|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 21st, 2004 03:10 PM | ||
| kahljorn | The old testament also has a gematria behind it which compiles into something called the "Qabalah"... the soul of the old testament or some shit. | |
| May 20th, 2004 10:57 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
The Catholic stance: Both the Old and the New Testament are considered works of man in regards to history and general perceptions made within them. They are, however, infallible in regards to theological teachings stemming from them. For example, Adam and Eve most probably didn't exist, but nevertheless their story represents the teaching that humanity is intrinsically flawed from the time of its creation. Noah probably didn't really build an ark, but the story shows that God loves and gives special treatment to those who respect him. In the New Testament, it's unlikely that Judas both hung himself and spontaneously fell upon rocks that disemboweled him. Unless the rope broke, or something. |
|
| May 20th, 2004 10:55 PM | ||
| Perndog | I think Roman Catholics take the New Testament however the Church gives it to them, because Peter as the original head of the Church was given license to dictate the practice of the religion on earth. | |
| May 20th, 2004 10:18 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
|
| May 20th, 2004 10:07 PM | ||
| Helm |
The old testament was supposed to be taken litterally all the way through. So when the angry god told you to put a dead lamb on your door or he would kill you he ment business. The New Testament not. The 'official party line' as it were here in greece (Orthodox Church. Same as the Russians.) is that some parts of the new testament are supposed to be approached in an allegoric fashion, whereas others in a literal fashion. And the ones that tell you which parts are which are the Fathers of the Church and their sort-of-religious laws they pass at their congregations about the interpretations of the bible. The idea is, that since said Fathers are divinely inspired (Holy Ghost), they can discern when something in ment literally and something is an allegory. So basically we have people whose divine inspiration stems from a God who is defined in a text they are themselves interpreting at will. Do you americans call that a catch 22 or something? I'm not sure how all this works for catholics (do they take the new testament as all-literal? Do they disregard whatever they don't like? Not sure. I'd like someone to explain this to me) but it can't be much different seeing how smart the catch 22 idea is. Most judeochristianic offshot sort-of-cults don't pay any mind to the new testament anyway so that's a wrap for them. Protestants are an exception, but they have their own bunch of crazy interpretations to deal with. |
|
| May 20th, 2004 08:13 PM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
|
|
| May 20th, 2004 08:08 PM | ||
| kahljorn | as my friend wendy says.. thank you Captain Obvious. | |
| May 20th, 2004 08:06 PM | ||
| Immortal Goat | And also, just because something is written in the Bible doesn not make it fact. The Bible is just a very long collection of mythology, just like the ancient greek myths. | |
| May 20th, 2004 08:03 PM | ||
| kahljorn | You should read the dead sea scrolls. | |
| May 20th, 2004 08:01 PM | ||
| Immortal Goat | Jesus spoke in metaphor, as well, but the Christians called them Parables, as Seth said. | |
| May 20th, 2004 07:51 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Also it's buddha who is reknowned for teaching in metaphore. | |
| May 20th, 2004 07:51 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
all of that is bullshit  There is a text in which Jesus almost gets stoned by his disciples for claiming to be God, or the Son of God or divine at all. The reasoning for this is fairly obvious if you read it, but eh. |
|
| May 20th, 2004 07:21 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Couldn't it be that we are all divine? | |
| May 20th, 2004 05:37 PM | ||
| Immortal Goat | I am rejecting his divinity. Remember that it was not Jesus himself who wrote the stories of his exploits in the Bible, but people who were not even eye witnesses to the events. The stories were told after several generations, became legend, twisted, and altered to suit the beliefs that grew out of one man's good idea. At least, that is the way I have interpreted events in the Bible. | |
| May 20th, 2004 05:29 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
So are you rejecting Christ's divinity, or simply saying that he isn't a "son" of God in that God can't be an active "father"? Edit: and the religious types prefer the term "parable". |
|
| May 20th, 2004 05:24 PM | ||
| Immortal Goat |
Jesus taught in metaphores, right? If that is the case, then who is to say the whole "God the Father" thing was not a metaphor? Perhaps Jesus never said the exact phrase "I am the Lord your God, whoever believes in me shall not perish, but have life everlasting". Perhaps it went something like this... "Look at God as a father to you all. Although we cannot describe God in human terms, this is close enough. God cares for you, provides for you, but doesn't lead you by the hand your entire life. You need to take the initiative and make your life the best it can be. I do not claim to be the son of God, merely a man with a good idea. Whoever believes in my idea shall not perish, but have life everlasting" Immortal Goat-25:17 please comment. |
|
