The Bible

DarkATi · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 8 2005, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 8 2005, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I believe most translations available today still convey the same message about Jesus and Salvation, however I prefer my King James translation to any other because of the way it is worded. I feel it is superior to many translations because of it's powerful wording. This is strictly an opinion as I know others who like NLT and I hate NLT because I don't think it gets the message across quite as well as KJV, NIV or NASB.

The answer is, humans are flawed, religion is flawed but God is perfect.

*sigh* I need a break from all this religion discussion. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

~ DarkATi </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Exactly my point, I wasn't going to start claiming that the Bible can't be used as a religious text or anything precisely because any one who can believe in a God can believe that the bible is right.

My point was not that they don't have the same basic content but that people should read it in the knowledge that only the underlying principles of the book. That they should follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

That means you can't use it as a basis for prejudice because people are supposed to be tolerant. That you can't use it as a justification for war when the most important thing is peace.

As you said, humans are religion are flawed, that's why fundamentalists are so very wrong. It just seems so obvious to me that I can't see how others don't all feel the same?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yes, God has preserved the "content" of his Word, not the actual "words" of the Bible.

The Bible was written for man, to be understood by men. Not to be nit-picked as the physical written word of God. It is the word of God spoken through man and translated by man, to reveal the eternal truths of God.

The "Word of God" is the Bible. The Bible does not contain errors. However, the many translations of the Bible, do. It is much like a smudge on glass. The glass is still glass.

~ DarkATi

CMEast · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 9 2005, 04:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yes, God has preserved the "content" of his Word, not the actual "words" of the Bible.

The Bible was written for man, to be understood by men. Not to be nit-picked as the physical written word of God. It is the word of God spoken through man and translated by man, to reveal the eternal truths of God.

The "Word of God" is the Bible. The Bible does not contain errors. However, the many translations of the Bible, do. It is much like a smudge on glass. The glass is still glass.

~ DarkATi </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I can accept the content being about right but people take it as literal and then (as evinced by most of the religious discussions on here) quote sections at each other. People should treat the bible as a signpost that points the way, not as the destination it's pointing too.

As you said, it's 'spoken through and translated by man'. Now how many times have posts on this forum been edited? How many times have we been lost for words? We are even stopped by the language itself, do you really think it's possible to describe god's plan in words? Surely it would be bigger than that and no simple word or phrase could do it justice?

Which comes back to the original point, why do people take the bible literally? Now presuming there is glass beneath the smudges (because I personally don't believe) then for every one person who looks out the window and sees the beautiful sunrise outside there will be others who seem to make out dark clouds, strange figures and other smudge related nonsense and then force it on to others.

Legionaired: Even if you cross reference every single one of them can you guarentee that all of those translations haven't been taken from an incorrect version? For the sake of discussion we'll say it still stays true to 'gods message' but just has some of the stories down wrong or maybe some sections missing.

After all if god 'preserves the content' as most christians (if not all?) believe then surely there should only be one copy as it's all important. So I guess it's the final message he preserves rather than the wording. Would he allow name changes? How about removing a parable and making up another in its place but with the same underlying meaning, the same moral to the tale. Would that be okay? What about if the words are changed so it means the same thing but it could be misread? Or misinterpreted? Thats what normally happens during translations anyway? How much can a bible change and still be considered the same?

[Edit] Mistakes made because I'm human and because I can't always find the right words for even my own thoughts <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> [/Edit]

DarkATi · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How much can a bible change and still be considered the same?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I suppose it goes back to my analogy, unless you physically paint over the glass, trying to deface it, you won't do anything more than smudge it a bit. And smudges can always be cleaned.

I am very open when it comes to my faith. The Bible says, if Jesus didn't die and rise again from the grave, my faith is in vain. And this is a great logical point. C.S. Lewis, whose quote SkulkBait has distorted says, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance." - or something like that...

It is my faith, my belief and my hope - that Christianity is what it says it is. I could be wrong and I'm willing to admit it. But, from what I have seen and felt and all those other things that science says isn't fact or valuable or worth telling, Christianity is real and of utmost importance.

I really urge anyone who is even a little curious to pick up a Bible and just see what God says to you. Without any pre-concieved notion of truth or lie but with an open heart and mind.

God Bless,
~ DarkATi

KungFuDiscoMonkey · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 9 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am very open when it comes to my faith. The Bible says, if Jesus didn't die and rise again from the grave, my faith is in vain. And this is a great logical point. C.S. Lewis, whose quote SkulkBait has distorted says, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance." - or something like that...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
/me points to sig <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

CMEast · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 9 2005, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I suppose it goes back to my analogy, unless you physically paint over the glass, trying to deface it, you won't do anything more than smudge it a bit. And smudges can always be cleaned.

I am very open when it comes to my faith. The Bible says, if Jesus didn't die and rise again from the grave, my faith is in vain. And this is a great logical point. C.S. Lewis, whose quote SkulkBait has distorted says, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance." - or something like that...

It is my faith, my belief and my hope - that Christianity is what it says it is. I could be wrong and I'm willing to admit it. But, from what I have seen and felt and all those other things that science says isn't fact or valuable or worth telling, Christianity is real and of utmost importance.

I really urge anyone who is even a little curious to pick up a Bible and just see what God says to you. Without any pre-concieved notion of truth or lie but with an open heart and mind.

God Bless,
~ DarkATi</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I promise I'm not picking on you, you're just very quotable <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />.

The problem with your analogy is that while smudges can be cleaned, history can't. You can't go back in time to see what was originally written so you can't correct it, if every copy you have going as far back as possible has a mistake then can't find out if it's wrong or not. Going back to the analogy, if you have a smudge on your window you can step outside, see the smudge for what it is and then view the full scene as it was meant to be seen. There's no window to step away from here.

Of course god could always come down to you and while setting fire to some foliage or something, tell you what it was meant to say. Is he going to come down to everyone though? What if someone suddenly told you that god had told them the bible was wrong and gave you a list of errata, maybe a handy faq to go with it as well. Would you be relieved that your window cleaner had shown up? Or would you dismiss them because they can't 'correct' the bible.

To be honest, I hope you aren't wrong. I hope that there is a god, that we all go to heaven and so forth. There are quite a few people I want to meet again and if I could believe in a happy ever after then I think I'd be a happier person now. Unfortunately I have absolutely no faith in me whatsoever, not a single drop of belief. As Grendel said in an earlier thread, people justify their feelings with reason, that our belief's and decisions are already made on an emotional level long before we apply reason to them. Unfortunately the idea of 'god' just isn't part of me, I'm probably the closest you can get to an athiest without them starting to have 'faith' in a lack of god.

I envy the faith that so many others have and wouldn't ever want to wreck it. I do want to tear down a few beliefs that only cause problems though and that includes the idea that there is a manual you can turn to when confronted with a problem. You can't decide whether capital punishment/euthanasia/same sex marriages etc are ok by looking at tea leaves, following the stars or a book.

*DarkATi: Just wanna note that when I say 'you' it applies to everyone including myself <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />, this isn't aimed at you, I just have a tendency to preach... in fact, while we have different belief's I have a feeling we both agree on this topic in general if not for the same reasons. I tend to find that those who seriously disagree with me don't reply to me at all <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />*

DarkATi · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 9 2005, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 9 2005, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I suppose it goes back to my analogy, unless you physically paint over the glass, trying to deface it, you won't do anything more than smudge it a bit. And smudges can always be cleaned.

I am very open when it comes to my faith. The Bible says, if Jesus didn't die and rise again from the grave, my faith is in vain. And this is a great logical point. C.S. Lewis, whose quote SkulkBait has distorted says, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance." - or something like that...

It is my faith, my belief and my hope - that Christianity is what it says it is. I could be wrong and I'm willing to admit it. But, from what I have seen and felt and all those other things that science says isn't fact or valuable or worth telling, Christianity is real and of utmost importance.

I really urge anyone who is even a little curious to pick up a Bible and just see what God says to you. Without any pre-concieved notion of truth or lie but with an open heart and mind.

God Bless,
~ DarkATi</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I promise I'm not picking on you, you're just very quotable <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />.

The problem with your analogy is that while smudges can be cleaned, history can't. You can't go back in time to see what was originally written so you can't correct it, if every copy you have going as far back as possible has a mistake then can't find out if it's wrong or not. Going back to the analogy, if you have a smudge on your window you can step outside, see the smudge for what it is and then view the full scene as it was meant to be seen. There's no window to step away from here.

Of course god could always come down to you and while setting fire to some foliage or something, tell you what it was meant to say. Is he going to come down to everyone though? What if someone suddenly told you that god had told them the bible was wrong and gave you a list of errata, maybe a handy faq to go with it as well. Would you be relieved that your window cleaner had shown up? Or would you dismiss them because they can't 'correct' the bible.

To be honest, I hope you aren't wrong. I hope that there is a god, that we all go to heaven and so forth. There are quite a few people I want to meet again and if I could believe in a happy ever after then I think I'd be a happier person now. Unfortunately I have absolutely no faith in me whatsoever, not a single drop of belief. As Grendel said in an earlier thread, people justify their feelings with reason, that our belief's and decisions are already made on an emotional level long before we apply reason to them. Unfortunately the idea of 'god' just isn't part of me, I'm probably the closest you can get to an athiest without them starting to have 'faith' in a lack of god.

I envy the faith that so many others have and wouldn't ever want to wreck it. I do want to tear down a few beliefs that only cause problems though and that includes the idea that there is a manual you can turn to when confronted with a problem. You can't decide whether capital punishment/euthanasia/same sex marriages etc are ok by looking at tea leaves, following the stars or a book.

*DarkATi: Just wanna note that when I say 'you' it applies to everyone including myself <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />, this isn't aimed at you, I just have a tendency to preach... in fact, while we have different belief's I have a feeling we both agree on this topic in general if not for the same reasons. I tend to find that those who seriously disagree with me don't reply to me at all <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />*  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well, I'll ask you this question: (I'm not ignoring everything you typed, simply trying to gauge where you stand) What would have to happen for you to believe in God and the Bible? What are you looking for that you haven't yet found?

It sounds to me like you <i>want</i> to believe in God and heaven and all that but something isn't fitting for you.

~ DarkATi

Cyndane · April 2005

I really don't think you should be analyzing anything. Assuming things about people is probaby the worst thing you can do. I could assume that you have absolutely no hermeneutical skills and that you are just rehashing what your pastor/preacher/youth-counselor taught you and in fact I shall assume that.

Now that we have out the way you have no credentials at all in any theological studies, or hermeneutical ability. I shall re-post with correct translations the Bhavagad-Gita and the NIV translation of the bible.

Few quick guides along the way, the quotes will be the exact verses as they appear in both documents. Italics that follow will be the hermeneutical reasoning with excessive discussion about the two verses, neither one taken out of context since we are comparing verse to verse.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 10:20
O Arjuna, I am the Ultimate Conciousness situated in the heart of all living entities and I am the beginning the middle and the end aswell of all living entities.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Rev 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Obviously the first part of Rev and the last part of BG are the same. Now as to the Ultimate conciousness and lordship. Last time I studied languages you can pretty much draw the conclusion that a god could be called just about anything whether it be a great spirit, lord, god, diety, etc. I really don't see how those two differ at all. </i> </b>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 2:72
O Arjuna, having gained the realization of the Ultimate Truth, one is never again deluded and even at the moment of death, being situated in this state, liberation from the material existence and attainment of the Ultimate Conciousness is assured.
BG 3:34
Attraction and aversion of the senses to their corresponding sense object is unavoidable; one should not be controlled by them; since they are obstacles in ones path.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
1 Cor 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> As to how you failed to see the similarities I shall leave it as it is. If you can't notice what is the same you really need to step back for a few minutes and rexamine how you think logically. </b> </i>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 2:11
Lord Krsna said: you are mourning for those not worthy of sorrow; yet speaking like one knowledgeable. The learned neither laments for the dead or the living.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Matt 8:22
But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Well lets analyze this one. Both jesus and krsna (krishna) said do not weep for the dead, krsna just took it one step further and included the living. You mean they say the same thing? Yes, they do. Even the meanings are the same. </b> </i>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 9:29
I am equally disposed to all living entities; there is neither friend nor foe to Me; but those who with loving sentiments render devotional service unto Me, such person are in Me and I am in them.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Rom 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Oh wow, such a tiny verse yet both of them speak so lovely. One of my favorites from the BG. Basically it states that god doesn't respect anyone untill they accept him. Wait, again they state the same ideals </b> </i>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 12:18
The person who is equal to an enemy as well as friend, also in honor or dishonor, impartial in cold, heat, happiness and distress, exempt from attatchment, equipolsed in praise or repute, contemplative before speaking satisfied with what ever comes on its own accord not attached to domestic life, fixed in determination and engated in devotional serivce is very dear to me.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Matt: 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
1 Peter: 3:8
Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous:
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Yet again we see they state the same message, the BG simply expands upon it more and has it encompass more people due to the fact they are obviously more tolerant and have always preached as such. </b> </i>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 8:17
Those who know Brahma's day which comprises of the duration of four billion three hundred and twenty million years and his night comprises of our billion three hundred and twenty million years are the knowers of day and night.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Similar yet again, the only thing that changes in the amount of time that is observed. Yet, with just a little hermeneutical skill, one can easily see why they would wish to change the figures just to make sure they didn't completely copy cat from a far more informative book. </b> </i>

In conclusion, as you can see there are far too many similarties to be dismissed, as I proved the last time, this time I simply followed it up with my own little observations. While yours didn't even turn out correctly legionaired, I suggest going back and actually reading the BG a bit more. I also corrected the typo on the verses with Matthew, that was my fault and I did not catch it right away as I was in a hurry.

I do apologize to those who were waiting, but translations do take time. Even I, can not be expected to complete them inside of a 24 hour period when I have to constantly re-check myself and make sure I'm not missing something. I was also at work for some of the time.

*edit* Fixed a few spelling errors. Bloodly long posts are tough to check at all times.

theclam · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 9 2005, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 9 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am very open when it comes to my faith. The Bible says, if Jesus didn't die and rise again from the grave, my faith is in vain. And this is a great logical point. C.S. Lewis, whose quote SkulkBait has distorted says, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance." - or something like that...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
/me points to sig <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I'd replace the word Christianity with religion. It would be more accurate, although less true to Lewis' original words.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, I'll ask you this question: (I'm not ignoring everything you typed, simply trying to gauge where you stand) What would have to happen for you to believe in God and the Bible? What are you looking for that you haven't yet found?

It sounds to me like you want to believe in God and heaven and all that but something isn't fitting for you.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'm not CMEast, but I answered this question earlier in the thread. Basically God would have to show himself to humanity as a whole for me to believe. Personal revelations can be confused with mental illness (this can be from a permanent condition like schizophrenia or a temporary one like drug use or lack of sleep/nutrition), so I won't trust anyone who said that they had a personal revelation.

Regarding your third question, I am an adamant atheist, but I, too, want there to be some sort of afterlife. It's the same sort of yearning that I have for anything else, like a desire to win the lottery. Who wouldn't want their life to be better in the future? Who wouldn't want to live in paradise, after death? However, just because I want something to be true, doesn't make it true.

CMEast · April 2005

Oh yes, I'd love to believe <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> The idea of this perfect being, this perfect love. It's beautiful. The idea that we all have a soul, that we are all unique, valuable, with our own purpose... who wouldn't?

I've been heavily involved in the church earlier in life because my Mom was very religious. I've written hymns that were performed, I've helped devise services and discussed all of this and more with a couple of vicars (methodist, though I've been to churches of other denominations too when helping out my local christian band perform there). I read the bible at a young age, read it again a second time when I was older and felt I might have missed something before (hadn't <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />). I've also looked at many other religions, my favourite being Zen Bhuddism.

Unfortunately as you say, it doesn't 'fit'. That's exactly the word to use. As amazing as all those ideas are, they feel completely unnatural to me.

I'm hoping it won't take much for me to find some faith, I'm hoping I'll have a near death experience, some personal revelation (caused by ill health or otherwise <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />) However I have no idea if it would work. If Jesus himself walked up to me and asked me to feel the scars from the nails I might still doubt. I think it may just be coded into me somehow, inside my genes or something. I don't want to get in to my specific problems with the idea of god because 1) If you have faith, they are all answerable, it's only without faith that the answers seem empty, 2) We aren't going to convert anyone here. My words would only affect those who don't truly believe in a god just as you could only persuade someone who already feels that presence around them. Me? I don't feel anything, the world seems pretty empty and every piece of 'proof' I'm shown makes it even more so.

That sounds quite negative but I don't mean it to be, I'm trying to couch it in terms that someone with faith would understand, to me it's not empty, it just is.

BaconTheory · April 2005

Look at the big picture. The Bible is basically a book with a bad plot and shallow characters. The Bible is not a book that should be interpreted literally, oh no. Its really a tool that the Church uses to keep it's followers in line.

Legionnaired · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I really don't think you should be analyzing anything. Assuming things about people is probaby the worst thing you can do. I could assume that you have absolutely no hermeneutical skills and that you are just rehashing what your pastor/preacher/youth-counselor taught you and in fact I shall assume that.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hey, insults, great! At least I knew which language the bible was written in before I started making judgements about it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now that we have out the way you have no credentials at all in any theological studies, or hermeneutical ability. I shall re-post with correct translations the Bhavagad-Gita and the NIV translation of the bible.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You assume that, and then go and state it as truth. Just like you do with the rest of your argument. Logic? Deduction? Analysis? No, it's much more fun to just assert things.

Also, since you chose to cite the NIV, I suppose you can no longer cry incorrent translation when you get shut down again.

Now, lets' get to the thick of it.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 10:20
O Arjuna, I am the Ultimate Conciousness situated in the heart of all living entities and I am the beginning the middle and the end aswell of all living entities.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Rev 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Obviously the first part of Rev and the last part of BG are the same. Now as to the Ultimate conciousness and lordship. Last time I studied languages you can pretty much draw the conclusion that a god could be called just about anything whether it be a great spirit, lord, god, diety, etc. I really don't see how those two differ at all. </i> </b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

BG 10:20 says that Krishna is 'in the heard of all living entities,' and is the 'the beginning the middle and the end aswell of all living entities.' This implies a claim of one-ness with all living things, that Christ simply doesn't make. Christ says that he is soverign over all things. (note the words Almighty)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Being soverign over all things is not equal to being one, or part of all things.

Christian theology holds that though we do have a spiritual component, it is not inherantly part of God. In fact, one of the cornerstones of Christian thought is that we are inherantly *separated* from god, due to our own actions.

Hence, why I dismissed this before as 'Oneness != Lordship.'
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 2:72
O Arjuna, having gained the realization of the Ultimate Truth, one is never again deluded and even at the moment of death, being situated in this state, liberation from the material existence and attainment of the Ultimate Conciousness is assured.
BG 3:34
Attraction and aversion of the senses to their corresponding sense object is unavoidable; one should not be controlled by them; since they are obstacles in ones path.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<span style='color:red'>In other words, the senses are not to be allowed to control a person, and once you realize the truth, you'll be free from material existance.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
1 Cor 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

[color=red]Paul is talking about his preaching here, read the context and you'll see it's part of his introduction of the letter, talking about the full meaning of Christ's sacrifice, and how Christ is the full wisdom and power of God. IE: The world thinks that Christ is bunk, but He's really the outcome of God's wisdom and planning (more on this if you want to dispute it.) The fact that it says 'stumbling blocks' is irrelevant.</span>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<span style='color:red'>First of all, did you send this through babelfish, into japanese and back or something? This isn't the NIV, and it's not grammatically correct if you tried to do it yourself.

So, God saying that a particluar group of people has done wrong, is the same as saying that the senses fool people? Is your ENTIRE point here based off of the fact that obstacle kind of equals stumbling block? These passages are talking at cross-purposes, saying different things for different reasons, while using one or two words of possibly common verbage.</span>
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<b> <i> As to how you failed to see the similarities I shall leave it as it is. If you can't notice what is the same you really need to step back for a few minutes and rexamine how you think logically. </b> </i></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

In other words, if I don't see it your way, I'm wrong? Funny how you can build any case you want when you build your case around ignorant assumptions.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 2:11
Lord Krsna said: you are mourning for those not worthy of sorrow; yet speaking like one knowledgeable. The learned neither laments for the dead or the living.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Matt 8:22
But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Well lets analyze this one. Both jesus and krsna (krishna) said do not weep for the dead, krsna just took it one step further and included the living. You mean they say the same thing? Yes, they do. Even the meanings are the same. </b> </i></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

BG 2:11 is stated because (if we look at this contextually) Krishna is talking about re-incarnation. Why pity someone, if they have done something wrong to get there in their previous life, and why mourn for the dead when they have gotten what they deserve?

Matt 8:22 Is a direct point being made, saying that there is more to live for, a better plan for this disciple's life, and immediately better things to be done than mourn for his father. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Once again, talking at cross-purposes, for different reasons, with a little of the same verbage. And yet, you tout this as truth.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 9:29
I am equally disposed to all living entities; there is neither friend nor foe to Me; but those who with loving sentiments render devotional service unto Me, such person are in Me and I am in them.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Rom 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Oh wow, such a tiny verse yet both of them speak so lovely. One of my favorites from the BG. Basically it states that god doesn't respect anyone untill they accept him. Wait, again they state the same ideals </b> </i></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The NIV translates this "For god does not show favoritism." A blanket statement that God does not respect people is not a correct translation, frankly.

Also, look at Romans CONTEXTUALLY! A statement that God actively loves all people, Jew or Greek. Whereas, the BG says that Krishna just doesn't care until people turn to him. If Christ didn't care about people until they turned to him, why did he die for a race of sinners? Why was his last command, before he rose to heaven, "Go forth and make disciples of all nations?" Why would a God who has 'niether friend nor foe' actively reach out to a group of people like this?

Once again, cross purposes, with a bit of mis-translation to get common verbage.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 12:18
The person who is equal to an enemy as well as friend, also in honor or dishonor, impartial in cold, heat, happiness and distress, exempt from attatchment, equipolsed in praise or repute, contemplative before speaking satisfied with what ever comes on its own accord not attached to domestic life, fixed in determination and engated in devotional serivce is very dear to me.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Matt: 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
1 Peter: 3:8
Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous:
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Yet again we see they state the same message, the BG simply expands upon it more and has it encompass more people due to the fact they are obviously more tolerant and have always preached as such. </b> </i></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No one religion has a monopoly on Altruism.

Besides that, again, the BG paints a picture of a detached person, who is impartial to everyone. Christ asks for a more active approach; Love here is 'agapao,' (Agape) the same word He describes His love for us with. And, of course, we all know how far he took that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BG 8:17
Those who know Brahma's day which comprises of the duration of four billion three hundred and twenty million years and his night comprises of our billion three hundred and twenty million years are the knowers of day and night.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<b> <i> Similar yet again, the only thing that changes in the amount of time that is observed. Yet, with just a little hermeneutical skill, one can easily see why they would wish to change the figures just to make sure they didn't completely copy cat from a far more informative book. </b> </i></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

LOOK AT IT CONTEXTUALLY! The surrounding passages in the BG say that the universe 'happens' during Brahma's day, and is nonexistant during Brahma's night. Christianity says that this world is happening for the first time. The surrounding passage says that God has good reason for taking his time with keeping his promises, and bring about the end of the world as we know it, and usher in one under His rule.

Krishna makes no such claim, and instead just says that existance will happen over and over again.

Talking at cross-purposes, yet again.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In conclusion, as you can see there are far too many similarties to be dismissed, as I proved the last time, this time I simply followed it up with my own little observations. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I see that there are similarities in verbage (in your incorrect, biased, and hastily done translation) but not substantitive things I would draw conclusions from.

Besides, if the NT really was just a copy of the BG, you'd think there'd be a LOT more than this handful of similarities.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
While yours didn't even turn out correctly legionaired,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You make an assumption and you treat it as fact. Again. Just like you have done with your entire arguement. Either get something real to work with that isn't heresay, or you're not worth my time.

DarkATi · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BaconTheory @ Apr 9 2005, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Look at the big picture. The Bible is basically a book with a bad plot and shallow characters. The Bible is not a book that should be interpreted literally, oh no. Its really a tool that the Church uses to keep it's followers in line.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Firstly, welcome to the debate.

Secondly, the Bible is clearly none of what you claim since it has sparked a 25 page (and ever-growing) debate. If the Bible were a story book with a bad plot and shallow characters it would find itself in the back of a dusty library.

However, this is not the case. Christian or not can clearly see that this book, whatever it is, has been well written and maintained, it hits a certain nerve in all of our systems for one reason or another. To be honest I'm not sure if you've even read the Bible and I'd be interested to know more of your background, to back such statements.

Lastly, God coming to earth and dying to free a people from death and sin is, from even a non-christian perspective, quite a plot indeed.

You see, the Bible really isn't a religious rulebook. It's a story of love and mercy and life. I suggest you take a closer read, the gospel of Luke would be a great place to start.

~ DarkATi

Cagey · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 9 2005, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Italics that follow will be the hermeneutical reasoning with excessive discussion about the two verses, <i>neither one taken out of context since we are comparing verse to verse</i>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Italics mine. Since you used Dictionary.com as an authority on page 2, I thought I'd do the same.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language @ 4th Ed.)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
con-text.
n.
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WordNet)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>context

n 1: discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation [syn: linguistic context, context of use]
2: the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; "the historical context" [syn: circumstance]</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Websters II New Riverside Dictionary)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>con-text
n
1 The explanatory words and ideas surrounding a particular word or statement in a discourse.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

One more:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language @ 4th Ed)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>i·ro·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies
1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The primary definition of context means refers to the work surrounding a phrase. Out of context literally means removed from surrounding text, which is exactly what you're doing here (along with some hand-waving) in your verse-to-verse comparison. But then again, you're the expert on interpretation, so you were aware of that fact and just trying to be funny, right? Like you were when you stated it's a fact that Wiccan, Islamic, and Taoist beliefs are "the same" and it's close to being proven on page 9?

I don't have much faith in your claim that you are a better translation authority than the world at large at the moment, especially since context is a key component of any proper translation.

Cyndane · April 2005

Cagey, when you compare verse to verse and both are looked at completely then you are not taking them out of context. I would have expected at least you to realize that from simple logic.

To take something out of context you would need to do it for one side and not the other. Since we were comparing verses directly from both books, nothing was omitted. The entire verse for both books is there and if you can't draw the similarities you have the same issues that some others do.

Since you wish to be sarcastic I shall do the same for you.

I shall use the adjective form of out just so you can see it better, and not be confused with the adverb form.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Out
[i] adj
1. Exterior; external: the out surface of a ship's hull.
2. Directed away from a place or center; outgoing: the out doorway.
3. Traveling or landing out-of-bounds.
4.
1. Not operating or operational: The power has been out for a week.
2. Extinguished: The lights were out next door.
5. Unconscious: was out for an hour during surgery.
6. Not to be considered or permitted: A taxi is out, because we don't have enough money. From now on, eating candy before dinner is out.
7. No longer fashionable.
8. No longer existing in one's possession or supplies: I can't offer you coffee because we're out.
9. Informal. Openly ****, lesbian, or bisexual: an out performer.
10. Baseball. Not allowed to continue to bat or run; retired.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Then I shall requote your context. Again, I'll define it for you once more, context is a word or phrase removed from the surrounding texts, as you will notice, the ENTIRE VERSE for both books is there, guess what? Nothing was removed.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
QUOTE= (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language @ 4th Ed.)]

con-text.
n.
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( (WordNet))</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
context

n 1: discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation [syn: linguistic context, context of use]
2: the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; "the historical context" [syn: circumstance] </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( (Websters II New Riverside Dictionary))</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
con-text
n
1 The explanatory words and ideas surrounding a particular word or statement in a discourse.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I also don't see why drawing similarities to all of the worlds religions is so wrong. After all many of the legends we know of, (read Hercules/Gods/Goddess) have been passed down through word of mouth long before written form, and yet we all know them now. Is it really that far of a stretch for you to even consider perhaps religion is just a bunch of moral stories designed to teach us how to live peacefully, yet because it is so ingrained in some people they tend to fight over them.

I would encourage you do actually think about this, do you realize that if there was a signifcant discovery that all religions were the same, suddenly everyone who is an extremist would have to acknowledge that they were wrong, and the world would more then likey be a better place. Yes there would still be crime and what have you, but it wouldn't be about religion any more and these conversations would no longer take place. I really look forward to that day.

Cagey · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 10 2005, 05:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Cagey, when you compare verse to verse and both are looked at completely then you are not taking them out of context. I would have expected at least you to realize that from simple logic.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Using your definition of "out" as "exterior", let's try word substitution, which can sometimes be enlightening...

"Out" of "context"

"Exterior" of "The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning."

Logic, simple or otherwise, doesn't change the meaning of the phrase above. Every passage you have quoted has been removed from its original text before comparison. The fact that it has been taken out as a complete unit specified by the original work does not alter the fact that it has been removed from a larger whole. The ENTIRE VERSES (to use your emphasis) are out of the context of the chapters, books, and volumes they are a part of. You are taking both items out of context equally, which is not logically equivalent to keeping both in context.

Lack of favoritism has nothing to do with removal of connotational cues. If anything, considering both items without a complete text makes the link more dubious in my mind than a semantic analysis that only analyzes one context or the other--it anchors neither phrase to its original connotation instead of only anchoring one.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also don't see why drawing similarities to all of the worlds religions is so wrong. After all many of the legends we know of, (read Hercules/Gods/Goddess) have been passed down through word of mouth long before written form, and yet we all know them now. Is it really that far of a stretch for you to even consider perhaps religion is just a bunch of moral stories designed to teach us how to live peacefully, yet because it is so ingrained in some people they tend to fight over them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Note that I haven't ever objected to the exercise of semantic comparison, only to your claim that you were leaving your comparisons in context. A single verse is far to small a unit to claim only one possible connotation, and the surrounding content is necessary to understand the intent of many verses. I frankly enjoy comparative religion when people attempt to understand the complete meaning behind a text and are respectful of each others' differing opinions (which I have yet to see in any net discussion, "willfully retarded" indeed), and while I of course admit a huge bias in my study time, I do like to read about other religions from a variety of viewpoints, Christian and other.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would encourage you do actually think about this, do you realize that if there was a signifcant discovery that all religions were the same, suddenly everyone who is an extremist would have to acknowledge that they were wrong, and the world would more then likey be a better place. Yes there would still be crime and what have you, but it wouldn't be about religion any more and these conversations would no longer take place. I really look forward to that day.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If that discovery was made, I completely agree that there would be less to fight over. The problem is that religions diverge on ideas so basic that claiming they are identical is nonsense unless you ignore the meaning and concentrate on semantics. Pantheism and Deism are not and never will be the same concept. Thinking that something would be good does not alter its probability.

Cyndane · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey @ Apr 10 2005, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 10 2005, 05:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Cagey, when you compare verse to verse and both are looked at completely then you are not taking them out of context. I would have expected at least you to realize that from simple logic.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Using your definition of "out" as "exterior", let's try word substitution, which can sometimes be enlightening...

"Out" of "context"

"Exterior" of "The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning."

Logic, simple or otherwise, doesn't change the meaning of the phrase above. Every passage you have quoted has been removed from its original text before comparison. The fact that it has been taken out as a complete unit specified by the original work does not alter the fact that it has been removed from a larger whole. The ENTIRE VERSES (to use your emphasis) are out of the context of the chapters, books, and volumes they are a part of. You are taking both items out of context equally, which is not logically equivalent to keeping both in context.

Lack of favoritism has nothing to do with removal of connotational cues. If anything, considering both items without a complete text makes the link more dubious in my mind than a semantic analysis that only analyzes one context or the other--it anchors neither phrase to its original connotation instead of only anchoring one.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also don't see why drawing similarities to all of the worlds religions is so wrong. After all many of the legends we know of, (read Hercules/Gods/Goddess) have been passed down through word of mouth long before written form, and yet we all know them now. Is it really that far of a stretch for you to even consider perhaps religion is just a bunch of moral stories designed to teach us how to live peacefully, yet because it is so ingrained in some people they tend to fight over them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Note that I haven't ever objected to the exercise of semantic comparison, only to your claim that you were leaving your comparisons in context. A single verse is far to small a unit to claim only one possible connotation, and the surrounding content is necessary to understand the intent of many verses. I frankly enjoy comparative religion when people attempt to understand the complete meaning behind a text and are respectful of each others' differing opinions (which I have yet to see in any net discussion, "willfully retarded" indeed), and while I of course admit a huge bias in my study time, I do like to read about other religions from a variety of viewpoints, Christian and other.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would encourage you do actually think about this, do you realize that if there was a signifcant discovery that all religions were the same, suddenly everyone who is an extremist would have to acknowledge that they were wrong, and the world would more then likey be a better place. Yes there would still be crime and what have you, but it wouldn't be about religion any more and these conversations would no longer take place. I really look forward to that day.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If that discovery was made, I completely agree that there would be less to fight over. The problem is that religions diverge on ideas so basic that claiming they are identical is nonsense unless you ignore the meaning and concentrate on semantics. Pantheism and Deism are not and never will be the same concept. Thinking that something would be good does not alter its probability.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Thing is cagey everyone quotes verses directly from their sources and no one else complaits of out of context. Why? Simply because it is not out of context as I stated before. I don't quite understand why you are trying to use circular logic on something so mundane.

It is when you refer to a singular phrase from within that verse that you are taking it out of context.

I shall give you a bit more of a literary definition since you seem to have issues understanding "out of context".

When you quote part of a sentence, that does not represent a complete thought, that is out of context. For example you could take the last part of the previous sentence, after the comma, you would then be taking it out of context, you may get a general idea of what it means, but without the complete thought you can not be sure.

Which is why the verses are always quoted as I have shown on page 25 of this discussion, you must compare complete verses to complete verses otherwise you do run the risk of being called taking it out of context.

The first comparison is a prime example. The entire last part of the BG verse states exactly the same as the first part of the Bible. However, using their complete verses is not out of context.

Legionnaired · April 2005

I see that Cagey is replying to this thread, so I won't interject too much, just to point out that versification was never originally part of the Christian Scriptures, and I would venture a guess to say not part of the BG at it's writing either. Versification was added later, making the scriputres easyer to study.

You cannot look at only verse-by-verse divisions, you have to look at the whole paragraphs it was taken from.

Like, for example, John 11:32 says "Jesus Wept." It's the shortest verse in the bible, and taken by itself could be said to support any number of things. Understood in context, we realize he is weeping over Lazarus, not about sin, or his crucifixion, or anything else.

And Cyndane, you continue to assert that your viewpoint is correct, then act as if everyone who doesn't share it is ignorant, intolerant, and unenlightened. I could respect that if you didn't make the same assertions the fundamental pillars of your argument.

Cagey · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 10 2005, 07:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thing is cagey everyone quotes verses directly from their sources and no one else complaits of out of context. Why? Simply because it is not out of context as I stated before.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22verse+out+of+context%22' target='_blank'>"verse out of context"</a>

Those links are not an appeal to authority, but an illustration that your idea of "nobody" is rather strange. Perhaps nobody who is in your usual theological discussion group complains if a single description of an idea is removed from clarifying infleuences, which would explain some of your conclusions.

A complete idea can still have multiple connotations (as some of your examples show), and if surrounding text that clarifies it is removed, then it is out of the context of its original work.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't quite understand why you are trying to use circular logic on something so mundane. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Apparently you have a unique definition of circular logic as well... here are two random ones off the net that I'll say are close enough to my own:

<ul><li>"Circular logic is a logical error, caused by first making some assumption that can't be proven true, then, on the basis of that assumption, deriving some result that is then used to "prove" that the first assumption is true."</li><li><a href='http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html' target='_blank'>Logical Fallacy: Begging The Question</a></li></ul>

I started with dictionary definitions of words and applied their combined meaning. Here, I'll break it down further:

1) "Out" = "External"
2) "context" = "The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning."
3) "verse" = "a subunit of a work, usually equivalent to a single idea"
4) "Out of context" = "External to the part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning".
6) A verse can have multiple possible interpretations.
7) A verse has surrounding text.
8) Surrounding text can clarify the originally intended interpretation of a verse.
9) A verse can be removed from the text surrounding it.
10) When surrounding text determines the meaning of a verse and the verse is written without the surrounding text present, it has been removed from context.

Let me know where I backtrack, because I can't find anything circular. For that matter, let me know which of 1-9 is wrong, since they add up to 10. I hadn't even argued the position twice, which some people mistake for circular reasoning.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I shall give you a bit more of a literary definition since you seem to have issues understanding "out of context".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'll return the favor with two definitions from the realm of logic rather than literature, which is what I thought you'd be using since you're attempting to prove logical rather than semantical equivalency: <ul><li><a href='http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html' target='_blank'>Logical fallacies: Quoting Out of Context</a></li><li><a href='http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_quoting.htm' target='_blank'>Fallacies of Ambiguity: Quoting Out of Context</a></li></ul>There is no magical unit of text that can't be further clarified by additional surrounding text, and a single verse can easily be distorted.

I've never seen a separate literary definition of the phrase, but if you want to discuss semantic similarity of religious works as literature, I retract my objection. This could the second time in one thread where my understanding of a word isn't that of another poster.

CMEast · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 10 2005, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Like, for example, John 11:32 says "Jesus Wept."  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
... He probably would if he read this thread.

Thats the bad bit about the internet, I think everyone who comes in here must consider themselves at least fairly intelligent and capable of rational discussion... but all people end up doing is squabbling <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />

Cagey · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 10 2005, 08:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 10 2005, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Like, for example, John 11:32 says "Jesus Wept." </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
... He probably would if he read this thread.

Thats the bad bit about the internet, I think everyone who comes in here must consider themselves at least fairly intelligent and capable of rational discussion... but all people end up doing is squabbling <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Quoted for very unfortunate truth.

Legionnaired · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey @ Apr 10 2005, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 10 2005, 08:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 10 2005, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Like, for example, John 11:32 says "Jesus Wept." </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
... He probably would if he read this thread.

Thats the bad bit about the internet, I think everyone who comes in here must consider themselves at least fairly intelligent and capable of rational discussion... but all people end up doing is squabbling <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Quoted for very unfortunate truth.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Also, QFT.

By the by Cagey, is the BUS done, or are you just slacking off <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />?

Cyndane · April 2005

I thought we were referring to the Bible as a literary document. Since it was proven in earlier posts in this thread it is not a historical document.

If I am assuming incorrectly, correct me (Refer back to the Noah topic in prior posts).

*edited in* Last time I was in school the literary definition of out of context was without a complete thought. Those verses are complete thoughts and sometimes tell a story.

Basically all that is being said with those comparisons, is that both books of stories, have the exact same meaning behind them.

Cagey · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 10 2005, 09:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Last time I was in school the literary definition of out of context was without a complete thought. Those verses are complete thoughts and sometimes tell a story. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If the story can be misread without additional text that normally accompanies it, it is logically out of context; if we're going to talk about proving something, the logical definition applies. You can assign it another meaning if you want, but the common meaning used for logical arguments is linked for others above from both an atheist source and an apparently religion-neutral one.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Basically all that is being said with those comparisons, is that both books of stories, have the exact same meaning behind them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's what I thought you were saying. If you want to prove something, your proof must not contain logical errors. If, for instance, you want to prove that two books of stories have the exact same meaning you must demonstrate that the samples of text you have picked (1) are equivalent when examined, (2) are not being presented with a distorted meaning for that examination ("out of context" in the logical sense), and (3) represent the complete scope of both works.

If I pursue why I believe you've pulled those quotes out of context, this will rapidly become Religious Debate on the Internet, which is a major waste of my time (especially when others are willing to engage in it anyway). I think that the third part of the requirements above would be easier to disprove if somebody else wanted to argue that Hindu and Christian writings aren't indentical.

As we're moving from the realm of logic to interpretation of beliefs again I'll leave the thread with this... before anybody says another person should learn how to think logically, they should have a basic working knowledge of common fallacies and understand the difference between a sound argument and a flawed one.

Edited for OT reply:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>By the by Cagey, is the BUS done, or are you just slacking off?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Is neither a valid answer? Keep in mind I was working somewhere else for 6 months <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Cyndane · April 2005

Bascially you want the entire chapter from each book posted. You do realize that would take up pages of the forums.

(Keep in mind also that the chapters were not orginally part of the books either, so I would have to post the entire book as well, I dont know about you but no one here, from my experience really takes the time to read extensively long posts.)

However, if that is what is agreed upon I shall gladly post the entire chapter where all the the verses occur, I would like a vote on that if you will.

So, Sky, legionaired, pepe, CMEast, Nadagast, and others, what say you?

(I have easy access to the entirety of both books both in written form and in online format, although I prefer written form it will take longer for a complete transferance.)

CMEast · April 2005

Fundamentally every religion is this same because it is designed to fulfil that basic need we have for meaning in our lives. We have a tendency to anthropomorphisise (is that a word?) everything around us, I mean who is it I'm telling off when it starts raining as soon as I step out the door?

However, religions really aren't the same and I don't think I'd ever try and convince one person that the things they believe in are the same as anothers. Not even just protestants and catholics! There is plenty of 'proof' that certain important events in one religion are based off another, that holy days just 'happen' to coincide with other religions etc but that doesn't mean that those religions are the same.

You are welcome to post it if you wish but I very much doubt you'll convince anyone who currently disagrees with you. I don't mind as I'm always willing to learn new things and I've never been one to shy away from a long post. The other thing I should mention is that for every similarity you pick out I'm sure they will pick out a difference whether you agree with them or not.

Cyndane · April 2005

Alright, there is one vote for yes.

I also am not trying to prove they are exactly the same, for they are not. Fundamentally they are quite different, one says they wish to achieve nirvana with god, the other takes you directly to god.

All I am saying is that one is actually based off of the other, and that is the reason the stories are so similar. Which is what everyone keeps denying, which is again what I am trying to prove. Gary's book was wrong on many accounts, but on three hundred and sixy three of them, he was dead on, (between Krishna and Jesus) even religious leaders recongize that. What I am not understanding is how some people on here can not see the simaliarties as well.

So, who says what next?

Taaketa · April 2005

Forgive me for I a simpleton but I could not bare to read all 26 pages of this thread.

Here is my story:

I am a Christian of 5 years, I have been on this earth for 18. I believe in Jesus. I believe he is the Christ, Messiah, the Lamb of God and the redeemer of his people.

Jesus' message is simple. Jesus came to sacrifice himself for us all and he rose again 3 days later after dying on the cross. He came to forgive your sins and ask that you accept and acknowledge him as your saviour. Nothing more nothing less.

Now do I have to convince you if this is true? No.

Read the <a href='http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=matthew%2013&version1=31' target='_blank'>whole thing here, if you want to.</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>3Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.

18“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.

20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.

22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop–a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear.”

23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And that is my explanation. If you argue, how can we believe the bible to be true if its not translated from the Hebrew perfectly what does it matter? The main message is clear If you hide behind such little things then you are like the seed that fell on the rocky place. Maybe other people in this thread are different seeds I dunno. If I was to be honest with myself I am the seed among the weed still attached to this world while trying to be apart from it at the same time (Romans, up to chater 9 I think, is great at explaining that problem).

I cannot claim to be perfect infact anyone who claims to be a Christian CAN ONLY affirm they are flawed. Come join any NS server where I'm playing and you can sometimes here me angery and swearing at people. But still I believe in Jesus and God. Have I stayed to the point of the thread? Probaly not, but like I say I'm not perfect and I'm a simpleton <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />.

Cyndane · April 2005

Funny, how when someone who approves of the bible quotes it it is "ok" to quote just the verses yet when I use it for comparision reasons it is "bad" and "out of context".

Congradulations double standards. :-)

Cagey · April 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 11 2005, 07:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Funny, how when someone who approves of the bible quotes it it is "ok" to quote just the verses yet when I use it for comparision reasons it is "bad" and "out of context".

Congradulations double standards. :-) </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I didn't say anything about approving another person's use of verse here or anywhere else. Congratulations on inventing statements and then putting imaginary hypocracy in its place--if you continue assigning my opinions without reference, I'll just be here shaking my head.

Also, if you follow the links I provided to the common definition of the term, you'd find that logically taking something out of context includes distortion, so there are cases where small text can be used legitimately--though the smaller the text, the harder it is to do, and for the purposes of religious discussion it's nigh impossible to make a case without heavy, heavy, cross-citation that your interpretation isn't distorted. I've already said I'm not going to debate distortion in your case.

EDIT: In case you wonder why I waited 25 pages to comment on context at all although people had been tossing verse back and forth before that point, it was your specific claim that things were not out of context that inspired my initial post. I might agree with some conclusions Christians have posted in this thread because of my own reading, but support has been thin from all viewpoints.

Grendel · April 2005

I think that the number of sources, influences, versions and interpretations that are included in this thread rather supports my original post.

The Bible

Comments