At 4/10/08 01:57 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Eh, if you don't mind me butting into this little conversation why is it an appalling idea? The bible is a book of fiction, it's not like by editing it you're trying to hide what actually happened, it just would just be the equivalent of cutting a few chapters out of a children's short story collection because it was deemed the subject matter wasn't relevant for them or the morals in them were not deemed suitable.

By all means, post here more often. Half of us advertise it as the only non-flame religion thread on NG; I'm surprised we don't get more customers (not that it's been a bad thing).

Historians and Classicists are nerds....like say, comic book or Star Wars nerds.

Altering the original text is like removing a figurine from the original box, or opening a mint condition comic.

Ergo; appalling.

Moreover while all the stories, parables, and myths may be fiction, there are historical truths embedded within. For me it's a good reference as to Jewish perceptions in a Roman world, as well evidence of a very standard Roman response to civil unrest (do nothing at first, then placate to the crowd and silence the troublemakers). It's also an excellent record on identities (Paul's travels), a look at early Christianity, etc.

It's a little more important than cutting out scenes from Robin Hood, because we only have so many sources on which to study the relevant cultures.

What has survived antiquity is 5% of what was produced, leaving us with a LOT to be desired. So yeah, we're gonna fight against removing the Bible from the plastic.....

You are right, the bible is in the condition it is today due to being edited, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's that editing that has kept christianity from stagnating and destroying itself as things have progressed. Hell, the reason we have such trouble with religion in this day and age, in my personal opinion, is that the damned thing hasn't been edited since the middle ages when the status quo was vastly different to what is no acceptable.

It's actually the editing that has caused the schisms between Christian sects as well. So on the one had there is the diversity factor, which does increase chances of survival (lol evolution), on the other hand it decreases it due to the splitting and in-feuding, thus weakening the overall package. kinda a give and take.

But we have, for the most part, the old versions of the bible in some format where we can study them and the like, so it wouldn't be lost to us, and for the most part, your average Joe isn't interested in the culture of the time in which the bible was written, so it won't hurt them if the thing is edited in some form to make it easier for them to understand and to make it relevant to the modern age.

Yeah, we have the Greek, which is nice. Which is what I'll be reading sometime next year actually. I believe there are versions that have made it "updated" for modern society. If I can read 5 fuckin versions of the Odyssey I'm damn sure there's a hipster's edition of the Bible out there. What most people tend to think when they think "Bible" is the KJV, which is filled with all the "thous" and "thys" and that crap.

The ones I read and use are fairly straightforward.

If it is already corrupt and by editing it we can remove some of the less friendly aspects of it, and therefore stop the practicing of certain outdated beliefs, would this not be beneficial?

Yeah, it's also kinda shady and underhanded. After all, who's version of "friendly" are we using here? It's another "winners write history" kinda deal. You can change it, sure, but for whose benefit? There's gonna be an intended audience, and it's possible that while removing some things, other things become accentuated, and we've simply shifted where the "bad" parts are located.

For ex, you could probably easily rewrite the Bible to make it clearly anti-establishment (NT especially). Now you've just got riots and insurrections instead of gay-bashers.

I don't doubt there can be a better canon, I just doubt the people making the issue seem simpler than I think it is......

At 4/10/08 01:57 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Eh, if you don't mind me butting into this little conversation why is it an appalling idea? The bible is a book of fiction, it's not like by editing it you're trying to hide what actually happened, it just would just be the equivalent of cutting a few chapters out of a children's short story collection because it was deemed the subject matter wasn't relevant for them or the morals in them were not deemed suitable.

Heh heh don't tell that to Shaggy :P. He'll go psycho. I can see it now...

Also, like Imperator said, we welcome you. Climb aboard.

Anyway, to actually answer your question ('cause I DO plan to eventually...):

The answer the way I see it is more or less what Imperator said, the Star Wars thing (that was funny by the way, nice analogy :P). Also, for all we know, seriously and truly KNOW, everything the Bible could be a pipe dream, but, even pipe dreams can provide interesting insights into how people thought back then, what they considered important.

You are right, the bible is in the condition it is today due to being edited, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's that editing that has kept christianity from stagnating and destroying itself as things have progressed. Hell, the reason we have such trouble with religion in this day and age, in my personal opinion, is that the damned thing hasn't been edited since the middle ages when the status quo was vastly different to what is no acceptable.

Not necessarily, no. The main reason we have such trouble with religion in this day and age, the reason we have so much trouble with religion on this FORUM, is because a lot (I mean a LOT) of people are too damn pigheaded to accept that someone else believes in something different than them. It seriously keeps them awake at night, and, sorry if I'm unknowingly offending anyone here, but those types of people are pathetic. I'm fine with debating religion in a calm, cool, collected manner (hence the reason I support this particular topic *points to sig*), A-OK even with trying to convert someone (who couldn't use another guy on their team?), but when people start to get pissed at each other and many times KILLING each other over what for all we know could be a fuckin' imaginary friend, that's where I draw the line. That's not serving your religion, that's cowardice. You're afraid to be alone, scared of the dark, and having more people devoted to your particular religion is not going to light up the fucking room. It's just going have more people stumbling blindly and killing each other in a room where nothing life changing has been proven, and where its just as dark as it was before. Grow a fucking spine, Nancy, or stay the hell away from me.

... *ahem* ...

I fear I'm starting to digress into a rant, so I'm gonna move on...

But we have, for the most part, the old versions of the bible in some format where we can study them and the like, so it wouldn't be lost to us, and for the most part, your average Joe isn't interested in the culture of the time in which the bible was written, so it won't hurt them if the thing is edited in some form to make it easier for them to understand and to make it relevant to the modern age.

Yes but your average Joe is also Christian (Not trying to be stereotyping or anything, but Christianity is by far the most popular religion in the world, with some 2 billion devotees), or if not Christian, Catholic, and it would piss both off VERRRRRRY much if someone was to edit the Bible. Any Bible. They would see that as sacrilige most likely (unless someone like the Pope were to do said editing).
That's another reason people are so reluctant to edit the Bible. What possible reason could there be for invoking the wrath of 2,000,000,000+ people?

If it is already corrupt and by editing it we can remove some of the less friendly aspects of it, and therefore stop the practicing of certain outdated beliefs, would this not be beneficial?

Well, we've got to realize, most people reading the Bible are already taking it with a grain of salt. They have a sense of right and wrong. I imagine most, if not all of the outdated practices which have no relevance today have already been discontinued.

They have a sense of right and wrong. I imagine most, if not all of the outdated practices which have no relevance today have already been discontinued.

What are you talking about? I stone adulterers all the time.....

And I would NEVER take the lord's name in vain......
.
.
.

now I just need someone to count the times I've posted "goddamnit" or "Jesus H. Christ".......

At 4/10/08 09:41 PM, Imperator wrote:

now I just need someone to count the times I've posted "goddamnit" or "Jesus H. Christ".......

34.895 in the past month.

At 4/10/08 09:49 PM, SolInvictus wrote: 34.895 in the past month.

Jesus H. Christ.....

I guess I need to come up with some new ones then......that means more work....goddamnit.......

At 4/10/08 10:02 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/10/08 09:49 PM, SolInvictus wrote: 34.895 in the past month.

Jesus H. Christ.....

I guess I need to come up with some new ones then......that means more work....goddamnit.......

I love this thread :P.

What, might I ask, does the "H" stand for?

At 4/11/08 09:59 AM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:

At 4/10/08 10:02 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/10/08 09:49 PM, SolInvictus wrote: 34.895 in the past month.

Jesus H. Christ.....

I guess I need to come up with some new ones then......that means more work....goddamnit.......

I love this thread :P.

What, might I ask, does the "H" stand for?

Hal?

I always thought Jesus Hal Christ sounded like a more normal and nice name.

Vote for Hal!

At 4/11/08 09:59 AM, InsaniMaster471 wrote: I love this thread :P.

The non-flame factor makes it special!

What, might I ask, does the "H" stand for?

I've always taken it as "Holy".

But when all else fails, use fire

At 4/11/08 12:45 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/11/08 09:59 AM, InsaniMaster471 wrote: I love this thread :P.

The non-flame factor makes it special!

Indeed :).

What, might I ask, does the "H" stand for?

I've always taken it as "Holy".

But when all else fails, use fire

Interesting... I always thought Christ was his surname to begin with... I never knew it was a title... :\...

At 4/11/08 12:45 PM, Imperator wrote: I've always taken it as "Holy".

But when all else fails, use fire

i had always thought it was started with Full Metal Jacket.

At 4/11/08 08:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
i had always thought it was started with Full Metal Jacket.

It's probably just as good as the other theories on Wiki.

Why don't you rewrite the article to include that cultural reference? Do it!

At 4/11/08 08:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/11/08 08:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
i had always thought it was started with Full Metal Jacket.

It's probably just as good as the other theories on Wiki.

Why don't you rewrite the article to include that cultural reference? Do it!

Yes, do it... DO IT...

JOIN US...

JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNN NNNN USSSSSSSSSSSSSSS...

Oh. Yeah.

I could've sworn it stood for "Hong".

At 4/12/08 05:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I could've sworn it stood for "Hong".

Hong? Jesus Hong Christ? Hmm... sort of has a ring to it... but you run it through your head too many times too fast, and it could get messed up ;)... for me it came out as "Jesus Honked Christ". Not a pretty image. :P Yes, and in a religious thread too, I know. :D

Come to think of it, I might have heard that off of family guy, or something.

Disregard it then.

know what's great about this? It's like a Regulars Lounge 2.0, where we're allowed to discuss politics, AND sit back and chew the fat.....

yeah......Medals are in order for sure......

Quite. Regular's lounge: Religious edition.

i was going to say something somewhat intelligent, but i forgot...jesus?

On the note of the origins of Jesus H. Christ, I will quote from what I read of the "fire" link, for those who were too lazy to follow this wierdly interesting link:

(quoted from Wikipedia)

"...The expression dates to at least the late 19th century (although according to Mark Twain it was already old in 1850,[1] and likely originates with the ancient Christian three-letter symbolism IHS (the Christogram).

Using the name of Jesus Christ as an oath has been common for many centuries, but the precise origins of the letter H in the expression Jesus H. Christ are obscure. While many explanations have been proposed, some serious and many humorous, the most widely accepted derivation is from the divine monogram of Christian symbolism. The symbol, derived from the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus (%u0399%u03B7%u03C3%u03BF%u03CD%u03C2), is transliterated IHS, IHC, JHS or JHC. Since the transliteration IHS gave rise to the backronym Iesus Hominum Salvator (Latin for "Jesus savior of men"), it is plausible that JHC similarly led to Jesus H. Christ.

One factor in the transmutation of the monogram into the expression Jesus H. Christ may be that when the first syllable of Jesus Christ is strongly emphasised (as some speakers of English may do when cursing), the rhythm suggests a missing middle syllable between Jesus and Christ. The H may have been adopted from the monogram to fill this gap....
... Another usage of the term implies that the H is an abbreviation for the name Harold, a play on words from the Lord's Prayer (the "Our Father") as if Harold were the name of Jesus' Father: "Our Father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name ..."; thus, Harold is taken to be Jesus' middle name."

Thank you. Next question.

In the bible it says that God created all things, and, if there is a God, I think this is probably true. To a certain extent. In the Christian bible, it seems to imply that when God created Earth, it was (relatively, you know what I mean) exactly the same as it is today, as if dinosaurs had never existed, etc. I would like to propose a new theory:

God created the beginning of all things. In a forum-ish sense he is like the "troller" of all creation: he gets it going and then sits back and watches the fun. In this way, the theories of Creationism and Darwinism are blended.

Eh? Any takers? Seems plausible to me.

At 4/13/08 03:58 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote: Eh? Any takers? Seems plausible to me.

It's still an unbiased belief, not any more plausible than having say, ten goblin Gods who painted the world into existence.

I think the entire idea surrounding the Judeo-Christian (and other) god is the belief of the inferiority of man. People look around and see what man is capable of, and what he is not, and generally believe that they too are part of a process larger than themselves. Hence the belief in a Superior Being, because humans simply CANNOT be on top, there MUST be something higher. This goes on to explain why humans have "domain" over the animals, it's a top-down power process whereby God grants power to humans, who in turn grant certain things to animals and plants.

I've never really believed in the superiority of man over the world, especially when I physically study different beings, so this is one point where Catholicism and I clash.

In that sense then yeah, God plays the anonymous troller who starts up the processes that then run on their own, only intervening occasionally to mold or sway the process towards a new direction.

At the same time, there must be a higher directive that controls him, does it not? Trollers need a system in which to operate, and in terms of the Christian God, he is the creator and administrator of the system; there is nothing higher.

So I guess instead of a troll, God would be more like a site admin.

In conclusion, God is Tom Fulp.

At 4/13/08 04:24 PM, Imperator wrote: I think the entire idea surrounding the Judeo-Christian (and other) god is the belief of the inferiority of man. People look around and see what man is capable of, and what he is not, and generally believe that they too are part of a process larger than themselves. Hence the belief in a Superior Being, because humans simply CANNOT be on top, there MUST be something higher. This goes on to explain why humans have "domain" over the animals, it's a top-down power process whereby God grants power to humans, who in turn grant certain things to animals and plants.

Yes. I've always found it wierd that we humans, who hate to be subordinated (if thats a word; you know what I mean), find it hard to comprehend the possibility of us actually being at the top of the food chain (zomg!!!). I agree with your point, though. And maybe the reason we feel we are inferior is BECAUSE there are things we are not capable of; if we are going to have a hierarchy of power, it makes sense (to me at least) that the entity/being at the top of the food chain should have endless intelligence and power and no limitations at all.

I've never really believed in the superiority of man over the world, especially when I physically study different beings, so this is one point where Catholicism and I clash.

Well, yeah, considering everything man believes about the way the world works is based ONLY from his point of view (no matter how hard we try to overcome it, we are limited by the simple fact that we are only ourselves), with little or no regard to what really IS.

In that sense then yeah, God plays the anonymous troller who starts up the processes that then run on their own, only intervening occasionally to mold or sway the process towards a new direction.

At the same time, there must be a higher directive that controls him, does it not? Trollers need a system in which to operate, and in terms of the Christian God, he is the creator and administrator of the system; there is nothing higher.

What about other religions gods? And could God not be the Admin AND the Troller? Create the system, get it going, and then let it run it's course? It would be a huge waste of time, but who are we to question His motives? ^.^

So I guess instead of a troll, God would be more like a site admin.

In conclusion, God is Tom Fulp.

*clenches teeth* Don't inflate his ego! We do not need Newgrounds to be turned into: Newgrounds-"Human-tested, God-approved"!!!

why is it that the rapture is a significant part of Evangelical belief and not any other?

At 4/13/08 06:36 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:
Yes. I've always found it wierd that we humans, who hate to be subordinated (if thats a word; you know what I mean), find it hard to comprehend the possibility of us actually being at the top of the food chain (zomg!!!). I agree with your point, though. And maybe the reason we feel we are inferior is BECAUSE there are things we are not capable of; if we are going to have a hierarchy of power, it makes sense (to me at least) that the entity/being at the top of the food chain should have endless intelligence and power and no limitations at all.

Well the whole idea of "power corrupts" might be why we dislike comprehending superiority. Also, it could just be the way our brains process things and are engineered. Hierarchies are sort of inherent to the system, and there's always room to add to the "food chain" relatively speaking.

Well, yeah, considering everything man believes about the way the world works is based ONLY from his point of view (no matter how hard we try to overcome it, we are limited by the simple fact that we are only ourselves), with little or no regard to what really IS.

It's a hard thing to do though. Try thinking illogically. Not with faulty logic, but illogically; without the system of logic to begin with.

I think really our imaginations help, but even they're constrained.
For as smart as we always like to imagine ourselves, we're a pretty dumb breed really.

We haven't evolved beyond the "trial and error" system of the Scientific Method for accomplishing things for example.....

And everyone's well aware trial and error isn't the best, most effective, or even most logical way to do things. "Gut instincts", especially about dangerous situations, are one place you don't want to play "experimenter".

What about other religions gods?

Mods?

And could God not be the Admin AND the Troller? Create the system, get it going, and then let it run it's course? It would be a huge waste of time, but who are we to question His motives? ^.^

Well, if you took the time to create the system, you'd certainly want to see it survive. But it does come down to intent, which I find is almost as sticky as the existence of God.

At 5/18/08 10:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

why is it that the rapture is a significant part of Evangelical belief and not any other?

Not.
A.
Clue.

so ya...the rapture, scripture and selective belief in it. anyone know anything?

its less mind numbing in here.

At 5/22/08 05:39 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so ya...the rapture, scripture and selective belief in it. anyone know anything?

My guess would be it came out of some sort of Puritan work ethic, where people were just running willy fuck nilly and that was just BAD. Then someone did a light show, fire and brimstone and the wrath of God more spectacular than 1000 Death Stars! And all of a sudden people become fascinated by it, become enthralled in the show, and pretty soon suspend their disbelief.

Then in the 70s a bunch of Evangelicals decided to make it the Jesus Variety Hour, and hence the rise of Televangelists.

And that's all it really is; a movie, a play, and a production. Religion is based around the notion of getting people to suspend disbelief on a permanent basis, ie, faith.

What I find fascinating is when Evangelicalism, or any branch for that matter, rises and declines, and how the world around the religions react.

It's generally agreed the US is somewhat stagnant/declining and the East is rising. Maybe coincidentally we're seeing a growing secularism in the West, and the East is actually getting a few more Christians every day.

It's always amazed me how some of the most religious countries and people on the planet have always been the ones that can boast of being a large imperial nation. I like the fact that the Catholic Church always seems to back the leading Empire of the world......and people wonder how/why we get so rich.....

its less mind numbing in here.

damn straight. I should just move all religious debates in here when I get a headache from all those "Other" people.

At 5/22/08 06:13 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 5/22/08 05:39 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so ya...the rapture, scripture and selective belief in it. anyone know anything?

My guess would be it came out of some sort of Puritan work ethic, where people were just running willy fuck nilly and that was just BAD. Then someone did a light show, fire and brimstone and the wrath of God more spectacular than 1000 Death Stars! And all of a sudden people become fascinated by it, become enthralled in the show, and pretty soon suspend their disbelief.

Would make sense really. People were easily influnced by such things, and still are from what I can tell in my interactions with various people. I would also have to guess that since people in general tend to think that they are virtuous, and people like the idea that they will be validated in their beliefs. Thus the rise of the idea that "1000 Death Stars" will own the Jones next door.

Then in the 70s a bunch of Evangelicals decided to make it the Jesus Variety Hour, and hence the rise of Televangelists.

I'm still confused on how such things could possibly stay operational. Sure, they are selling nothing, thus it is all profit, but seriously, even Idiot-Finder would have a hard time searcing out that many...

And that's all it really is; a movie, a play, and a production. Religion is based around the notion of getting people to suspend disbelief on a permanent basis, ie, faith.

I would have to agree entirely.

What I find fascinating is when Evangelicalism, or any branch for that matter, rises and declines, and how the world around the religions react.

Yes, though I'm also annoyed greatly by thier stance almost unanimously against any and all institutions that don't support their views exactly. Don't get me wrong, there are several groups that do this, but these guys tend to screw up, perhaps not the most readily, but the most visibly.

It's generally agreed the US is somewhat stagnant/declining and the East is rising. Maybe coincidentally we're seeing a growing secularism in the West, and the East is actually getting a few more Christians every day.

I'll have to take your word on the growth of Christians in the East. From what I remember, Japan has a Christian population of less than 1%. I'll have to find the article I was reading and see if it has an online resource.

It's always amazed me how some of the most religious countries and people on the planet have always been the ones that can boast of being a large imperial nation. I like the fact that the Catholic Church always seems to back the leading Empire of the world......and people wonder how/why we get so rich.....

Most people don't pay attention to international affairs, you know that. The fact that they can't see something so simple kind of worries me overall....

its less mind numbing in here.

damn straight. I should just move all religious debates in here when I get a headache from all those "Other" people.

Less mind numbing yes, but far less enjoyable to sit back and watch. In this, you must interact intelligently, or be ignored, which is quite nice. To be honest though, I enjoy sitting back and watching people fight it out, on occasion stepping in when either I'm really bored, or when I have something valid to add that I'm certian is reasonable to add.

i guess it could have to do with the idea that the only true reward is reaching heaven. crazy pilgrims and their dull lives.

Just found this thread. Looks like some excellent discussion to be had here.

Anyway, in my opinion, the primary reason for the focus on the pre-trib rapture in modern evangelical churches is to give the believers a way to avoid the various events that evangelical preachers predict as punishments for those that don't believe. This focus on divine punishment at the end of the world is not found in most other christian denominations, and as such, the rapture is not stressed (if it is believed in at all, there are many denominations that do not.)