The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Basically, I am tolerant. "Do with your Book as you see fit. Regard it as you wish. And I will do the same."

Statements like "teaching for doctrine the commmands of men," as I have already said, "are incongruous." Every professor of religious matters is necessarily "men." Therefore, the essence of what is being said here is simply that the person who is saying it does not himself agree with what is being taught. Yet, he appeals to celestial authority: "God agrees with me."

"Well, does He now ...?"

Especially in the eras that we are speaking of, "politics and religion were effectively one and the same." There are still governments, such as England, which have a "state church." There are embassies in Vatican City. Therefore it was very important to state control that only the "correct doctrines" be taught to the commoners. They were handed a "canonical" book containing only "canonical" segments in "canonical" sequence, and 99.9% of them have never actually read it.

No matter what your "personal" religious feelings may be, the political and power aspects can never be overlooked as unimportant. In fact they are much more important.

Originally Posted by hazel Having a book as your ultimate authority is therefore a lot less restrictive than having a person, a pope or ayatollah, who can constantly say, "No, that's not what I meant.

I definitely see your point in that with written words we can go back to and read again and say that is what was written, as compared to spoken words that someone can say, well I didn't say that, you misunderstood... I really said this, and change what they said earlier.

Corporations do this to me on the phone so much, that I prefer email with all of them. It's also why I like these LQ threads.

Originally Posted by hazel Of course this means that you need to be on your guard when someone says, "The Bible says..." or "The Bible teaches..." when what he actually means is that he (it's always a he!) interprets a biblical passage in this way.

Why is it always a he? What about the She in Proverbs 8:

"Does not widom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors... Councel is mine, and sound widom: I am understanding; I have strength... The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought foth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass uopn the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him..." Proverbs 8 (abridged)

There have been many accused of heresy, such as Vladimir Solvyev, for defending this female aspect of God who was with God before he created Adam or Eve. Hokhma in hebrew; Sophia in Greek--there are sophiologists devoted to her study. Some say even that the lady in the lake in King Arthur legends is Sophia.

Is it right that "it's always a he?" Mary Baker Eddy wasn't a he.

Yes, the idea that God encapsulates both male and female goes back a long way and is referenced repeatedly in Christian mysticism. But when I said "it's always a he" I meant that the people who say "The Bible says..." always seem to be male. And typically what they are doing when they say "The Bible says..." is putting down some uppity woman.

The English language does not have the concept of "implied gender," as most Latin-derived languages do such as French or Spanish.

I have several scholarly books which describe the massive "King James" project, as well as other, more-contemporary efforts. And one of the things that they discuss is that some of the source languages have treatments of things like gender which simply do not "map very well to" English.

They also had many different "names for God," which many scholars think actually referred to more than one "God." You see this today in the use of various phrases within the text – "The LORD," for example. They chose and then consistently used different English expressions, in order to distinguish each word.

The "New International Version" project left us, not only with a preface and footnotes, but entire documents describing the various choices that they made in pursuing their work. It is therefore also a fascinating discussion of the source documents themselves. Many of which are themselves translations of raw material which has long ago been lost.

That's why I smile and invite people to learn about(!) that book which they're holding in their hand but have probably never read. Where did it come from? Who chose what was – and was not – in it? Which other surviving materials didn't make the cut? What about "the Apocrypha?" And, so on. There are just so many things that you probably don't know, and never even thought to ask. Even if you claim to have no religious feelings about this thing at all, it is still a fascinating human effort ... and one that is in many ways quite different in its life-story from that of other foundational texts, such as those of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. "The Bible" followed a different path, and much of it is, so to speak, comparatively recent.

Originally Posted by hazel Yes, the idea that God encapsulates both male and female goes back a long way and is referenced repeatedly in Christian mysticism. But when I said "it's always a he" I meant that the people who say "The Bible says..." always seem to be male. And typically what they are doing when they say "The Bible says..." is putting down some uppity woman.

Yeah, they probably read those verses that say women should be quiet in church and aren't allowed to speak there, and instead should ask their husbands at home... and other such subservience passages.

But since the role of women has changed in society from what it was in those days, I think it would be rude of me to try and hush any woman in a church and back it with scripture--that's a case where this Word is not relevant in today's case, and the heart service would understand that and listen to the spritual wisdom of women if they were to say anything in a church--or in a forum. I think your defense of the written word is potent, when comparing it to the whims of an ayotollah and am glad to have read it; but I don't think it is as effective at defending canonized written word, in that here is a case in which the closure of the canon, prevents us heart centered people, male and female, from updating this Word for the equality of gender roles relevant to today's time.

Are women allowed to speak in your church, @Business_Kid?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs The English language does not have the concept of "implied gender," as most Latin-derived languages do such as French or Spanish. I have several scholarly books which describe the massive "King James" project, as well as other, more-contemporary efforts. And one of the things that they discuss is that some of the source languages have treatments of things like gender which simply do not "map very well to" English...

I've considered this. Often in those languages you speak of, abstract concepts, such as wisdom, have femine gender, such that wisdom could have been translated into English as a She.

Yet in nature, it seems creation usually occurs from union of both male and female energy, so perhaps both energy would be necessary for creating fermaments, oceans, mountains, etc.

Perhaps the "big bang" was God's conjugal bed

Are women allowed to speak in your church, @Business_Kid

I'm just here on something unrelated, but as I am, I'll answer this. I've unsubscribed from this thread some time ago, and repeat my unsubscription as soon as I post anything (like this reply).

Yes, women are allowed to speak. At 1 Timothy 2:11-12 the Bible prohibits wonen teaching or exercising authority over a man. So they don't address the audience from the platform. We have a lot of "Question & Answer" type items, and they can and do answer there. If the item was dealing with predominantly a male problem of some sort, a woman should repect the Bible principle of headship by avoiding expressions that directly tell men what they must do, but they are free to stress Bible principles that do exactly that.

Another thing we have is a training school for our door-to-door work, and two women may give items there, one teaching the other. A woman should not teach a man. If a woman contacts a man on our door-to-door work, she may teach him a working Bible knowledge, but then usually hands the study over, as she no longer has authority to teach him. This is a very grey area.

If some guy is clearly out of court, a woman shouldn't correct him directly ["You shouldn't be doing that"] but may use a question [Are you sure you should be doing that?"]

In dress, the Biblical standard is modesty & soundness of mind. No burka, or hijabs. Women can wear hats or go bareheaded, which most do unless it's cold. The only rule on headgear is that if there's no men about, and a woman takes some part of offers prayer for the group, she should wear a head covering while she is doing it.

None of this is strictly policed or strictly punished, unlike other faiths.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs The English The "New International Version" project left us, not only with a preface and footnotes, but entire documents describing the various choices that they made in pursuing their work. It is therefore also a fascinating discussion of the source documents themselves. Many of which are themselves translations of raw material which has long ago been lost. That's why I smile and invite people to learn about(!) that book which they're holding in their hand but have probably never read. Where did it come from? Who chose what was – and was not – in it? Which other surviving materials didn't make the cut? What about "the Apocrypha?" And, so on. There are just so many things that you probably don't know, and never even thought to ask. Even if you claim to have no religious feelings about this thing at all, it is still a fascinating human effort ... and one that is in many ways quite different in its life-story from that of other foundational texts, such as those of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. "The Bible" followed a different path, and much of it is, so to speak, comparatively recent.

I couldn't help smiling at you mention of the NIV and their study. The Witnesses wrote to them about using God's name, and pointing to the incontravertable evidence that Gods name was in scripture over 7,000 times. The reply they received was that 2 Million had been spent on this, and they were not going to flush that investment down the loo by inserting God's name where it should be! Yes, a great but HUMAN effort.

More and more, the populace of so-called 'first world' nations seeks to deny the Creator.
Well, Creation is answering.

Pay attention to the Earth and face the consequences. But first, one must listen. Can you?

Allow me to express my amazement that you guys are actually discussing religion for a change That's half a dozen straight posts. Goodbye.

Originally Posted by TorC More and more, the populace of so-called 'first world' nations seeks to deny the Creator.

Bertrand Russell: If everyting needs a creator then who creates the creator ?

Originally Posted by leclerc78 Bertrand Russell: If everyting needs a creator then who creates the creator ?

It's turtles all the way down!!

Originally Posted by leclerc78 Bertrand Russell: If everything needs a creator then who creates the creator ?

Personally I don't believe in a creator, but if you believe in the principle of causation, then either there's a first cause or there isn't. If there isn't, then the physical universe is uncaused and that implies that any event within it might be uncaused. I happy with uncaused events, but I doubt whether many physicists (as opposed to philosophers) are.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-physics/

Originally Posted by leclerc78 Bertrand Russell: If everyting needs a creator then who creates the creator ?

It's logic: Unless there was something with no beginning, nothing could ever begin. If you accept an Eternal Creator after examining the evidence as some of us have, that's the problem solved.

Otherwise, you end up in the situation where you're saying that nothing created something, or that something inanimate was eternal and made animate things, which is a bit silly when you think about it. I think Carl Sagan was right all those decades ago when he spoke of scientists ascending a mountain of knowledge to find theologians had been there (at the top) all along. Those are his sentiments, not mine. I don't have much time for theologians.

Well, here is part of the problem:

At 1 Timothy 2:11-12 the Bible prohibits women teaching or exercising authority over a man. [...] A woman should not teach a man. If a woman contacts a man on our door-to-door work, she may teach him a working Bible knowledge, but then usually hands the study over, as she no longer has authority to teach him.

"Who(!) said that?" I mean that very seriously ... who?

Well, apparently "who?" is supposed to be a character named "Paul of Tarsus," who claimed to be "an apostle" merely because he said that he had "met Jesus" in a vision. He proceeded to then "author" virtually the entirety of what is now known as "the New Testament," even though the writing styles of each are often radically different. His "Letters" are supposed to be "accepted into The Canon, and therefore Infallible(!)." Yet, "who(!!) made that determination? Now encapsulated in exactly two sentences in what was only supposed to be "a letter?!"

"About one half of the human population of this planet is supposed to be subordinated to the other?"

Well ... "it was never Paul, himself."

"Paul's" writings do today include "verses" in which he does appear to claim such ecumenical authority upon himself – even though he only refers vaguely to "the scriptures." Thus conveniently leaving it to someone else to "decide" what does or does not deserve that key operative designation: "scripture."

Necessarily: "if 'Paul,' at the time of his writing, believed and accepted 'the present Canonical designation,'" then it would mean that he intended to refer to 'his own letters.'" That he believed, at the very instant he 'wrote' it, that he was "writing scripture." And that he had the authority to do so, "given by God Himself."

But there's just one more fly in this ointment: "the compiliation process" did not occur until many centuries later. Therefore, 'Paul' could not have possibly known exactly what (of his(!) writings) he was actually referring to.

And, he presumably had no way to know that they would one day "become scripture." Indeed, a complete "New Testament" of which the Jewish religion knows not. (And in fact, abhors.)

These designations were in fact made in a series of "councils" that were convened as "The Roman™ Church" was gaining its power – and knew of its power – even as "The Roman™ Empire" first split and then dissolved into dust. These were political 'councils.' Choosing what would be "in," and what would be left "out," with a surviving compromise today known as "the Apocrypha." Their rulings were supposed to be beyond challenge, and for quite a few generations it was so.

It is therefore necessary for me to, once again, "invoke the 'P' word." Politics. The union of Church and State, with emphasis on State. Forces easily powerful enough to, if necessary, synthesize(!!) the "Greek-era writings" that are now available to us, and to conflate them with more-ancient texts as an intended source of "divine provenance therefore authority."

Of course we do not know the extent with which they may or may not have actually done that, but we are faced with the reality that such was well within their power ... and certainly, their collective self-interests.

No. I do not say this in order to "confront you." Although I do realize that it is a confrontation. This "confrontation" does not stem from me.