View topic - Is there a reason to be hard atheist?
I've never heard "your version" of the bible because it's been carefully crafted to look and sound absurd. I mean, the Bible wasn't written at one time, by a single person, for a single purpose. The books of that are just that, books. It's an anthology of collected writings, each one of which has context and purpose. Failure to account for that leads to horribly poor literary scholarship.
I didn't say anything about hating you, but people have snapped at me for stepping into arguments in an indelicate manner. I can't speak to the specifics, but it sounded to me like something similar.
I didn't say anything about hating you, but people have snapped at me for stepping into arguments in an indelicate manner. I can't speak to the specifics, but it sounded to me like something similar.
Quote
Yet, many of them still lie about speaking to the same Jesus. It's a collection of lies.
It seems strange that she would specify "atheist". She had stopped being so nice in class after I added her on Facebook, which is where I'm assuming she found out. Recalling this has set off my anxiety and I am likely to become more snappy and rude from here on out. Fair warning.
It seems strange that she would specify "atheist". She had stopped being so nice in class after I added her on Facebook, which is where I'm assuming she found out. Recalling this has set off my anxiety and I am likely to become more snappy and rude from here on out. Fair warning.
I've never been afraid of the wildest fights, not afraid of dying
But now I want off this ride 'cause you're scaring me and I don't like where we're going
A Soporific wrote:I've never heard "your version" of the bible because it's been carefully crafted to look and sound absurd. I mean, the Bible wasn't written at one time, by a single person, for a single purpose. The books of that are just that, books. It's an anthology of collected writings, each one of which has context and purpose. Failure to account for that leads to horribly poor literary scholarship.
I've actually been diving into a book that's based around the theory that very early Christianity, prior to a lot of the new testament being written, was essentially the Greek interpretation of the Hebrew religion at the time. Greeks and Hebrews back then had extremely different ways of thinking, most cultures of the world had sort of a dynamic and fluid point of view until the Greeks came along and started assigning static definitions to everything and sorted and ordered according to their custom. (I very much attribute that to Aristotle.) That's probably the reason Christianity WAS able to become an official religion of the Roman Empire.
Considering the English version of the bible is based off of the Greek, you have to wonder exactly how much got lost in translation or was re-written to agree with Hellenic ideas and then how many biblical scholars later developed religious theory from the Hellenic instead of the original Hebrew and put that into the bible.
Of course we might as well add that the most often quoted English version of the bible was re-written specifically for the Church of England when it first came about, supposedly with Shakespeare in there to make the prose sound more beautiful although I've yet to find verification on that one.
The 'cherry picking' as you put it Jester is essential just because of the problems associated with what Soporific put down there as well as others. It's not just a matter of "Well this is what is written so this is what it is or else!", you can't necessarily go for the most literal interpretation of the bible possible as you would with say a scientific paper outlining quantum mechanics nor could you withn any other religious script for that matter because there's problems between re-translation not to mention various cultural values that get interfused over time and at times even contradict previous values.
Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? ~Chuang Tzu
Lie about speaking to the same Jesus? I'm sorry, but what did you mean by that?
Additionally, why do you assert that they knowingly or maliciously mislead others? I don't see a basis for that claim.
There is a difference between hating someone for religious differences and using a known hot-button issue out of anger or frustration. After all, knowing someone is sensitive about an issue can result in hitting that specific point in times of stress. Still, I lack anywhere near enough information to make factual statements about the case in question.
lateralus: Each of the gospels was written for different purposes, one of them was primarily written to Greek converts, and another was a retrospective of collected sources.
Where did you get that the English translation was based on a Greek? After all, older translations in English were based on the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Latin edition of the bible, no a Greek one. Moreover, the original books of the Bible were originally written in three different, Koine Greek (a common trade language which most of the region at least understood), Aramaic (the language of the non-jews of the region), and Hebrew (the language of the jews). These were all translated into Latin for the Vulgate. However, older Codexes exist and have been used as source docuements for modern English translations. That's the reason we have "New" editions of virtually every older edition that exists. We no longer have translations of translations, and the King James Version sucks. The New King James is better, but I still prefer the New American myself.
Additionally, why do you assert that they knowingly or maliciously mislead others? I don't see a basis for that claim.
There is a difference between hating someone for religious differences and using a known hot-button issue out of anger or frustration. After all, knowing someone is sensitive about an issue can result in hitting that specific point in times of stress. Still, I lack anywhere near enough information to make factual statements about the case in question.
lateralus: Each of the gospels was written for different purposes, one of them was primarily written to Greek converts, and another was a retrospective of collected sources.
Where did you get that the English translation was based on a Greek? After all, older translations in English were based on the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Latin edition of the bible, no a Greek one. Moreover, the original books of the Bible were originally written in three different, Koine Greek (a common trade language which most of the region at least understood), Aramaic (the language of the non-jews of the region), and Hebrew (the language of the jews). These were all translated into Latin for the Vulgate. However, older Codexes exist and have been used as source docuements for modern English translations. That's the reason we have "New" editions of virtually every older edition that exists. We no longer have translations of translations, and the King James Version sucks. The New King James is better, but I still prefer the New American myself.
Users browsing this topic: and 1 guests