|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted January 07, 2016 08:38 PM |
|
|
A new page... terrific.
I don't think Alex meant only translation, but interpretation as in, "what does this sentence/commandment/parable REALLY mean?"
Be careful, Homer. Beware Kreegans bearing gifts. 
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 08:46 PM |
|
|
But if the translation is not faithful enough, how can the literal message be correct?
That's the reason I stick to my Vulgata, if necessary (due to haste, or not knowing the terms) I'll be reading from the Diodati, which is pretty old as well, but in Italian.
And even then, I try to not jump to conclusions.
An interpretation is in order, else why would God curse a fig tree?
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 09:23 PM |
|
|
The translation is very important of course, but I was trying to understand what AlexSPL meant. Maybe he had a different idea. Anywya...
I think there's nothing wrong with interpretation itself, but many people think that a different interpretation is in order, only to push their own agenda, that's what I meant.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 09:33 PM |
|
|
In my very humble opinion, if this God is what you seem to think he is (*big sigh from me*) - wouldn't he have made sure his WORD (which was in the damn beginning) would be understood by everyone, no matter translation and interpretation issues? Considering the inevitanle squabble that was a certainty to be a result of how things went down.
I for myself can answer this question with a resounding YES - because otherwise he wouldn't be a God but an utter fool to give his creatures a chance to shed blood in his name over a translation issue.
That's all it takes to tell me that either the Bible is not the word of the God the Bible says exists - or the God the Bible says exists doesn't exist. Quite simple.
Oh, and just another thing. isn't anyone realizing who utterly ridiculous it is when scientific or pseudo-scientific points are made tu support religion? "Some things in the Bible have been proven true!" So what? Some others have been proven untrue by the same science.
Do I really have to explain to you Christians how FAITH is working?
All you need is Goedel's theorem. If a system is complex enough, there will always be things that CANNOT be proven (however, people will tend to believe that a certain something is true).
There will always be things BEYOND science, and if God's existence could be scientifically proven or disproven, no faith was necessary anymore, whoch would make the whole religion thing completely pointless. Think about this. Imagine you could PROVE there is this God the Bible talks of. Would immediately make the whole thing pointless because there wouldn't be a decision anymore, but instead certainty.
Which means that this discussion makes no sense whatsoever. You have faith or not. Case closed. Nothing to discuss, really.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 09:43 PM |
|
|
Which means that this discussion makes no sense whatsoever. You have faith or not. Case closed. Nothing to discuss, really.
And yet, Christians and atheists have been at it for so long, and with no signs of stopping.
As well as the various Christians denominations that don't agree 
 and I don't think it's a very different situation for other religions.
So to me, nothing good can come out of talking to someone who does not believe anything of what I believe. But it looks like I'm in the minority.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 09:45 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
artu said:
Why should Christian authorities oppress Renaissance art? In most cases, they were the ones paying for it. That art is the visualization of Christian dogma. That would be like expecting Hitler to ban Mein Kampf.
Then you're missing the point, I'll go with an example, Sandro Botticelli and his Spring and the birth of Venus.
Both works of art are pagan in theme, they are filled with neo-platonic symbolism, yet they weren't persecuted for not portraying Christian themes.
And Caravaggio blatantly went against the Church guidelines regarding art, he portrayed dirty feet in a painting destined for a Marian sanctuary, something that at the time was considered akin to sacrilege, without counting his habit of using snows as the pose template of the Virgin Mary or beggars as the template for Saints, etc...
Actually, now that I think of it, Renaissance art had many works that were pagan in theme, and others that were secular in origin, as it was largely inspired by Humanism.
The most the Church did to works of art was the cutting of the penis on some statues and covering the bare breasts on some paintings, as to not be "offensive to the eye".
Renaissance art isn't a visualization of the Christian dogma, which by the way would be incorrect to say it so broadly anyway.
Well, I already mentioned Greco-Roman heritage was one of the two major influences in Europe those days and I'm aware they did paint Pagan motives occasionally. I won't suggest your examples are invalid but I think they are not conclusive enough when we look at the bigger picture. I've been to Italy, and not just Italy, I've been to the Vatican and I've seen the masters within their context. The artists may have been a little "inappropriate" by the Church's standards every now and then but Renaissance art is fundamentally Christian as a whole when it comes to thematic coherence.
I am never in the habit of demonizing any social structure, I'm not suggesting the Catholic Church crushed every bit of artistic choice undesirable by their code and burned any painter at stake if he didn't totally obey the guidelines. Life is never that black and white and most artists back in those days, quickly had to learn being witty and diplomatic when it comes to convincing the authorities about how their work wasn't actually inappropriate. But as you say yourself, "the guidelines" did exist. I won't judge them by today's standards, it was a very different world everywhere regarding censorship. However, it's really pushing it to give Renaissance art as an example of how the Catholic Church supported freedom of expression. Especially, if you keep in mind that most of the pagan motives were presented within a Christian context. Pagan symbolism is already existent in monotheism through transmission. Sometimes indirectly, as in the "halo" above angels' heads come from the tradition of painting (sun) gods with the sun above their head or giving a trident to Satan just like Poseidon etc. And sometimes directly, Venus and her beauty, according to Neoplatonism, symbolized "divine love."
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Svartzorn
Known Hero
Dead struggling with death.
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 10:45 PM |
|
|
@Zeno: Yeeah dude, that's a nice scarecrow you made there to beat.
I'm still waiting here for your response: how christianity owes a lot to philosophy since it was christianity that nourished philosophy for almost 2 millenia? Or do you really believe that reinassance "propaganda" BS that says the brave protomodern artists and geniouses resurrected philosophy out of nowhere?
Even more important: how ORTHODOX christianity owes a lot to philosophy when it has abandoned, for the most part, its basic methods and has held mystical tradition as its core aspect of reflection?
@Alex: you talk about a made-up religion and say you've been deceived. Considering the thread's subject, why should I waste my time arguing with someone who just wants to bash the very concept of my religion?
Just for the record, the Orthodox Church still uses the original scriptures from ~2000 years ago, so translations are really not a problem to us.
Can anybody tell me if JJ's input is worth reading?
____________
Death to the world.
|
|
markmasters
Famous Hero
Dragon of justice
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 10:50 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
In my very humble opinion, if this God is what you seem to think he is (*big sigh from me*) - wouldn't he have made sure his WORD (which was in the damn beginning) would be understood by everyone, no matter translation and interpretation issues? Considering the inevitanle squabble that was a certainty to be a result of how things went down.
I for myself can answer this question with a resounding YES - because otherwise he wouldn't be a God but an utter fool to give his creatures a chance to shed blood in his name over a translation issue.
That's all it takes to tell me that either the Bible is not the word of the God the Bible says exists - or the God the Bible says exists doesn't exist. Quite simple.
Oh, and just another thing. isn't anyone realizing who utterly ridiculous it is when scientific or pseudo-scientific points are made tu support religion? "Some things in the Bible have been proven true!" So what? Some others have been proven untrue by the same science.
Do I really have to explain to you Christians how FAITH is working?
All you need is Goedel's theorem. If a system is complex enough, there will always be things that CANNOT be proven (however, people will tend to believe that a certain something is true).
There will always be things BEYOND science, and if God's existence could be scientifically proven or disproven, no faith was necessary anymore, whoch would make the whole religion thing completely pointless. Think about this. Imagine you could PROVE there is this God the Bible talks of. Would immediately make the whole thing pointless because there wouldn't be a decision anymore, but instead certainty.
Which means that this discussion makes no sense whatsoever. You have faith or not. Case closed. Nothing to discuss, really.
Allthough you say a lot of understandable things i wanna make a remark about the part 'shouldnt the word of God be readable be anyone right away'.
Theres a part about that as well, Familiar with the tower of babel? 
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 10:56 PM |
|
|
That's a good start, however I don't think an agnostic or atheist would believe the Tower of Babel has much value... or most of the Biblical texts. That's a fundamental problem when discussing it.
@Svartzorn: check HCM
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted January 07, 2016 11:48 PM |
|
|
@artu
Lurk moar.
Aside from that, you reached what I wanted to tell you, we weren't nuts burning the first heretic at the stake.
And art isn't the only example, literature also has its satirists criticizing the Church or vouching for its dissolution, and yet nothing happened to them.
Freedom of expression was ”regulated" you really had to be bold to recieve a condemnation and that was not even grounds for an execution.
I'm not trying to say that there was unregulated freedom of speech (Charlie Hebdo at the day would have been surely tried for blasphemy) but rather that there was a grade of tolerance.
By the way, if you don't mind me asking, where did you go in Italy?
@Svartzorn
And that's one of the reasons I respect you guys, at least you cling to the most accurate rendition, I'm sad to admit that we've lost it with all this translating...
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 04:25 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
In my very humble opinion, if this God is what you seem to think he is (*big sigh from me*) - wouldn't he have made sure his WORD (which was in the damn beginning) would be understood by everyone, no matter translation and interpretation issues?
Do I really have to explain to you Christians how FAITH is working?
All you need is Goedel's theorem. If a system is complex enough, there will always be things that CANNOT be proven (however, people will tend to believe that a certain something is true).
There will always be things BEYOND science, and if God's existence could be scientifically proven or disproven, no faith was necessary anymore...
First thing is correct  Bible itself says that the Word of God teaches itself. Spirit of God has given to beliavers that we would understad it ourselfs. It's livig Word of God, so it constatly speaks to us. God has protected the contex so far, so why not in future aswell. There are very good translations of the original copies and best are the ones, most true to original text. Lot of time and effort has given to most translations, it's safe to when you are reading Bible you are infact reading the Word of God and not something 'close'. Living Bible translations are different when the goal of the product is different, mainly easy to read, not even trying to be word-to-word translation, in finnish version of it, index page actually says "this is not a real bible". No real confusion here what is 'real' bible and what is not.
Interpretation we can use theology, it's good but like the bible teaches it explains itself. We don't need the 'middle man', well except Holy Spirit himself. Most problems comes when individuals don't really know their bible, you should be suprised of the ignorance of the people. Usually when I hear something or question something, I quick scan my brain from all related subjects in the bible, try to short out, how everything fits in and make a responce of it. If somebody ask you what did you think about the movie you saw. You don't go saying: "Well, the Imbd did gave it rather low score." No. You need to give more effort to it. Of course there is some great theology and there is some bad ones aswell. We need pastors, evangelist, bishops, priests or what ever you call them, to minister the Word of God. Most important is to study bible yourself. If you are really INTO it, you don't care of these fights, what nomination is the right. What church has the most "right teachings?"
Oh yeah, I would like to hear you explain FAITH to us Jolly Yes, beliaving the mystery is one side of the fate. Can't fully be proven and outside of our logical material world. Always been the guy who can't deny that, maybe I would been agnostic if gave it more tough at younger. Atheist i find more fun to talk to because they atleast can share in what they are beliaving at (and oh boy these guys sometimes have strong "fate"). One my favorite bible verses is: FAITH comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ. Here is on mystery, when does it and to who it will open. I had heard the message before but the time was not right then. Always puzzles me what happens to the person then and how is this 'right time displayed'. FAITH, how much info that word holds in itself is fasinating.
____________
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 05:10 AM |
|
|
not to interject on all these incessant and hugely redundant arguments, but faith, to me, is imagination + hope, by definition. i won't get into the motivations behind such a thing, since that was one of the horses beaten into the ground in this thread.
*leaves thread again after giving this awesome input that will be used to improve lives* 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 06:54 AM |
|
|
Neraus said:
By the way, if you don't mind me asking, where did you go in Italy?
Rome, Florance, Venice.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 09:49 AM |
|
|
Svartzorn said:
@Zeno: Yeeah dude, that's a nice scarecrow you made there to beat.
I'm still waiting here for your response: how christianity owes a lot to philosophy since it was christianity that nourished philosophy for almost 2 millenia? Or do you really believe that reinassance "propaganda" BS that says the brave protomodern artists and geniouses resurrected philosophy out of nowhere?
Even more important: how ORTHODOX christianity owes a lot to philosophy when it has abandoned, for the most part, its basic methods and has held mystical tradition as its core aspect of reflection?
What propaganda? Seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, just stop talking. During the medieval times the only philosophy was the one tolerated by the Church, Catholic or Orthodox. It doesn't differ from a totalitarian state at all, you have the official dogma and everything deviating from it is banned and persecuted. Plato was a good guy, Aristotle was pretty much a bad guy and everyone who was claiming even remotely that the world could have materialistic foundation was a pagan heretic. From your beloved Orthodox Christianity, John Exarch for example (yeah, not a mainstream name nowadays) sums this up - Plato was the only ancient philosopher worthy of a Christian attention. After the Middle Ages idealistic philosophy remained the politically correct one for long, up until XVIII-XIX century, although the states replaced the Church as official doctrine enforcement institutions - Christianity was maintained as a legitimacy tool for the European monarchs but without the omnipresent Pope as a de facto supreme ruler of the Western Christian world (in the Orthodox world the state has always kept the religion on a leash, as per the Roman tradition, but it used it quite similarly). Do bother yourself with reading something about the ideological landscape of the post-medieval world, you might find out that there was no overnight switch from Christianity and idealism to secularism and materialism that seems to exist in your head ("propaganda" and whatnot).
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 08:56 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Plato was a good guy, Aristotle was pretty much a bad guy and everyone who was claiming even remotely that the world could have materialistic foundation was a pagan heretic.
I'd like some proof of that, Scholastics were heavily influenced by Aristotelism, and Saint Thomas of Aquinas has been dubbed doctor of the Church, a title that holds high merit in the Catholic institution, and he, like the rest of Scholastics, have never been persecuted.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 09:17 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 21:19, 08 Jan 2016.
|
|
Aristotle's philosophy is neither clearly idealistic, nor clearly materialistic but the presence of the second part was unacceptable and the fact that he was not Plato, i.e. pure idealist, proponent of immaterial perfect essence of which the twisted material world is just a distorted reflection, made him a misguided student of a great philosopher at best (although he was certainly not Epicurus). The Scholasticism is generally too heterogeneous to be considered some monolithic philosophical system but in all of its manifestations it certainly did not deviate from the Church's dogmas and did not produce any Spinozas so I don't know what you want to say.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 09:54 PM |
|
|
I'm asking you about your claim that Aristotelic notions were grounds for being dubbed an heretic, when theologians applied Aristotle's teachings without sanctions. Even after the Counter Reform Neo-Aristotelics (or perypatetics) were tolerated even if they were laymen that supported Aristotle's claims regarding nature.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 10:12 PM |
|
|
|
You are starting to misread my posts or extract words out of context like Svartzorn, I never said that Aristotle was considered a heretic (feel free to quote the opposite, if you find it somewhere in my posts). He was far less "politically correct" than Plato however and thus "pretty much a bad guy", sorry for not using some bluntly obvious expression. The Scholastics didn't use Aristotle's philosophy as a whole, they used carefully selected parts which were not in conflict with the official doctrine, call it auto-censorship if you like. If you can find me a single medieval scholar, theologian or philosopher who does an unbiased analysis or develops the materialistic portion of Aristotle's philosophy, I'll gladly take my words back.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted January 08, 2016 10:26 PM |
|
|
Look man, the way you worded that phrase made it seem like Aristotelic notions were grounds for being tried for heresy.
If I have misread and that phrase didn't mean that aspousing Aristotelic positions will dub you as a heretic I apologize.
And I didn't claim you were calling Aristotle an heretic by the way, I didn't even write that, since it would make absolutely no sense.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Svartzorn
Known Hero
Dead struggling with death.
|
|
posted January 15, 2016 04:22 AM |
|
|
> comparing the Church to a totalitarian state
> the state has always kept to OC "on a leash"
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay... Seems to me that Zeno is more occupied in showing how "the Church is so cruel and has held back human development *whines a lot*" than answering what we are asking.
Anyhow, I've dropped my case. Pointless to argue with someone like that.
Shifting, donno if this is permitted, but here's a good forum for christians, even though it's primarily orthodox: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net
If linking this is forbidden (didn't find anything in "da ruls"), please edit it out.
____________
Death to the world.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
