The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by hazel … they think they're the only real Christians anyway. Much like the JWs!

ROTFL. Well, actually are any of us in our religion because we think it's the WRONG one?

Originally Posted by hazel When a Romanov Tsar married a foreign woman, she had to be baptised into the orthodox church and given a new name because they didn't recognise non-orthodox baptisms.

As I have observed here many times before, "Church and State were joined at the hip, and in very many parts of the world today they still are."

The entire geo-political history of 17th, 18th, and 19th Century Europe was totally absorbed in "Catholic vs. Protestant." Kings, Queens and Emperors might have sat on various thrones, but they did so only at the behest of and with the permission of their Church. To this day, the Vatican City hosts most of the world's embassies.

I have no idea why anyone would agree to be "The Pope." "No thanks, God. You will just have to pick someone else."

When "religion" has this much power (and money ...), in one respect it entirely ceases to be "a personal thing." Or, if you prefer, it becomes a thing which must be properly regarded on more than one level. And yes, regardless of "your personal beliefs," it does exercise an influence (which you might or might not realize ...) on "what it is that you 'believe in.'"

It goes beyond "the teachings of an itinerant Jewish preacher who was executed at the tender young age of thirty-three."

This an undeniable extant dynamic that you cannot change. But it's entirely up to you how you choose to respond to that, if at all, and I have no opinion nor judgment of this matter. Your beliefs are the most-personal thing that you have.

As I have observed here many times before, "Church and State were joined at the hip, and in very many parts of the world today they still are."

+1 on that. If you read Revelation 17:1-2 you'll spot exactly how that is described.

But what made you think God has anything to do with choosing the Pope? "Pope" = Pontifex Maximus, a pagan Etruscan title taken by Julius Caesar in 49BCE. Being 'Pontifex Maximus' made one Sovereign Pontiff or supreme boss in all matters religious. Hence Constantine as Pontifex Maximus convened the council at Nicea. It was then held by every Emperor of the Western Empire until 375 CE when neither emperor in the Western empire wanted this pagan title, and the bishop or Rome grabbed it in 378, as laws were being thought about against pagan religions. "Christianity" was being Romanized at this stage. Wikipedia's lives of the emperors from Constantine onward give a much more believeable version of this period than church history.

Ironically, Constantine created an institution which out-lived his western Empire. He had lost control of the priests who upheld the pantheon of Greco-Roman gods, and he didn't like their Greek influences either. He lifted an obscure regional cult about a rabble-rouser who had been executed to create(!) the "Christian religion" that we know today. And, through a very-likely pseudonymous writer named "Paul," he and his officers created most of the new texts which became known as "the New Testament." He linked his new religion firmly to the then-existing and powerful religion called Judaism. Well, something about his magic formula worked.

Centuries passed and the western Roman Empire disappeared. But, "Constantine's triumph" remains strong to this day and still exerts a very powerful influence on international politics. If there ever was an earthly "king of kings," it would very likely be the [Office of the] Pope.

I've already expressed my grave reservations about the book of Revelations.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And, through a very-likely pseudonymous writer named "Paul," he and his officers created most of the new texts which became known as "the New Testament."

That's a pretty weird idea. Paul's letters were well-known in the second century, long before Constantine. The second-century antipope Hyppolitus includes them in his canon, which is probably the earliest list we have of the canonical books. And they were well known to the second-century heretic Marcion as well.

I've already expressed my grave reservations about the book of Revelations.

You aren't the only one. Revelation was probably the last New Testament book to gain acceptance because it tends to drive its readers slightly mad.

Well, @hazel, I'll just leave you to your apparently-greater knowledge on that subject. Let's just say that I've always been rather suspicious of this guy who, when it suited him, called himself "a Pharisee," but then, when the sh*t started hitting the proverbial fan, declared himself to be "a Roman Citizen by birth." (Yeah. Wouldn't it have been equally convenient if Jesus had been able to claim such privilege, say at the Garden of Gethsemane?)

Meanwhile: "Revelations." I'm sorry, but my God is not a sadist. Nor is He a narcissist. Of all the very-many examples of "apocalyptic literature" that I have examined, this one is over the top. Yes, this is one "acceptance" that I decline to accept. I'm very sorry for the things that these people (according to this particular author) felt that they were experiencing at the hands of "666 = Nero." Very sorry, indeed.

The first time I read Revelation, I too wondered what they were smoking.

It's mainly signs, not facts, and the mix catches folks. Numbers have significance outside their numerical vaue. And with 2000 years of history to choose from, is "666=Nero" the best you could do? How about Domitian, or Diocletian, much more efficient persecutors of Christians. If you read Revelation 13:16-18 you'll also see there's a beast referenced. What about that?

Revelation is set "in the Lord's day." Nero came, and went. But Revelation is about the end. We have Armageddon, and a New Heavens & New Earth before the end. Is Nero relevant today?

Originally Posted by business_kid Is Nero relevant today?

More to the point, considering all of History, is anything outside of general human interaction relevant today from 2000 years ago? Surely it can be argued that it took Then to get to Now, but it is Now, now. Context matters. The reason that engineers of today can't fathom how the Pyramids, for example, were constructed is that back then all they had or knew about was how to stack stones with extremely limited materials and knowledge. As options evolved, rudimentary actions were first abandoned and then forgotten.

Similarly, very early written language absolutely required context. The only people that could understand exactly what was written were those that spoke that language colloguially. We can translate and get the gist, but exact meaning is dubious at best or we wouldn't even have the concept, in every language, of "lost in translation". So even if we accept that bibles were all revealed by divinity, as soon as the human words are translated reliability must be in question, since it is inherent in written language and translation.

If not, if we assume divinity could just alter reality so that perfect translation automatically occurred in those special cases, then we have to ask "Can God create a Law he cannot break?" and numerous other obvious contradictions.

Back in the day, I had a working knowledge of Latin from my Jesuit education. All you needed was context, and grammar. You didn't have to live then. So people throwing out just a few words of Latin could be saying anything. You also learned to spot pseudo-profundities. So, for instance, "Sic transit gloria mundi" is English word order in Latin, which is bad Latin Grammar. It should be "Sic gloria mundi transit."

Bible translation uses Hebrew & Greek Mainly. But there is the Samaritan Pentateuch, and much in Syriac and the later Aramaic Targums (traditions written down). Jerome's Vulgate initially translated Latin texts but he went on work on do the earliest Hebrew & Greek texts he could get - probably better stuff than we have now.

Now if you don't want to believe the Bible, don't. That's your perogative. But much careful work and comparison has revealed the meaning of Scripture with a fair degree of certainty. The proof is in the internal harmony, and even similarity of the various translations. The differences only become noticable when you're teaching points of doctrine.

Let me try to be clearer. For me considering the bible, any bible, is not so simple as a binary "Yes, I believe" or "No, I don't believe". There is a great deal in the Christian Bible that is basically History, at least from the perspective of the various writers. Much of it is about proper social practices, diet, etc. That History is interesting and often quite telling but I don't adhere to nor need to know how to treat slaves or whether or not I should "suffer a witch to live". So any beliefs in the History are tempered by how things have changed over time and how research has given a more objective, less self-serving view.

Similarly, the parts that I reject as simply ignorant are basically about The Nature of The World and Our Place In It since THEY were ignorant of such things. My POV is selective for sure but I submit that so is everyone's POV as we, including you, business_kid, weight things conveniently to our predispositions. If that weren't true there would only be one Christian faith and not hundreds of sects.

@enorbet – that's why I like to remind myself that sometimes "it sux to be human." These books are very old – yes, "2,000 years is still 'very old' but many are many centuries older.'" And yet: here they are.

Furthermore – they still manage to guide actual people's innermost thoughts and beliefs ... and it has done so for many, many centuries. Therefore, "maybe there is something to it, after all."

(Insert references to "a still, small voice" here ... I take such things very seriously.)

Also, especially in times like this, I am reminded of the rather-prescient admonition of "sinning against your brother." Because it's really easy to do exactly that ... yes, "in a forum like this." The verb, "sinning," implies an act in which you are in the wrong. The surrounding context says that "it is wrong because of how 'your brother' thinks of it." Not any absolute Deity-established standard. Even if I could climb upon some such "Deity standard" to "justify" my "correctness," I am still in the wrong – because of what my stubborn insistence did to you. I try very hard not to forget that point. I don't have to "win" any argument.

> If you think that I'm referring to you right now, "I am." But you don't need to say so – and I wish you wouldn't.

"Here are the texts ... the product of the sometimes very-convoluted processes which brought them here." But, in the end, "the texts" are not necessarily the most-important thing to consider in the "grand scheme of things."

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs @enorbet – ... they still manage to guide actual people's innermost thoughts and beliefs ... and it has done so for many, many centuries. Therefore, "maybe there is something to it, after all."

Again I am not proposing that ancient text is of no value. I am proposing ancient text is of lesser value than more modern study. What can we possibly learn from ancient times that is more valuable than what we now know as a whole unless learning and progress doesn't even exist?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Also, especially in times like this, I am reminded of the rather-prescient admonition of "sinning against your brother." Because it's really easy to do exactly that ... yes, "in a forum like this." The verb, "sinning," implies an act in which you are in the wrong. The surrounding context says that "it is wrong because of how 'your brother' thinks of it." Not any absolute Deity-established standard. Even if I could climb upon some such "Deity standard" to "justify" my "correctness," I am still in the wrong – because of what my stubborn insistence did to you. I try very hard not to forget that point. I don't have to "win" any argument. > If you think that I'm referring to you right now, "I am." But you don't need to say so – and I wish you wouldn't.

It certainly is both puzzling revealing that you can equate free speech with violence. Words don't coerce in my view. They are offered. What you do with them is totally up to you.

I'm not seeking to build faith where it may have been flushed down the toilet, but I think both of you are underestimating the value of the Bible. The problems come when you say "This means <such and such>, and <such and such> is ridiculous." The problem is often misinterpretation.

I've read histories from about 2000BC onwards and it's largely 'believe what you want' stuff. Ages are often exaggerated, numbers at battles, etc. Internal harmony or scientific accuracy are lacking. They are about as accurate as you would expect "The history of Germany - by Joseph Goebbels" to be.

On the contrary, the Bible makes historically and scientifically accurate statements, although not a scientific book. For instance, Job 26:7 points out that the earth is hung upon nothing; that is knowledge far ahead of it's time (≅1500BCE). Likewise Isa40:22, where God speaks of himself as dwelling above the circle of the earth. That Hebrew word is also the word for sphere; So that is a case where the meaning is in the mind of the translator. Isaiah was killed ~732 BCE. On the contrary, the Koran teaches a flat earth (7th century CE).

The Bible also has internal harmony. One of the few Absolute Dates in ancient history is the night of October 4/5, 539 BCE when Babylon fell to the Medes & Persians. We have the following information on it:

1. Daniel chapter 5 with the famous 'writing on the wall' during the night of October 4th 539BCE, where Daniel announces the events. This account of events on October 4th 539 BCE was from inside Babylon.

2.Isaiah 44:27-45:7 which prophesied events in great detail and written about 200 years or more in advance from the two tribe kingdom of Judah.

3. There is also a cryptic prophecy of the fall of Babylon (Sheshach = Babel backwards) in Jeremiah 25:36, and mention in Micah 4:10 that the Israelites would be exiled to Babylon, and rescued from there.

4. Josephus Antiquities Book X, Chapter 11 detailing the fall of Babylon in 539BCE. As well as the Bible, Josephus would probably have used the history of Berossus, a Babylonian who wrote about 300BCE. He also had acces to many reputablke ancient historians that we don't; These works are lost now, but Josephus had them complete. Josephus also reports that Cyrus returned the Jews to build Jehovah's temple after being shown the Isaiah passage Josephus Antiquities Book 11 Chapter 1 Of course, if someone had your name in a book of prophecy 200 years earlier, you'd probably be impressed too. Every date I ever read in Josephus is wrong, BTW.

5. Contemporary historians agree on the Medes & Persians uniting against Babylon, and a battle north of Babylon, which the Babylonians lost. The Babylonians retreated into the City. The Babylonians had some feast that night of October 4th. Cyrus surrounded the city, and diverted the Euphrates, and sent men down the riverbed. Canals entered the city, and the gate was open on one of the canals which wasn't guarded. That left the Persian force a city block or two from the Babylonian palace. The invaders took the place and killed the co-regent king Belshazzar that night. The city woke up to find the Medo-Persian army in control. They have several ancient sources.

Contemporary historians base their accounts on ancient sources, and agree the Bible is the best.

Originally Posted by business_kid On the contrary, the Koran teaches a flat earth (7th century CE).

Funnily enough, you can find muslims arguing that the Koran teaches that the Earth is a sphere. Maybe the holy books only teach the right answers to their respective true believers?

For example https://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_104.html:

He created the heavens and the Earth with truth. He wraps the night around the day and wraps the day around the night, and has made the Sun and Moon subservient, each one running for a specified term. Is He not indeed the Almighty, the Endlessly Forgiving? ( Surat az-Zumar, 5) In the above verse the movement of the Earth is described by the word "yukawwiru," which comes from root verb "takwir," meaning "to cover up a spherical body," in the way that the rotation of the Earth gives rise to night and day, like the winding of a turban. In addition to the spherical shape of the Earth the word is also the most accurate expression of its movement around the Sun.

To me, that passage, with the Sun and Moon described as "subservient" and "running", suggests a geocentric universe. As for the shape of the Earth, where was that mentioned? Interpreters of scriptures do indeed read into the text whatever they need to. Happy are those of us whose religions have none to misinterpret.