So two people are talking and seemingly having a grand ol' time talking about other demoninations of Christanity and occasionally making fun or one of em, then the discussions turns to whether one is saved or not and this turns to Jews and how they because they do not accept Christ as the messiah are not "saved".
I haven't asked if they felt this meant they wouldn't goto heaven or not in their view, but I did have a little argument about this before they left and so when they come back I need help arguing with them.
quote: What exactly is the Messiah? (back)
The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)
Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)
Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)
Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.
1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES (back)
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.
Any other quick sources or links I can use to argue with them about using their own bible (Torah/Tanach) as evidence?
Also, they tend to argue that in the scripture they werent talking about a physical temple etc, can anyone give me a explanation of jewish scripture and how it is different from Christian interpretations of it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why do you want to argue with them?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Blayne, what are your beliefs on this matter? Who do you believe will be saved?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you believe "saved" means?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jews are not only not "saved" by Christian standards, but they wouldn't want to be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Jews are not only not "saved" by Christian standards, but they wouldn't want to be.
Amen.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Who do you plan to fight, Blayne? God?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm still unclear as to whether he wants to convince a Christian evangelical that Jews are "saveable" (salvageable?), or convince a Jew to become "saved."
Either way, isn't he an atheist?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Your concern does you credit, Blayne. But really, who cares?
I used to fight with missionaries when I was in college. The so-called "Jews for Jesus" used to infest campus every year around this time, and I spent quite a lot of time doing battle with them. It was entertaining and educational, but ultimately a waste of time.
I remember once when a friend of mine, a very assimilated Jewish girl from Boston -- and bear in mind that I was not religious at this time, so for me to have seen her as assimilated meant that she was barely more than Jewish by birth -- saw a poster up in our dorm advertising a talk in the dorm lounge being sponsored by the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship entitled, "Proof of the Resurrection".
Like oh so many assimilated Jews, she was hypersensitive about such things. She came running to me and said, "You have to go! You have to tell them they're wrong!"
I wouldn't have gone, but my friend was so hysterical that I just gave in. Their "proof", btw, was reading a passage from the Christian Bible in which it says it happened. QED, I guess.
We wound up having a discussion afterwards, and the subject of Jews and hell and salvation came up, of course. One guy was very clear in expressing his view that not accepting the Christian messiah means that we will burn in hell for all eternity. All the other IVCF students were really embarrassed about this and tried to hem and haw their way around it. Quite frankly, I thought the one guy was just being honest about his own religion, and I had more respect for him than I did for the others. Of course, he was wrong to a really silly extent, but at least he was being honest about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: We wound up having a discussion afterwards, and the subject of Jews and hell and salvation came up, of course. One guy was very clear in expressing his view that not accepting the Christian messiah means that we will burn in hell for all eternity. All the other IVCF students were really embarrassed about this and tried to hem and haw their way around it. Quite frankly, I thought the one guy was just being honest about his own religion, and I had more respect for him than I did for the others. Of course, he was wrong to a really silly extent, but at least he was being honest about it.
They were only being dishonest if they, too, believe that not accepting Jesus Christ as messiah means the one not accepting will burn in hell for eternity. ('For all eternity' is an strange phrase, isn't it? If it was just part of eternity, well, we'd use years or centuries or millenia or eons or something, right?)
If on the other hand they didn't believe that, then they weren't necessarily being dishonest. But your use of the phrase 'hemming and hawing' suggests that they didn't actually say, "That's wrong," but rather tried to sidestep it.
Really, just wanted to point out that not all Christians believe nonbelievers writhe in hellfire.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Only the ones Mormons will eat on the Day of Amaleckiah-hiah.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I am athiestically agnostic ha!
Basically I feel that the persons claim was to me a slippery slope towards anti semantism, and that by their own faith or at least faith they claim their faith is based off of they are even as far as incorrect in their assertions, my argument is "they do not have to be saved according to X and Y, your treading a slippery slope and I take offense. They have legitmate arguments for not believing that Jesus is the Messiah."
And the discussion went tangental from there.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sign me up for some of that anti-semantism!
Anyway. Arguing with people about their religious beliefs is rarely productive, unless you're letting your Kalashnikov do the talking. As you must have observed on Hatrack, a theist can find something in the Bible to support whatever opinion he happens to have that day, and will then ignore the rest of that contradictory document as inconvenient. So in fact, you cannot find anything "in their own religion" to contradict their stance; you can certainly find stuff in the Bible, but that's not the same thing. "Their religion" is going to be some subset of the Bible, what their parents told them, what they heard gossiped in their church, and Jack Chick comics; and by definition it won't include anything that contradicts their beliefs about Jews.
Anyway, these people presumably believe that all people who are not members of their particular sect are unsaved, so why get so worked up about the particular case of the Jews? Unless they are fantastically charismatic demagogues able to turn Canada into jackboot-land, their anti-semitism (if they have any) is surely no worse than their anti-Hinduism, anti-Buddhism, or anti-atheism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Anyway. Arguing with people about their religious beliefs is rarely productive, unless you're letting your Kalashnikov do the talking.
Heh, so does this mean you're finally acknowledging that no, in fact your numerous conversations with people around here about their religious beliefs weren't an attempt to helpfully persuade them of a better way?
Or that you still believe that only a few such discussions are productive, but you thought maybe a bunch of those exceptions would happen here?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm still not getting why Jews are not saves? Are people just throwing them away? It seem a shame to waste perfectly good Jews.
In a related vein, the biggest anti-semantist I can see here is you, Blayne.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So you're trying to use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to convince them to believe something that you don't believe yourself.
I can't imagine that working.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I can't imagine that working.
If I want to argue with a Mormon about whether caffeine is permitted, I will start with the Word of Wisdom and then move on to talks by church leaders. Arguing from the religious texts that your opponent follows seems to be the most effective way of winning an argument on doctrine.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:So you're trying to use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to convince them to believe something that you don't believe yourself.
That basic formula works for every successful scam artist.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In a related vein, the biggest anti-semantist I can see here is you, Blayne.
Word.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:So you're trying to use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to convince them to believe something that you don't believe yourself.
That basic formula works for every successful scam artist.
I don't see any evidence that Blayne is hiding his disbelief. That makes the formula quite different.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm still not getting why Jews are not saves? Are people just throwing them away? It seem a shame to waste perfectly good Jews.
In a related vein, the biggest anti-semantist I can see here is you, Blayne.
First you think I am lying about my family problems and now your calling me a bigot.
I could call you an idiot, and a member of parliament but then I would be repeating myself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"anti-semetist"
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Blayne, I think that people are throwing around the "anti-semantist" remark because there is no such thing as anti-semantism.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:So you're trying to use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to convince them to believe something that you don't believe yourself.
That basic formula works for every successful scam artist.
I don't see any evidence that Blayne is hiding his disbelief. That makes the formula quite different.
They are my friends and they know I am athesiastically agnostic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Blayne, You may want to consider that when I type things, I generally put some effort into making sure that they are spelled correctly. You might get the joke then.
edit: On a completely unrelated note, semantic is a word that refers to the aspects of meaning that are expressed in a language, code, or other form of representation, whereas Semitic refers to a certain group of people, languages, etc.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Blayne, You may want to consider that when I type things, I generally put some effort into making sure that they are spelled correctly. You might get the joke then.
I think given our history you should have known better.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... Arguing from the religious texts that your opponent follows seems to be the most effective way of winning an argument on doctrine.
Indeed. To be honest, I'm not seeing much choice. If you *have* to argue about doctrine (a very questionable have to, BTW), you only really have a few choices. Short of a divine revelation/intervention, or simply passing the argument onto someone else, what else but religious texts can you use anyways?
I figure that arguing on scientific or rational grounds would be even more hopeless, at least this way you're engaging your opponent.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't expect any better from you than what you gave. Looking at it now, it actually helps the joke a bit too.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
And your a member of Parliament.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My A member of Parliment what? Has he gotten off his leesh again? If he's digging up Farmer MacGregor's carrot patch again, I may have to bring out my back benchers.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So you're trying to use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to convince them to believe something that you don't believe yourself.
I can't imagine that working.
Though I've found it useful to use Christian scriptures when arguing against missionaries.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Blayne, You may want to consider that when I type things, I generally put some effort into making sure that they are spelled correctly. You might get the joke then.
I think given our history you should have known better.
Amen to that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Though I've found it useful to use Christian scriptures when arguing against missionaries.
Useful to what end?
I can't tell the amount of scorn I have for the integrity of someone who doesn't believe who tries to use my own scriptures against me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I can't tell the amount of scorn I have for the integrity of someone who doesn't believe who tries to use my own scriptures against me.
Didn't Jesus have some pretty pointed things to say against doing that?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*rim shot*
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I can't tell the amount of scorn I have for the integrity of someone who doesn't believe who tries to use my own scriptures against me.
I have discussions and debates with believers all the time about the consistency, or lack thereof, in their scriptures.
If that's what you mean, then by all means scorn away.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Though I've found it useful to use Christian scriptures when arguing against missionaries.
Useful to what end?
I can't tell the amount of scorn I have for the integrity of someone who doesn't believe who tries to use my own scriptures against me.
How is "but don't your scriptures say X?" a stain on someone's integrity?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's manipulative. It isn't a discussion of equals - it's one person using someone's religion as a weapon against them. It's attempting to hold their discipleship hostage. I've seen it done a hundred times, and it's never pretty.
I think very poorly of manipulative hostage-takers.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Anyway. Arguing with people about their religious beliefs is rarely productive, unless you're letting your Kalashnikov do the talking.
Heh, so does this mean you're finally acknowledging that no, in fact your numerous conversations with people around here about their religious beliefs weren't an attempt to helpfully persuade them of a better way?
Two comments; firstly that's experience talking, which I didn't have when I first came to Hatrack; secondly, unproductive and fun are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's manipulative. It isn't a discussion of equals - it's one person using someone's religion as a weapon against them. It's attempting to hold their discipleship hostage. I've seen it done a hundred times, and it's never pretty.
I think very poorly of manipulative hostage-takers.
Confucius he say, man who choose scripture that can be used as weapon against self, better develop thick skin.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's manipulative. It isn't a discussion of equals - it's one person using someone's religion as a weapon against them. It's attempting to hold their discipleship hostage. I've seen it done a hundred times, and it's never pretty.
I think very poorly of manipulative hostage-takers.
I think you are painting with too broad a brush here. As an atheist living in an LDS community, with mostly LDS friends, and an LDS wife, I find that using scripture is often the only productive way to move opinions or even have a productive discussion of a topic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It isn't a discussion of equals - it's one person using someone's religion as a weapon against them.
Why is this more acceptable if the person doing it happens to share the same religion?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Perhaps under certain circumstances it would be okay, but very certain, limited circumstances. Namely, there would need to be no doubt that 1) there is mutual, deep respect on both sides both for the other people and for the texts in question. Even if they aren't believed, they need to be respected. and 2) the person who is using the scriptures as an argument point while not actually believing them needs to completely free of a desire to "win."
Maybe, maybe under those circumstances it might be okay. That situation is impossible to achieve on a public board like this or between any people other than those with a deep and varied history of trust of respect.
quote:Why is this more acceptable if the person doing it happens to share the same religion?
It's a matter of vulnerability. It's like having a fight with Superman and then pulling out the Kryptonite. You may end up rejoicing that you're stronger, but it wasn't a fair fight.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That situation is impossible to achieve on a public board like this or between any people other than those with a deep and varied history of trust of respect.
I think this is more of an issue for you than it is for others. I believe that, for instance, Blackblade and I could have a discussion on a doctrinal issue, using scripture, without any animosity developing, and we certainly don't have any deep history.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Trying to persuade people to believe something that you yourself don't believe seems both dishonest and manipulative to me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
So you can only discuss religion with people who already agree with what you're going to say?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Trying to persuade people to believe something that you yourself don't believe seems both dishonest and manipulative to me.
I don't think this is a fair characterization of such discussions. If I think the text means "x" and they think the text means "y", then I'm trying to persuade them of what I believe (that the text means "x"), not something that I don't believe (that "x" is correct).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Trying to persuade people to believe something that you yourself don't believe seems both dishonest and manipulative to me.
Exactly. It's using the scriptures and someone's religion as a tool, and I think very poorly of using someone sacred anything as a tool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's a matter of vulnerability. It's like having a fight with Superman and then pulling out the Kryptonite. You may end up rejoicing that you're stronger, but it wasn't a fair fight.
Would it be a fair fight between me and Superman if I didn't have Kryptonite, and he only had super-strength, invulnerability, super-speed, and the ability to shoot lasers out of his eyes?
Edit for clarification: because I would say that using Kryptonite against Superman is the only way for all but the most superheroic people to sensibly engage Superman. In the same way, using the contradictions and moral conundrums and tiny hypocrises exposed in Scripture against the religious may well be the only way for all but the most superheroic people to sensibly engage the religious on points of religion.
I suppose the problem here is that you wouldn't pull Kryptonite on Superman to engage him in some friendly sparring; merely by having Kryptonite, you've made this unfriendly. Pulling Scripture on the religious might be equivalent. On the other hand, there's no real point in sparring with Superman without Kryptonite; you know that nothing you do is going to even get his attention. So perhaps the lesson is "don't engage in friendly sparring with religious people who would be hurt if you referenced Scripture."
[ April 01, 2008, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:and for the texts in question. Even if they aren't believed, they need to be respected.
Is this, in your view, for everything or just religion? Or just your religion?
Because I, for example, may not respect the Communist Manifesto at all. But that does not keep me from having productive conversations and debates about it.
That same, I hold, is true for me of religious scripture.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: So you can only discuss religion with people who already agree with what you're going to say?
You say that as though you believe that you can't discuss religion without trying to "win". Do you believe that?
I don't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Trying to persuade people to believe something that you yourself don't believe seems both dishonest and manipulative to me.
Does this hold only for religion, or across all ideas?
I've had plenty of discussions with people who have held ideas that I do not that involve me pointing out what I saw as logical inconsistencies in what they were saying.
When someone says they believe X and Y, is it dishonest and manipulative to demonstrate that X and Y are mutually exclusive? I don't see this as necessarily true.
---
edit: Also, there have plenty of conversations that centered around differing interpretations of things that I may not actually believe in. It doesn't seem to me that I become unable to have a valid opinion on what something could mean on an intellectual level if I don't believe in the whole thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Would it be a fair fight between me and Superman if I didn't have Kryptonite, and he only had super-strength, invulnerability, super-speed, and the ability to shoot lasers out of his eyes?
That depends. Are you [fill in super-villian here]?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You say that as though you believe that you can't discuss religion without trying to "win". Do you believe that?
I don't.
It's not black or white.
In ANY conversation you go into it with a particular position. So, if you think you're correct (and you should, or else why are you holding said position?) you're going to try to convince the other person that you're right.
The key is to keep an open enough mind so that you can accept when you're wrong.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.
If my beliefs can't hold up to scrutiny, I either don't want to believe them, or I don't care that you disagree. I think it's silly to believe something if you don't really believe it.
Besides, can something really be described as inerrant or omnipotent if it has a kryptonite? It's difficult to have a discussion under those rules, since religion's kryptonite often seems to be evidence and logic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In ANY conversation you go into it with a particular position. So, if you think you're correct (and you should, or else why are you holding said position?) you're going to be trying to convince the other person that you're right.
This is certainly not true. This ignores a multitude of possible reasons for conversations.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.
I don't either. I'm not extending my opinion beyond what I said - non-believers trying to use my scriptures as a weapon against me in conversation get my scorn.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:In ANY conversation you go into it with a particular position. So, if you think you're correct (and you should, or else why are you holding said position?) you're going to be trying to convince the other person that you're right.
This is certainly not true. This ignores a multitude of possible reasons for conversations.
Any conversation that leads to debate or debate-like discussion. I didn't say 'debate' because that sounds too formal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It still ignores a multitude of reasons for a debate.
I'm not saying you have to agree in a debate. I'm saying don't quote scripture to me unless you believe it's from God.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.
It's like an army of straw men have invaded this thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In one of my multiple encounters with bigotted Baptist preachers, I ahd one of them inform me that the proper term for lesbians is "bull dagas". I responded that term I thought Christ would prefer is "sister".
I don't see it as inappropriate to counter the naked hatred that many Christians display with a reminder that one of Jesus's central commandments was one of love, even if I no longer believe in Christianity.
---
For that matter, there are scholars who study the Bible and the history of Christianity who are not themselves Christian. Yet they know much much more about certain aspects of the religion than the majority of Christians. Does them not believing in the religion invalidate anything they have to say about it? I don't think so.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't either. I'm not extending my opinion beyond what I said - non-believers trying to use my scriptures as a weapon against me in conversation get my scorn.
That's fine.
Along with the scorn, if you included reasons why the arguments non-believers use are invalid or wrong(other than the fact that the arguments were made by non-believers), we would appreciate it.
Otherwise it sees like you're just getting mad because your scripture is contradictory or flawed. (That's what it seems like, which doesn't mean that is what it is.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm torn. On the one hand, I don't with to converse with you. On the other, I have an informed, solid opinion about the second point.
I'll compromise and answer the second point, which enables to sidestep comment about your personal beliefs of what is appropriate.
---
That's fine, but only if you're Jan Shipps or like unto her.
----
quote:Otherwise it sees like you're just getting mad because your scripture is contradictory or flawed. (That's what it seems like, which doesn't mean that is what it is.)
Wow, I just can't imagine why someone might consider your respect for their religion to be flawed..
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm saying don't quote scripture to me unless you believe it's from God.
This seems pretty dishonest and manipulative to me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't believe that you should only discuss your beliefs with people who will hold them gently, like a baby bird, and be extra careful not to frighten or startle them.
It's like an army of straw men have invaded this thread.
I prefer if you don't use logical fallacies against me in discussions. They're my kryptonite.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bah. I made a useful edit to an earlier post, only to have it buried on the previous page. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not interested in conversing with you, Squick.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I read it Tom. Good point Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Wow, I just can't imagine why someone might consider your respect for their religion to be flawed..
Why do I have to have respect for your religion?
I have respect for you.
I respect your right to believe what you like.
I respect certain things that are key points in your religion.
But there are many things, in your religion or in those belonging to others, that I don't respect. Not because they are religion, but because of those specific issues.
I'm sorry if that annoys you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't particularly mind having conversations about scripture with people who don't believe in it. I do think it's pretty silly for someone who doesn't believe in a particular event/concept to try to convince someone else that a category of people should be included in said event/concept.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I don't particularly mind having conversations about scripture with people who don't believe in it. I do think it's pretty silly for someone who doesn't believe in a particular event/concept to try to convince someone else that a category of people should be included in said event/concept.
Exactly!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In the same way, using the contradictions and moral conundrums and tiny hypocrises exposed in Scripture against the religious may well be the only way for all but the most superheroic people to sensibly engage the religious on points of religion.
QFT.
This is exactly the kind of idea I was trying to articulate when noting that its not like there is much of a choice *not* using scripture (short of divine intervention) when debating religious ideas if the religious are only listening to religious ideas.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Trying to persuade people to believe something that you yourself don't believe seems both dishonest and manipulative to me.
I don't necessarily agree.
At least when the situations are reversed and say, Ron Lambert is attempting to participate in a discussion about evolution. I appreciate his attempts (to whatever small extent) to at least try to debate using proper science even if he doesn't necessarily believe in many of the base concepts behind the scientific method. At least its better than if the two sides stayed on completely different fields, with one side quoting scripture and the other explaining science, with no connection at all.
Or as a different example. I don't believe in anything approaching Islam. But if I can use the Koran itself to persuade extremist Muslims to be less extreme, well, I'm not seeing much harm.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think there's a difference between a conversation about scripture and a debate in which someone tries to win a point or the debate by using scripture.
quote:But if I can use the Koran itself to persuade extremist Muslims to be less extreme, well, I'm not seeing much harm.
Because the end justifies the means? I suppose that's a different debate.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I must admit I don't understand that kind of position much, outside of "I'll debate religion with you as long as you don't talk about the scripture my religion comes from." I don't see it as using someone's religion against them; how can one try to convince someone of something if they leave that person's beliefs/position completely alone?
It's like asking me to point out why I think you're wrong...but I'm not allowed to talk about what you think. There's absolutely no point in my opinion. (I am speaking only of debates or conversations where persuasion is in use.) Now, if you just feel that it's disrespectful for anyone to quote scripture or try to analyze your beliefs in an attempt to prove you wrong, that is fine by me. I don't like offending people so I would just decline to discuss religion with you or anyone with a similar position.
However I still think it is pretty much closing the doors to debate. Unless that is actually your intention; if you are not interested in one, I fully respect that and I wouldn't push it on you.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I would think that a follower of some scripture, who has based his or her life upon its teachings, would be armored by it, rather than have the scripture be their weak point.
If the basis of my own beliefs were my kryptonite, I'd seriously consider looking for a belief system which wasn't my greatest weakness.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would think that a follower of some scripture, who has based his or her life upon its teachings, would be armored by it, rather than have the scripture be their weak point.
And this is how it is for my wife and my friends with whom I regularly discuss issues of doctrine in the context of what their scriptures say. I'm a little taken aback by the position here that using someone else's scriptures in a debate about the doctrines upon which they are drawn is inherently offensive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't particularly mind having conversations about scripture with people who don't believe in it. I do think it's pretty silly for someone who doesn't believe in a particular event/concept to try to convince someone else that a category of people should be included in said event/concept.
Abolitionist groups used scripture in an attempt to convince Christian anti-abolitionists that the religion was against slavery, even though some of the abolitionists were not themselves Christians. I'm having problems seeing that as silly.
If Lincoln were, as some suppose, an atheist, I don't think it takes away from the power of his use of religious imagery or turns it into something to laugh at or scorn.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Non-Christian abolitionists believed that slavery was wrong. That is not arguing to include a group in a concept that you don't believe in.
Edit: a more accurate comparison would be if the non-christian abolitionists didn't believe that freedom from slavery existed but argued that Christians should believe that black people have it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
*scratches head*
It would seem to me that using your scripture to argue against your religion is the MOST respectful to have a debate with you. After all, presumably the reason you belong to the religion you do belong to is because you think it is correct, or close enough to correct as to make no nevermind.
If I want to convince someone that their position is wrong, rather then try to convince them of my particular position, the only way to do so is to engage that person within their own epistomology. For a given religion, a large part of the epistomology of members of that religion will be scripture and interpretation of scripture.
So it seems to me that arguing against someone's religion using their own scripture is a necessary part of having that debate.
Now, the premise behind here is that one side is trying to convince the other side that she is wrong. Its worth noting that "proving something wrong," as a valuable endevor is very much a part of the scientific epistomology. We experiment to show that hypotheses are incorrect. So the arguer is using a value judgement from his own epistomology in order to choose how to engage someone. But by using the religious person's scripture and thus her epistomology, the arguer is showing RESPECT. A willingness to engage on the religious person's ground.
Using a different example: If I have a friend who is a vegetarian for environmental reasons, the best way to dissuade that person from being a vegetarian is to show them that the environmental impact of having meat in one's diet is no different (or less) then not having meat in one's diet. It is not helpful for me to explain that it is possible to eat meat that is not treated cruelly. It doesn't address the question.
To me, not using someone's scripture to argue against that person's religion or religious beliefs is the same as trying to convince the above vegetarian to eat meat without addressing environmental impact.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Non-Christian abolitionists believed that slavery was wrong. That is not arguing to include a group in a concept that you don't believe in.
But they did argue that Christian slave-owners should treat black people as their Christian brothers and sisters (a category that the non-Christians did not believe in) and some of the reasons why they argued slavery was wrong came from Christianity, which they did not believe in.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Because the end justifies the means? I suppose that's a different debate.
Is it? The OP is an atheist/agnostic trying to find the best way of using scripture to make a point. Inherently, agnostics and atheists don't believe in scripture, otherwise they wouldn't be agnostics or atheists.
So for him, what we're really debating is whether he keep himself aloof from a debate about religious ideas, avoiding it entirely, since he has no way to engage *without* using scripture. Or whether he should be, well, condescending (for lack of a better term), accept the terms of the debate despite not believing in them, and engage.
But let's be brutally honest, for an atheist, using scripture at in this fashion IS most likely somewhat distasteful. However, some of us think that it is "worth it".
The question of whether the end justifies the means in this case is very relevant.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no problem discussing scriptures or beliefs with people who don't agree with me.
I generally dislike debating or arguing religion at all, but that's a different discussion.
I think that when you knowingly use somebody's scriptures to prove a point to them about something else, you're not just saying "X book says Y". I don't think you can really escape the fact that you're also saying "Your God says Y", "Y is the Truth", "You should believe that God says Y", or some variation on that theme. When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:agnostics and atheists don't believe in scripture
That's true in some ways and can be false in others.
While they may not believe in the divine provenance of the scripture or of many of the things in it, it is still possible for someone to "believe" in some of the other things, such as the non-divine teachings and message.
I used to be a very devout Catholic and I still believe in a lot of the message of the Bible. In my own fashion, I even grant it divine origin.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in."
True, but what you are also doing is saying "You are doing Y. I would like you to do X, instead. In order to convince you, I will use your belief, A, which suggests that you should do X, and not Y, rather then my belief, B, which you do not accept as valid."
I honestly think this is the most respectful way to address the situation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But they did argue that Christian slave-owners should treat black people as their Christian brothers and sisters (a category that the non-Christians did not believe in)
Of course they believed in the category "people who are treated by Christians as Christian brothers or sisters."
quote: and some of the reasons why they argued slavery was wrong came from Christianity, which they did not believe in.
Which I have no problem with, as stated earlier.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Using a different example: If I have a friend who is a vegetarian for environmental reasons, the best way to dissuade that person from being a vegetarian is to show them that the environmental impact of having meat in one's diet is no different (or less) then not having meat in one's diet. It is not helpful for me to explain that it is possible to eat meat that is not treated cruelly. It doesn't address the question.
To me, not using someone's scripture to argue against that person's religion or religious beliefs is the same as trying to convince the above vegetarian to eat meat without addressing environmental impact.
To me, those are completely different. Perhaps I can explain why.
It would be closer to being the same if your friend believed that the environmental impact was better for vegetarians because of some study that you think is bogus.
In that situation, I'd try to show them that the report they're using for their information is incorrect. It would be dishonest and manipulative for me to argue my point with what I believed to be a false and inaccurate report.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think that when you knowingly use somebody's scriptures to prove a point about something else, you're not just saying "X book says Y". I don't think you can really escape the fact that you're also saying "Your God says Y", "Y is the Truth", "You should believe that God says Y", or some variation on that theme. When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in.
All I'm saying is "It appears to me that your scriptures say Y". The "Y is the Truth" and "God says Y" parts are entirely up to you and since you've already told me that believe that whatever is in the scriptures is true and from God, so I don't see what the big deal is there.
Now, if you want to claim some personal revelation that alters the meaning of the text from what it may seem to say to me, I won't argue with you on that point unless your revelation seems to be in direct contradiction with the plain meaning of the text, in which case I might ask for an explanation for that contradiction.
At no point in this process is there any malicious manipulation or dishonestly in play.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in.
But that's generally not true, at least not when I do it. You are missing a very important condition, which is, "If you believe X".
If you believe that the Bible is true and gives you a guide on how to live and believe and the Bible says Y, you should believe Y. I'm not arguing for anything in there that I don't believe. I see that there is necessarily a problem with granting a perspective that I don't agree with and producing extrapolations from that perspective.
edit: Granting a persepctive that you don't share is one of the cornerstones of human interaction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "When you don't believe that yourself, you're arguing something that you don't believe in."
True, but what you are also doing is saying "You are doing Y. I would like you to do X, instead. In order to convince you, I will use your belief, A, which suggests that you should do X, and not Y, rather then my belief, B, which you do not accept as valid."
I honestly think this is the most respectful way to address the situation.
Would it be fair to say that what you really mean is that it's the most respectful way to address the situation and still successfully persuade people to your line of thinking?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Of course they believed in the category "people who are treated by Christians as Christian brothers or sisters."
I don't see how that is relevant. They weren't primarily arguing that they should be treated as brothers and sisters. They were arguing that they were the slave owners brothers and sisters, which would have the effect of changing the treatment.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Would it be fair to say that what you really mean is that it's the most respectful way to address the situation and still successfully persuade people to your line of thinking?
Sure. But there's nothing inherently evil or dishonest in that.
Here's a ridiculously simple example:
Mormon: I can't drink tea. (points to Word of Wisdom) Non-Mormon: You can drink iced tea, though. It only says "hot drink" there. Mormon: The prophets have revealed that this includes any drink made form tea leaves. (points to appropriate statement from prophet)
There's a very simple argument over doctrine which involves no deception or manipulation between a believer and a non believer. In this case the non-believer was mistaken because he did not have sufficient information. This arguments can go the other way as well, of course, if there are scriptures or statements from church leaders that the non-believer is aware of that the believer is not.
When you want to persuade someone to change their opinion on a subject, you have to be able to address the logical basis of their position. If their logical basis consists, in part, on "the scriptures say X" then it's unreasonable to make the scriptures off limits.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly. When it's done aggressively, I usually doubt the motives of the person doing it.
The slavery argument doesn't fit that qualification to me. An argument about who is saved does.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly.
If this argument is purely about Blayne's situation, then I tend to agree, though I do think that some internal conclusions of religious groups, especially regarding the idea of damnation, can dehumanize those outside their group, which can have negative external effects.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly. When it's done aggressively, I usually doubt the motives of the person doing it.
The slavery argument doesn't fit that qualification to me. An argument about who is saved does.
I very much agree, especially when that person has little to no clue about the religion involved, as seems to be the case here.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's manipulative. It isn't a discussion of equals - it's one person using someone's religion as a weapon against them. It's attempting to hold their discipleship hostage. I've seen it done a hundred times, and it's never pretty.
I think very poorly of manipulative hostage-takers.
On the contrary. While I may or may not be subject to the ideas of right and wrong and true and false that others have, I am always subject to those that I have.
If I believe it is wrong to use electricity on Shabbat, then it is wrong for me to do so. Even someone who does not deem it wrong to do so would be absolutely 100% correct in judging me wrong for doing so, because I consider it wrong for me to do so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ... In that situation, I'd try to show them that the report they're using for their information is incorrect. It would be dishonest and manipulative for me to argue my point with what I believed to be a false and inaccurate report.
It would be dishonest if you didn't say upfront that it was false and inaccurate. Blayne makes no secret of the fact that he's an agnostic/atheist, which pretty much means that he thinks its false and accurate by default.
Going back to the X and Ys.He's not saying "Your God says Y" or "Y is the Truth." He's saying "God doesn't exist by my reasoning. *But* if you must believe in this God person anyways, then consider this reasoning in your own terms"
Its not dishonest. It *may* be manipulative, though I'm not necessarily seeing that as a problem.
Going back to the Ron Lambert evolution analogy. If he asked us for a objective source for our scientific claims, we're going to try our best to find one even if by his rules, he doesn't really have to back up his religious claims with an objective source. We have a higher responsibility to live up to, its part of science to back up your claims. Yet we know full well that he may very well not read that source or even concede why third-party sources are useful.
So, yeah, he's manipulating us, but its not necessarily a problem.
MrSquicky: Our definitions of agnostic may be different. For sure, our definition of atheist is different. For starters, I don't see how one could grant "divine origin" and stay atheist.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The idea of someone who rejects all the foundational premises of a faith arguing something that is purely internal to the faith has always struck me as silly. When it's done aggressively, I usually doubt the motives of the person doing it.
That's pretty much how I feel.
Maybe there are those out there that don't feel that way, but such persuasions are unlikely to find much traction with me.
Squicky -- to answer your earlier question, yes, I do think the fact that a Biblical scholar is an unbeliever does invalidate their opinions on some things. While they'd certainly be qualified to talk about what the Bible says about faith and salvation, I don't think they'd have much credibility talking about what faith and salvation really are, or how to acquire them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Its not dishonest. It *may* be manipulative, though I'm not necessarily seeing that as a problem.
I think that you (and Squicky) are correct -- it's not necessarily dishonest.
I still don't care for it, probably because it still strikes me as inherently manipulative, and I do think that's a problem. In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am really not getting this. Perhaps it would be helpful if katharina gave an example of the kind of use of scripture that she considers manipulative?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
Why is manipulative bad? Isn't any attempt to sway opinion manipulative?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I don't see how one could grant "divine origin" and stay atheist.
Human divinity?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
Why is manipulative bad? Isn't any attempt to sway opinion manipulative?
No, I don't think that all persuasion is manipulative.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
It depends on whether the persuasion is about getting your way or about enlightening the persuadee.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:No, I don't think that all persuasion is manipulative.
How do you make a distinction? The negative quality I can imagine is deceptiveness, but you've already acknowledged that referring to scriptures you don't believe in is not necessarily dishonest.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It depends on whether the persuasion is about getting your way or about enlightening the persuadee.
That seems like a pretty fine hair to split. I like to win an argument, but on matters which I think are likely to be addressed in scripture, I think enlightenment is more likely and important goal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am really not getting this. Perhaps it would be helpful if katharina gave an example of the kind of use of scripture that she considers manipulative?
For example: the repeated shellfish shell game used in debates with Christians about the morality of homosexual actions.
"Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" are the other leading contenders for leading roles in manipulative use of scriptures.
Somehow it's hard to tell if the misuse reflects manipulation or ignorance. I understand some people don't know about the Council of Jerusalem or haven't read the entire chapters related to the other two verses. But sometimes the taking out of context is deliberate.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:"Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" are the other leading contenders for leading roles in manipulative use of scriptures.
I think those are likely used primarily out of ignorance. I can't imagine many people are likely to be manipulated by clichéd use of those verses.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Attempts to manipulate don't get a pass because they are ineffective.
I don't agree on your assessment of the primary motivations for using those scriptures in arguments.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
How do you feel about the people who don't share your faith quoting the parts of scripture you do share? Can Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and LDS all quote non-apocryphal books of the Tanach/Old Testament to each other?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Can Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and LDS all quote non-apocryphal books of the Tanach/Old Testament to each other?
Sure. That's fine.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't agree on your assessment of the primary motivations for using those scriptures in arguments.
I should have been more explicit. I was talking about my motivations there. I can't speak for others.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
katharina, hypothetically, if your understanding of your scripture was flawed, but you were not aware of that, would it be offensive and wrong if a non-believer talked to you about what the scripture seemed to mean and it changed your understanding (for the better)?
Returning to MattP's simple but highly illuminative example, I don't think MattP cares whether anyone drinks tea. He probably has no stake in "winning" and getting a member to drink iced tea. But let's flip it around:
Mormon: I can't drink black tea, but I can drink green tea. MattP: Actually I heard that the LDS leadership clarified that any drink made from the tea plant was off limits. (Points to relevant documentation.) Mormon: Oops. You're right. (Alternate response: how dare you use my scriptures as a weapon against me!)
Oh, by the way? The above modified example really happened with, I believe, different people involved. (Can't guarantee it wasn't MattP. )
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If I were in another country and was arrested, I wouldn't appeal to US laws just because I believe in them. I would have to state my case from within the framework of their legal system, because that's the system they use.
I don't believe that the Bible was written by a Divine Creator, but it's still an important document in the lives of many people, both Christian and non-Christian, and it would be silly for me to discuss a religious topic without addressing it.
Further, I accept that many people DO view the Bible as the utmost authority, and that if I want to change their mind about something, they only way to do so is to point out to them where the Bible supports my view.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't believe that the Bible was written by a Divine Creator, but it's still an important document in the lives of many people, both Christian and non-Christian, and it would be silly for me to discuss a religious topic without addressing it.
Absolutely. I agree. Of course, here we're just talking about discussion, not debate or persuasion.
quote:Further, I accept that many people DO view the Bible as the utmost authority, and that if I want to change their mind about something, they only way to do so is to point out to them where the Bible supports my view.
It is not the only way. There are other ways. You could convince them that the Bible is false.
You could also prove your point to them in a way that doesn't involve religion at all. It's not guaranteed, as you never know which way they'll deal with the cognitive dissonance, but I wonder if it might be more effective, especially in the long run. I know that it has been for me. (Being convinced, that is, not convincing others.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If it's something important to me, I would try to persuade someone using a variety of means, but I wouldn't rule out using their scripture, even though I generally try to be pretty respectful when I discuss things.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Can Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and LDS all quote non-apocryphal books of the Tanach/Old Testament to each other?
Sure. That's fine.
So, taking this a step further, what about someone who believes in the same scripture, but not to the same level of fidelity you do?
example: I (A Catholic with a relativistic interpretation of scripture) am approached by a literalist Lutheran (in this case my brother-in-law) who tries telling me that I'm going to Hell because I haven't REALLY accepted Christ (or whatever the argument is). Am I being offensive by pointing out those areas of scripture which I believe contradict whatever he's saying, or that I believe should be interpreted differently?
Because while on one level we believe in the same scripture, we believe in it in vastly different ways.
I'll say to his approach that I find what he's saying quite rude and uninformed (imo) but it seems ludicrous to take particular offense that he is (again, in my opinion) misusing my scripture...
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It would be dishonest and manipulative for me to argue my point with what I believed to be a false and inaccurate report.
I disagree, as long as you're upfront about the fact that you don't believe in the report. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying that even if the report is true you disagree with the conclusion being drawn.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Can Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and LDS all quote non-apocryphal books of the Tanach/Old Testament to each other?
Sure. That's fine.
See, and I'm not sure I'd agree. Tanach is ours.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't agree on your assessment of the primary motivations for using those scriptures in arguments.
I have seen Christians, to each other, say "judge not, lest ye be judged." Why is their motivation in using this out-of-context quote any less questionable?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I still don't care for it, probably because it still strikes me as inherently manipulative, and I do think that's a problem. In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
I admit, that I don't care for it much either. I agree that in the ideal case that it would be best to either convert people to agnosticism or atheism. Either that or try to convince them on secular grounds.
That said, while you've pointed out that an approach not grounded in scripture would work on you, there do exist people (indeed, a fair number) who would proudly proclaim that such an approach would never work on them. Especially if we hit a topic unlike the OP where the distinction between a religious idea and a secular idea is less clear (or maybe I should rephrase, where religious ideas may have very large secular repercussions). Say evolution, gay marriage, end times apocalyptic theories, etc.
In these cases, I think the lesser of two evils is to engage them on their own terms rather than just completely take oneself out of the conversation entirely. That said, I still find it distasteful and thus skip such conversations entirely, except to correct factual misconceptions about what atheists (specific or otherwise) think/do/propose.
I would admit though, that when the conversation is important (unlike the OP), I do like to at least point to reasonable arguments that are made by people of belief X even if I do not share belief X. e.g. Christian scientists that find a religious rationale for not believing in Intelligent Design or Catholic politicians that find religious reasoning for not adhering to papal suggestions on marriage/abortion laws.
From my POV, this is not *incredibly* different from engaging on scriptural grounds, but YMMV.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
In reply to the very first poster who started this thread:
I don't think anyone but Christ can say that any one people (read: nation) will 'burn in hell for eternity' although that would be His right to do so. Remember though, that Christ is a Just God but also a Merciful God as well, meaning that many people who some may think don’t belong in heaven will be there. I believe there will be many Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Baptists, Methodists, Scientologists, "Mormons", agnostics, atheists, and so on and so forth, that will be going to both heaven and ‘hell’. But no, I don’t think Jews are fated to 'burn in hell' as some extremist Christians like to think; there are no scriptures in the Bible to support the contemptible condemnation of a whole nation of people the Lord loves very much; loved so much so that He chose the Jews, of all the nations on the earth, to be born a Jew himself! Besides, without the Jews, there would've been no Bible for the Christians to butcher to bits and rail against other religions. Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament (a fact that most mainstream Christians and some Orthodox Jews don’t like to acknowledge)... I wonder how they feel about that? Would they be so quick to rail and bicker about God’s people? Probably... all of us belong to the same eternal family, no matter how we would wish we weren’t really related to certain people in our lives. But I guess since we’re of the same family, we’re bound to bicker and argue… siblings… go figure…
Seems to me that mankind shouldn't be in the role of actually 'judging' anyone regarding eternity. That's a role reserved specifically for Christ alone and has nothing to do with someone else's theories about whether some race or nation or religious sect is 'saved' or 'condemned to hell'. Again, Christians should know this.
Christians should also know better than to assign ANYONE to one extreme or the other, to heaven or hell: doesn’t “judge not lest ye be judged” sound familiar? I expect such people who assign such harsh condemnation will be the very individuals who populate the lower kingdoms of heaven no matter how much they go about 'preaching in the name of Christ', twisting and burning on the spits down below, but then, there's always repentance while we still live here on this earth…
Being a religious person myself, I'm more concerned with my own salvation than the salvation of people who can't seem to stop arguing about such things. After all, heaven will be full of people we never thought would make it and they'll feel the same about us in return.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have any problem with discussing Scripture with non-believers. I don't even have a problem with their motivations. My problem is that most (with some exceptions, MrSquicky for example) do it from a place of so much misunderstanding. I am not a biblical scholar, but even I get tired and frustrated by time and again having to clarify what in my understanding are simple misinterpretations of Scripture.
For example the idea that Scripture is supposed to be "consistent".
[ April 01, 2008, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament (a fact that most mainstream Christians and some Orthodox Jews don’t like to acknowledge)
Not to nitpick, but I suspect that it's a "fact" that -- definitionally -- no Orthodox Jews acknowledge.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Yeah, I figured as much myself though. But a fact isn't changed cos no one accepts it. :-)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True. A fact is not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah, I figured as much myself though. But a fact isn't changed cos no one accepts it. :-)
Why would you go out of your way to state that so baldly, Constopatron? It amounts basically to, "My religion is right and factual, and yours is not."
Well, with some exceptions that's a given in discussions that involve religion. There's no need to be rude about it.
The smiley hurts, by the way, it doesn't help.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
The answer to this thread is:
"So what?"
Zomgs they think we're going to burn!!
I don't care, just treat me with decency and brownies. Maybe some mint added. Mmm...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: I don't care, just treat me with decency and brownies. Maybe some mint added. Mmm...
Green stuff in the brownies makes me believe in religion too Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Can Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and LDS all quote non-apocryphal books of the Tanach/Old Testament to each other?
Sure. That's fine.
See, and I'm not sure I'd agree. Tanach is ours.
Nope. If I find something of value in it, whether it's a teaching, story, or whatever, it's mine.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I still don't care for it, probably because it still strikes me as inherently manipulative, and I do think that's a problem. In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
I admit, that I don't care for it much either. I agree that in the ideal case that it would be best to either convert people to agnosticism or atheism. Either that or try to convince them on secular grounds.
That said, while you've pointed out that an approach not grounded in scripture would work on you, there do exist people (indeed, a fair number) who would proudly proclaim that such an approach would never work on them. Especially if we hit a topic unlike the OP where the distinction between a religious idea and a secular idea is less clear (or maybe I should rephrase, where religious ideas may have very large secular repercussions). Say evolution, gay marriage, end times apocalyptic theories, etc.
In these cases, I think the lesser of two evils is to engage them on their own terms rather than just completely take oneself out of the conversation entirely. That said, I still find it distasteful and thus skip such conversations entirely, except to correct factual misconceptions about what atheists (specific or otherwise) think/do/propose.
I would admit though, that when the conversation is important (unlike the OP), I do like to at least point to reasonable arguments that are made by people of belief X even if I do not share belief X. e.g. Christian scientists that find a religious rationale for not believing in Intelligent Design or Catholic politicians that find religious reasoning for not adhering to papal suggestions on marriage/abortion laws.
From my POV, this is not *incredibly* different from engaging on scriptural grounds, but YMMV.
Explain how the original post was not important?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Nope. If I find something of value in it, whether it's a teaching, story, or whatever, it's mine.
Good call, Scott. It's impossible for any particular group to be proprietary about any type of scripture. Some fundamentalist Mormons find all sorts of stuff about survivalism and the New World Order and the sacred land of Manti, Utah, in the Book of Mormon (the sort of stuff that led to the Bo Gritz-era excommunications). Historians like Jan Shipps and Dan Vogel and Gordon Wood read the same book and find descriptions of nineteenth century revivalism in King Benjamin but don't believe in its theology. Liberation theologians cling to 4 Nephi but condemn Captain Moroni as a miltarist.
Similarly, fundamentalist Protestants find the end times in Ezekiel and Daniel; socialists find Acts inspiring; but feminists denounce Paul. And of course virtually all Christians have assimilated Tanak, but also come up with elaborate explanations (following that same Paul) for why Leviticus no longer applies. Further, though they claim it, they generally don't bother with most of the stuff outside Genesis and Isaiah, other than proof texts.
All sorts of different groups use scripture for different reasons, taking what they like and rejecting what they don't. Demanding that people treat it in any particular way is 1)impossible and 2)causes only headaches.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think there is more than one side of "non-believer" scripture study that is getting tossed around. Those who have a particular faith are not explaining themselves very well. Frankly, I admit that I probably can't do much better. There seems to be three levels of discussion that are getting talked about in this post:
1) Discussions about Scriptural topics are not that offensive. For instance because it was brought up, talking about the Word of Wisdom is great. There is a small history behind the LDS Health code that is rich and worthy of discussion. Doesn't take faith in the doctrine or its scriptural sources to evaluate how it has been discussed and the relavant material.
The general topic of salvation for the Jews for Christians is also something worthy of bringing up. You can evaluate the many directly relavant passages that deal specifically with that issue. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is with the idea of examination and not persuasion.
Research and sharing that research is not problematic.
2) Arguing for specific doctrinal beliefs from the Scriptures that you don't believe in to convince a believer to change their doctrinal beliefs is wrong to most believers. It has less to do with argumentation and more to do with authority. No one who lacks the belief in Scriptures, to many religious, has any right to interpret the scriptures for them. To do so means one of two things; you are an antagonist out to defame (or at least distort) the faith or a spiritual usurper. You hold no spiritual credentials and therefore are illigitamate. Scriptures are to most religious more than words on a piece of paper.
That is why, no matter the ends, an atheist trying to show a Muslim that in the Koran terrorism is wrong just doesn't work. You might feel good about trying, but that more likely makes the extremist Muslim want to kill you that much more. You have no authority and in fact have anti-authority. In the Christian venacular, you are Satan quoting Scripture.
Not that I personally hold someone trying this with scorn myself. For me I find it rather amusing. It comes off as a Creationist trying to use scientific papers to prove theology, only in the reverse.
To come out and say you don't believe in the Scriptures while arguing from the Scriptures might be more truthful, but it is even less smart. You automatically are arguing from a position the believer doesn't have, and yet use the Scriptures as if you hold the texts in the same position of authority. Therefore, your best bet is to follow 1 above or go directly to:
3) It is best to simply argue that the Scriptures are false, or mythical with good stories and moral teachings. You have pretty much made that declaration up front. It is therefore prudent to continue the discussion from that line of reasoning. Otherwise, you are back to 2 where you are considered a spiritual usuper or charlatan, if not satanic. You hold no authority and therefore cannot talk as if you have any authority.
Just because you can discuss the scriptures doesn't mean you have the right to argue for a theological position. If anything you have less of a right unless you are trying to persuade them to a different theological belief. Then you become a religious contender.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It comes off as a Creationist trying to use scientific papers to prove theology, only in the reverse.
I'm afraid the analogy is broken. It should come off as a Creationist trying to use scientific papers to prove a scientific theory using the methods of science. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I'm afraid the idea that only believers have the right to "their" scriptures is as ludicrous as the idea that only scientists have the right to "their" electrical currents.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
My initial reaction was much like the others' -- why fight others' beliefs? -- but then I realized: Sid's post is way more interesting than "don't bother." He has detail. "Worth arguing with" is a *compliment*. Caring is a good thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm afraid the idea that only believers have the right to "their" scriptures...
I reject this characterization of what I've said.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So do I. That is not at all what I said. I decried a very specific situation - I am not interested in expanding it to a generality, and attempts to characterize my statements as such are mistaken.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I thought that he was talking about Lisa's comments.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That would make sense.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, TomD my point is that the analogy is broken. How many scientists scorn Creationists when they clearly use scientific papers to prove their points? What comes across is the idea that they aren't using the scientific method and therefore have no authority on scientific matters. They are not "true" scientists.
Well, that is the feeling behind non-believers using scriptures to prove their points. It isn't an exact analogy, but it is a broken one. There is a disconnect between the underlying assumptions, methodologies, and premises that believers and unbelievers have and it doesn't have to do with the perfection of the Scriptures. If that was the case, I would not understand what mph and Kat was talking about as Mormons because "scriptural perfection" is not a basic belief.
Strangly, I haven't run into the situation enough to be overly offended. My reaction to this post was confusion. Was the question about the historical interpretations of Jews as not saved? Was the question about why a Jew wouldn't be saved, or if they ever would be saved? When I realized what the post was about, I just had to laugh at the idea that a non-believer wanted to argue a theological belief. As if the believer would take him seriously without getting into a discussion about the authority of Scripture as a guide to anything.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How many scientists scorn Creationists when they clearly use scientific papers to prove their points?
Oooh...I know this one. None to very little.
What did I win?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ok, MrSquickly, how do you feel about Creationists? My guess is you aren't too fond of them wanting Creationism taught in schools or colleges. What do they use when they discuss Creation and Evolution? They at least quote from scientists (and hence scientific papers) don't they?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The Non-sarcasm prize!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Literal Biblical Creationists don't get the Bible right. They worship themselves and what they want to believe over what they consider God's word.
I don't have a lot of respect for them.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:How many scientists scorn Creationists when they clearly use scientific papers to prove their points?
The next time I see a creationist use a scientific paper to prove a point will be the first time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The next time I see a creationist use a scientific paper to prove a point will be the first time.
You're missing a validly in there. They use scientific papers (or, more often, papers they claim to be scientific) all the time. I don't think that I've ever seen one used in a valid, responsible manner by a creationist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Literal Biblical Creationists [...] worship themselves and what they want to believe over what they consider God's word.
Can you explain why you feel this way?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:They worship themselves and what they want to believe over what they consider God's word.
That's an awfully presumptuous allegation - that you can see the deepest desires of the hearts of millions of people.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Literal Biblical creationism is untenable. There are two creation stories that are mutually exclusive.
I see it as exceedingly unlikely (though technically still possible) to read it without bringing what you want to see there as more important than what it says and coming away with a belief that it was meant to be treated as literal.
And you know, I'd probably be more respectful if the vast majority of creationists I've ever discussed this with even realized that there was this enormous contradiction, but, as with other matters, I've found that that's not consistent with how they use the Bible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's an awfully presumptuous allegation - that you can see the deepest desires of the hearts of millions of people.
I don't suppose to see into their deepest parts. The readily available surface hypocrisy and ignorance is enough to justify what I've said.
edit: Here's an interesting situation. That statement is largely the same one I believed when I was a devout Catholic who took the Bible very seriously and was offended that many Christians really didn't seem to. I'm no longer a Catholic or Christian in a way that any major sect would recognize, but I still hold this to be true. Did I lose the legitimacy to hold this belief somewhere along the way or does it still have the same legitimacy as it did then?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Have you considered the possibility that your own prejudices and lack of empathy are interfering with a fair judgment?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course I have. Have you? ---
I thought you weren't interested in a conversation with me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm granting a temporary reprieve.
Yes, but if I'm making a mistake in being too charitable, that's a mistake I'm willing and would prefer to make.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Literal Biblical creationism is untenable. There are two creation stories that are mutually exclusive.
I see it as exceedingly unlikely (though technically still possible) to read it without bringing what you want to see there as more important than what it says and coming away with a belief that it was meant to be treated as literal.
And you know, I'd probably be more respectful if the vast majority of creationists I've ever discussed this with even realized that there was this enormous contradiction, but, as with other matters, I've found that that's not consistent with how they use the Bible.
Wait-- it sounds an awful lot like you're ameliorating your first statement
quote: Literal Biblical Creationists [...] worship themselves and what they want to believe over what they consider God's word.
to intend to say:
quote: Literal Biblical Creationists [...] worship themselves and what they want to believe over what *I* consider God's word.
Your intial statement seemed to indicate a certain level of personal hypocrisy on the part of the Literal Biblical Creationists.
So...are they liars, or just stupid? I'm not sure which way you're judging them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So...are they liars, or just stupid? I'm not sure which way you're judging them.
Neither.
And, no, I wasn't ameliorating my first statement in the way you said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh! How were you ameliorating it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I wasn't aware that I was.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So do I. That is not at all what I said. I decried a very specific situation - I am not interested in expanding it to a generality, and attempts to characterize my statements as such are mistaken.
Well then perhaps an example would be helpful? Or were Dagonee's examples the kind of thing you were speaking of?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
yes, Dag's is a perfect example of what I am thinking of.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: Explain how the original post was not important?
Why should a Jew particularly care what Christians think about how Jews will be treated *after* they die? Certainly Lisa doesn't care.
Its not like Christians actually have any power to affect what actually happens, either way.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: How many scientists scorn Creationists when they clearly use scientific papers to prove their points?
I think I can quote myself
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ... At least when the situations are reversed and say, Ron Lambert is attempting to participate in a discussion about evolution. I appreciate his attempts (to whatever small extent) to at least try to debate using proper science even if he doesn't necessarily believe in many of the base concepts behind the scientific method. At least its better than if the two sides stayed on completely different fields, with one side quoting scripture and the other explaining science, with no connection at all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Literal Biblical creationism is untenable. There are two creation stories that are mutually exclusive.
Are they? I knew that there were two different creation stories, but not that they were mutually exclusive. Can you show how they are mutually exclusive?
quote:I see it as exceedingly unlikely (though technically still possible) to read it without bringing what you want to see there as more important than what it says and coming away with a belief that it was meant to be treated as literal.
Can you explain this a bit more? I'm having trouble parsing what you're saying.
quote: And you know, I'd probably be more respectful if the vast majority of creationists I've ever discussed this with even realized that there was this enormous contradiction, but, as with other matters, I've found that that's not consistent with how they use the Bible.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you've written here, too. Let me give you my translation:
And you know, I'd probably be more respectful if the vast majority of creationists I've ever discussed this with [would recognize that there are two mutually exclusive accounts of the creation], but as with other matters, I've found that [recognizing an inconsistency in their own holy text is] not consistent with how they use the Bible.
Is that what you're trying to say?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Contradiction:
quote:GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Man is formed after the beasts.
quote:GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The beasts are formed after man (though before Eve, and incidentally, why is an omnipotent God not foreseeing that the beasts won't be good helpmeets for Adam? For everything else he seems to have grasped the concept of two sexes.) and Adam names them as they are made.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Sounds to me like "formed" means more like "summon" than "sculpt" in that context.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Sounds to me like "formed" means more like "summon" than "sculpt" in that context.
So...accio Man and Beasts! Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Both stories give an order in which things are created. These orders contradict each other.
---
When you read two accounts that contradict each other in the details they contain, I think you'd need to already have decided that they must be literally true in order to come to that conclusion.
---
The first part of yoru restatement would be correct. The second, not.
I'm not talking about being unable to recognize an inconsistency in their holy text, except as a side issue. I don't actually think that there is an inconsistency in the two creation stories, unless you try to force them to be literally true.
It's the forcing them to be literally true despite the fact that they cannot be that I'm talking about. It's the approachign the Bible primarily as something to back up what you already believe instead of something you are supposed to humbly learn from.
Earlier, Dag brought up the Council of Jerusalem, which is one of the central things that should inform how believers in the Bible should interpret much of the stuff that comes from the Old Testament. For example, keeping kosher. But we hear that challenge made over and over and it is very rare (especially when someone isn't primed to jump in with the explanation to cover up that other people don't know it) to hear the obvious response to this challenge.
When people don't respond that way, but instead come up with their own explanations, it signals to me that they don't know about one of the central things about how rules from the Bible should be applied. This leads to me believe that they don't actually take what the Bible says about these rules seriously.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Sounds to me like "formed" means more like "summon" than "sculpt" in that context.
If you read the whole of the Gen 2 account, there is no other place that could be interpreted as making the beasts. What's more, the Gen 1 account has plants on day 3, then the sun and moon and other heavenly objects on day 4, and animals on day 5. Gen 2 makes no mention of days, but makes the order Earth and heavens, Adam, plants and animals, Eve.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For example, keeping kosher. But we hear that challenge made over and over and it is very rare (especially when someone isn't primed to jump in with the explanation to cover up that other people don't know it) to hear the obvious response to this challenge.
I've not found it to be rare, let alone very rare. I've found it to be common - more common, in fact, among fundamentalists than others.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks, KoM!
quote: Earlier, Dag brought up the Council of Jerusalem, which is one of the central things that should inform how believers in the Bible should interpret much of the stuff that comes from the Old Testament. For example, keeping kosher. But we hear that challenge made over and over and it is very rare (especially when someone isn't primed to jump in with the explanation to cover up that other people don't know it) to hear the obvious response to this challenge.
What challenge?
quote:When people don't respond that way
Which way?
quote:... but instead come up with their own explanations, it signals to me that they don't know about one of the central things about how rules from the Bible should be applied.
What central thing?
quote: This leads to me believe that they don't actually take what the Bible says about these rules seriously.
What rules?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
One way that Gen 2 can be interpreted so it fits into a literalistic creation story:
Gen 1 is the overall creation of the earth; Gen 2 is an elaboration on that creation. Note that Adam, Eve, and the land animals were all created on the same day in Gen 1 -- nothing in Genesis 2 contradicts that.
Furthermore, in Gen 2:5, it talks about the plants already being created; in verse 9, it says that God created them again for the Garden of Eden. Is it possible that He was doing the same thing with the animals? (There's no evidence in the text for this view, but it's not hard to imagine it happening.)
The beginning of chapter two start out as if it IS an elaboration of chapter 1; one that pays particular attention to the creation of mankind. (It starts off with the word THUS, for example...)
Mormons have a completely different way to mesh the two accounts together. (One creation was a spiritual creation; one was the physical creation) I'm not a biblically literal creationist, though, so maybe I'm doing their defense a poor service.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Mormons have a completely different way to mesh the two accounts together.
Some Mormons have different (and less literal) ways from that. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
They would.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Snap?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Literal Biblical creationism is untenable. There are two creation stories that are mutually exclusive.
Not true.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Both stories give an order in which things are created. These orders contradict each other.
No. That's your personal interpretation. There's nothing there that says anything about what order things happened in. You might want to bone up on the use of tenses in Hebrew, also. It's only a little silly for someone who doesn't know Hebrew to be making such categorical claims.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: Explain how the original post was not important?
Why should a Jew particularly care what Christians think about how Jews will be treated *after* they die? Certainly Lisa doesn't care.
Well, I sort of do. But only because it's one of the big sources of Christian anti-semitism.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's only a little silly for someone who doesn't know Hebrew to be making such categorical claims.
Unless you are arguing a person who accepts the literalism of an arbitrary English translation which is usually the case with fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lisa: Actually, I read your first post before noting that and thats why I specifically said "after". Obviously, you care about how Christians think Jews should be treated *before* they die. But after? Not nearly as much.
That the one commonly leads to the other is a very related, but different problem.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
True.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't know any Hebrew, but then, neither do 99.5% of Christians in America. We're only using the Bible that God gave us.
Clearly, God wouldn't allow us to read a Bible which was translated so poorly that we were unable to get a true understanding of what it is supposed to mean!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Clearly. Since, in fact, the translation is obviously very bad, what does that tell you?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That you should be a Mormon?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I don't know any Hebrew, but then, neither do 99.5% of Christians in America. We're only using the Bible that God gave us.
Clearly, God wouldn't allow us to read a Bible which was translated so poorly that we were unable to get a true understanding of what it is supposed to mean!
God didn't give the Hebrew Bible in English. Sorry.
Anyway, it's one thing that Christians have a bad translation. Quite another that atheists want to use a bad translation to dismiss the Bible. I mean, they're supposedly coming from a rational POV, so they should know better.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And who are you, that you apologise for it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: That you should be a Mormon?
Check and mate. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Lisa: God gave Christians the Bible, and from everything I was taught in Church and from what most Christians tell me, God would not allow any errors to appear in the holy text. We have to trust that it is accurate, because God wouldn't let it be otherwise.
So if we have an English translation, it's clearly Right. God wouldn't let any errors in, he directed the hand of the translators, just like he directed the hand of the people who wrote down the Hebrew version.
In fact, since the English translation was later, God might have actually clarified the original. Maybe the English version of the OT is more accurate than the Hebrew!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
<snort> "Credo quia absurdum." Whatever.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So the obvious translation errors that have cropped up periodically in English translations of the Bible are figments of the imagination . . . ?
And doesn't your last sentence presume a remarkable changeability and lack of foresight for god?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Lisa: So it's perfectly logical that God dictated the original Hebrew documents, without error, but it's an absurd stretch that he also dictated the English translations? I don't follow the logic there.
fugu13: I'm just relating what I've been told by many Christians, particularly those who believe the Bible to be inerrant. None of them ever made the distinction to me that it was only the original Greek and Hebrew documents that were without error, but that the English Bible they were quoting from was without error, and the Holy Word of God.
I don't get it either, but then again, I don't get a lot of the mysterious and illogical ways which God works.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lisa: Would you agree that while dismissing the Bible based on an inaccurate translation is not correct, attacking the beliefs of Literalists who base their literalism on an inaccurate translation is a useful thing?
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Blayne, I think that people are throwing around the "anti-semantist" remark because there is no such thing as anti-semantism.
My Jewish aunt often refers to herself as "anti-semantic" when I try to wear her down on a point by hypertechnically lawyering her.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Lisa: So it's perfectly logical that God dictated the original Hebrew documents, without error, but it's an absurd stretch that he also dictated the English translations? I don't follow the logic there.
He dictated the first five books. He didn't even dictate the other 19. And since no one claims that the various translations were anything but translations done by people, then yes, it's an absurd stretch to say that God dictated them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Lisa: Would you agree that while dismissing the Bible based on an inaccurate translation is not correct, attacking the beliefs of Literalists who base their literalism on an inaccurate translation is a useful thing?
I would, yes.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Obviously, you care about how Christians think Jews should be treated *before* they die. But after? Not nearly as much."
I find this strange considering all the uproar over a particular practice by the Mormons. I mean, by that standard just think what is happening by condemning all Jews to Hell. Unless you need some kind of ritual for this to be of any spiritual concern. Now, there are rituals that do this, but they aren't as personal.
Also, as to the English KJV, those who believe in the perfect translation of the Bible will also tell you believing there are any errors makes you a Non-Christian or an atheist. I have been told that when discussing the problems with the Bible as text.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I find this strange considering all the uproar over a particular practice by the Mormons. I mean, by that standard just think what is happening by condemning all Jews to Hell.
The difference between these two situations has been explained to you repeatedly. Do you not understand it yet?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't say that I really do.
But I do understand that no good is going to come out of picking at that scab again.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Let's talk more about how I pwn the Tanach.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since no one claims that the various translations were anything but translations done by people . . .
Wow. What planet have you been living on?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I chose my words carefully. "how Christians think Jews should be treated" vs. "how Christians treat Jews." Think what you like, actions are often seen differently (even ineffectual actions).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since no one claims that the various translations were anything but translations done by people . . .
Wow. What planet have you been living on?
This topic has always facinated me. As for myself I think God had a very direct hand in influencing the Apostles as they wrote the gospels and their epistles. 2Peter 1:21 says, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." And so I think it's quite likely that apostles could accurately wright about the acts of Jesus many years after the fact.
Jesus himself even promised in John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
So I fully understand how it is that apostles and prophets can write with accuracy things that would normally be slanted at best and spurious at worst.
So what do folks believed happened after the apostles all died? Were there men wrought upon by the Holy Ghost when they translated or copied the text? Or was scholarly integrity sufficient to preserve the meanings?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Two hunnert!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since no one claims that the various translations were anything but translations done by people . . .
Wow. What planet have you been living on?
The one where God gave the Torah at Mount Sinai amidst signs and wonders and all that cool stuff. The one where King James and his henchmen wrote a translation of it thousands of years later. Blue skies, wet water. You know the one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since no one claims that the various translations were anything but translations done by people . . .
Wow. What planet have you been living on?
The one where God gave the Torah at Mount Sinai amidst signs and wonders and all that cool stuff. The one where King James and his henchmen wrote a translation of it thousands of years later. Blue skies, wet water. You know the one.
Yes. Neptune!
Or maybe...Uranus.
> Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Or maybe...Uranus.
Actually, I think that's just a hole in the ground.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Is "adolescent male" redundant?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
snap?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
That's unfortunate. If I was incorrect about that, I'm slightly horrified and very disappointed, but the only claims that I've ever heard that could be construed as being otherwise are those that claim that King James and his minions were guided divinely. Which still isn't the same as God dictating. Since you say I'm wrong, could you please educate me and tell me who claims that God actually dictated translations. Which translations, and where are these claims?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Blayne, what are your beliefs on this matter? Who do you believe will be saved?
Putting aside the actual thread -- which seems best all around -- am I to understand that Sid is Blayne?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sid is Blayne. I don't know why he's taken to posting back-and-forth between them lately.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I miss the good old days of the internet when people would just stick to one anonymous handle. Religious discussions are confusing enough, without confusing them further.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
...is it wrong of me to feel relieved that there's only one of them?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Sid is Blayne. I don't know why he's taken to posting back-and-forth between them lately.
According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
Hopefully this will not end in tears.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
Hopefully this will not end in tears.
Does he really expect us not to see through something as blatantly transparent as that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
Hopefully this will not end in tears.
Does he really expect us not to see through something as blatantly transparent as that?
He's been pretty open about it, I just can't remember which thread he explicitly said it.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
And I'll say again that it seems really backwards to consciously put the most juvenile posts under the name that would turn up when people actually do a google search on his name.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I suspect that you're not in the minority in thinking that, ricree.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:The beasts are formed after man (though before Eve, and incidentally, why is an omnipotent God not foreseeing that the beasts won't be good helpmeets for Adam? For everything else he seems to have grasped the concept of two sexes.) and Adam names them as they are made.
I must admit, I have heard people repeatedly talk about the "two versions of creation" in Genesis and have often wondered what the heck they were talking about.
I finally looked and thought, "Oh that? What's the big deal?" I figured it was just a recap in backwards order, very typical of Hebrew literary style, the going forwards then going backwards thing to help you remember it all. I can't remember what it is called, though.
This is one example of many where the areligous find contradiction where I see none.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Chiasm. It's common throughout the Bible.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
That's unfortunate. If I was incorrect about that, I'm slightly horrified and very disappointed, but the only claims that I've ever heard that could be construed as being otherwise are those that claim that King James and his minions were guided divinely. Which still isn't the same as God dictating. Since you say I'm wrong, could you please educate me and tell me who claims that God actually dictated translations. Which translations, and where are these claims?
Peter Ruckman would be the most famous proponant of the position that the KJV is advanced direct revelation that supercedes the Hebrew and Greek texts. I don't know if any of his writings are available online, but there is enough online about the controversy surrounding his claims to get the gist of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: This is one example of many where the areligous find contradiction where I see none.
I'd say that this is a situation where people who want to find contradictions find it, while those who don't don't.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Ignorance calling: How much of th esource material from the Bible is in Hebrew?
I always understood that the Apostles' Epistles*, for example, were written in Greek or Latin.
* try saying that with a straight face...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Ignorance calling: How much of th esource material from the Bible is in Hebrew?
I always understood that the Apostles' Epistles*, for example, were written in Greek or Latin.
* try saying that with a straight face...
Well, obviously I don't count those books. Other than parts of Daniel and Ezra/Nehemiah which are in Aramaic, the whole Hebrew Bible is Hebrew.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Going by the Christian canon, about 2/3 is in Hebrew with a smattering of Aramaic. 1/3 (That would be the New Testament) is in Greek. None of it in Latin.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
EDITED: Probably wouldn't be taken as humorous...
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"None of it in Latin."
I disagree with this in theory. That is, if we are to count the sources of some of the earlier (and KJV) English Bible translations. Not that it matters much as I concede your point, just not the outcome as related to this discussion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
True, some english translations used latin texts as source material. And some use the greek translation of the hebrew texts as source material. (Also some non-english texts are translations from the english text, not from the original languages.)
But the originals (as far as we know, since we don't actually have them) were in hebrew, aramaic, and greek.
Thanks for the clarification, Occaisional.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It is this back and forth in translating from one langauge to another and back again that convinces me there is no such thing as an innerant or perfect Bible. Not even the earliest sources are consistant. To me the miracle is that it isn't more garbled than it is. I am at a loss (haven't found any contextual evaluations) how normal this is for any ancient textual transmission.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I'd say that this is a situation where people who want to find contradictions find it, while those who don't don't.
You said it better. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
quote:I'd say that this is a situation where people who want to find contradictions find it, while those who don't don't.
You said it better.
And the people who don't have a desire one way or the other?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't know any other language besides English, but I am fascinated with reading about Biblical criticism and historicism. Comes from the Mormon belief that Scripture is only true if "translated correctly," although what that means is not as clear cut as it sounds.
I believe Mormons were cut short in pursuing the direction this belief could have gone for two reasons. First, the typical Christian traditionalist "bullied" the Mormons about innerancy and scriptural perfection into submission to the idea. They claimed it was nothing more than, as I said above, a sign of non-Christian or atheism to say othewise. From what I understand, the perfection and innerancy of scripture is a predominant theme in most religions with texts. Second, Biblical Higher Critism pretty much proved the traditionalist Christian's point by not only evaluating the text, but putting its teachings and divine truth of its stories to question.
This has put Mormons into a complicated corner.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:First, the typical Christian traditionalist "bullied" the Mormons about innerancy and scriptural perfection into submission to the idea.
I'm back to disagreeing with you - scriptural inerrancy is not part of Mormon doctrine. Some certainly believe it, but it is popular only with some parts of the country and in some folk doctrine.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:innerancy
'inerrancy'. I had to look it up, it sounded like you were saying something about it coming from within ('inner') when instead it's about 'lack of error' (in - err). Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
katharina, I don't think we are in general disagreement. On the other hand, have you read "Mormons and the Bible" by Philip Barlow? Great read on the subject and he comes close to saying what I did.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scriptural inerrancy is not preached at General Conference, found in the manuals, and is directly contradicted by our scriptures. What some people come to believe is doctrine is not the same thing as actual doctrine.
Some Mormons believe that Bigfoot is Cain as well. That doesn't make it true or universal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. Belief, even widespread belief, does not make it doctrine.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Katharina, what I said has nothing to do with doctrine. It has to do with how the Scriptures are used. We are talking past each other I think.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe that most people who claim to be literalists are actually something quite different. I don't know if it has a name yet (oooh, lets give it one). I'd call them Fable-Literalists.
That is, they don't believe 100% of what's printed in the Bible is true.
They believe 100% of what they were taught as children is true.
They also believe that 100% of what they were taught the True Bible, and any attempts to show them differently, question the Bible, their translation, or their interpretation, is not an attack on their church, its an attack on their culture.
Modern Americans change their churches with surprising ease. The religious wars of years past seem to them to be stupid. However any attempt to get them to change their culture is a call to arms.
So when you argue that Homosexuality is not that great a sin in the Bible, they fight back because it is in their culture, and if it is in their culture, it must be so in their Bible.
So when you say that Evolution and Christianity can be friends, they say that is not what their culture says, so it must be not what their Bible says.
So when you say that Mormons (Catholics, that church across the street) are Christian, they say that is not what their culture says, so it must be not what their Bible says.
The problem is that people take these cultural ideas, wrap them up in Universal Divine Law, and feel obliged to force them on others.
This goes for Shiah Suicide Bombers in Iraq.
This goes for stupid (supposedly Christian) protesters at US Military funerals.
This goes for smart mouthed rabid-atheists on any number of internet forums.
And unfortunately this goes for certain Neo-Con political figures that want to start Armageddon in Israel to fulfill what their culture believes will be the 2nd Coming. Their care for the dead Israelites is only slightly more than for the dead Muslims.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I understand perfectly well what you mean.
You are overstating the case when you say "Mormons" because while it may be true for some Mormons, it is not true for all (or even most - the 8th Article of Faith is taught to all primary children while fundamentalist beliefs are not) and saying "Mormons do [blank]" implies that it is true for all or at least most.
Secondly, I don't agree with "bullies." There are many ways that beliefs are traded and transferred and bleed into other groups, and bullying is the least effective method and an extremely uncharitable word for the process in general.
Third, I disagree with this statement:
quote:From what I understand, the perfection and innerancy of scripture is a predominant theme in most religions with texts.
While inerrancy may be present in most religions, that is not the same as it being a predominant theme.
My fourth point I wish someone else would address, because I'm drawing on memories of conversations months old, but I think that inerrancy as it is present in the US today has a recent history - as in, the past 150 years or so.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Katharina, I would be interested in your view of how Mormons (generalizing) use or study the Bible. More specifically, how the 8th article of faith is put into practice.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:This goes for smart mouthed rabid-atheists on any number of internet forums.
Dan, are you saying that those atheists are holding their beliefs to be True and sort of a Bible because of this? I don't really understand how you lump them in with "Fable-Literalists".
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
My fourth point I wish someone else would address, because I'm drawing on memories of conversations months old, but I think that inerrancy as it is present in the US today has a recent history - as in, the past 150 years or so.
I would say that the strict funda-literalist interpretation, as if the Bible were a history or science text with no room for poetic devices (such as the earlier mentioned chiasm) or metaphor is a recent phenomenon -- a backlash against modernity, secularism, historical criticism, etc.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Katharina, I would be interested in your view of how Mormons (generalizing) use or study the Bible. More specifically, how the 8th article of faith is put into practice.
It is in our scriptures on the same level with all the other scriptures. It is referred to in conference talks with the same confidence as the other scripture. It is the only source for the life of Jesus Christ and is honored as such. It is not considered the keystone of our religion the way the book of Mormon is, due in large part because it wasn't designed, edited and compiled for a specific time and purpose the way the Book of Mormon was.
If you're asking for my opinion on how Mormons in general treat it, I think that with a worldwide church with people consisting mostly of first and second generation Mormons from a variety of backgrounds, there isn't a consistent method. I refuse to consider any subset as representative of Mormons in general.
If you're asking how Mormons in the intermountain region treat the Bible, I'd say that most don't read it. Of those who do, they (we) generally read the gospels and Genesis and then proof-text the rest. No, in my opinion, intermountain Mormons do not consider the Bible inerrant at all. Maybe the Book of Mormon.
The 8th article of faith, as I have seen and in my opinion, is most commonly put into practice by shrugging off the wonky parts of the Bible as funky translations but defending the book as a whole as scripture.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
That's unfortunate. If I was incorrect about that, I'm slightly horrified and very disappointed, but the only claims that I've ever heard that could be construed as being otherwise are those that claim that King James and his minions were guided divinely. Which still isn't the same as God dictating. Since you say I'm wrong, could you please educate me and tell me who claims that God actually dictated translations. Which translations, and where are these claims?
Peter Ruckman would be the most famous proponant of the position that the KJV is advanced direct revelation that supercedes the Hebrew and Greek texts. I don't know if any of his writings are available online, but there is enough online about the controversy surrounding his claims to get the gist of it.
Thank you. That's odd, but there you are.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: It is this back and forth in translating from one langauge to another and back again that convinces me there is no such thing as an innerant or perfect Bible. Not even the earliest sources are consistant.
That's very interesting to me, because I've had countless discussions with Christians who have sworn up and down that the earliest scribes had to be letter perfect, and if they missed even a single character, the whole manuscript was thrown away. Depending on who tells the story, the scribe was sometimes fired/punished/hand-chopped, etc.
I guess I need to do some more study of the earliest available texts, so I have some better information to go on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:That's very interesting to me, because I've had countless discussions with Christians who have sworn up and down that the earliest scribes had to be letter perfect, and if they missed even a single character, the whole manuscript was thrown away. Depending on who tells the story, the scribe was sometimes fired/punished/hand-chopped, etc.
That's not true. There was great care taken to try and make it perfect, but errors in transcription crept in regardless. Even when careful, although more quickly in the case of some manuscripts than in others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Some early print runs of the Bible are famous for containing some really amusing typos. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Like the "Thou shalt commit adultery" version?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wait...you mean...? Uh oh.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:From what I understand, the perfection and innerancy of scripture is a predominant theme in most religions with texts.
That's hardly close to being true.
I do, however, think that Mormon doctrine emphasizes that no scripture should be treated as inerrant or perfect; the Book of Mormon internally admits that it has flaws. Not even Joseph Fielding Smith was an inerrentist (though curiously, Stephen Robinson seems to be). However, in practice, Mormons tend to treat all their scripture the same way fundamentalists do. We assume that scripture's meant to be a legal text or a handbook of instructions, and we parse it as such by prooftexting wildly (all four Standard Works, here). Indeed, prooftexting's the hermeneutic taught in Mormon seminaries and in CES; thus I think it has institutional support that makes generalization, to some degree, possible.
Indeed, I think day-to-day Mormons, unlike Protestants, don't treat the Bible as "the only rule of faith and practice." Instead, we read scripture to find in it support for the behavioral claims that are taught over the pulpit. Thus, if Alma or Nephi or Isaiah or Abraham tell us they did something similar to contemporary practice, it's read to be God's support for our contemporary practice.
Occ, Barlow argues that what he calls a 'naive literalism' - that is, assumed inerrancy, separate from the theological arguments that bolster fundamentalist inerrancy - has generally had strong cultural support within Mormonism, and has become, more or less, the de facto institutional position since the 1960s. It wasn't 'bullied;' rather, folks like Joseph Fielding Smith and J Reuben Clark embraced it because of their sympathies with fundamentalism in general, and because they had a similar cultural background.
quote:That's very interesting to me, because I've had countless discussions with Christians who have sworn up and down that the earliest scribes had to be letter perfect, and if they missed even a single character, the whole manuscript was thrown away
This is generally what we hear from KJV onlyists.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:We assume that scripture's meant to be a legal text or a handbook of instructions, and we parse it as such by prooftexting wildly (all four Standard Works, here). Indeed, prooftexting's the hermeneutic taught in Mormon seminaries and in CES; thus I think it has institutional support that makes generalization, to some degree, possible.
I agree to this as it concerns the Bible and the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, maybe, but not as it concerns the Book of Mormon. I think the push last year (the year before?) to get the entire church to read all of the Book of Mormon in 2007 (2006?) was a very deliberate attempt to avoid us just proof-texting the Book of Mormon and instead get members to read and consider all of it, in context.
There isn't a push to read the Bible like that. There is no church-wide challenge to read Isaiah together. Except, amusingly, from Nephi in the Book of Mormon.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote: I think the push last year (the year before?) to get the entire church to read all of the Book of Mormon in 2007 (2006?) was a very deliberate attempt to avoid us just proof-texting the Book of Mormon and instead get members to read and consider all of it, in context.
I'd actually disagree. Reading a book of scripture from start to finish isn't quite the same thing as the means by which we interpret it.
Approaching the Book of Mormon without prooftexting it would require that we read its admonitions and assertions with different interpretive tools. For one thing, we'd have to jettison scripture mastery and give up quoting particular verses out of context, treating them as context-free statements of truth rather than products of a particular time and place. We'd have to stop taking the Book of Mormon's claims at face value, and ask in what ways they are influenced by their time and place and biases of the author.
We could, for example, approach it using historical criticism, and ask to what extent it's a Nephite triumphalist narrative. Does it characterize the Lamanites accurately? Should First Nephi be read wondering if Nephi is attempting to justify the political and cultural situation of his old age? Can we take his assertions about God's favor at face value? (There is, actually, some proof of this sort of bias in the Nephite narrative in the text - see what Christ has to say about the Nephites' treatment of their record of Samuel the Lamanite in 3 Nephi.)
This has relevance to how we use the Book of Mormon as a source of doctrine. For example, to what extent are the claims about doctrine like atonement influenced by Nephite (or, historically, Hebrew) conceptions of justice and law? To what extent are its narratives and statements about missionary work influenced by Nephite beliefs about their own cultural superiority to the Lamanites?
How should we read the so-called 'pride cycle' and other attempts to equate political and social events with righteousness? Is it an accurate description of what actually happened in Book of Mormon history, or an example of the sort of pre-modern historical thinking of the authors?
It's easy for Mormons to assume these sorts of biases in the triumphalist narratives of the book of Numbers and other Old Testament texts; we're less comfortable treating the Book of Mormon the same way, because of the proof-text hermeneutic we approach it with. We believe that everything that's in it is of equal truth value, which is classic proof-texting.
quote:There isn't a push to read the Bible like that.
I also think that the 'read the Book of Mormon campaign' was driven more from the ground up than from the top down; bishops and stake presidents took GBH's suggestion and ran with it and turned it into a 'challenge.' We have not seen the same grassroots effort with, say, this conference talk - an example of the sort of 'push' you're talking about - this, I think, is because we're uncomfortable with the Bible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What is prooftexting?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Some things simply can't be translated, because there's no English equivalent in a single word. A great example is the Hebrew word seh. It's usually translated as "lamb", because that's simple. But it doesn't mean lamb. It means any small domesticated animal, like sheep or goats. And in fact, in Exodus 12, where it tells us to take a seh for the pascal offering, it explicitly says that the seh can be taken from sheep or goats.
But there's no English word for such a thing. And you can't very well use "any small domesticated animal, like sheep or goats" every time the word appears. I once had a missionary in Jerusalem try and use this mistranslation as a sort of proof text. I was polite; I didn't laugh at him. I just showed him why he was wrong.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Lisa, I found a discussion (on a political blog of all places) that I thought you would find interesting about the KJV Bible as the only real Christian Scripture. The good stuff starts around the fourth page. Some real winners include:
quote:That is, what part of Christology divides real Christians from false Christians?
Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM For the answer we need to look to the Scriptures. What does God’s Word say? Okay I know.. which Bible is correct? Well, I learned that if you want to find out the truth about something you need to learn the history of it. So I have researched the history of the Bible. This was to satisfy myself. I wanted to be sure that what I was believing in was true.
There’s lot’s to this, but these are the basics.
It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text from Antioch is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the new perversions come, including the Catholic Bible (Rome got her manuscripts from Alexandria).
Here’s the story:
In the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, new copies of the New Testament were written. There was not a printing press at this time in history, so exact copies were by hand, compared to the Original, and then distributed to the various Churches. These copies of the Originals were from Antioch, Syria, and became known as the Antioch Manuscripts, then later as the Textus Receptus. The Originals, it is known, lasted at least into the 3rd Century A.D.
Then a 2nd set of manuscripts came along. They came from Alexandria, Egypt. These manuscripts were corrupt having many changes and omissions to them. These are known as the Alexandrian Manuscripts. They came out in the 3rd Century A.D. and were made by an man named Origen Adamantius.
Origen Adamantius (185-254 A.D.) was President of a group of teachers at the School of Philo located in Alexandria, Egypt. His preference was for Greek philosophy including Gnosticism, Platonism and Mysticism (considered heresy by Christian churches). He believed these were all of God. So when he was presented with a set of the Antioch Manuscripts - he RE-WROTE them blending in his own pagan philosophies - in the mistaken belief he was correcting them.
So friend we have a choice. We can get our Bible from Alexandria, or we can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV (version I have), then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, or a Catholic Bible, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan’s salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt
And another one:
quote:But there are other versions. Why shouldn’t one just use the Peshitto, in Jesus’ own language?
Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM Here are the different methods used to translate the original Biblical manuscript into English. We have Literal, Dynamic, and Paraphrase Bibles:
1.) Literal translation - Keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text. (Examples: King James)
2.) Dynamic equivalent translation - the translator works phrase by phrase, or sentence by sentence, to express the same thought as the original, for our modern language. (Example: New International Version (NIV), New English Bible)
3.) Free translation (paraphrase) - the translator exercises even more freedom in trying to convey the original message, not being concerned with using the key Hebrew, and Greek words that are in the text that is being translated. Paraphrase may omit large sections of text, or add other explanatory material not in the original. (Example: Contemporary English Version (CEV), “The Message”)
As we can see the King James Bible is a literal translation, a “word-for-word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It is faithful to the original text.
Remember, it is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria, and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt. The Syrian text is where our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is where all the new versions come, including the Catholic Bible.
The King James is a “word for word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. That is your answer.
My own personal favorites are the last lines of both of the quotes about word for word translations and the Alexandrian salesmen. Classics.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:The King James is a “word for word” translation from the original Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts into English. It keeps the exact words and phrases of the original. That is your answer.
This is, of course, misleading (though the whole excerpts here are good examples of the way KJV onlyists work). It assumes that Hebrew, Greek, and English are functionally equivalent languages which conceptualize the world in the same way, and thus have parallel words to express parallel concepts.
This is not the case; the word translated 'Spirit' in the KJV's Paul, for example, is actually 'pneuma,' which is closer to 'breath' in English, but it also has more metaphysical connotations than the English.
Heck, you can prove this argument wrong with your very own copy of the KJV. Open it up to any random page. The words in italics were inserted by the translators to make the English grammar make sense.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wow...
Incidentally, Jews have the same issues with what you're calling prooftexting. Unfortunately. The primary Torah that's done is learning the Babylonian Talmud. Now, the Talmud quotes Tanach left and right, prooftextishly. And I'll tell you in all honesty that most people, when they're studying Talmud, use those verse as strings of words without any consideration given to their context.
I've met people who are extremely learned Torah scholars whose ignorance of events recounted in Tanach (specifically in the post Pentateuchal books) is stunning.
The common term for the Pentateuch (first five books of the Torah) is Chumash (that's a ch like in achtung or Chanukka, and not as in cherry or champagne). And a common phrase heard at many Yeshivas is "Chumash is for girls". Worse than that, I've heard "Nach is bittul Torah". Nach is the second and third parts of Tanach (Prophets and Writings). Bittul Torah is time-wasting that could better be used learning Torah.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Lisa - it's my impression, though, that at least Orthodox Jewish theology supports prooftexting for the same reason Christian fundamentalists do, correct? That is, the text is read as more or less the verbatim Word of God, to the point that it might as well have been spoken by him (or perhaps it was). This means that each word is invested with great depths of meaning, and thus each part of the text is of equal spiritual value as each other part.
Understandably, this reduces concern with issues like context and historical production.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: That is, the text is read as more or less the verbatim Word of God, to the point that it might as well have been spoken by him (or perhaps it was). This means that each word is invested with great depths of meaning, and thus each part of the text is of equal spiritual value as each other part.
Chumash, pretty much; Nach, to a much lesser degree.
And Lisa, there are legitimate historical reasons for the negativity regarding learning Nach. Nonetheless, the attitude is unfortunate, and I know some parts of the charedi community that are working on changing it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I finally looked and thought, "Oh that? What's the big deal?" I figured it was just a recap in backwards order, very typical of Hebrew literary style, the going forwards then going backwards thing to help you remember it all. I can't remember what it is called, though.
But it's not in backwards order! Will you please read the dang text before saying this sort of thing? Again: The Gen 1 order is
1. Light 2. Sky, or heavens 3. Land and plants 4. Sun, moon, stars 5. Living creatures 6. Man and woman 7. Rest
The Gen 2 order is Man, plants and animals to be named, woman. No mention of light, sky, or sun, and the order is not reversed. As a mnemonic, this must be the most useless text ever devised.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Ignorace calling: Are there diifering versions of the Torah, or is ther some type of version control?
Given the source and nature of the Bible I find it hard to believe that anyone can claim one version is more correct than any other. They are all based on re-writes and edits, mistranslations and the whole gamut of chinese whispers.
Also, it's convenient that the King James version of the Bible is the 'Word of God'. I wonder how the French/Germans/Spanish/etc. feel about that...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Also, it's convenient that the King James version of the Bible is the 'Word of God'. I wonder how the French/Germans/Spanish/etc. feel about that...
They're infidels, it doesn't matter how they feel Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by MattB: That is, the text is read as more or less the verbatim Word of God, to the point that it might as well have been spoken by him (or perhaps it was). This means that each word is invested with great depths of meaning, and thus each part of the text is of equal spiritual value as each other part.
Chumash, pretty much; Nach, to a much lesser degree.
And Lisa, there are legitimate historical reasons for the negativity regarding learning Nach. Nonetheless, the attitude is unfortunate, and I know some parts of the charedi community that are working on changing it.
The only reason I was ever given was that it could be used to support Zionism, or some such. Are there others?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Ignorace calling: Are there diifering versions of the Torah, or is ther some type of version control?
Serious version control. The Aleppo Codex was the text all Torahs were compared to for a very long time. And it lasted until well into the age of printing presses.
The process of writing a Torah scroll is painstaking (wikilink). I can't tell you how many times I've been in synagogue hearing the Torah read when the person reading realizes that there's a problem with the text. The reading stops, the Torah is wrapped back up and the belt that's used to tie it is tied on the outside to let people know that it can't be used until it's repaired by a scribe.
I used to read in an Conservative congregation. Twice, when I was reading, we had to do that. Once when I noticed a missing letter, and once when the guy who was called up to the Torah at the time I was reading noticed it. It's rare and annoying.
If I'm not mistaken, there are two differences between Yemenite Torah scrolls and those from the rest of the Jewish world. Both differences do not cause a change in meaning or pronunciation in the words where they are found. In one case, as I recall, the word "daka" is spelled with a heh at the end in one case and an alef at the end in the other. The other place is like that as well, I believe. And the reason this difference happened was because the Yemenite community was out of touch from most of the other Jewish communities in the world for centuries. Think of that. Centuries of no communication to speak of, and that's the only divergence that happened.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Thanks alot Lisa. That is a fascinating link, and well worth reading. However it raises more questions...
Given that the contents of the Torah is scrupulously controlled, and according to Lisa's link, there are copies that are over 800 years old.
How would a translation compare with the parallel content of current Bible versions? Are there descrepencies? Are there any studies available?
edit - Google is vague. Any help from you Scholars out there? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only reason I was ever given was that it could be used to support Zionism, or some such. Are there others?
It's older than that! The Haskala (and later the Reform) scholars tended to be particularly knowledgeable in Nach (usually as opposed to Gemara), and this made anyone who was especially knowledgeable about Nach suspect.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If I'm not mistaken, there are two differences between Yemenite Torah scrolls and those from the rest of the Jewish world. Both differences do not cause a change in meaning or pronunciation in the words where they are found. In one case, as I recall, the word "daka" is spelled with a heh at the end in one case and an alef at the end in the other. The other place is like that as well, I believe. And the reason this difference happened was because the Yemenite community was out of touch from most of the other Jewish communities in the world for centuries. Think of that. Centuries of no communication to speak of, and that's the only divergence that happened.
Seven, in fact, but the rest of the above stands. None change the actual meaning of the word.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Given that the contents of the Torah is scrupulously controlled, and according to Lisa's link, there are copies that are over 800 years old.
How would a translation compare with the parallel content of current Bible versions? Are there descrepencies? Are there any studies available?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. How would a translation of the Hebrew text compare with current translations? That seems like the same thing, no? Or am I misunderstanding your question?
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Ok, sorry to be vague. I mean, if the Torah has such rigourous copy control, lets consider it as the control version of the Old Testament. If you then take a modern translation of the control text and compare it to a modern Bible version of the same books, it would be interesting to see if or where any differences lie.
I would like to be able to compare the original text of a Torah scroll with my dog-eared Good News Bible* for example. Or better still to the text of the standard King James version.
It's just an experiment to judge the extent of variations in the text due to centuries of translations.
As I mentioned I'm sure this experiment has done before, hence the request for any studies or papers on the subject.
* one free for every child - the benefits of going to a church school Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, I assume that any translation you look at is going to be based, at least in part, on the Torah that we have, which is called the Masoretic Text. Some of them also factor in the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation which differs from the Masoretic text. The Talmud recounts how the Septuagint came to be, and it has some deliberate differences from the Masoretic text. But they all (I assume) take the Hebrew text into account.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Ok, sorry to be vague. I mean, if the Torah has such rigourous copy control, lets consider it as the control version of the Old Testament. If you then take a modern translation of the control text and compare it to a modern Bible version of the same books, it would be interesting to see if or where any differences lie.
I would like to be able to compare the original text of a Torah scroll with my dog-eared Good News Bible* for example. Or better still to the text of the standard King James version.
It's just an experiment to judge the extent of variations in the text due to centuries of translations.
As I mentioned I'm sure this experiment has done before, hence the request for any studies or papers on the subject.
* one free for every child - the benefits of going to a church school
I'm still not sure what you're getting at, but if you're suggesting somebody compare various translations against the Hebrew text, this is neither hard nor novel. (Blue Letter Bible will show you a dozen Christian translations into English, the Hebrew, and the Septuagint, and that's just the first resource off the top of my head.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The Good News Bible is a paraphrase, however, not a straight translation, so it will be less accurate, in terms of word-for-word equivilence.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Does he really expect us not to see through something as blatantly transparent as that?
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)