Fummery Foo Faraw

[Yog^sothoth]

I feel that I must elaborate on something Socrates has been screaming at me about since his plop down into the science/archaeology forum.

First off, Socrates, first off, I didn't think you were being serious at first and thought I would play along...then it turns out you were serious and I got all defensive when I figured out you were serious. sorry about that. Second, I need to expand on a statement I made in haste way back when the site first started:


I do not accept the bible


Now, I didn't say it that way but let me try and make brief a statement of my belief in this fashion.

God partially wrote the bible, that is to say he gave his word to man who in turn wrote it down. I believe this. But what has happened since then? Greed, perversion misinterpetation, mistranslation; and the bible turns into a way to control a populace seeking a meaning for their life and a path in which to become immortal. This is what I do not believe in. I seek the truth, that is to say that I seek what lies underneath centuries of errored retranslation and forced retranslation (i.e. Catholicism taking out the name of god from the Septugent (is that the right word?)).

What I also seek is an understanding of Gods work, earth, the solar system, everything. I want to know why 4 bases, when assembled with a sugar and a phosphate molecule form the basis of life. I want to know why apes are similar to man, why man is similar to bacteria and the way to do this is through research.

it is a shame that science has become the anti-religion. In my opinion, science should walk hand in hand with our faith, but it should remain openly unbiased toward anything but understanding. I have faith in man, I have faith that man will come to understand that their petty indifferences and disagreements with the very things I have said I disagree with, do not matter. Atheist, Presbytirian, Catholic, Baptist, New Light, Calvinist, Open Theist: it doesn't matter who you are, what matters is that you contribute something, regardless of your own bias, to the material gathering on the explanation of god.

I will not see the day we can comprehend the fullness of god, but in my opinion that day will come. When we can shed our need for greed, our knowledge of good and evil, and just exsist as we are, without bias; our understanding of god will be amplified and the spirit of our race shall return to the creator and it will be good.

I do not mean to attack you Socrates, I merely hold an opposing view to your statements that I may dig further to see what drives your views and just how expansive they are. As an anthropology major I have been trying to shed my views so that I may better understand and that I may better observe things without bias. I let my love of troublemaking get in the way of your discussion and i'm sorry.

Well, I hope you get the gist of what I have said. Agree with it or no, I do not hate god, I do not hate Jesus, I do not question them. I merely seek the truth which has been lost to countless centuries of bloodshed and turmoil over how we perceive gods word.

I've babbled on enough. It pains me that I cannot participate more. I work 45 hours a week (2 jobs) and am attending 15 hours of semester classwork at a community college so that I may transfer into the University of Texas. I hope you understand that.

Thanks! Keep me thinking. I appreciate it.
:read: :cheers: :thumb:

[Blake Reas]

Yog^sothoth:
I feel that I must elaborate on something Socrates has been screaming at me about since his plop down into the science/archaeology forum.

First off, Socrates, first off, I didn't think you were being serious at first and thought I would play along...then it turns out you were serious and I got all defensive when I figured out you were serious. sorry about that. Second, I need to expand on a statement I made in haste way back when the site first started:



Now, I didn't say it that way but let me try and make brief a statement of my belief in this fashion.

God partially wrote the bible, that is to say he gave his word to man who in turn wrote it down. I believe this. But what has happened since then? Greed, perversion misinterpetation, mistranslation; and the bible turns into a way to control a populace seeking a meaning for their life and a path in which to become immortal. This is what I do not believe in. I seek the truth, that is to say that I seek what lies underneath centuries of errored retranslation and forced retranslation (i.e. Catholicism taking out the name of god from the Septugent (is that the right word?)).

Blake's Response: Gee Yog, You apparently have no understanding what so ever of text Criticism! They have recovered 98% of the NT and 95% of the OT throught this science! I would suggest you read some stuff by Bruce Metzger or anything to do with text Criticism before you say that the Bible has been corrupted beyond recovery! The 2% in the NT and the OT's 5% that we are not sure on are things like slips of the pen by scribes and the like! Hope that Helps!

In Christ,
Blake


:cheers:

[J. J. Ramsey]

Yog^sothoth:
God partially wrote the bible, that is to say he gave his word to man who in turn wrote it down. I believe this. But what has happened since then? Greed, perversion misinterpetation, mistranslation; and the bible turns into a way to control a populace seeking a meaning for their life and a path in which to become immortal.


Think carefully about that statement about the Bible turning into a way to control the populace:


In several places, leadership is often corrupt, fallible, and openly challenged. Even one of its heroes, David, was called to account for adultery and what was effectively murder.
After saying "Slaves, obey your earthly masters . . . render service with enthusiasm (Eph. 6:5-7), it follows up with "And masters, do the same to them (Eph. 6:9)."
It says things like "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation (Luke 6:38), and "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24; cf. Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25)."
The apostles frequently flout governmental authorities for the sake of God.


Now does this look like opiate of the masses to you?

[Blake Reas]

J. J. Ramsey:


Think carefully about that statement about the Bible turning into a way to control the populace:


In several places, leadership is often corrupt, fallible, and openly challenged. Even one of its heroes, David, was called to account for adultery and what was effectively murder.
After saying "Slaves, obey your earthly masters . . . render service with enthusiasm (Eph. 6:5-7), it follows up with "And masters, do the same to them (Eph. 6:9)."
It says things like "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation (Luke 6:38), and "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24; cf. Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25)."
The apostles frequently flout governmental authorities for the sake of God.


Now does this look like opiate of the masses to you?

Good points J.J. ! If man created religion why in the world would he create a God like YHWH?

[Socrates]

Yep, I agree with JJR!! Amazing, huh? :hrm: :eek:

Also, there is a huge logical problem with Yog's statement, which Blake has also noted.

Greed, perversion misinterpetation, mistranslation; and the bible turns into a way to control a populace seeking a meaning for their life and a path in which to become immortal. This is what I do not believe in. I seek the truth, that is to say that I seek what lies underneath centuries of errored retranslation and forced retranslationQuestion: how can you know that something has been perverted, mistranslated, etc. unless you have proof that the original was different. Fact is, all the actual hard evidence, i.e. manuscripts, show that the Bible has always been the Bible, with only the most minor copying mistakes, and these were inadvertent rather than the result of a vast conspiracy.

A good start for Yog is The Textual Reliability of the New Testament (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_01.html)

(i.e. Catholicism taking out the name of god from the Septugent (is that the right word?)).
Please think whether this is remotely plausible. Why would a Catholic want to do any such thing? And how could they, since we have Septuagint manuscripts predating the Roman Church? and since you're not sure of even the name, perhaps you might want to consider that there is probably a lot more of what you think you know that you should be unsure of.

Finally, since the only record of Christ's teachings (although not His existence and miracles) is in the Bible, if you don't believe the Bible is a reliable record, on waht basis do you claim you are His follower?