2008 Political debate thread

[Phanto]

The bible and churches were tools of power. There may be some text in the bible that makes sense.. you know words of wisdom and stuff. Metaphors. But everything was made up by man. There were no prophets, they were fuckheads at best, and every religious text used in practice have been altered so many times that even if they were true gospels people would interpret and act out the wrong shit. As for people who believe in creation and phenomena written in a work of fiction as "truth", I seriously laugh at them. Science doesn't hold all the answers either. Simply; We do not know. Is that so hard to understand? We don't know about everything going on around us, why we're here or how our universe was created. Must there be an immediate answer, and must that answer be of divine if it can't be explained scientifically for the common ear at this time? People are so gullible.

 

[squidfetish]

One of the basic differences is that science is revised in the light of new ideas and information, and a new synthesis arrived at. Religion (fundamentalist, that is) clings doggedly onto old ideas and only changes them, if at all and depending on the denomination, when it is untenable not to do so, or when is is politically expedient to do so.

It's difficult to find the balance between the cultural imperialism of trying to get someone to see accept that their literalist beliefs may not be correct, and leaving them to get on with it as long as they don't cause anyone else a problem.... curious....

 

[Kenneth R.]

The accounts of Jesus' life aren't firsthand? I think you mean they aren't autobiographical. Most of them (Paul excluded) are first hand, when you consider Matthew Mark Luke and John.

Of course, I'm not asking anyone to believe. That's a personal decision.

squidfetish and Erik, you seem to hold very narrow views of religion based on those who use it in the way you describe, as seen on TV, as it is. Unfortunate.

 

[Metaldrumz]

Heres the truth folks.

The Bible is nothing but a load of shit. More brainwashing. The story of Heaven Vs Hell, and God Vs Satan was injected as a way to "control" civilization. When you really think deep about it religion is nothing more than glorified fairy tales. Its a way to keep societies "stable" and to "believe in something". You better be good or else you go to a bad place.....be good and stay good and you get rewarded by going to the clouds in the sky LOL!!! ok!! People are brainwashed since birth to believe this nonsense.

Now that doesnt mean I dont believe in a higher power. I believe in "a" higher being, I just dont believe the worlds greatest fairy tale ever told "religion".

Just like everything else this plant and man has failed what we are supposed to be about. Money, power and corruption have ruled this planet, and always will. Anyone who believe their Gov't (in any Country) has some loose screws. Oil prices, banking systems, etc etc its all a big scam.

George Carlin said it best......."we dont have rights, we have priviledges".

For those who believe in "faith" "The Bible" and so on. I say prove it! You cant prove to me any of it any more than someone can prove to me Aliens, and dragons exist. What are you gonna point me too? Some bullshit documentation that was fabricated eons ago?

PU-LEASE. Show me concrete proof from something other than written down mumble jumbo from the masterminds who created it.

Adam And Eve, is no more real than the Tooth Fairy. LOL I cant believe the World is so succumbed to this bullshit.

 

[Kenneth R.]

So, are you railing against the government, religion, both? Or are you confusing the two? Like the other two posters I just mentioned, you seem to have developed a cynical opinion on religion, based on the media and the misguided who would twist it to their own purpose.

 

[Metaldrumz]

As for the political side....Mainstream Media is another big joke. Why dont they mention the libertarians who are running for president? Oh thats right they cant BUY an election. If people were smart in the USA they would all STAY HOME on election day. Both candidates SUCK so why vote for them? I always hear "lesser of 2 evils". Well then DONT VOTE STUPID!! I wont be!

Everyone is so "by the book" it makes me sick. When will people do something about it to make CHANGES instead of bickering about it.

 

[noble savage]

Well, I think it is because all of the aspects of religion transported overseas are that of television. As you said. However, if I recall correctly from the Pew survey, a vast majority of Americans, something 50%, do belong to fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity. The scary Mike Huckabee kind.

I know there are some moderates like you out there, but there is no denying that fundies are the most outspoken and vocal in American media. Besides, I have actually heard many complaints from Christians about people like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham etc misrepresenting them. Why not boot them out onto their ass then, away from television? I can't imagine that they do anyone but themselves any good..

Edit: Directed at Ken's post.

 

[razoredge]

Everyone so worried about Christianity these day, when there are far greater fears... science being one of them. What ever happened to live and let live, let die, do your own thing, to each his own. Now everyones at everybodys back door, peeking in, worrying about if they live their life according to "modern" specs. Distraction, distraction, distraction

 

[Metaldrumz]

Everyone so worried about Christianity these day, when there are far greater fears... science being one of them. What ever happened to live and let live, let die, do your own thing, to each his own. Now everyones at everybodys back door, peeking in, worrying about if they live their life according to "modern" specs. Distraction, distraction, distraction

I agree with you somewhat. The only difference is I dont "worry" about it. Quite frankly if people wanna have "make believe" beliefs than more power to them.

Science is fascinating though. Genetic codes, DNA, etc etc that stuff really intrigues me.

Which brings me to the other question I'm always asking. Seeing as how far science has come isnt it a little funny in a day of super computers, cloning, and microscopic surgery and hard drives that we still run vehicles that go from A to B on the combustible gas engine which was created in the 1800s yet we gotta hear a song and a dance on oil prices and bullshit alternative fuel sources. Gee lets put 2 and 2 together here.

The fact of the matter is ....Gov'ts want technology they can milk you on so they can get more revenue. Lets be real they could invent technology to make my car run on piss if they wanted too. Theres billions of dollars in untapped revenue left in oil so of course we are gonna get hosed on it. The whole bullshit argument of we are running out is pathetic. Oil is a natural resource of Earth! ITS ALL OVER! Alaska, Colorado, Texas etc etc lets not even talk about places like Russia! The excuse is Environmentalists, and tree huggers. Yeah whatever buddy. Always an excuse. Funny how the speculators who are invested in Oil are the ones who drive it up. Shouldnt that be illegal? Haha whatever, its so ridiculous I just have to laugh.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Drumrman, did you vote for your libertarian candidate in the primaries? If so, I don't think you have much to complain about except maybe that you need to convince more of the populace that he/she is the right person. If you didn't vote, then you have no business complaining at all.

Chris, while I feel that people like Ann Coulter and the other jackasses on TV are giving Christianity a bad name, it's their right and freedom to do so. Personally I think they're just making themselves look stupid. I don't feel threatened by this vocal, idiotic minority even though they seem to be construed as representing us, because ultimately they're just fools with hot air.

 

[squidfetish]

The accounts of Jesus' life aren't firsthand? I think you mean they aren't autobiographical. Most of them (Paul excluded) are first hand, when you consider Matthew Mark Luke and John.

Of course, I'm not asking anyone to believe. That's a personal decision.

squidfetish and Erik, you seem to hold very narrow views of religion based on those who use it in the way you describe, as seen on TV, as it is. Unfortunate.

No, I was careful to use the word 'fundamentalist' and criticize their outlook, rather than the more progressive elements. There's a whole spectrum of 'belief' out there from the reasonable to the ridiculous.

Are you sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

And when were they written?

How much have they been edited along the way, and for what reason have they edited??

How close are they to the original scripts?

If they're not close, how much do they differ from the original 'word', and who gets to mess with the word and change it? What gives them the right?

Not having a go here, Kenneth, you're obviously an intelligent guy and I would expect you've thought about these questions before. But the idea of the New Testament being the sacred, unquestionable text of the life of Jesus and the basis of a religion, it just doesn't stand up for me. And that's ok, like you said belief is a matter of choice. If someone derives some benefit from that then good for them. I'm not interested in changing someone's mind, it just never fails to amaze me how many people I've met personally refuse to ask questions. Plenty of people rant on about 'truth' but are unwilling to ask the questions that may eventually let them approach 'truth'.

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. Am I sure they were written by those 4 guys? No.

2. When were they written seems more traceable. Based on the events depicted you can pinpoint a window by correlating with roman empire history.

3. How much and why was it edited? This is the easiest question. It's documented by history. We know who took away and who added throughout history. Original texts from period times still exist to be retranslated without the edits.

4. See the rest of brief answer 3.

5. They give themselves the right as rulers of empires. They want to change history, control people, so this is their method of doing so. I don't think it's right.

 

[squidfetish]

You've managed to skirt around each question without giving any names, dates etc. And fair enough... I didn't really expect any. There's some interesting texts on the topic available, Bart D. Ehrman's book 'Misquoting Jesus' is a good one. See what I mean about the lack of any certainty? That's what I'm getting at.

The editing of the texts is a particularly interesting issue, given that scripts were reproduced by hand and often changed along the way, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident, sometimes out of spite, sometimes out of laziness. It's a great topic! I have some theology under my belt, but I'm not an expert by any stretch. I'm up for discussion rather than argument. Good stuff.

 

[noble savage]

You've managed to skirt around each question without giving any names, dates etc. And fair enough... I didn't really expect any. There's some interesting texts on the topic available, Bart D. Ehrman's book 'Misquoting Jesus' is a good one. See what I mean about the lack of any certainty? That's what I'm getting at.

I have been meaning to pick up one of Ehrmans books. They sound really interesting. I saw an interview with him (Daily Show I think.) and he was an evangelical Christian for a long time and wanted to understand the Bible, but after examining the New Testament in detail he abandoned Christianity and became an Agnostic because of the inconsistencies and changes made by priests over the years.

My grandparents have a very old bible from 1800s, I would like to compare it to the newest version of the bible and see if there are really any changes or anything like that, as Ehrman claims could have happened. Even in the last 100 or so years.

 

[Phanto]

But the idea of the New Testament being the sacred, unquestionable text of the life of Jesus and the basis of a religion, it just doesn't stand up for me. And that's ok, like you said belief is a matter of choice.

I'll just quote this and sign my name on it.

 

[progmetaldan]

My grandparents have a very old bible from 1800s, I would like to compare it to the newest version of the bible and see if there are really any changes or anything like that, as Ehrman claims could have happened. Even in the last 100 or so years.

It would be quite different from a language, style of speech way, but not in content, unless you're comparing it to a catholic or mormon bible or something. Nowadays most bibles are a dynamic translation, which basically means they've translated it 'phrase by phrase, rather than 'word by word', from the original Hebrew and Greek. What your grandparents probably have is a KJV, which is Old-English style text, with a word for word translation. The books of the Bible were compiled as we know it in the 4th century, with the addition of the 27 books of the New Testament to the already existing Old Testament. As far as what books were considered scripture, they had to have a directly traceable line to an Apostle or another prominent eye-witness who was close to Jesus himself. The books were quickly narrowed down due to persecution, as the Christians in Rome in the First Century would be killed for possessing scripture, so they very quickly had to decide whether a particular writing was worth dying for or not, and the Scriptures have defied all other literature by surviving over 2000 years, which is very rare, especially as it hasn't always been anywhere near as available as it is nowadays. But the whole thing wasn't translated into English until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, when it was made available in the languages of the common folk, such as German and English. Since then, there've been quite a few different 'translations' of English Bibles, but this refers to the style of writing, and the ease of reading along etc. rather than differing content...

Anyway, I thought this was the USA politics discussion, hence why I tried to steer clear, what happened to it?

 

[noble savage]

It would be quite different from a language, style of speech way, but not in content, unless you're comparing it to a catholic or mormon bible or something.

Compare it to a Mormon Bible..? Hahaha

Anyway, I never even knew there was a Catholic/Christian version of the bible. I thought it was all about how the huge number of Christian sects interpreted it. Like somewhere it says if you're a Catholic and you crank one off, you'll burn for all eternity. etc etc

 

[progmetaldan]

Well the Catholics bible comes from when a fellow named Jerome translated the Old Testament, The Apocrypha (14 books which fall beween the Old and New Testaments) and the New Testament, from the Hebrew and Greek into Latin, which was the main language at the time due to Roman occupation everywhere. The bible we use today is the same, minus The Apocrypha, however the Catholics still have that in there, as well as they put a lot of emphasis on their 'Saints' and have many traditions which aren't actually part of scripture... The main issue was, that the Roman-Catholics made it so that scripture could ONLY be in Latin, meaning the common folk couldn't read it, and had to rely on the Priests to share it with them. This meant they could pick and choose what was shared, and unfortunately at that time there was alot of corruption and immorality within the church, which is where a lot of the warped theology came from. This is when the guys like Martin Luther came in and spoke against where it was going, and so began the process of translating it, not from the already translated Latin, but from the original texts into German, and then later into English.

The Cultic 'bibles' are obviously way different again...

Btw, this is just very condensed history, I'm not just trying to attack Catholics, this is just the way it went down, you can read about it in a history book...

 

[squidfetish]

I have been meaning to pick up one of Ehrmans books. They sound really interesting. I saw an interview with him (Daily Show I think.) and he was an evangelical Christian for a long time and wanted to understand the Bible, but after examining the New Testament in detail he abandoned Christianity and became an Agnostic because of the inconsistencies and changes made by priests over the years.

Yes, I picked up his book because he was by upbringing a very orthodox and committed Christian that asked questions and wanted to get to what the original texts said, and find the earliest and hence least-edited versions in order to find this out. I didn't know that he'd become an agnostic as a result though. That's interesting.

But the whole thing wasn't translated into English until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, when it was made available in the languages of the common folk, such as German and English. Since then, there've been quite a few different 'translations' of English Bibles, but this refers to the style of writing, and the ease of reading along etc. rather than differing content...

Yep, it's interesting that the Catholic church became reformed all because Henry VIII couldn't get papal permission for a divorce from Katharine of Aragon, and he couldn't knock her off because she was the daughter of the king of Spain. So, effectively what he said was, "Screw you guys, I'm creating my own church and I'm going to be the head of it." So that way he got his divorce, and England got an alternative church, not with big differences in scripture, but certainly differences in emphasis, observance and liturgy. See how religion can have wholesale change in the interests of political expediency and personal whim.

Anyway, I thought this was the USA politics discussion, hence why I tried to steer clear, what happened to it?

 

[noble savage]

Actually, I don't know how it is in other countries, but here politics = religion. In fact, I don't even think you can qualify for political office unless you make at least one wrong and ignorant comment about atheists or have, at the very minimum, had extra marital sex and then murdered that person. Or in a lot of other cases, you can run or belong to a church, have sex with little boys and still have peoples sympathy. As long as your not an atheist - that's just too immoral..