Religulous the movie

MHz
#31
Ever read the preface to the KJV 1611 edition? They made quite a point of explaining how they did the translation, what material they used etc., I'm quite sure they were very sincere in their commission, a translation that was free from RCC influence. (I think the RCC was taxing the King of England quite a bit of money to absolve the King of his carnal sins)

How is that method better (at understanding the Bible itself) than reading and rereading and ending up reading that passage even more times if it covers more than one event. (those other events lead back to that passage)

Ever read the Wycliff edition, WOW, those guys could sure swing a mean pen.

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

This version gives you the impression that one is worse than the other. That aspect is missing in the KJV as it used the very same word. (leaving one to consider that God is on one side so the 'bruise' will be more because God is more). Same conclusion just a slightly different route.
 
tracy
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by IslandpacificView Post

Tracy: Do you believe in love? How do you prove to someone that you love them. How does someone prove their love to you? Not hugs, kisses or anything else proves love but we all believe in it. Does that make that belief irrational?

This is a silly comparison. An emotion humans feel isn't the same thing as a believing 100% in a religion's stories. Though, you may be interested to know that there is more and more research going into emotions. Because of my job, I'm particularly aware of that being done in the area of parental bonding with infants. They have done a lot of work in examining the chemicals the body releases.

Believing that God came to earth in another form, impregnated a virgin who then gave birth to himself so he could live and die on earth for our sins is a little different that believing in an emotion all humans experience... there is no evidence other than a book. The same book that says a man lived in the belly of a whale and a snake and a burning bush talk to people and that a guy built a boat and put every species in the world on it to have sex. The mormons have a book too, so why not believe their book? God is a man, he lives on a star and magic underwear protects you. Why is that different from your bible? That's what makes religion so irrational: the arbitrary nature of it. You BELIEVE in your Bible, you BELIEVE in its version of God, you just KNOW it's true... But if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would BELIEVE in the KORAN, you would BELIEVE in its version of God, you would just KNOW it was true.

The simple truth is no one on earth can KNOW the nature of God or if there even is one. Belief and true knowledge are two different things.
 
tracy
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

It isn't something that is likely to apply to me, at least at this time.....I kind of like the way Neb took care of 'enemies of the state', he killed them (threw them to the lions, literally, then he threw all the relatives in also). But then you only see the Bible as myths don't you?\.

This is a perfect example of the dissonance I see with Christianity. God is so loving that he sent his only son to die for us. Jesus preached turning the other cheek and loving your fellow man, that all of our sins can be forgiven.... but killing an enemy by throwing him to the lions is ok. I mean that's cruel enough on its own. Then you add killing all his relatives in the same way and that's a good Christian thing to do?
 
tracy
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Actually I did read those Books in a Bible that had the quotes in red. (weighed about 10 lbs and covered your whole lap. LOL)When I included the other words it was more like a soap opera than a 'quite long sermon'.
By dismissing the black letters did that also mean you missed this part. The character of Jesus (His moral code) meant that when the story of the adulteress that was in danger of being stoned to death was never mentioned by name, nor was the sinner woman who dried His feet with her hair mentioned by name, yet (to give us the whole story) their names were given after those incidents and they had become followers of Jesus). Now they are remembered that way rather than as sinners. Joanna and Susanna if you didn't already have that figured out.

You may enjoy the book Misquoting Jesus. It explores how scribes either intentionally or unintentionally changed the Bible over time. Apparently that story about the adulteress may have been added later, since it isn;t in the earlier copies of the Bible.
 
Zzarchov
Avatar
#35
Tracy "Magic Underwear" does protect you. They are called condoms and I don't think they should be derided as fantastical impossibilities :P
 
petros
#36
Sounds more like a diaper than a condom.
 
Zzarchov
Avatar
#37
If you can knock a woman up while wearing a diaper you let me know.
 
MHz
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by tracyView Post

This is a perfect example of the dissonance I see with Christianity. God is so loving that he sent his only son to die for us. Jesus preached turning the other cheek and loving your fellow man, that all of our sins can be forgiven.... but killing an enemy by throwing him to the lions is ok. I mean that's cruel enough on its own. Then you add killing all his relatives in the same way and that's a good Christian thing to do?

That happened in the book of Daniel, the King's (Neb) advisors tried to get Daniel fed to the lions. Neb had to put Daniel in there but it went against his own wants (as he liked Daniel more than he liked the advisors). In the morning he rushed down there and was pleasantly surprised to find Daniel alive. As they were walking away, the King's arm about Daniels shoulders he turned to his guards and, quite casually said, "Toss them and their relatives to the lions."

Why would you think that came from the teachings of the NT?

Do you think politicians and bankers and business men would be honest if the punishment for dishonesty was death for you and your relatives. I know for a fact my relatives would be enforcing that themselves.
 
Zzarchov
#39
Oh honour killings! thats a great system!

:\
 
petros
Avatar
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

If you can knock a woman up while wearing a diaper you let me know.

Never doubt a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes....by then you are a mile away and have his shoes and can say anything.
 
tracy
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Why would you think that came from the teachings of the NT?
.

The God of the OT is different? The NT is just a continuation of the same God, no? So how would he be right in all his mass murders (the OT is full of em) and still be right in promising everyone love and salvation in the NT? Why not come out with the correct message first?
 
Zzarchov
Avatar
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by tracyView Post

The God of the OT is different? The NT is just a continuation of the same God, no? So how would he be right in all his mass murders (the OT is full of em) and still be right in promising everyone love and salvation in the NT? Why not come out with the correct message first?


In the old Testament god is angry and jealous.

In the new Testament he is laid back and lovey.


What happened in between? Not sure, but Mary popped out his kid so one can guess.
 
Ron in Regina
Avatar
#43
This Thread was originally started about this Movie about religion. How many people on this
Thread have actually seen this Movie???

Perhaps one could qualify their arguments before jumping in with both feet by stating that
they've either "seen" or "not seen" the Movie first. Is this an unreasonable request???
 
tracy
#44
Me. I started the thread and I've seen the movie. It was entertaining.
 
SirJosephPorter
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by tracyView Post

The God of the OT is different? The NT is just a continuation of the same God, no? So how would he be right in all his mass murders (the OT is full of em) and still be right in promising everyone love and salvation in the NT? Why not come out with the correct message first?

Quite right, Tracy, OT and NT form a seamless continuum. Indeed, religious right quotes OT when it suits them. Thus the opposition to homosexuality is largely based upon OT (Leviticus).

The medieval witch burnings and Salem witch trials were based on OT, ‘Thus shalt not suffer a witch to live’ (Exodus).

The angry and vengeful God fits the temperament of religious right perfectly. Right wing Christianity is characterized by opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexuality, to contraception, support for Creationism etc.

New Testament advocates compassion, charity, love thy neighbour, help the needy, poor etc., these are not religious right issues.

So when religious right supporters like MHz claim that OT does not represent the Bible, they are being disingenuous, dishonest (why, his God even gives him brownie points for insulting others).
 
Cliffy
Avatar
#46
Even in humans, parenthood tends to mellow out the male of the species. Perhaps god got all maternal on us after JC came on the scene. But them he made him die a horrible painful death. Maybe by then his old patterns were coming back into play. After all, JC was supposed to die for our sins but we still get to go to hell if we don't bow down and kiss his butt. Weirdness, I tell you. Weirdness!
 

Similar Threads

1
Three and Out (movie)
by Blackleaf | Apr 27th, 2008
no new posts