Bible Origins -- discussion

[2dimes]

In before Gutenberg press?

[mrswdk]

PLAYER: you disagree with me and don't respond to my non sequiturs, therefore you are a dishonest liar.

[jimboston]

To contrast, your claim that NONE of it is from witnesses...

I don't believe I ever made that claim.

Though I will now state that I believe very little, if any was actually written by the person who witnessed a miracle or "act of God".

I don't care about the "history" sections that are not religious... not do I care about the Letters sections that talk about ideas.

I care about the "miraculous" stuff. I content none of that was written by witnesses.

and moreover that this is proven fact is just wrong.

What is proven wrong? Are you telling me you have proof the Bible (or vast majority) was written by witnesses?

Writing a letter to a distant people, talking about how they should act... is not a statement by a witness.

You've proven nothing, except for the fact that you are an idiot.

YOU and YOU ALONE here in this thread are claiming that every word in the Bible is utterly unchangeable...

Actually I am claiming the opposite of this. I am claiming that it's been changed so many times that we really can't be sure what the original author(s) wrote or intended to write.

... or that if it is not utterly unchangeable, then it cannot be the word of God.

So it's OK for us humans to modify the Word of God?

You are not seriously stating that this is OK. I mean if there was an Omniscient God, wouldn't He/She be pissed of if we changed the meaning of stuff He/She told us???

Like if we took "Though Shall Not Kill"; and turned it into "Though Shall Not Kill good Catholics... but it's OK to burn Heretics at the Stake."

Oh wait... the Church did that.

Either it's God's Word. in which case it's immutable... or it's not.

People have changed, as people change our view of the words written varies.

Huh? Oh. You're trying to write a sentence that makes sense. That's cute.

Yes. Our views have changed. That's why we gave up the idea of Gods who were more like men, who lived on a Mountain and got drunk, and fought, and fucked. Then we started believing in a single God... but He could still be nasty and very emotional; and would get pissed at us for breaking His rules. So we let Him evolve over time into a more compassionate, forgiving God.

Now we are grow away from Him... and He may just disappear (because maybe we've evolved enough to not need him anymore)... or more likely he'll evolve and have less rules, and become less centralized. Hopefully He'll still want us to be kind to eachother. Maybe He will direct us to be kinder to the Earth. Or maybe He'll evolve into a more extra-terrestrial / extra-dimensional type being. Maybe our whole existence is just a simulation some extra-dimensional alien is running on its super-computer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality)... or maybe that's just what we will believe next.

The fact that our idea of "GOD" has evolved is kinda proof that the God of the (Christian) Bible isn't really accurate.

And.. for those of you who are cheering at this display of idiocy and failure to adhere to fact. Well... you show your own ignorance.

No one is cheering you on Player.

[mrswdk]

Serious question: if the Christian God is some sort of sky being and not an actual human, then why does anyone (including the people who wrote the Bible) describe God as a 'he' and the 'father'? Why can't God be a 'she', or maybe just an 'it'?

[jimboston]

Serious question: if the Christian God is some sort of sky being and not an actual human, then why does anyone (including the people who wrote the Bible) describe God as a 'he' and the 'father'? Why can't God be a 'she', or maybe just an 'it'?

... because the Bible was written by / translated by a Patriarchal Society.

There's no other reason.

Now as we evolve away towards a society that recognizes the value of both men and women (I'm not saying we are there yet... heading in that direction)... many ask this same question. Wouldn't it be more logical for God to be a woman if God "created" us... we come from a woman's womb, so God as a woman is way more logical.

"It" doesn't work because "Man was made in His image". The word "It" is usually applied to an object; sometimes animals but usually just simple animals like bugs or pests. It's not generally used for pets or animals we care about. It's never used to refer to people.

If we had a non-gender specific pronoun in English that implied a person and not a "thing" then we could use that word.

[mrswdk]

If we had a non-gender specific pronoun in English that implied a person and not a "thing" then we could use that word.

They?

[jgordon1111]

Jim,some have used none gender reference to the almighty creator, and was told with hostile words their view was wrong, not in those exact words but close enough for here, anyone here of Jewish faith?

[tzor]

Most societies have references to God, many have references that are similar in many parts to Christianity.

There are channels (the Italian word canale (plural canali)) on Mars.

What does that have to do with the above quote? PLENTY. To quote WIkipedia, "At this time in the late 19th century, astronomical observations were made without photography. Astronomers had to stare for hours through their telescopes, waiting for a moment of still air when the image was clear, and then draw a picture of what they had seen." Looking at these fuzzy images for hours at a time they saw patterns in randomness that wasn't there. Some thought they dtected "intelligence" ... but the intelligence they discovered was on the other end of the telescope.

We have a wonderful ability to find patterns but sometimes we find patterns where they are none. The world is full of "conspiracy theorists." There was a recent article about this in Crisis Magazine

There are other reasons to doubt that a small secret cabal is running the show. For instance, what looks from the outside like a conspiracy may simply be the effect of like-minded people acting alike. When presidents and prime ministers pursue similar policies or respond in almost identical ways to world events, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are simultaneously receiving orders from above. It more likely means that they have been subject to similar educations, similar media, and similar forms of peer pressure.

We tend to find patterns where there are none. The commonality of the human experience tends to bind all people into similar common expressions. Even then, any differences can be ignored when we search for patterns that simply aren't there. This is especially true with religion and I always get a kick out of some of the attempts at pattern matching and the resulting conspiracy theories that develop from everything to the bishop's hat to notions such as "son of God."

Speaking of patterns which probably don't exist ...

Vote Hera for President 2016!
(If you loved President Zeus you will love President Hera!)

[tzor]

They?

The use of "they" as a third person singular (as opposed to the third person plural) isn't very popular.

"Though singular they has a long history of usage and is common in everyday English, its use has been criticized since the late nineteenth century, and acceptance varies."

[AndyDufresne]

Most societies have references to God, many have references that are similar in many parts to Christianity.

There are channels (the Italian word canale (plural canali)) on Mars.

What does that have to do with the above quote? PLENTY. To quote WIkipedia, "At this time in the late 19th century, astronomical observations were made without photography. Astronomers had to stare for hours through their telescopes, waiting for a moment of still air when the image was clear, and then draw a picture of what they had seen." Looking at these fuzzy images for hours at a time they saw patterns in randomness that wasn't there. Some thought they dtected "intelligence" ... but the intelligence they discovered was on the other end of the telescope.

This is partly a mischaracterization. The hype about "Canals" on Mars was more from translation errors than most scientists believing there were canals. The original observations recorded channels -- naturally made. Mistranlations and the views of some scientists (like Percival Lowell) looking to have information fit their predetermined view of Mars were more the culprits of the issue. It is true that we are great at seeing patterns, but your example is also an example of errors in communication as much as it is an example of patterns.


--Andy

[tzor]

This is partly a mischaracterization. The hype about "Canals" on Mars was more from translation errors than most scientists believing there were canals.

But the point wasn't that they were man made, but that they saw these straight line channels where there were none. The ability of the mind to find patterns where there are none resulting them in seeing these lines in the flickering and mostly blurry image of the planet.

[jimboston]

If we had a non-gender specific pronoun in English that implied a person and not a "thing" then we could use that word.

They?

Plural.

[jimboston]

Jim,some have used none gender reference to the almighty creator, and was told with hostile words their view was wrong, not in those exact words but close enough for here, anyone here of Jewish faith?

I'm sure many religious people would have a problem with anything other than "He" or "Father".

I never said that everyone is cool with the idea of a non-gender name for the Creator.

[Bernie Sanders]

Jim,some have used none gender reference to the almighty creator, and was told with hostile words their view was wrong, not in those exact words but close enough for here, anyone here of Jewish faith?

I'm sure many religious people would have a problem with anything other than "He" or "Father".

I never said that everyone is cool with the idea of a non-gender name for the Creator.

[mrswdk]

If we had a non-gender specific pronoun in English that implied a person and not a "thing" then we could use that word.

They?

Plural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

[AndyDufresne]

This is partly a mischaracterization. The hype about "Canals" on Mars was more from translation errors than most scientists believing there were canals.

But the point wasn't that they were man made, but that they saw these straight line channels where there were none. The ability of the mind to find patterns where there are none resulting them in seeing these lines in the flickering and mostly blurry image of the planet.

But the the point also is that communication and interpretation are hard, even when someone thinks they are being clear. It is a perfect example of that. Which is the same discussion jimboston and player seem to be having re: the Bible.


--Andy

[jimboston]

If we had a non-gender specific pronoun in English that implied a person and not a "thing" then we could use that word.

They?

Plural.

Not that I want a debate about the English language.
As there are many versions. Still, did you even read
the Wiki link you have here?

... from the Wiki article...
"A reason for its use is that English has no dedicated singular personal pronoun of indeterminate gender."

So "they or its' derivatives" as some used in a singular manner.

It's only because English doesn't have a proper pronoun for this use.

You could us "They" in some Christian Sects to refer to the Holy Trinity.
... and for this reason it might be appropriate to consider the idea that God may be "plural".
You could even argue that any Omniscient Being might be considered "They"/Plural; if said being can read minds and such.

I think though you would have to come up with a better pronoun than "they".

You could even argue that you should never use a pronoun to refer to God anyway.
That you should always use a Name or Title...
God, Yahweh, Creator, Almighty, Most High, etc.

Though some titles are gender specific... Father for example.

We could just agree to stop using those.

[jimboston]

same discussion jimboston and player seem to be having


--Andy

1) Please don't use my name and hers in the same sentence.

2) I wouldn't call it a discussion. It's like one way communication with an alien race.

[mrswdk]

If we had a non-gender specific pronoun in English that implied a person and not a "thing" then we could use that word.

They?

Plural.

Not that I want a debate about the English language.
As there are many versions. Still, did you even read
the Wiki link you have here?

... from the Wiki article...
"A reason for its use is that English has no dedicated singular personal pronoun of indeterminate gender."

So "they or its' derivatives" as some used in a singular manner.

It's only because English doesn't have a proper pronoun for this use.

If your going to be a grammar Nazi about it then here's another link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They

From that article:

They /ðeɪ/ is the third-person plural personal pronoun (subjective case) in Modern English. It can also be used with singular meaning, particularly in informal contexts, sometimes to avoid specifying the gender of the person referred to.

Regardless of what Miriam Webster's Dictionary for 100 year-olds says, 'they' can be used in the singular.

It's official \(^0^)/ God is now the Holy Parent/Guardian!

[mrswdk]

same discussion jimboston and player seem to be having


--Andy

1) Please don't use my name and hers in the same sentence.

2) I wouldn't call it a discussion. It's like one way communication with an alien race.

Noo, now Andy's gonna withdraw from the conversation and revert to Star Trek gifs.

[AndyDufresne]

same discussion jimboston and player seem to be having


--Andy

1) Please don't use my name and hers in the same sentence.

2) I wouldn't call it a discussion. It's like one way communication with an alien race.

Noo, now Andy's gonna withdraw from the conversation and revert to Star Trek gifs.

--Andy

[jimboston]

If we had a non-gender specific pronoun in English that implied a person and not a "thing" then we could use that word.

They?

Plural.

Not that I want a debate about the English language.
As there are many versions. Still, did you even read
the Wiki link you have here?

... from the Wiki article...
"A reason for its use is that English has no dedicated singular personal pronoun of indeterminate gender."

So "they or its' derivatives" as some used in a singular manner.

It's only because English doesn't have a proper pronoun for this use.

If your going to be a grammar Nazi about it then here's another link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They

From that article:

They /ðeɪ/ is the third-person plural personal pronoun (subjective case) in Modern English. It can also be used with singular meaning, particularly in informal contexts, sometimes to avoid specifying the gender of the person referred to.

Regardless of what Miriam Webster's Dictionary for 100 year-olds says, 'they' can be used in the singular.

It's official \(^0^)/ God is now the Holy Parent/Guardian!

I would say it's not an informal context when you are discussing the Creator.

I like "Holy Guardian". Sounds reassuring. Super-hero like.

[jgordon1111]

Ok, lets all agree, that we disagree, I came into this topic, for a reason,but organized religion has one purpose only, to continue the belief in the doctrines that they hold in regard, and as I have pointed out before it doesn't matter what name, title or affection you say, everyone is talking about the same entity. Player I gave you a few opportunities to stop you didn't your choice. Now we go a different route. Do you know where and what the word APOSTLE, comes from and means? No I am not reffering to the French word apostill, it close but not accurate. It is derived from Latin,apostate, meaning one who attests, which covers the disciples, 2 problems with the version you are taught, 1st Judas was replaced by Paul,which means that Jesus could not have picked him to go forth,because Paul replaced judas after Jesus ascension, and could not by the doctrine you follow be a APOSTLE, PLAYER I HAVE READ YOUR A WOMAN CORRECT? Now point2 WHO WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO SEE JESUS AFTER HE STEPPED OUTSIDE THE TOMB? If you know anything or read the book you support, then you know Mary m, saw him first and should have according to the original definition been a APOSTLE, yet she wasn't and isn't? Because religion can't allow a woman to hold EQUAL ground to a man, why? That would mean you are EQUAL and that isn't going to happen, not then not now.think about your response carefully Player because I can't point out more instances of this happening, ONE LIE or adjustment means more possible in texts that you follow. The question is why isn't this taught?who benefits?

[mrswdk]

Not that I want a debate about the English language.
As there are many versions.

...

proceeds to have an insanely pedantic debate about whether or not it is okay to use 'they' in the singular

I like "Holy Guardian". Sounds reassuring. Super-hero like.

I think they should call it ‘Batman'.

I mean, they complain about how kids find Christianity boring and don't go to church as a result. Some pyrotechnics and Batman punching the Joker through the organ and you'd have the kids flooding in.

[jimboston]

I think they should call it ‘Batman'.

I mean, they complain about how kids find Christianity boring and don't go to church as a result. Some pyrotechnics and Batman punching the Joker through the organ and you'd have the kids flooding in.

Our Batman
Who art in Gotham
Cowled be Thy Mane