wouldn't it make more sense for the Bible to be a constantly moving amount of text, with added parts that relate to today, removing the parts that don't anymore, etc, in short the way it used to be constantly modified in the past.
No, because religion, like any ideology, really, can be used to motivate people. Put into the wrong hands, it can be pretty dangerous.
Anyways, I will correct my earlier statement and say anyone in this thread who's attacked another person's belief or non-belief is the lamest thing ever. There's a time for criticism, and there's a time for everyone to get along. This time is for the latter.
Just one thought about faith generally and why faith is more attractive than knowledge:
Knowledge is very inelastic and also very difficult to acquire. If i want to know what someone else knows, then i have to learn this. If i want to believe what someone believes, then i only have to believe this. This needs only the willingness but little work, and setbacks are virtually nonexistent because beliefs of course aren't subjected to the fundamental theorem of falsifiability.
What I'm wondering is, since the texts were meant for people thousands of years ago, that they're outdated now because we live in different conditions, and that the passages are so prone to misinterpretation (I don't know two people who agree exactly on which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't), wouldn't it make more sense for the Bible to be a constantly moving amount of text, with added parts that relate to today, removing the parts that don't anymore, etc, in short the way it used to be constantly modified in the past.
Now it's been the same and is seen as "untouchable" and "unchangeable" when even Christians seem to agree that some parts need to be interpreted completely differently, and so on.
I'm not sure where you get the "constantly modified in the past" part. The original text isn't modified. We are still today finding more (and older) scrolls and manuscripts that validate other existing material. The text itself doesn't change. Though maybe our understanding of it might.
There are various translations of the Bible (even in the same language) for various reasons. First, it's because, as we have discussed in other threads, language itself is a fluid and changing thing. Second, it's because some translations focus more on translating word-for-word while others focus more on communicating the basic idea that the text was trying to get across. Also, some translations are designed to be able to use more for study while others are intended to be able to read normally just like a book.
But anyway, the point to reading Scripture isn't merely as a rulebook or so that we can nitpick at it (although that's not wrong do to.) The point is to grow closer in our relationship with God through learning more about God's character and allowing Him to speak to us through reading the text. The point is to be able to read the Bible and say "what is God teaching me through this?"
It's a bit pointless to argue that something is an accurate demonstration of the original by showing that copies of copies many generations down are similar but for minor differences. To say that the words haven't changed is just plain wrong. It is generally accepted among christians that your average bible will have 300,000 alterations from earlier copies in it, but is argued (probably correctly) that none of these are substantial. They are spelling mistakes, fiddling about with sentence structure, reducing text ambiguity, etc.
The important bit is trying to find out what happened very early on in the bible's formation. One thing we like to use for this is Codex Vaticanus, a very old script with the new testament that's from around 330AD, and more importantly is well preserved so we can read it damned easily.
Using that as the 'original' we find that Jesus saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was added later, and the entirity of Mark 16:9-20 was added later.
And that is using a document from 330AD as the original. We still don't know how much tampering went on to the stories in the 300 years between Codex Vaticanus and Jesus' death.
At the risk of necro'ing old threads, I decided to post what the upcoming Christmas season means to me.
John 1:1-14,16
1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.
6 God sent a man, John the Baptist, 7 to tell about the light so that everyone might believe because of his testimony. 8 John himself was not the light; he was simply a witness to tell about the light. 9 The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He came into the very world he created, but the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own people, and even they rejected him. 12 But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. 13 They are reborn—not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God.
14 So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.
16 From his abundance we have all received one gracious blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but God’s unfailing love and faithfulness came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
Matthew 1:18:24
18 This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. 19 Joseph, her fiancé, was a good man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement[h] quietly.
20 As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All of this occurred to fulfill the Lord’s message through his prophet: 23 “Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means ‘God is with us.’”
[from the book of Isaiah]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
Luke 2:1-21
1 At that time the Roman emperor, Augustus, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the Roman Empire. 2 (This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 All returned to their own ancestral towns to register for this census. 4 And because Joseph was a descendant of King David, he had to go to Bethlehem in Judea, David’s ancient home. He traveled there from the village of Nazareth in Galilee. 5 He took with him Mary, his fiancée, who was now obviously pregnant. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her baby to be born. 7 She gave birth to her first child, a son. She wrapped him snugly in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no lodging available for them.
8 That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep. 9 Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified, 10 but the angel reassured them. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. 11 The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David! 12 And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger.” 13 Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.”
15 When the angels had returned to heaven, the shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem! Let’s see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.” 16 They hurried to the village and found Mary and Joseph. And there was the baby, lying in the manger. 17 After seeing him, the shepherds told everyone what had happened and what the angel had said to them about this child. 18 All who heard the shepherds’ story were astonished, 19 but Mary kept all these things in her heart and thought about them often. 20 The shepherds went back to their flocks, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen. It was just as the angel had told them.
21 Eight days later, when the baby was circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel even before he was conceived.
Matthew 2
Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking, 2 “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose, and we have come to worship him.”
3 King Herod was deeply disturbed when he heard this, as was everyone in Jerusalem. 4 He called a meeting of the leading priests and teachers of religious law and asked, “Where is the Messiah supposed to be born?” 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they said, “for this is what the prophet wrote: 6 ‘And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah, are not least among the ruling cities of Judah, for a ruler will come from you who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.’”
7 Then Herod called for a private meeting with the wise men, and he learned from them the time when the star first appeared. 8 Then he told them, “Go to Bethlehem and search carefully for the child. And when you find him, come back and tell me so that I can go and worship him, too!”
9 After this interview the wise men went their way. And the star they had seen in the east guided them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were filled with joy! 11 They entered the house and saw the child with his mother, Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
12 When it was time to leave, they returned to their own country by another route, for God had warned them in a dream not to return to Herod.
13 After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child and his mother,” the angel said. “Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
14 That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, 15 and they stayed there until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: “I called my Son out of Egypt.”
16 Herod was furious when he realized that the wise men had outwitted him. He sent soldiers to kill all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, based on the wise men’s report of the star’s first appearance. 17 Herod’s brutal action fulfilled what God had spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
18 “A cry was heard in Ramah— weeping and great mourning. Rachel weeps for her children, refusing to be comforted, for they are dead.”
19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. 20 “Get up!” the angel said. “Take the child and his mother back to the land of Israel, because those who were trying to kill the child are dead.”
21 So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. 22 But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. 23 So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: “He will be called a Nazarene.”
On a partially-related note, I really don't get the whole War on Christmas thing. I'm by no means saying all Christians are doing this, but quite a few of them are "fighting" against other holidays of December as well as the celebration practices of the less religious as if someone is taking away their meaningful theological practices, even though Christmas itself doesn't even have a biblically stated root. You know?
I mean, I'm not against anyone who wants to celebrate any end of the year holiday any way they want, I just don't really get the demanded monopoly for some Christians of the entire season.
Just one thought about faith generally and why faith is more attractive than knowledge:
Knowledge is very inelastic and also very difficult to acquire. If i want to know what someone else knows, then i have to learn this. If i want to believe what someone believes, then i only have to believe this. This needs only the willingness but little work, and setbacks are virtually nonexistent because beliefs of course aren't subjected to the fundamental theorem of falsifiability.
As you may know, there is a pastor in Florida named Terry Jones who has- and is encouraging other people to- burn the Koran, and there has been a lot of controversy going on surrounding his behavior.
The pastor of my church wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about it:
By Hess Hester, Tulsa
Published: 4/9/2011 5:43 AM
Last Modified: 4/9/2011 5:43 AM
As a local Tulsa pastor, I'd like to publicly say that the self-described pastor in Florida who burned the Quran is best described as an irresponsible idiot. He is neither representative of pastors nor Christians who truly know Christ and know their Bibles.
I deeply regret that he was given any media coverage and deeply saddened by the loss of life that has resulted. It is a travesty that men like this, and others, such as Fred Phelps of Westboro Church in Kansas, can call themselves pastors. (And, as a Baptist, I also cringe when I see Phelps' church in the news because it has "Baptist" in the name but has absolutely no affiliation with any denomination, only with abomination!)
There are too many churches and too many pastors out there who are making a difference in Christ-honoring ways in this world and it's unfortunate that crazies like these receive such attention. They are an embarrassment and cause damage not only to God's Kingdom, but to many others as well.
Editor's note: Hester is senior pastor of Southern Hills Baptist Church
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD’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.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
I don't subscribe to any one particular religion, I just follow a lot of the values and ideas of different religions, such as heaven, hell, karma, kindness, generosity, honesty, etc.
I don't believe in the organization of religion. There are just too many differing interpreted ideologies for any particular person to follow a certain religion 100% without any sort of doubt. Let's face it, the only way you'd be completely satisfied in following a religion is starting your own. I have neither the time or patience to do that, so I choose to remain unaffiliated.
I don't subscribe to any one particular religion, I just follow a lot of the values and ideas of different religions, such as heaven, hell, karma, kindness, generosity, honesty, etc.
I don't believe in the organization of religion. There are just too many differing interpreted ideologies for any particular person to follow a certain religion 100% without any sort of doubt. Let's face it, the only way you'd be completely satisfied in following a religion is starting your own. I have neither the time or patience to do that, so I choose to remain unaffiliated.
Following all or none are morally equivalent if they're all false.
I'm a firm believer of Universal Life Church's philosophy that all religious beliefs are equal and that the only thing that matters is that you do that which is right.
As a bonus, every member of the church is a minister, so I have the ability to perform marriage ceremonies if I so desire.
I'm a firm believer of Universal Life Church's philosophy that all religious beliefs are equal and that the only thing that matters is that you do that which is right.
As a bonus, every member of the church is a minister, so I have the ability to perform marriage ceremonies if I so desire.
I've always believed that religion isn't important.
Its HOW you live your life that matters. Actions speak louder than words.
If there was a God, and therefore an afterlife of some sort, then if he decided that an individual wasn't worthy of their "reward" due to them not following a specific template despite being a good person, then he is a dick, and doesn't deserve to be in that position of power.
I've always believed that religion isn't important.
Its HOW you live your life that matters. Actions speak louder than words.
If there was a God, and therefore an afterlife of some sort, then if he decided that an individual wasn't worthy of their "reward" due to them not following a specific template despite being a good person, then he is a dick, and doesn't deserve to be in that position of power.
Of course what is right has different meanings for different cultures, so of course you are expected to follow the laws and cultures of the area you live in or are visiting. The big thing I like about the ULC's message is that people should accept and respect everyone's differences since we're all children of the same universe.
I might add though, it also means accepting changes in culture as well (we're not all stuck in a caste system any more, for example), so while we should accept people's differences, we also have to accept that time inevitably changes things.
I think the whole "do unto others" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" bits are pretty good starting points. Too many religions add on caveats to these like: unless they're gay, another religion/atheist, or a different race. I think that's silly.
The real problems come when you get to the tough decisions of deciding the right between two ambiguous things. Or things that some people find ambiguous and others find remarkably straightforward.
I don't subscribe to any one particular religion, I just follow a lot of the values and ideas of different religions, such as heaven, hell, karma, kindness, generosity, honesty, etc.
I don't believe in the organization of religion.
Christianity isn't about religion. It's about a relationship with God.
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I'm a firm believer of Universal Life Church's philosophy that all religious beliefs are equal and that the only thing that matters is that you do that which is right.
There are two problems with this:
John 14:5-14
Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
and:
Ephesians 2
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
It's not just that His grace is can not be earned by good works; It is also that He will meet us where we are at in life, no matter where that is and no matter what we have done, so long as we ask Him to forgive us for our mistakes and to be a part of our lives. In our obedience we are called to do good works, but the works themselves are to bring glory to God and help to each other, not salvation for ourselves.
Or, you could just, you know, relax and enjoy life come what may.
I'm quite happy in my life without subscribing to any -isms or what have you, including atheism. I need no instruction for being a good person, or justification for my existence. 's all good. Even if I'm just a meaningless, coincidental hunk of molecules, that in and of itself is pretty goddamn amazing.
Of course some Holy Book written by man is going to say "I am the only way to [The Lord]". Basically, "My Way or the highway." You know, because screw all those people that lived for thousands of years before.... Yahweh didn't feel like talking to them.
You can quote a book all you want, but it doesn't mean it's right.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
The Christian bible also states that God takes many forms.
Hebrews: 1.1: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.
Since we are all people living in the same universe, is it not possible that Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, and even science are the same God taking different forms?
Guys...please...please don't start anything in here, and or tear anyone down.
If they do, though, can we please not lock the thread at the first sign of it? I'm looking forward to reading the ensuing debate, even if it is heated. In other meaningless threads, sure, but this is one thread I don't want to see cut off.
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
By the way, what is/are the inherent problem/s you see in this passage?
The Christian bible also states that God takes many forms.
Hebrews: 1.1: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.
Since we are all people living in the same universe, is it not possible that Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, and even science are the same God taking different forms?
This is actually quite a logical standpoint, and one which I can't argue with to any great degree. But the benefit of simply following one religion, or one denomination, is that it gives you an objective definition/basis of right and wrong that is both specific and comprehensive. All other perceptions of right and wrong are subjective, and can be altered and influenced very easily, and which aren't set or grounded or undeniable (in other words, they aren't objective). And I think this is why Daishi was persisting with the "What is right?" and "What is a good person?" questions (correct me if I'm wrong here, though, Daishi).
Anyway, I just think that there are benefits in following one specific faith. And I personally choose Christianity because it promotes a terrific way of living anyway. It endorses a life of humility, service and kindness (so, if followed, it's an ideal way to achieve humanism), and it's based around relationship (as Chyron has said), rather than the superficialities that generally surround most religions (pointless traditions, rituals, building of monuments, etc.).
Of course some Holy Book written by man is going to say "I am the only way to [The Lord]". Basically, "My Way or the highway." You know, because screw all those people that lived for thousands of years before.... Yahweh didn't feel like talking to them.
You can quote a book all you want, but it doesn't mean it's right.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Such rules were developed as Israel was establishing itself--they were made so that Moses didn't have to make decisions about every dispute. These many, many (admittedly strange) rules were not handed down by God. In fact, Jesus chastized the Pharisees because they held too much to the letter of the law (and how they cared more for their own outward appearances than for God or for other people) rather than to pursue a relationship with God.
Mark 7:6-13
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
I often can't understand KJV very easily. Also, I have heard that it is not as accurate in its translation as other, more recent translations. As such, I like NIV better:
Ephesians 6:5-9
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
If they do, though, can we please not lock the thread at the first sign of it? I'm looking forward to reading the ensuing debate, even if it is heated. In other meaningless threads, sure, but this is one thread I don't want to see cut off.
By the way, what is/are the inherent problem/s you see in this passage?
This is actually quite a logical standpoint, and one which I can't argue with to any great degree. But the benefit of simply following one religion, or one denomination, is that it gives you an objective definition/basis of right and wrong that is both specific and comprehensive. All other perceptions of right and wrong are subjective, and can be altered and influenced very easily, and which aren't set or grounded or undeniable (in other words, they aren't objective). And I think this is why Daishi was persisting with the "What is right?" and "What is a good person?" questions (correct me if I'm wrong here, though, Daishi).
Anyway, I just think that there are benefits in following one specific faith. And I personally choose Christianity because it promotes a terrific way of living anyway. It endorses a life of humility, service and kindness (so, if followed, it's an ideal way to achieve humanism), and it's based around relationship (as Chyron has said), rather than the superficialities that generally surround most religions (pointless traditions, rituals, building of monuments, etc.).
You allude to my point, yes. I can only exist in one of two realities. One, that nothing is right or wrong, and that all things are subjective. Under this system, morality is utilitarian, used only to settle on what general framework allows a society to exist without cannibalizing itself. Under this system, because all things are subjective, there is no right. It's all alterable or subjective.
I'm not inherently opposed to such a system per se, but I've found that an objective morality is at least more appealing in that it establishes a framework in which there can be a definite right and wrong. Now, I can also be tolerant of other people's differences and live side by side with them under this objective system. I can think a person is existing wrongly without imposing my morality on them (thus I have no problem with the notion of legalized drug use, for instance, which I don't believe the government should regulate), and still coexist and maintain my personal beliefs.
It endorses a life of humility, service and kindness (so, if followed, it's an ideal way to achieve humanism), and it's based around relationship (as Chyron has said), rather than the superficialities that generally surround most religions (pointless traditions, rituals, building of monuments, etc.).
I'm an atheist and am not a religious person at all, but... To me, that statement alone is rather arrogant, contemptuous and contradictory. Where's the humility and kindness in calling most other religions superficial? What gives you the right? Don't you think that one could say the same of Christianity, it being based on pointless traditions, rituals and monuments, just because that person knows more about his religion than you do (and, in turn, less about your religion than you do) and it is actually meaningful to him in one way or another? I don't mean to offend you, but I was REALLY baffled by that statement of yours.
Comments
No, because religion, like any ideology, really, can be used to motivate people. Put into the wrong hands, it can be pretty dangerous.
Anyways, I will correct my earlier statement and say anyone in this thread who's attacked another person's belief or non-belief is the lamest thing ever. There's a time for criticism, and there's a time for everyone to get along. This time is for the latter.
Knowledge is very inelastic and also very difficult to acquire. If i want to know what someone else knows, then i have to learn this. If i want to believe what someone believes, then i only have to believe this. This needs only the willingness but little work, and setbacks are virtually nonexistent because beliefs of course aren't subjected to the fundamental theorem of falsifiability.
I'm not sure where you get the "constantly modified in the past" part. The original text isn't modified. We are still today finding more (and older) scrolls and manuscripts that validate other existing material. The text itself doesn't change. Though maybe our understanding of it might.
There are various translations of the Bible (even in the same language) for various reasons. First, it's because, as we have discussed in other threads, language itself is a fluid and changing thing. Second, it's because some translations focus more on translating word-for-word while others focus more on communicating the basic idea that the text was trying to get across. Also, some translations are designed to be able to use more for study while others are intended to be able to read normally just like a book.
But anyway, the point to reading Scripture isn't merely as a rulebook or so that we can nitpick at it (although that's not wrong do to.) The point is to grow closer in our relationship with God through learning more about God's character and allowing Him to speak to us through reading the text. The point is to be able to read the Bible and say "what is God teaching me through this?"
The important bit is trying to find out what happened very early on in the bible's formation. One thing we like to use for this is Codex Vaticanus, a very old script with the new testament that's from around 330AD, and more importantly is well preserved so we can read it damned easily.
Using that as the 'original' we find that Jesus saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was added later, and the entirity of Mark 16:9-20 was added later.
And that is using a document from 330AD as the original. We still don't know how much tampering went on to the stories in the 300 years between Codex Vaticanus and Jesus' death.
I already answered that here. I have precognition.:D
I mean, I'm not against anyone who wants to celebrate any end of the year holiday any way they want, I just don't really get the demanded monopoly for some Christians of the entire season.
So easier is better?
The pastor of my church wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about it:
I have to say, I agree.
Happy Easter to you too. He is risen!
Lets celibrate with the festive song!
You should have been past out for three days.
That risk was actually potent.
I don't believe in the organization of religion. There are just too many differing interpreted ideologies for any particular person to follow a certain religion 100% without any sort of doubt. Let's face it, the only way you'd be completely satisfied in following a religion is starting your own. I have neither the time or patience to do that, so I choose to remain unaffiliated.
Following all or none are morally equivalent if they're all false.
As a bonus, every member of the church is a minister, so I have the ability to perform marriage ceremonies if I so desire.
What is 'right' ?
Its HOW you live your life that matters. Actions speak louder than words.
If there was a God, and therefore an afterlife of some sort, then if he decided that an individual wasn't worthy of their "reward" due to them not following a specific template despite being a good person, then he is a dick, and doesn't deserve to be in that position of power.
What is a good person?
Of course what is right has different meanings for different cultures, so of course you are expected to follow the laws and cultures of the area you live in or are visiting. The big thing I like about the ULC's message is that people should accept and respect everyone's differences since we're all children of the same universe.
I might add though, it also means accepting changes in culture as well (we're not all stuck in a caste system any more, for example), so while we should accept people's differences, we also have to accept that time inevitably changes things.
I think the whole "do unto others" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" bits are pretty good starting points. Too many religions add on caveats to these like: unless they're gay, another religion/atheist, or a different race. I think that's silly.
The real problems come when you get to the tough decisions of deciding the right between two ambiguous things. Or things that some people find ambiguous and others find remarkably straightforward.
--
There are two problems with this:
and: It's not just that His grace is can not be earned by good works; It is also that He will meet us where we are at in life, no matter where that is and no matter what we have done, so long as we ask Him to forgive us for our mistakes and to be a part of our lives. In our obedience we are called to do good works, but the works themselves are to bring glory to God and help to each other, not salvation for ourselves.
I'm quite happy in my life without subscribing to any -isms or what have you, including atheism. I need no instruction for being a good person, or justification for my existence. 's all good. Even if I'm just a meaningless, coincidental hunk of molecules, that in and of itself is pretty goddamn amazing.
You can quote a book all you want, but it doesn't mean it's right.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Cherry picking the Bible is fun!
Bt
Hebrews: 1.1: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.
Since we are all people living in the same universe, is it not possible that Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, and even science are the same God taking different forms?
If they do, though, can we please not lock the thread at the first sign of it? I'm looking forward to reading the ensuing debate, even if it is heated. In other meaningless threads, sure, but this is one thread I don't want to see cut off.
By the way, what is/are the inherent problem/s you see in this passage?
This is actually quite a logical standpoint, and one which I can't argue with to any great degree. But the benefit of simply following one religion, or one denomination, is that it gives you an objective definition/basis of right and wrong that is both specific and comprehensive. All other perceptions of right and wrong are subjective, and can be altered and influenced very easily, and which aren't set or grounded or undeniable (in other words, they aren't objective). And I think this is why Daishi was persisting with the "What is right?" and "What is a good person?" questions (correct me if I'm wrong here, though, Daishi).
Anyway, I just think that there are benefits in following one specific faith. And I personally choose Christianity because it promotes a terrific way of living anyway. It endorses a life of humility, service and kindness (so, if followed, it's an ideal way to achieve humanism), and it's based around relationship (as Chyron has said), rather than the superficialities that generally surround most religions (pointless traditions, rituals, building of monuments, etc.).
I often can't understand KJV very easily. Also, I have heard that it is not as accurate in its translation as other, more recent translations. As such, I like NIV better:
You allude to my point, yes. I can only exist in one of two realities. One, that nothing is right or wrong, and that all things are subjective. Under this system, morality is utilitarian, used only to settle on what general framework allows a society to exist without cannibalizing itself. Under this system, because all things are subjective, there is no right. It's all alterable or subjective.
I'm not inherently opposed to such a system per se, but I've found that an objective morality is at least more appealing in that it establishes a framework in which there can be a definite right and wrong. Now, I can also be tolerant of other people's differences and live side by side with them under this objective system. I can think a person is existing wrongly without imposing my morality on them (thus I have no problem with the notion of legalized drug use, for instance, which I don't believe the government should regulate), and still coexist and maintain my personal beliefs.
I'm an atheist and am not a religious person at all, but... To me, that statement alone is rather arrogant, contemptuous and contradictory. Where's the humility and kindness in calling most other religions superficial? What gives you the right? Don't you think that one could say the same of Christianity, it being based on pointless traditions, rituals and monuments, just because that person knows more about his religion than you do (and, in turn, less about your religion than you do) and it is actually meaningful to him in one way or another? I don't mean to offend you, but I was REALLY baffled by that statement of yours.