God But Not Religion?

[Ferret lord 0]

At some point, if you believe in God then you have to have faith that he watched over his word. The KJV is the closest version available, as far as I know. I am affiliated with the most biblically correct Church of Christ I know of. I seek the truth excluseively- and if ye seek, ye shall find. So, I am sure that God will watch my back.

I do believe in God and that God watches over us. I do not believe he interfers though. I feel that he leaves us to make our own mistakes and learn from them. Much like a parent to a child. If we get in over our heads then I feel he would give us a way out. It is our free will to take that way out.Blind faith is in my opinion foolish. One must look at the choices in life that have been given to them and make our decisions from what we feel is the best option. Sometimes we screw up. Thats the way it is. But hopefully we get it right more than wrong.There are way too many contradictions in the formal religous teachings for me to totally and blindly follow them. I do believe Jesus existed. I look at him more as a guide than a messiah. When he was supposed to have said "I am the way and the light" I see that as he is the example of how to live our lives. That he is blessed with knowledge of the path and we should follow his teachings.In regards to the KJV of the bible, I truly feel that King James really did want the most correct version made. I am not so sure I in whole trust the 54 people that he hired to do it.I feel that now would be a good time for another version to be made with the resources at our disposal we currently have regarding the original text and translation capabilities. Doing it WITHOUT editing ANY part from the old text and letting things fall as they may with no regard to whether or not it is officially sanctioned. It should be the true translations no watter what the outcome.JMHO,Steve

[sdnuol 0]

i believe ive wasted too much of my time in the religion forum

[Loismustdie 0]

I do believe in God and that God watches over us. I do not believe he interfers though. I feel that he leaves us to make our own mistakes and learn from them. Much like a parent to a child. If we get in over our heads then I feel he would give us a way out. It is our free will to take that way out.Blind faith is in my opinion foolish. One must look at the choices in life that have been given to them and make our decisions from what we feel is the best option. Sometimes we screw up. Thats the way it is. But hopefully we get it right more than wrong.There are way too many contradictions in the formal religous teachings for me to totally and blindly follow them. I do believe Jesus existed. I look at him more as a guide than a messiah. When he was supposed to have said "I am the way and the light" I see that as he is the example of how to live our lives. That he is blessed with knowledge of the path and we should follow his teachings.In regards to the KJV of the bible, I truly feel that King James really did want the most correct version made. I am not so sure I in whole trust the 54 people that he hired to do it.I feel that now would be a good time for another version to be made with the resources at our disposal we currently have regarding the original text and translation capabilities. Doing it WITHOUT editing ANY part from the old text and letting things fall as they may with no regard to whether or not it is officially sanctioned. It should be the true translations no watter what the outcome.JMHO,Steve

What you just described is what they did. What, do you think people can read better today? Do you think that it makes sense for a scholar to translate something and then put a spin on it that most likely condemns him to hell? How goes that make sense?

[Ferret lord 0]

What you just described is what they did. What, do you think people can read better today?

Please don't get me wrong. I think they did the best they could with what they had. I just think with the resources available in todays world, we have more access to records and a better understanding of history. That way we would be able to do a better job then they did. It has nothing to do with effort or intensions. They were doing what they were hired to do.

Do you think that it makes sense for a scholar to translate something and then put a spin on it that most likely condemns him to hell? How goes that make sense?

Considering the corruption of the church at that time, yes i do think they would put a spin on something. It makes sense because they thought, as many do today, that they were acting "for the better good" of society. They never thought they were going to Hell for it. They thought they were doing Gods work.

[Loismustdie 0]

Please don't get me wrong. I think they did the best they could with what they had. I just think with the resources available in todays world, we have more access to records and a better understanding of history. That way we would be able to do a better job then they did. It has nothing to do with effort or intensions. They were doing what they were hired to do.Considering the corruption of the church at that time, yes i do think they would put a spin on something. It makes sense because they thought, as many do today, that they were acting "for the better good" of society. They never thought they were going to Hell for it. They thought they were doing Gods work.

It's a nice theory- completely unproveable, but nice. Here is one for you- it became clear during the interpetation of the Bible that one of the scholars made a mistake. King James had him killed. Here is another one- one of the reasons that King James had the Bible translated was that he wanted to know whether or not his marriage ti his wife was scriptual in the eyes of God. It wasn't. So, he had her killed as well. Does this sound like a group interested in lies? Realize this as well- it was the first attempt after the dark ages to get the Bible to the people- before that it was kept under lock and key by Catholic order. Do you really think that God would allow a version that didn't get his message across to be the first thing potential christians see? These people are seeking God, and they are damn near powerless becasue of Catholocism- King James comes along and he is gonna hep out, get the word out to the people- and God is going to be perfectly fine with a screwed up translation hitting the streets? Of course not. Relax- God took care of it.

[KONGOS 0]

It's a nice theory- completely unproveable, but nice. Here is one for you- it became clear during the interpetation of the Bible that one of the scholars made a mistake. King James had him killed. Here is another one- one of the reasons that King James had the Bible translated was that he wanted to know whether or not his marriage ti his wife was scriptual in the eyes of God. It wasn't. So, he had her killed as well. Does this sound like a group interested in lies? Realize this as well- it was the first attempt after the dark ages to get the Bible to the people- before that it was kept under lock and key by Catholic order. Do you really think that God would allow a version that didn't get his message across to be the first thing potential christians see? These people are seeking God, and they are damn near powerless becasue of Catholocism- King James comes along and he is gonna hep out, get the word out to the people- and God is going to be perfectly fine with a screwed up translation hitting the streets? Of course not. Relax- God took care of it.

HOLY SH#@...I can't tell if you are actually serious or not. I feel like this is Steven Colbert doing one of his "devil's advocate" spiels but he's actually just making fun of the other side. You're defending a king that had someone killed for making a mistake in the interpretation. That's what you call Christian!!!!!!!!!!? A man who killed his wife because their marriage wasn't "scriptual in the eyes of God". Please tell me you're joking. Obviously you forgot one of the Ten Commandments as well as all of Jesus's teachings. Please tell me your being facetious, because if you're not, and there are other people that think like you, I am truly worried.Oh and FYI, you probably don't believe in science of any kind, but it's absolutely provable that there have been translation errors in the various versions of the Bible.

[Loismustdie 0]

HOLY SH#@...I can't tell if you are actually serious or not. I feel like this is Steven Colbert doing one of his "devil's advocate" spiels but he's actually just making fun of the other side. You're defending a king that had someone killed for making a mistake in the interpretation. That's what you call Christian!!!!!!!!!!? A man who killed his wife because their marriage wasn't "scriptual in the eyes of God". Please tell me you're joking. Obviously you forgot one of the Ten Commandments as well as all of Jesus's teachings. Please tell me your being facetious, because if you're not, and there are other people that think like you, I am truly worried.Oh and FYI, you probably don't believe in science of any kind, but it's absolutely provable that there have been translation errors in the various versions of the Bible.

King James wasn't a christian. What part of that statement did I say that? My point was that he was going for a correct translation- as shown by his actions. If he wanted lies, don't you think one of them would have been to tell him that his marriage to his wife was fine in the eyes of God? I am not defending King James actions in anyway whatsoever- just demonstrating that he was sincere in his desire to have the job done right. The interesting part about your little tirade is you completely forgot about the poor scholar he had killed as well. As far as various versions of the bible go, duh. I have said that all along.

[DerekTah 0]

I got to ask, what exactly was the mistake the scholar made? Any idea? I got to say, the thought occurs that the mistake was not by the scholar but a truth that the king may not of been able to handle.

[DerekTah 0]

What I see as the real problems with the bible are 2 main things.Emperor Constantine had a group of scholars and priests compile a list of books of teachings that THEY thought would be appropriate for the culture of that time and put them into one book. Thus creating a religon that they could promote to the general public. This list ended up only using about 1/3-1/4 of the teachings used at that time. For example, there were over 400 psalms originally. Were are the rest? Why did they not put them in there as well? Popular belief is that the writings that were not entered would have altered the way Christianity was viewed and taken direct authority from the church of the time.The other main problem is that over time monks, local rulers, church officials and others have tried to translate the different passages so that the society of the time can understand it better. Unfortunately, this ultimately changed the meaning according to what the translator thought the passage(s) meant. Also passages were left out and some were combined to make reading easier or to intentionally change it outright.Someone would need to get ahold of the original writings in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic from the Vatican in Rome and do a direct translation to current teminology and they would need to translate it as the people of the time meant it to mean. No editing at all.The result would be shocking to the modern world.

Um, I have to interject here. Constantine may of brought Christianity to the masses but his group was not the first to be Christian. Armenia was the first Christian nation in 300 AD. The point is that if there is editing from one account to another, we should be able to see in from early Armenian Christianity and compairing to early Roman beliefs on Christianity.There is one I know (different date for Christmas), but are there others that stand out.

[KONGOS 0]

King James wasn't a christian. What part of that statement did I say that? My point was that he was going for a correct translation- as shown by his actions. If he wanted lies, don't you think one of them would have been to tell him that his marriage to his wife was fine in the eyes of God? I am not defending King James actions in anyway whatsoever- just demonstrating that he was sincere in his desire to have the job done right. The interesting part about your little tirade is you completely forgot about the poor scholar he had killed as well. As far as various versions of the bible go, duh. I have said that all along.

Oh that's much better, you're happy to have a man like that (who wasn't Christian) overseeing the translation of a Holy book. I'm sure "make a mistake and I'll fu#@ing kill you" is a very comforting message when spreading the word of Christ. Well actually, now that I think about it, it looks like God has similar qualities to King James.What did I forget about the scholar? I didn't really understand that sentence you wrote.You contradict yourself by saying, "As far as various versions of the bible go, duh. I have said that all along." while at the same time saying "Do you really think that God would allow a version that didn't get his message across to be the first thing potential christians see?" and..."...God is going to be perfectly fine with a screwed up translation hitting the streets? Of course not. Relax- God took care of it."(I'm including the King James version when I say "various versions".)So are there translation mistakes or did God not allow it??

[Sluggo 0]

I just read Cat's Cradle and His Master's Voice.

[Ferret lord 0]

It's a nice theory- completely unproveable, but nice. Here is one for you- it became clear during the interpetation of the Bible that one of the scholars made a mistake. King James had him killed. Here is another one- one of the reasons that King James had the Bible translated was that he wanted to know whether or not his marriage ti his wife was scriptual in the eyes of God. It wasn't. So, he had her killed as well. Does this sound like a group interested in lies? Realize this as well- it was the first attempt after the dark ages to get the Bible to the people- before that it was kept under lock and key by Catholic order. Do you really think that God would allow a version that didn't get his message across to be the first thing potential christians see? These people are seeking God, and they are damn near powerless becasue of Catholocism- King James comes along and he is gonna hep out, get the word out to the people- and God is going to be perfectly fine with a screwed up translation hitting the streets? Of course not. Relax- God took care of it.

What part of what is said was theory?You don't think we have better reference materials then they did in the early 1600's? We do. I am willing to state that as fact.Was the church corrupt in the 1600's. Yes it was. That is a fact.I never said they were trying to lie to anyone. You stated "before that it was kept under lock and key by Catholic order" Do you really think the Catholics of the time gave them everything? You really think they didn't hold anything back? C'mon. Be realistic.Do I think God would allow an incorrect version to be out there. Yes. I think God leaves us to screw up and then learn from it. We were given the greatest thing he could of. FREEDOM OF CHOICE. this also includes freedom to make the wrong choice. Do I think God would be fine with it? No, of course not. But I think he would leave us to our own.

[Ferret lord 0]

Um, I have to interject here. Constantine may of brought Christianity to the masses but his group was not the first to be Christian. Armenia was the first Christian nation in 300 AD. The point is that if there is editing from one account to another, we should be able to see in from early Armenian Christianity and compairing to early Roman beliefs on Christianity.There is one I know (different date for Christmas), but are there others that stand out.

You are correct in the fact that the Armenians were the first to collect the writings. Constantine had them compile a "condensed" version. It all went downhill from there.Actually there are cases that we do have accounted for in the mistakes.One I find interesting is the phrase, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live." This one was a joining of 2 different phrases. "Thou shall not suffer against a witch and live" and "thou shall not suffer a child stealer to live". In the middle ages, witches were believed to steal children. hence the combination of the 2 phrases. If they were kept seperate, we would have the death penalty for kidnapping and witches would be looked upon in high regards much like the prophets and seers of earlier times in the bible.It is funny about Christmas. It was put on Dec 25th to take notice away from the Yule Tide festivals of the European Pagans taking place on the 21st. Now we refer to the 21st as the winter solstice on our calendars not even realizing that a solstice is another name for a sabbath or holy day. We also sing Christmas songs like "Deck the Halls" with lines like "Hold the ancient Yule Tide carols".

[DerekTah 0]

You are correct in the fact that the Armenians were the first to collect the writings. Constantine had them compile a "condensed" version. It all went downhill from there.Actually there are cases that we do have accounted for in the mistakes.One I find interesting is the phrase, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live." This one was a joining of 2 different phrases. "Thou shall not suffer against a witch and live" and "thou shall not suffer a child stealer to live". In the middle ages, witches were believed to steal children. hence the combination of the 2 phrases. If they were kept seperate, we would have the death penalty for kidnapping and witches would be looked upon in high regards much like the prophets and seers of earlier times in the bible.It is funny about Christmas. It was put on Dec 25th to take notice away from the Yule Tide festivals of the European Pagans taking place on the 21st. Now we refer to the 21st as the winter solstice on our calendars not even realizing that a solstice is another name for a sabbath or holy day. We also sing Christmas songs like "Deck the Halls" with lines like "Hold the ancient Yule Tide carols".

Question, know of any sites that look at typical Armenian Christian traditions and how it differs from European/American Christianity. I tried looking it up before but can't because google seems to confuse Armenian with Arminian.

[the shank 0]

some might not agree but the only thing prayer does is soothe the nerves of the ignorant through flase hope

[kissluvr 0]

This is my first time posting in the religion forum. I posted in the Army thread a few months ago that I believed in God but not "organized religion". The discussion got started in that forum because I was asking something about the Catholic's views of the pope and how I feel that it almost seems like they worship an idol in the pope. Someone then explained to me that the pope "acts on God's behalf as far as Catholics are concerned and when the pope expresses a view on something it is like that came from God himself. I just have a problem with a "middleman" between me and God. I have a very personal relationship with Jesus and feel that my husband and I were blessed with a miracle (guidance from God) in our son's recovery from autism. I have witnessed our church going neighbors judge so many things and spout so much crap that they were told in church that I just shake my head in wonder at how people are so hoodwinked. I know there are alot of good churches out there that do teach the true word of God but I also think there are a lot of phonies out there that kind of reel people in and then start spreading hate and judgement which is not what God is about. I have not been to church in many, many years and I have never read the whole bible. My kids have never been to church other than going with the occassional friend. My son even asked me why we don't go to church and I told him that I just don't really believe in "organized religion" and we didn't need to go to church to have a relationship with God.

[Ferret lord 0]

Question, know of any sites that look at typical Armenian Christian traditions and how it differs from European/American Christianity. I tried looking it up before but can't because google seems to confuse Armenian with Arminian.

I found this. Hope it helps.The Armenian Church

[fighter 4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chris...ns#ChristianismAll of the above denominations differ in some way and a couple would agree that doing something like taking blood transfusions for example will send you to hell. To come to the conclusion about god is easy you just dont be athiest, the conclusion on christ a bit harder you have to rule out islam, hinduism, Sikhism Scientology jewdism and just be christian. Then you have to choose what denomination which range from the extreme left, (young earth creationism) to the extreme right (homosexual christians) with every combination inbetween.To believe in god is beyond easy, just have a "god of the gaps" kind of creator with him making the big bang go bang then using Intelligent design to present day and believe in freewill intead of god's plan. Vary anything above to your liking and ta da you have a god. If you live in a big enough city you will probly even find a church that says what you say. If you dont however find the mix that fits then you might have trouble jelling with "religion". religion is all about interpretation of holy texts to gain uniformity of what the leaders see in them to there "meaning". The KKK have been reading the bible and saying that blacks are evil it is right there in passage such and such ... Is there message right ? to them and their followers yes. It is just an interpretation put forward by there leaders to gain uniformity in its "meaning". Is It the intentions of the leaders to gain power and instead of inform? Even the ten commandments differ from sect to sect even though they all read the same passage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandments#...he_commandmentsIt all comes down to comfort, athiest are comfortable with believeing theories most would not comprehend, theists are comfortable with living by a set of commandment/books that [/b]most[/u] dont not know or can not state. Religion can be good but remember that it is only there because it is a long book. (eg. it would of been better with pictures )

[Canada 0]

It's a nice theory- completely unproveable, but nice. Here is one for you- it became clear during the interpetation of the Bible that one of the scholars made a mistake. King James had him killed. Here is another one- one of the reasons that King James had the Bible translated was that he wanted to know whether or not his marriage ti his wife was scriptual in the eyes of God. It wasn't. So, he had her killed as well. Does this sound like a group interested in lies? Realize this as well- it was the first attempt after the dark ages to get the Bible to the people- before that it was kept under lock and key by Catholic order. Do you really think that God would allow a version that didn't get his message across to be the first thing potential christians see? These people are seeking God, and they are damn near powerless becasue of Catholocism- King James comes along and he is gonna hep out, get the word out to the people- and God is going to be perfectly fine with a screwed up translation hitting the streets? Of course not. Relax- God took care of it.

You just can't stop the bullshit can you?1) The scholars that authored the KJV were not under pain of death to get it correct. In fact King James I (& VI) actually lifted the existing death penalty (I think imposed by Mary I) so that the work could commence. 2) James I was married to Anne of Denmark. She was his one and only wife. She died of natural causes 5 years after the first version of the KJB was published. They had lived mainly seperate lives and given that James is thought to have favoured men over women, there is no motive for this supposed execution. It was Henry the 8th who commisioned the "Great Bible" after marrying his mistress and executing his wives3) The original proposal to create a new translation of the Bible under James I was called for by John Reynolds (Rainolds) at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604.4) The Catholics did not keep the Bible 'under lock and key', they simply refused an English version to be printed until the late 1500's. Given that England, under Henry the 8th rebelled against Catholocism due to his formation of the Church of England, the Roman Catholics were not always listened to. That and English versions of the Bible were available since the late 1300's.5) The KJV was essentially a reworked version of the Bishops Bible which was 'not accepted by the masses' due to the popularity of the Geneva Bible, so James was hardly bringing Christianity to the people.Seriously why do need to lie so much. As a Christian I thought you would be against that sort of thing. Unless of course I'm mistaken... Perhaps you could supply the name of the scholar that was executed or some evidence of the execution of Anne of Denmark?

[DerekTah 0]

I found this. Hope it helps.The Armenian Church

First off you can't just name one church because all Armenians have two churchs that are important to them (the church one worships at and the church one doesn't worship at).Ok, in all seriousness, I'm asking more for beliefs in pre-destination or general differences in worship or belief. Perhaps a different focus on certain passages on the bible. For example why is Chrismas in January and not December?I image this can be tricky because Christian Armenians like any other Christian group is broken off so there will be a few different beliefs.

[speedz99 145]

Seriously why do need to lie so much. As a Christian I thought you would be against that sort of thing.

Being misinformed is not the same as being a liar.Or course, shielding your eyes to the fact that you have been misinformed...

[Loismustdie 0]

Being misinformed is not the same as being a liar.Or course, shielding your eyes to the fact that you have been misinformed...

Thank you, Speedz. I am currently working through some of the things I was taught as a kid. The guy who told me that stuff is dead, literally, so I will do some research.

[Canada 0]

Being misinformed is not the same as being a liar.Or course, shielding your eyes to the fact that you have been misinformed...

This is not an isolated incident. I have been calling LMD out for his blatant lies for nearly a year now. Follow my sig if you want a small sample of the crap he spews forth.He has an entertaining habit of selling his statements as fact, interestingly enough never, and I mean never, backing them up with references to the source of information.It is always "What I say is right" and he never looks into other options or even the truth of what he dribbles. Most other debators here at least have the courtesy to provide some external backing to their facts.It leaves 1 of 2 options.He is as thick as 2 short planks and arrogant as hell orHe lies through his teethI favour the first but give him the benefit of the doubt by calling him a liar. Regardless of wether he originates them or not the 'facts' he is so beholden too are lies and the hope is he either stops or actually questions those that have deceived him

[Loismustdie 0]

This is not an isolated incident. I have been calling LMD out for his blatant lies for nearly a year now. Follow my sig if you want a small sample of the crap he spews forth.He has an entertaining habit of selling his statements as fact, interestingly enough never, and I mean never, backing them up with references to the source of information.It is always "What I say is right" and he never looks into other options or even the truth of what he dribbles. Most other debators here at least have the courtesy to provide some external backing to their facts.It leaves 1 of 2 options.He is as thick as 2 short planks and arrogant as hell orHe lies through his teethI favour the first but give him the benefit of the doubt by calling him a liar. Regardless of wether he originates them or not the 'facts' he is so beholden too are lies and the hope is he either stops or actually questions those that have deceived him

God created us from the dust of the earth is scientific fact, to reword that it is common knowledge, backed by science that we are nothing more than dirt. Said in the bible, backed by science. Thats just one. Hope you relish that hard on for me, and good luck with your anger.

[Canada 0]

God created us from the dust of the earth is scientific fact, to reword that it is common knowledge, backed by science that we are nothing more than dirt. Said in the bible, backed by science. Thats just one. Hope you relish that hard on for me, and good luck with your anger.

Define dirtOh and whilst you are at it, any links to show that the above statement is 'backed by science' or are you just proving my point and supplying hollow claims again?

Thank you, Speedz. I am currently working through some of the things I was taught as a kid. The guy who told me that stuff is dead, literally, so I will do some research.

How's it going? Discovered you're full of it yet?