is the seperation of man and god, brought on by adam and eve (through no individual choice of our own but free will is another topic all together) and punishable by death, both physical and spiritual as an eternal damnation to “hell” or spiritual seperation from God.

We are born punished and must choose to believe in christ in order to be cloaked in the “spirit” and accepted by God in place of our own personal offerings for appeasement.

Jesus goes on to claim he is the only correct way to the omnipresent god we recognize by many names across the world. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” John 14:6.

You have a habit of calling god a run of the mill diety when others try to contact him through means other than jesus. god is a diety. He is the diety, encompassing all, rather than a pantheon of gods with varying levels of control and influence.

Perhaps jesus is the only real way to contact god, yahweh, alla, Mr. Jim or what ever the fuck you want to call him, that is your faith and your right to believe.

Or perhaps jesus was “in the know”, as many believe, brought hidden “inner sanctum” knowledge public (occult, which is not actually a bunch of weird kids running around in goth make up pretending to be vampires)which was, in fact, breaking the “law” and was killed for it.

There are texts of Jesus which were not cannonized where he discusses different levels and layers of knowledge and instructs his disciples to only share the entry level or “front porch” if you will.

Either way, many believe they can contact god, yahweh, Mr. Jim, Uncle Bob et cetera through other means and can manipulate their contact, through personal appeasements, to their gain. Kind of like a supernatural business contract, which is a topic I find interesting although I do appreciate your bible lesson.

251

HG, where do you fall in regards to the belief of a higher power?

252

[quote]imhungry wrote:
HG, where do you fall in regards to the belief of a higher power?[/quote]
I believe a higher power exists. Or we all exist within it, rather.

253

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
HG, where do you fall in regards to the belief of a higher power?[/quote]
I believe a higher power exists. Or we all exist within it, rather.[/quote]

So, you don’t subscribe to the way God is depicted in the bible?

254

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
HG, where do you fall in regards to the belief of a higher power?[/quote]
I believe a higher power exists. Or we all exist within it, rather.[/quote]

So, you don’t subscribe to the way God is depicted in the bible?[/quote]
I believe god is bigger than the bible. I do not believe jesus is the only way to experience god, even if he may be one way.

255

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
HG, where do you fall in regards to the belief of a higher power?[/quote]
I believe a higher power exists. Or we all exist within it, rather.[/quote]

: )

256

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
HG, where do you fall in regards to the belief of a higher power?[/quote]
I believe a higher power exists. Or we all exist within it, rather.[/quote]

So, you don’t subscribe to the way God is depicted in the bible?[/quote]

which part of the bible?

the old testament where there is an unseen force that is harsh and judgmental to his people, or the god of the new testament that belives of all the commandments, the greatest of these is love?

and that begs the question on the deity of christ.

257

[quote]Edgy wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
HG, where do you fall in regards to the belief of a higher power?[/quote]
I believe a higher power exists. Or we all exist within it, rather.[/quote]

So, you don’t subscribe to the way God is depicted in the bible?[/quote]

which part of the bible?

the old testament where there is an unseen force that is harsh and judgmental to his people, or the god of the new testament that belives of all the commandments, the greatest of these is love?

and that begs the question on the deity of christ.[/quote]

259

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not picking on you, Edge, just pointing out what I believe to be a fact about those with this opinion of the OT.
[/quote]

No worries, MasterPush -

seems like a god that lets his people languish in slavery for generations, then lets them wander around the desert for 40 years, is not that loving.

but then again, there is the golden calf incident - which was blown WAY out of proportion -

JK~

260

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:

the old testament where there is an unseen force that is harsh and judgmental to his people…

[/quote]

This is somewhat of a myth. A huge portion of the OT does indeed show a loving, patient, forgiving God.

It’s those who have read it the least or cursorily at best who seem to want to propagate the “harsh God” theory.

Not picking on you, Edge, just pointing out what I believe to be a fact about those with this opinion of the OT.
[/quote]
From a pragmatic view, flooding the entire world and killing all but one family, damning all people to hell unless they conform to his rules, his handling of the egyptians (human and therefore his creation) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera show a truly angry and violent god, one placated by sacrifice; ultimately the sacrifice of his very own son who allegedly lets us bask in his conquering of death if we choose too. But god is still an asshole. If you didn’t have jesus, he’d fuck you seven ways to sunday during your trip to hell after you die.