[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

Hence my point on remaining true to the written word of God. It is (should be) the bottom-line for Christians and Jews, because blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results, even to the point of outright contradiction with what is actually written.

Absolutely! Adhere to the Word of God!

The only problem that comes up is IDENTIFYING the Word of God and seperating it from what mankind tacks on to the Word of God. You cannot trust blindly anyone who says he knows what God meant--especially when he has something to gain by making you believe it, be it money or authority or power.

Look at what you wrote: "blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results". Think about that. Think about it very carefully. Man's interpretation is all we've got. God's not hanging around down at the deli explaining the Bible to anyone. All we've got is a bunch of ancient writings and men--for we and the priests and rabbis and imams and scholars, etc are nothing but men--interpretting them.

Every time someone opens his mouth and says, "God said..." or "The Bible says..." or "I prayed and God sent to me...", you're getting a human being's interpretation of the Divine Word. You're getting that interpretation tempered by all the things that make up that person's personality, all the complex and shifting emotions and ideas that shape the way they think and act.

The testaments of the Bible and the witness of al-Quran are no different. They might just enshrine the Word of God and the Divine Will. Unfortunately, they've been passed down, translated, retranslated, re-retranslated, reinterpretted, and even, at times, purposely changed for the convenience of a powerful leader. What better way to control the hearts and minds of men then to tell them that what you want is what God wants?

Consider the example of the four main Gospels. They put forward the idea that the only way to Salvation is through Jesus. Further, they support an organization to promote this view: the Church. We get Peter as the first Pope to be the leader of that Church. During the process of picking the Canon, books were picked to suit the aims of the Church. Some books became canon, the others became apocryphal. Those that did not support the authority of a monolithic Church, among other things, were thrown out.

Does this invalidate the whole book? Absolutely not! The moral guidelines it enshrines still hold true today, thousands of years later. We shouldn't murder or steal. We shouldn't break our oaths or commit adultery.

Finding some truth in something as large and complex as the Bible does not make the whole thing true, any more than finding an error or lie makes the whole thing false.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
Look at what you wrote: "blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results". Think about that. Think about it very carefully. Man's interpretation is all we've got. God's not hanging around down at the deli explaining the Bible to anyone. All we've got is a bunch of ancient writings and men--for we and the priests and rabbis and imams and scholars, etc are nothing but men--interpretting them.

And here's where faith comes into the picture for me. I have faith that God is perfectly capable of making sure that the content He wanted got into THE book that would be considered to be a representation of His will by a large portion of the world. I don't have faith in the New International Version, I don't have faith in the New King Jameth, etc. When I want to check something specific out, I go to the source. And I have no choice but to trust God that that source is as "pure" as it needs to be for me.

But just like museum-goers appreciating an abstract painting on the wall, there's a limit to how far interpretation can be stretched. If a painting is a jumble of sharp shapes in hues of purple and blue, you can reasonably expect some to say that it reminds them of one thing while others are reminded of something else. But if you encounter a person who cannot stand the harsh yellow colors, then you know something's wrong with that person's interpretation of the painting.

As a more to-the-point example, take the Ten Commandments. The commandments are usually translated as an imperative, "You shall not XXXX". However, the Hebrew also allows that to be a statement of fact, not an imperative command. "You won't do this" as opposed to "Don't do this." And, perhaps by coincidence, the usual translation also allows this possible double-meaning. "You shall not XXX."

This instance is not something that can be solidly proven to mean one thing or another by going to the source. In such cases, of which there are many, I simply have to trust God.

[Kazan]

Faith is the first fallacy, and the greatest

[Flipside]

Not neccesarily Kaz, Faith is very important in a lot of things. It's not just about the book, it's about the person reading it as well, as has already been mentioned here. If the person reading the book bears in mind that humans wrote it, that it contains only the interpretations through human eyes of what they percieve God's wishes to be.
The Bible contains some wonderful lines 'Thou shalt not kill' the 2nd commandment (The first one, to my mind, was added later). Much smiting ensues after this, but I think that is a case of 'PR' writing, like any good book, it's got to have action scenes, else people would get bored and stop reading

I'm not saying this to offend anyones beliefs, I myself, I suppose, you would call a 'Tree Hugger' in a way, though I'm not against using resources, I suppose my 'God' is what I stand on, eat, breath etc. And I don't need to go to any special place to be any nearer to it.

What makes religion dangerous is those who will not accept that there is any possibility for error in a holy book. Those who think 'If it was good enough 2000 years ago, it's good enough now'. Whoever your God is, or isn't you are a thinking, reasoning intelligent being and you were made/evolved that way, for a reason.

I am often saddened that people do not look at such a book and think 'Right, Circumsision, that's silly, we don't need that any more, it's pointless and a mutilation of God's work'. It probably served a purpose at the time, but I cannot believe that a God would give Mankind Earth 'and all upon it', and allow us to think and reason and learn without expecting us to alter with the times and needs, and to grow into what He hopes we can become.

Once again, I'm not intending to offend anyone with this, but I really do think the 'to the letter' side of religion has completely the wrong end of the stick.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich


And here's where faith comes into the picture for me. I have faith that God is perfectly capable of making sure that the content He wanted got into THE book that would be considered to be a representation of His will by a large portion of the world. I don't have faith in the New International Version, I don't have faith in the New King Jameth, etc. When I want to check something specific out, I go to the source. And I have no choice but to trust God that that source is as "pure" as it needs to be for me.

Just as others have faith that what they believe correct and what you believe is incorrect.

Unless God's been hanging around with you and you've got incontrovertible evidence thereof, your faith really just opinion. Its YOUR opinion, and you believe in it strongly. It doesn't make it the unimpeachable truth.

[01010]

Originally posted by Flipside
*snip*

You sound like you pray at the church of Bill Hicks and if you don't you'd probably enjoy what he had to say.

[Stunaep]

interestingly enough (and because I want to enter the discussion again, after being defeated once, and fought to a stalemate by kara, but nevertheless), islam forbids all interpretation of the koran. The fact, that the bible (or the koran for that matter) can be interpreted at all, already means that there is no infallible *godly* truth in the matter.

And flipside, nice to see someone agrees with my views.

[Flipside]

LOL I have seen videos of Bill, was the 'If God is everywhere, why go to church?' sketch?

[01010]

Originally posted by Flipside
LOL I have seen videos of Bill, was the 'If God is everywhere, why go to church?' sketch?

From reading the stuff you've written in this thread I really think you should check him out because he really was a comedian that could make you think hard and laugh hard at the same time.

[Flipside]

I'll do that 10, thanks

[karajorma]

Hell I'm an atheist and I find him very funny. What is uncanny is how much of what he said about the first gulf war applied to this one.

Oh and before you ask. The answer to his question about atheists is yes, yes, yes (repeat until a cigarette is required)

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Flipside
The Bible contains some wonderful lines 'Thou shalt not kill' the 2nd commandment (The first one, to my mind, was added later).

*ahem*

"Thou shalt not murder." Not "kill'. And that's not a matter of iffy interpretations, either.

Originally posted by mikhael


Just as others have faith that what they believe correct and what you believe is incorrect.

Unless God's been hanging around with you and you've got incontrovertible evidence thereof, your faith really just opinion. Its YOUR opinion, and you believe in it strongly. It doesn't make it the unimpeachable truth.

Exactly!

Originally posted by Flipside
LOL I have seen videos of Bill, was the 'If God is everywhere, why go to church?' sketch?

I sort of agree with this, actually.

I don't go to church because 'that's where God is.'

[Flipside]

But then, look at the definition of 'Murder' - killing with pre-meditation, planning to kill. This, by literal translations means 'You shall not plan to end a life'.

This is good

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Flipside
But then, look at the definition of 'Murder' - killing with pre-meditation, planning to kill. This, by literal translations means 'You shall not plan to end a life'.

This is good

Erm, not quite. When capital punishment is meted out, it is most definitely a planned killing, and yet it is not defined as "murder".

Murder, AFAIK, is unwarranted killing. Mind you, it's not often that someone actually deserves to be killed (unless you want to look at it from a spiritual/Christian POV, in which case we ALL deserve to die for our sins), but take soldiers in a war as an example. They go out onto the battlefield, planning to kill the enemy. Do you call that murder?

[mikhael]

Careful Sandwich. You're laying your own interpretation of the meaning of 'murder' there.

Its always interpretation, even if you're looking at the text in the original language.

[Flipside]

Look at the classic and frequently contested tale of Onan.
Why was Onan killed by God? Because he 'wasted' (I believe the word used is stronger than 'spilt') his seed on the ground. He 'murdered' the life that could have been created. I think this part of the bible is showing that God REALLY means 'A life for a life'.
I would not call soldiers murderers because they are doing their job, for what they believe is right. And the ethos that travels with the tag 'murderer' is unfair to apply to them.
However a war is state-santioned murder in the coldest, most unemotional view (I'm not even beginning to consider things like 'just' or 'unjust' or other opinion related things, purely the facts, which is a War is premeditated, and once it is started, it is undoubted that people will lose their lives).
That is why I cannot accept that any God would sanction the killing of his own creations, regardless of who, if anyone is 'right'.

Edit : I AM aware that sometimes the death of one person can save the lives of many, etc, just want to restress, I am not sitting in judgement here, so please don't take anything I say personally

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
Careful Sandwich. You're laying your own interpretation of the meaning of 'murder' there.

Its always interpretation, even if you're looking at the text in the original language.

I am? How? I was merely trying to correctly define "murder" there.

[Flipside]

Actually, Veering slightly to one side, I think my 'personal' bible is one line long, and it's the best line written in any book ever.

'Treat others as you would be treated yourself'. Or however the precise wording goes

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Flipside
Actually, Veering slightly to one side, I think my 'personal' bible is one line long, and it's the best line written in any book ever.

'Treat others as you would be treated yourself'. Or however the precise wording goes

Definitely a good start.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Flipside
'Treat others as you would be treated yourself'. Or however the precise wording goes

"That on which the Law and the Prophets hang".