RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon

RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 3:58:35 PM)
quote: The KJV is the least accurate version you could possibly use. Not that I would find any English translation that accurute, why do you claim that, and which would you support?

Kirata -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 4:45:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Wow. Is it just me, or has this thread drifted? You have a gift for understatement. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 5:06:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Wow. Is it just me, or has this thread drifted? You have a gift for understatement. K. Don't speak to me unless I speak to you first, K. You're an American, therefore deeply inferior.

Kirata -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 6:13:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Don't speak to me unless I speak to you first, K. You're an American, therefore deeply inferior. My cat typed that. He's English. [image]local://upfiles/235229/E1E453817E704FB994C62EE8406505F0.jpg[/image] Can't you tell? K.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 6:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri ...so homosexuality may still be a sin, but the "put to death" thing may not apply anymore. Let me try repeating myself. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel ...Christianity is not a religion of tolerance... See what I'm saying this time? Yes, I get it. It has rules that aren't supposed to be broken. You're right on that. There are rules. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I prefer the language of the King James Version and find issue with the vagaries of the collected versions. I even accept that the KJV isn't a perfect translation. The KJV is the least accurate version you could possibly use. Forgive me if I don't place full belief regarding the accuracy of translations of the Bible from an avowed atheist. [:D] I accept it's not perfect. I accept that I can't read Hebrew, so I can't read the original text. I prefer to use KJV because of the language used.

littlewonder -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 6:43:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheCristalDomme I personally think all religions have their "grey" areas. That's why I chose buddhism. You do realize that Buddhism has the same "violent grey areas" as well, right? Buddhists have many of the same tenants as Christianity and Islam that everyone seems to hate so much. It's just become more PC to reflect the new "Western Buddhism". Westerners tend to gloss over and pick and choose in Buddhism the same as those who are Christian or Islamic.

slvemike4u -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 6:57:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Wow. Is it just me, or has this thread drifted? You have a gift for understatement. K. Don't speak to me unless I speak to you first, K. You're an American, therefore deeply inferior. Peon ,have you heard what they say about broken clocks ? [:D]

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 6:58:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ Helping to keep things sane and rational, we now have this screed: Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American /sarcasm K. seems to be part of a wider media trend.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 8:31:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is the section you quoted related to the rant you've spouted? It was inspired by it. Nothing more. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you disputing my take on the relevancy of the OT/NT to Christianity, or just sniping that it's too convenient an excuse? I do not know your take on the relevance of the OT/NT to Christianity, you have expressed none AFAIK. You only stated that they reflect different moral viewpoints, which is true, but says nothing about their relative or absolute relevance on Christianity. If I remember well. Yes, it is too convenient an excuse and used frequently nowadays. Yes, I was telling this, between other things. It was not a rant, but you can call it a "preventive statement". Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 8:42:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Forgive me if I don't place full belief regarding the accuracy of translations of the Bible from an avowed atheist. [:D] Even sharing your skepticism about any statement given without any kind of proof or argument (and there I 100% understand you) I do not understand why you use his/her Atheism as argument. Would you only accept interpretations of Hitler's words from a nazi? Or Mao's ideology only from a maoist? Would you prefer to rely only on ancient believers of the Greek gods in order to understand Greek mythology? This makes no sense - the believers may be (usually) more interested, but the none believers can be as interested as the believers, and can be more objective, neutral, scientific in their interpretations. Of course you can think that being objective, netural and / or scientific is wrong when reading the Bible. Ok. Accepted. But using it as argument for not accepting an opinion... this is weird. Still... I understand this as a "rant" in answer to a completely unfounded, not argumented disqualification from the other participant. So, I understand you. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I prefer to use KJV because of the language used. This is not quite an argument as well, isn't it? It is an aesthetic taste (if I understand it right, my English is not perfect). I recommend you the Bible of Jerusalem. It was made by an international team with Atheists, Agnostics, Christians from many denominations, Jews... whose common criteria was, that they were all scientists: archeologists, philologists, etc. I know that in circles of advanced theologians from at least two version of Christianity (Lutheranism and Catholicism) it is highly respected as translation... and that it is strongly criticized by the fanatics from both sides because it does not "hide" the problems. Just a hint, for the case you want to investigate on it. Best regards, again.

JeffBC -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/17/2013 8:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Buddhists have many of the same tenants as Christianity and Islam that everyone seems to hate so much. Really? Given the very long history of Buddhism and the corresponding myriad of schools which have been spawned out of it I'd say that it depends on which school you're looking at. Some of them are more philosophical and lack the issues you are talking about. Some of them are more mystical and probably contain these issues. But given the vast complexity, I have a hard time talking about "Buddhism" as a single entity.

hlen5 -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 1:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata .......My cat typed that. He's English. [image]local://upfiles/235229/E1E453817E704FB994C62EE8406505F0.jpg[/image] Can't you tell? K. My first cat looked just like this! I miss her so.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 2:09:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Forgive me if I don't place full belief regarding the accuracy of translations of the Bible from an avowed atheist. [:D] Even sharing your skepticism about any statement given without any kind of proof or argument (and there I 100% understand you) I do not understand why you use his/her Atheism as argument. Would you only accept interpretations of Hitler's words from a nazi? Or Mao's ideology only from a maoist? Would you prefer to rely only on ancient believers of the Greek gods in order to understand Greek mythology? This makes no sense - the believers may be (usually) more interested, but the none believers can be as interested as the believers, and can be more objective, neutral, scientific in their interpretations. Seriously? I think a man of faith would be much more credible in this arena. But, that's just me. And, even if GS was a man of faith, I still wouldn't simply accept his critique without a bit more evidence. quote: Of course you can think that being objective, netural and / or scientific is wrong when reading the Bible. Ok. Accepted. But using it as argument for not accepting an opinion... this is weird. Still... I understand this as a "rant" in answer to a completely unfounded, not argumented disqualification from the other participant. So, I understand you. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I prefer to use KJV because of the language used. This is not quite an argument as well, isn't it? It is an aesthetic taste (if I understand it right, my English is not perfect). I recommend you the Bible of Jerusalem. It was made by an international team with Atheists, Agnostics, Christians from many denominations, Jews... whose common criteria was, that they were all scientists: archeologists, philologists, etc. I know that in circles of advanced theologians from at least two version of Christianity (Lutheranism and Catholicism) it is highly respected as translation... and that it is strongly criticized by the fanatics from both sides because it does not "hide" the problems. Just a hint, for the case you want to investigate on it. Best regards, again. Yes, it absolutely is aesthetics. I'm not saying the KJV is a better translation than anything else, just that I prefer it.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 3:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Seriously? I think a man of faith would be much more credible in this arena. But, that's just me. And, even if GS was a man of faith, I still wouldn't simply accept his critique without a bit more evidence. I am 100% with you on the last one. That's why I tried to give arguments to my suggestion... and it was only a suggestion, not a blatant disqualification (slapface). On the first I still do not understand you. How can somebody who is compelled by faith to interpret texts is a certain way, be more reliable and someone who is not? I do not understand this, really. An example: Let us say there is a massacre in the Bible. And two possible interpretations: Yahveh is a monster, or the victims were actually guilty of something (whatever) which justifies the massacre. The believer on this Yahveh is compelled by faith to reject the first option, no matter the arguments or the facts are. The non-believer is not. If course some fanatic anti-believers may be compelled to choose the second, but as a general rule, the non-believer can support the first or the second depending on the facts. Me as example: Yahveh being or not a monster in a certain part of the Bible absolutely does not affect my arguments why I think that He does not exist at all. So... one puts first the conclusions and then analyses the facts. The second has at least the chance to do it the other way around. How can you argue that the first is more reliable? I do not get it. But I do not want to "win by exhaustion" :D so I let it be here. You answer if you want. Best regards.

Rule -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 4:02:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster An example: Let us say there is a massacre in the Bible. And two possible interpretations: Yahveh is a monster, or the victims were actually guilty of something (whatever) which justifies the massacre. Indeed the victims were guilty of something. Most likely of being savages. The difference with the Boston bombs explosions is that in Boston a savage attacked civilized people.

Moonhead -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 4:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Don't speak to me unless I speak to you first, K. You're an American, therefore deeply inferior. My cat typed that. He's English. [image]local://upfiles/235229/E1E453817E704FB994C62EE8406505F0.jpg[/image] Can't you tell? K. That cat looks Burmese to me...

PeonForHer -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 5:28:14 AM)
quote: My cat typed that. He's English. He sure does look smug enough. [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 5:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Seriously? I think a man of faith would be much more credible in this arena. But, that's just me. And, even if GS was a man of faith, I still wouldn't simply accept his critique without a bit more evidence. I am 100% with you on the last one. That's why I tried to give arguments to my suggestion... and it was only a suggestion, not a blatant disqualification (slapface). On the first I still do not understand you. How can somebody who is compelled by faith to interpret texts is a certain way, be more reliable and someone who is not? I do not understand this, really. An example: Let us say there is a massacre in the Bible. And two possible interpretations: Yahveh is a monster, or the victims were actually guilty of something (whatever) which justifies the massacre. The believer on this Yahveh is compelled by faith to reject the first option, no matter the arguments or the facts are. The non-believer is not. If course some fanatic anti-believers may be compelled to choose the second, but as a general rule, the non-believer can support the first or the second depending on the facts. Me as example: Yahveh being or not a monster in a certain part of the Bible absolutely does not affect my arguments why I think that He does not exist at all. So... one puts first the conclusions and then analyses the facts. The second has at least the chance to do it the other way around. How can you argue that the first is more reliable? I do not get it. But I do not want to "win by exhaustion" :D so I let it be here. You answer if you want. Best regards. "Grading" the various translations (not doing the translations themselves) by someone who thinks the Bible is utter bullshit isn't credible, IMO. As far as who is doing the translating, that's a completely different story, and has more to do with their ability to translate from old language to new language. The translation you recommended didn't strike me as worthless because of the mix of faiths (or lack of faiths) of the translators.

GotSteel -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 10:13:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Seriously? I think a man of faith would be much more credible in this arena. But, that's just me. And, even if GS was a man of faith, I still wouldn't simply accept his critique without a bit more evidence. My faith shouldn't be relevant it's my knowledge on the subject that should determine whether my positions credible. As such you should find my opinion more credible than a man of faith as atheists typically know more about the Bible (that research is what turned a lot of us into atheists). As for why, here's a brief list of my criticisms: 1. It's archaic english renders it more difficult to understand than translations written in a form of english which you're actually fluent in. 2. Advances in scholarship and access to earlier, more accurate manuscripts allow modern translations to be more accurate. 3. Modern efforts lack the bias of King James' patronage: quote: ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Explosions at Boston Marathon (4/18/2013 11:14:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Seriously? I think a man of faith would be much more credible in this arena. But, that's just me. And, even if GS was a man of faith, I still wouldn't simply accept his critique without a bit more evidence. My faith shouldn't be relevant it's my knowledge on the subject that should determine whether my positions credible. As such you should find my opinion more credible than a man of faith as atheists typically know more about the Bible (that research is what turned a lot of us into atheists). Sorry. Not worth a hill of shit, IMO. quote: As for why, here's a brief list of my criticisms: 1. It's archaic english renders it more difficult to understand than translations written in a form of english which you're actually fluent in. Notice that I've said I prefer it because I like the language used. I acknowledge that the translation is flawed. I didn't go into it thinking it was the most accurate. quote: 2. Advances in scholarship and access to earlier, more accurate manuscripts allow modern translations to be more accurate. 3. Modern efforts lack the bias of King James' patronage: quote: ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. So, now you have just brought up two points that may conflict with each other. The idea that advances in scholarship make more modern translations more accurate, yet point out that modern KJV translations don't have the patronage. Now, unless you are claiming that the original 1611 KJV wasn't accurate to begin with, then your argument distills down to modern translations being both better and worse. Brilliant!

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

8.007813E-02