Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
I presume you are suggesting that Christians do charity work in the hope of a reward in heaven rather than because they think it's the moral thing to do ?

That maybe true for some, but the point is that they are doing it, so what's the problem with that ?
Click to expand...

The only "moral" deed is a deed done out of respect for yourself and your own reasoned morality.
Doing good out of fear of "divine retribution" like hellfire, or with the intention of securing a place at some imaginary table of the blessed in Valhalla or Paradise, is self-delusion. The effect on one's beneficiaries may be the same, and some Do-Gooders may not care about the difference.
I do. But it's a personal thing.
 
pixel said:
The only "moral" deed is a deed done out of respect for yourself and your own reasoned morality.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

As long as we accept that religious people can also have that motivation and not assume they all do it for "salvation" reasons (Y/N) ?
 
SirRumpole said:
As long as we accept that religious people can also have that motivation and not assume they all do it for "salvation" reasons (Y/N) ?
Click to expand...

Offcourse they can, because most "religious people" are actually more influenced by secular morality these days, and make their own assessments and will dump and ignore the immoral parts of the bible.

That's why I don't like it when people say silly stuff like " Without religion society wouldn't have morals", that's BS, if society didn't have morals the moderate religions wouldn't know which parts of the Bible/Qu'ran to ignore and which to follow, the fact they cherry pick shows an outside nonreligious influence
 
Value Collector said:
the fact they cheery pick shows an outside nonreligious influence
Click to expand...

Yes, that's one motivation to "cherry pick", another is the reason that different parts of the Bible are contradictory and they pick what best suits their perception of the world and their own morality the formation of which depends on their upbringing, personal observation and other factors.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes, that's one motivation to "cherry pick", another is the reason that different parts of the Bible are contradictory and they pick what best suits their perception of the world and their own morality the formation of which depends on their upbringing, personal observation and other factors.
Click to expand...

The most blatant cherry pick I have seen is when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth", and they quote that in all sorts of places especially round Christmas.

But, the full verse is.

Matthew 10:30
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword
 
Value Collector said:
The most blatant cherry pick I have seen is when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth", and they quote that in all sorts of places especially round Christmas.

But, the full verse is.

Matthew 10:30
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword
Click to expand...

Picky, picky, that's actually Matthew 10:34.

:D
 
Tink said:
This must be the new secular morality you are talking about...

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/
Click to expand...

I think the kids will be alright Tink.

Schools and bigots all over the world have been teaching kids to not be gay or "abnormal"... some still managed to not take that beating.

So if the kid is not gay to start with, teaching him or her that it is OK to be gay may just produce a more tolerant adult who will only hate the poor and the Muslims and not too fuss about the gays :D
 
Value Collector said:
The most blatant cherry pick I have seen is when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth", and they quote that in all sorts of places especially round Christmas.

But, the full verse is.

Matthew 10:30
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword
Click to expand...

Is that a literal sword? or Not?

It is easy to take a verse and apply to your case. But it might also help to have a understanding of the landscape, the people he was talking to, and the effect it might have on those who followed Him. A little understanding of history goes a long way.
 
smallwolf said:
Is that a literal sword? or Not?

It is easy to take a verse and apply to your case. But it might also help to have a understanding of the landscape, the people he was talking to, and the effect it might have on those who followed Him. A little understanding of history goes a long way.
Click to expand...

That is precisely how the ancient books ought to be read: In the context, and with the knowledge of, the times when they've been written. Especially where the oldest texts are concerned, it helps to search for myths and legends of contemporary and preceding peoples in surrounding countries.

I'll provide only one innocuous example:
I'm sure most of us have heard about the Gilgamesh Epic, part of which tells the story of Utnapishtim, which precedes the Noah legend by hundreds of years. It was adapted for religio-ppolitical reasons and included in the Pentateuch, the earliest collection of stories with a moral background.
from Wikipedia:
The causes for God/gods having sent the flood also differ: in the Hebrew narrative the flood comes as God's judgment on a wicked humanity; in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh the reasons are not given and the flood appears to be the result of the caprice of the gods; whereas in the Atrahasis version of the Babylonian flood story the flood was sent by the gods to reduce human over-population, and after the flood other measures were introduced to prevent the problem recurring.
Click to expand...

In similar ways, the New Testament has been compiled and amended over hundreds of years, constantly adding new episodes and quotes to older legends, as religious (Christian) leaders at various times deemed necessary to keep the flock in line and attract new customers. The entire Mary cult was imported from Asia Minor, to pull Ishtar's acolytes into the new sect. The Christmas legend spun around Roman (and others') Winter Solstice celebrations, so early Christians could hide among the pagans when they celebrated Saturn, Mithras, or Apollo.
Classical Linguists had a field day analysing the various stages of development, timing each changed or added section according to words being used in newer additions that weren't in use earlier. Imagine someone tampering with Shakespeare's Hamlet, adding new verses about Louisiana cotton pickers, humming Model T engines, or baseball caps turned backwards. And then claiming that every word is a true record of utterings by the Historic Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. It's been printed, the local Priest assures us it's Gospel, so it's got to be true. Right!
 
Thanks, Luutzu.

I always have intentions to reply to all posts, but sometimes don't get around to it, and I apologise, but one thing is, we all should be saying what we want to say.

Bigot is one of those words that works both ways, so it is like water off a ducks back for me, as are all these other made up words to stop you talking from the left.

I have mentioned a few times about our Christian heritage and our foundations, what this country was built on, the biblical worldview.
The West as we know it would not exist.

I would rather look at the people that built this country, rather than the people that are trying to tear it down.

I could say who cares about what happens in public schools, we never used them, and same goes for the hospitals, I am glad we have the choice, as Muschu mentioned in another post.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851&page=6&p=904774#post904774

We used private for both.

But I do care, for the parents that are in those schools that need a voice, for what is right and wrong.

They are not happy that the state is trying to over rule their parenting.

When we were at school, any of those sort of things were done as information nights after school, where the parents and students attended, not forced on the family.
 
You are partially correct pixel...

Christians were persecuted up until around the time of Constantine, and were also blamed from the fire in 64 AD. As far as the adding new books or writings, that did occur with groups like the Gnostics or Montanists. And it was actually Irenaeus (and Co) in the "main church" that wanted to define some boundaries and not accepting any new writings.

You also have to remember that in these times, a number people from different groups were writing and decisions had to be made as to what was the accepted as scripture and what was rejected or considered heretical. (For example, Marcion in the 2nd century CE rejected the entire OT, and only accepted the gospel of Luke and letter of Paul!) You could argue that some of the decisions were political - if one can use that word, given what is known about the books today.

There have been and always will be discussions over what books are canonical (and therefore 'viewed' as added) but that is also because the canon is not technically closed.

the problem that we have today is more with the interpretation of the text itself, and then used in isolation or otherwise to prove a point, correctly or otherwise.
 
smallwolf said:
Is that a literal sword? or Not?

It is easy to take a verse and apply to your case. But it might also help to have a understanding of the landscape, the people he was talking to, and the effect it might have on those who followed Him. A little understanding of history goes a long way.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how people of all religions rationalise away the bits of their texts they don't like, eg "oh that doesn't mean what it says it means something else"

If there is a god, and he actually wanted to spread his word, the god relying on these old texts as sources of his message is pretty stupid don't you think? Doesn't seem like a smart god to me, makes me think the god doesn't actually exist, and we should take the mythology with a grain of salt, just like any other myth and legend.

-----------------------

but let me humour you, what do you think that verse meant?

And do you think the Jesus character from the bible actually existed?
 
Tink said:
Thanks, Luutzu.

I always have intentions to reply to all posts, but sometimes don't get around to it, and I apologise, but one thing is, we all should be saying what we want to say.

Bigot is one of those words that works both ways, so it is like water off a ducks back for me, as are all these other made up words to stop you talking from the left.

I have mentioned a few times about our Christian heritage and our foundations, what this country was built on, the biblical worldview.
The West as we know it would not exist.

I would rather look at the people that built this country, rather than the people that are trying to tear it down.

I could say who cares about what happens in public schools, we never used them, and same goes for the hospitals, I am glad we have the choice, as Muschu mentioned in another post.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851&page=6&p=904774#post904774

We used private for both.

But I do care, for the parents that are in those schools that need a voice, for what is right and wrong.

They are not happy that the state is trying to over rule their parenting.

When we were at school, any of those sort of things were done as information nights after school, where the parents and students attended, not forced on the family.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately tink because of your amorality you can't see that the steps you think are tearing Australia down, are actually creating a better country, you fail to recognise the bad things from the past and instead view it with rose coloured glasses.
 
Tink said:
Thanks, Luutzu.

I always have intentions to reply to all posts, but sometimes don't get around to it, and I apologise, but one thing is, we all should be saying what we want to say.

Bigot is one of those words that works both ways, so it is like water off a ducks back for me, as are all these other made up words to stop you talking from the left.

I have mentioned a few times about our Christian heritage and our foundations, what this country was built on, the biblical worldview.
The West as we know it would not exist.

I would rather look at the people that built this country, rather than the people that are trying to tear it down.

I could say who cares about what happens in public schools, we never used them, and same goes for the hospitals, I am glad we have the choice, as Muschu mentioned in another post.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851&page=6&p=904774#post904774

We used private for both.

But I do care, for the parents that are in those schools that need a voice, for what is right and wrong.

They are not happy that the state is trying to over rule their parenting.

When we were at school, any of those sort of things were done as information nights after school, where the parents and students attended, not forced on the family.
Click to expand...

Yea, people are more complicated and a label this or that would be wrong.

I don't think sticking to how Australia, and this goes for any country of any race and religion... sticking with how a country was founded or established for moral principle and civil administration... it's not a good idea.

All countries are established from violence and bigotry, and often, from genocide. So it'd be pretty messed up to use the same kind of thinking to keep the peace.

That's not to say Christianity or whatever national foundation should be torn down... but it should be dial down a bit - get the nicer bit from it for everyday use, tolerate a few crazy nonconformist "religion", and save the crazy violent purity stuff for when barbarians are at our gates.

----

I think the Safe School program was also required teaching in private school. We got info pack on it earlier in the year. Were there exception clause for religious schools?

But either way, we all have our own opinions about what ought to be taught at school... end of day it's whatever the State and its wise people decide, isn't it. I mean, I really do not like how about 1/4 of my kid's fees goes to some Church/Bishop of Sydney or something... but there it goes. And this year, with the fees remaining the same or higher, the school thought to cut back on subscription for the kids PM Reader app they could read from home.

The app would cost about $20 per child and was a great way for the kids to do extra reading... but it's cut and the Church still get that $500+ from the school fee. Not a good way to teach moral value and social justice, in my book anyway.

But like anything, if the parents are upset enough about it, they'll march and maybe then the Masters will listen up.
 
Value Collector...

The version in Luke reads as....

The Lucan Jesus asks, ''Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division"

The version in Matthew replaces 'division' with 'sword'.

Now...

People back then were more religous than today - in fact, it would be safe to say that everyone worshipped some God. The father of a family was ruler, and what they thought was the law, and if you were the wife, son or daughter you would not go against what you father said. A father could kill his children. (Does not make it right, but that is what happened) So if someone in the family decided to follow Jesus, that person would be marginalised, at the very least and this could also affect the way the entire family was viewed (and excluded) in wider society. There was no safety net back then.

Division was real and had real consequences!

Source: The sword motif in Matthew 10:34
(http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1698/2988)

"Contrary to the views of most scholars, this study has argued that the motif of the sword in Matthew 10:34 does not reflect the original wording of Q but is more probably the result of Matthean redaction. In determining the meaning of this symbol for the evangelist, it was found that Matthew's intentions were perhaps more nuanced and more complex than scholars have recognised. As is normally acknowledged, the sword is not a literal sword which the Matthean Jesus brandishes to call his followers to an uprising against the Romans; on the contrary, it is a symbol which has eschatological overtones."
...
"In the final analysis it is difficult to ascertain with any certainty precisely how Matthew intended the sword motif in Matthew 10:34 to be taken. The multivocal interpretation offered here is more suggestive than definitive, but it is built upon the indisputable facts that the symbol of the sword had a variety of meanings in the contemporary literature and that the evangelist had a variety of eschatological interests."

As to your second question - Yes I do. But also studying a BTh, listen to Death metal, and work in IT. I don't think that it is relevant.

(and just in case you were wondering... when studying for a BTh you DO NOT take things on face value!)
 
smallwolf said:
Value Collector...

The version in Luke reads as....

The Lucan Jesus asks, ''Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division"

The version in Matthew replaces 'division' with 'sword'.

Now...

People back then were more religous than today - in fact, it would be safe to say that everyone worshipped some God. The father of a family was ruler, and what they thought was the law, and if you were the wife, son or daughter you would not go against what you father said. A father could kill his children. (Does not make it right, but that is what happened) So if someone in the family decided to follow Jesus, that person would be marginalised, at the very least and this could also affect the way the entire family was viewed (and excluded) in wider society. There was no safety net back then.

Division was real and had real consequences!

Source: The sword motif in Matthew 10:34
(http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1698/2988)

"Contrary to the views of most scholars, this study has argued that the motif of the sword in Matthew 10:34 does not reflect the original wording of Q but is more probably the result of Matthean redaction. In determining the meaning of this symbol for the evangelist, it was found that Matthew's intentions were perhaps more nuanced and more complex than scholars have recognised. As is normally acknowledged, the sword is not a literal sword which the Matthean Jesus brandishes to call his followers to an uprising against the Romans; on the contrary, it is a symbol which has eschatological overtones."
...
"In the final analysis it is difficult to ascertain with any certainty precisely how Matthew intended the sword motif in Matthew 10:34 to be taken. The multivocal interpretation offered here is more suggestive than definitive, but it is built upon the indisputable facts that the symbol of the sword had a variety of meanings in the contemporary literature and that the evangelist had a variety of eschatological interests."

As to your second question - Yes I do. But also studying a BTh, listen to Death metal, and work in IT. I don't think that it is relevant.

(and just in case you were wondering... when studying for a BTh you DO NOT take things on face value!)
Click to expand...

Jesus obviously didn't bring the literal Sword, hence his crucifixion.

Moses and Muhammad have the literal Sword as the peacemaker, hence they get to died in old age :D
 
smallwolf said:
Value Collector...

The version in Luke reads as....

The Lucan Jesus asks, ''Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division"

The version in Matthew replaces 'division' with 'sword'.

Now...

People back then were more religous than today - in fact, it would be safe to say that everyone worshipped some God. The father of a family was ruler, and what they thought was the law, and if you were the wife, son or daughter you would not go against what you father said. A father could kill his children. (Does not make it right, but that is what happened) So if someone in the family decided to follow Jesus, that person would be marginalised, at the very least and this could also affect the way the entire family was viewed (and excluded) in wider society. There was no safety net back then.

Division was real and had real consequences!

Source: The sword motif in Matthew 10:34
(http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1698/2988)

"Contrary to the views of most scholars, this study has argued that the motif of the sword in Matthew 10:34 does not reflect the original wording of Q but is more probably the result of Matthean redaction. In determining the meaning of this symbol for the evangelist, it was found that Matthew's intentions were perhaps more nuanced and more complex than scholars have recognised. As is normally acknowledged, the sword is not a literal sword which the Matthean Jesus brandishes to call his followers to an uprising against the Romans; on the contrary, it is a symbol which has eschatological overtones."
...
"In the final analysis it is difficult to ascertain with any certainty precisely how Matthew intended the sword motif in Matthew 10:34 to be taken. The multivocal interpretation offered here is more suggestive than definitive, but it is built upon the indisputable facts that the symbol of the sword had a variety of meanings in the contemporary literature and that the evangelist had a variety of eschatological interests."

As to your second question - Yes I do. But also studying a BTh, listen to Death metal, and work in IT. I don't think that it is relevant.

(and just in case you were wondering... when studying for a BTh you DO NOT take things on face value!)
Click to expand...


Yeah I have heard all those rationalisations before, I don't buy it. As I said the fact that you have to jump through all those hoops to get to the "real" meaning of a verse is pretty much proof it wasn't inspired by an all knowing god, other wise he wouldn't have chosen languages that die out and texts that get changed as his way to pass on a message.

I don't see any reason to believe the bible is anything more than a book of old myths, so it seems silly to try and make all the rationalisations and bent it to fit current culture, just leave it as an example of an old book of stories, some good some immoral.

-------------------------

When I asked if you believe the Jesus "character" existed, I am not talking about some guy that inspired the stories, In the way the Santa character was loosely based on St Nicholas. I am asking if you believe Jesus as he is described in the bible exists, eg son of a god, does miracles, came back from the dead, etc etc.

In other words I am not asking if st nick version of Jesus existed, I am asking if Santa with reindeer and living in the north pole etc version of Jesus existed
 
Value Collector said:
Yeah I have heard all those rationalisations before, I don't buy it. As I said the fact that you have to jump through all those hoops to get to the "real" meaning of a verse is pretty much proof it wasn't inspired by an all knowing god, other wise he wouldn't have chosen languages that die out and texts that get changed as his way to pass on a message.

I don't see any reason to believe the bible is anything more than a book of old myths, so it seems silly to try and make all the rationalisations and bent it to fit current culture, just leave it as an example of an old book of stories, some good some immoral.

-------------------------

When I asked if you believe the Jesus "character" existed, I am not talking about some guy that inspired the stories, In the way the Santa character was loosely based on St Nicholas. I am asking if you believe Jesus as he is described in the bible exists, eg son of a god, does miracles, came back from the dead, etc etc.

In other words I am not asking if st nick version of Jesus existed, I am asking if Santa with reindeer and living in the north pole etc version of Jesus existed
Click to expand...
The argument about "division" or "sword" becomes even hazier when we consider how usage and meaning of words is changing over time. Immensely more research has been done on the issue since the NT was translated from Greek to English. The scholars that worked on the King James-sponsored project may have found the word "sword" a good fit for the Greek word in question. That word is μάχαιραν and has a range of meanings with different predominance at various times. Transliteration spells "makhaira", referring to "makhai" = battle, struggle, disagreement, but also applied, and even anglicised, to machete or sword. If we want to know the "true meaning" - whatever that may be - we must first find out at which time this particular verse entered Matthew's gospel. Only then can we make an educated guess about the most likely "meaning". However, even then will we only be able to guess the intention of the author of that particular verse. Whether the "Historic Jesus" (assuming there was indeed such a unique person) uttered that sentence at all, and if so, what Aramaic expression he used, will have to remain a mystery.
 
pixel said:
The argument about "division" or "sword" becomes even hazier when we consider how usage and meaning of words is changing over time. Immensely more research has been done on the issue since the NT was translated from Greek to English. The scholars that worked on the King James-sponsored project may have found the word "sword" a good fit for the Greek word in question. That word is μάχαιραν and has a range of meanings with different predominance at various times. Transliteration spells "makhaira", referring to "makhai" = battle, struggle, disagreement, but also applied, and even anglicised, to machete or sword. If we want to know the "true meaning" - whatever that may be - we must first find out at which time this particular verse entered Matthew's gospel. Only then can we make an educated guess about the most likely "meaning". However, even then will we only be able to guess the intention of the author of that particular verse. Whether the "Historic Jesus" (assuming there was indeed such a unique person) uttered that sentence at all, and if so, what Aramaic expression he used, will have to remain a mystery.
Click to expand...

Either way, when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth" they are still blatantly cherry picking, even if you can rationalise away the word sword, the full quote is still saying he didn't come for peace on earth.

And given that the "Jesus character" from the bible almost certainly doesn't/ didn't exist anyway, why put so much effort into twisting and rationalising his words, why not just admit the rubbish bits? And right it off to the poor moral attitudes of the time and move on, constantly rewriting and twisting things to maintain the image of a perfect man and perfect book is stupid.
 
Top