I don't even believe his teachings were all that great.

Share your wealth with everyone? Give to Caesar what is Caesar's? Nigga, please!

This is the first time in the history of man that Jesus' teachings and "Nigga, please!" were used in the same context.

Jesus - the socialist!

Ah, sly. Very sly. You think that if you find me and whoever else saying we don't attend church, that the whole topic is useless right? I'm on to your tricks!

Krem you know you agree with the rob peter give to paul theory!

i attend church every week cuz of my dad i hte him....he makes me go to youth group an dthis advent thing every monday

I usualy go with my grandpa at least 2-5 times a month. Depends if he's going on sunday mornings (I work then) or saturday afternoons (I sometimes work then). Also every christmas and easter my family goes.

Actually, I agree with "my foot in yo' ass theory"

What about the "try it and I'll cap yo ass" theory?

That was awesome.

And for the record, my parents don't go to church at all, but I attend with my grandparents every week. But, if you'd like to nitpick me, a good reason why I enjoy it is because they go to some various fast food place afterwords, so I feel rewarded and free of sins, not necessarily in that order.

Krem, he didn't say that, that's why the Roman's freaked. Better watch your tail. :wink:

Also, X, that passage is properly quoted, its from the NT, and is one of the most misinterpretted lines (Thanks Augustine) in the entire testament. women everywhere have been screwed over for i too. It was meant to introduce the fact that there are multiple translations and constant reflection on one's religious texts should be encouraged.

I wasn't nitpicking you, I was asking you a serious question

I know Dolce, I know! It was the whole "Quote, Post, Quote" format that threw me off completely.

Nah, I don't believe in that.

I know, I know, he said something libertarian ;-)

But, if anything, I believe in the Protestant, and not the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. Catholic church represents all that's corrupt to me.

I see what your saying, alot of catholic think the protestant interpretation/version of the bible is "wrong" because they took 7 books out .


Why do you think the catholic church is corrupt?

I'm going to sidetrack the convo for a bit (it appears to be sidetracked anyways).

Dolce, in the introduction to the Bible I bought, the the individual in charge of the edition stated something which I found to be interesting. He said that the Bible has as a unique feature the fact that it has always, always been a work that was translated. This goes even back to the pre-Christian portions of the Bible, which, being in Hebrew, would have been virtually incomprehensible to the average Jewish person because Aramaic was the colloquial tongue, with Hebrew almost relegated to the status of a 'priestly', exclusive language (and of course the NT characters speak Aramaic and not Hebrew).

Naturally, post-Christianity, the Bible as we have it now (more or less) had to necessarily be translated because of the fact that its materials were in a number of languages, and its centre of power shifted from the Middle East to Europe, specifically Rome. In addition, the epic of Gilgamesh and other textual evidence hints at the possiblity of ancient myths having been reworked or shared by other cultures and civilzations, so that the stories as we have them in the OT might be interpretations in themselves.


The introduction went further to state that The Bible contrasts greatly with the Qur'an, whose Arabic ediction is the indisputed authentic version that is preferred and ranks above all others. The Bible, of course, does not have such an edition. Even the standard text of the Middle Ages, The Vulgate, was written in Latin, and not in the languages spoken by the Biblical characters. So even the standard text was an imitation, rather than the 'definite' version, although, of course, no such definite version exists or could exist.


Another interesting thing that was brought up concerned the way the material was handled in the Torah, and in the Christian Old Testament, what was left out of the OT, how it was organized, etc. The OT passages taken from the Torah and other Jewish holy texts are designed specifically so as to lay the way out for Jesus Christ in the NT, thus connecting the OT with the NT. The Jewish texts are far more 'open', if you will, with the Torah ending with Moses' death, etc.


Anyways, just thought I might bring this up. I would like to have your opinion on it.

Cheers


Edit: The Christian centre did hift to Europe, but of course not only Rome, but Byzantium as well in the East. Sorry for that omission.

I don't know about these days, but in the days of yore, Catholic Church was as corrupt as an institution could be. Consider the fact that they SOLD indulgentias to criminals to free them of their sins.

That, and the fact that they were the ultimate power in Europe for over 500 years, justifying slavery, among other things.

I agree
Something I will NEVER NEVER understand is how someone can have undying faith and trust in the pope. That the pope is infaillable(spelling?) When there have been many corrupt, evil, awful popes in the past.

Boxie, sorry this might have some typos and not be clear, but I hope it at least kind of is. You bring up some very good points and I do agree with them, but just wanted to expound even further upon them, so it took me a couple minutes to respond.


In response, yes. The language of both the old and new testaments have undergone so many translations, and also, understand that the choice of words in a translation are reflective of the time. The Vulgate, Latin, was not even a uniform language in Europe at the time, but was a conscious part on Latin west (vs, as you mention, Byzantium, etc_ to resurrect the older language of the great Roman empire. The language itself, and any student of Latin will say this today, is dead. There are clearly nouns and adjectives that have more than one meaning in today’s languages, and were probably not direct crosses from the Greek (NT) and biblical Hebrew. So, going back to my example, in the original Greek of John's gospel "me mou uptou" translated in Latin as "Noli me tangere" ("Do not touch me" or "Do not cling to me," or several other translations) (John 20:17). Which in English can mean Do not cling to me. But these are not direct verb transfers, and even if they were, their interpretations are layered into the work.

Probably the most classic example is the series of conscious misinterpretations of the description of Mary as a Virgin. The short of it being, that newer languages have made a distinction between maid, maiden, virgin, woman, girl, etc. Was this the case originally? No…I’m doing work on Joan of Arc now (paper will be done tomorrow and I might post it in the lit section) on the French word “Pucelle” and how that can be interpreted as maid, maiden, woman, and virgin, in today’s standards. Our choice, were we to translate that word, would have consequences. Take the language of any interpretation, and the literalness of the original with a grain of salt always.

As to the Qur’an, it is a much newer text, and you’re right there was a consistent attempt to keep the language. But even then, the example of such a word as “Maid” can still shed light on this discussion. Even if the word is still in use, and the language is active as Arabic is, has there been a cultural redefining of “Maid” as “Virgin” which may not have previously been. The Arabic language is very alive, so clearly it is diversifying and coming up with more specific nouns for words that in 600 encompassed more general groupings.”

Also, and this applies for all, above translation there is also interpretation. The John quote is supposedly what Jesus calls out to the Magdalene as she tries to hold him/ pray. Now the three synoptic gospels interpreted the same remark as being an indication the Jesus thought Mary, being a woman, was not worthy of touching him, thus the eternal relegation of women to religious inferiority. The last of the Gospels, written much later, and only included in the NT after intense scholastic and religious debate, interpreted those same words as meaning Do not try to grasp at some physical aspect of me. As in, Jesus only exists in spirit, and for Mary to try and “cling” to his physical presence will impede spiritual faith (clearly Jesus, now form…in spirit). In this way, the section is interpreted as Mary, being the disciple to the disciples, leading the way in defining the emerging Christian faith in the second coming.

Make of it what you will, but it still comes down to what Boxie brought up about the subtlety of language and interpretation.


edit* Just noticed your questions about NT and OT prefiguration. I could write paragraphs and paragraphs on it. Very interesting. If you're still interested let me know.

I absolutely agree that actually, there should be no reason for atheists to celebrate Christmas. The origins of Christmas ARE in the religion.

HOWEVER, you should take into account that Christmas has lost its character whatsoever, just like Thanksgiving did as well. The former is only about decorations and presents, the latter is about, well, the turkey, hehe. Even those people who are religious, well, most of them, don't think of Christmas in a religious way. Face it, Christmas is just an excuse for people to give each other presents, decorate everything pretty and the family to come together. That is basically it. Everything else moved into the background a long time ago.

i thought it said "should atheletes celebrate" how dumb am i eh

I've been a practicing atheist for the past 15 years. And I love presents. But I don't celebrate Xmas per say.

Christmas was just a pagan festival absorbed by the Christians. You could well ask whether anyone celebrating a pagan end of harvest festival (Which is how Christmas got started) can call themselves Christians.

You, mister, are the definition of ignorance.

In my language, we don't call it christmas. We call it "jól" which is parallel to the English word "yule". The word jól/yule is derived from the old nordic month of 12 november - 11 december which was called "Ylir".

By the way, did you know that the yule (yes, yule, not christmas) was originally a pagan festival? Here in the north it was to celebrate the coming of the sun. You see, because Scandinavia is so far up north, the winter days are much shorter than the summer days. In December, the sunlight can only be seen for approximately four hours throughout the entire day. But after December the sunlight gradually increases until it is sunlight the entire 24 hours of the day in the summer months. Long before christianity found its way up here, yule was being celebrated because after the harsh winter months, the sun would finally start showing itself again, and life would get better.

Yule was also celebrated in the Roman empire, they called it Saturnalia and it was to celebrate Saturn. But the Roman Catholic Church had the habit of absorbing pagan traditions into Christendom, soon converting this holiday commemorating the birth of the sun god into a ceremony honouring the birth of the son of god, whose actual date of birth, if he even existed, was definetely not 25th December.

Now that you've realised that the yule originated before christianity spread to Europe, and that it is NOT originally a christian festival, the question arises: Should YOU celebrate the yule season? Seeing that you are NOT a pagan, you obviously should not celebrate it, right?

That's some harsh pounding, Shad ;-)