American fundamentalism and being 'born again' - Page 10 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pj67coll · #**136** 12-16-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

History seems to indicate otherwise.

Not any I've ever read.

- Peter.

kerry · #**137** 12-16-2009, 09:03 PM

See post #121

tonkovich · #**138** 12-17-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You're really reaching here!
I'm not a fan of the KJV, for our time and our culture, but when it was done, it was the finest example of putting the Bible into the venacular, i.e. the common, everyday langauge of the peolpe. The Roman church wanted the Bible only in Latin so that the priests had to "interpret" it for the masses of people and therefore the priests had both ecclesiastical, AND politicial power.

When the Reformation made it to England, of course the King favored it, because it freed him from the power of the Pope. But beside this, the Reformation caused the people to clamor for God's wrtten Word in their own langague. King James was responding to the wants of people; it was not his aim to use it as a means to subjugate his people. As his subjects, they were already that. Who else but the king had the financial ability to bring together the scholars, scribes, and theologians required? It was published unfer his authority, of course it bears his name.

One more thing... Among the problems I have with the KJV is that the langauge is dated. When it was first printed, "Thee", and "Thou" and the verb forms used were the common langauge of the people. There was NOT a serparate "God-Langauge" as it appears today.

I have no argument with anyone saying that civilian leaders have used the Bible to justify their actions, and to keep the people "in their place", but to use the "King" in KJV as proof is over-reaching. Actually, its a case of jumping to a conclusion, and then looking for evidence to support it rather than examining the evidence and looking for a conclusion.

you've - no doubt - read the various latin originals, and followed then back to, say the dead sea scrolls? hmmm? what is no, alex?

(reminds me of the kids' game of telephone)

tonkovich · #**139** 12-17-2009, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veggihatetank

RELIGION
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: .
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

Just you three different "agnostics" have seem to parroted the same set of beliefs and have proved yourselves to be members of a religion as stated in 1,2,3 and 6 of the definition of the word.

So now you have discovered that you are in fact RELIGIOUS!

Unless ,,, you don't believe in the existence of dictionaries,

it's good that you know about semantics; any other silly parlor tricks for us?

tonkovich · #**140** 12-17-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I don't get the whole Tower of Babel thing, what difference does it make? The Bible mentions Jerusalem. We know it exists. So what? It's religious significance depends on the idea that God gave that city/land to the Jews. (or the Muslims, or the Christians) How could anyone possibly know that? Jerusalem's theological significance is completely separate from its existence. Let's imagine that the 'real' Tower of Babel was found, that 'Noah's Ark' was found, that the bones of Abraham were found, or the shroud that wrapped Jesus' body was found. All those artifacts have no power whatosever to prove any single theological 'fact'.
It's one of the myths of fundamentalism that somehow, religion can be established by facts. Facts in and of themselves are inconsequental to morality and theology. Jesus died. Moses lead a group of Hebrews out of Egypt. Mohammed conquered Mecca and wrote a book. Paul fell of his donkey and had an unusual experience. Those 'facts' tell us nothing about whether religion is true, whether Christianity, Judaism or Islam are truly revealed by God.

Now back on topic. Fundamentalism is a bastard child of Nietzschean fascism serving as the ideological foundations for US capitalist elites and their imperial ambitions around the globe.

yep. that's the topic. and the sad truth. be very afraid.

MS Fowler · #**141** 12-17-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

you've - no doubt - read the various latin originals, and followed then back to, say the dead sea scrolls? hmmm? what is no, alex?

(reminds me of the kids' game of telephone)

Actually the originals were in Hebrew and Greek; not Latin.
And yes, I have worked in the origianl Greek for the NT.

You evidently know just enough to rationalize your disbelief.

MS Fowler · #**142** 12-17-2009, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

It's one of the myths of fundamentalism that somehow, religion can be established by facts. Facts in and of themselves are inconsequental to morality and theology. Jesus died. Moses lead a group of Hebrews out of Egypt. Mohammed conquered Mecca and wrote a book. Paul fell of his donkey and had an unusual experience. Those 'facts' tell us nothing about whether religion is true, whether Christianity, Judaism or Islam are truly revealed by God.

.

We've been down this path before. I will agree that no one can "prove" any historical fact. I can no more "prove" Jesus" to you than Geo. Washington. In both cases I can cite historical evidence that makes it reasonable to believe, but not "proof" in the scientific sense.

However, to go beyond that and say that facts are inconsequential is also wrong. Apart from the physical, bodily ressurection of a dead Jesus ( the empty tomb) , Christianity becomes a lie, a myth, and of absolutely no positive value. At that point it becomes what many on the board already think it is--a vehicle to manipulate people and exercise power over their lives.

Txjake · #**143** 12-17-2009, 08:30 AM

aklim · #**144** 12-17-2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

We've been down this path before. I will agree that no one can "prove" any historical fact. I can no more "prove" Jesus" to you than Geo. Washington. In both cases I can cite historical evidence that makes it reasonable to believe, but not "proof" in the scientific sense.

Christianity becomes a lie, a myth, and of absolutely no positive value.

How about the historical sense then. Have lots of independent corroboration about the person and the events mentioned. I think we can corroborate the fact that Geo. Washington existed and did what the history books said he did.

What positive value does it currently have? When weighed with the negative it has done over the years, I am not sure that it will come out positive. How do you know it won't come out similar to what a nuclear reactor is in a child's hands. Has some potential but highly dangerous with the huge possibility of abuse.

kerry · #**145** 12-17-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

We've been down this path before. I will agree that no one can "prove" any historical fact. I can no more "prove" Jesus" to you than Geo. Washington. In both cases I can cite historical evidence that makes it reasonable to believe, but not "proof" in the scientific sense.

However, to go beyond that and say that facts are inconsequential is also wrong. Apart from the physical, bodily ressurection of a dead Jesus ( the empty tomb) , Christianity becomes a lie, a myth, and of absolutely no positive value. At that point it becomes what many on the board already think it is--a vehicle to manipulate people and exercise power over their lives.

I wasn't referring to historical facts, I was referring to theological facts. I agree that if the history on which Christianity is built, then fact based fundamentalism won't hold up. (which is why modern fundamentalists are so focused on literal fact based readings of the Bible when early Christian theologians were far more interested in the metaphorical and allegorical interpretations of the bible) What I was referring to was theological facts, such as Jesus died to save my sins. Or Jesus resurrection conquered the devil. Or God knocked Saul off his donkey. No historical fact can verify or corroborate those theological facts.
Theology and history are different kinds of enterprises and proving historical events doesn't help theology.

#**146** 12-17-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I wasn't referring to historical facts, I was referring to theological facts. I agree that if the history on which Christianity is built, then fact based fundamentalism won't hold up. What I was referring to was theological facts, such as Jesus died to save my sins. Or Jesus resurrection conquered the devil. Or God knocked Saul off his donkey. No historical fact can verify or corroborate those theological facts.
Theology and history are different kinds of enterprises and proving historical events doesn't help theology.

I never understood the "logic" that if you can verify that the bible (or whatever book you like) is accurate in some historical facts, then all the superstitious nonsense must also be true. There probably was an individual named Jesus who lived around that time, and clearly some of the locations discussed in the bible actually existed. That shouldn't be surprising, most of it was written within a few generations of the time being discussed and based on a mixture of verbal stories, good story telling, and a desire to show that prophecies were being actualized in the authors' lifetimes. It probably tells you more about the individuals who wrote it than anything else.

That's like deciding that a Stephen King novel must be factually correct because it includes some references to locations in Maine that can be verified on a map.

I have no problem with people who want to believe in magic, but please don't insult my intelligence by trying to "prove" it with faulty logic.

aklim · #**147** 12-17-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

What I was referring to was theological facts, such as Jesus died to save my sins.

Or God knocked Saul off his donkey.

Theology and history are different kinds of enterprises and proving historical events doesn't help theology.

If the guy didn't exist or do what was said he did, how are we certain that he allegedly died to save your sins. If the magician saws the girl in half do you believe that too?

Was he just knocked off his ass or was he blinded till his mind was changed for him? I looked up Acts 9:8-9 (not sure if that was the right way to quote it): Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. Maybe, that is what the part about the Godfather, Luca Brasi and the Bandleader was based on. In the latter case, the Bandleader was assured that his brains or signature would rest on that contract. In this case, go blind or get sight but you do it my way.

Perhaps not but it gives it more credibility

aklim · #**148** 12-17-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I never understood the "logic" that if you can verify that the bible (or whatever book you like) is accurate in some historical facts, then all the superstitious nonsense must also be true. There probably was an individual named Jesus who lived around that time, and clearly some of the locations discussed in the bible actually existed. That shouldn't be surprising, most of it was written within a few generations of the time being discussed and based on a mixture of verbal stories, good story telling, and a desire to show that prophecies were being actualized in the authors' lifetimes. It probably tells you more about the individuals who wrote it than anything else.

That's like deciding that a Stephen King novel must be factually correct because it includes some references to locations in Maine that can be verified on a map.

I have no problem with people who want to believe in magic, but please don't insult my intelligence by trying to "prove" it with faulty logic.

I look at it this way. If many of the facts mentioned are not corroborated, it kinda makes it look like the ramblings of a bunch of drunken people. OTOH, if facts are corroborated, it might give it some credibility

#**149** 12-17-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I look at it this way. If many of the facts mentioned are not corroborated, it kinda makes it look like the ramblings of a bunch of drunken people. OTOH, if facts are corroborated, it might give it some credibility

There are many internal contradictions in the various books of the bible, including some very important events. However, I still don't see how getting the occasional fact correct makes it credible.

kerry · #**150** 12-17-2009, 11:58 AM

The argument that a lot of fundamentalist use is that if Jesus rose from the dead after predicting he would, then he must be the Son of God as he said he was.
I think there are lots of problems with that. First of all, it is impossible in my view to get credible evidence that Jesus actually said those things, given the nature of the NT documents. But even if a person grants that he did, it doesn't prove the theological fact that fundamentalists think it proves. Just because Jesus said he was the Son of God, predicted he would rise from the dead, and did, doesn't provide any evidence for his theological credibility because the logic simply assumes there is a God to start with and supposes the idea that God has reproduced and has a male offspring makes sense.