What religion/faith/belief do you follow?

[unitas]

As for the apocryphal, these are books that are accepted by the Roman Catholic church into their bibles, but not typically into the protestant bibles. Originally, all Jewish scripture was in Hebrew. Jews are conquered and it is all translated into Greek as they must all speak Greek.

Not quite. Ptolemy II wanted all of the hebrew scriptures written down in greek for the library in Alexandria. This greek translation of the hebrew scriptures is known as the septuagint. How this is mainly different is that the septuagint includes 7 more books than the hebrew old testament. These 7 books are considered canon by the Catholic Church, and apocryphal by non-Catholic Churches. These 7 books were considered scripture by the Jews until the late first century, hypothetically at the council of Jamnia, when the Hebrew scriptures were finalized and 7 books were omitted.

When the early church sits down and decides which books are going to be accepted into their cannon, they decide to go back to the early books that have the original Hebrew. There are several books that do not have copies of existing Hebrew translations, these are considered the Apocryphal books. So they are accepted by the Catholic church as non-canonical books because they are still (if I recall correctly) accepted into the current Jewish canon. The argument with which they include them is that Jesus would have been studying them. With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls several of the apocryphal books have found (surprise) original Hebrew translations. If you read them, they're really not particularly meaningful or drastically change the old Testament story.

When the canon of scripture was being considered, the septuagint was used for the old testament because that is what was widely used in that area at that time, it was already in greek and many old testament quotes made by the apostles references the septuagint, not the hebrew, so it stands to reason that even the apostles used and were familiar with the greek version.

At the council of Trent as late as the 16th century, the Catholic church accepted more Apocryphal books as being "inspired". Admittedly, I have a "New American Version" of the bible as well as my preferred translation (New International Version), but my studies have not lead me to the Apocryphal books (yet).

This isn't entirely accurate. What would become the final canon of scripture was originally decided upon in 382ad at the council of Rome, ratified at the council of Hippo without change in 393ad, ratified again without change at the council of Carthage in 407, and lastly, again without change, at Trent. The reason it was an issue over a millenia later was because Martin Luther challenged the inspiredness of the septuagint, preferring the hebrew instead. It is probable that this had political motivation as Luther disputed the doctrine of purgatory, and 2 Maccabees provides scriptural support for it. 2 Maccabbes is however absent from the hebrew scriptures, possibly explaining Luther's preference. Such preference has precedence, for example, Luther also questioned the inspiredness of James which contradicts his doctrine of sola fide. It should also be mentioned that the complete, finalized, hebrew scriptures didn't exist in written form until the late first century, after Christianity was established.

The bible contained these seven disputed books since the late 4th century. Even the original King James bible, a very popular non-Catholic translation, contained them until 1827. The Catholic Church did not add these books at Trent, they were removed at a later date by non-Catholic translators.

That's my $0.02 anyway

 

[RenegadeDave]

I've studied this subject quite a bit, this is how it really is.

Your knowledge of Canon/Apocrypha obviously surpasses my own. Thanks for further clarifying it.

 

[JPhoenix19]

It is somewhat fallacy to base Christianity strictly on the bible with respect to worship. If you consider a majority of the world could not read let alone afford bibles until the printing press was invented then being strictly biblical is really losing some of the tradition of the practice of the faith.

Just as a matter of curiosity: are you, by chance, Roman Catholic? I was *almost* confirmed in the RCC a while ago, but I pulled out of the RCIA class. I ask because the quoted statement sounds very much like some of my Catholic friends' arguments against sola scriptura.

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

I do not believe in god(s). I'm fairly certain there aren't any omni-benevolent beings around here, lol. The universe seems to get along just fine without the need for gods. If there were a god, it wouldn't be hard for him to prove to me that he is real and worthy of my (or anyone else's) attention. Jesus moonwalking on my pizza image, sort of like a gif image should do the trick. Or a pillar of pot smoke. Or my guitar playing itself. Nothing huge, really. Just not some vague image on a piece of toast seen because of the effects of pareidolia.

*looks down at pizza*

Nope, nodda. That sucks, it seemed to work for these two:

And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me...? And Isaiah said ... shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward. - 2 Kings 20:8-11

Why is it now we can't temp the lord but back in the day it was ok? There are a few (that I know of) times where god was more than happy to prove to not only the followers but other people who were converted after witnessing the miracles.

There are two different sets of commandments (Exodus 20 and 34). Almost all of god's people break 1 or more of the commandments and get off punishment free, save a foreskin or two. There are times when god even breaks them himself! But it's ok, because it's god? (God impregnating Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph, for example). Why should anyone follow this god and his rules when he is an angry, jealous, genocidal, hemorrhoid-obsessed (Deuteronomy 28:27, 1 Samuel 5:12, 1 Samuel 5:6-7) hypocrite? Most of the commandments are redundant, anyways. What, are we fucking stupid? (arguable, I suppose...) Why are they so negative? Why are the christian interpretations so negative? How come they have to tell you "Thou shalt not * " instead of "Thou shalt be honest", which is all it really needs (Carlin!). I'll stop now though, seems everyone is busy arguing over another text which - much like the traditional bible - cannot be verified as to who the authors are, lol.

 

[Dvaienat]

I don't follow any religion in particular, but I would say I'm closest to being a Humanist. I believe in and support it's values. However, unlike Humanism, I don't rule out the existance of a God. I also believe in the human spirit, which in my opinion cannot be denied. I believe in both spiritual and physical satisfaction. I do believe in living for the moment and indulging, yet being kind and compassionate to others. I'm also a vegetarian, out of compassion for animals. I'll also mention that I used to be a Christian. Now I absolutely despise Christianity. The whole 'repent and be forgiven or burn in hell' basis of Christianity makes me sick. I commit what Christians would call 'sins' every day. Im my opinion nothing is a sin unless it harms others. The Church and it's discrimination and prejudice (gay people, women, atheists etc.) is another source of my hate for Christianity too. I'm quite happy to get along with Christians though, as long as they respect my beliefs, I will respect theirs.

 

[RenegadeDave]

Just as a matter of curiosity: are you, by chance, Roman Catholic? I was *almost* confirmed in the RCC a while ago, but I pulled out of the RCIA class. I ask because the quoted statement sounds very much like some of my Catholic friends' arguments against sola scriptura.

As a service to my wife, we're going through RCIA. The flavor of church really didn't matter to me, and for whatever reason she's always had her heart set on being Catholic. I was raised Episcopal but never really "got it", spent a lot of time as an open minded agnostic. I will never self identify as an anything before a Christian.

 

[FYP666]

I'm a non-denominational Christian, so to say. I'm not a part of any big group of ''believers'', and I don't tend to stuff my beliefs down someones throat. I have my reasons why I believe in certain things and IMO, these things are personal and these aren't kind of things that you have to run over the rest of you life. Just want to enjoy life, bacon and women, you know

 

[RenegadeDave]

Why is it now we can't temp the lord but back in the day it was ok? There are a few (that I know of) times where god was more than happy to prove to not only the followers but other people who were converted after witnessing the miracles.

There are two different sets of commandments (Exodus 20 and 34). Almost all of god's people break 1 or more of the commandments and get off punishment free, save a foreskin or two. There are times when god even breaks them himself! But it's ok, because it's god? (God impregnating Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph, for example). Why should anyone follow this god and his rules when he is an angry, jealous, genocidal, hemorrhoid-obsessed (Deuteronomy 28:27, 1 Samuel 5:12, 1 Samuel 5:6-7) hypocrite? Most of the commandments are redundant, anyways. What, are we fucking stupid? (arguable, I suppose...) Why are they so negative? Why are the christian interpretations so negative? How come they have to tell you "Thou shalt not * " instead of "Thou shalt be honest", which is all it really needs (Carlin!). I'll stop now though, seems everyone is busy arguing over another text which - much like the traditional bible - cannot be verified as to who the authors are, lol.

First, with respect to your Carlin comment, Jesus does essentially say that. If you love the Lord with all your heart and honor him, you honor his creation (your neighbors). In so doing, you keep with the remainder of the commandments. That bit was clarified in the New Testament.

The balance of your argument is with the Old Testament, a lot of your issues start to disappear if you view it through the lens of the New Testament. If you have interest in clarifying it I'll happily discuss it with you via PM/email/whatever, if not, that's fine too . Eitherway, a happy saturday to us all.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

Never heard George Carlin say a word I didn't agree with.

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

Umm, Love your neighbor as yourself? So, basically, love anyone more than your own family?

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:34-37

Jesus seems to be all over the place. What about Jesus' temper tantrums? Mark 11:12-14. Matthew 12:46-50, renouncing his own faming. Jesus does this on multiple occasions. Why cherry pick? You can take the good deeds literally but the bad deeds must have some deeper meaning?

The new testament doesn't negate the old one. Deuteronomy 12:32, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 5:38-39, Matthew 5:27-28. The old law is upheld. Even this can't be agreed upon by christians because of the contradictions within the book.

Another thing that gets me is that the whole 'getting saved' or baptized thing is basically a get-outta-jail-free card. Why is it that, say, someone who has raped, murdered, and gone off to jail can find god and go to heaven? When, say, a nerd whom has never hurt a thing is his life is going to hell because he doesn't believe in an immoral contradictory story written thousands of years ago by goat-herders? Yes, I do believe that the god of the bible is immoral. It's self-evident.

Where does god even get his standards for morals? Does he do things because they are intrinsically moral? Or are things moral because he does them? Genocide is ok because he commands it? or is genocide automatically good, so he goes with that? The bible endorses slavery and rape too. Exodus 21:7, even of your own daughter. How do you rationalize that? "Oh, *tv laugh*. That was then, things were different back then, the new testament...". Do you guys know that you are trying to rationalise atrocities? Why can you throw the old testament out the window when it's convenient for you, but not the rest?

 

[RenegadeDave]

I am certainly not any sort of professional apologist or schooled in divinity or anything. But that said, without any great degree of authority here are the musings of a neophyte on your points.

Umm, Love your neighbor as yourself? So, basically, love anyone more than your own family?

More succinctly put, love everyone as family.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:34-37

The "greatest commandment" puts God before all else. This is expounded upon in the "body of Christ" Paul addresses in his letters. Before Christ's appearance, you had men attempting to interpret God's will. Jesus appears and says "yeah that's what you thought, but this is what I meant". This bit is addressing the fact that not everyone would be able to accept his teaching and cling to the old ways.

Jesus seems to be all over the place. What about Jesus' temper tantrums? Mark 11:12-14. Matthew 12:46-50, renouncing his own faming. Jesus does this on multiple occasions. Why cherry pick? You can take the good deeds literally but the bad deeds must have some deeper meaning?

Mark 11:12-14
Jesus was teaching that for a thing to claim to be a thing but not fulfill that thing's function, it is worthless. The lesson being if I say I am a Christian, but do no charitable acts, am arrogant and selfish, then I am not a Christian despite what I may say. Faith without deeds is worthless.

Matt 12:46-50
Again, teaching that his message is for everyone and he desires to be in fellowship with those who return his love, not just an elect few. John 3:16 obviously further illustrates that point with the "the world" bit.

The verses you are highlighting do not contradict the body of the text in the slightest if they are read in context of his teaching, it's totally consistent.

The new testament doesn't negate the old one. Deuteronomy 12:32, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 5:38-39, Matthew 5:27-28. The old law is upheld. Even this can't be agreed upon by christians because of the contradictions within the book.

So because the scripture doesn't marry up with your idea of morality it is wrong? You can not agree with it, but your disagreement does not necessarily make it "wrong". What makes your idea of morality or moral relativism correct other than you choose to subscribe to it?

The OT was a series of men interpreting the will/word of God. The NT is God coming and explaining it as he meant it. The OT is a series of sowing/reaping. God detests sin and punishes it. That all gets clarified when Jesus shows up. God desires a relationship with individuals, not simply a series of rules that must be followed and a weekly seminar to confirm your self righteousness. You cannot take a minimalist mentality with it "As long as I don't break these specific rules, I'm good", it goes much deeper than that. God has laid out what his standard of holiness is and desires it for all of us, but it is on us to choose to submit our wills to his and attempt to walk that way. You are still accountable for your actions, but after the price is paid there is the possibility of forgiveness. For that reason that is why Christians study the NT in greater depth than the OT. A new covenant is made, new information distributed.

The "eye for an eye" bit, originally was intended as a safeguard against retaliation spiraling up continual escalation, but began to be interpreted as "he wronged me, I demand to wrong him in turn!" Jesus dropped the turn the other cheek line to clarify that point.

Another thing that gets me is that the whole 'getting saved' or baptized thing is basically a get-outta-jail-free card. Why is it that, say, someone who has raped, murdered, and gone off to jail can find god and go to heaven? When, say, a nerd whom has never hurt a thing is his life is going to hell because he doesn't believe in an immoral contradictory story written thousands of years ago by goat-herders? Yes, I do believe that the god of the bible is immoral. It's self-evident.

You are entitled to what you wish to believe. With respect to murderers/rapists it is as you highlight with the example of the fig tree, someone who says they're saved but does not act like it is not saved. it's not just a matter of saying "ah hah! I get it", it's not a "one and done" type of deal, it's a choice that gets made over and over and over again every day in every decision.

To be completely honest with you I have not studied the law with any great degree of depth since coming into the fold. I doubt I could give you an answer that would begin to satisfy you on your final point. There might not be an answer that satisfies you.

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

Before Christ people interpreted god's will? You just presented a few interpretations of your own. The new testament is interpreted just as much and the old. It is a case of special pleading, to say that he MUST have meant something else, because an apostle said so (and an argument from authority, fallacious) or because it doesn't align with your particular views of the bible. Most fundamentalists would interpret that differently, as they just say that all the horrible things done by god's people in the bible were ok because they were wicked and it was god's will.

That fig tree Jesus bitch-slapped wasn't producing fruit because it was out of season. It was in fact, doing it's job. Christians just assume that because it wasn't bearing fruit it must have been lame. Jesus could never be a jerk, right?

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. ... And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away." - Mark 11:13-14, 20-21

You can continue to try to rationalise these horrible things done in the bible, the get-outta-jail-free-card analogy still stands, as you provided a non-answer. It is apparent that you haven't studied the bible too thoroughly, as you probably wouldn't believe it if you read it from beginning to end without systematic interpretation.

-"So because the scripture doesn't marry up with your idea of morality it is wrong? You can not agree with it, but your disagreement does not necessarily make it "wrong". What makes your idea of morality or moral relativism correct other than you choose to subscribe to it?"

Do you agree that slavery is wrong? What about rape, murder, genocide, forced incest, whoring out your daughter, killing babies?

"Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones." -Psalm 137:9

There are things done in the name of god that by any reasonable, rational breathing human being would consider immoral and plain wrong. But then again, pastors don't teach that stuff. It doesn't benefit them to instill doubt in their congregation. How many pastors are going to go and do a sermon, on say, Hosea chapter 1? I'll tell you how many ...NONE.

Again, it wouldn't be hard for an almighty god to show to us that he exists and is worthy of attention. All I ask is a simple gesture from god and I would believe in him. But, do you know what it would take for you to no longer believe? Have you ever even thought of that? Atheists are often accused of being close minded when in fact it is quite the opposite. Faith is not an answer. Faith is pretending to know what you do not know (or what is unknowable).

 

[aslsmm]

Before Christ people interpreted god's will? You just presented a few interpretations of your own. The new testament is interpreted just as much and the old. It is a case of special pleading, to say that he MUST have meant something else, because an apostle said so (and an argument from authority, fallacious) or because it doesn't align with your particular views of the bible. Most fundamentalists would interpret that differently, as they just say that all the horrible things done by god's people in the bible were ok because they were wicked and it was god's will.

That fig tree Jesus bitch-slapped wasn't producing fruit because it was out of season. It was in fact, doing it's job. Christians just assume that because it wasn't bearing fruit it must have been lame. Jesus could never be a jerk, right?

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. ... And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away." - Mark 11:13-14, 20-21

You can continue to try to rationalise these horrible things done in the bible, the get-outta-jail-free-card analogy still stands, as you provided a non-answer. It is apparent that you haven't studied the bible too thoroughly, as you probably wouldn't believe it if you read it from beginning to end without systematic interpretation.

-"So because the scripture doesn't marry up with your idea of morality it is wrong? You can not agree with it, but your disagreement does not necessarily make it "wrong". What makes your idea of morality or moral relativism correct other than you choose to subscribe to it?"

Do you agree that slavery is wrong? What about rape, murder, genocide, forced incest, whoring out your daughter, killing babies?

"Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones." -Psalm 137:9

There are things done in the name of god that by any reasonable, rational breathing human being would consider immoral and plain wrong. But then again, pastors don't teach that stuff. It doesn't benefit them to instill doubt in their congregation. How many pastors are going to go and do a sermon, on say, Hosea chapter 1? I'll tell you how many ...NONE.

Again, it wouldn't be hard for an almighty god to show to us that he exists and is worthy of attention. All I ask is a simple gesture from god and I would believe in him. But, do you know what it would take for you to no longer believe? Have you ever even thought of that? Atheists are often accused of being close minded when in fact it is quite the opposite. Faith is not an answer. Faith is pretending to know what you do not know (or what is unknowable).

hahahaha. your joking right? i mean you dont actually miss understand the bible that much do you?

good job man, you disproved the bible with the logic that suggest an IQ of 10.

 

[aslsmm]

cyadine_anima your free to your opinion but my opinion is that you have little to no understanding of the scriptures and more like you have studied with the purpose of finding fault. just like man dad says, "You can find anything you want if you look hard enough.".

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

Is that all you can do, just laugh and claim i'm an idiot?

*Claps*

I wasn't even trying to disprove the bible at all. I was just presenting an argument: Given if the bible were true (and its grandiose claims which cannot be proven) it would still be immoral. Now you have me questioning your comprehension skills.

 

[aslsmm]

in my face.

 

[ddtonfire]

If the bible (or some other religion/holy text) isn't the source of morality, then you can only claim that it is immoral relative to what our society has now become. Through what lens of morality are you judging the bible, anyways?

And yes, the bible is packed full of immorality and wickedness. Does that mean it condones it? Does CSI condone murder?

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

Why do religious people claim morality can only come from a religious text? Morality can be found in nature. Chimpanzees have morality within their society, they reward what they consider good behavior, and they punish those who do what they deem bad behavior. Again, the 'lens' in which I am judging morality is secular, which refers to what benefits us all not just the religious.

Secular morality > religious morality. Religious people claim to have a monopoly on morality, when they are actually morally bankrupt. Christians have no intrinsic morality, it has to be given to them by a creator which they claim is the only source of morality. The only 'proof' they can present is the bible, which creates a circular argument. Begging the question is not proof, it is hardly an argument at all. Morality is a result of necessity. It's obviously not a good idea to murder your children because you would eliminate your genes from the gene pool. Not to mention the social consequences such as jail and scorn. Just claiming morality has to come from some outside source does not make it so. Morality is part of the natural order of things, and that includes more than just us humans.

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -Arthur C. Clarke

Yes, god condones the things he does, well, because he does them! He is supposed to be all good, all loving, all knowing, all merciful and all just (contradiction right there...), so whatever he does must be good, whether it is intrinsically good, or good because he says it is good. Wouldn't matter either way. If the things he does are moral simply because he does them, them the rules are arbitrary and he is a monster. If the things he does are intrinsically moral then he is getting his morals from an outside source, which negates the claims of his being omni*.

 

[highlordmugfug]

^
And well put.

 

[ddtonfire]

Why do religious people claim morality can only come from a religious text? Morality can be found in nature. Chimpanzees have morality within their society, they reward what they consider good behavior, and they punish those who do what they deem bad behavior. Again, the 'lens' in which I am judging morality is secular, which refers to what benefits us all not just the religious.

Did I claim that morality only comes from a religious text? Am I even religious? It appears you have missed my point. What I was trying to say is that morality is only relative to the time in which we are now in. You are judging the bible by today's morality, which will be just as obsolete 4000 years from now as that of what was accepted as fine in BC times. This is because morality progresses towards some greater right.

Secular morality > religious morality. Religious people claim to have a monopoly on morality, when they are actually morally bankrupt. Christians have no intrinsic morality, it has to be given to them by a creator which they claim is the only source of morality. The only 'proof' they can present is the bible, which creates a circular argument. Begging the question is not proof, it is hardly an argument at all.

I do not claim to have a monopoly on morality. Everybody exercises some form of morality at one point or another. I would like to think I do the "right" thing, but then again, I am human and unduly fallible. The bible is not proof of creator-derived morality no more than the Principia is proof of gravity.

Morality is a result of necessity. It's obviously not a good idea to murder your children because you would eliminate your genes from the gene pool.

An example: a man is drowning. Do you protect yourself and leave him to die? (instinct for self-preservation) Or do you risk yourself to help him? (herd instinct) In terms of necessity, either choice is fine, but only one would be the moral thing to do. Would you feel guilt if you let him drown, even if nobody knew? Because you referenced morality in nature earlier, I have to ask, what about cannibalism in nature? There are species that eat their offspring.

Not to mention the social consequences such as jail and scorn. Just claiming morality has to come from some outside source does not make it so. Morality is part of the natural order of things, and that includes more than just us humans.

Jail and scorn are just implementations of our present morality, not sources of morality itself. One thing legal yesterday is illegal today. One thing fine yesterday is frowned upon today.

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -Arthur C. Clarke

A witty saying proves nothing.

Yes, god condones the things he does, well, because he does them! He is supposed to be all good, all loving, all knowing, all merciful and all just (contradiction right there...), so whatever he does must be good, whether it is intrinsically good, or good because he says it is good. Wouldn't matter either way. If the things he does are moral simply because he does them, them the rules are arbitrary and he is a monster. If the things he does are intrinsically moral then he is getting his morals from an outside source, which negates the claims of his being omni*.

Paul addresses these points in Romans 9. On the subject of God and morality, I'd recommend you look at the first few chapters of Mere Christianity, since C.S. Lewis can explain and reason far better than I can. ( C.S.Lewis. Mere christianity )