Religious Discussion

[Trinity]

I know the Heiekin principle or
the Carlsberg principle!!  ;D

Never learned the Heisenberg though!! 


The other two involve heavy drinking then arguing about god! ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

I know the Heiekin principle or
the Carlsberg principle!!   ;D

Never learned the Heisenberg though!!  


The other two involve heavy drinking then arguing about god! ;D

Heisenberg involves even heavier drinking and arguing about quantum mechanics.  It is rumoured to be waaaaaay more fun; unfortunately, the next morning, no one remembers anything - except the uncertainty.

 

[Trinity]

Heisenberg involves even heavier drinking and arguing about quantum mechanics.  It is rumoured to be waaaaaay more fun; unfortunately, the next morning, no one remembers anything - except the uncertainty.

Touche

 

[the 48th regulator]

I know the Heiekin principle or
the Carlsberg principle!! 

Ok Padre,

This thread may be catered to you, but you have touched on subject near and dear to me.  I am insulted that you did not heed my words you hopples heathen....

Heineken

dileas

tess

oi vey....

spectacle, testicle, wallet watch....

 

[Trinity]

I knew when tess was going to come in.. I was in trouble

I LOOKED it up on the beer store website...

and then typed it wrong!!! 

My heart as in the right place...

I know.. i'm buying you a pint for that!

 

[a_majoor]

http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/06/christians-should-welcome-court.html

Christians Should Welcome Court Rulings on Commandments

As a Christian and an American, I welcome the two rulings issued by the US Supreme Court today regarding displays of the Ten Commandments on public property. As a New York Times account points out:

    In a pair of 5-to-4 rulings, the court said the display of the Ten Commandments in a 22-acre park at the Texas State Capitol was proper, but that the displays of the Commandments in two county courthouses in Kentucky were so overtly religious as to be impermissible.

    The rulings, the first by the court in a quarter-century on the emotional issue of the proper place of the Commandments in American life, conveyed the message that disputes over such religious displays must be decided case by case, and that the specific facts are all important.

As a purely spiritual matter, I believe that the display of the Ten Commandments on public property may be:

(1) Contrary to God's will;

(2) Destructive of a positive witness for Christ.

The cause to which every Christian is called to be committed--sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection and their power to give new life to all who follow Him--is not something that we are to "farm out" to the government. Each follower of Christ is to embrace this as part of their personal mission.

For we Christians to insist that tax dollars be used in what often is an act of proselytization not only violates constitutional principles, but Biblical ones as well. It smacks of coercion, of using one's status in a community to force our views on others. Scour the Bible from cover to cover and you won't find God ever sanctioning the coercive imposition of our faith on others. In fact, we're called upon to share our faith with compassion, with humility, and with respect for those with whom we differ.

I emphatically disagree with those who feel that these rulings prohibit the free expression of faith in Christ. I'm still saying that Jesus Christ is Lord and that the Ten Commandments are a terrific summary of God's will for the human race.

These rulings, it should be noted, allow for government entities to acknowledge the significance of the Ten Commandments as part of the common heritage of America, as the court apparently felt was true of the display in Texas in favor of which they ruled.

But they disallow the use of public monies and public properties to uphold a specific religious perspective (for example, Jewish or Christian) out of deference to the establishment clause, the provisions of which they deemed violated by the Kentucky displays.

In fact, I feel that these rulings should be welcomed by Christians. The government entity which today can give preferential treatment to Christians can, quite conceivably, give preference to other religions in the future. Better a society in which all are given equal opportunity for expression than one which sides with a specific religion or sect.

In a free interchange of ideas, devoid of preferential treatment, I am convinced that the Savior Jesus will win people's hearts and wills every time. We Christians don't need coercion to win others to Christ. We have two powerful weapons without governmental endorsement: common sense (because I believe that the Good News of Jesus makes plain sense) and the Holy Spirit (the great, loving persuader of the skeptical).

[For further reading on related topics, you might want to check out:

Trusting What You Can't See

Three Attributes I Hope Always to Be Part of Christians' Sharing of Faith

The Ten Commandments Controversy]

UPDATE: Joe Gandelman, moderate blogger, has linked to this post and provides some other interesting links on the subject.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ann Althouse, law professor at the University of Wisconsin, evaluates Justice O'Connor's reasons for voting against publicly-sanctioned displays of the Ten Commandments in both cases.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has linked to this post. Thanks, Glenn.

posted by Mark @ 4:50 PM

If you want to display a symbol of your particular religion, I say "Bring it on". What I don't agree with is the active supression of one particular religion. If the Christians want the Ten Commandments displayed in a courthouse, then the opportunity to display a Menorah, Tibetan Prayer Wheels or the "Ten Principles of Leadership" must also be given, rather than the heavy handed "tear it down" solution.

 

[DSB]

There are some denominations that do not believe in the Apostles creed
yet consider themselves christian.

I've been meaning to post this for a while..   This is the MOST useful link
in the world (but i might be biased)


http://www.dnd.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions_toc_e.asp?flag=No

The accepted religions of the Canadian Forces, their beliefs and the required needs of
the soldiers.   Chaplains often use this as a reference when sticky situations come up. This
should provide enough information to allow a level playing field of discussion when it comes
to the various denominations.

I'm a little late on this thread.

That link is great, thanks for posting it.

As far as apapproacheso God go; all I hope is that people's approaches don't effect my approach.  I've had some friends plead with me to change my ways because I'm going to heck.  Which gets annoying, especially if you don't believe in heck.  Strange. I like the you build your house, I'll build mine atattitude.
DSB

 

[S McKee]

http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/06/christians-should-welcome-court.html

If you want to display a symbol of your particular religion, I say "Bring it on". What I don't agree with is the active supression of one particular religion. If the Christians want the Ten Commandments displayed in a courthouse, then the opportunity to display a Menorah, Tibetan Prayer Wheels or the "Ten Principles of Leadership" must also be given, rather than the heavy handed "tear it down" solution.

An excellent story/post and I agree whole heartedly. One should live his/her faith not have it imposed by legislation. As one person once told me "You will be the only Bible some people will ever read." (scary thought) this is how the true faithful will proselytize. This can be said for any person of faith regardless of religion.

 

[Acorn]

These are the ten commandments to stop any mis-quotes:
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Looks like the KJV translation. Lovely prose, fecal translation - and the cause of much grief to the Christian community.

Acorn

 

[atticus]

how is it a "fecal" translation? Please back your statement up with something more than that it is a great cause of greif to the Christian community. I'm pretty sure its the KJV, I copied it off a web site I found.

 

[Acorn]

Though it was my suggestion that kicked this off, principally due to my offence at the idea that Islam was somehow a pagan faith, I haven't really taken the opportunity to stick my oar in due to the time factor.

I'll offer this, which may offend some. It's based on my take about God and religion (which I think are more exclusive than many of you likely do). Some may find it humorous, but I hope none consider it ammo for destroying the faith of others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moses went to the mountain in disgust at what his people had become - pagans, ignoring the God of their fathers. He didn't realize it at the time, but he was actively seeking guidance from God. God responded. The conversation is as follows:

A bush begins to burn and Moses hears a voice

God: Moses.

Moses: Holy s***t (in a later time he would likely have said "J**** C*****!")

G: back off on the blasphemy Moses. We need to talk.

M: Sorry Lord. It's not every day a burning bush talks to someone.

G: Good point. As long as you promise not to include it in anything you write in the future, I'll adopt a form much like you - old man with a beard. Is that better?

M: Yes, and it's off the record. The burning bush has the better literary impact anyway.

G: I knew I chose you well Moses.

M: By the way, what's that smoldering thing in your mouth?

G: Ahh. A cigar. Cuban. Keep that out of the scripture as well. There's going to be enough trouble about it a few thousand years from now. Kind of like the drink I'm having - a people called "Scots" will create it in the future, and call it the "Water of Life" in their language. Their word is "whisky" note the lack of an "e." That's important.

M: I don't understand my Lord.

G: Yeah, I know. You never will. Anyway, you're troubled, and seeking guidance. What can I do for you?

M: The people are turning from you and worshipping idols of their own making. How can I turn them back?

G: You can't. I created you with free will, which means you can do what you want.

M: But that would create Chaos!

G: Yeah, I know. Look, if you want to keep them in line you can impose laws. I'll give you a few to start. The key thing to remember is that the laws must be only as restrictive as necessary to prevent people from harming themselves or others. Lighten it up as time goes by. The level of education of people these days requires telling them that "God says such-and-such is bad." At some point they'll cease to believe it. Or, at least, a significant number will.

M: How could people not believe in you O Lord?!

G: You just did it. You obviously didn't believe what I just said.

M: Forgive me O Lord.

G: No problem. If there's one consistency in you, my people, it's that you have, and will, change whatever I tell you into something of your own interpretation. It'll happen about six significant times before you get even close to right, and there's enough flex in the future that you may even destroy yourselves first. You'll endlessly argue about my words, and that may be the end of you.

G: I'm going to give you five rules. See if they get to the bottom of the mountain intact:

1. I'm the only God - don't try to figure me out, as I'm beyond human understanding.
2. Don't try to make a picture of me. I'm beyond human understanding.
3. Don't invoke my name unless you need me. If you say it too much it's like crying "wolf."
4. If you do nothing else, say a prayer or two one day.
5. Don't do anything against your fellow humans. They'll get you back if you do.

M: That doesn't seem enough Lord.

G: <sigh> Whatever. That's the basics. You add what you need. I need a refill.

Then God looked down and saw Moses deliver Ten Commandments to the people. Of course, God knows what the next version of The Law would look like (God's note to self - try a bit more emphasis on number five next time). God also knows how many versions it will take before man Gets It. If ever. God knows everything. One wonders why God even bothers.
----------------------------------------

Acorn

 

[Acorn]

how is it a "fecal" translation? Please back your statement up with something more than that it is a great cause of greif to the Christian community. I'm pretty sure its the KJV, I copied it off a web site I found.

Maybe a bad choice of words on my part. However, the KJV is acknowledged among Biblical scholars as a very bad translation. One example is in the Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV) is better translated as "Do not commit murder." An important distinction, I should think.

Acorn
<edited for spelling>

 

[Infanteer]

I remember watching a fascinating show on the evolution of the English language and how it was tied to the Church in England.  The King James Bible was deliberately written in an archaic and confusing form of English and was far from the contemporary vernacular of the time.  It was done so due to the fact that the Common people would have access to the Bible (the show talked about Bible production after Gutenburg's press began to promogulate) and that it needed to sound ancient, flowery, and authoritative - the demand for accuracy wasn't really as high as those first three.

 

[neuromancer]

Yes indeed.

The KJV is, simply put, a bad translation.

There have been numerous ancient texts found since the KJV was written
and so a more modern translation (the last 50 years) would naturally be
more accurate provided they utilized those ancient texts during the
translation process.

Also, historical records from the time cite that King James (a frenchman
and a Catholic) told the translators that they needed to revise certain
phrases to make them sound more poetic. King James was definitely
more interested in creating a beautiful "sounding" translation than
an accurate one.

I do like the sound of the King James though, psalm 23 for example is
a great example of truly wonderful poetry that ranks right up there with
the greatest literature in history.

 

[atticus]

Ah, thats interesting I never knew that. But I do understand that the KJV is alot harder to understand than NIV or one of the many other translations. Maybe one should just learn greek.... much like understanding the true meaning of the Koran in its origanal language, eh?

It was my understanding that the KJV was created for the common people to read, and was printed under King James (obviously) and after his death, it was outlawed.

 

[Zartan]

Speaking of translations, did you know that the ancient Greek word for "for" was the same as "because" - "Christ died because of your sins", interesting guilt-trip.

Personally, I hold the belief that when we die, we are not judged by what faith we held, but rather by our actions and deeds. Also, I believe that each religion gives recognition to the same being, the same god(s), because I consider each religion wrong. Why do I think this? I consider the bible the word of god, I do; when I read it, i feel a charge, a change in my state, however, it is the word of god, as written by humans. Even though they were given the greatest task any of us could receive, the ancient prophets were human, and just as likely to be crooked as any of us here and now.

There are other things I could say, but I don't have the time.

 

[Trinity]

Ah, thats interesting I never knew that. But I do understand that the KJV is alot harder to understand than NIV or one of the many other translations. Maybe one should just learn greek.... much like understanding the true meaning of the Koran in its origanal language, eh?

pssst...  some of us do....  (and you were trying to be sarcastic!!!)

Greek, Hebrew and Latin are offered at the Masters level in order to be able to translate
the different scriptures.  Some schools (such as Queens) make it manditory for those in
the ordination stream.  Other schools offer it but don't make it manditory.  Its actually
an eye opener to the scriptures when you can see the real translation and realize that you
in fact may not agree or find different ways to translate it which have significant impact.

 

[Guardian]

The KJV's not that bad a translation - it's just well behind the current state of the English language.

It was certainly translated with atheological considerations in mind - King James didn't like the other contemporary English Bible available, the Geneva Bible, because its study notes (prepared by John Calvin and others) advocated the treasonous idea that kings and rulers should be opposed if found wrong in light of the Bible and Christian teaching. So he ordered his own created that (surprise!) didn't have any such study notes. This didn't affect the actual translation of the text itself that much, but the impetus behind the translation effort certainly was political.

If you compare some of the more modern translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) to the KJV, the meaning is basically unchanged, except in a few minor areas. No essential Christian doctrine is affected.

Now, I wouldn't recommend the KJV to someone who didn't grow up with it - the English "therein"  ;D is rapidly going the way of Beowulf. My personal favourite's the new English Standard Version (circa 2001), but there's many other reliable translations out there. Most of the modern translations rely on the same critical edition of the Greek text (that is, scholars' best and most recent determination of what the originals said) as well as the same Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament... so you're going to get basically the same message each way. The KJV's manuscript base was not nearly as comprehensive as today's, so today's translations are significantly more accurate to the original.

As for Zartan's comments, I don't think it's logical for one to consider all holy books to be God's word, as you're implying. Most of them make exclusive claims, the Bible and the Koran among them. I can't logically accept that if God exists, and if He cares enough about our behaviour to go to the trouble to commission scriptures to be written, He would do so in such a contradictory manner. If He decided that kind of trouble is worth it, why wouldn't He get it right in just one book?

Christianity, for instance, is exclusive by its nature. "No one can come to the Father except through me," Jesus said. And it depends on the exclusivity and reliability of its Scriptures - Paul wrote, "If Jesus is not raised from the dead, our faith is in vain." You can call the Christian point of view right or wrong, but it's incompatible with other faiths, either way.

 

[a_majoor]

To tell the truth, I preffer the King James Bible because it is written in the language of Shakespear, and is a great read, rather than any theological issues (which I would find baffling or incomprehensible, to say the least)

Don't knock Beowulf either! It took me months to read, but turned out to be a thrilling story of duty, honour, courage and redemption once I had it figured out. (Some day we should sit down and compare translations of Homer as well... )

 

[Infanteer]

(Some day we should sit down and compare translations of Homer as well... )

The Lattimore translation is usually considered one of the best as he sticks closest to the poetic style of the dactylic hexameter (including all the rosy uses of descriptions like "Breaker of Horses" or "Gerenian Horsemen") by almost being a line for line rendition.  It was the version used in my "Greek Epic" course.

I also have the Fagles translation which is pretty good because it uses modern English quite well (it makes reading the story fun) but still ties itself to the poetic style of the original.  It was the first one a I read and I got through it quite easily.

The new Lombardo translation abandons any effort to achieve poetic effect in English (because it doesn't work) and focuses on the story - almost reads like a modern war novel, which can be a good way to introduce people to the theme.

I've had a professor read part of the Iliad in the original Greek - it sounds really neat to hear it flow like the way it should; perhaps Trinity can do a reading for us one day.