• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 10th November 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Bible (Miscellaneous)

Swifty

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
34,235
Ghost In The Machine said:
I think part of it comes from that Christian culture of "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." which is very negative and dismissive. But also a deep part of culture ..
Click to expand...

Can that famous quote be pinned on/attributed to the Christian culture? ..

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-12.htm
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
I dunno - its from t'bible..? I had to look it up. My bible knowledge is just about pub quiz level.
Click to expand...
Mine too and I claim to be a Christian. I went for a walk through the woods with one of our pastors (not for religious reasons, we were going to get some fish and chips) and I told him when he asked me that I tried to live by the 10 commandments when I could .. he asked me what they all were. That's a conversation I wish had never been started, he's a diamond of a man though but I got owned.
 
Swifty said:
Mine too and I claim to be a Christian. I went for a walk through the woods with one of our pastors (not for religious reasons, we were going to get some fish and chips) and I told him when he asked me that I tried to live by the 10 commandments when I could .. he asked me what they all were. That's a conversation I wish had never been started, he's a diamond of a man though but I got owned.
Click to expand...

The non-coveting of the neighbour's wife/oxen is a doddle.
 
Swifty said:
Both of my neighbour's wives are mooses .. joking aside, I thought it meant don't desire things you don't deserve .. don't lust after stuff you shouldn't lust after ..
Click to expand...

Depends how it's taken. Fundamentalists can be very literal whereas, as you say, a more general reading of it is about the temptations of envy.

Which is it though? Do we discard the bits written to address the specific issues of the time, between the 16th and 13th centuries BC? Or do we reinterpret them to cover how we live now? So where is the truth? How can we obey laws that don't apply to us? Who has the right interpret them? How do we know if they are capable? etc

Actually I'm sorry I asked this because the only answer is an aeons-long theological debate.
I will still post it though, to show my willpower.
 
escargot said:
The non-coveting of the neighbour's wife/oxen is a doddle.
Click to expand...

The farm down the road has some really lovely cows, and I sometimes pass their field when I'm out on my run and look over the hedge thinking how nice the cows are. Sometimes they come up to the hedge and blow through the hawthorn at me, and it's all so lovely and rural and sweet. I hope I am not inadvertently coveting John's oxen (they are dairy heifers though, so it's unlikely, but it's the intent rather than the oxenic actuality, isn't it?)
 
escargot said:
The non-coveting of the neighbour's wife/oxen is a doddle.
Click to expand...

I am lucky in being saved from temptation by the fact that my neighbour doesn't own any oxen.

He's got a cracker of an electric bike though that I covet on an almost daily basis.
 
Swifty said:
Mine too and I claim to be a Christian. I went for a walk through the woods with one of our pastors (not for religious reasons, we were going to get some fish and chips) and I told him when he asked me that I tried to live by the 10 commandments when I could .. he asked me what they all were. That's a conversation I wish had never been started, he's a diamond of a man though but I got owned.
Click to expand...
Never discuss shop talk with the religious, they won't listen to logic...
 
Kryptonite said:
I am lucky in being saved from temptation by the fact that my neighbour doesn't own any oxen.

He's got a cracker of an electric bike though that I covet on an almost daily basis.
Click to expand...

You're on safe ground - the bible doesn't mention electric bikes. No hell for you in this respect but try to avoid killing him or shagging his wife.
 
escargot said:
Depends how it's taken. Fundamentalists can be very literal whereas, as you say, a more general reading of it is about the temptations of envy.

Which is it though? Do we discard the bits written to address the specific issues of the time, between the 16th and 13th centuries BC? Or do we reinterpret them to cover how we live now? So where is the truth? How can we obey laws that don't apply to us? Who has the right interpret them? How do we know if they are capable? etc

Actually I'm sorry I asked this because the only answer is an aeons-long theological debate.
I will still post it though, to show my willpower.
Click to expand...

I think the general 'truth' of the ten commandments stands up to modern life - eg, even if (say, for example) I didn't much like my parents I still honour them for the fact that they spawned me and dragged me up. I'd never see them homeless or destitute. As I really rather like my parents very much, I honour them greatly.

It seems to be a big ball-ache spiritually speaking to compare and covet the material possessions of others (in BC Middle East the ox and the ass were maybe the camper van or sports car of the times!) so sensible to ditch that way of thinking.

Do not murder (*not* worded thou shalt not kill, as commonly thought) is a no-brainer. [Edited to add: The original Hebrew 'rétzakh' רֶצַח which translates as murder/unlawfully kill is sometimes rendered in much older translations (eg KJV) as simply 'kill']

The only one that seems to have to gone to the wall (apart from in my own home) is taking the name(s) in vain. I don't mind a good swear. I relish a really creative rudey words phrase but hearing anyone using 'Christ!' or 'oh my god!' in a non-literal way just makes my spine seem to creep up, hard to explain. I wasn't brought up with overly religious adults (mostly non-religious) but I did go the a CofE primary (the happy clappy progressive type) so maybe some of it came from there.


Tigerhawk said:
Never discuss shop talk with the religious, they won't listen to logic...
Click to expand...

Quite a big generalisation? 'they' aren't a separate group of others, some of 'they' might be on here. 'they' can range from the Tibetan Buddhists to Holy Rollers to Sufi dervishes.
 
Last edited:
Tigerhawk said:
Never discuss shop talk with the religious, they won't listen to logic...
Click to expand...

AnonyJoolz said:
Quite a big generalisation? 'they' aren't a separate group of others, some of 'they' might be on here. 'they' can range from the Tibetan Buddhists to Holy Rollers to Sufi dervishes.
Click to expand...

@AnonyJoolz Quite! :)

@Tigerhawk Both the Pastor and Swifty are of the same persuasion - not sure what you are getting at with this? :confused:
 
An atheist friend of mine used to say "Jesus Christ!" all the time. I would ask him "Why do you call on the Christ when you do not believe?"
 
Tigerhawk said:
Never discuss shop talk with the religious, they won't listen to logic...
Click to expand...
AnonyJoolz said:
Quite a big generalisation? 'they' aren't a separate group of others, some of 'they' might be on here. 'they' can range from the Tibetan Buddhists to Holy Rollers to Sufi dervishes.
Click to expand...
Frideswide said:


[USER=51949]@Tigerhawk Both the Pastor and Swifty are of the same persuasion - not sure what you are getting at with this? :confused:
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase that - never talk shop with the weirdly religious. They won't listen to logic...

I'd rather talk to Swifty than most people...
 
It seems misleading to base beliefs on a translation of an ancient text made years ago as being authoritative. The history of Christianity has been filled with more sects and offshoots than you can shake a stick at, from Gnostics to Orthodoxy to Mormonism. Not all of these would believe in the narrow definition cooked up by modern society for various isolated passages, much less the earliest versions of what became the Christian church.

There is a book that I dig called Ken's Guide To The Bible that revels in pointing out all the strange inconsistencies within the Bible, as well as some of the strange ideas within that fundamentalists never mention, like that it is a considerable sin to look up and accidently see male genitals exposed under a robe while they walk up steps, perhaps the most specific sin ever. If I can find my copy again, I'll give the verse!
 
The other problem is that there is no original texts (scrolls?) of the New Testament. I don't know about the Old Testament. The oldest copy of the New Testament dates from, I believe, the 3rd or 4th century and was a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. How accurate those copies were is an unknown. Then there's the changes made by various Kings and others over time. Just one word changed from the original can change the whole meaning of a verse.

The Book of the Essenes is a very interesting read. The Essenes were agnostics. I believe the originals are still in existence and as I understand it, were written down at the time.

The sin of looking up whilst going walking up steps and seeing male genitalia underneath another man's robes...... that's a new one on me. Oddly enough, that is the same in many religions - the exposing of ones genitals to another accidentally or not.
 
Taking things out of context was made much easier from about the mid C16 when the chapters of the Bible were divided by the editors into numbered verses, thus simplyfying the meaning into sound bites. It's easier to get the people you wish to influence to go along with your take on it that way much like any propaganda.
 
kesavaross said:
The other problem is that there is no original texts (scrolls?) of the New Testament. I don't know about the Old Testament. The oldest copy of the New Testament dates from, I believe, the 3rd or 4th century and was a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. How accurate those copies were is an unknown.
Click to expand...
Exactly, then dragged from Hebrew through Greek to Latin and then English.

As has been said before, the best bits are when Christ talks to God (ie himself) alone and someone who wasn't there reports the conversation apparently verbatim. By our (Fortean) standards this would be a non-starter, but is accepted as unequivocal truth by many, in turn many of whom would scoff at much of what interests us.
 
stu neville said:
Exactly, then dragged from Hebrew through Greek to Latin and then English.

As has been said before, the best bits are when Christ talks to God (ie himself) alone and someone who wasn't there reports the conversation apparently verbatim. By our (Fortean) standards this would be a non-starter, but is accepted as unequivocal truth by many, in turn many of whom would scoff at much of what interests us.
Click to expand...
The oldest copies of bits of the New Testament - which was assembled by a council deciding what would be in and what would be out - were in later classical Greek. Then dragged through later Latin and finally at the Reformation translated into vernaculars, and in the case of English then translated again from Elizabethan to modern. There was also some confusion with regard to the Old Testament; later parts were written not in Hebrew but in Aramaic, and there was a period during say 200-1000 CE when probably most lay people read it in Hellenic Greek (simplification of a convoluted history.) Because I'm actually studying Hebrew right now (simplification of a convoluted history) I can note that the translation choices seen in general English are frequently not what the the original word appears to mean - and I assume the same is true for the King James.
 
MrRING said:
There is a book that I dig called Ken's Guide To The Bible that revels in pointing out all the strange inconsistencies within the Bible, as well as some of the strange ideas within that fundamentalists never mention, like that it is a considerable sin to look up and accidently see male genitals exposed under a robe while they walk up steps, perhaps the most specific sin ever. If I can find my copy again, I'll give the verse!
Click to expand...
I found a Christian critique of Ken's Guide that mentions this bit:
https://www.tektonics.org/qt/smithk01.php
Ex. 20:26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it. Smith says of this verse: "God instructs Moses that no altar should have steps; people ascending steps might expose their genitals."
Click to expand...
 
Tunn11 said:
Trousers and underpants must be seen as the work of the devil then? And accidentally exposing your arse isn't a sin?
I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Is that why we see those around here with their pants drifting down below their underwear, so boxer shorts and whatever are on full display, or maybe it's just a fashion show we're unaware of?
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
Is that why we see those around here with their pants drifting down below their underwear, so boxer shorts and whatever are on full display, or maybe it's just a fashion show we're unaware of?
Click to expand...
No they are people who have the right to air their arse crack in public (see the special people thread)
Back to the thread, if people are re incarnated and they retain their religious beliefs from the previous life - are they uncomforaable with some aspects of modern/western clothing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top