the right religion

[1robin]

That Catholicism is NOT the "one true religion" is about the safest bet we could make... Most of its theological claims are demonstrably false or incoherent.

I am almost beginning to feel sorry for that poster. I am also very uncomfortable being on the same side as atheists. There must be a flaw in the slaw.

 

[Philomath]

Poor ZooGirl02 she never had a chance in this thread lol

 

[Kalidas]

Poor ZooGirl02 she never had a chance in this thread lol

meh I wasn't trying to attack her. I liked what the pope said when he said that. First smart thing to come out of any popes mouth EVER. Yet it was still contradictory to EVERYTHING the Vatican has been trying to force onto others (not that that is a bad thing). Now many Catholics find them self in a very awkward place: do they A. deny what the pope said despite that they believe he is the voice through which Gods speaks to man or B. except it and except they are NOT the only true religion and that ANYONE is capable of going to heaven irregardless of their religious views. I hope they pick option B more often then A.

The idea of God having only ONE chosen religion to me is the silliest idea EVER. Many of these people that say this are wither Christians or Muslims yet here is the issue with that logic. Neither religion was the first heck even their father religion Judaism is not the first. Many of the Easter religions were around thousands of years before then. Not to mention the religions that came BEFORE those that are now dead.

So what did God reveal himself to other people around the world and then decide "Oops I messed up, only THESE people right here are right." Sorry not buying it. Humans are bigots, God is not.

 

[Philomath]

meh I wasn't trying to attack her. I liked what the pope said when he said that. First smart thing to come out of any popes mouth EVER. Yet it was still contradictory to EVERYTHING the Vatican has been trying to force onto others (not that that is a bad thing). Now many Catholics find them self in a very awkward place: do they A. deny what the pope said despite that they believe he is the voice through which Gods speaks to man or B. except it and except they are NOT the only true religion and that ANYONE is capable of going to heaven irregardless of their religious views. I hope they pick option B more often then A.

The idea of God having only ONE chosen religion to me is the silliest idea EVER. Many of these people that say this are wither Christians or Muslims yet here is the issue with that logic. Neither religion was the first heck even their father religion Judaism is not the first. Many of the Easter religions were around thousands of years before then. Not to mention the religions that came BEFORE those that are now dead.

So what did God reveal himself to other people around the world and then decide "Oops I messed up, only THESE people right here are right." Sorry not buying it. Humans are bigots, God is not.

I wasn't referring to you specifically I was just talking about everyone getting on her post lol. I don't buy into the concept of one religion being true and all others being false either. It never made sense to me and it still doesn't make sense to me today.

 

[Muffled]

A lot of what is done in the name of the Biblical deity is very WRONG indeed!

I believe the wrongful actions of men are due to sin not to God's provision of knowledge about right and wrong. Also I beleive you are not qualified to judge what is right or wrong because you are a sinner and not God.

 

[Muffled]

How are you "evidence of Christianity"? I mean, could you be more vague?

And are you claiming that the many failed prophecies of Christianity, including Christ's prophecy that he would return during the life of his disciples (Luke 9:27), are not failed but "yet to be fulfilled"? And how would that work in cases where the time something was supposed to happen has already passed? I mean, Christ's disciples are dead- even if the Second Coming were to happen in an hour, his prophecy still would have been wrong, technically speaking- he did NOT return while his disciples were still living.

An English speaker competent to know what "evidence" means, and a rational person capable of determining what does or does not satisfy this definition... Pretty simple, really.

I beleive Jesus is in me. I guess I have to keep repeating this until it sinks in.

I believe this is a misinterpretation. He did not say He would return in the lifetime of His disciples.

 

[Muffled]

Of course you do.

But I'll bet you can't define 'scripture.'

I believe it is the Protestant Canon. I believe the Apocrypha does not qualify as scripture.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe it is the Protestant Canon. I believe the Apocrypha does not qualify as scripture.

1) Which translation and edition of the Protestant canon do you believe to be scripture and why?

2) Wouldn't it make more sense to embrace the Greek Orthodox canon? I mean, doesn't it seem too convenient that 'scripture' just happens to be Muffled's favorite, modern-American collection of God's words?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I beleive Jesus is in me. I guess I have to keep repeating this until it sinks in.

Unless you're going to be less vague, repeating it won't do you any good. How is Jesus "in you"? And how is this "evidence of Christianity"?

I believe this is a misinterpretation. He did not say He would return in the lifetime of His disciples.

Well, according to Luke he did just that, i.e.

But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God

 

[1robin]

1) Which translation and edition of the Protestant canon do you believe to be scripture and why?

2) Wouldn't it make more sense to embrace the Greek Orthodox canon? I mean, doesn't it seem too convenient that 'scripture' just happens to be Muffled's favorite, modern-American collection of God's words?

All accepted major "versions" of the Bible are 95% identical. Your question should have been which of the less than 5% differences does a person hold true. Though the question is almost meaningless. It is not very important which major version you use. They are all virtually identical. In fact programs exist where all differences can be found in seconds and even where the difference originated. There is no claim that what we have is not textually reliable. Even critiques like Ehrman admit there is less than 5% error.

 

[1robin]

Unless you're going to be less vague, repeating it won't do you any good. How is Jesus "in you"? And how is this "evidence of Christianity"?

By the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is evidence (actually proof) that Christianity is true. However it is only available to the person who was saved. The effects of that indwelling are evident in history but the cause is only known as fact the true Christians. Yes there are true Christians. That is no fallacy.

Well, according to Luke he did just that, i.e.

That is not known. That prophecy is one of the most confusing parts of the entire Bible. It is so confusing that I have never drawn a firm stance on it, but what is true is that it does have more than one major stream of interpretation that do not equal what you stated. Your interpretation is one of the least sustainable.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

All accepted major "versions" of the Bible are 95% identical. Your question should have been which of the less than 5% differences does a person hold true. Though the question is almost meaningless. It is not very important which major version you use. They are all virtually identical. In fact programs exist where all differences can be found in seconds and even where the difference originated. There is no claim that what we have is not textually reliable. Even critiques like Ehrman admit there is less than 5% error.

If you'll forgive me, Robin, I can't see your understanding of language as very textured. You've admitted to disliking grammar and to have read virtually no creative writing, even during college. To my mind, that doesn't point to a person for whom language itself is very important.

But in my view of language, the slightest difference in wording can make a huge difference in meaning. Not only that, but words don't really mean things all by themselves. One must consider the speaker, the audience, the purpose of the specific communicative event, the culture in which the communication happens, etc.

So I can't be studying a dozen differently-worded Bible verses in order to figure out the meaning. I'd have to at least have a specific set of words in front of me to even attempt that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

By the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is evidence (actually proof) that Christianity is true. However it is only available to the person who was saved. The effects of that indwelling are evident in history but the cause is only known as fact the true Christians. Yes there are true Christians. That is no fallacy.

LOL... One doth protest too much. Sounds like you already knew you're committing a no true scotsman, and knew I would be obligated to point it out.

Leaving that aside, how does "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" mean? This is not an improvement over what the last poster wrote in terms of ambiguity.

And how is it evidence or proof that "Christianity is true" (presumably meaning in toto)

That is not known. That prophecy is one of the most confusing parts of the entire Bible. It is so confusing that I have never drawn a firm stance on it, but what is true is that it does have more than one major stream of interpretation that do not equal what you stated. Your interpretation is one of the least sustainable.

Um... Or not. The opposite of what you just wrote is the case.

 

[1robin]

If you'll forgive me, Robin, I can't see your understanding of language as very textured. You've admitted to disliking grammar and to have read virtually no creative writing, even during college. To my mind, that doesn't point to a person for whom language itself is very important.

I hate grammar but I do not know why that matters. You hate dictionaries as I recall (no wait you don't hate them you just believe your above them). I hate grammar because it is based on nothing. It is just an opinion that is used to establish a norm (no more "right") than it's opposite.

But in my view of language, the slightest difference in wording can make a huge difference in meaning. Not only that, but words don't really mean things all by themselves. One must consider the speaker, the audience, the purpose of the specific communicative event, the culture in which the communication happens, etc.

Then let me add to what I have said. 5% would not make a huge difference to a doctrine established by 750,000 words and exhaustively explained over and over again by multiple authors. Even Ehrman admits that not one of the errors is within core doctrine (not that they would prevent easy comprehension even if they were). I have his quote somewhere if necessary. The typical error is the loss or gain of a zero for how many soldiers one side had or how a name is spelled. The Gallic wars are taught as historical in classrooms all over the Earth yet they are not even in the ball park as far as textual accuracy is concerned, nor is any other work of any kind compared to the Bible. Did Caesar therefore not defeat Versangeterix, cross the Rubicon, nor assault Rome.

So I can't be studying a dozen differently-worded Bible verses in order to figure out the meaning. I'd have to at least have a specific set of words in front of me to even attempt that.

That does not seem to stop people from reading the majority of books in history. How many H's are in John or where a comma goes in a verse about raising goats does nothing to affect what Christ did.

Why could not the most uneducated literate man on Earth not get what these sentences are saying.

1. Jesus Christ died for our sins.
2. Jesus called the Christ died for our sins.
3. Christ was crucified and buried for our sins.
4. Christ Jesus died for our sin.

That's at least 6 errors in 4 sentences yet not a single meaningful one even though they are within central doctrine.

The differences between most translations are much ado about nothing and the same standards used as a indictment against the Bible are suspended for 90% or written texts of every other kind. Why?

 

[1robin]

LOL... One doth protest too much. Sounds like you already knew you're committing a no true scotsman, and knew I would be obligated to point it out.

Wrong, I said it because I already know that people who have no idea how to apply a Scotsman fallacy will do so incorrectly. Thanks for confirming that. I would explain why its not applicable but am too lazy at the moment. Besides it is a side note anyway.

Leaving that aside, how does "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" mean? This is not an improvement over what the last poster wrote in terms of ambiguity.

I do not know how it could be any clearer. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit means the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer's heart. It is not possible to reduce that down any further, nor is there the slightest need.

And how is it evidence or proof that "Christianity is true" (presumably meaning in toto)

I had no idea that it would happen, yet what did happen, is perfectly described by the Bible and only the Bible as far as I have researched the major faiths. I also had the experience the instant I first had faith in what Christ did. That's convergent confirmation.

Um... Or not. The opposite of what you just wrote is the case.

Not to mention no good reason, there exists no potential at all for the opposite of what I said to be true. If that was not enough every major commentator on the Bible agrees with my statements. That prophecy is famous for it's ambiguity. (no wonder you like it).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I hate grammar but I do not know why that matters.

If you loved grammar, you might understand why it's so critical to clear thought. It's not about placing commas and using the proper verb conjugations, as you seem to believe. It's about understanding the structure of language, which means the structure of thought. We all think in language, most especially in a place like this. If a person doesn't understand how language is structured, I would argue that he may have some difficulty understanding how to think clearly.

You hate dictionaries as I recall (no wait you don't hate them you just believe your above them).

As a young linguistics student I bought a large hardbacked dictionary and proceeded to read the entire thing, line by line, including all the introductory material. As I read, I had three different pens and used them to write color-coded notes and comments throughout. When I was finished, I put the dictionary aside and haven't opened it since. Instead I listen very carefully to the words of other speakers. And I write.

So far as the primitive idea that dictionaries dictate meaning, that notion is beyond ridiculous and easily disproven. I really don't know why people continue to believe it. I consider it to be a belief in magic.

I hate grammar because it is based on nothing. It is just an opinion that is used to establish a norm (no more "right") than it's opposite.

I'm sorry, but you're simple confused about grammar. You are talking about mere surface stuff, usage issues such as are found in the Chicago Manual of Style or the AP Stylebook. You're confusing grammar with correct spelling and such.

Then let me add to what I have said. 5% would not make a huge difference to a doctrine established by 750,000 words and exhaustively explained over and over again by multiple authors. Even Ehrman admits that not one of the errors is within core doctrine....

'Doctrine' is slipperier than eel slime. It's just as easy to declare the other guy to be violating proper doctrine as it is to proclaim that he is adhering to proper doctrine.

The typical error is the loss or gain of a zero for how many soldiers one side had or how a name is spelled.

Nonsense. There are substantial translation differences even in the 'approved, standard' Bible versions in modern American English.

That does not seem to stop people from reading the majority of books in history. How many H's are in John or where a comma goes in a verse about raising goats does nothing to affect what Christ did.

Oh, my.

The differences between most translations are much ado about nothing and the same standards used as a indictment against the Bible are suspended for 90% or written texts of every other kind. Why?

I have no good idea what you are asking, but I'll guess that the answer is 'doctrine.' The other books carry no doctrine, especially not doctrine significant enough to curse someone to eternal hell.

Another example is the messiahship of Jesus. If we translate those prophecies into one shape of American English, Jesus missed. If we translate them into a different shape of American English, he fulfills them.

So I'd think you would be concerned about precise translation.

 

[1robin]

If you loved grammar, you might understand why it's so critical to clear thought. It's not about placing commas and using the proper verb conjugations, as you seem to believe. It's about understanding the structure of language, which means the structure of thought. We all think in language, most especially in a place like this. If a person doesn't understand how language is structured, I would argue that he may have some difficulty understanding how to think clearly.

It is a little disingenuous for the person who feels they are above dictionaries to insist they can evaluate the importance of grammar. It is possible for everyone who speaks the language to understand the intent even if 90% of the grammar is wrong in a statement. However no-one has the slightest idea what a statement says without consistent meanings. When you accept the most important concept for communication you can lecture about it's far less important aspects.

As a young linguistics student I bought a large hardbacked dictionary and proceeded to read the entire thing, line by line, including all the introductory material. As I read, I had three different pens and used them to write color-coded notes and comments throughout. When I was finished, I put the dictionary aside and haven't opened it since. Instead I listen very carefully to the words of other speakers. And I write.

I have no idea what this was typed for. You have said you had no need of dictionaries, not me.

So far as the primitive idea that dictionaries dictate meaning, that notion is beyond ridiculous and easily disproven. I really don't know why people continue to believe it. I consider it to be a belief in magic.

That is just too absurd to even address.

I'm sorry, but you're simple confused about grammar. You are talking about mere surface stuff, usage issues such as are found in the Chicago Manual of Style or the AP Stylebook. You're confusing grammar with correct spelling and such.

If you get to anything that has the slightest impact on what I said I will address it.

'Doctrine' is slipperier than eel slime. It's just as easy to declare the other guy to be violating proper doctrine as it is to proclaim that he is adhering to proper doctrine.

If you are as confused as your statement implies then you have not the slightest idea about what is right or wrong and therefor no basis for assuming either and so no input on what I said.

Nonsense. There are substantial translation differences even in the 'approved, standard' Bible versions in modern American English.

When you can be bothered to provide the slightest hint of evidence above your normal color commentary as I did then there might be something to contend. I gave what the most popular Bible critique said. Most theologians are closer to 99.5%. BTW this is easily proven and can be done at home with software. It is not an opinion it is an objective fact.

Oh, my.

You can't hear those two words combined too few times.

I have no good idea what you are asking, but I'll guess that the answer is 'doctrine.' The other books carry no doctrine, especially not doctrine significant enough to curse someone to eternal hell.

So the Bible is the only book that matters I guess. Law books are never concerned with life and death. Medical books if misunderstood have no adverse affects. Good grief man.

Another example is the messiahship of Jesus. If we translate those prophecies into one shape of American English, Jesus missed. If we translate them into a different shape of American English, he fulfills them.

Then we should do it the right way. The wrong way is what you have put forward. There exists at most 5% error, give up, turn out the lights, and go to bed and claim resolution impossible.

So I'd think you would be concerned about precise translation.

You have more than enough accuracy. More than in fact every other text in ancient history.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is a little disingenuous for the person who feels they are above dictionaries to insist they can evaluate the importance of grammar.

Huh? What could you possibly be trying to mean?

I am definitely above American English dictionaries. In any conflict between such a dictionary and my ear, my ear always wins. Well, unless it's some esoteric jargon of a subset of speakers.

Here's an example: Some guy says to me, "I'm trying to hone in on the central issue."

Now that's incorrect, at least according to most dictionaries. But I'm fine with it. That's because I've been listening carefully and have noticed a shift in usage. Even on national TV, about 95% of the time, you'll hear 'hone in on' rather than the dictionary's preferred 'home in on.'

My ear says that things are fine with 'hone in on' even if the dictionary and my fuddyduddiness object to it.

And I can definitely evaluate the importance of grammar as well as anyone I've met here save perhaps Copernicus. He's a working linguist and has impressed me with his knowledge of language. I'm guessing that he and I could discuss language from the same page.

So I have no idea how you've come up with 'disingenuous.'

It is possible for everyone who speaks the language to understand the intent even if 90% of the grammar is wrong in a statement.

OK, man. You're the language expert. I'll leave you alone with it now.

 

[Ingledsva]

All accepted major "versions" of the Bible are 95% identical. Your question should have been which of the less than 5% differences does a person hold true. Though the question is almost meaningless. It is not very important which major version you use. They are all virtually identical. In fact programs exist where all differences can be found in seconds and even where the difference originated. There is no claim that what we have is not textually reliable. Even critiques like Ehrman admit there is less than 5% error.

95% identical because most just copy each other, or use standardized texts that they have agreed upon.

We need a modern unbiased group that knows the languages, to do a new translation of the most ancient of the texts.

It is very obvious from my own translations that the standard Bible translations can be way-way off.

And that is before we even add in standard - SKEWING - of texts to make them mean what they want them to!!! Such as Qadash being translated as homosexual, when it means a Sacred Prostitute, not a homosexual, etc.

*

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wrong, I said it because I already know that people who have no idea how to apply a Scotsman fallacy will do so incorrectly.

Riiiiiiight.

Thanks for confirming that. I would explain why its not applicable

But first you have to go check what a "no true scotsman" fallacy is first. As expected. I'll be here.

I do not know how it could be any clearer.

You could start by using concrete terms, rather than metaphorical ones. Or does the Holy Spirit literally dwell within you- are you claiming that the Holy Spirit is a physical object/entity, which becomes located somewhere in your (physical) body? No? Then this would be a place to start.

It is not possible to reduce that down any further, nor is there the slightest need.

If it is not possible to state unequivocally and literally what is meant, then the phrase can be dispensed with as nonsense. And if you don't consider intelligibility to be a "slightest need" well... Then it isn't clear what we're doing here in the first place.

I had no idea that it would happen, yet what did happen, is perfectly described by the Bible and only the Bible as far as I have researched the major faiths. I also had the experience the instant I first had faith in what Christ did. That's convergent confirmation.

Ok, but you didn't answer either of my questions.

Not to mention no good reason, there exists no potential at all for the opposite of what I said to be true.

Clearly the potential exists... To claim otherwise is to demonstrate arrogance of mind-blowing proportions. Regardless of how confident you are in your belief, simple honesty requires you admit you could potentially be mistaken, especially since this is a question of interpretation and not straightforward fact.

If that was not enough every major commentator on the Bible agrees with my statements.

I smell yet another no true scotsman lurking here...

That prophecy is famous for it's ambiguity. (no wonder you like it).

Really? Strikes me as fairly clear... I can't imagine what about it is supposed to be ambiguous.
(of course, we understand what is really going on here; acknowledging the rather straightforward meaning of the passage requires Christian interpreters to countenance the possibility- nay, the likelihood- that Christ himself, and not any lesser prophet, had uttered an entirely false prophecy- in other words, your religious commitment basically is forcing your hand on this issue... So I understand your difficulty.)