|
New Danish law lets homosexuals wed in church (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by kr00t0n
Yes, but knowing how inaccurate the book has become, how can any use it as a reference for anything? How can they tell what is legit and what isn't? If you can't, what exactly is the point in the first place? |
It depends on why you are reading it? If one is reading it from a devotional point of view than they will take from it what is consistant with their theology. If one is reading in an attempt to understand what each author was trying to say then there is a whole disipline surrounding that... Historical Criticsm. Essentially, under this method one tries to examine the purest version of the document (earliest sources with fewest errors and in original language), check for consistancy between the language used throughout the text or with other known documents from the same author (Mark 16 9-20 for example is very different in style then the rest of Mark thus most critis believe it was a later addition; Timmothy 1&@ are very different from other letters of Paul thus also believed to be forgeries; Luke and Acts are incredibly similar thus believed to both be from Luke), comparing sections to overall themes in the same work to determine if consistant, and comparing sections with the prevaling theology (note; in this method things that are inconsistant with the theology from the time of the document are considered more likely to be original as it is unlikely a scribe would change something to be inconsistant with the prevailing beliefs of their time), and with the gospels in particular the versions of events that are consistant throughout are largely deemed to be original (especially as Matthew and Luke both used Mark as one of their source documents... if a story is the same in all three then it is generally viewed as historically accurate under the presumption that their other source documents did not disagree). Through this type of careful examination we get closer to seeing what the original documents were and thereby understanding the intent of the original authors (which of course then needs to be interpreted by the reader... proper interpretation requires a great deal of contextual knowledge... for example in Matthew's Gospel Jesus arrives in Jeruselem on both a donkey and a colt, whereas in the others he arrives only on a donkey... The writer of Matthew was Greek - not actually Matthew - and did not understand the traditional Hebrew writing style but was all about trying to show how the life of Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophacies, one of which says that the messia will arrive on a donkey but in the traditional hebrew style that is said twice using different words... once as donkey, once as colt... thus Matthew decided to add a colt to the story thinking that it needed to be there in order to satisfy the prophacy). Sorry for the rambling... the point is that trying to decern what is "true" requires way more effort than a casual read or common sense as Mattsanity had suggested. |
|
|
| kr00t0n |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
---i substituted your previous point #1, with your response to moral hazard about point #1 ---
1. you can do it through the study of language. language can be analyze for truth, simply by analyzing the connections that language makes, and observing the psychology/philosophy definitions. you cannot separate the use of language from these topics: philosophy, theology, objectivity and psychology. every time you use language, you are describing the way you feel about the world and how much you know about. YES, the most information that there is out in the world, is in the actual use of language and nothing else. language is reality, and to describe a objective reality, you must use language objectively.
2. God the Son has been here on Earth predating the existence of civilization, hence the story of God in Flesh is older than society's current proof of when civilizations began. For as long as there has been a civilization, there has been traces of a story of God being here on Earth, in flesh.
I AM God. I Am Here. Therefore, God exists.
3. where there is evil, there is punishment for evil. If one's suffering from the punishment of evil, comes from internal sources (disease, death...) than that person hath been evil in his life. If the suffering of a good person, comes from external sources of evil (torture, enslavement, murder) and the good person has led a good life, but others cause evil onto him. that person's pain will be acknowledged and justice will be served. evil does not escape the judgement of God. if you are persecuted, and that is the source of evil onto you, it is not yours, and you shall not be punished for it.
if you are the persecutor, and you are the source of evil onto others, than you are evil, and you shall be punished for it.
4. if a good person suffers, god will try to give him strength and reward him for his courage. if an evil person prospers, he does so, by selling his soul to death, and he will not prosper in life beyond Earth.
the universe wants perfection. nature records every action/feeling ever created and it gets stored in the timeline of the universe. omnipotent being is the holder of truth, and justice. only when you know both truth, and justice, is a being allowed to make judgement of what is evil and what is not.
life does not begin, or end on Earth. Earth is a material realm, and it has limited access to the energy realm. Truth cannot be killed, so all life that is true on Earth, Death will not kill. Death only kills that which is evil in nature. if you want to be saved, you must find the Truth. and no i dont mean religion, i mean the actual Truth of The Word Of God. and no i dont mean the whole Bible.(but the greatest source of truth is to analyze the truth of the Bible.) The Truth Of Every Word is the Truth Of God. the truth is not what One, or 7 billion people consider the truth to be. The truth is 'what is actually going on' beyond the illusion of perspective and personal benefit and the strive for power. the truth can be found by analyzing language.
for example: love is good. love is always good. love will always be good. but then, you must look at love. what is love. and then you must analyze every feeling of love, and what constitutes love. you must define everything, and analyze the connections of what makes a feeling , of what makes a word, properly defined, so that it is the truth of it, and hopefully you realize what God is, and what God protects. it is a life long quest, of analyzing language, and reality and beyond. |
lolirl |
|
|
| Mattsanity. |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
not really. the Bible is philosophical, psychological, and has eternal truth in it.
every word should be analyzed profusely into exhaustion.
just because you "read" something doesnt mean you understand its context. |
Yeah I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said the term common sense. Jesus' parables definitely need to be read more than once. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Why would anyone choose to be homosexual? |
Women have loose buttholes? |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
language = feeling, emotions or thoughts.
book = use of language, that includes feeling, emotions or thoughts.
// |
lol yur so full of |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Now, now... there is a great deal of merit to what he has said (I know, right... like I'm supporting him:wtf: ). I won't get into whether or not the "word of god" exists let alone whether it can be found in the Bible; however, there is no doubt that the Bible itself has been altered, changed, misinterpreted, forged over time. If you look at is as a collection of books alone than you must at very least accept that through errors in transcription, errors in copying, errors in translation, people deleting passages that were inconsistant with their beliefs, people inserting other passages to support theological arguments, people trying to correct perceived inconsistancies, etc. the original works of the original authors are likely very different in many respects from what we see today. Heck even the writers themselves took a great deal of liberty; John for example changed the date of Jesus' execution to the day before the passover rather than passover itself in order to draw a parallel between the execution of Jesus and the ritual sacrafice of the lambs that usher in the passover of god. Given that a detail as important as when Jesus was executed can get changed to support a given position than what else was changed to support other agendas? We also have outright forgeries like Timothy 1&2 that claim to be written by one author (Paul in this case) but were actually writen by someone else a hundred or so years later and espouses views that were entirely opposed to those that Paul expressed and enacted elsewhere (most noteably; Timothy rails against women being allowed positions of power in the church, whereas Paul set up churchs with women in positions of authority and preached equality). What I'm getting at here is that with so many errors, changes, forgeries, etc. if one believes the word of god can actually be found in the bible they must also believe that not all of it is the word of god... believing otherwise just shows that you don't have a good understanding of the book or it's history. |
The Romans also changed the date of christmas so it would coincide with the celebration of sol invictus, when they adopted christianity in 392. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
for example in Matthew's Gospel Jesus arrives in Jeruselem on both a donkey and a colt, whereas in the others he arrives only on a donkey... The writer of Matthew was Greek - not actually Matthew - and did not understand the traditional Hebrew writing style but was all about trying to show how the life of Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophacies, one of which says that the messia will arrive on a donkey but in the traditional hebrew style that is said twice using different words... once as donkey, once as colt... thus Matthew decided to add a colt to the story thinking that it needed to be there in order to satisfy the prophacy). Sorry for the rambling... the point is that trying to decern what is "true" requires way more effort than a casual read or common sense as Mattsanity had suggested. |
The bible would be so much more awesome if Jesus had one of these on his hips.
 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
The Romans also changed the date of christmas so it would coincide with the celebration of sol invictus, when they adopted christianity in 392. |
Not entirely accurate... it was pope Julius I that set the 25th of December date as a feast day to celebrate Jesus' birth. Pope Julius died in 352 so it was clearly prior to that. No one actually argued that was the date of Jesus's birth until about 30 years later when Saint John Chrysostom did some mental gymnastics with the some dates in Luke. No one actually cared about it until about 400 years later though. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mattsanity.
Yeah I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said the term common sense. Jesus' parables definitely need to be read more than once. |
i was just trying to point out that language can be analyzed to an infinite depth. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
lol yur so full of |
not even close. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
The bible would be so much more awesome if Jesus had one of these on his hips.
|
Jesus living during the roman times was a fabrication. Jesus was Zeus, the God of lightning, and he stood for truth, law, justice and order. |
|
|
|
|
