Church

orraloon

Singleton wrote:

If there is a God then it would really help if he were to somehow tell us what he wants us to know and what he wants us to do.
I believe that there is a God and the bible is his way of doing exactly this.

Ok, next question(s) if I may.

In your view, how was the bible as we have it today written / developed?
What influences or effects do you think have been brought in through its various translations from language to language over the past 2,000 years or thereabouts? Guess I'm picking up on your use of the word 'exactly' in this context.

Just for clarity, I come from a position of not believing in any supernatural being, but perfectly happy for others to have whatever personal belief systems they want as long as they do not try to force their views on others.

singleton

Slowbike wrote:

What about the different versions of the bible ... ? Christians fight amoungst each other as to who is right ...

The bible wasn't written in English - so there are different versions which attempt to both give an accurate version of the original and also keep up with the way the English language changes. We don't really talk in Thee's and Thou's anymore so why should we read a version of the bible that was translated into Olde Englishe??

Slowbike wrote:

What about Jews?
What about Muslims?
What about Hindus?

and finally - Buddhists?
That's just the 5 major religions covered ...

Not everyone is "right" - so who is to say anyone is right?

Sorry for singling you out - and don't feel you have to answer the above - or the following ...

Why did you pick Christianity? Why not one of the other faiths?

You are correct - all these major religions cannot all be right since they disagree on major points. So then there is the obvious question of what should someone do with that information?

Should someone ignore all religions because they are different or should someone look into them and try to find out whether one of them is actually true??

singleton

bianchimoon wrote:

you do realise that your religion is dependent on where you were born? If you had been born 5,000 miles south east you would be worshipping another god and reading a different book.

It's not quite that simple. In some parts of the middle east and South East Asia, Christianity is the fastest growing faith. In the UK, the Muslim population is growing very quickly - so there's more to it than simply where you are born.

singleton

orraloon wrote:

Ok, next question(s) if I may.

In your view, how was the bible as we have it today written / developed?
What influences or effects do you think have been brought in through its various translations from language to language over the past 2,000 years or thereabouts? Guess I'm picking up on your use of the word 'exactly' in this context.

Just for clarity, I come from a position of not believing in any supernatural being, but perfectly happy for others to have whatever personal belief systems they want as long as they do not try to force their views on others.

As I mentioned just above, the Old testament was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and the new testament in Greek.

The versions of the bible that we have in English are translations and they are generally done as either "literal" translations which are as close to a word for word translation as can be done or alternatively a "meaningful" translation where the intent is to keep the most accurate original meaning - even if that means something has to be slightly rephrased due to the limits of one language or another.

metronome

Singleton, you say you haven't always been religious. Would you mind explaining when and why Christianity become important to you?

singleton

metronome wrote:

Singleton, you say you haven't always been religious. Would you mind explaining when and why Christianity become important to you?

Is this where I say something like "When I doscovered it was true" ?

metronome

Singleton wrote:

metronome wrote:

Singleton, you say you haven't always been religious. Would you mind explaining when and why Christianity become important to you?

Is this where I say something like "When I doscovered it was true" ?

No. It's a genuine question because I'm interested to learn how and why you arrived at your decision.

bobmcstuff

Slowbike wrote:

Singleton wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I'm not trying to de-convert you - only suggest you continually question your belief.

I will if you will .
In fact I am constantly watching TV shows and reading articles that are created and written by non-chritians and so they continually challenge what I believe.
Are you still reading the bible?

I'm probably watching TV shows and articles that are created by christians and people from other faiths - it's rarely about religion though.
No, I don't read the bible - do you read the koran?

You should, some of the Old Testament in particular is fantastically awful.

Leviticus (27:3 onwards) tells us that not only is it fine to buy slaves, male slaves are worth a lot more than female slaves (50 shekels for men, 30 for women). Bearing in mind this is the book that's most often used to support the condemnation of homosexuality - seems odd that so many Christians are happy to pick and choose, condemning both slavery and homosexuality. This is one of the reasons I find it so hard to understand people who believe the Bible is the literal word of God - the idea that it's some sort of God-inspired guide book at least makes the contradictions make sense.

(many Christians will argue that the New Testament supersedes the Old where it conflicts - but Jesus never actually condemned slavery. Although he did suggest you should be nice to them, which is a start I suppose).

singleton

metronome wrote:

Singleton wrote:

metronome wrote:

Singleton, you say you haven't always been religious. Would you mind explaining when and why Christianity become important to you?

Is this where I say something like "When I doscovered it was true" ?

No. It's a genuine question because I'm interested to learn how and why you arrived at your decision.

My comment above is, I suppose, a genuine response.

tangled_metal

I can tell you how I lost my religion. It's because of a born again Christian teacher. One of the best teachers I ever had and one who I have a lot of respect for. He taught maths, chemistry and the RE right up to A level standard. A former industrial chemist with a lot of experience in that field before moving into teaching. He was my form teacher during the 2 years of A levels. Whilst other classes had a free 20 minutes on one day a week after lunch we had moral presentations and discussions from our classmates. We all did several each year in turn. They were meant as a means to improve us in our moral compass, to force us to improve presentation skills and to educate us about moral issues affecting us.

It was during my piece on euthanasia that he spouted some justification for God based on a watch in the desert. That made no.sense and I woke up to realise these talks were about his religious views, everything turned into debates about God.

That got me annoyed and thinking. I then became a serious militant atheist hating everything about religion and the religious. Priest abusing children was just further evidence, doorsteppers were evil to be converted away from their religion, etc. It took my dad to turn me around to a more live and let live attitude. Amazing what a clout around the head from your dad can do to curb your excesses even when in your 20s!

BTW I was a card carrying member of the Christian Union at school so it's a big change. Although I will admit I used that membership mostly to get out of weekly sports afternoon so perhaps not a devout Christian afterall.

slowbike

Singleton wrote:

As I mentioned just above, the Old testament was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and the new testament in Greek.

The versions of the bible that we have in English are translations and they are generally done as either "literal" translations which are as close to a word for word translation as can be done or alternatively a "meaningful" translation where the intent is to keep the most accurate original meaning - even if that means something has to be slightly rephrased due to the limits of one language or another.

Really sorry - I'm not attacking you ... just questioning the logic ...

If something has been translated in a meaningful way for the last 2000 years or more then it's quite probable that the original intent has been lost. It's chinese whispers. And that's not allowing for typos ... take the classic example of Monks re-writting a verse and one checks the original and discovers the word is "Celebrate" not "Celebate" - ok I know this is a joke - but what makes it funny is that it's a real possibility.
Given that the new testements were written after the time of Jesus (the earliest said to be written 50 years after the death of Jesus) then it's unlikely to be a literal version of events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... he_Gospels

One thing consistent in Christianity is that you shouldn't expect God to prove he exists - you have to have faith that he does - we're told that by those that lead the church - why would that be then? Why wouldn't God prove he exists? Or for that matter - if he does exist and he created "the world" - which you could take anyway you want - then why did he do that? How does he exist - is he a physical entity or ethereal?

I suggest that God only exists in the minds of believers - a belief put there by those who wanted to control or change humanity at a time where there was no "big brother" watching you so the easiest way of excerting some sort of law and order was to suggest that unless you toed the line, you'd get your comeuppance when you died.

rick_chasey

Yeah. With the advance of the modern state which has the power to actively police, it's no surprise religion has become a niche pursuit in the West.

The Church effectively was the state originally, and plenty of the doctrines put in place were attempts to exert power. The modern state has replaced that.

I don't need to believe in the religious rights and wrongs because the law quite clearly sets that out for me. The wrath of the Church is nothing compared to wronging the state.

bianchimoon

Singleton wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

you do realise that your religion is dependent on where you were born? If you had been born 5,000 miles south east you would be worshipping another god and reading a different book.

It's not quite that simple. In some parts of the middle east and South East Asia, Christianity is the fastest growing faith. In the UK, the Muslim population is growing very quickly - so there's more to it than simply where you are born.

So the christian missionaries are going for the soft targets in places less educated and/or enlightened, figures :roll:

bianchimoon

As the late, great Christopher Hitchins put it "Religion is a celestial North Korea"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuI4Nzc ... pWBmS2XW2T

chris_bass

so this started as people saying "how dare they tell kids what to believe" and has turned into telling the only religious person, albeit in not so many words, what not to believe!

slowbike

Chris Bass wrote:

so this started as people saying "how dare they tell kids what to believe" and has turned into telling the only religious person, albeit in not so many words, what not to believe!

just questioning his logic - It's almost like the question "are lighter wheels faster?"

bianchimoon

Slowbike wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

so this started as people saying "how dare they tell kids what to believe" and has turned into telling the only religious person, albeit in not so many words, what not to believe!

just questioning his logic - It's almost like the question "are lighter wheels faster?"

I can save you sometime Slowbike, this article is quiet interesting
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... faith-god/

bianchimoon

Chris Bass wrote:

so this started as people saying "how dare they tell kids what to believe" and has turned into telling the only religious person, albeit in not so many words, what not to believe!

Quiet ironic really, aint it ...
I mean from the point of view that church missionaries travel the world telling people/cultures what to believe or the consequences will be horrific

city_boy

bianchimoon wrote:

As the late, great Christopher Hitchins put it "Religion is a celestial North Korea"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuI4Nzc ... pWBmS2XW2T

The world is definitely a lesser place without Hitchens...

http://youtu.be/4ndNsE7dL5Q

singleton

Few points from above:

Let's take the gospels as an example - they were written by eye witnesses and have proven to be extremely consistent. They are not identical - if they were it would suggest some kind of agreed account. If today 4 people all saw the same crime and gave identical evidence to the police, the police would become suspicious because we all notice different things. These 4 men were all different from different backgrounds and so noticed and highlighted different details of what they witnessed.

The bible translations are done from these original texts - not from some chinese whispers style story telling or handing down - which I agree would be fraught with risks and errors.

As for wikipedia, well it's interesting - and to quote from the page you referenced:
"Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"
but I don't take everything on there as gospel .....

orraloon

Chris Bass wrote:

so this started as people saying "how dare they tell kids what to believe" and has turned into telling the only religious person, albeit in not so many words, what not to believe!

No hang on, not at all telling him/her what to believe. People can believe in whatever, it's when some of those believers start to push their belief systems onto others that the problems arise.

Singleton wrote:

The versions of the bible that we have in English are translations and they are generally done as either "literal" translations which are as close to a word for word translation as can be done or alternatively a "meaningful" translation where the intent is to keep the most accurate original meaning - even if that means something has to be slightly rephrased due to the limits of one language or another.

Ok, given The Bible has evolved ( ) through its multiple translations and transliterations, how much of it do you believe is the Word? All of it? New Testament? Old Testament? And do you take these parts literally as written?

[Edit. Written before your post above, was answering the door!]

ballysmate

orraloon wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

so this started as people saying "how dare they tell kids what to believe" and has turned into telling the only religious person, albeit in not so many words, what not to believe!

No hang on, not at all telling him/her what to believe. People can believe in whatever, it's when some of those believers start to push their belief systems onto others that the problems arise.

Singleton wrote:

The versions of the bible that we have in English are translations and they are generally done as either "literal" translations which are as close to a word for word translation as can be done or alternatively a "meaningful" translation where the intent is to keep the most accurate original meaning - even if that means something has to be slightly rephrased due to the limits of one language or another.

Ok, given The Bible has evolved ( ) through its multiple translations and transliterations, how much of it do you believe is the Word? All of it? New Testament? Old Testament? And do you take these parts literally as written?

[Edit. Written before your post above, was answering the door!]

Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons?

bianchimoon

Ballysmate wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

so this started as people saying "how dare they tell kids what to believe" and has turned into telling the only religious person, albeit in not so many words, what not to believe!

No hang on, not at all telling him/her what to believe. People can believe in whatever, it's when some of those believers start to push their belief systems onto others that the problems arise.

Singleton wrote:

The versions of the bible that we have in English are translations and they are generally done as either "literal" translations which are as close to a word for word translation as can be done or alternatively a "meaningful" translation where the intent is to keep the most accurate original meaning - even if that means something has to be slightly rephrased due to the limits of one language or another.

Ok, given The Bible has evolved ( ) through its multiple translations and transliterations, how much of it do you believe is the Word? All of it? New Testament? Old Testament? And do you take these parts literally as written?

[Edit. Written before your post above, was answering the door!]

Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons?

tangled_metal

Correct me if I'm wrong but the old testament is based on Jewish texts in the Torah. The Torah is written under very strict rules in order to make sure each copy is just that, an exact copy. There's checks and balances made right down to the words on each line. Any mistakes and the Torah copy is binned. IIRC that was explained in a documentary on it I once partly watched. I guess if modern old testament translations are taken from the Torah then it is likely to be more accurate and less likely to suffer Chinese whispers.

The other point is most versions of the bible in the west were translated into Latin. Monks with the job of scribes, copying texts including bibles had a similar level of obsession over accuracy I believe. The original versions were probably translated into Latin a long time ago copied over time the accuracy could change. Officially the Jewish tradition is for their religious texts (the Torah) is accurate as the earliest versions, perhaps there are Latin copies that are close to the original translation from ancient Greek to Latin. Later on English language versions were done. These have been standardized via the printing press for centuries. Modern versions have come along to reflect modern language. The thing is these have been big steps not gradual creep. I'd be surprised if the bible is very different from the originals but who knows?

Personally having learnt Latin and ancient Greek I would struggle to find exact translations into Latin from ancient Greek. IMHO translating Ancient Greek into English is also hard. IIRC the phrasing is different so literal translations and the actual intention might not come across at the same time. It's been a very long time since I studied Latin and Greek but those are my recollections of learning to translate texts.

Do you remember the traditions of the fable? Aesop and others. They are stories, sometimes fantastical, that have a message of morality or a social message. Basically a way to teach right and wrong or teach how to behave. I see the bible as part of that, how to live at the time the version was written/translated. I reckon the Torah, Koran and indeed any religious text. They don't have to be exact just so long as the intention is there. That intention is to teach a way to live your life in the society at the time. Back then religious authority often created the rules. In Christianity the religious authority often provided the administrative back up in the UK to the state/rulers, were the law in some ways.

bobmcstuff

Singleton wrote:

As for wikipedia, well it's interesting - and to quote from the page you referenced:
"Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"
but I don't take everything on there as gospel .....

Existing =/= son of God

peterbob

I guess you won't be watching Highway To Heaven then.

peterbob

To see the positive effects of god in people around you have to ignore the disasters continually happening in the world. To what cause are we to attribute these assuming god has the same power to stop them.

pblakeney

peterbob wrote:

To see the positive effects of god in people around you have to ignore the disasters continually happening in the world. To what cause are we to attribute these assuming god has the same power to stop them.

That is all part of his plan. Shape up or you will be got rid off.
He has previous.

singleton

Ballysmate wrote:

Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons?

LOL

singleton

Tangled Metal wrote:

The other point is most versions of the bible in the west were translated into Latin.

True for early versions, but that is why the King James version was so signifncant and then other versions since. They used the original texts and translated directly into English from those original texts - not the from the latin version.