The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Kweep wrote:I sure hope you are reading it in hebrew, greek and aramaic...

fair enough. i do believe the literal words as written in the original text are true. i believe that our translations are good enough, but i know some confusion arises due to some word choice.

good study bibles do elucidate these issues, and there are plenty of resources for looking up the original words.

thanks for caring about what i'm doing.

-craig

blue wrote: when do you think john wrote the gospel, and do you believe that it is an exact transscription of jesus' words?

I believe he wrote it last (of the four). I believe he completed it around 98 C.E., possibly after his return from exile on the island of Patmos.

[Edit: forgot the second question.]

I believe that all scripture is inspired of God and thus 100% accurate. How could John have written something completely accurate about the life of Jesus decades after he died? He was guided by holy spirit. Though if you don't believe in God or the Bible, that will not be an acceptable answer for you. What it boils down to is that I can in no way convince you of the accuracy of those books simply by discussing those books. One must look at the Bible as a whole, realize that there are no contradictions within it (you will say there are, but there are not - just some things that seem like contradictions until you investigate them more deeply), when you realize that it accurately prophesied about many things, when you see that it has points of scientific accuracy unprecedented for the times in which it was written and a number of other things, then you may be convinced that the Bible as a whole is accurate. Once/if you believe that, then you have have to ask yourself how that is at all possible. How is it possible that a book written by 40 different people with different backgrounds and professions over a span of hundreds of years wrote a book that was completely harmonious, when you could not find 40 men who were the exact same age and all of the same background and profession to sit in a room and agree on the price of milk? There are things that require a degree of faith, but people who believe in the Bible are doing them a dis-service if anytime someone asks them a question they say "you have to have faith" because the Bible has the answers to the vast majority of the questions they're being asked without resorting to such a bland, blanket statement. People who say that science is Godless are making the same mistake. God is a person of order and it makes perfect sense that everything in the world has logical, scientific and mathematical explanations. God is not just some magician waving a wand about, he is an intelligent being that gave order to the universe. My computer is sitting on my desk because an intelligent designer built it and the earth is sitting where it is for the exact same reason.

blue, I am not going to sit here and tell you that you shouldn't question everything that I and anyone else believes. I'm not going to tell you that you should believe in the Bible because I say so and I'm pretty smart. That's not why I believe in it. I believe what I believe because I have researched it and found a logical answer to every pressing question I've had.

::stops to catch breath::

starfinger wrote:[...]thanks for caring about what i'm doing.

The thing is, I DO care. It's really not that hard to, at minimum, buy a greek/english dictionary or lexicon and begin learning. Hmmm... I wonder what language Jews read the Torah in? Oh yeah, what was that thing my buddy went to when we were kids... Hebrew school? Why is it that christians don't teach their kids the languages of the bible in order to be able to fully understand and argue their faith? oh yeah! We're lazy and believe that it's all about grace anyway so why try hard... hell, why try at all?

for the record, i am no longer a christian. i was for more than 2/3rds of my life but, after reflection, study, review and self-examination i have chosen to remove myself from any 'christian' association or belief. The god that the christian church told me existed absolutely doesn't... there may be something 'out there'... but IF there is, it surely doesn't label or limit itself the way christians do their god.

I will say this, I dig religion for the architecture. Standing in an Episcopal cathedral in Edinburgh, Scotland is a helluva thing. I respect the people who believed enough to build it, and really as far as I care: some people believe and some people don't. Who gives a fuck in between. Some people like chocolate ice cream, some people hate it, and I'm not about to be like "You don't like Rocky Road? You're a fucking IDIOT."

I gotta agree with the architecture thing... The Taj Mahal, any Shinto shrine, Chichen Itza, pretty much every ancient religious building is awesome...

I just want to say I'm amazed that this set of delinquent misfits could pump out such an array of music, display stunningly ridiculous obsessions of the bizarre, and then have a seemingly rational and sincere discussion such as this. It moves me. I love this place.

WeaselSlayer wrote:I will say this, I dig religion for the architecture. Standing in an Episcopal cathedral in Edinburgh, Scotland is a helluva thing.

I've always wanted to go to one of those huge cathedrals. That's definitely on my to do in my life list.

kill_me_sarah wrote:God is a person

kill_me_sarah wrote:I'm pretty smart

Kweep wrote:IThe Taj Mahal

secular.

doh, that's right... *edit - secular but still ancient and awesome... ok, not technically ancient (350ish years?) but still awesome...

a quote from strange brew:
"Well, uh, just because I don't know what it is, it doesn't mean I'm lying."

If you want reccomendations on cathedral's there are so many its a lifetimes tour in iteself, but particular favourites of mine:

Notre Dame: Paris, France - Oh man you so totally have to see that place it is teh awesome

St. Alban's: St Alban's, England - very workaday and yet totally insipring

But my all time favourite is -

Durham Cathedral: Durham, England - The setting on the hill and across the river, the sheer size of the main oak doors, knowing that it is over a 1000 years old and took many many years to complete give me new respect for the Mason's commitment to a lifetime craft (yes I capitalized 'that' word [tangent bait]) The building is just awe inspiring and don't just take my word for it. "I unhesitatingly gave Durham my vote for best cathedral on planet Earth." - Bill Bryson, Notes from a Small Island. Also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1511841.stm[/url]

Kweep wrote:Why is it that christians don't teach their kids the languages of the bible in order to be able to fully understand and argue their faith?

Well, the fundamental issues don't really need a lot of language study. i think they are well understood and conveyed well in English. For god so loved the world.. By grace we are saved through faith... Jesus's burden is light, etc. etc.



Regarding the existence of Jesus thing, I'm curious what kind of documentation we have in general from that time period. I can't imagine a lot of people were writing diaries. And I can imagine a lot of reasons that the Roman record would be spotty. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the whole crucifixion, and the genuine Messiah would be a huge politicial threat.

On another note, the gospels we do have are not intended as biographies. They collectively portray a person, with each focusing on a different aspect of Jesus. Matthew focuses on Jesus as the rightful king of israel, and the subject of OT prophecy. Mark focused on Jesus as a servant. Luke focused on Jesus as a human. And John focused on Jesus as God. I find that powerful.

I have no problem saying that my beliefs are based on faith in the literal truth of the Bible. For some reason God chose to limit the documentation available to us today. As a commentary I just read said "respect the divine reticence."

Yeah, it's the divine perspective thing again. I'm OK with that.

-craig

Kweep wrote: both eros and agape are translated as love... do YOU know which one is meant for SURE when you read the english word love?)

eros is romantic love, where as agape is love based on principle also called christian love. i always remember eros as romantic love b/c it looks like erotic. little trick for all y'all.

slowRodeo wrote:

Kweep wrote: both eros and agape are translated as love... do YOU know which one is meant for SURE when you read the english word love?)

eros is romantic love, where as agape is love based on principle also called christian love. i always remember eros as romantic love b/c it looks like erotic. little trick for all y'all.

here's a little trick for you: his point was that when you read the word "love" in english, you don't know if you're reading a translation of the word "eros" or the word "agape."

blue you are so cranky and persnickty. i knew that, i was making a light-hearted comment. calm down. sheesh.

little trick for you: count to five, take a deep breath, then respond. not everything has to be a fight.

edit: also that was a really crappy trick. thanks for nothing.

here's a little trick for you:

eros never appears in the bible.

-craig

I did not know that.

[/dana carvey doing johnny carson voice]

i have a transliteration i will have to check out.

starfinger wrote:here's a little trick for you:

eros never appears in the bible.

-craig

That is absolutely true for the New Testament... but, my point was that both words are translated into english as love... I should have gone with phileo and agape because they both DO appear in the New Testament and can be translated as love... prime example:

John 21:15-17

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao) me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love (phileo) you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao) me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo) you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love (phileo) me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love (phileo) me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (phileo) you."

-----

Since Peter had just betrayed Jesus (the whole cock crowing incident) he couldn't honestly say he "unconditionally loved" him so he chose the "I love you like a brother" word. Now, is that a big difference? I think so. If you taught your kid that version instead of the one that makes your kid ask, why did he ask him the same thing three times?... wouldn't it make more sense?

"God bless us. Everyone." - Tiny Tim

EDIT: And in the end all you need is Pasta anyway.

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:EDIT: And in the end all you need is Pasta anyway.

You have been touched by his noodley appendage too!?

I tried briefly to find a link to an 'official' jediism site. now THERE's a religion...

I love you starfinger

On that note, I'm SO glad I stayed out of this thread for this long.