To ALL the atheists

[Eng Grez]

you live 70-80 years in this world and never once will you pick up a bible, koran, or torah and read it thorougly.

just shows how ignorant you people are.

edit: this is to SOME of the athests, but most of them all. i was raised as a catholic. but then i started questioning my religion and i disagreed with a lot. plus, people told me the bible was changed. i believe there is a god and i want to find his true words. so right now i'm reading the torah and koran.

 

[sargentlard]

To ALL the atheists

you live 70-80 years in this world and never once will you pick up a bible, koran, or torah and read it thorougly.

just shows how ignorant you people are.

You have a very eskewed view of atheists don't you since you've easily taken it upon yourself to call them ignorant....hmmm...how is you reading the Bible or Koran or the Torah make you any less ignorant? A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf.

How do you conclude yourself to be any less sinister or more intellectual because you read ancient sciptures written by man? Does that make you a better human being? Does it make you a better speller or better at grammer?

i believe there is a god and i want to find his true words. so right now i'm reading the torah and koran.

...and it seems to start off by telling followers to be vindictive about peoples choices.

 

[Clockwood]

Faulty reasoning, Eng. An atheist may read through any number of holy books from an equal number of religions and still believe there is no supreme being. I have read several to better understand how people think but, as a mere agnostic, I can not use myself as an example but I know several who fit perfectly.

Intimate knowledge of a religion does not mean instant belief. An athiest may read a holy book and simply not be swayed as it is likely a case of "he said she said" through and through. Likewise, he may read several and see that they contradict each other, themselves, and even the way we know the universe is today. Without any proof why should he figure one should be true while all the others are not? If they are contradictory many must be flat out wrong.

I can understand an athiest's reasoning. One last thing: As you wish to know god's words, do you study math and physics. If you are a creationist, do you study genetics? After all, those are the languages god would have written in when he supposedly invented the universe and man.

 

[Raithere]

To this particular theist.

Well Eng, looks like you have some catching up to do. How many versions of the Bible have you read so far? King James, AS, NAS, Jeffersonian? How about the Apocrypha or the non-canonical gospels? It's not a bad idea to study the Quran and the Torah but it looks like you're still stuck in the Abrahamic traditions. Why don't you put the Vedas, the Tao-te Ching, the Confucian Cannon, and some Buddhist texts on your reading list.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most atheists in my experience come from a religious background and many are more well versed in theology than you.

It just goes to show how ignorant you are. But that's okay, stick around and we'll help you with it.

Welcome to SciForums.

~Raithere

 

[Bells]

Originally posted by Eng Grez
you live 70-80 years in this world and never once will you pick up a bible, koran, or torah and read it thorougly.

just shows how ignorant you people are.

edit: this is to SOME of the athests, but most of them all. i was raised as a catholic. but then i started questioning my religion and i disagreed with a lot. plus, people told me the bible was changed. i believe there is a god and i want to find his true words. so right now i'm reading the torah and koran.

No, I think it just goes to show how ignorant you actually are in falsely assuming that atheists have not read any form of religious texts.

i was raised as a catholic. but then i started questioning my religion and i disagreed with a lot. plus, people told me the bible was changed. i believe there is a god and i want to find his true words. so right now i'm reading the torah and koran.

So until you started questioning your religion you were even more of an ignoramus? And I have to ask, what pray tell are you looking for if you're looking for God's 'true word'. The holy texts you referred to were written by man and most have been altered over time to suit the changing attitudes which have prevailed over the past centuries. So in reality you are really looking for words that YOU THINK are the words of God. You have no way of finding his true words unless God comes down and sits in your loungeroom and talks to YOU directly.

 

[Xev]

you live 70-80 years in this world and never once will you pick up a bible, koran, or torah and read it thorougly.

Why bother, when they make such excellent stash boxes?

 

[okinrus]

I'm confused on how you are able to read the bible and not read the Torah? As to those people who say that the bible has been changed, perhaps you would rather ask what changed. Are you speaking of one sentance interpolations, an additional verse here and then, or the doctrines contained in the text itself?

You have no way of finding his true words unless God comes down and sits in your loungeroom and talks to YOU directly.

Have you found his true words? If not, you are you limiting God's power.

The holy texts you referred to were written by man and most have been altered over time to suit the changing attitudes which have prevailed over the past centuries

There was only a narrow period of time of about 50 or less years when most of the books of the bible could be modified and have changes propagated to all of the books in circulation.

 

[Godless]

Eng Grez

Are you joking?.

What kind of idiot comes here and claims that atheists are ignorant in a forum such as this?.

Did you expect to find a bunch of fundies here, claping there hands of your ignorant gestures agains us?

GIVE ME A F*CKING BREAK!!

This shows how ignorant you are!!

Most athiest come from religious backgrounds, we are all born atheists, some fall through the cracks of religious conformity, and start to question their religions, some become agnostics, others change religious devotions several times, then become athiests.

You sound like a very young naive person, thinking that we hardly pick up the bible, hell it is our best weapon. The bible is full of contradictions, so is your Torah, Qua'ran, et..all your ancient religious fundi books have contradictions.

I'm sorry to bust your buble Eng, but the universe and earth did not form in seven days, "hence there is a contradiction".
You have no proof of your being, and no way to prove a god, nor can you explain what god is, nor can you find wisdom beyond this world in ancient text, I won't bother to mention bad grammar, and poor speling, oops.. I've mentioned it!!.

Okinrus god has no power, only that which you allow it to have over you, which then it becomes totally subjective.

Godless.

 

[Calculusaurus]

So... using your logic and making a few safe assumptions, you think that atheists need to read religous scripture before they call themselves genuine atheists.

For convenience's sake, I'll talk about creationists and evolutionists--they well represent theists and atheists, I believe. I find it oh so interesting that nearlly ALL (hey, I'm in high school, I can make this assumption ) creationists don't know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to evolution. Ever heard the question: 'If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys'? Of course you have, and if you have been through experiences anything like my own, you have heard it a billion times. What a beautiful display of flaunted ignorance! It's unfortunate to see creationists debunk evolutionists' credibility by saying, 'you have not read the bible, therefore you cannot disbelieve in creation'.

Really, most atheists are generally informed of the plagues of religion. It has been mentioned in this thread a few times that atheists come from a religous background, usually. So I'm wondering why the hell theists don't have the obligation to learn of our knowledge and our 'truths'.

Yeah yeah, flame me for my assumptions... but they're safe, so don't nitpick.

 

[Godless]

okin....

Quote: (There was only a narrow period of time of about 50 or less years when most of the books of the bible could be modified and have changes propagated to all of the books in circulation)

Can you back up that statement?

Because I differ your opinion:

http://instructor.pbi.ab.ca/StevenIbbotson/RevScrip/earlyversions.html

By 250 AD, Latin had become the language of Christian writers and theologians. Thus, as the Bible was translated into Latin, within a century there were a fair number of textual variations. Thus, Pope Damasus I commissioned his secretary, Jerome, to write the Latin Vulgate as the "official" Latin Bible for the people. Jerome completed his translation of the Vulgate in 405 AD. An excellent scholar, he was able to translate the Bible into Latin from the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available at that time. The Latin Vulgate became the standard, official Bible of the Church for the next millennium (approx).

By and large, only the clergy could read the Scriptures in the time preceding the Reformation. Along with the people wanting to be able to read the Scriptures for themselves, the clergy also wanted to be able to read the Scripture in its original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic). This desire fueled the "demise" of the Vulgate.

The end result of this desire was Erasmus of Rotterdam's completion of the first printed text of the entire Greek New Testament in 1516. Upon study of the original Greek, a few errors of Church doctrine and practice were discovered because of Jerome's Latin translation of the Greek manuscripts 1100 years previous.

Examples:

A rough English translation of Matthew 4:17 in the Vulgate reads "Then Jesus began to preach and do penance." This became a basis for the Church's doctrine of penance, when in fact the proper translation is "Repent..."
Luke 1:28 is another example that led to the concept of the Immaculate Conception and the idea that Mary the mother of Jesus was without sin. The Vulgate translated the phrase "full of grace" rather than the more accurate translation "favored one" leading to Mary being considered as sinless like Christ.
In Ephesians 5:31-32, the Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin as sacramentum and thus marriage was a "sacrament" of the Church.

Thus, upon returning to the original languages, the doctrinal basis for a few of the church's practices was gone.


Godless.

 

[okinrus]

Quote: (There was only a narrow period of time of about 50 or less years when most of the books of the bible could be modified and have changes propagated to all of the books in circulation)

Can you back up that statement?

Yes, the New Testament was extensively quoted by the Church Fathers between 100AD and 150AD. I also think it highly unlikely that the major changes could be spread into all of the churches without a concience attempt at corrupting the bible.

By 250 AD, Latin had become the language of Christian writers and theologians. Thus, as the Bible was translated into Latin, within a century there were a fair number of textual variations. Thus, Pope Damasus I commissioned his secretary, Jerome, to write the Latin Vulgate as the "official" Latin Bible for the people. Jerome completed his translation of the Vulgate in 405 AD. An excellent scholar, he was able to translate the Bible into Latin from the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available at that time. The Latin Vulgate became the standard, official Bible of the Church for the next millennium (approx).

Latin is considerably more difficult language to translate Greek into than say english. What happened was that before the Vulgate there were a number of unofficial sloppy translations of the Greek texts into Latin.

A rough English translation of Matthew 4:17 in the Vulgate reads "Then Jesus began to preach and do penance." This became a basis for the Church's doctrine of penance, when in fact the proper translation is "Repent..."

I don't think this verse was ever a basis for the Church's doctrine on penance. Repentance expresses both confession of sin and turning away from sin, but a sorrowful heart will do penance. "Then the disciples of John came to Him saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.’" Matthew 9:14 - 15

Luke 1:28 is another example that led to the concept of the Immaculate Conception and the idea that Mary the mother of Jesus was without sin. The Vulgate translated the phrase "full of grace" rather than the more accurate translation "favored one" leading to Mary being considered as sinless like Christ.

Mary is considered sinless because Christ must be born from a pure vessle. The holy spirit could not concieve through her unless if she was clean. Yet if Mary had sinned, her sins could only be completely washed away when Jesus gave up his life. so just as the Ark of Covenant was built with precise dimensions so shall she. This doctrine is validated by the many apparitions of Mary that testify that she is sinless. We also know that Mary's heart was one with Christ's for it is written, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Isreal, and to be a sign that will be contradicted(and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." Thus if Mary did indeed sin, we would have Mary taking part in her own son's demise because when her son's heart was pierced, her heart was pierced as well.

In Ephesians 5:31-32, the Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin as sacramentum and thus marriage was a "sacrament" of the Church.

If for that matter, neither the last rites nor the Eucharist would be considered a sacrament. A sacrament is sacred ritual ordained by the Church. Jesus clearly considers marriage sacred because he says to let no man break what God has joined together.

 

[Godless]

Ok!!!

I've been educated in religious rhetoric... Thanks however there seems to be some contradiction. i.e.

Mary is considered sinless because Christ must be born from a pure vessle. The holy spirit could not concieve through her unless if she was clean. Yet if Mary had sinned, her sins could only be completely washed away when Jesus gave up his life. so just as the Ark of Covenant was built with precise dimensions so shall she. This doctrine is validated by the many apparitions of Mary that testify that she is sinless.

The above would be a contradiction of Original Sin, by my experience and what I know of original sin, one is "born" by sin, (cause the church and do gooders have something about sex I suppose!!) in order to be born without sin, then this would also make Marry by birth be born without a father, and her father would be a holy spirit, so shall her mom, so shall her mom, and on, and on.... See the contradiction?.

Changes in the bible do occur, and are still happening;
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/copyright.asp errors in traslation do occur as well, if an error is made this is change!. http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html




and BTW we are speaking of a very contradictory dichotomy btween old testament/new testament. What I'm trying to say is that the bible is very contradictory in itself;

http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html

well and with that I leave with a thought, to be anoited, as was Jesus is to be a herbalist specialist, hence the word anoited, this means Jesus was an old fashion pot head, no he didn't smoke it, but they did bathe in oil from cannabis.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html

Godless.

 

[one_raven]

I would just like to say that in my experience, most of the Atheists and Agnostics I have known were MUCH more versed than theists, not only in their own religion, but have had much wider knowledge of a myriad of religious beliefs and the histories of religions.

Tell me, how many Atheists have you met?
Are you basing this on blind assumption or do you actually have some first hand experience to base your opinion on?

 

[okinrus]

The above would be a contradiction of Original Sin, by my experience and what I know of original sin, one is "born" by sin, (cause the church and do gooders have something about sex I suppose!!) in order to be born without sin, then this would also make Marry by birth be born without a father, and her father would be a holy spirit, so shall her mom, so shall her mom, and on, and on.... See the contradiction?.

I wouldn't say we are born by Original Sin but that man has inherited the original curses given to Adam. Now, we believe in the immaculate conception which is a miracle. In order to be born without the stain sin, Mary would only have to be preserved from the effects of original sin. By this, she was fully clothed in the holy Spirit from birth without blemish.

Goddless your quoting chick now. Not a site that is reputable now is it? But I don't think you understand what is meant when a Christian says the Scriptures is inspired. You then give me this other site that slanders Justin Martyr and Clement. Goes on about "Vatican corruptions" I'm specifically speaking of corruptions that would change the meaning of important doctrines. Translation is not a problem here if the texts in the early church were read and copied from Greek into Greek. Only when the Greek text was translated into Latin would translation errors occur.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
I wouldn't say we are born by Original Sin but that man has inherited the original curses given to Adam. Now, we believe in the immaculate conception which is a miracle. In order to be born without the stain sin, Mary would only have to be preserved from the effects of original sin. By this, she was fully clothed in the holy Spirit from birth without blemish.

Goddless your quoting chick now. Not a site that is reputable now is it? But I don't think you understand what is meant when a Christian says the Scriptures is inspired. You then give me this other site that slanders Justin Martyr and Clement. Goes on about "Vatican corruptions" I'm specifically speaking of corruptions that would change the meaning of important doctrines. Translation is not a problem here if the texts in the early church were read and copied from Greek into Greek. Only when the Greek text was translated into Latin would translation errors occur.

----------
M*W: By the time all of this scripture was translated into the various English versions, I am quite sure there was much lost in the translations. I've read that the KJV has more than 3,000 errors in translation. You, too, have a problem with translation from English to English. Are your communication skills more proficient in another language? Unless one can read and understand the original languages of the O & NT's, or has an interpreter who is an expert on these languages, accuracy in translation IS definitely a problem. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians, who do not speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin, claim to interpret scriptures accurately (even though they were not the literal but INSPIRED word)! That's like me trying to interpret a CPAs knowledge of tax laws. My interpretations of tax laws to people who don't understand them are like Christians interpretations of O & NT Bible scripture to those who are looking for Biblical truths! Christians CANNOT translate the OT unless they know the actual Hebrew. Christians CANNOT translate the NT unless they know both Hebrew and the Aramaic dialect of Hebrew. By the time it was translated into Greek, one would need to know Hebrew, Aramaic AND Greek, or have an interpreter who could translate scripture accurately. Christians of ANY language, other than the one's I've mentioned above, are not in any position to translate scriptures accurately. You guys are translating very filtered down translations of somebody else's ideas. Christianity has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY unless it is interpreted by the original languages.

 

[okinrus]

Christians CANNOT translate the NT unless they know both Hebrew and the Aramaic dialect of Hebrew.

The NT was not written in Aramaic but Greek. It's obvious that your opinion has no bearing unless if you know the original texts.

Christians of ANY language, other than the one's I've mentioned above, are not in any position to translate scriptures accurately. You guys are translating very filtered down translations of somebody else's ideas. Christianity has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY unless it is interpreted by the original languages

I don't quite get what your talking about. By the catechism of the Catholic church, I do not have a right as a Catholic to interpret Scripture while claiming that my interpretation is perfectly correct and expresses the opinions of the Church. The translation is not really a problem because the translators write footnotes for verses that were difficult to translate.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
The NT was not written in Aramaic but Greek. It's obvious that your opinion has no bearing unless if you know the original texts.
----------
M*W: Young man, I do not profess to know or understand Hebrew OR Aramaic, but I will not accept any translation your or another Christian give. Only a Rabbi is versed in Hebrew and Aramaic.
----------
I don't quite get what your talking about. By the catechism of the Catholic church, I do not have a right as a Catholic to interpret Scripture while claiming that my interpretation is perfectly correct and expresses the opinions of the Church. The translation is not really a problem because the translators write footnotes for verses that were difficult to translate.
----------
M*W: Interesting. I'm glad you brought up the "footnotes." I thoroughly read those "footnotes," and that is where I found the truth. The small print tells the truth. Don't just read the Bible, read the "footnotes." The smallest print. That's where you'll find Christianity to be the biggest lie ever told! okinrus, get back to your reading of the "footnotes." I give you three slaps of a ruler on your wrists. Say three Hail Mary's and three Our Fathers for this post, and you may be forgiven.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: Young man, I do not profess to know or understand Hebrew OR Aramaic, but I will not accept any translation your or another Christian give. Only a Rabbi is versed in Hebrew and Aramaic.

First, I'm not that young nor do I give any translation of Scripture that was not reviewed by the scholars who translated the bible. I don't quite get what your trying to say. Second, Jerome was versed in Hebrew and Aramaic. Most Rabbis, however, only know hebrew. Not much of the bible is Aramaic. I think only Daniel and a few of the later prophets wrote in Aramaic. Most of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament use the Greek Septuagint.

okinrus, get back to your reading of the "footnotes." I give you three slaps of a ruler on your wrists. Say three Hail Mary's and three Our Fathers for this post, and you may be forgiven.

For what?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
First, I'm not that young nor do I give any translation of Scripture that was not reviewed by the scholars who translated the bible. I don't quite get what your trying to say. Second, Jerome was versed in Hebrew and Aramaic. Most Rabbis, however, only know hebrew. Not much of the bible is Aramaic. I think only Daniel and a few of the later prophets wrote in Aramaic. Most of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament use the Greek Septuagint.

For what?

----------
M*W: Ignorance, that's what!

 

[spidergoat]

I am atheist, but I try to read the Bible. In all sincerity, the more I read, the less I believe it as a true source for spiritual insight, and the more I see it as a cultural regulating mechanism. I mean, all that bullshit about who begat who, and what things are unclean, and all the hypocracy of God. He says we shall not kill, but he does it all the time. They call it the greatest book ever written? Give me the Tao Te Ching any day.