User Avatar Image


posted by kaptein_kaffe on - last edited - Viewed by 1.5K users





305 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Avistew said: wouldn't it make more sense for the Bible to be a constantly moving amount of text, with added parts that relate to today, removing the parts that don't anymore, etc, in short the way it used to be constantly modified in the past.

    No, because religion, like any ideology, really, can be used to motivate people. Put into the wrong hands, it can be pretty dangerous.

    Anyways, I will correct my earlier statement and say anyone in this thread who's attacked another person's belief or non-belief is the lamest thing ever. There's a time for criticism, and there's a time for everyone to get along. This time is for the latter.

  • Just one thought about faith generally and why faith is more attractive than knowledge:

    Knowledge is very inelastic and also very difficult to acquire. If i want to know what someone else knows, then i have to learn this. If i want to believe what someone believes, then i only have to believe this. This needs only the willingness but little work, and setbacks are virtually nonexistent because beliefs of course aren't subjected to the fundamental theorem of falsifiability.

  • @Avistew said: What I'm wondering is, since the texts were meant for people thousands of years ago, that they're outdated now because we live in different conditions, and that the passages are so prone to misinterpretation (I don't know two people who agree exactly on which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't), wouldn't it make more sense for the Bible to be a constantly moving amount of text, with added parts that relate to today, removing the parts that don't anymore, etc, in short the way it used to be constantly modified in the past.
    Now it's been the same and is seen as "untouchable" and "unchangeable" when even Christians seem to agree that some parts need to be interpreted completely differently, and so on.

    I'm not sure where you get the "constantly modified in the past" part. The original text isn't modified. We are still today finding more (and older) scrolls and manuscripts that validate other existing material. The text itself doesn't change. Though maybe our understanding of it might.

    There are various translations of the Bible (even in the same language) for various reasons. First, it's because, as we have discussed in other threads, language itself is a fluid and changing thing. Second, it's because some translations focus more on translating word-for-word while others focus more on communicating the basic idea that the text was trying to get across. Also, some translations are designed to be able to use more for study while others are intended to be able to read normally just like a book.

    But anyway, the point to reading Scripture isn't merely as a rulebook or so that we can nitpick at it (although that's not wrong do to.) The point is to grow closer in our relationship with God through learning more about God's character and allowing Him to speak to us through reading the text. The point is to be able to read the Bible and say "what is God teaching me through this?"

  • It's a bit pointless to argue that something is an accurate demonstration of the original by showing that copies of copies many generations down are similar but for minor differences. To say that the words haven't changed is just plain wrong. It is generally accepted among christians that your average bible will have 300,000 alterations from earlier copies in it, but is argued (probably correctly) that none of these are substantial. They are spelling mistakes, fiddling about with sentence structure, reducing text ambiguity, etc.

    The important bit is trying to find out what happened very early on in the bible's formation. One thing we like to use for this is Codex Vaticanus, a very old script with the new testament that's from around 330AD, and more importantly is well preserved so we can read it damned easily.
    Using that as the 'original' we find that Jesus saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was added later, and the entirity of Mark 16:9-20 was added later.

    And that is using a document from 330AD as the original. We still don't know how much tampering went on to the stories in the 300 years between Codex Vaticanus and Jesus' death.

  • @Giant Tope said: Actually, what I'm currently curious about is who people think will go to hell. Also I'm curious about what everyone thinks hell is like.

    I already answered that here. I have precognition.:D

  • At the risk of necro'ing old threads, I decided to post what the upcoming Christmas season means to me.

    John 1:1-14,16





    Matthew 1:18:24


    [from the book of Isaiah]


    Luke 2:1-21





    Matthew 2







  • On a partially-related note, I really don't get the whole War on Christmas thing. I'm by no means saying all Christians are doing this, but quite a few of them are "fighting" against other holidays of December as well as the celebration practices of the less religious as if someone is taking away their meaningful theological practices, even though Christmas itself doesn't even have a biblically stated root. You know?

    I mean, I'm not against anyone who wants to celebrate any end of the year holiday any way they want, I just don't really get the demanded monopoly for some Christians of the entire season.

  • @taumel said: Just one thought about faith generally and why faith is more attractive than knowledge:


    So easier is better?

  • As you may know, there is a pastor in Florida named Terry Jones who has- and is encouraging other people to- burn the Koran, and there has been a lot of controversy going on surrounding his behavior.

    The pastor of my church wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about it:


    Letter to the Editor: Irresponsible behavior

    By Hess Hester, Tulsa
    Published: 4/9/2011 5:43 AM
    Last Modified: 4/9/2011 5:43 AM

    As a local Tulsa pastor, I'd like to publicly say that the self-described pastor in Florida who burned the Quran is best described as an irresponsible idiot. He is neither representative of pastors nor Christians who truly know Christ and know their Bibles.

    I deeply regret that he was given any media coverage and deeply saddened by the loss of life that has resulted. It is a travesty that men like this, and others, such as Fred Phelps of Westboro Church in Kansas, can call themselves pastors. (And, as a Baptist, I also cringe when I see Phelps' church in the news because it has "Baptist" in the name but has absolutely no affiliation with any denomination, only with abomination!)

    There are too many churches and too many pastors out there who are making a difference in Christ-honoring ways in this world and it's unfortunate that crazies like these receive such attention. They are an embarrassment and cause damage not only to God's Kingdom, but to many others as well.

    Editor's note: Hester is senior pastor of Southern Hills Baptist Church[/quote]

    I have to say, I agree.

  • I thought he didn't do it in the end? Is he up to his games again?

Add Comment