A Message, Part I

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79

But your example is good too. The translation of scripture from one language to many others naturally has different interpretations, and therefore different meanings. So, which one is the "right" one?

King

You ought to know that all translations are carefully checked so that there are not any 'different interpretations'. (This does not of course apply to cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, who built their whole structure on 'different interpretations'.
V

Originally posted by bogomil


And furthermore aren't all presentations of 'divine love' unconditional, in many cases there's a pricetag attached somewhere in the relationship divine/human. E.g. in fire-and-brimstone religions.

IMO, there ought not to be. Divine love is unconditional. It doesn't depend on human actions, basically God loves you regardless of what you do or have done. However, that doesn't mean people can do whatever they feel like doing. We are told you "love (our) neighbours as we love (our)selves". As you know when he was asked "Who is my neighbour" Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, an answer which amounts to "your neighbour is anyone you meet, including people you think of as scumbags".

Originally posted by bogomil
bible-misinterpretations....false doctrines ?, the problem is real and exists to this day.

I would go with the two theories above... Apparently, St Augustine is responsible for the whole 'burning people to save their souls' idea because he got it from the "compel them to come in" parable ... IMO a misinterpretation.

Originally posted by bogomilJust to make sure: I can hardly imagine, that you are amongst the fire-and-brimstoners. In spite of your sometimes intemperance you come across as a sympathetic and quite reasonable person, so my ruminations above are of general character, not implying criticsm against you.

You're correct, I am not one of the "fire and brimstoners" - however I am also not one of the 'do what feels good' New Age people either! I believe God pays us the compliment of taking our actions seriously, we should return the compliment!
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


You wrote:

["You're correct, I am not one of the "fire and brimstoners" - however I am also not one of the 'do what feels good' New Age people either!"]

As I hardly can expect, that readers here hang onto my lips and save my words, wherever they save words, I'll repeat myself:

My position is one of being 'anti' towards missionary-invasive-activities of elitist or exclusive nature. 'Invasive' I'll define as the whole range from verbal/visual material of propagandist nature (i.e. without any will or competence to validate postulates in a reasoning chain) to such actvities, which directly interferes practically with somebody's life (creating social, economical or physical problems).

This position of mine is directly related to two important parts of mankind's existence:

a. In groups or societies. Where some missionaries work with aims of fascist ideology. Here my anti-missionary stance manifests in a pro liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy

b. In search of knowledge/understanding of 'truth/reality', where a reasoning chain ofcourse plays a prominent role. Such a reasoning chain will, for the interested, eventually end in epistemologically endstations without absolute conclusions, and where only 'positions' can be clearly defined (positions then being the optional choices of groups/societies).

Sorry Vicky, but I like to have my foundations in order, hence this pedantery.

I was an early active part of the motley sixties crowd, which for good or bad was an enormously creative period in both society and academically. That crowd eventually being twisted into present days' wishy-washy 'new-age'ism, with the gurus (missionaries) at the top, and the spoonfed saved at the bottom, parrotlike repeating 'holy words' and hijacked 'wisdom'.

So I share your not so flattering opinions about the quality of new-age'ism, and request a higher standard on both the question of liberal principles (democracy is neither majority-dictatorship, nor is liberalism anarchy) and truth/reality seeking methods.

And I can take this to the parallel scenario which could be seen in the political area, where the then influential commies had their leaders and their 'saved'.



Quote: ["["I believe God pays us the compliment of taking our actions seriously, we should return the compliment!"]

From the perspective I offered above, you can understand, that I consider such an individual or consenting-adult choice as completely legitimate. Similarly, other choices of such a kind are equally legitimate.

But being a linguist (or teacher of literature?) yourself, you know the impact of language.

The 'us' and 'we' in the quote above...... WHO ARE THEY? Christians or everybody. And what with the all-inclusive absolutes in hard-core communism and Jihadism?

You have, what seems to be a sore spot, when it comes to generalizing christians into a category, which indiscriminately can be attacked. Similarly I have a sore spot, when I'm included into a category, where I without my consent eventually will be a 'sinner' (I admit, that I subjectively despise the doctrines of original sin and redemption).

This is not a personal attack on you or your writing style, it's just a pointing out of the red flags sneaking into debates. My stance is, how stilted it may appear: Mankind hasn't got any final abolutes, we have to live with compromises between the positions we choose. And even small and seemingly harmless superimpositions can be insulting and invasive.



Returning to my use of the word missionary:

I took a further look, and I actually do have an optional formal justification for my use of it. From the free dictionary......(note point 2 in N and point 3 in Adj).

N:

1. One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country.
2. One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist.

Adj:

1. Of or relating to missions or missionaries.
2. Engaged in the activities of a mission or missionary.
3. Tending to propagandize or use insistent persuasion:

Originally posted by bogomil
The 'us' and 'we' in the quote above...... WHO ARE THEY? Christians or everybody. And what with the all-inclusive absolutes in hard-core communism and Jihadism?

The 'we' in the quote is, everybody. My mum used to quote a poem that said "Life is real and life is earnest/and the grave is not its goal". I believe life is not without purpose and reason, even the reason and purpose can be rather difficult to discern! There's something in human nature that craves absolutes.

Originally posted by bogomilSimilarly I have a sore spot, when I'm included into a category, where I without my consent eventually will be a 'sinner' (I admit, that I subjectively despise the doctrines of original sin and redemption).

Ah, but the fact is that everybody is a 'sinner', and I am not talking about 'original sin'! We all do things we're ashamed of, we all do (or have done) bad things, whether we want to admit it or not. Everyone needs redemption.

Originally posted by bogomilI took a further look, and I actually do have an optional formal justification for my use of it. From the free dictionary......(note point 2 in N and point 3 in Adj).

N:

1. One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country.
2. One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist.

Adj:

1. Of or relating to missions or missionaries.
2. Engaged in the activities of a mission or missionary.
3. Tending to propagandize or use insistent persuasion:

I take your point about the word missionary, but the way it's commonly understood is to refer to a person who, as Sabre Truth says, is sent to another country/people.
The ordinary Christian in the street should better be called an evangelist. As far as I know, the word comes from the word 'Gospel', and the ordinary Christian is required to spread the Gospel. Many people believe that the word Gospel means truth, but it means 'Good News'. The Good news is that God cares about everybody - from Bill Gates and Barack Obama, to a Dalit child in India or a child in a Samoan village catching fish for the family dinner. The bad news is that 'all have sinned', but the Good News is that those who repent (which simply means changing the direction in which they are going) can be and will be welcomed by God.
In fact I am a Christian universalist, which means that I believe that everyone will come to God, even if they presently believe that they would crawl for kilometres across broken glass to avoid God! God doesn't want unwilling people - so no good missionary ever says "repent or I'll punish you".
Instead she says "repent or your own actions will punish you".
Vicky

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by seeashrink


Based on your logic, any love that you have ever felt for mother or father, children, or mate cannot be validated.

They are all just chemical reactions in the brain. Love is a powerful emotion and it has a source and that source is God. Can you deny the existance of love in your own life? Have you never loved or been loved? If it just boils down to a chemical reaction then existance is void of life.

You see, God loves you despite your contempt for Him. So much so that He gave His Son Jesus for you. That is love, not just a chemical reaction.

Hi, Seeashrink, it's just occurred to me to wonder.. I have read a lot of atheist anger here on ATS. Maybe that's the root of a lot of it, they don't love and are n ot loved?
That's maybe why they don't get it!
V

maybe Vicky..it is because we do know love,,and we don't see it in the bible. The God of the bible, expects much,and is very brutal when angered...yet if he exists he could be speaking to us all very clearly ..right now if he chose to....he could be helping so many innocent victims if he chose to. By the loving I have seen you show on this board vicky ..such as "I dislike ALL americans"....your blatant attacks on gays...is it any wonder we don't TRUST the so called love you speak of ? I think you are confused as to what love really is vicky..and if you call yourself loved,and knowing love..well you can keep the loving God that loved you.. to become what you appear to me.

I love vicky...very deeply, and I know love....and it is not a love learned from words...but from experience. Why is it that many of the most loving people I know,are not religious..but they are the kind ones..that give when needed, not to look good to others, but because they actually care.

Why is is that some of the most judgemental people I know are christians...who judge others for silly reasons....for instance their grammar, and dismiss what they have to say,because of a few spelling mistakes???

reply to post by Vicky32

IMO, there ought not to be. Divine love is unconditional. It doesn't depend on human actions, basically God loves you regardless of what you do or have done. However, that doesn't mean people can do whatever they feel like doing. We are told you "love (our) neighbours as we love (our)selves". As you know when he was asked "Who is my neighbour" Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, an answer which amounts to "your neighbour is anyone you meet, including people you think of as scumbags".

So if divine love is unconditional..I guess someone being gay is not going to change that??

This is what is so upsetting about some christians..On one hand..they say "repent",or you will be left behind,and caste to hell..(because that is what the bible teaches)...and then they say things..like "God loves you regardless of what you have done" .

Then they go on to preach about how we should love our neighbors..even if we think they are scumbags..yet they feel entitled to say..they dislike a whole country of Americans...and they aren't afraid to say it.

I'm fed up with being taught by people like you vicky..and you're just one more to add to the list, of why I don't want to be christian.

Originally posted by gabby2011

Why is is that some of the most judgemental people I know are christians...who judge others for silly reasons....for instance their grammar, and dismiss what they have to say,because of a few spelling mistakes???

edit on 2-6-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

I criticise your spelling and grammar because it makes your posts unreadable. That's the reason. Blatant wrong word usage hurts me, it really does.
As for the rest, I have heard it all before - sigh.
The loving atheists, the hateful Christians, blah, blah and you Americans say 'yada, yada...'
God's love is for everybody, my love is for my family and my friends.
My 'dislike of Americans', something which you are sooooooooooo obsessed with, and have mentioned in every post on every thread for weeks now, was as you well know, not a blanket dislike of all Americans at all times and in all places, but very specific, and about American foreign policy and the urge to control and conquer every other country on earth. So you lie by omission, and you don't actually help my impression of Americans one little bit! (Oops, forgot, you're a Canadian, with an unhealthy worship of your neighbour to the south, hey? )
V

Originally posted by gabby2011

So if divine love is unconditional..I guess someone being gay is not going to change that??

Correct. God still loves them. But that doesn't mean I have to like what they do!

Originally posted by gabby2011
Then they go on to preach about how we should love our neighbors..even if we think they are scumbags..yet they feel entitled to say..they dislike a whole country of Americans...and they aren't afraid to say it.

I'm fed up with being taught by people like you vicky..and you're just one more to add to the list, of why I don't want to be christian.

So, you're trying to guilt-trip me, hey? Well I am not as impressed as you wish I was, because I believe that I could be Mother Teresa and you'd say the same. (Come to think of it, as you have a special hatred for Catholics, I am certain you'd say that to Mother Teresa.. Ok, Ellen De Generes is a better example? )
Your obsession with my remark about Americans, which you take out of context and keep repeating, shows that you're not all that concerned with being honest..
This place got an ignore feature? If it does, you're on it so fast your head should spin... You bore me to tears. Know a woman called Shaun who goes by the name Azahar by any chance?

reply to post by Vicky32


This same person does the same trolling in other threads, like all the other anti-Christian trolls. I don't know of any 'ignore' feature but hope they add one. But I suppose it's good practice to discipline ourselves not to read or respond to such people, aka "feed the trolls".

reply to post by Vicky32


Thanks for your answer. You wrote:

["There's something in human nature that craves absolutes."]

I can support that from the simplest to the most complex position. The problem is, that humans arrive at very different absolutes, without any superior absolutes to determine the humanly chosen absolutes. As always I'm open to go as far as to epistemology, but with you as a decent and reasonable sparring-partner this is neither a request, nor an invitation to conflict.

Quote: ["Ah, but the fact is that everybody is a 'sinner', and I am not talking about 'original sin'! We all do things we're ashamed of, we all do (or have done) bad things, whether we want to admit it or not."]

True again. But there are different optional contexts to put it in.

Quote: [" Everyone needs redemption."]

Let go for the word 'redemption' for now (though it has its own semantic implications). It's eventually a question of where to place responsibility. Talking about constants, such as theists do in their own contexts, I have (as a science/logic parallel constant) very little to do with gravity (its origin or manifestation). Various world-views/existential positions put responsibility different 'places'.

Quote: ["I take your point about the word missionary, but the way it's commonly understood is to refer to a person who, as Sabre Truth says, is sent to another country/people."]

I take your point, and it's to some extent valid. But it's optional for me to choose any of the formalized consensus definitions offered. And for the average non-theist my use of the word is rather common.

And by the way, ....in my part of the world we even have a special branch of fundamentalist evangelizing christianity calling itself 'inner mission', where no expectations of moving to other areas are implicit.

Quote: ["Instead she says "repent or your own actions will punish you".]

Sweeet, as young people say these days in a positive sense. There MAY be a new order in the seemingly chaos beyond 'event horizon'.


Greetings

B.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
reply to post by Vicky32

 

This same person does the same trolling in other threads, like all the other anti-Christian trolls. I don't know of any 'ignore' feature but hope they add one. But I suppose it's good practice to discipline ourselves not to read or respond to such people, aka "feed the trolls".

Thanks for reminding me that I don't need a feature in order to ignore this rather sad woman...
Vicky

Originally posted by SaberTruth
reply to post by Vicky32

 

This same person does the same trolling in other threads, like all the other anti-Christian trolls. I don't know of any 'ignore' feature but hope they add one. But I suppose it's good practice to discipline ourselves not to read or respond to such people, aka "feed the trolls".

But you ARE feeding the alleged 'trolls' now, albeit in a circumstantial way. Semantic gymnastics only adds to the impression of intellectual dishonesty.

Speaking of trolls... o.O

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by gabby2011

Why is is that some of the most judgemental people I know are christians...who judge others for silly reasons....for instance their grammar, and dismiss what they have to say,because of a few spelling mistakes???

edit on 2-6-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

I criticise your spelling and grammar because it makes your posts unreadable. That's the reason. Blatant wrong word usage hurts me, it really does.
As for the rest, I have heard it all before - sigh.
The loving atheists, the hateful Christians, blah, blah and you Americans say 'yada, yada...'
God's love is for everybody, my love is for my family and my friends.
My 'dislike of Americans', something which you are sooooooooooo obsessed with, and have mentioned in every post on every thread for weeks now, was as you well know, not a blanket dislike of all Americans at all times and in all places, but very specific, and about American foreign policy and the urge to control and conquer every other country on earth. So you lie by omission, and you don't actually help my impression of Americans one little bit! (Oops, forgot, you're a Canadian, with an unhealthy worship of your neighbour to the south, hey?

)
V

pffft ..I hardly think my posts are unreadable vicky. If they are to you, you have a serious problem. And since when does American policy have anything to do with ALL Americans. Also, to say I have an unhealthy worship of my neighbors, is stretching the imagination. I just don't blame them all for the choices of a few. Big difference.

Once again you show us what kind of christian you really are , and why its difficult for people like me who struggle with faith , to look at christians like you, as an example of love. Thankfully not all are like you .

.

Once again you show us what kind of christian you really are , and why its difficult for people like me who struggle with faith , to look at christians like you, as an example of love. Thankfully not all are like you .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so you repeat yourself ad nauseam! Once again, trying to guilt-trip me...
Sorry, woman, I am withdrawing your ego-food... and not feeding a notable troll!

Originally posted by Vicky32
.

Once again you show us what kind of christian you really are , and why its difficult for people like me who struggle with faith , to look at christians like you, as an example of love. Thankfully not all are like you .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so you repeat yourself ad nauseam! Once again, trying to guilt-trip me...
Sorry, woman, I am withdrawing your ego-food... and not feeding a notable troll!



Reply by gabby:
Just pointing out the obvious vicky...you radiate hate, and arrogance....I do not get any sense of love from reading your posts, and because I may be one of the few who speaks out..doesn't mean there are not others who feel the same. You can call me a troll all you like, that's how some of you christians who can't handle honesty about what you portray, deal with it. Go ahead..live in your delusional mind. I'm sure it makes your good little christian heart feel so proud to blame others, for what are your problems.

I am not nauseated by you, just have extreme pity for one so delusional., and so full of hate and arrogance.

Originally posted by Vicky32
You ought to know that all translations are carefully checked so that there are not any 'different interpretations'. (This does not of course apply to cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, who built their whole structure on 'different interpretations'.
V

I hate to inform you, but there are currently over 2,400 different versions of the bible. And speaking of cults, what do you think would happen if you asked a muslim the same question?

They would call your religion a cult too, so which is it? How can you prove that your version of scripture is the one and only truth?

Come to think of it, I'd like to see anyone prove anything in the bible to be true, because as of today and the last few thousand years the bible is a collection of stories used to control the public through fear and intimidation all while claiming love and happiness.

Ironic isn't it?

King

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
I hate to inform you, but there are currently over 2,400 different versions of the bible.

This may be technically true (I'd demand impartial sources for that claim if it mattered right now), but the real question is how different they are in any substantive way. For example, if one renders the Greek word λογος as "word" and another as "saying", they're technically different but not substantively different; that is, they are both accurate translations and the difference in meaning is negligible at most. It is thus disingenuous to throw out factoids like "2,400 different translations" without qualification. A half-truth can be worse than a lie, and it's this sort of sloppiness that makes debate with anti-Christians almost impossible.

Come to think of it, I'd like to see anyone prove anything in the bible to be true, because as of today and the last few thousand years the bible is a collection of stories used to control the public through fear and intimidation all while claiming love and happiness.

Rather arrogant, isn't it? You're saying that many well-qualified scholars in history have been dolts and that current scholars are either dolts or liars. But the real question is what you'd ever consider "proof" in the first place. Most of what any of us would present would be dismissed out of hand, not because the scholarship is lacking, but because the ideology is not to your taste. But I still defy anyone in the world to match the expertise of one Robert Wilson, the man who mastered 45 Semitic languages and dialects, and pronounced the OT's reliability and accuracy as beyond question. If people like that aren't good enough, then I reject any and all "experts" you may propose on the grounds that they are not even in the same league with Wilson.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
reply to post by Vicky32

 

This same person does the same trolling in other threads, like all the other anti-Christian trolls. I don't know of any 'ignore' feature but hope they add one. But I suppose it's good practice to discipline ourselves not to read or respond to such people, aka "feed the trolls".

Now I am a troll, because I dare question you , or respond to a response of yours???

Get over yourself saber, I might initially ask a question ,which leads to a very unsastisfactory response,to which I respond to. I've seen people point out very intelligent reasoning to you,ask very thought provoking questions,and all you can do is spout off biblical text, that in reality doesn't even pertain to the questions asked.

That is always the answer for some of you christians, who can't handle the questions.. OMG..TROLLS..TROLLS...look at all the trolls trolling us. pffft

reply to post by SaberTruth


You wrote (on the varieties of the bible):

["This may be technically true (I'd demand impartial sources for that claim if it mattered right now), but the real question is how different they are in any substantive way. For example, if one renders the Greek word λογος as "word" and another as "saying", they're technically different but not substantively different; that is, they are both accurate translations and the difference in meaning is negligible at most."]

My version of the bible does not contain James' epistle, and knowing Luther's aversion to James and the consequences of that in the 'faith' vs 'law' inter-christian dispute, it's significant as an expression of ideological censorship.

Quote: [" It is thus disingenuous to throw out factoids like "2,400 different translations" without qualification. A half-truth can be worse than a lie, and it's this sort of sloppiness that makes debate with anti-Christians almost impossible."]

And vice versa. The unsubstantiated claims of 'true christianity' and christian ignorance of their own holy manual makes debate with some christians almost impossible.

Quote on the validation of the bible: ["Rather arrogant, isn't it? You're saying that many well-qualified scholars in history have been dolts and that current scholars are either dolts or liars."]

'Scholars', in the true academic sense, make textual analyses and similar. They don't go into the area of 'objective evidence' based on their academic merits.

Quote: ["But the real question is what you'd ever consider "proof" in the first place."]

A very good question, which can be directed many ways.

Quote: ["Most of what any of us would present would be dismissed out of hand, not because the scholarship is lacking, but because the ideology is not to your taste."]

And vice versa. So there is a need to consider 'ideology' per se.

Quote: ["But I still defy anyone in the world to match the expertise of one Robert Wilson, the man who mastered 45 Semitic languages and dialects, and pronounced the OT's reliability and accuracy as beyond question"]

And how does this specialist knowledge relate to a more extensive debate of the postulated ultimate or absolute truth/reality of the christianities or the bible? A book on the 'truth' of the flying spaghetti monster can be written in some obscure version of a pre-germanic language and some specialist read it linguistically correct, without even touching on the points you answered to (e.g. fear, intimidation, love happiness) in an 'objective' sense.

Quote: ["If people like that aren't good enough, then I reject any and all "experts" you may propose on the grounds that they are not even in the same league with Wilson"]

So you don't really believe in the existence or function of the computer you use now. It's the pragmatic result of a certain kind of 'expertise'. If opposition don't accept YOUR 'experts', ALL experts go out with the bathwater.