The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I just watched a documentary on the Gospel of Judas - an old religious document found recently, an equivalent of one of the 4 'main' gospels (Mark, Luke, John and Steve).
It turns out there used to be around 30 different gospels, and lots of different sects of christianity, primarily following different gospels.
At some point some guy wanted to consilidate all the sects decided to put 4 of the gospels into the bible and brush off all the others.
On the documentary there was a christian minister supporting the status quo - that the Gospel of Judas and all the others didn't matter.
His argument was 'It's a matter of faith. The ones in the bible count, and the others don't. No reason, just faith.'
Oh my god, it's so ridiculous. If you have a think about it, and decide your main 4 are the only ones which genuinely represent the word of god, fine. If you look at how the bible was put together, and come to the judgement that there was some divine intervention making it all valid, so be it.
I may not agree with the conclusions, which is fine. All I'm looking for is actual reasons they believe what they want to believe. Base it on an intangible faith in a god if you will - but let the faith in god, not the faith in everything you've been taught by flawed men.
The argument is essentially 'I've invested a lot of time in believing the bible, if I admit to myself I might have been wrong then my whole faith is invalid'.
To blindly refuse even to consider what the argument is, to just mentally shut up shop and stick your head in the sand, without even listening to the argument or trying to work out what your actual sense faith in god directs you to believe, in the name of fear of truth or change or being wrong - your opinions just become so worthless.
Obviously this doesn't apply to all christians. But the ones it does apply to.. it's repulsive negligence.
It turns out there used to be around 30 different gospels, and lots of different sects of christianity, primarily following different gospels.
At some point some guy wanted to consilidate all the sects decided to put 4 of the gospels into the bible and brush off all the others.
On the documentary there was a christian minister supporting the status quo - that the Gospel of Judas and all the others didn't matter.
His argument was 'It's a matter of faith. The ones in the bible count, and the others don't. No reason, just faith.'
Oh my god, it's so ridiculous. If you have a think about it, and decide your main 4 are the only ones which genuinely represent the word of god, fine. If you look at how the bible was put together, and come to the judgement that there was some divine intervention making it all valid, so be it.
I may not agree with the conclusions, which is fine. All I'm looking for is actual reasons they believe what they want to believe. Base it on an intangible faith in a god if you will - but let the faith in god, not the faith in everything you've been taught by flawed men.
The argument is essentially 'I've invested a lot of time in believing the bible, if I admit to myself I might have been wrong then my whole faith is invalid'.
To blindly refuse even to consider what the argument is, to just mentally shut up shop and stick your head in the sand, without even listening to the argument or trying to work out what your actual sense faith in god directs you to believe, in the name of fear of truth or change or being wrong - your opinions just become so worthless.
Obviously this doesn't apply to all christians. But the ones it does apply to.. it's repulsive negligence.
Page:
Ironically, the bible agrees with you. The whole universe which God created is itself a sign of Gods existence.
Romans 1:19-20
19 Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20
19 Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Yet the Pope still heads the Church, just as Apple dominate the MP3 player market.
Religion takes advantage of basic human frailties such as insufficient intellect, insecurity, groupthink and the Abilene paradox. Hence it is successful.
If there were any foundation to any religion whatsoever, the understanding would be both instinctive and universal. Instead, we are fed the woefully inadequate line of faith, because certainty is perpetually elusive.
If God exists, and frankly, while I sincerely doubt this, I'm not dismissive of the concept, I would be utterly stunned if the only method he had for communicating his moral image onto me was through a text written by human hands.
Religion takes advantage of basic human frailties such as insufficient intellect, insecurity, groupthink and the Abilene paradox. Hence it is successful.
If there were any foundation to any religion whatsoever, the understanding would be both instinctive and universal. Instead, we are fed the woefully inadequate line of faith, because certainty is perpetually elusive.
If God exists, and frankly, while I sincerely doubt this, I'm not dismissive of the concept, I would be utterly stunned if the only method he had for communicating his moral image onto me was through a text written by human hands.
That's the whole point of the protestant movement. There is no biblical reason why catholic priests should be "in tune" with God any more than anyone else. Exploiting this lie for money makes it even worse and is seen as many as a con.
The question I'd like response to from the religiously devout (and most pertinently Catholics and the like) is this: why, when in omnipotence, a deity can speak to anyone at any time, must devotion - and indeed cash - be directed at those who devote their lives to 'worship'?
Is there a purpose to structuring Catholicism as Christianity plc? Does an opulent Vatican more ably justify the faith?
Do you not feel like you're being conned?
Is there a purpose to structuring Catholicism as Christianity plc? Does an opulent Vatican more ably justify the faith?
Do you not feel like you're being conned?
I read an article a while back that certain species (such as Komodo Dragons) can have virgin births (well, not necessarily 'virgin', but births that didn't result from sex).
It's just a genetic thing. The ability to reporduce asexually when there are no mates around is better than not reproducing at all, since at least then the genes are passed on, and survive another generation.
So... Mary in Komoda Dragon shocker. :O
It's just a genetic thing. The ability to reporduce asexually when there are no mates around is better than not reproducing at all, since at least then the genes are passed on, and survive another generation.
So... Mary in Komoda Dragon shocker. :O
Mumbai Duck wrote:
>
>
>
> Interestingly, the earliest texts of the new testament, written
> in hebrew (I think) refer to the 'virgin' mary as 'maiden'. It
> was a misinterpretation in the translation into ancient greek
> (or some other language) that caused the whole 'virgin birth'
> thing.
> However, later texts incorporated into the new testament were
> written in greek (or whatever the second language was) continued
> to refer to mary as a 'virgin'.
>
>
The only time the word 'virgin' is used in the account of Jesus' birth is when its taken as a direct quotation from old testament prophecies. The story says that when Joseph found out about Mary's pregnancy he was going to split up with her but he did because she conceived by the Holy Spirit and also says that they didnt have sex together until after the birth.
Basically, the new testament doenst explicitly refer to Mary as "the virgin". It says that she didnt have sex and that the baby was of the Holy Spirit. The only mention of the word virgin is as a comparison to a prophecy. I dont know where you got your information from, but it isnt a very good or accurate source.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, the earliest texts of the new testament, written
> in hebrew (I think) refer to the 'virgin' mary as 'maiden'. It
> was a misinterpretation in the translation into ancient greek
> (or some other language) that caused the whole 'virgin birth'
> thing.
> However, later texts incorporated into the new testament were
> written in greek (or whatever the second language was) continued
> to refer to mary as a 'virgin'.
>
>
The only time the word 'virgin' is used in the account of Jesus' birth is when its taken as a direct quotation from old testament prophecies. The story says that when Joseph found out about Mary's pregnancy he was going to split up with her but he did because she conceived by the Holy Spirit and also says that they didnt have sex together until after the birth.
Basically, the new testament doenst explicitly refer to Mary as "the virgin". It says that she didnt have sex and that the baby was of the Holy Spirit. The only mention of the word virgin is as a comparison to a prophecy. I dont know where you got your information from, but it isnt a very good or accurate source.
Geffdof wrote:
> The books of the new testament existed and were passed around and
> used by early Christians for hundreds of years before the bible
> was compiled into a book. I personally don't see how it was
> edited in any way.
If this was replying to me, the 'editing' I referred to was the selective inclusion of gospels that fitted the religion's political motivations of the day - to be easily understandable, to distance themselves from and smear the jewish faith.
The others were dumped because they didn't fit the political drives of the day. Thus the contents of the bible was determined by man.
Interestingly, the earliest texts of the new testament, written in hebrew (I think) refer to the 'virgin' mary as 'maiden'. It was a misinterpretation in the translation into ancient greek (or some other language) that caused the whole 'virgin birth' thing.
However, later texts incorporated into the new testament were written in greek (or whatever the second language was) continued to refer to mary as a 'virgin'.
This demonstrates that wherever errors and alterations creep in (look at the yanks trying to selectively reinterpret 'thou shall not kill' as 'thou shall not murder', and then selectively interpret 'murder' as allowing the death penalty - just like matey who chose the gospels, people are always trying to tweak the bible to fit their contemporary moralities) - anyway, as the alterations creep in, they get repeated and magnified.
To turn a blind eye to all the human input into the 'word of god' is exactly the kind of blind refusal to examine one's own beliefs that makes those beliefs so laughably hollow.
Well, it's laughable until you use those pretent ridiculous beliefs, that you protect only by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting to drown out reason, to justify murdering, persecuting and discriminating against millions of people.
Humanity sucks. Natural selection filters to keep us retarded.
> The books of the new testament existed and were passed around and
> used by early Christians for hundreds of years before the bible
> was compiled into a book. I personally don't see how it was
> edited in any way.
If this was replying to me, the 'editing' I referred to was the selective inclusion of gospels that fitted the religion's political motivations of the day - to be easily understandable, to distance themselves from and smear the jewish faith.
The others were dumped because they didn't fit the political drives of the day. Thus the contents of the bible was determined by man.
Interestingly, the earliest texts of the new testament, written in hebrew (I think) refer to the 'virgin' mary as 'maiden'. It was a misinterpretation in the translation into ancient greek (or some other language) that caused the whole 'virgin birth' thing.
However, later texts incorporated into the new testament were written in greek (or whatever the second language was) continued to refer to mary as a 'virgin'.
This demonstrates that wherever errors and alterations creep in (look at the yanks trying to selectively reinterpret 'thou shall not kill' as 'thou shall not murder', and then selectively interpret 'murder' as allowing the death penalty - just like matey who chose the gospels, people are always trying to tweak the bible to fit their contemporary moralities) - anyway, as the alterations creep in, they get repeated and magnified.
To turn a blind eye to all the human input into the 'word of god' is exactly the kind of blind refusal to examine one's own beliefs that makes those beliefs so laughably hollow.
Well, it's laughable until you use those pretent ridiculous beliefs, that you protect only by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting to drown out reason, to justify murdering, persecuting and discriminating against millions of people.
Humanity sucks. Natural selection filters to keep us retarded.
The main 'editing' would have been done by the monks that wrote up most of the contents. Many people couldn't write and it was down to the monks to compile teachings, sometimes letters and other times taken from oral tradition, into scripture.
The eventual formation of the Bible as it is today comes from the people closest to Jesus who documented his life, rather than those that were written later or were based on speculation rather than teachings.
I think the programme latched onto the Judas thing because they knew it would cause a stir, being Judas rather than anyone else, but it's just one of many texts written at that time.
The eventual formation of the Bible as it is today comes from the people closest to Jesus who documented his life, rather than those that were written later or were based on speculation rather than teachings.
I think the programme latched onto the Judas thing because they knew it would cause a stir, being Judas rather than anyone else, but it's just one of many texts written at that time.
Erm, I don't know if you're replying to me or someone else...
I haven't said anything about editing or changing or anything. Just about the criteria for certain Gospels being included in the Bible where others were not.
I haven't said anything about editing or changing or anything. Just about the criteria for certain Gospels being included in the Bible where others were not.
The books of the new testament existed and were passed around and used by early Christians for hundreds of years before the bible was compiled into a book. I personally don't see how it was edited in any way.
Page: