The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Elminster_Amaur]

Saying the Church is corrupt because of the evils it proliferated in the past would be like saying Europe is corrupt because of Nazi Germany.

You're right. That's not why the Church is corrupt. The Church is corrupt because of its doctrine of power hungry warmongering. And Europe is not corrupt because of Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany was corrupt because of the state of Europe and THEIR lust for power.

Now, I'm not saying that I don't blame the Church for what it did in its past. I do blame them. St. Augustine and his fellows made the conscious decision to take the teachings of a great man, and change them to create a deep-rooted seat of power for themselves. And THAT is why the Church will ALWAYS be corrupt. THEY wrote the first copies of the bible, so THEY decided what went into it. Before then, it was learned by rote like much everything else. Of course, some of the gospels that got excluded have resurfaced, and they're almost completely illegible, so there's no knowing how much damage the Church caused, and how much was caused by the oral tradition preceeding Augustine.

[Ryanderman]

I'm curious. Maybe it's been said in the thread earlier, but where does this idea that Augustine and his people wrote most of the New Testament come from? As far as I know, and as far as any research into the origin of Bible I've seen concludes, the New Testament was actually written by the people it says it was written by. Mostly by Paul - the first well know missionary to non Jews, John - Jesus's right hand disciple, and Luke - a Doctor who traveled with Paul and used interviews with people who witnessed the life of Jesus first hand to write his gospel. Matthews - another of Jesus's disciples wrote his gospel, and Mark - another traveling companion of Peter and Paul wrote his gospel. Peter wrote several letters, as did James and Jude - two of Jesus's younger brothers.

These authorships aren't just taken on faith. In modern times they have been and continue to be thouroughly researched and confirmed. The writing styles of many of the authors, most notably Luke, match the other writings attributed to the same authors that are not part of the Bible. Other historical writings have been confirmed that reference books in the New Testament. Yes, Augastine decided which books to include, but I would argue that he did not make anything up. Please, let me see where you're getting the theory that he did.

[Content]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

I'm curious. Maybe it's been said in the thread earlier, but where does this idea that Augustine and his people wrote most of the New Testament come from? As far as I know, and as far as any research into the origin of Bible I've seen concludes, the New Testament was actually written by the people it says it was written by. Mostly by Paul - the first well know missionary to non Jews, John - Jesus's right hand disciple, and Luke - a Doctor who traveled with Paul and used interviews with people who witnessed the life of Jesus first hand to write his gospel. Matthews - another of Jesus's disciples wrote his gospel, and Mark - another traveling companion of Peter and Paul wrote his gospel. Peter wrote several letters, as did James and Jude - two of Jesus's younger brothers.

These authorships aren't just taken on faith. In modern times they have been and continue to be thouroughly researched and confirmed. The writing styles of many of the authors, most notably Luke, match the other writings attributed to the same authors that are not part of the Bible. Other historical writings have been confirmed that reference books in the New Testament. Yes, Augastine decided which books to include, but I would argue that he did not make anything up. Please, let me see where you're getting the theory that he did.

I dont think it matters so much that he may have created entire sections as much as he had editing power of the New Testiment. Which brings us to taking things out of context as wel las omitting things that would be hard to explain or didn't fit into whatever he believed is right.

[Nique]

Originally Posted by ZAG

That's basically my whole point. I just don't want people to think they're dealing with a perfect reference. That's plain delusion.

In an academic study of the Bible, I can completely agree with this. The sheer number of translations available today and they varied critisism of them means that some are weak(er) at points in conveying literal word-for-word meaning from the original documents... numerical mistakes, infrequent as they are, even crop up as we've seen.

Where religious belife in conerned, however; I've yet to encounter a "version" of the bible that explictly or really even indirectly teaches a different doctrine or princeple than another. I'm not saying apocriphal writings aren't included in some versions, or that these teachings aren't interpreted differently between different sects of christianity, but translations that are generally more legitimate don't really disagree between each other. In this way, I think that the Bible does provide perfect instructions and lessons.

What also really annoys me is when people use a single line from the bible to try to support some idea, or use the semantics and basic meticulous grammar of a particular sentence as though it carries significance.

As opposed to, say, a cohesive teaching that is supported throughout the Bible? Although we come from very different viewpoints, I know exactly what you mean here.

As an aside, what were your thoughts on Matthew 4:10? I mean, 'Satan' is a pretty insulting label for a follower of Chirst

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

If you're going to criticize the idea of an eternal Hell, then you need to understand that Hell would actually be outside of time. Which makes no sense to us, because we are beings that exist in and through time. It could be best described as a state of being away from God where constancy is an infinite understatement, the same way that Heaven would be a state of being together with God.

Can you show me what support this line of reasoning finds in the Bible? I've never encountered anything that supports this notion.

Originally Posted by BitVyper

It's not pushed because everyone already assumes it. It's still there. It's just something you don't really have to say. It's also a lot less socially acceptable to talk like that too, which is kind of nice.

I'm not sure how I feel about this fact. On the one hand, I don't belive in the hellfire doctrine so it's kind of cool that people have stopped telling me that I'm going to hell... But on the other hand, the fire and brimestone concept is still officially accepted by many major denominations.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

Therefore, anyone who honestly has never made a statement (through thought or action) of full contempt and disregard for God is not automatically damned. (In fact, in my personal opinion, such an act is impossible for any rational being, because it would be completely illogical to deny a true God in order to follow a less-fulfilling worldview. Although the option for that would still be open, no one would ever take it.)

There is no God, nor any gods, and such concepts are ridiculous and infantile.

There.

The underlying assumption in your statement, of course, is that there is a god that everyone is somehow totally aware of. That certainly would be difficult to deny. But as it stands, in terms of fulfillment, I'd prefer inconvenient knowledge over blissful delusion.

Originally Posted by Nique

As an aside, what were your thoughts on Matthew 4:10? I mean, 'Satan' is a pretty insulting label for a follower of Chirst

Nothing in particular. It was sort of interesting.

[Kikuichimonji]

Originally Posted by Nique

Can you show me what support this line of reasoning finds in the Bible? I've never encountered anything that supports this notion.

The first part's based on Tradition and logic. I'm going to paraphrase because I'm lazy.

-God created all of creating from nothing(Genesis)
-Time and space are tangible things, as is increasingly shown in current study evolving from the theory of general relativity
-Therefore, God created time and space.
-No system can be created by something inside itself
-Therefore, God is outside time and space
-Heaven is supposed to be a communion with God (do I really have to reference?)
-Therefore, Heaven is outside of time and space

If you're asking about the whole 'isolation from God' thing, please say so.

Originally Posted by Zak

There is no God, nor any gods, and such concepts are ridiculous and infantile.

There.

The underlying assumption in your statement, of course, is that there is a god that everyone is somehow totally aware of. That certainly would be difficult to deny. But as it stands, in terms of fulfillment, I'd prefer inconvenient knowledge over blissful delusion.

No, I believe you're understanding me. I am saying that at the point of death, everyone would gain knowledge of God and be able to decide on Heaven or Hell, or have already decided in life with adequate knowledge.

My argument is that it makes no sense for a rational being to deny a loving God if you were faced with his existence. Therefore, everyone who denies God has not fully, rationally experienced or understood him.

This may come off as arrogant, but it's not really any more arrogant than assuming that if you offer someone 5 bucks on the street, barring all complications, that they're going to take it.

I'm not going to address the part about belief in God being infantile because it's based on materialism, and discussion would only lead to a pointless cyclical argument.

I'm not even trying to argue for the existence of God here. I'm just trying to argue that the Catholic social teaching is not illogical, if it is alogical at times.

Originally Posted by EA

Now, I'm not saying that I don't blame the Church for what it did in its past. I do blame them. St. Augustine and his fellows made the conscious decision to take the teachings of a great man, and change them to create a deep-rooted seat of power for themselves. And THAT is why the Church will ALWAYS be corrupt. THEY wrote the first copies of the bible, so THEY decided what went into it. Before then, it was learned by rote like much everything else. Of course, some of the gospels that got excluded have resurfaced, and they're almost completely illegible, so there's no knowing how much damage the Church caused, and how much was caused by the oral tradition preceeding Augustine.

The Church synthesized the teachings closest to the doctrines of Jesus. Before they did this, there were an insane number of apocryphal texts that contradicted each other and many suggested things directly in opposition with Jesus's teachings. Therefore, they took the ones they decided truly represented what he said. It would be the same as a teacher taking sound bytes from a class discussion instead of the whole thing because he knew parts of it were bogus.

In a side note, Death Note is freaking awesome.

[ZAKtheGeek]

No, I believe you're understanding me. I am saying that at the point of death, everyone would gain knowledge of God and be able to decide on Heaven or Hell, or have already decided in life with adequate knowledge.

My argument is that it makes no sense for a rational being to deny a loving God if you were faced with his existence. Therefore, everyone who denies God has not fully, rationally experienced or understood him.

This may come off as arrogant, but it's not really any more arrogant than assuming that if you offer someone 5 bucks on the street, barring all complications, that they're going to take it.

Okay, so there's that assumption. All that's fine with me, really.

[Nique]

If you're asking about the whole 'isolation from God' thing, please say so.

I thought it was pretty clear from what I quoted that this is what I was shooting for... But I guess not. Sorry.

-Heaven is supposed to be a communion with God (do I really have to reference?)

I, for one, would appriciate it. Again, I'm looking for biblical references to the 'hell' thing.

The Church synthesized the teachings closest to the doctrines of Jesus. Before they did this, there were an insane number of apocryphal texts that contradicted each other and many suggested things directly in opposition with Jesus's teachings.

Some of which the church adopted? Also, you seem to be ignoring a lot of ugly, ugly things that happened at the hand of the church after it established itself as a power. I don't recall 'burning folks who read the bible for themselves' as one of the things on Christ's 'to-do' list.

I don't mean to make this sound like an attack on your faith, but I take issue with any positive spin put on the activities of the early Catholic Church as an organization.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Originally Posted by Kokoichimonjuiaoiwenauenbuji

The first part's based on Tradition and logic. I'm going to paraphrase because I'm lazy.

-God created all of creating from nothing(Genesis)
-Time and space are tangible things, as is increasingly shown in current study evolving from the theory of general relativity
-Therefore, God created time and space.
-No system can be created by something inside itself
-Therefore, God is outside time and space
-Heaven is supposed to be a communion with God (do I really have to reference?)
-Therefore, Heaven is outside of time and space

Originally Posted by Zak

There is no God, nor any gods, and such concepts are ridiculous and infantile.

There.

The underlying assumption in your statement, of course, is that there is a god that everyone is somehow totally aware of. That certainly would be difficult to deny. But as it stands, in terms of fulfillment, I'd prefer inconvenient knowledge over blissful delusion.

I think you just agreed with each other. Want me to point out the exact points where your statements began to be the same?

Originally Posted by Kokokokoko

-God created all of creating from nothing(Genesis)
.
.
.
-No system can be created by something inside itself
-Therefore, God is outside time and space

Originally Posted by Zak

There is no God

See how that works? I'm not saying that I agree with Zak, it's just that from any perspective, God = Nothingness, therefore, there is no God. See? The Buddhists and Hindus got there first, but it agrees with your statements.

Originally Posted by Nique

Some of which the church adopted? Also, you seem to be ignoring a lot of ugly, ugly things that happened at the hand of the church after it established itself as a power. I don't recall 'burning folks who read the bible for themselves' as one of the things on Christ's 'to-do' list.

However true both of those things may be, there are several verses that were ADDED to the modern Gospels by the Church at some point. Some of them don't even show up in the Church's usage until the time of Augustine. Example? Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53 - 8:11, and 1 John 5:7b-8a

Those are just some of the things that the Church has played with. Probably to make their power base stronger. And if they've added things, what could have they left out that would have given a far less favorable view of the Church?

[Mirai Gen]

Sorry for coming in late...

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Dude, that's how art and literature work...

I wouldn't think that the bible would classify as literature to that degree. The Bible is a history/premonitions/guide to life for those who are religious, and I just don't understand it. It's like using Yahoo Maps and liking the fact that it takes a long time to figure out where you're going.