Everything you wanted to know about.. RELIGION

[Tindy]

The biggest reason people refuse it is because its not in the bible/qur'an. But they were written by man! And they were written by man before carbon date testing existed and no one really knew or cared that the animals around that point didn't exist a billion years previous.

On one point, I have to disagree here. Quran wasn't written by man, we believe it's god's words sent to Prophet Mohammed from the sky to guide people. So it wasn't something man made up and wrote on pieces of paper.

I perfectly understand that other people have other opinions on this and some don't believe in god, but I am only stating what I believe in.

I wasn't going against your beliefs or mine. Christians, as far as I can recall, believe more or less the same thing (God sent Jesus down to earth to spread the word, Jesus' followers wrote the new testament, yadda yadda)(which again leads to the question, why can't we all just get along?) But since the question was really directed towards the Christians in the crowd, it still holds water - the new testament, whether guided by God or not, was written by man, much of it (as I recall) written something like 100 years after Christ or even later. I have no idea about the old testament so I'm not going to say anything about it. But imagine for a moment you're writing stuff down for someone (deity or otherwise), and he says "On the sixth day God commanded the earth to bring forth all kinds of living creatures and he saw that it was good" Are you gonna be like, "AMOEBAS! YEAH!" or are you gonna be like "Hmmm I see lions and tigers...THAT must be what he meant!"

 

[Ellie]

Not only that, but considering the bible was originally in Latin and now most often isn't, there's gotta be at least one mis-translated or mis-interpreted paragraph in there.

 

[Love]

Hmm I have a question to Christians: Is bible allowed to be "read" in a different language than the original one? Or must it be read in the original?

 

[Tindy]

Definitely different languages. Heck, even in English there's different translations. Most protestants (like me) use the King James version. Some (like my gramma's - she's very catholic) actually use Yahweh instead of God. Mostly it's just different wording/word endings (sayeth/says), but yeah.

 

[Love]

Hmm but doesn't using different languages can differentiate the meaning and someone can make wrong translations? Thus praying and doing what is supposed to be done can be wrong, I assume?

 

[Zelfouz]

Hmm about the verse which says that a husband can beat his wife in Quran, yes it's true. That verse doesn't mean that a husband should beat his wife to get a divorce later, though. What it means that if a husband sees his wife doing something wrong, he should advice her first. If she doesn't listen, advice second. If not, advice third. If not then, he should beat her to listen, but however not violently and not in front of anybody as not to embarrass her in front of anyone. The beating shouldn't be so hard as to leave marks, and should be on parts where it is going to hurt physically so much.

Of course, that doesn't mean he has the right to beat her just because she didn't agree to do something BAD with him. >.>

Are you seriously defending wife-beating for any reason?

eta: Any reason as in you're giving a specific reason that it's "ok", as opposed to saying he could beat her whenever he wants.

 

[mawk]

Hmm about the verse which says that a husband can beat his wife in Quran, yes it's true. That verse doesn't mean that a husband should beat his wife to get a divorce later, though. What it means that if a husband sees his wife doing something wrong, he should advice her first. If she doesn't listen, advice second. If not, advice third. If not then, he should beat her to listen, but however not violently and not in front of anybody as not to embarrass her in front of anyone. The beating shouldn't be so hard as to leave marks, and should be on parts where it is going to hurt physically so much.

Of course, that doesn't mean he has the right to beat her just because she didn't agree to do something BAD with him. >.>

you completely misunderstood what I said. my point was the Qu'ran does not in fact condone wifebeating. the idea that it does is the result of interpretation by an incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic society over the course of centuries.

beating your wife is as bad as beating anyone else and the idea that god supports it is incongruous with the idea that he is "most gracious, most merciful."

 

[mawk]

basically, the core ideas of religion are "stop being a dick, respect people, do good shit, and don't be an idiot." anything above that is spare parts. anything that goes against the idea that you shouldn't be a dick to people is false and was either added in or misinterpreted.

 

[Vadon]

I can't speak with any sort of educated credentials, but from my discussions with various Christian friends and my brother (who is a minister), I might be able to answer the Old Testament rules Venetia was asking about. If I'm not mistaken, which I very well might be, the rules of the old testament are theoretically null and void. They were drafted by Moses in order to keep order with the people as they wandered the desert and tried to establish a just society. For example, you get the "Eye for an Eye" rule in Exodus. The principle states that when a person commits a crime against another, a just retaliation is one which inflicts the same degree of pain on the perpetrator as that of the victim. However, fast forward years down the road you get Jesus who comes out and says, "No. If you are attacked, turn the other cheek." This signifies a rule change for Christian society to follow wherein forgiveness was paramount to retribution. Other things include not judging others, loving one another, and other 'Christian' values. (i.e. things Jesus sermonized on.)

Christianity, as I understand it, is not supposed to take the old testament as a doctrine of instruction, but merely a collected history of their faith. The old testament shows their roots, not their future.

That being said, many folks don't follow that*. They end up picking and choosing which verses to follow and which ones not to. They also employ verses of the old testament as they see convenient to their current cause. This creates confusion considering one could cite Leviticus 18:22 saying that homosexuality is an abomination, yet ignore say... Leviticus 11:7 so that they can eat pig. Or Exodus 21:7 to sell one's daughter into slavery, or Leviticus 19:28 which says no tattoos, or 19:19 to plant two different crops side by side/wearing garments of different threads.

My point is this. In theory, I think the Old Testament is supposed to just be history for Christians. I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am.

* Not all.

Edit to add: And here is an obligatory link to a video that shows my point. Perhaps the best ownage ever scripted on television.

 

[Love]

Hmm about the verse which says that a husband can beat his wife in Quran, yes it's true. That verse doesn't mean that a husband should beat his wife to get a divorce later, though. What it means that if a husband sees his wife doing something wrong, he should advice her first. If she doesn't listen, advice second. If not, advice third. If not then, he should beat her to listen, but however not violently and not in front of anybody as not to embarrass her in front of anyone. The beating shouldn't be so hard as to leave marks, and should be on parts where it is going to hurt physically so much.

Of course, that doesn't mean he has the right to beat her just because she didn't agree to do something BAD with him. >.>

Are you seriously defending wife-beating for any reason?

eta: Any reason as in you're giving a specific reason that it's "ok", as opposed to saying he could beat her whenever he wants.

I wasn't defending it. I am saying there should a very strong reason for him to beat her, and even the beating comes under certain conditions. Like say, if you were married, and your wife goes to parties at night and comes back drunk every night. What's your reaction? At first you will tell her and advice her gently to stop it. If she doesn't stop, you will advice her again, stating reasons why should she stop. If still not, advice her third. Then if not, you have a right to beat her to stop. But like I said, beating her MUST not be hard as to leave a mark, and must not be in front of anybody including kids and her friends so that she wouldn't be embarrassed.

And no, it doesn't really give him the right to beat anybody else. A man, cannot beat except those under his care and those who is he responsible for, who are his kids and wife.

 

[Zelfouz]

Are you seriously defending wife-beating for any reason?

eta: Any reason as in you're giving a specific reason that it's "ok", as opposed to saying he could beat her whenever he wants.

I wasn't defending it. I am saying there should a very strong reason for him to beat her, and even the beating comes under certain conditions. Like say, if you were married, and your wife goes to parties at night and comes back drunk every night. What's your reaction? At first you will tell her and advice her gently to stop it. If she doesn't stop, you will advice her again, stating reasons why should she stop. If still not, advice her third. Then if not, you have a right to beat her to stop. But like I said, beating her MUST not be hard as to leave a mark, and must not be in front of anybody including kids and her friends so that she wouldn't be embarrassed.

And no, it doesn't really give him the right to beat anybody else. A man, cannot beat except those under his care and those who is he responsible for, who are his kids and wife.

So you're saying that, under certain circumstances, it is ok for a husband to beat his wife?

Beating aside, it's implicit in the entire process than the husband has the right to control his wife in the same way a parent has the right to control the actions of their child. Does the wife have the same control over her husband? Or are women just cattle?

 

[Love]

Actually, the right of control a husband has over his wife is stronger than the control of parents. And yes, wives do have control over their husbands, too, if they are treated wrongly. Like if the husband is always drunk, or is being violent with his wife for absolutely no reason, or is treating the kids badly, a wife has every right to tell her husband to stop it, or threaten him by taking the kids or even divorce. Wives are not slaves. They MUST be treated well as long as they are good and righteous wives. Islam values balance and rights, and it believes that husbands and wives should be lovable, treating each other well and discussing the matter of life together.

 

[silver wind]

...the bible/qur'an But they were written by man! ...

Tell me something Tindy. I see you're a man who likes to questions things. Now, the USA's independence, how do you know it really was day 250 years ago? No human has lived for 250 years, right? I'll bet you think: but we have an independence day every year since! Why would the entire nation celebrate an event that didn't happen?
So, What do you say about passover- celebrating the exodus? or Shavuot(I believe you call it Pentecost), the jewish holiday to celebrate the day we got the bible from Mt. Sinai?
Why do jews, for thousands of years celebrate events that DID NOT happen?
Suppose, for a second, that all these people were 'brain washed'. How did that happen?
..maybe it was something like that:
Hey tindy, I'm starting a new religion, do you mind telling your kids a story about getting a book from G-D? oh, thanks a lot Tindy, you're a great friend. But remember, your kids must pass it on to their kids and so on or it won't work!! and tell your neighbors too, and your friends and everyone else, they all must tell the exact same story, ok? Thanks again!
we don't tell our kids Jesus/Muhamad had a 'divine revelation' behind some mountain, where nobody saw him. We tell them WE were there. So, it was more like: hey Tindy, will you tell your kids you SAW me getting the book from G-D with our entire nation? But it's not only you, it's you and 600,000 people. Won't the other people tell your son they were not there, that it's a lie? They are all telling the same story, and celebrating an event, which 'never happened' because you claim the bible was written by a man.

 

[mawk]

but how does that fit with the image of a deity who is "most gracious, most merciful?"

 

[Ellie]

Actually it's perfectly reasonable to take things such as independance day with a pinch of salt. It's unlikely that events really happened as they were written, as with any piece of history, again, because man wrote them. Even things that happen today aren't 100% certain as they too are written by man. So.

 

[Tindy]

So, What do you say about passover- celebrating the exodus? or Shavuot(I believe you call it Pentecost), the jewish holiday to celebrate the day we got the bible from Mt. Sinai?
Why do jews, for thousands of years celebrate events that DID NOT happen?

Again, I'm not telling you to question your beliefs. If you believe them, then you believe them, and that's it.

But to put the shoe on the other foot, ancient Greeks believed that not only were there many gods, but that they would come down to Earth once in a while, and be appeased by sacrifices, and occasionally have sex with humans.

Ancient Africans believed that the earth started in the armpit of a giant.

Are you going to tell me that none of that happened because no one believes them anymore, or that it's not Christian/Jewish/Muslim? That's a double standard.

All I'm saying is take it

with a pinch of salt. It's unlikely that events really happened as they were written, as with any piece of history, again, because man wrote them. Even things that happen today aren't 100% certain as they too are written by man. So.

(Thanks wyatt)

BUT the whole point of faith is, as I've already said, belief without proof. So.

PS: I'm a woman who likes to question things.

 

[silver wind]

Yes, you're right. Like rumors, written books may have been changed during the years. You know, typing machines and printing are relatively new. In ancient times, every copy of a book was written by hand, and was prone to mistakes. Maybe the writer felt a need to phrase something differently and changed the original text.
but.
According to Judaism, a bible found with a SINGLE wrong letter can not be used again. We gather in synagogues each Saturday and read parts of the bible, so every paragraph of each 'copy' is read over and over, and if there is a mistake, it'll be found. Some old people remember the texts by heart, and correct the readers who fail to express the text correctly, and even the sound of words is kept fanatically, to avoid damaging the meaning of the text.

Answer to Dadevster:
You mentioned the age of the world. I wanna alert you to an interesting fact. there is a research claiming the geological method used to date stones and such is 1000 times too high, making the world only a few thousands years old. This claim was never proved false, despite existing since 1977. It was published in the magazines Science and Nature. The researcher's name is Doctor Robert Gentry.

Btw, No one answered my question yet (in the first post).

 

[silver wind]

@Tindy
Didn't know you're a woman, sorry
But what on earth do Ancient Africans has to do with this?
I don't have to believe every story I hear. I believe a story my father told me, which was told to him by his father and so on. and they say THEY saw it happening. How many africans met their G-D? were there even 2 people at the time it happened, somehow I doubt it. We had 600,000, not including women and children.

 

[dadevvtsvre]

Answer to Dadevster:
You mentioned the age of the world. I wanna alert you to an interesting fact. there is a research claiming the geological method used to date stones and such is 1000 times too high, making the world only a few thousands years old. This claim was never proved false, despite existing since 1977. It was published in the magazines Science and Nature. The researcher's name is Doctor Robert Gentry.

Gentry is also a strict creationist. He claims that radiohalos in biotite is evidence for a young earth and thus that the earth was created. But these claims are rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community and the "evidence" has been refuted many times. Where did you hear it hadn't been proven false?

 

[silver wind]

He was filmed saying it, are you saying he's lying in live TV o.O
AND in his website: link (first paragraph, 3rd line)
I sure hope not.