posted
It has nothing to do with being a member of the club, Resh. It has everything to do with making silly assertions about things you know nothing about. Would you insult Sox fans to a random group of people, not knowing whether they were Sox fans or not? Would you get involved in a conversation between two regulars at a bar, picking sides despite the fact that you didn't know either of them and, more importantly, didn't understand a word they were saying?
It's not a popularity issue, Resh. It's the fact that you don't seem to have ever recognized the possibility that your gut instincts may not be absolutely correct, and so have leaped in with declarative statements of fact despite showing no signs of ever seriously considering them. (I mean, seriously: why do you think C.S. Lewis is one of the greatest geniuses of all time? Or, more importantly, do you really think that being a "big genius" makes someone's opinion inherently valuable? How much of Mere Christianity have you read, and are you aware of the existence of rebuttals to that work?)
Just as an example: that you apparently do not recognize the obnoxious presumption -- to use your adjectives -- in the statement "all atheists are condescending" baffles me. I find the offensiveness inherent in this statement to be incredibly self-evident. Do you really not see it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Atheist: So, if God created the universe, what created God? Theist: God just IS. A: How is that different from the Universe just IS. T: Um... because God is outside time. A: What does that mean? T: Nobody understands, so you can't disprove it. Ha! A: O.K. You got me there. T: Did you also know that it's impossible for you to experience God without already believing God exists, and that nothing you can do will ever make me say anything that makes logical sense? A: I get it.
Even though I think this is quite inaccurate, it's absolutely hysterical.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Um, Resh...people here really don't "diss" TomDavidson or Chris Bridges. There are good reasons for that. They're two of the most accurate mirrors you can look into on this site.
Oh, please. I wasn't aware we sainted posters around here. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't going to comment on that, Rivka. But my first thought was that if there had been a memo circulated that exempted me from "dissing," I and a number of other posters had apparently missed it. I agree about Chris, though; that guy can do no wrong. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm rather disappointed I'm off the diss list. Surely I've annoyed somebody I'm not related to...
rivka - blame my anti-social nature. Ic had enough problems getting me out there and he's in easy driving distance. Turns out that Chrises at rest tend to stay at rest.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, we get off where we don't take ourselves totally seriously. I mean, a post about not letting you into my troll guild? Even without smileys, that should set off some 'humour' bells in your mind. Incidentally, how old are you? This level of taking yourself seriously gives off a light odour of 'teenager' to me. Though at least you're not as emo about it as Pel, so much I give you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:*sigh* Tres, heck, if anyone else expressed an interest in this topic, I would discuss it with them. Specifically, I will not discuss it with you. The fact that I currently consider you incapable of having a constructive conversation about philosophy will not prevent me from having conversations on philosophy with other people while I wait for you to come around.
So, even if the issue of whether or not atheists are condescending remains undecided, would you at least agree that you have decided, for whatever personal reason, to be condescending to me?
I suspect that reason is that I won't agree with you on certain fundamental assumptions that you think I should agree to. The trouble is that these assumptions lock you (like me and everyone else) into the positions that you hold, meaning that if they go unquestioned, there is really no point to discussion - because it will simply lead back to the same positions.
Regardless, I think singling out Hatrackers to ignore and condescend to is not a productive behavior. For instance, at least in this thread, it is distracting from the main discussion. Had you given the reason for your original point, rather than attack me and insist on not giving that reason, we'd be talking about real issues now instead of what is or is not productive behavior on Hatrack.
quote:How does one determine what this objective morality is? Clearly, the Bible is not a valid source, since we now realize that the Boble supports actions (slave-owning) that all of us here have agreed are immoral. Morality must come from some other source.
This is a tough question. I think morality is something akin to a sense we have - we can see right from wrong in a way similar to the way we can see red or blue. However, it is clear that our sense of morality is pretty fallible. Often wrong things seem right.
That doesn't mean morality comes from us. But at a minimum, I think it can be observed by us, without needing an authority to tell us what it is. Authorities like the Bible are useful to guide us when we get confused, but they are not necessary to be moral.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a total aside, does anyone else find it annoying when a language doesn't have the word you need? In Norwegian there's a word 'selvhøytidelighet', literally 'self-solemnness' which means 'to take yourself too seriously'. Very useful word, English should have it too!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, even if the issue of whether or not atheists are condescending remains undecided, would you at least agree that you have decided, for whatever personal reason, to be condescending to me?
I'm not condescending to you, Tres. I'm flat-out telling you that I don't consider you capable of holding constructive conversations on philosophical debates that involve semantics or first principles -- and since almost any philosophical debate with you winds up dwelling on those points, it's just not worth it to me. When backed into a semantic corner, you do the Tireless Rebutter thing ad infinitum; it completely prevents any sort of progression. IMO, you enter these debates with your terms and premises very clearly defined in your own head, and play semantics until people get tired of having to reject your definitions over and over again. I like you, but do not like your definitions and don't need to spend another five hours of my life pulling teeth to extract those definitions from you only to disagree with you on them.
quote:Had you given the reason for your original point, rather than attack me and insist on not giving that reason, we'd be talking about real issues now instead of what is or is not productive behavior on Hatrack.
You are certainly welcome to discuss the origins of morality with other posters on this thread, Tres. You just won't discuss them with me.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As a total aside, does anyone else find it annoying when a language doesn't have the word you need? In Norwegian there's a word 'selvhøytidelighet', literally 'self-solemnness' which means 'to take yourself too seriously'. Very useful word, English should have it too!
Yep, there are plenty of Japanese words I can't translate, but are very useful and expressive.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not condescending to you, Tres. I'm flat-out telling you that I don't consider you capable of holding constructive conversations on philosophical debates that involve semantics or first principles -- and since almost any philosophical debate with you winds up dwelling on those points, it's just not worth it to me.
Well, if that's not condescending, I'd really like to know how you define condescending...
quote:When backed into a semantic corner, you do the Tireless Rebutter thing ad infinitum; it completely prevents any sort of progression. IMO, you enter these debates with your terms and premises very clearly defined in your own head, and play semantics until people get tired of having to reject your definitions over and over again.
That's not really accurate. The problem typically arises when people have a set of assumptions they think I absolutely must accept, which would put me in a corner. The trouble is that usually it is exactly those assumptions that I'm trying to question.
It tends to work more like this: I come in with a set of observations that don't seem to make sense with one another. For instance, I observe that morality seems to have some objective authority, yet I also observe that it doesn't seem like that authority could come from either human beings or God. I know that there must be some answer that explains all the observations, or at least explains why the observation is wrong. In order to do this, I try to figure out how I could look at the same situation in a different way so that the all the observations can be made consistent with one another. This amounts to changing some of the basic assumptions I was making, because it from those assumptions that the conflict in observations arises. These are normally assumptions about the nature of the things in question - often not semantic quesitons, but things that people seem to get mixed up with semantic questions. (For instance, "What is morality?" is not a semantic question because it is asking about the nature of the concept, not the meaning of the word. But it sounds semantic.)
The end result is that there are a set of very basic assumptions that I end up suggesting we could change to solve the problem. But often the reaction to this is a flat out refusal to consider that those assumptions could even be in question - instead implying that to even question them must be some semantic trick on my part. Usually, I'm offered a few examples to show why those assumptions must be true, that the other party assumes must be completely convincing to me. And when I offer explanations of how those same examples could be explainable in other ways using the altered assumption, the reaction is often "No, I am right. You should be able to see I am right. The fact that you don't proves that either (a) you have no idea what you are talking about, (b) you are just out to make an argument for argument's sake, or (c) you know I'm right and won't admit it." But typically the real answer is (d) I do see how you could be right but I believe you are too quickly dismissing alternative that could also be right, and which would solve the larger problem.
Your assertion is that this method of arguing is not productive. Sometimes that is true. But I can tell that sometimes it definitely is productive, in a way that I don't think other methods of discussion are. It is very very rare for a discussion at Hatrack to immediately change people's minds. It is common for both sides to end up in respectful (and sometimes less respectful) disagreement, just as they started. Almost all of the times I've seen when someone's mind WAS changed are times in which some new assumption was found that that person had not thought to question before, which suddenly paints the situation in a new light. There have been discussions that I took part in where this happened. In many cases, it was myself that had his mind changed. And, for me, a productive discussion is NOT one in which everyone argues their point, agrees to disagree, and nothing is learned. It definitely is not a discussion in which both sides simply call the other condescending, or hurl other ad hominems about. For me, a discussion is productive if it might change my mind, or if it might change someone else's mind - if it might lead to us learning something knew. Since that has happened to me in the past, I know that your assertion that I cannot engage in a productive philosophical discussion is false.
quote:As a total aside, does anyone else find it annoying when a language doesn't have the word you need?
Yes!! Language is annoyingly limited... it is the source of so many problems. It would be so much more useful if there were words for every possible thing, and if everyone knew exactly what thing those words were referring to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is very very rare for a discussion at Hatrack to immediately change people's minds. It is common for both sides to end up in respectful (and sometimes less respectful) disagreement, just as they started.
quote:And, for me, a productive discussion is NOT one in which everyone argues their point, agrees to disagree, and nothing is learned.
While the addition of the "just as they started" and "nothing is learned" clauses to those sentences is a handy way to set up the dichotomy between discussion with and without an eye toward persuasion, you're ignoring what I think is the most common form of useful discussion that happens here: non-persuasive discussion aimed at mutual understanding.
I also can't help but note that your description of what the "other party" usually does more or less fits my perception of what you did in the recent discussion of qualia. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: btw kmb/kmboots/Kate,
I apologize if my use of your name and inferred beliefs is in any way offensive. This tangent started from something KOM said in regards to you, and I've been continuing to use your name. To avoid any potential offense, I'll now try and use the name "Sue" to represent the holder of the beliefs that I've (possibly falsely) ascribed to you.
Amencer,
I'm just getting caught up, but go ahead and keep using my name. You are pretty much getting it right. The one thing I would add is that as far as evidence can go it does support my choice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While the addition of the "just as they started" and "nothing is learned" clauses to those sentences is a handy way to set up the dichotomy between discussion with and without an eye toward persuasion, you're ignoring what I think is the most common form of useful discussion that happens here: non-persuasive discussion aimed at mutual understanding.
True. Non-persuasive discussion can be as helpful as persuasive debate.
quote:I also can't help but note that your description of what the "other party" usually does more or less fits my perception of what you did in the recent discussion of qualia.
True, in that I thought my observation of qualia was right, and thought that others should (with introspection) be able to see the same. I definitely do have my own assumptions that I have difficulty questioning, because they seem so true to me.
However, there is one key difference - when people disagreed, I did not presume they had no idea what they are talking about, or presume that they were just arguing for arguments sake, or presume that they knew I was right and wouldn't admit it. I only presumed that they view things differently.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, there is one key difference - when people disagreed, I did not presume they had no idea what they are talking about, or presume that they were just arguing for arguments sake, or presume that they knew I was right and wouldn't admit it. I only presumed that they view things differently.
Who's to say that the people you argue with don't do the same?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTEThat doesn't mean morality comes from us. But at a minimum, I think it can be observed by us, without needing an authority to tell us what it is. Authorities like the Bible are useful to guide us when we get confused, but they are not necessary to be moral.
Oddly enough, I actually agree with this part - not that we are observing some Platonic ideal of morality, but rather that primates have an inbuilt sense of fairness. The effect is much the same, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Clearly, the Bible is not a valid source, since we now realize that the Boble supports actions (slave-owning) that all of us here have agreed are immoral. Morality must come from some other source.
Boothby, The Bible is not a simple or simply understood thing. It is not a single entity. It is a collection of writings: law, poetry, history, philosophy, letters, etc, written over the course of many centuries. Each of these various writings need to be considered in a variety of ways - context for example.
This is a common misunderstanding of the Bible. I am happy to discuss it with you in another thread, if you like.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also can't help but note that your description of what the "other party" usually does more or less fits my perception of what you did in the recent discussion of qualia.
True, in that I thought my observation of qualia was right, and thought that others should (with introspection) be able to see the same. I definitely do have my own assumptions that I have difficulty questioning, because they seem so true to me.
However, there is one key difference - when people disagreed, I did not presume they had no idea what they are talking about, or presume that they were just arguing for arguments sake, or presume that they knew I was right and wouldn't admit it. I only presumed that they view things differently.
Yes, while you were stubborn (as usual ), I didn't feel like you were dismissing opposing views out of hand. That's why I qualified my statement and [also] included a winky. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Bible (or "Boble") as a centuries long anthology of collected HUMAN writings may certainly be a source of human moral guidance. Not the only source, but a source.
But as a collection of HUMAN writings, it then takes away the "written by God" aspect of the book (acknowledged to be a collection of other books, tales, stories, etc.). This then supports the claim that morals are not necessarily defined by God, because the Bible is written by MEN (and maybe the occasional woman).
Morals are then thought out by people, and based on the current social/societal mores of their times. That's the point I was trying to make.
posted
I agree. But a possible counter-argument is that it was written by humans inspired by God. As in, the humans were like pens in in the hand of God.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would anybody ever really know the difference between a person who claimed that he was "inspired" by God, vs. just a regular ol' person?
And in using the phrase "inspired by God," do you mean a person who thought they could hear God's words and was simply transcribing them, or just someone who was basking in the belief of an all-knowing/powerful/loving deity (in the throes of agape)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I agree. But a possible counter-argument is that it was written by humans inspired by God. As in, the humans were like pens in in the hand of God.
Were the revisionists similary inspired?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: How would anybody ever really know the difference between a person who claimed that he was "inspired" by God, vs. just a regular ol' person?
I haven't the slightest idea. I'm on your side, remember?
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: And in using the phrase "inspired by God," do you mean a person who thought they could hear God's words and was simply transcribing them, or just someone who was basking in the belief of an all-knowing/powerful/loving deity (in the throes of agape)
Probably the latter, and I know what you're going to say, because it's what I would say too - the writing then has everything to do with human interpretation/creation and virtually nothing to do with God.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't realize this was a social club where one shows deference to the other more established members. I've been an observer for quite a while, and I decided to test the waters. I mean, lok at my older posts, if you feel like it. ... Maybe I'm not a Made Man yet because Card hasn't addressed me personally yet. I don't know, but I'm soured.
quote:Seriously, look at yourselves. Where do you get off? Who do you think you are? God's gift to the internet? No, wait... Darwin's gift to the internet?
Look, I don't want to interrupt your inexorable and motivated process of failing utterly, but check this out. I think I wrote it, like, two years ago as part of a list of lame forum antics.
quote:TYPE VIII: EVERYONE DISAGREEING WITH ME = GROUP THINK AND SELF-GRATIFICATION a.k.a. THE OROBOROUS COMPLEX
Rarity: Common
IDENTIFYING CHARACTARISTICS:
- Whinging at the 'established members' or 'oldbies' as being responsible for the lack of credibility in a given argument
- Complaints of 'group think' or 'herd mentality' where people are ganging up on you based on mob sentiment as opposed to legitimate complaint.
VERDICT
The concept is as ridiculous now as it was the first time I saw it. It's a wonderfully ignorant defense against a large population when one finds one's positions to be in an extreme minority; it's a doubly ignorant defense against the inevitable consequences of making a bad argument that everyone jumps upon.
Instead of coming to some semblance of understanding involving the error of your positions, you instead magically interpret this widespread dislike and disagreement as being endemic 'group think' or the complete or near total subversion of one person's point of view to some sort of collective herd mentality.
It's the cheapest and silliest response to being wrong that ever existed. The reality of the issue is NOT that we like to get into big circle jerks over targets who we have all designated as a target for some sort of 'outsider' view, it's just that your views are not popular in this demographic and many people here have understandings of rights, ethics, morality, logic, psychology, sociology, activism, philosophy, rationalism, skepticism, or other things .. that are being used to contradict you.
That's all, really. You're just being silly and near everyone here in the thread openly thinks so!
Don't be an Oroborous!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I thought you might have been referring to revisionist historians (not necessarily Holocaust deniers, just revisionist Bible historians). Ok now that I reread it that's a bit silly.
I don't believe that anyone at any time can be divinely inspired, so my answer is no. Yet, it's possible to faithfully translate something without sharing the same spiritual state as the original author.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Even though you had raised the point, I really was addresing my response more to the "thread at large" than at you.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Yet, it's possible to faithfully translate something without sharing the same spiritual state as the original author.
Leaving aside spiritual issues for the moment, no translation is ever entirely "faithful" to the original. Translation is more art than science, and that's why there are "better" and "worse" translations of, for example, Beowulf. And people may disagree as to which ones fall into each category.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I concede that. I've helped translate engineering reports (which you would think would be black and white) from Japanese to English, and it's extremely difficult. But as you say, that doesn't mean that divinely inspired words can not be translated very well, so that the reader of the translation can understand the original meaning to a high degree of accuracy.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: But as you say, that doesn't mean that divinely inspired words can not be translated very well, so that the reader of the translation can understand the original meaning to a high degree of accuracy.
I did not say that. I would not say that.
There are layers of meaning to the original text that no translation can ever capture. Doesn't mean there aren't some fairly good translations (I can recommend a couple ); just that I disagree with "high degree of accuracy."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that the Bible is a mix of things. Again it is a collection of things. Some more inspired than others. But, whatever the degree of inspiration, they were still written by human beings who were living in specific times and cultures and who were writing for different and specific purposes. Each part is not equal to each other part. You can't judge them all the same.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There are layers of meaning to the original text that no translation can ever capture. Doesn't mean there aren't some fairly good translations (I can recommend a couple ); just that I disagree with "high degree of accuracy."
I guess I have more faith in the ability of translators, but that may be because I can't read Biblical Hebrew.
When I read your post I was reminded of a haiku. Not to drag the debate into 'my territory' (I'm just as much a fish out of water as the average English speaker when it comes to Japanese poetry) but here it is:
quote:an old pond - the sound of a frog jumping into water
As you might already know this poem by Basho is considered one of the finest pieces of Japanese poetry ever written (it's certainly one of the most famous).
Before I go further, I want to let you know that I'm aware of the very important differences between translating a poem and scripture.
But I wonder if some of the other problems are the same? Is it really impossible to translate the poem above? (Because I consider that translation to be virtually meaningless).
Firstly, there are always cultural archetypes at work. For example, a firefly is a very romantic image in Japan, whereas in the West it tends not to be. Also, there are conventions of language and text which apply(which is why I thought this haiku was a good example to talk over). The lines of a haiku have to have 5, 7, and 5 syllables respectively, and that gives the poem a sense of order. Poems also have an aural quality. etc. etc.
As you're no doubt more aware than I, there are an impressive array of cultural assumptions, semantic links and other information which interact when meaning is put into words. Maybe the experience of reading something can not be replicated. i.e., perhaps a non-Japanese speaker will never know what it's like to appreciate that haiku fully.
But can't the meaning and background be explained as an aside? For example you often provide in depth translations of contentious Hebrew words. Say if a Bible was extensively footnoted, and included essays on the context of the writing to follow, would it serve to provide a highly accurate understanding of the authors' original meaning?
Personally, I think that an English speaker can appreciate Basho's haiku, or at least understand its effect on Japanese, if the culture behind it is explored a little. But I concede that the experience of reading it probably can not be translated into English.
Is that subjective experience important when translating scripture? Often scripture has rhetorical and even poetic qualities, but is this imperative to a full understanding of religious doctrine?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I have more faith in the ability of translators
And yet the haiku's translation (which I am indeed familiar with, and I believe I even once heard a recording of it in the original -- which meant nothing to me, but sure sounded cool!) you agree is meaningless alone.
quote:When I read your post I was reminded of a haiku.
I think that's a good analogy.
quote:But I wonder if some of the other problems are the same? Is it really impossible to translate the poem above?
I would say yes to both. At least if you wish to keep both nuance, meaning, and poetry all at the same time.
quote:Firstly, there are always cultural archetypes at work.
Very true.
quote:Also, there are conventions of language and text which apply(which is why I thought this haiku was a good example to talk over).
Another excellent point.
quote:Maybe the experience of reading something can not be replicated. i.e., perhaps a non-Japanese speaker will never know what it's like to appreciate that haiku fully.
That would certainly be my guess. And it's what I have been told by those who do.
quote:But can't the meaning and background be explained as an aside? For example you often provide in depth translations of contentious Hebrew words. Say if a Bible was extensively footnoted, and included essays on the context of the writing to follow, would it serve to provide a highly accurate understanding of the authors' original meaning?
I will ignore the pluralization there. Absolutely, an annotated and commentated translation is far superior. I like both Artscroll's and the Judaica Press'.
However. Both of those come together with the original Hebrew (facing pages), and I frequently check back to see what the original word was. There is no way to translate without not only interpretation, but choosing a single interpretation of multiple possibilities. Again, this is a limitation of any translation, not just of God's words.
quote:Is that subjective experience important when translating scripture?
Indubitably.
quote:Often scripture has rhetorical and even poetic qualities, but is this imperative to a full understanding of religious doctrine?
Yes, but that's not the main point anyway. Certainly doctrine (what I would call halacha) is contained within the Torah. Lots of it. But the main point is not Law; it is inspiration and deeper meaning. And those only translate somewhat, and never simply. Just like the experience of the haiku. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Premises: 1) God inspired a message to some people, in a specific language (sometime in the past). 2) God loves everybody just the same, regardless of their language. 3) The message of God is impossible to translate (perfectly) in all the other languages, (see the haiku analogy)
Conclusion: a) Even if God loves everybody, only those speaking/understanding the original language are able to grasp the true meaning of His message. Therefore, those unfortunate enough to be born in a culture that doesn’t use the original language as a primary mean of communication, should either make an extra effort and learn that language in order to comprehend the message, or believe and act on imperfect translations.
Or
b) The written message is just the result of a human culture using its language and is not inspired by a God that meant it for everyone. In other words, the Bible (with all its context) is just a Human creation.
I tend to se the latter as more “rationally acceptable”. But then again, I am a self-declared atheist …
posted
Okay, I think I know what you mean when you say that a highly accurate translation is impossible.
I'll have to join suminonA in asking; are Christians today living according to translations of the Bible which do not capture its "inspiration and deeper meaning" accurately?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that Jews believe the Torah was intended for us (and any converts who join us), and not the rest of y'all, I don't see a problem.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Or God communicated/communicates with many cultures and many people. The Bible is of particular importance to Christians as it records the history of a people who "got" monotheism and from whom Jesus came. (not saying that was coincidental).
Euripides,
quote: I'll have to join suminonA in asking; are Christians today living according to translations of the Bible which do not capture its "inspiration and deeper meaning" accurately?
I would have to say all of us, to a greater or lesser extent. I would also say translations and interpretations . Between sincerely living what I would call egregious misinterpretations, twisting interpretations (consciously or not) to suit our own ends, and just plain failing to live up to what's true, we all fall short.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Given that Jews believe the Torah was intended for us (and any converts who join us), and not the rest of y'all, I don't see a problem.
I have to ask: are you trying to come across with a “holier than you” attitude?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or God communicated/communicates with many cultures and many people. The Bible is of particular importance to Christians as it records the history of a people who "got" monotheism and from whom Jesus came. (not saying that was coincidental).
Are you saying that there are more “samples” of “the word of God” besides what is Bible related? What are they? Are there such communications with all the cultures of the Earth?
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Given that Jews believe the Torah was intended for us (and any converts who join us), and not the rest of y'all, I don't see a problem.
I have to ask: are you trying to come across with a “holier than you” attitude?
Well, I confess to being flippant. But no. Jews and non-Jews have different tasks. So do men and women.
While I understand that the ultra-PC world no longer accepts these as truths, I do.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or God communicated/communicates with many cultures and many people. The Bible is of particular importance to Christians as it records the history of a people who "got" monotheism and from whom Jesus came. (not saying that was coincidental).
Are you saying that there are more “samples” of “the word of God” besides what is Bible related? What are they? Are there such communications with all the cultures of the Earth?
A.
I don't know about all cultures. I think God communicates to anybody who will listen - and often in ways that are not opbviously "god". Sometimes that gets written down; sometimes not. Some of it was judged by the Catholic Church in the fourth century to be authentic, verifiable, etc. This is what we call the Bible. It should be noted that there were a lot of other Christian writings, versions of the gospels etc. that were not included.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I agree about Chris, though; that guy can do no wrong. *grin*
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
