Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

What do you think of the new format?

I like it better than the last one
It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread
It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 52

Author Topic: Religion Questions Thread  (Read 56305 times)

TheDarkStar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #255 on: December 25, 2014, 09:11:09 pm »

I'm suddenly curious to see what the distribution of religions is on these forums. Maybe start a poll?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2014, 09:16:27 pm by TheDarkStar »
Logged
Don't die; it's bad for your health!

it happened it happened it happen im so hyped to actually get attacked now

Ghills

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #256 on: December 25, 2014, 09:28:28 pm »

I'm so glad that my replies are informative and useful!  It's really nice to talk about religion with a non-judgmental crowd.  :)


(LDS here, will accept questions)

As Ghills or whomever stated earlier, We believe the bible to be the word of god, so far as it is translated correctly. We do use the King James version, as that one has had the least amount of cross-translation (For example, from king James to a new age.) The King James version is the closest to the original as far as we can tell. I don't know for certain if it is, so I won't say it is, but we do accept the entire bible.

As for zachy being struck dumb, that was actually because he disobeyed one of Gods commandments. While we are  free to chose for ourselves, we do not typically choose the CONSEQUENCES of those choices.  For example, I have the freedom to go shoot a police officer (Not related to the recent shootings, just something I thought of first for some reason), but I don't get to choose whether or not I will be jailed, or killed, or whatever else may happen to me. This particular commandment, IIRC, was that he tried to name the baby after himself, or some such thing, when it's name was supposed to be Lazarus (I could be wrong about what the name actually was supposed to be.) You sort of have to cycle through all the books (Mark, Matthew,Luke AND john,) to find this out if I am correct, Although I may be remembering a different story. Once he renamed the baby, he was given his speech again.


Mary's acceptance was certainly valid. She said she would bear the child, she was not coerced into it, although it may seem like it.

Sweet! Glad to know you're around :)  And yeah, the bit about 'translated correctly' is huge. 

LDS take on the Bible is: It's great that we have it! It contains a lot of vital spiritual truths and historical information. But - and it's a big but - it was written thousands of years ago for multiple alien cultures, and has come through several major revisions.  There are some parts of it that we simply don't follow at all because they've been superceded by modern revelation (ex: Law of Moses largely superceded by Doctrine & Covenants).  Some of it is fundamentally changed by Joseph's Smith's edits (not all of which are published afaik, but most can be found in the LDS app or published scriptures). And all of it should be studied carefully due to different culture, etc.

This is part of why we think modern revelation is so important. It's easy for imperfect people to forget, misread or even deliberately alter things.  The Lord was there and knows how to translate the concepts and His requirements for current cultures.

Re: Accepting callings
The LDS take on free will - that exercising it is literally the entire point of this existence - really influences how Mary and Moses gets interpreted, I think.  And our experience with callings, which is that they're a regular part of life and we can choose to accept them or not.   It's entirely possible to read those scenes another way, that's just not how we read them. *shrug*

I also think telling Mary about Elizabeth is a friendly touch. It tells Mary she's not alone in this, and gives her a chance to test the angel's words. And she does test them - she shows up at Elizabeth's pretty quickly and Elizabeth confirms everything for her. 

Re: Zacharias
My take: Zacharias is in the middle of priestly duties, in the temple, and he's been one for his whole life, and when an angel appears and tells him something Zacharias gets kind of snarky.  Contrast his questions with Mary's questions - Mary is kind of "What? I'm not sure how this can work." and Zacharias is like "Oh yeah? Prove it, dude."  So the angel tells Mary how the process will work, and tells Zacharias "I am an angel, appearing in the holy temple, to a priest.  But since you asked for more proof, I will give you some."  Mary was a scared teenager who stayed respectful and Zacharias was a high priest who maybe wasn't (based on my interpretation of the conversations, which could be totally off base). I think that played into the dumbness sentence. 

There's also an element of 'be careful what you wish for here'.  LDS members eventually get wary of asking to be blessed with patience, etc - because it usually means getting lots of opportunities to practice those qualities.  :)

About John's name, for what it's worth: Luke 1:59-64
59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

 60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.

 61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.

 62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.

 63 And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.

 64 And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2014, 09:51:05 pm by Ghills »
Logged
I AM POINTY DEATH INCARNATE
Ye know, being an usurper overseer gone mad with power isn't too bad. It's honestly not that different from being a normal overseer.
To summarize:
They do an epic face. If that fails, they beat said object to death with their beard.

TD1

  • Bay Watcher
  • Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #257 on: December 25, 2014, 09:33:16 pm »

It's worth noting that not sex was involved. Thus "virgin birth".

How do you know? All you have to go on is an account written after Jesus had died, and his legend was growing.
Does it actually say in the Bible that God didn't just give Joseph holy semen, or somesuch?
Logged
Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination
  TD1 has claimed the title of Penblessed the Endless Fountain of Epics!
Sigtext!
Poetry Thread

Ghills

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #258 on: December 25, 2014, 09:49:15 pm »

It's worth noting that not sex was involved. Thus "virgin birth".

How do you know? All you have to go on is an account written after Jesus had died, and his legend was growing.
Does it actually say in the Bible that God didn't just give Joseph holy semen, or somesuch?

Yes.

Luke
1:34-35
 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Matthew 1:18-25
18 ¶Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Logged
I AM POINTY DEATH INCARNATE
Ye know, being an usurper overseer gone mad with power isn't too bad. It's honestly not that different from being a normal overseer.
To summarize:
They do an epic face. If that fails, they beat said object to death with their beard.

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #259 on: December 25, 2014, 09:58:56 pm »

It's worth noting that not sex was involved. Thus "virgin birth".
How do you know? All you have to go on is an account written after Jesus had died, and his legend was growing.
Does it actually say in the Bible that God didn't just give Joseph holy semen, or somesuch?
If you're disputing the accuracy of the Bible, you're wasting your time. It's the only source on the subject and as such is the most reliable. Furthermore, we're discussing events occurring in the Bible - and if you don't believe in the Bible then it might as well be just a fairy tale anyway.

Now, as to what was actually said, it's explicitly stated that Mary is a virgin at the time. It's doubtful she remained a virgin, especially after her marriage. It's also stated in Luke that "the Holy Spirit will come on you", so make of that what you will.

Faekedit: Ghills is ninja.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

TD1

  • Bay Watcher
  • Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #260 on: December 25, 2014, 10:04:42 pm »

It's worth noting that not sex was involved. Thus "virgin birth".
How do you know? All you have to go on is an account written after Jesus had died, and his legend was growing.
Does it actually say in the Bible that God didn't just give Joseph holy semen, or somesuch?
If you're disputing the accuracy of the Bible, you're wasting your time. It's the only source on the subject and as such is the most reliable. Furthermore, we're discussing events occurring in the Bible - and if you don't believe in the Bible then it might as well be just a fairy tale anyway.
Not necessarily the story in the bible, though I would dispute that, just the writers themselves. They're gonna paint their messiah in the best possible light, and being a bastard isn't gonna do that in a religion that highly endorses marriage.

They really don't have any way of knowing any of this anyhow, unless Jesus told people that his mother told him that the Holy Spirit filled her and that was how he was born.....

It comes back to the account told to Jesus/others by his parents, and they both had a vested interest in lying.
Logged
Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination
  TD1 has claimed the title of Penblessed the Endless Fountain of Epics!
Sigtext!
Poetry Thread

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #261 on: December 25, 2014, 10:25:54 pm »

Well, yes, they could have lied. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #262 on: December 25, 2014, 11:06:12 pm »

(LDS here, will accept questions)

As Ghills or whomever stated earlier, We believe the bible to be the word of god, so far as it is translated correctly. We do use the King James version, as that one has had the least amount of cross-translation (For example, from king James to a new age.) The King James version is the closest to the original as far as we can tell. I don't know for certain if it is, so I won't say it is, but we do accept the entire bible.

As for zachy being struck dumb, that was actually because he disobeyed one of Gods commandments. While we are  free to chose for ourselves, we do not typically choose the CONSEQUENCES of those choices.  For example, I have the freedom to go shoot a police officer (Not related to the recent shootings, just something I thought of first for some reason), but I don't get to choose whether or not I will be jailed, or killed, or whatever else may happen to me. This particular commandment, IIRC, was that he tried to name the baby after himself, or some such thing, when it's name was supposed to be Lazarus (I could be wrong about what the name actually was supposed to be.) You sort of have to cycle through all the books (Mark, Matthew,Luke AND john,) to find this out if I am correct, Although I may be remembering a different story. Once he renamed the baby, he was given his speech again.
There's no such thing as freedom to break laws...  Laws restrict freedom by definition.  Mortal laws can be disobeyed (with consequences), but that's not freedom.  Besides, God enforces his commandments without fail (when he wants to).  I'm not sure all this is relevant, though.

God decided Zacharias would have a son named John.  Zacharias made the mistake of asking the angel for a sign.  This might have been an unwise action for a priest, but it's not clear that he knew this was an angel of God... Just that he was afraid of it, probably because angels have terrifying appearances.

Gabriel responded by identifying himself (suggesting that his identity wasn't clear) and striking Zacharias dumb for his doubt...  For the entire pregnancy.  I found no sign that Zacharias actually tried to defy God at all (not that he could have succeeded).  He and his wife dutifully named the child "John" despite the objections of others, who found the name bizarre.

Mary's acceptance was certainly valid. She said she would bear the child, she was not coerced into it, although it may seem like it.
Mary was not offered a choice.  She was informed of her upcoming divine conception and extramarital pregnancy, with no question about her opinion.  Her cousin-in-law had been stricken dumb for 6 months at the time for doubting this very same angel, so even her acceptance of the situation was produced under threat of divine punishment.

And again, she didn't tell her husband about any of this, which is really weird if she was genuinely okay with the situation.
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

TD1

  • Bay Watcher
  • Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #263 on: December 25, 2014, 11:35:28 pm »

Well, yes, they could have lied. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
That them lying is likely given cultural circumstances, the exceedingly unreliable historical recording of it, and the most obvious solution to the "how in blazes does a woman give birth with no biological material but her own egg" question.

What I'm trying to achieve is to show that Jesus certainly (in my eyes, and the eyes of anybody not trusting in faith to the contrary) had two biological parents instead of one. There is no such thing as the virgin mother.
Logged
Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination
  TD1 has claimed the title of Penblessed the Endless Fountain of Epics!
Sigtext!
Poetry Thread

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #264 on: December 25, 2014, 11:41:43 pm »

Well, yes, they could have lied. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
That them lying is likely given cultural circumstances, the exceedingly unreliable historical recording of it, and the most obvious solution to the "how in blazes does a woman give birth with no biological material but her own egg" question.

What I'm trying to achieve is to show that Jesus certainly (in my eyes, and the eyes of anybody not trusting in faith to the contrary) had two biological parents instead of one. There is no such thing as the virgin mother.
Well...
Quote
in ... the eyes of anybody not trusting in faith to the contrary
These people already know that. And the rest of us aren't exactly going to be convinced by logic.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

TD1

  • Bay Watcher
  • Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #265 on: December 25, 2014, 11:48:28 pm »

Ehhh, you're straying towards the "why argue religion point" there, II. :P

But yea, faith is fine for those who have it, for whatever reasons (studies showing that young females desiring a father figure are much more likely to have faith, in God at least. Not sure about other religions, but can't imagine why the trend wouldn't follow through.)

And if faith can't stand the test of logic, it's not really....healthy...
Logged
Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination
  TD1 has claimed the title of Penblessed the Endless Fountain of Epics!
Sigtext!
Poetry Thread

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #266 on: December 26, 2014, 12:43:41 am »

Yeah, fair enough. I meant that if I believe the contents of the Bible is true, I'm not going to be convinced otherwise by deductions like "they could be lying".
I get that this way of thinking doesn't appeal to you, but it also happens to be quite... resilient.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Cryxis, Prince of Doom

  • Bay Watcher
  • Achievment *Fail freshman year uni*
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #267 on: December 26, 2014, 01:46:12 am »

Hey guys, I am dreadfully sorry that the Christian religions thread and Abrahamic religions thread were locked. The Christian one was going to be unlocked but toady decided to keep it locked.
I am glad to see this thread seems to be going nicely.
Just felt like apologizing for the other threads getting shot down
Logged
Fueled by caffeine, nicotine, and a surprisingly low will to live.
Cryxis makes the best typos.

SHAD0Wdump

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hiding in SPAAACE!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #268 on: December 26, 2014, 01:54:49 am »

Well, yes, they could have lied. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
That them lying is likely given cultural circumstances.
Yes, the writers lying WOULD make sense... However what is depicted in the bible, pretty much all the major points about Jesus outright, is absolutely damning based solely on the culture in question to both Jesus and the apostles themselves.

 Why would they lie in a way that has so many factors considered heresy if they wanted to promote Jesus, or if they wanted to bring themselves recognition? The apostles suffered greatly at the hands of man for the sake of this.
Logged

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion Questions Thread
« Reply #269 on: December 26, 2014, 04:32:00 am »

as to what was actually said, it's explicitly stated that Mary is a virgin at the time. It's doubtful she remained a virgin, especially after her marriage.

It's reasonably plausible that this whole issue is a translation issue, along with some possible embellishment. If we're going to talk about what was "actually" said, the word "virgin" never once appears in the Bible because it wasn't written in English.

The original prophecy about a "virgin" birth was Isaiah 7:14 In English, we have that passage rendered as:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

But the original text was written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word being translated as "virgin" is almah, which means "woman of child-bearing age who has nevertheless not given birth to a child." That could of course be used to describe a virgin, but not necessarily. Hebrew does have a word that means "woman who has not known a man" and that word is bethulah, which is not the word that was used in that prophecy. Very notably, that same word 'almah' is also used to refer to Queen Abijah, presumably not intending that the she somehow also conceived without sex being involved.

That jewish propehcy is referred to in Mathew 1:18-25, in a situation that requires a great deal of context. First, let's remember that when Jesus was born there were no christians, that Jesus was born to a jewish family, raised as a jew, trained in synagogue, and that there are instances like John 3:2 where Jesus is referred to as Rabbi. Unfortunately there is some dispute over which language Matthew was originally written in. Koine Greek is the popular assumption, but there is some evidence that it was written in Aramaic. But whichever language it was actually first written in, the relevant people before and during Jesus' time would probably have been speaking primarily Aramaic, not Greek.


So, on to Matthew:

The Gospel of Matthew was written by an anonymous author, probably in the vicinity of 80-90AD, which is roughly 50 years after the generally accepted date range for the crucifixion. In that account, an angel appears to Jospeh in a dream and explains to him what's going to happen, basically quoting that jewish prophecy of Matthew 1:23, rendered in English here as:

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"

He's obviously referring to the Isaiah prophecy. But, in his rendering of that prophecy, in the Greek version the word used is parthenos, which explicitly  means "virgin" in the english sense. (Incidentally, this word choice is very possibly the source of the catholic deification of Mary, because  'parthenos' is used as an epithet to refer to a number of Greek goddesses, for example Athena Parthenos. The same Greek word root giving us the Parthenon, and probably also why catholics have nuns, despite the fact that  judiasm has no similar tradition, and so far as I know neither Jesus nor the bible ever say anything about such a practice. Catholicism has a lot of pagan roots.)

Now, continuing on into Matthew, in addition to changing the word, the text then goes on to specifically clarify that:

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

Then. probably a couple decades lter the Gospel of Luke was written, which contained a "more detailed" account of the viigin birth, in Luke 1:26-38, which speaks of an angel appearing to Mary rather than Joseph, explains that she's going to give birth to a child and name him Jesus...prompting Mary to loudly protest that she's never had sex. To which the angel replies:

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."




I suppose if one is christian that's all you need. But given that the Hebrew word 'bethulah' meaning 'virgin' was not used in the original Isaiah prophecy, whereas 'almah' was multiple times and not always referring to Mary, followed by the story of the virgin birth apparently growing from Matthew to Luke...again, an argument could be made that the whole christian interpretation is an embellished mistranslation.


Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 52