The Bible is unriable because of the numerous translations?

[weena]

I am sure you have all heard the argument before, but the argument or those that argue this point lead you to believe that the modern english Bible has been traslated many times from Hebrew to Latin to Greek then German or French to English. The truth is that much of the original hebrew copies of the Bible are intact, so we esentially have the original Bible. There are no sutble or important information from the bible that is incorrect due to excessive translation.
Have you heard this argument lately? What are your thoughts?

[Dyrwen]

It isn't so much that the fact that it's been mistranslated makes it completely unreliable, it's also that it is just a book of literature, rather than fact.

I've heard the "argument" and I'd say it has some validity, considering many people have focused their arguments on the mistranslations that people have made over the years to show that many religions are following the incorrect word of God, if you will, because it has been translated incorrectly.

[weena]

I see your point, but by a work of literature you mean that it is a book of stories, i disagree. There is no proof that it is a book of literature instead of fact.

[Dyrwen]

Lucky for me there's no proof either way of it being fact or fiction. It is most certainly literature since it's written down, and most things that are recorded in text become literature pretty easily. Considering it is a book of stories, told long after the fact in most cases, I'd say it certainly may be literature before it is ever fact.

But hey, maybe the entire sky dropped water that was stuck up there and the ground erupted with water that was being kept below the surface and the world was flooded. Then some guy built an ark able to sustain the life of every animal on the planet (the millions of insects alone would've taken forevre) in a single boat where he somehow managed with less than 10 people and proceeded when done to repopulate the Earth with incest. Sure, sounds like fact to me.

Not to be nitpicky, but I always respect those that use the Bible to learn how to live, rather than the whackjobs that take it literally, considering to take parts of it literally and not all of it is really just pushing the limits of hypocrisy for me. If it's a book of stories that might foretell of a good way to get into a magical place when you die, so be it, but if it's a literally foretelling of history it's a crock of phooey, plain and simple. You need some major interpretations of the "literal" accounts to make a lot of that book sanely factual.

[Molko]

Yes, I have heard about this argument before. hehehe....Ive even used it myself :p

If you were to compare the translations of the bible - the original copy and the English copy (for e.g.) - you would see that the meanings between the two differ. Although you said that "There are no sutble or important information from the bible that is incorrect due to excessive translation", you do have to take into consideration that changing a single word(s) can and does change the meaning of the whole sentence.

I think I read somewhere that when the bible in Hewbrew was being translated into Greek, there was a mis-translation with one of the words. So, in the bible when Jesus said I will send you a spirit (something along those lines) it was supposed to be I will send you a companion. The word companion gives rise now to many different interpretations. Companion as in another person? Could it be another messiah? A prophet? I cant exactly remember where I read this, but I will rumage through my books have a look...

[Taliesin]

A friendy semiotic writ this text in another forum about a week ago. We'll translate:


You see, one of hermeneutics or just text explanation used by semitoics goes like this: you take a text and then consider all those things that are behind it.
It is easier to exegate some text that is closer to us than bible (or any other text that is a) very old, b)has influenced today a lot and c) has picked up a lot of explanations during the history), in time and space i.e the russian literature of 19th century - a thing that was only possible because of the czar Peter's life and fate and tricks and is not therefore connected too much with older russian cultural heritage-.

But - brrr- to take a text which's age is measured with four-digit numbers , to understand it, and then adequately translate it to some 21th century language so that the underline comments weren't thrice as long as the text is impossible.

Well, unless the head angel Gabriel came to lecture what and how and whatnot. The Bible translators would need quite much a seminary with angels for teachers, but I don't think that they couldn't produce a book so thin that simple congregation members could read it. Inevitably a text written four-digit number of years ago is now something completely different than now. First one would need to understand what words like spirit, air, sand, soul or earth meant to a person of that time and place. I t is possible, but very difficult and that applies to every word, because all of them are riddles in a text that old.

[subterranean]

I have the King James version and New edition with everyday language, and if you compare between them they are totally different, eventhough both are in English. I understand that the later is suppose to be taken literary cause after all it's mean to be that way. And some verses becoming silly to me after being translated to the "easy to read" version. I don't have them now to give examples, but I will check them out and come back later.

[Molko]

Weena, Im just wondering, what are your thoughts and opinions about this? :)

[Assyra]

i think everyone knows that (not because of translation) The Bible has been changed so many times by people because it hadn't written while Jesus was living. also, i heard that there are some differences in different language-versions of The Bible. but i dont understand why there are differences.

[Dyrwen]

They're different because what meant soul, earth, water, back a thousand years ago in their language isn't directly translatable into our words for soul, earth, water, etc. What we interpret as wood, they might have meant to say something completely different. When thousands of years pass languages have evolved too far to recognize their initial meaning. We can always get the gist of what they had to say, but some of the specifics, which tend to be important, can get lost along the way.

[AimusSage]

I think it is the (lack of)interpetation of the bible that is unreliable. The book itself is not unreliable, it is simple a written word.

[byquist]

No big deal because it's the ideas and symbolism that it conveys rather than literal words. For instance, I read a commentary about a passage that talks about Queen Candice. This commentary said that "Candice" means, or is the title of a, queen, so there was no real queen with the name, Candice. But who cares.

Or, maybe there wasn't a porch exactly named Bethesda. The issue is about the lame guy who believes he must hop in the pool when the angel is swooshing the water around, so he can get healed. Accuracy of literal details may be off in many instances, but more important is that the Bible contains tones, messages and themes, and these have vitality.

One thing that Shakespeare does in Hamlet is to show that words are just vehicles useful for communication, and not a big deal in an of themselves.
He 's ironic and playful when asked what he's reading in the book: "Words, words, words." Likewise, Bible words are just words, just vehicles to convey its big ideas.

[atiguhya padma]

I read somewhere that the term 'maiden' had been translated as 'virgin' in most English editions of the bible. That mistranslation changes a lot of things.

[Taliesin]

No big deal because it's the ideas and symbolism that it conveys rather than literal words. For instance, I read a commentary about a passage that talks about Queen Candice. This commentary said that "Candice" means, or is the title of a, queen, so there was no real queen with the name, Candice. But who cares.

Or, maybe there wasn't a porch exactly named Bethesda. The issue is about the lame guy who believes he must hop in the pool when the angel is swooshing the water around, so he can get healed. Accuracy of literal details may be off in many instances, but more important is that the Bible contains tones, messages and themes, and these have vitality.

One thing that Shakespeare does in Hamlet is to show that words are just vehicles useful for communication, and not a big deal in an of themselves.
He 's ironic and playful when asked what he's reading in the book: "Words, words, words." Likewise, Bible words are just words, just vehicles to convey its big ideas.

Perhaps, but practically it is still ununderstanable. Say that words like "angel", "guy", "swoosh", "water" and "heal" mean something completely different in that context all that time ago. You think that those tones, ideas and themes do not change?
Sorry, but we think otherways.
AP here gave a good example.(though, maiden could mean something completely different all that time ago)

Since words are only vehicles, and one can get the idea even when doesn't understand the words, please translate this text to english:


liblikas kotka tiivad endale võttis
tõusis tilluke keha näha ta valgust tahtis
peksles jõutu putuk tuulte seas segi
tuul ja tema enam vahet neil pole
tuul liblik ja surm ning valguse karje
valgus ning liblik ja ilu ning surm
nii kotka tiivad tuuleks eneseks said
ja liblikas õnnelik õnnelik näis

[atiguhya padma]

Textual scholars will claim that no-one today can read Shakespeare as it was meant to be read in late 16thC - early 17th C England. That being so, what hope for the bible?

[Molko]

Textual scholars will claim that no-one today can read Shakespeare as it was meant to be read in late 16thC - early 17th C England. That being so, what hope for the bible?

Good point there AP. I totally agree with you

[byquist]

Re Talesin, when you get right down to it, those words you listed (angels, swoosh, guy, water, heal) may mean vastly different things, and convey vastly different images, between folks today in a conversation, and not just in the differences between now and antiquity. Words may be at best useful approximations of realities and actions.

One Bible quote that may challenge for a lifetime is, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That might be akin to a first-rate Zen koan and may look a bit like a perplexing puzzle. But rather than taking the easy route and describing the Bible as ununderstandable, if you are so saying I'm not sure but perhaps, it's more fun to take the more demanding path of researching it to at least a reasonably fair depth. The easy route is to be a naysayer; the more difficult route is to face and study the book. Studying with the intension to disprove it's practicality is fine. Its impracticality would have to be rigorously proven, and it's not so easy a proof. Slandering, besmirching and ignoring it is easy stuff. Analyzing it with balance takes skill and poise.

[Basil]

Now, I'm no biblical scholar but are you guys sure the word swoosh appears in the Bible? I don't remember any verses like:

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all the earth:
make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise. SWOOSH!

[atiguhya padma]

Faith is evidence? Are you sure about that??

All you say byquist could be said about the koran, the dhammapadda, the rig veda, etc. Do you defend these books too? And if not, why not?

[byquist]

Naturally I support all such books which are held sacred by various groups and individuals, assuming they stick to the brotherhood/sisterhood of mankind, which I would assume all three you mention fully do. The fact that this is a wide, wide world with numerous routes makes life endlessly fascinating.

Faith being evidence is an accurate quote as I recall. Not really up to me, you, or any person being sure or not sure about it, but whether such a concept is, or is not, built into the core of reality.

Faith and evidence need not be anything other than complementary and mutually sustaining each other. They don't in any way need to be opposites or against each other.

[Miranda]

Yes AP, Faith is evidence - it is the evidence that a person believes. When a person acts and lives according to the things that they believe this shows (evidences) that they are truly persuaded that those things are true. This is called faith. There are various kinds of faith, not just religious faith. Every day we live by faith in one thing or another. If you board a ferry, you do it in the belief that it will bring you to the shore again. Faith is shown in the action of getting on the ferry. Likewise religious faith - it is shown in the action of how a person lives their lives. It is the substance of things hoped for..therefore the evidence of things not seen. You won't know that the ferry will reach the shore until it actually does, but the evidence that you believe that it will, is shown in the fact that you are willing to board it. Faith is acting on belief and therefore is the evidence of it. Faith is the evidence that a person believes.

[Dyrwen]

I don't think faith being evidenced was meant to be taken the way you're trying to pull it. Faith is evidence that a person believes, but that in and of itself means nothing more than "This person believes this thing here exists." It isn't evidence that said things exist, just that a person believes they do. I can have faith that I may fly into the clouds without using any technology, but instead wings that will grow from my back, but that doesn't make the evidence prevelant that there is any chance of me flying soon.

Faith is just a way to believe, it isn't any remarkable evidence of something tangible.

[Miranda]

Drywen you said "Faith is evidence that a person believes, but that in and of itself means nothing more than "This person believes this thing here exists." It isn't evidence that said things exist, just that a person believes they do."

This is exactly what I was saying, Drywen. However faith is more than just believing. It is acting on those beliefs and being seen to act on them - therefore what is seen is the evidence of what the person truly believes. This is what the bible is saying with regard to Byquist's quote from the book of Hebrews. Belief is not tangible but faith is something that can be seen in action - giving substance or tangibility that the person is truly persuaded in their own mind concerning his beliefs. It doesn't mean that the beliefs are provable but is proof of what the person truly believes. AP questioned whether faith is evidence and I was describing what faith is. It is the substance (with regard to tangibility) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (belief) - as the bible says.

Miranda

[byquist]

Thanks Miranda for the backup, and I rarely get into the religion area because some people get their feelings hurt, some strike back, some insult a denomination large or small, and nobody accomplished anything. So I am about done with this thread. Literature, for some reason I don't know why, escapes all the firey debate that religious issues sometimes evoke. But I do think that is strange since Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Eugene O'Neil knew the Bible well, and every other day someone is saying some re-phrasing of some Biblical statement or proverb without identifying its source.

Drywen, (only since we're on this religious topic) you bring up an instance related to your illustration about flying and wings. This instance is the issue of Jesus walking on the water and then Peter saying he'd like to walk on it also, to which Jesus said in effect, "be my guest." Now, if you take the Bible event as recorded as a fiction, then give it not the slightest consideration.

However, should it be a factual event, then we are all faced toward a deeper study and analysis of what might have actually transpired, and how. What law of Spirit did Jesus employ that liquidated the physical law of gravitation? It seemed to be something more than commonplace faith, but rather a full understanding of a universe that exists totally independent of gravity. And which has its impact on gravity. Jesus, apparently, was repeatedly able to make the physics of the world change; say, enabling blind eyes of a man to obtain vision; guy lying helplessly sick on a bed to pick up his bed and carry it home; 10 lepers in a group immediately cured. Our laws of physics were not a problem to Jesus.

[Dyrwen]

Miranda, thanks for the clarification.

Byquist, I can't take the Bible into consideration as a factual account because I haven't seen the acts Jesus supposedly did, recreated in the past 2,000 years in any way shape or form. That alone makes me doubt it occurred, but I'm not one to show any evidence to the contrary that Jesus did or didn't do it, since it's an excercise in futility. Basically, if you can show me someone with enough faith to pull off those kind of feats, I can be more willing than usual to believe them to be possible. Until a resident prophet steps up and starts walking on water and healing the sick without medication or mere coincidental remission of disease, I just don't see much reason to believe it occurred.

And beyond that whole argument of probability, I personally wouldn't have my life changed in the least by knowing someone out there could pull such things off so long as they were able to explain how they did it. I know some amazing musicians that do things I cannot do, some great atheletes, some brilliant people, but that doesn't make me want to worship them for testing the limits of ability. Though I suppose faith isn't meant to be looked at in that same light of ability, I wouldn't know, I've never been a big fan of that sort of belief. Faith just doesn't appeal to me, since I'm too analytical to give in to that kind of acceptance of something in general. I live under an eastern european proverb's line of thinking in that "The believer is happy. The doubter is wise." I'd rather feel rationally adept at accepting something based on reason than to be happy with faith in something I can't explain. Given most any circumstance, I always give what reason I can, rarely if ever a basis of faith.

But hey, I look forward to that whole 2nd coming thing so we can get a chance to ask the main man himself, until then though, I may just have to stick by what works for me.

[atiguhya padma]

Miranda,

This is the part of the quote that I found confusing: <the evidence of things not seen> It is either badly worded or deliberately misleading. It talks about faith being the evidence of things, not the evidence of belief. The way you interpret it, Miranda, it should read "the evidence of belief in things not seen" shouldn't it? And if that is what it is saying, then I have no quarrel, after all, it is a mundane statement, anyone can see that faith is the evidence of a belief in things not seen.

[llamankey]

First of all, let me help all of y'all by providing you with a slightly easier translation. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1
First of all, faith was meant to be simple. Hard at times - but still simple. To understand this kind of faith mentioned in Hebrews, one must understand the story behind it.
Christian faith can be described as this - We have faith that there is a God who created everything, including physics and science. He created us simply for companionship; we are not his puppets, but rather His friends. God shows His love for people by giving them choices and free-will. Sadly, because God Himself is blameless, we too must be blameless to be in His presence. Romans 3:23 states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." You don't have to be a believer to know that we've all done wrong. Romans 6:23 goes on to say, "For the wages of sin is death..." Although this sounds utterly hopeless, do not despair! Like I said before, God loves us. He loves us with an unconditional love that breaks all rules. Look at the second part of Romans 6:23, "but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Freedom from eternal death (aka hell) cannot be earned nor attained. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works so that no man can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9. On the cross Jesus suffered immensely so that we would not have to after we die here on earth.
All you have to do is receive the gift of grace God gave us through Jesus. This is where the Faith part finally plays in. True Christians are not just people who go to church and carry around Bibles( although they may and should). True Christians rely on blind faith - that is, they believe that eternal life is theirs if they admit to God they’ve done wrong, ask for forgiveness from God, and then accept God’s forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ (who by the way, is the only one who could have saved us because he was blameless). The New Testament states (sorry, I must paraphrase here) that those who have not seen and yet still believe are more blessed than those who have seen and then believed. This is the kind of Faith mentioned in Hebrews. I believe in a God who is unseen. I could tell you that I feel Him and sense Him, or I could tell you I see evidence of Him in creation. Nevertheless, you still would have the freewill to reject what I say. My faith therefore, although it is supported by much evidence, cannot be based on evidence.
Someone else asked what makes the Bible different from other holy books. I too, have often wondered about this. You see, I have a very good Muslim friend from Yemen. Even though in my heart I know that what I believe is true, he too believes that his faith is true. The difference between the Bible and other holy books is this - the Bible is the only one that teaches and displays unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds.
I am dreadfully sorry for my wordiness, but I feel that one must learn the background of Christianity to understand this type of faith.

[atiguhya padma]

What's all this unconditional love stuff? Did God show unconditional love to Sodom and Gomorrah?

Equally, I fail to see giving choice and freewill as an act of love. When it comes to us human beings, who are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, giving choice and freewill can be an act of love. For God, who knows exactly what will happen with the freewill he gives us, it is an act of sheer lunacy.

<the Bible is the only one that teaches and displays unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds.>

I think that statement reveals a lot about how self-centred Christianity is. The Buddhist writings, for instance, aren't about 'earning' unconditional love (and how can you earn an unconditonal love? what's unconditional about it if you have to earn it??). They are more about giving unconditional love.This is what makes Buddhism so much greater than Christianity. With Christianity you have to be in with the in-crowd. It's a little club for messianic godlovers. The more I read statements like the one you have just made llamankey, the more I realise how divisive, judgmental and holier-than-thou Christianity can be.

<Even though in my heart I know that what I believe is true>

There are around 4bn believers in religion worldwide. No doubt they all say this to themselves. Knowing something in your heart is a very strange concept. Where do you think your heart is? Do thoughts go through your heart?

<Freedom from eternal death (aka hell) cannot be earned nor attained.> How exactly does this fit with your previous statement: <unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds>? So believers do not earn freedom from death through their belief in the resurrection then?

[Miranda]

AP Why are you so prejudiced against Christianity and why do you consistently attack Christianity above all the other religions in the world? I could go through your post and counteract every point that you have made but there would be no point since your purpose is not to learn more about Christianity, but rather to deride it - as you always do. Are you really interested in why Christians believe in a god whose love is unconditional? Do you really want to know, or merely to pour scorn on those that do believe in this god? For me, this god has a capital G and is God, but for the purpose of this discussion with you who esteem all gods in the same way, I will use a small 'g.'

I spent a long time answering your post on the Homosexuality thread regarding blasphemy, but you didn't bother to answer me. I do see that you have answered what I have said on this thread and now understand the relationship between faith and evidence as regards Byquist's biblical quote.

Byquist is wise indeed not to get into heated debate on religion - it is absolutely pointless unless the person you are debating with respects your view and the right to hold it, without deriding it, even if they don't agree with it. Not everyone is so mature.

Do you have any kind of religious belief? If not, is your unbelief more valid than my belief? If your unbelief suits your life, why do you not allow that Christianity suits the lives of others? Shall I deride your godless unbelief? No, because you have a right to it, as others also have a right to theirs whether I understand that belief or not. Do you have a right to compare the god that Ilamankey believes in with a lunatic? To me it is lunacy to believe that the universe, especially the earth with all its myriad intricasies, came into being just by chance - but I wouldn't write in such an inflammatory way because I wouldn't want to cause offence to someone that believes in evolution - and am only writing this here by way of illustration.

You said " Knowing something in your heart is a very strange concept. Where do you think your heart is? Do thoughts go through your heart?" Surely, this being a forum ostensibly for the discussion of literature - you do understand the term 'figure of speech?' Or was this typically a derogatory remark? Do you really need the quote explaining? Say the word and I will explain it to you - it's quite simple really.

You attack Christianity all the time AP. Why? Maybe you would go back and have a look at my reply to you on the homosexuality thread. Perhaps you would have some comment to make as regards how Christianity and Jesus is are treated differently when it comes to freedom of speech and artistic license?

Miranda

QUOTE=atiguhya padma]What's all this unconditional love stuff? Did God show unconditional love to Sodom and Gomorrah?

Equally, I fail to see giving choice and freewill as an act of love. When it comes to us human beings, who are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, giving choice and freewill can be an act of love. For God, who knows exactly what will happen with the freewill he gives us, it is an act of sheer lunacy.

<the Bible is the only one that teaches and displays unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds.>

I think that statement reveals a lot about how self-centred Christianity is. The Buddhist writings, for instance, aren't about 'earning' unconditional love (and how can you earn an unconditonal love? what's unconditional about it if you have to earn it??). They are more about giving unconditional love.This is what makes Buddhism so much greater than Christianity. With Christianity you have to be in with the in-crowd. It's a little club for messianic godlovers. The more I read statements like the one you have just made llamankey, the more I realise how divisive, judgmental and holier-than-thou Christianity can be.

<Even though in my heart I know that what I believe is true>

There are around 4bn believers in religion worldwide. No doubt they all say this to themselves. Knowing something in your heart is a very strange concept. Where do you think your heart is? Do thoughts go through your heart?

<Freedom from eternal death (aka hell) cannot be earned nor attained.> How exactly does this fit with your previous statement: <unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds>? So believers do not earn freedom from death through their belief in the resurrection then?[/QUOTE]

[atiguhya padma]

<AP Why are you so prejudiced against Christianity and why do you consistently attack Christianity above all the other religions in the world?>

I respond to posts from believers who claim that their religion is THE religion, and also to posts where the impetus is to convert people into believing in their religion. If you would care to look at some of the correspondence I have had with Amra, you would see that I do not single out Christianity, when it comes to expressing my opinion on religious bigotry. It may appear that I am more frequently responding to Christian posts than posts from other religions. If you cared to do a quick survey of the posts in Religious Texts, I'm sure you will find that the vast majority are on Christianity. Am I supposed to only respond to a fixed amount of Christian threads? The fact is, I live in a society that has been structured, influenced, manipulated and conditioned by centuries of Christian thought. So what would you expect? That I should single out Jainism? or the Bahai Faith?

<Are you really interested in why Christians believe in a god whose love is unconditional?>



This is the kind of statement that I mean. Surely, you should have phrased this as 'why Christians believe there is a god whose love is unconditional'. The way you express yourself, it sounds like this god of unconditional love is an objective fact. I find that an insult to my intelligence.

Mirandas, if you are referring to post #85, well I hadn't seen this post before. Now I have read it, I don't see that there is much to respond to. But I will respond on that thread to your post.

<Do you have any kind of religious belief? If not, is your unbelief more valid than my belief?>

No I don't have any kind of religious belief. For me, personally, of course my unbelief is more valid than your belief. Neither you nor I are in a position to judge what is absolutely valid on this position.

<If your unbelief suits your life, why do you not allow that Christianity suits the lives of others?>

Do Christians allow that unbelief suits the lives of others? What was the point of llamankey's post do you think Miranda? Don't tell me that you have singled me out for the same offence that llamankey has committed. In fact, what is the point of your post Miranda? Is it possible you are showing some prejudice towards what you personally believe against my personal belief?

<Do you really need the quote explaining? Say the word and I will explain it to you - it's quite simple really.>

Yes please do. Tell me what the figure of speech refers to Miranda. Does it refer to some part of the mind? Does it refer to emotion? feeling? And if so, is this part of the mind or the body?

Lastly, Miranda, why are you so prejudiced against other religions, that you only consistently come to the defence of Christianity?

[Miranda]

Firstly AP, I am not prejudiced against other religions and am always ready to learn from others on this forum when they talk about Islam etc. I may not contribute to such threads, though sometimes I have if I have some question to ask – but you will not find any criticism of anyone’s religion in my posts because I believe that everyone has a right to their own belief system – whatever that might be. You say that you see your unbelief as more valid than my belief – this is prejudice. I regard everyone’s beliefs or unbeliefs as equally valid since everyone’s beliefs or unbeliefs are as important to them as my belief is to me. I believe that people have a right to expect respect in every walk of life, including their religion. Your derogatory remarks on this religious forum indicate an opposite approach.

I happen to believe the Bible and believe that it is the truth, just as followers of Islam or Buddhism also believe that their religion is THE religion, but this does not mean that I attack those other religions because I do not accept them. You attack Christianity all the time therefore are prejudiced and intolerant. You believe in freedom of speech but it appears that if you were honest, you would prefer for this to exclude all religion and proselytizing wouldn’t you? You know in your heart whether this is true or not - but of course you do not understand this concept of feeling or knowing ‘in the heart’ even though you sometimes write poetry and also probably read and study it. There have been people of other faiths pushing their religion on this site and this is fine – it is a place to discuss religion so why not? I found those exchanges interesting and something to learn from. If someone wants to share what their religion means to them and indeed to proselytise, then what is so wrong in that? Are you afraid someone will convert you AP? Or that someone else might be converted by what they read? It is for the individual to decide isn’t it AP, not for you to denigrate and pour scorn on someone for what they say just because you don’t like it? Freedom of speech is extremely important isn’t it AP – but so is tolerance and it seems to me that you can’t quite decide which side of the fence you are on. People are free to ‘pedal’ their religion but you really don’t want them to have that freedom do you? You would much rather they shut up and went quietly away. It is not religion in itself that causes dissent but intolerance – as with most other cases where there is division even outside of religion. You say you express your opinion on all religious bigotry AP, but I see you as also a bigot, because you show so much prejudice against religion.

You do indeed live in a society that has been structured, influenced and manipulated by centuries of Christian thought and if you don’t like it there is an option no doubt. But you probably do like the benefits that this has brought – a sense that truth and justice should always prevail, of democracy, stability, education, of the value of negotiation rather than of the violence that is seen elsewhere in the world. Would you prefer tribalism?’

You say that there is something wrong with my phraseology when I say ‘Are you really interested in why Christians believe in a god whose love is unconditional?’ However, I am referring to the god that ‘Christians believe in’ and my sentence structure does not convey this god is an ‘objective fact.’

The point of Ilamankey’s post was to explain more fully how the scripture that Byquist quoted fits into Christian faith, since this had become part of the discussion and the fact that Ilamankey wrote the post from the point of view of a Christian rather as more objectively, is Ilamankey’s right. However whenever anyone speaks like this, you always respond with insults and derogatory remarks, as you have here. And this is the point of my post. You say that you found something in my phraseology insulting even though I have not insulted you. But your posts are very insulting and derogatory towards anyone that gives a Christian view point – and I suppose will continue to be. What this boils down to AP is what I would call small mindedness. Some minds are not big enough to accept that people have religious beliefs and are entitled to keep them, express them, and pedal them – whatever. Though people like this may pretend to be so balanced, intellectual and philosophical, the fact is they are still clearly demonstrating bigotry and all their high-mindedness is undone by their gutter prejudice.

Miranda

[atiguhya padma]

Definition
prejudice [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge:

<You say that you see your unbelief as more valid than my belief – this is prejudice.>

Please note that I did in fact say: <For me, personally, of course my unbelief is more valid than your belief. Neither you nor I are in a position to judge what is absolutely valid on this position.>

The important thing is to focus on the first three words: for me personally. Is it reasonable to hold an opinion that you consider less valid than another’s? Is your response to my post an example of someone seeing their opinion as equally or less valid than mine? If so, why do you post?

Again let me ask: <Is it possible you are showing some prejudice towards what you personally believe against my personal belief?>

Are you claiming that you are not being prejudiced against my opinion Miranda? Against my unbelief?

<You know in your heart whether this is true or not - but of course you do not understand this concept of feeling or knowing ‘in the heart’ even though you sometimes write poetry and also probably read and study it>

Was this your easy answer to my original question? It is very easy to say what you have said. It is much more difficult for you to give it any meaning. Like I said, are we talking about physical or mental experience? Why don’t you just answer that question if you know what you are talking about?

<There have been people of other faiths pushing their religion on this site and this is fine – it is a place to discuss religion so why not?>

But it’s not OK for me to discuss religion because I am an unbeliever. Is this what you are saying?

<Are you afraid someone will convert you AP>

That’s very funny. I think its more a case of you wanting me to stop being critical because your views and the views of those who hold what you hold to be true, do not stand up very well to criticism.

<Freedom of speech is extremely important isn’t it AP – but so is tolerance and it seems to me that you can’t quite decide which side of the fence you are on.>

You should read Luke 19:27:

Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me

This is what Jesus says to the disciples. Is this an example of prejudice or intolerance Miranda?

Tell me, Miranda, do you think your post criticises my beliefs? Let me give you a hint: I believe I should voice an opinion on subjects that I think are insidiously harmful, deceitful and blatantly untrue, but appeal to people’s easily won-over emotions. I feel that religion fits into this category. So, do you criticise that belief of mine? Or do religious beliefs have some superiority over other beliefs, no matter whether those other beliefs are as strongly held or not? Why do you show such prejudice towards atheistic beliefs Miranda, that you feel you have to criticise them?

[Koa]

Translation is always a delicate stuff, and in the case of the Bible, due to its ancienty (??) and the fact that it has passed through many languages, it possibly gets even more complicated, also because of the issue of interpretations that are so important for the faith.

I heard a few 'amusing' facts about translations of the Bible... First, that the word 'woman' wasn't really used, but it was kind of a female man... I mean, the word was the same as the word for man but with female inflection.
And the famous sentence about the camel passing through a needle (or at least that's how it ended up in my language) is totally wrong since the original word used was a rope passing through a needle, but since the word rope and the word camel were really close in the original language (if not the same word), a mistake lead to the sentence as we know it now... I think this fact is true. But I'm thinking of all the priests talking of camels going through needles...:rolleyes:

[Miranda]

'Tell me, Miranda, do you think your post criticises my beliefs?' 'Is your response to my post an example of someone seeing their opinion as equally or less valid than mine?' 'Why do you show such prejudice towards atheistic beliefs Miranda, that you feel you have to criticise them?'

No AP you are trying to trying to twist things around. My post criticizes the way you respond with derogatory remarks concerning religion - as you well know. You also know what a figure of speech is and how the reference to the 'heart' fits into Ilamankey's post and what she means by it. You are being pedantic and I haven't the time for such games. You obviously do have an understanding of literature and I am not going to waste my time explaining something that you certainly do understand. I do not need your definition of prejudice since I do understand it very well and you know very well the sense in which I used this word. I am not at all prejudiced against your unbelief - what you believe is your prerogative just as everyone in the world has a choice as regards their belief system though some are persecuted and have or will die for those beliefs. You do not discuss religion AP, you condemn and insult it and so I will not discuss scripture with you. If, as you pretend, you cannot understand such a simple figure of speech as previously quoted, there is not a hope that you could comprehend anything of a spiritual nature.

Miranda

[atiguhya padma]

<You are being pedantic>.

Thanks for your prejudicial judgment there Miranda. Unlike you, who passes judgment on me, let me say that I suspect you are being hypocritical (please note that I am not saying you are, unlike your prejudiced judgment quoted above).

I agree, it is a waste of time to debate this with you. You give religious beliefs some special status above other personal beliefs, a fault that many of a religious persuasion have. You cannot define your terms, so there is little point in talking about concepts that you cannot adequately discuss. I assume you believe it is valid to have literary criticism, but not religious literary criticism. You perceive my comments as condemnatory and insulting rather than critical. I suggest this is because you place too high an importance on religious literature as sacred. My suspicion of this seems to be confirmed by your use of the term scripture.

Oh, and it is not my definition of prejudice. It comes from the Cambridge English Dictionary. But of course, I suppose you wouldn't really be interested in definitions that conflicted with your own anyway.

[atiguhya padma]

llamankey said:

<The difference between the Bible and other holy books is this - the Bible is the only one that teaches and displays unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds>

This is not true. Buddhism has many 'holy books' that talk about the Four Immeasurables':

May all sentient beings have happiness and its causes,
May all sentient beings be free of suffering and its causes,
May all sentient beings never be separated from bliss without suffering,
May all sentient beings be in equanimity, free of bias, attachment and anger.

These are generally considered to be statements on unconditional love. Furthermore, many Christians don't see their scriptures as statements of unconditional love, and certainly these biblical quotes don't seem to support your hypothesis:

John 3:36 (NIV) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Luke 13:3 (DVP) [Jesus:] "...If you do not repent, then you will all perish..."

Is it possible to make someone perish through unconditional love?

Of course, you could be saying that unconditional love is given by God to those who have undertaken certain conditions ie they have earnt it. I don't really know what this would mean though. Either unconditional love is always uncondtional love and therefore does not mean you have to earn it, or it isn't unconditonal love.