darth_ender

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said: I think all points have been made over and over.  Rather than accept that some people believe something different based on different criteria, this zealous missionary effort to dissuade a belief in Christ because of a rather obscure passage that was seldom enforced, even less so at the time of Jesus.  It seems that rather than accepting there are good people who believe in a book that has a lot of truth, perhaps more than they are willing to accept, every atheist's purpose is to shove their own reasoning down someone else's throat.

I don't know how many times I've been told that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are annoying because they keep coming back and sharing their beliefs.  What about those who keep coming back and demanding that you see things their way?

The problem may be that the whole book is often shoved under the noses of people as the whole truth and nothing but the truth (oaths are still sworn on it).

Yet there are passages that most reasonable minded believers don't believe and would never follow inside it's covers.

And while some of the cruel punishments prescribed in the Old Testament were rarely carried out do you hear much about the laws against wearing clothes of two different twine or against shell fish, tattoos or the wrong beard trim or hair cut outside of conversations like this one?

Do Christians and Jews still deliberate over which country it's okay to sell their children in?

And yet the homosexual lines (and it's still open to debate if it's actually about homosexual sex anyway) get pulled out again and again and again by people who do take it seriously and really would like to lock us all up again or worse.

Mathew 29-30/Mark 9 43-48 that nonsense if it really doesn't square with how you would behave to your fellow men. 

Wow, rereading my own quote, I made some weird grammar errors.  I won't bother fixing it, though, since it's already been quoted.  I think everyone knows what I meant.  In any case, I don't believe anything on this earth to be infallible.  I believe some things are close, some things are closer, and I do believe in personal revelation from God, but I believe that when he is working through human vessels, sometimes the imperfections of those vessels show through the work.  Yes, I agree that parts of the Bible are quite applicable today.  Some things, on the other hand, are quite out of date.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I believe that we are asking all the wrong questions, and that we are as a species incapable of asking the right ones.

Consider the world as viewed by a species right "below" us on the evolutionary ladder - say, chimps.  Try as we might, a chimp will never understand concepts that we humans consider to be "ultimate questions" - such as the origin of the universe, the vastness of space, the Big Bang, what is "God", etc.  Heck, the chimp can't even play checkers, it can't even understand the concept of abstraction at that level.  We wouldn't even try to explain any of these concepts to the chimp, because we know it is beyond the chimp's capactity to understand no matter how hard we try.  To a chimp, the "ultimate questions" are things like, "how do I get out of this cage?", or "who can I get some food from?", or maybe in a flash of brilliance, "what is on the other side of that hill?".  They aren't even capable of some of our modes of thought, such as "irony".

Now, move one rung UP the chain from us - assuming that somewhere in the universe there is a lifeform further evolved than humans.  To them, our "ultimate questions" are about as interesting and deep as the chimps "ultimate questions" are to us. We always imagine a superior race landing on earth, answering our questions and enlightening us with their insight. That we would learn so much from them. It think it is far more likely that they won't even try to share their knowledge with us, because even just one step up the chain, it would be completely beyond our capacity to comprehend what they are even referring to, let alone understand it.  They might even tell us that, or they might not even bother.  Now imagine 5 or 10 steps up the chain - it would be like comparing our insights versus those of an earthworm.  And they would have modes of thought that we can't even imagine, let alone experience.

I found your logic quite interesting and reasonable.

By this line of reasoning, I'm not even sure what we consider to be the "universe", or "time", or "travel", or "creation", or "God", are anything of significance whatsoever, and that whatever is REALLY at the top of it all (if that is a view that even holds), is something of a nature we cannot possibly fathom, let alone interact with.  And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.

The primary difference is where I ultimately come to my conclusions.  Obviously, if I believe in God, I believe him to be several rungs above us.  I do believe we are incapable of understanding him or his reasoning.  However, if I believe him to be such a superior being and I trust that his reasoning to be far above my own, I can still trust that he is capable of teaching me on my level.  Going back to the primate analogy, though a chimp cannot comprehend our motives, our reasoning, our "ultimate questions," we may teach the chimp something.  We can teach a chimp some art, some more advanced communication (primitive levels of sign language), and can give very limited insight into our way of thinking.  God, though far above us, is infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely capable.  Sure he would know the exact ways to teach his children how to understand on some basic level what his motives are, what our greatest questions can and should be.  Chimps can be taught, and we are far more capable than chimps.  I believe God has a lot to teach us.

I forgive you.  Come with me into the trees!

I haven't seen enough of the series to make full-fledged suggestions in this thread (and I've actually been avoiding reading most of the comments in this thread to preserve some spoilers), but I have started to feel more and more strongly that a new PT could be constructed using TCW as Episode II.  I've mentioned it before so I know this isn't knew, but I would love for others who are more intimately aware of the plots of TCW to contemplate how to complete such a trilogy.  I think a few elements from Episode I plus most of Episode II could be pieced together to make a more interesting film, introducing and killing Maul early on, Anakin, Obi-wan, and Tyrannus/Dooku.  Episode II could introduce Asohka (and eliminate her, though this is more difficult with the series' end), introduce Grievous, introduce and remove Ventress (another difficulty), develop Anakin, reintroduce Maul, and develop Dooku.  It could also better develop the friendship between Anakin and Obi-wan.  Episode III could then be an improvement on the current Episode III.  I know it would be a drastic change, and while I think I've come to prefer TPM over the other two prequels, it really serves little story purpose and could go.  Characters who were seriously underutilized (i.e. Dooku) or underdeveloped (i.e. Grievous) would appear more interesting by the time we got to ROTS.  We would already see a Force competent, sympathetic, but dangerous Anakin.  Maul could get the treatment he deserves.  Sidious's goals with his expendable apprentices would appear more interesting.  My only worry is that there would be so much to cram into the new Episode II that likely some of the most interesting elements would in reality have to go (likely Maul, maybe Ventress).  I think it's worth consideration.  I don't care about the change in visuals between films!

EDIT: Further thinking has led me to even wonder if the first trilogy were actually made into a quadrilogy.  Obviously this would mess up the numbering of the later films, but if folks could deal with that, I think one could make an interesting set of prequels.

TV's Frink said:

Oh come on, everyone knows it's a question of lust, ender.

Are you coming on to me?  I need to drink more than you seem to think before I'm anyone's!

The recent announcement has spurred me to give more attention to this series.  I am slowly working my way through the episodes.  I also gave the ol' traditionally animated microseries a gander (finally).  I have to say that while the first half was kinda weird, with every other minute filled with dramatic pauses and poses, the second half was really quite good!  I wish the now cancelled series would have been able to transfer the same story points (up to the capture of Palpatine) to CGI.  I know 2008 series got better as it went, but even these first few episodes are really quite enjoyable.  It makes me excited to see more.  But I guess what interests me most about this show is that it increases the value of the PT.  Without TCW, the PT is a disappointing trilogy lacking in both character and action (I remember very clearly before 1999 wanting the PT to be about the Clone Wars).  With TCW, it seems that the PT at least serves as a buttress or complement to the series, which really gives Star Wars fans what they wanted from a pre-OT Star Wars.

In an amazing combination of two threads, I have decided that this one better fits here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA3WUgFhcXQ

Don't worry about the video, but scroll down on the comments till you reach TheAmazingUncleSam.  Yes, that Sam, better known as Father Skywalker or Lord Tyrannus.  You will see that he is putting off a very different persona, and interestingly agrees with the OP!

I honestly liked your first post, but I was trying to not post on this site (which has obviously been an utter failure--heck, I even said I was done for the night and here I am posting again).  I will try to get to it tomorrow.  I've really got to get serious and do some school work right now :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE8Epl9Cpl0

CP3S said:

Ooh, this could be a fun discussion.  If we do proceed down this road, I will definitely move my responses to the Mormon thread.  But for now, I will offer you this outdated article:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies

Wordprint is an extremely questionable method. It is far from conclusive, and really determines nothing. 

Well clearly, or else everyone who ever studied it would know the Book of Mormon is true.  But your offhand dismissal is not evidence to the contrary, but rather a lack of research.  It's not like it'd hold up in court, but it's more compelling than you realize.  It's been used to verify more than just Book of Mormon authorship.

Usually, translated works by different authors but the same translator are shown to be of the same author by the wordprint method, but not always. The inconsistency there goes along way in telling us that, ultimately, this study on the Mormon books really tells us nothing.

No, and no.  Look at the article again, as it shows that many of the wordprint characteristics are retained after translation.  Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to alter one's style, even more so to alter it numerous times in the same work without repeating one's style.

This article is also an interesting read.

We even have the "Book of Abraham" (that's the one, right?) written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, that has no correlation whatsoever to what Smith claims to have translated from that same piece of papyri. This is the point where you start talking about the necessity of faith, which would be an obvious requirement.

Yes, this would be worth discussion as well.  Perhaps I will address in the Mormon thread.

We actually discussed it a bit last time.

I still feel that the Book of Abraham and the revelation that it is nothing of the sort, should have been the end of Mormonism.

I could certainly go to greater lengths to explain my personal views on this topic, but they correlate with at least some of the ideas in this article, so I will provide this for your extensive reading pleasure, and you may probe further if you wish, and I will then give you more specific answers:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham

To his credit as well, he spent relatively little time working on the Book of Mormon, approximately two months of actual reading with transcribers.

That is hardly unreasonable. With people to do the transcription work, this would be very doable.

For a purely fictitious book without any subsequent editing (aside from a largely minor corrections after the first printing, mostly in terms of spelling and punctuation), that's pretty darn fast.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=767

It seems like you brought up another point recently regarding Mormonism specifically that I have not addressed, but I can't seem to find it.  I'm calling it a night.

Bingowings said:

That would be the atheists who start a thread about atheism?

And one about their particular flavour of atheism?

If you ask for opinions don't be too surprised if some of them aren't yours.

God knows I've found that with some of the threads I've started.

I don't mind people who disagree with me.  I don't even mind a lot of people who don't agree with me.  The Internet is saturated with people who don't believe in God.  It's just when their purpose of disagreeing is not to educate, understand, promote discussion, or even challenge ideas, but rather to simply show just how ignorant the poor believer is that I become annoyed.

P.S. Wow Endy you don't arf post fast.

I must not, because I have no idea what arf posting is lol.

CP3S said:

Trooperman said:

God is anywhere good is.  Everything good is from God.  Everything bad is from the devil.

But why?

Why would you believe this to be the case? It is so simplistic, and dare I say, silly. It is Saturday morning kids cartoon sort of simplistic (and by saying that, I feel like I am being way too harsh on Saturday morning kids cartoons). And still, why? What reason do you have to believe everything good comes from God, and everything evil comes from the devil? The Bible tells you? As we've seen the last few pages, almost every Christian here takes a very different stance on how seriously to take the Bible. Because you know God exists by this warm fuzzy feeling you get in your heart? Maybe that is just taking comfort in the thought that you have a giant invisible friend who has got your back, and who you can take reassurance that people who do "evil" things will always have to pay in the end.

 

When I was a little kid, I had an imaginary friend. When I got in fights with other kids at pre-school, or when somebody was picking on me, I'd go off to be by myself and I'd talk to my imaginary friend. We'd tell jokes, and laugh, and together we'd make fun of the kids who were being mean to me. That other kid may have been bigger than me, and totally ripped that waffle block from my hands, but now me and my imaginary buddy were whispering about how weird his nose looks. I got genuine comfort from this. At least I always had him to talk to, at least he always understood me.

At some point I grew up enough to realize an imaginary friend was silly, and that I needed to make real friends rather than retreat to be alone anytime I got uncomfortable. I remember lying in bed talking to my friend and telling him it was time to go. I imagined him slowly, sadly, dramatically riding away on his horse (Yes, he had a horse. I got to ride it sometimes! He had a dog too). As he rode away tears began uncontrollably rolling down my face and my heart felt crushed. I clutched my blanket tightly to my chest and cried myself to sleep.

I was so very small, but I remember this farewell so very clearly. Emotional attachment, feelings of comfort, those things don't mean something is real. I had the advantage of knowing my friend wasn't real, because I made him up myself.

In other words, I can't believe in something just because of some intangible feelings.

It took me a long time to make the leap from theist to agnostic. It had been hammered into me from a young age. Bible stories at bedtime, Sunday school each week, say your prayers before bedtime and at every meal. I often felt guilty when I'd fall asleep before I finished praying. Sometimes I'd nod off in the middle of my prayer, and then I'd apologize and start over. It seemed unspeakably rude to nod off while talking to the creator and ruler of the Universe.

I spent a period of time still being a "theist" while not really believing before I became comfortable enough to admit to myself I was an agnostic. I went to church every Sunday, and I still prayed sometimes. One night, I met this really fun and attractive blond, we hit it off and talked for hours. Eventually we went back to her place, stayed up half the night watching movies, started making out, and things escalated. I woke up beside her the next morning, the sun shining golden on her curly hair and reflecting off the smooth skin of her naked body. I felt overwhelmed with warmth, excitement, happiness, anticipation. As it should be. No guilt. I'd always felt guilt in the past, even when things didn't go anywhere near as far as they had gone the night before. That day I was able to admit to myself that I was agnostic.

In other words, I came to believe this in part because of some intangible feelings.  Yes, feelings of happiness at having a sexual encounter without guilt.  Feelings that if God was real, he'd surely be scolding me now.  Yep, I had good feelings, so agnosticism must be true.

I don't mean to belittle your experience, but this sounds a lot like "witnessing."

Hey, you didn't call in advance.  And I do require a deposit.  Seriously though, I just don't have time to answer everything I want to answer.  I was reserving the space for my joke in the other thread, but at this point the joke is dead, so I'll just make a new post when I get to it.

TheBoost said:

darth_ender said:

 

 Let's assume God is real for a moment.  Let's assume that a modern-day Moses exists and the whole world knew this man was a prophet of God.  Let's go on and imagine that God provided commandments that were completely consistent with our way of thinking in the year 2013.  Let's then imagine that we wrote down these commandments and preserved them for 2,000 years.  Let's then say with great certainty that the people of 2,000 years in the future would look at our society, our people, and our values as a bunch of idiotic baloney.  Then they look at our scriptures that match our values, and decide that the God (which we already are assuming exists) must be false simply because he spoke to a more primitive people in a way that they would understand.  You don't have to believe the Bible is true, and you may give a number of reasons why you think that way.  But if you think God is false because he was working with a primitive people, you're kinda expecting a little much from him.  

So this same God gives the Book of Leviticus to these people, which is mainly list after list of really really specific instructions to follow.Are these people really SO PRIMITIVE, that in that list of 500+ laws He couldn't throw in "Don't rape people" or "Don't keep slaves" or "Don't kill dudes because they screw other dudes." 

Were the people who built the great cities of Egypt and Babylon, who irrigated the Fertile Crescent, so primitive these laws would have made their brains overheat?

It's amazing!  So many atheists, yet they still maintain a "holier than thou" tone!  Obviously their technology was amazing.  I'm not saying they were idiots.  But I'm talking about context.  Do you think if you traveled back in time (a feat limited to Bingowings at the present) to visit the Egyptians and told them about your clearly superior notions that there are no gods, they'd be ready to hear it?  Do you think if you shared with them the ideas of electing their pharaoh or treating women equally that they would be ready for such notions?  God was speaking to people of a different time.  Besides, if you've been keeping track of the conversation instead of jumping in the middle and using typical atheist talking points, you'd see that the Bible does not advocate rape.  It talked of treating slaves well in a time when slaves were not treated well.  I already have spoken against killing gays, and my only understanding is that the people of the time would have done the same, and this only codified it.

Forgive me Boost, as my frustration is not just at you, but rather at the persistent feeling of each and every atheist who enters this thread to try and make those who believe in God prove everything in the Bible and justify everything that goes contrary to our modern notions and understandings.  I think all points have been made over and over.  Rather than accept that some people believe something different based on different criteria, this zealous missionary effort to dissuade a belief in Christ because of a rather obscure passage that was seldom enforced, even less so at the time of Jesus.  It seems that rather than accepting there are good people who believe in a book that has a lot of truth, perhaps more than they are willing to accept, every atheist's purpose is to shove their own reasoning down someone else's throat.

I don't know how many times I've been told that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are annoying because they keep coming back and sharing their beliefs.  What about those who keep coming back and demanding that you see things their way?

Bingowings said:

All the sources are long after the event and refer to his followers not to the man.

Like I said an impact crater.

If you follow the ripples you get to a point where there seems to be an event only the event isn't there (unlike John The Baptist or Paul where the paper trail leads right to the foot a flesh and blood man).

The same is true with King Arthur. Everything was written long after the event but what connects points to a possible Romano-Brit in Wales uniting local chiefs against Northern invaders or a distorted memory of Carausius. But everything else comes from other myths and legends from all over Europe. 

Of Jesus and Buddha.

* Born as an incarnate god. 
* Born from a virgin mother. 
* Birth claimed as a divine event and prophesied as the same. 
* Birth attended by singing angels. 
* Birth attended by wise men bearing gifts. 
* Prodigious childhood. 
* As a child astounded teachers with knowledge. 
* Fasted in the wilderness for forty days. 
* Tempted while alone by the Tempter/Mara. 
* Resisted the Tempter/Mara successfully. 
* After the Tempter/Mara left, supernatural events occurred.  
* Began ministry at thirty years of age. 
* Attract large following mostly from lower classes. 
* Attracted disciples who traveled with him. 
* Attracted one disciple who was treacherous. 
* Changed disciples' names. 
* Encouraged celibacy for their disciples. 
* Consecrated in a holy river. 
* Itinerant ministry instead of at a fixed place. 
* Performed miracles such as curing blindness. 
* Renounced worldly riches and required the same of their disciples. 
* Ministered to outcasts. 
* Advocated universal love and peace. 
* Taught mostly through use of parables. 
* Triumphal entries (in Jerusalem and Rajagripa). 
* Gave major sermon from a mound. 
* Disregarded by the dominant religious elite (Pharisees and Brahmans). 
* Just before death dispatched disciples to preach in other areas. 
* Death accompanied by supernatural event. 

Both Jesus and Buddha issued moral commandments that prohibited killing, stealing, adultery, false witness, and coveting. Both emphasized the same moral themes: advocate peace, not war; avoid the corruption of wealth; help the poor; abolish slavery and caste systems; abandon self and selfishness; and love your neighbour, even your enemy. Many statements by Jesus resembled those by Buddha, as presented below. 

JESUS: "A foolish man, which built his house on sand." 
BUDDHA: "Perishable is a city built on sand." 
JESUS: "Therefore confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed." 
BUDDHA: "Confess before the world the sins you have committed." 
JESUS: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the foregiveness of sins." 
BUDDHA: "Let all sins that were committed in this world fall on me, that the world may be delivered." 
JESUS: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." 
BUDDHA: "Consider others as yourself." 
JESUS: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." 
BUDDHA: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon all desires and utter no evil words." 
JESUS: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you." 
BUDDHA: "Hatreds do not cease in this world by hating, but by love: this is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good." 
JESUS: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." 
BUDDHA: "Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world." 
JESUS: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her." 
BUDDHA: "Do not look at the faults of others or what others have done or not done; observe what you yourself have done and have not done." 
JESUS: "You father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous." 
BUDDHA: "The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low."  
JESUS: "If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." 
BUDDHA: "The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." 

So while a historians like Josephus and Tacitus may refer to a following of a man put to death at the time of Pilate (almost a century after he is supposed to have died); and filtering the gospels canonical and apocryphal points to a lost common source of sayings and biography where the non-conflicting accounts attributed to his life stem from (known as Q); there is no evidence that the document Q is the life of the reported man if indeed he did live.

Back in 1985 in Tibet there was a woman who preached a parable about a knight who was seduced by an evil wizard and killed his fellow knights and made the wizard Emperor but was saved by his son and she was killed by the Chinese.

If a Chinese journalist reported that there was a woman who preached in Tibet and was killed preaching something other than Buddhism there wouldn't be an immediate assumption that she wasn't preaching from the gospel of St Lucas because it's the modern world and we can make these connections more quickly and with greater accuracy.

2000 years ago it become a bit more fuzzy.

The story of Barlaam and Josaphat is definitely pulled right out of the life of Buddha. 

Those parallels are certainly interesting.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

I don't approve of Frink's advocacy for abortion.

Um, okay.  I'm sorry that your understanding of God precludes the idea that he (she, whatever) would understand and, lord help you, approve.

Taking lessons from Bingo in how to use many words to make a difficult-to-decipher simple point ;)  You clearly don't approve of everything I do.  Apparently there's a lot of "not approving" of my belief in the Bible here.  I don't understand why "not approving" is such a cause to get everyone's tights in a tangle.

CP3S said:

Phew, this thread has been lively lately! Took me a while to dig this up.

 

darth_ender said:

Well, I do find that the NIV actually seems to drive home a different point, that being that prophets did not privately interpret the revelation as it proceeded from God, while the others seem to emphasize that the readers of scripture are not to privately interpret the revelations of God as they've come through the prophet.  The NIV seems to preclude my theory that prophets' revelations aren't word-for-word dictations while the others seem to allow for it.

Hmm, I still feel all translations are explicitly claiming that the words written were from God himself and not from men.wikipedia link to, is no such thing. It merely explains the process I am about to explain. 

Even if it wasn't just via visions, there were still only a very small handful of men who are claimed to have ever seen them.

If you were determined enough, you could go see the Dead Sea scrolls (they toured their way through America a few years ago), or any other set of fragments you wanted for yourself.

Your argument here is not very clear.  Let me point out that every book of scripture that claims to contain God's word also has its own style.  In fact scholars often use this style to argue for or against the authorship of the presumed author (for example, most argue that Paul did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews).  I don't think any Christian would deny that even the many "Thus sayeth the Lord"s of the Old Testament are stylistically different from each other, depending on the prophet who wrote them.  My point is that God used the human vessel to provide his revelation, and that there are limitations to what that human vessel can comprehend and put into words.  If God were revealing something to Ezekiel, he wouldn't be providing a parable about about semiconductors.  He also would provide the revelation in a cultural context and in wording that Ezekiel and his audience could understand--thus, the human fingerprints.  If Ezekiel and his people were unable to understand ideas we modern humans can, how fruitful would it be for God to give it to them?

There isn't even one shred of tangible evidence that the source material for any of the Mormon scriptures ever existed. All evidence points to The Book of Mormon being authored by Joseph Smith (though it could have been someone else), and its original language to have been English.

Ooh, this could be a fun discussion.  If we do proceed down this road, I will definitely move my responses to the Mormon thread.  But for now, I will offer you this outdated article:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies

Wordprint is an extremely questionable method. It is far from conclusive, and really determines nothing. 

Usually, translated works by different authors but the same translator are shown to be of the same author by the wordprint method, but not always. The inconsistency there goes along way in telling us that, ultimately, this study on the Mormon books really tells us nothing.

We even have the "Book of Abraham" (that's the one, right?) written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, that has no correlation whatsoever to what Smith claims to have translated from that same piece of papyri. This is the point where you start talking about the necessity of faith, which would be an obvious requirement.

Yes, this would be worth discussion as well.  Perhaps I will address in the Mormon thread.

We actually discussed it a bit last time.

I still feel that the Book of Abraham and the revelation that it is nothing of the sort, should have been the end of Mormonism.

To his credit as well, he spent relatively little time working on the Book of Mormon, approximately two months of actual reading with transcribers.

That is hardly unreasonable. With people to do the transcription work, this would be very doable.

Choose your own adventure!  If you wish to continue this discussion, head on over to the Interrogate the Mormon thread!

The variations of the Septuagint and Vulgate are not inconsequential, as they were based on different Hebrew source material than we have before us.  If they were modern translations, it would make little difference.  But they are ancient translations, taken from a less standardized source, and thus offering their own unique perspective.  It's obvious you are knowledgeable on this topic, more than I, but I am at least aware that they are translations of a source different from the Masoretic, making the textual differences valuable for scholars.  The Dead Sea Scrolls link I provided above demonstrates such to be true for at least the LXX, and the Vulgate would still contain some similar value.

I didn't mean to claim that they were not inconsequential at all, they are very useful tools. But through the very nature of translation, they are undeniably altered from the get go. Also ancient translation focused more on ensuring meaning was intact, rather than focusing on a literal representation of the document being translated.

The LXX is the one I am most familiar with, since it was Greek that I studied. Many of the variations are found in poetry, a few extended books, and the addition of several books. The Apocrypha, which many Christians use and consider canonical, contain these extra books and the "deleted scenes" from other books.

I have nothing to argue with you about in this last section.

Placeholder, since my feverish typing has been interrupted for the time being.

^Historical Jesus

"While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts."

There are indeed interesting ties to the Essenes.  I've not read enough about ties with Buddhism.  There are a number of interesting theories about religious history and a number of books which forcefully advocate certain theories like an expose', but there is much to debate with them and their framework.  It honestly goes to show just how murky the waters of history really are and how easily one can argue for a certain perspective with great force when picking and choosing which information to include or exclude when writing such books.  I don't mean to be a downer on the theory that you seem to give some credence, but "[t]he majority of modern scholars who have studied both Buddhism and Christianity hold that there is no historical evidence of any influence by Buddhism on early Christianity."  Don't worry, I won't mock you simply because you may accept something that many disagree with, historically speaking.

I will say that I am not offended by your boredom with the Book of Mormon.  Truthfully (and isn't this heretical of the Mormon to say?), I prefer reading the New Testament and the Doctrine and Covenants/accompanying church history--not because I believe it to be untrue, but because I find the others more interesting.  In all seriousness, have you read the book?  Many say they have, when really they've simply sampled from some online source, usually couched in some lovely (read: unflattering and potentially inaccurate) commentary.  If so, I'm impressed with your well-rounded reading.

Let me address several things that keep nagging me from previous comments.  First, you may make fun of me.  You may make fun of the Book of Mormon or Bible.  You may make fun of Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson.  You may make fun of Mormon culture or Christian culture or Western Civilization.  You may not exactly endear yourself to me with such comments, but whatever (speaking of whatever, can I get a taco?).  When a person speaks against a God they don't understand, or especially against Christ who was very clear in his message (i.e. "by the blood of his hands he condemns us all to hell."), I will be offended, and I feel such is justifiable.  If he is your Buddha, treat him like the exemplar you feel he is, even if you do not believe him to be anyone's Savior.

Another point I wish to make: there are parts of the Bible I do find offensive, especially by today's standards.  Why did God command some of these things?  I certainly don't know...but I certainly do know that a number of the strict commands of the Old Testament are clearly no longer in place.  To me, comparing the Bible as a whole to Mein Kampf would be like comparing the US Constitution to the same autobiography.  Sure, some evils were enshrined in the early document, but the document was good then, and has since drastically improved (at least in that area, though I would argue some other areas were a backslide).  Like you said earlier, you shouldn't throw out the whole baby with the bathwater.

CP3S mentions things that he finds offensive as well, and then in a preemptive point mentions God's omnipotent power and preventing such vile things to enter into the book.  Let me provide a hypothetical scenario.  Let's assume God is real for a moment.  Let's assume that a modern-day Moses exists and the whole world knew this man was a prophet of God.  Let's go on and imagine that God provided commandments that were completely consistent with our way of thinking in the year 2013.  Let's then imagine that we wrote down these commandments and preserved them for 2,000 years.  Let's then say with great certainty that the people of 2,000 years in the future would look at our society, our people, and our values as a bunch of idiotic baloney.  Then they look at our scriptures that match our values, and decide that the God (which we already are assuming exists) must be false simply because he spoke to a more primitive people in a way that they would understand.  You don't have to believe the Bible is true, and you may give a number of reasons why you think that way.  But if you think God is false because he was working with a primitive people, you're kinda expecting a little much from him.  Do you honestly expect that any deity communicating with any people would immediately instruct them in the ways of democratically electing a president, order them all to join a center-left political party, and provide them with the technology to build a rocket to travel to Mars?  This might be useful.

Okay, since we're discussing homosexuality, and we still haven't fully opened this can of worms, let me provide an explanation why Warbler and I may not approve of homosexuality without condemning any homosexual to Hell, considering them an evil or inferior person, or intending to offend.  I'm sure this will raise a big stink with lots of pitchforks and all, but bear in mind that you all did ask for reasons and not just 'cause God said so:

God is the Creator.  He is in charge of how life comes into this world and leaves it.  He said, "Thou shalt not kill," and "Multiply and replenish the earth."  When someone inappropriately takes these powers into his or her own hands, God is displeased.  Ergo murder=sin; fornication=sin; adultery=sin; abortion=sin.  Likewise, using the power of procreation in a manner that is clearly impossible for procreation is not part of God's plan.  Therefore, homosexuality=sin.  Am I equating all these?  No.  Am I aware of the argument about couples who cannot have children: yes.  They are at least engaging in the process God intended, even if it does not work properly.  Am I aware that murder or adultery are choices, while homosexuality is not?  Yes.  I will be honest, if there is one particular topic that I struggle with most, it is the topic of homosexuality.  But you asked for a reason.  There it is: take it or leave it (or use it to tear into me, as I imagine will be done by Bingo, C3PX, Puggo, and Frink).

Don't think me hateful.  I don't approve of CP3S sleeping with various girls, some of whom he had little feelings for.  Am I horrible for not approving of his sins either?  I don't approve of Frink's advocacy for abortion.  Am I judgmental?  I don't approve of the fact that a not too distant relative of mine cheated on his/her spouse.  Am I a horrible bigot?  After all, in a sense each of these people is in fact doing what their nature may incline them to do.  But I don't judge them.  I don't even approve of my own sins!

Have I investigated other religions?  More than you know.  Have I read their material?  Well, certainly not everything, but I have a number of documents and scriptures from other religions, including Mormon splinter groups (e.g. The Book of the Law of the Lord), other Christian branches (e.g. creeds/confessions, Catholic and Orthodox catechisms, various translations of the Bible), and non-Christian scriptures (Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Kitab al-Aqdas), and that's just for starters.  I've at least sampled most of them, though I admit to having not finished many.  I have attended many other church services and engaged in conversations with members of other faiths.

This took a while to type, but I have much more to address.  I'll try to get to it soon.

I would agree that 9 out of 14 is better than nothing.  If there is anything anyone can do to help you get this done, please let us know.  We know this has been a lot of work for you, and we want to help make sure you get this done to your satisfaction. :)

One may argue about the nature of the man called Jesus of Nazareth, but virtually every historian agrees that such a man existed.

Normally so do I.  I just kindly asked for a little more respect (directed at you and Puggo, not Bingo) and got what I felt were snarky comments.  I think there is no need at this point, as I think we have worked through the major points of contention.  I have a lot to respond to you about, but I have (unsuccessfully) been trying to stay away, and your replies will require much more time.  Don't worry, I haven't forgotten.

I interpret the Bible differently from you. I don't believe the God of the Old Testament was a hateful God. But I definitely do not understand the rationale behind such commands, and I certainly reject them with everything in me. It is for that reason that I offered (if you read several pages back) that much of the Bible is tainted by man's handling of God's word. I would love to discuss this further, as I feel it merits discussion. But instead, I want to first try to do the Christ-like thing.

Bingowings, it is clear that your sexual orientation is a very personal and deep subject (as I expect it would be). I've never tried to be disrespectful towards you in any way regarding that subject. If I ever have, I apologize. You'll perhaps recall that I defended homosexuals quite publicly on this site:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-Renascent-NOW-AVAILABLE/post/545384/

(Sadly, it appears Anchorhead got carried away and deleted the worthwhile posts as well as the rubbish)

I will not argue with you further on this. Instead, I hope you'll see that I love ALL my fellow men--even those I fervently disagree with. If you wish to mock my beliefs and my religion, that is your prerogative. I will then likely ignore you so as not to be further hurt by your comments. But hopefully you'll see that I hold no hard feelings against you and forgive me for my own shortcomings as a human being.

Referring to your actual torment was never a persecution complex, and I should have not rushed to use strong language.  Technically, neither is your above comment, but it sure is much closer to it.  I love how you you define me by the bad parts of the Bible that you decide must be accepted, while you shove the good parts of the Bible that really shape my character and the character of every believing and non-believing person of Western values to the back.  Who do you think you are to define my belief system?  I share the same sacred reverence for my fellow men and women and kindred creatures.  You don't have to believe in "ancient fairy tales," because the more modern ones you cling to seem to suit you just fine: the sort of fairy tales that convince you that I am figuratively hurling stones at you.

It saddens me to read about how you've been injured, but it saddens me further that you've let such injury go to your heart.  You've spoken many times about turning the other cheek and tolerance for others and holding fellow men and women sacred, but apparently that only extends so far for you.  Walk the walk, my friend.

You forget, Bingo, I wasn't even talking to you initially.  I understand that many have hurt or killed homosexuals in the name of God and with a Bible in their hands.  People have done awful things in the name of God.  I don't justify what they did.  But people have done awful things in the name of just about anything, even seemingly worthy causes, I'm afraid.  I've been threatened with my life as a Mormon missionary by a Protestant.  I know I sustained no injury so it's not a perfect comparison, but I certainly don't condemn all Protestants.  In fact, I love them.  I love them dearly and feel so many of them taught me a great deal.  I didn't presume that because some interpreted the Good Book in a particular light that all of them felt it necessary to threaten to kill me.  I've offered many reasons why I don't accept those verses and yet believe in the Bible.

By the way, to make a more effective pictorial comparison (so we know just how evil each of us Christians is), you might want to show a hanging from some Bible-thumpin' hicks rather than Muslims.  You forget that the very values you place on life and liberty stem from Judeo-Christian values, only modified to suit a more modern setting.  Most Christians are very tolerant.

I truly am sorry to hear about what has happened to you.  I hope you live a long and happy life free of harassment from evil men.  But what you're doing is not what you earlier called "not too much justice."  You are not making anything better with anyone.  I hope one day I can meet you in person and show you how genuine I am about holding no malice towards you.  I hope by that point you'll feel the same about me, regardless of my belief in the Bible.