|
How many Christians understand Jesus’ teachings? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Man, I wish Craig was still posting right now (he would know for sure) - because I'm not certain of the specifics of the modern stance of the Catholic Church, but one of their quote en quote "less crazy" stances has to do with it being disallowed for Catholics to deny the faith's of others throughout the world. |
Sorry Rob, I cannot think of the word; however, I can confirm that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes all faiths as valid. It further recognizes all the protestant faiths and the catholic faiths as being true (this is the ecumenical movement/counsels). Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church is dissmissive of no faiths. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| What is its stance on Scientology? :gsmile: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Just for a start, those two books were written in two different languages (the first in Greek, the second in Hebrew), so the words used for "tempt" are different. The Bible says that God does not tempt people, but it also has many examples of God testing people. If the Hebrew word translated as "tempt" can also mean "test," then there isn't a problem, since tempting and testing can be two different things.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Bible is wrong about lots of things, but forcing a wooden, contextless reading on a text precisely in order to find contradictions isn't a very fruitful practice in dealing with any work of literature, religious or otherwise. |
Compounding the problem of course is that neither book was translated directly to English; rather both were translated to English from the Latin translation of the orginal book (assuming that Ricky's quoting the King James, which is probable). So you have two rounds of translation and multiple rounds of revision or refining over two millenia (keep in mind that the King James bible today has many differences from the King James of even 15 years ago... it is a living document). Trying to apply a rigid dictive meaning to something that has been translated and revised a number of times is pure folly. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
What is its stance on Scientology? :gsmile: |
Honestly, I'm unaware of any position specific to Scientology, as such I have to presume that it would apply to scientology the same position as it applies to other non-christian faiths... which is to say they accept that it has value to those that follow it therefore it is valid; however, they would not accept it as true. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Actually, the KJV was translated from the Greek and Hebrew texts, although the translators did use Vulgate as a reference. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| How P.C. of them. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
How P.C. of them. |
It probably has more to do with trying to preserve the value of their own faith by recognizing that all faiths have value then an attempt to not upset the heathens. *disclaimer* the use of the word heathen is meant in jest and should in no way be interpreted as an official stance of the church. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Trying to apply a rigid dictive meaning to something that has been translated and revised a number of times is pure folly. |
Which is exactly what strikes me as strange as to how the word of the Bible is still taken as the absolute truth today.
In my opinion when Christians read something in the Bible that agrees with what they think, such as 'love thy neighbour', then they can accept it. However, when they read something they don't agree with, they convince themselves that it's either been mistranslated, or else that 'God moves in mysterious ways'
For example ( I think it was Job) God ordered his people to move into a city and kill all the men. Any girls who were still virgins, they were to keep them for themselves.
Hardly the actions of a loving God... |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
For example ( I think it was Job) God ordered his people to move into a city and kill all the men. Any girls who were still virgins, they were to keep them for themselves. |
You're probably thinking of Moses in Numbers 31. The Bible certainly has some really indefensible stuff in it, if you treat it as a record of history. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
Which is exactly what strikes me as strange as to how the word of the Bible is still taken as the absolute truth today.
In my opinion when Christians read something in the Bible that agrees with what they think, such as 'love thy neighbour', then they can accept it. However, when they read something they don't agree with, they convince themselves that it's either been mistranslated, or else that 'God moves in mysterious ways'
For example ( I think it was Job) God ordered his people to move into a city and kill all the men. Any girls who were still virgins, they were to keep them for themselves.
Hardly the actions of a loving God... |
Man, it's like playing t-ball in here this week. Below is my response to someone else in another thread who quoted a number of old testament verses, including the one you're talking about...
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
In truth, I don't have the time nor inclination to look it all up; however, I would suggest that taken out of context the verses you cite mean very little. I would further remind that the Old Testament is a bizzar combination of history, prophesy, secular laws, and morality tales. One must read those books as a whole in order to gain any insight from them; however, one thing that is clear is that these books cannot be 100% litteral... one must use reason and critical thinking to judge what they believe is true, allagory, or embellishment. Personally, I think it's a little nuts to believe that God gave explicit commands on matters of military conquest and the pillaging of the defeated, more likely these are verses that have been ascribed to God as justification for the actions of men. |
|
|
|
| wizniz |
| quote: | Originally posted by chach
I'm starting to get worried about you wiz, first no sex on prom night. Now I look over to the left and see your location. :o
Time for a intervention.
:wtf: |
i had sex on prom night :)
it was just bad... =/
but yea im in good spirits because most people have gone home and i finally got my schedule fixed so i can now, too! no worries!!
but im not going to until tomorrow...
no RA's and crazy getting-rid-of-excess-alcohol-and-other-drugs parties abound... i'm going to have a good night!
that and, since im 19 now, i get to feel scandalous about hooking up w/ high school girls over break! :p |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Man, it's like playing t-ball in here this week. Below is my response to someone else in another thread who quoted a number of old testament verses, including the one you're talking about... |
Reading your quote...well I agree exactly with that. |
|
|
|
|
