The Islam Thread. Page 83

  • Page

    of 115 First / Last

  • DrStrangelove 7 May 2014 18:23:29 4,684 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Isn't it funny how after all the OT's efforts to put an end to offspring sacrifice, God saves the world by sacrificing his son? And after all the efforts to abolish other barbaric rituals, Christianity reintroduces drinking the blood and eating the flesh of the sacrificed person?
  • malloc 7 May 2014 18:58:14 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Err, it's bread and wine.
  • thelzdking 7 May 2014 19:42:27 4,413 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Transubstantiation, bitch!
  • DrStrangelove 7 May 2014 20:37:22 4,684 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Wasn't it actually Jesus' blood according to Luther?
  • dirtysteve 7 May 2014 21:13:36 1,399 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Im pretty sure Martyrdom, or anyone who dies for religious belief is a fo
    rm of blood sacrifice.

    hamsters in the wheel of c**k!

  • smugla 7 May 2014 21:30:28 2,137 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I am paralyzed by the blood of Christ
    Though it clouds my eyes
    I can never stop
  • mothercruncher 7 May 2014 21:37:06 7,894 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Is that Evanescence?
  • smugla 7 May 2014 21:40:57 2,137 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The Cure
  • mothercruncher 7 May 2014 21:44:08 7,894 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Have we done this yet?

    Lost (suppressed) Gospel of St Barnabus, a.k.a. the Gospel that MADE A POPE CRY, sorry, RESIGN.
  • mothercruncher 7 May 2014 21:44:43 7,894 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Ah, the emo was strong with that one.
  • malloc 7 May 2014 21:54:58 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Re: Transubstantiation
    IMHO this is erroneous and from what I know is based on a misunderstanding of John 6:51-57, where Jesus talks of eating his flesh and blood. However this act is figurative as indicated at John 6:35,40 and by the fact that at no point does any consumption of flesh and blood happen, only wine and bread which Jesus explains as having meaning.
  • Khanivor 7 May 2014 22:28:56 41,299 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    In your opinion it's erroneous. In the opinion of a few hundred millions Christians of a different flavour, that's what it means.

    Which just goes to back up the original assertion that the stance on the consumption of blood is neither universally agreed upon nor viewed as utterly banned by all of Christianity. Which solidifies the quite unarguable statement that religion is very subjective, making those who claim to be in possession of ultimate knowledge quite deluded.
  • malloc 7 May 2014 22:41:26 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    So something has to be universally agreed upon to be valid for consideration? And someone cannot think that someone else is wrong on something without being deluded?
  • Oh-Bollox 8 May 2014 01:40:29 5,440 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mcmothercruncher wrote:
    Have we done this yet?

    Lost (suppressed) Gospel of St Barnabus, a.k.a. the Gospel that MADE A POPE CRY, sorry, RESIGN.
    It's extremely unlikely that the Gospel of Barnabas is 1500 years old as the article claims, for several reasons. The first known manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas come from late 16th century, 1000 years later than claimed. If this is not a forgery, it means that a continuous written tradition existed for the heretic Gospel of Barnabas over 1000 years across several different languages and national borders, without being noticed by any other contemporary sources. Additionally, if this is truly 1500 years old, then it should prove Islam is the one true religion because the Gospel of Barnabas predicts the coming of Mohammad right down to the name, who would have come 100-200 years later, in the 7th century.

    Biblical scholar Dr. Timothy Michael Law, who has a doctorate from Oxford, sez:

    I just spoke with my colleague about this, and after both of us have had the chance to look at it we concur it is impossible this is a 1500 year old Bible. What could be really funny is that at the bottom it appears to read something like 1500 AD. It is admittedly tough to read, but it would quite a mistake to claim it is 1500 years old when it was produced in 1500. This date would also conform to what most scholarship believes anyway, that this gospel was produced around this time.
    Edited by Oh-Bollox at 01:41:10 08-05-2014
  • dirtysteve 8 May 2014 02:55:17 1,399 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Nader Talebzadeh, an Iranian journalist and film director, told an audience at Imam Khomeini International University the real reason for the Pope’s resignation.

    “In the past 600 years no pope has ever resigned,” he said. “Therefore a question arises in the public mind as to the reason for it. Of course, the justification provided by the West is that the Pope has grown old.”
    Sounds like a reputable university, and yes, the explanation was provided by a direction. Fucking numpties.

    hamsters in the wheel of c**k!

  • Rodney 8 May 2014 04:40:24 1,930 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    malloc wrote:
    So something has to be universally agreed upon to be valid for consideration? And someone cannot think that someone else is wrong on something without being deluded?
    No but an interpretation of the Bible dependent on arbitrarily deciding which verses to take literally and metaphorically is subjective. There is no objective way of knowing which parts are literal or not and the facts that there are thousand of Christian sects who can all play theological ping pong all day citing verses to support their own particular interpretation is evidence of this.

    Edited by Rodney at 04:47:37 08-05-2014
  • Rodney 8 May 2014 04:46:58 1,930 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    malloc wrote:
    Re: Transubstantiation
    IMHO this is erroneous and from what I know is based on a misunderstanding of John 6:51-57, where Jesus talks of eating his flesh and blood. However this act is figurative as indicated at John 6:35,40 and by the fact that at no point does any consumption of flesh and blood happen, only wine and bread which Jesus explains as having meaning.
    On what basis do you determine John 6:51-57 is figurative? You may be right and sometimes these things are fairly clear by the context but other times, like some sects literal interpretation of the 144,000 in Revelations being a literal figure, things are far less clear. My point is not that you are wrong about Transubstantiation but that such disputes about interpretation are often inherently subjective.
  • malloc 8 May 2014 07:09:57 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Rodney wrote:
    malloc wrote:
    Re: Transubstantiation
    IMHO this is erroneous and from what I know is based on a misunderstanding of John 6:51-57, where Jesus talks of eating his flesh and blood. However this act is figurative as indicated at John 6:35,40 and by the fact that at no point does any consumption of flesh and blood happen, only wine and bread which Jesus explains as having meaning.
    On what basis do you determine John 6:51-57 is figurative?
    Err, I do explain why immediately after I say it. Please read all of my post.
  • malloc 8 May 2014 07:14:53 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Rodney wrote:
    malloc wrote:
    So something has to be univerthing agreed upon to be valid for consideration? And someone cannot think that someone else is wrong on something without being deluded?
    No but an interpretation of the Bible dependent on arbitrarily deciding which verses to take literally and metaphorically is subjective. There is no objective way of knowing which parts are literal or not and the facts that there are thousand of Christian sects who can all play theological ping pong all day citing verses to support their own particular interpretation is evidence of this.
    My point is that it shouldn't be an arbitrary exercise, as I demonstrated as things that may at first be unclear in the Bible often explain themselves when looking at the context. Saying that other people disagree with you therefore I'm going to dismiss the whole thing out of hand is rather naive.
  • grey_matters 8 May 2014 07:22:06 3,863 posts
    Seen 7 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    malloc wrote:
    Rodney wrote:
    malloc wrote:
    So something has to be univerthing agreed upon to be valid for consideration? And someone cannot think that someone else is wrong on something without being deluded?
    No but an interpretation of the Bible dependent on arbitrarily deciding which verses to take literally and metaphorically is subjective. There is no objective way of knowing which parts are literal or not and the facts that there are thousand of Christian sects who can all play theological ping pong all day citing verses to support their own particular interpretation is evidence of this.
    My point is that it shouldn't be an arbitrary exercise, as I demonstrated as things that may at first be unclear in the Bible often explain themselves when looking at the context. Saying that other people disagree with you therefore I'm going to dismiss the whole thing out of hand is rather naive.
    So you agree that interpretation is subjective then. Or at least, that it can be subjective.
  • malloc 8 May 2014 08:18:28 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    grey_matters wrote:
    malloc wrote:
    Rodney wrote:
    malloc wrote:
    So something has to be univerthing agreed upon to be valid for consideration? And someone cannot think that someone else is wrong on something without being deluded?
    No but an interpretation of the Bible dependent on arbitrarily deciding which verses to take literally and metaphorically is subjective. There is no objective way of knowing which parts are literal or not and the facts that there are thousand of Christian sects who can all play theological ping pong all day citing verses to support their own particular interpretation is evidence of this.
    My point is that it shouldn't be an arbitrary exercise, as I demonstrated as things that may at first be unclear in the Bible often explain themselves when looking at the context. Saying that other people disagree with you therefore I'm going to dismiss the whole thing out of hand is rather naive.
    So you agree that interpretation is subjective then. Or at least, that it can be subjective.
    What's your point? Mine is that dismissing the bible because not everyone agrees with what it means and it's somehow a big collection of verses which are impossible to know whether they're meant literally or figuratively or not is naive.
  • Rodney 8 May 2014 08:22:35 1,930 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Well I happen to think you are probably right about transubstantiation since its something that had always seemed a bit odd to me on the face of it. I'm fairly sure a knowledgable Catholic apologist could cite some verses to support the church's doctrine on it however.

    I acknowledged as well that sometimes the meaning can be determined clearly by the context but there are some fairly fundamental Christian teachings that are entirely down to subjective interpretation. For example, whether or not Genesis is literal or allegorical story and how long the creative days were.

    Can you tell me what context in Revelations requires that the 144,000 be interpreted as a literal figure?
  • Rodney 8 May 2014 08:29:37 1,930 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @malloc
    I don't think,anyone dismissed the Bible just because there is some disagreement about it, rather that because its intended meaning is not always clear, or is self contradictory, that any interpretation of it is nessecarily subjective
  • malloc 8 May 2014 08:39:34 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    There's the old say that scripture should interpret scripture. I do think this solves a lot. I also appreciate it's not always possible to have ultimate truth in everything. That being said I do not believe this is why the majority of Christian groups form nor is it a reason to dismiss it or not put any effort in.
  • chopsen 8 May 2014 08:47:18 16,290 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The way the bible is used in Christianity is, to my mind, a bit like using reading tea-leaves to divine the future, or reading tarot cards, or astrology (the proper type of astrology, not the magazine stuff). The substrate is malleable and varied enough in terms of meaning for you to be able pick and chose and bend your interpretation to whatever it is you need justifying.

    It's a tool. A bag of runes for you to throw on the table. As a meditative tool it can be helpful as a way of being a means to an end.
  • Rodney 8 May 2014 08:51:09 1,930 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    malloc wrote:
    There's the old say that scripture should interpret scripture. I do think this solves a lot. I also appreciate it's not always possible to have ultimate truth in everything. That being said I do not believe this is why the majority of Christian groups form nor is it a reason to dismiss it or not put any effort in.
    sometimes yeah, but often people arbitrarily pick random unrelated scriptures to read unintended meanings into other scripture. So far from letting scripture interpret scripture solving the problem, it is often the most subjective form of Biblical interpretation.

    Edited by Rodney at 08:53:05 08-05-2014
  • Rodney 8 May 2014 08:51:11 1,930 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Post deleted
  • malloc 8 May 2014 09:02:41 2,392 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Rodney wrote:
    malloc wrote:
    There's the old say that scripture should interpret scripture. I do think this solves a lot. I also appreciate it's not always possible to have ultimate truth in everything. That being said I do not believe this is why the majority of Christian groups form nor is it a reason to dismiss it or not put any effort in.
    sometimes yeah, but often people arbitrarily pick random unrelated scriptures to read unintended meanings into other scripture. So far from letting scripture interpret scripture solving the problem, it is often the most subjective form of Biblical interpretation.
    Clearly in order for scripture interpreting to work and output some sort of truth it can't be selective or arbitrary otherwise it will disagree with other parts of the Bible, hence why you need to look At the whole picture. This hasn't been done a lot of the time and you end up with many conflicting teachings.
  • bladdard 8 May 2014 09:05:13 1,030 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    It surprises me in modern, civilised, free thinking societies that organised religion based on the Bible and Qur'an is still going strong when it has so little relevance to our modern civilised society. I can understand the deist view, believing in god (a creator) because we don't have a full understanding how the universe came to be but I don't understand how in modern times intelligent people believe the word of a ancient book obviously written in a simple darker times that's full of contradiction due to different interpretations.

    Edited by bladdard at 09:10:23 08-05-2014
  • chopsen 8 May 2014 09:10:02 16,290 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    malloc wrote:
    Clearly in order for scripture interpreting to work and output some sort of truth it can't be selective or arbitrary otherwise it will disagree with other parts of the Bible, hence why you need to look At the whole picture. This hasn't been done a lot of the time and you end up with many conflicting teachings.
    But that also means making a value judgement on the relative importance of various conflicting parts, and how contradictory aspects can be reconciled. It's still ultimately subjective.

    Now you could argue that you may get to a certain form of truth or awareness by going through the process (like Zen meditation, forcing you to concentrate on the abstract and impossible) but to say the that Bible contains within it any inherent, objective truth if nonsense.

    Edited by Chopsen at 09:10:19 08-05-2014
  • Page

    of 115 First / Last

Log in or register to reply