The Sanctuary
Society => My God Can Beat The Shit Out Of Your God => Topic started by: Soso0 on October 06, 2014, 03:43:30 pm
-
I've been wanting to read the Bible. I'm not religious in any sense but could be considered spiritual. I've looked online to read a bible but end up with so many different versions and I don't know which one to choose.
-
poorly written, boring, and duplicitous
-
1611 king james version
-
but you're looking for The New Testament
-
I've skimmed through it once or twice. I prefer to read the New American Bible (NAB) or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
-
What's the difference between the versions. Has anything been removed/added?
-
AFAIK, without getting into wierd ethiopian gnostic insanity, the old king james version is the earliest 'normal' translation one can get.
-
What's the difference between the versions. Has anything been removed/added?
the Old Testament is full of lists of lists of lists, birthdates/deathdates of random historical figures that are not relevant to anything, and generally other Shit That Nobody Cares About.
the New Testament tries to get rid of the parts that are basically unreadable and make it more of the novel that it is.
the only person you're going to see reading the Old Testament is a pope blowing an inch of dust off a 6000 page tome before performing an exorcism on the little girl he impregnated
-
the Old Testament is full of lists of lists of lists, birthdates/deathdates of random historical figures that are not relevant to anything, and generally other Shit That Nobody Cares About.
the New Testament tries to get rid of the parts that are basically unreadable and make it more of the novel that it is.
the only person you're going to see reading the Old Testament is a pope blowing an inch of dust off a 6000 page tome before performing an exorcism on the little girl he impregnated
The only thing you have ever used a bible for is as a platform to roll shitty syncan blunts.
-
I read the book of genesis illustrated by R. Crumb. It's worth looking at if you're into that sort of thing. It also includes his interpretation of the writings at the end of the book.
-
modc raises a good point. if you feel ripped off by your purchase, at least you have an endless supply of rolling papers
-
What's the difference between the versions. Has anything been removed/added?
You should also ask yourself what's the difference between translations, as it has been re-translated multiple times over the centuries. I don't know if anyone has the answer.
-
Currently going through it. I highly recommend the standard King James version. The Bible is already incredibly full of holes so preferably, you want to get the version that's closest to the source material while still being readable for you. The King James version fits that.
-
It's a weighty thesis, but it lacks verifiable sources.
Good prequel to the Book of Mormon though.
-
I took a "The Bible as Literature" class. We skipped over most of it.
-
i confirmed everything i read in the bible on wikipedia
-
Currently going through it. I highly recommend the standard King James version. The Bible is already incredibly full of holes so preferably, you want to get the version that's closest to the source material while still being readable for you. The King James version fits that.
The source materials used in modern translations are no less valid. The differences between KJV and most modern English translations are minor. To state otherwise is fundamentally an appeal to antiquity. In fact with modern translations the advantage is not having to try and understand an ancient text translated into archaic English, which contains words whose primary meaning have changed over the centuries.
-
Currently going through it. I highly recommend the standard King James version. The Bible is already incredibly full of holes so preferably, you want to get the version that's closest to the source material while still being readable for you. The King James version fits that.
The source materials used in modern translations are no less valid. The differences between KJV and most modern English translations are minor. To state otherwise is fundamentally an appeal to antiquity. In fact with modern translations the advantage is not having to try and understand an ancient text translated into archaic English, which contains words whose primary meaning have changed over the centuries.
This, arnox.
-
There are differences in translations, and whole phrases that are shortened into words with more 'concise' meanings. Look for yourself, do a search like 'KJV compared to NIV' for example. Don't just listen to random posters who use pat little phrases like 'appeal to antiquity' to put anyone who prefers the older versions into a nice little label to dismiss any and all of their opinions.
-
There are differences in translations, and whole phrases that are shortened into words with more 'concise' meanings. Look for yourself, do a search like 'KJV compared to NIV' for example. Don't just listen to random posters who use pat little phrases like 'appeal to antiquity' to put anyone who prefers the older versions into a nice little label to dismiss any and all of their opinions.
What is it with American protestants christians and Bible Envy? I'm not interested in nit-picking sectarian bullshit derived from someone dropping the 'thee's, thou's and comeths'. Has the fundamental message of Christ been changed by those conniving Papist publishers? No.
-
Has the fundamental message of Christ been changed by those conniving Papist publishers? No.
Thanks for correcting me. I guess I am wrong just because you say so, You being the worlds sole authority on the accuracy of bible translation and all.
-
Has the fundamental message of Christ been changed by those conniving Papist publishers? No.
Thanks for correcting me. I guess I am wrong just because you say so, You being the worlds sole authority on the accuracy of bible translation and all.
So the fundamental message(s) of Christ have changed? To what exactly?
-
So the fundamental message(s) of Christ have changed? To what exactly?
I posted 'look for yourself' to the OP so I wouldn't have to split hairs about it in a forum thread. So, let the OP look for himself. It is easy to find online versions of both and compare the two.
-
OP just go with New King James Version, it drops a lot of the archaic shit while still not being outlandishly washed out as the NIV.
Whoever said the OT is just a bunch of names and whatnot hasn't read the whole damn thing. It's interesting as fuck. Once you get out of Leviticus and into the juicy Joshua and Judges, there is a shit ton of murder and rape and God smiting heathens. If you read the stories for what they are, it's interesting as fuck. Johna is my favorite. Dude spends God knows how long trying to literally run away from God then ends up sits down outside a city waiting and HOPING God will drop fireballs on people. Hes the old school snitch everyone hates in prison.
-
Currently going through it. I highly recommend the standard King James version. The Bible is already incredibly full of holes so preferably, you want to get the version that's closest to the source material while still being readable for you. The King James version fits that.
The King James Version it is.
OP just go with New King James Version, it drops a lot of the archaic shit while still not being outlandishly washed out as the NIV.
Whoever said the OT is just a bunch of names and whatnot hasn't read the whole damn thing. It's interesting as fuck. Once you get out of Leviticus and into the juicy Joshua and Judges, there is a shit ton of murder and rape and God smiting heathens. If you read the stories for what they are, it's interesting as fuck. Johna is my favorite. Dude spends God knows how long trying to literally run away from God then ends up sits down outside a city waiting and HOPING God will drop fireballs on people. Hes the old school snitch everyone hates in prison.
I just want to be more informed about what's in the bible and learn about the stories in it. I plan on reading it as if it is a novel.
-
There are differences in translations, and whole phrases that are shortened into words with more 'concise' meanings. Look for yourself, do a search like 'KJV compared to NIV' for example.
Mostly this. Also, I don't pretend to know what all the differences are between one translation and another. I do know though that with just one simple tiny word, you can change the meaning of a sentence to be the exact opposite of what it was as well. So when you say minor differences... Yeah.
-
Just parts of it. Also, there's a lot of stuff about sex so you might get a hard-on if you can fantasize.
-
Usually things are clear from context so even if they use different words to express things - you'll get the original intent. People the Bible is one of the most scrutinized texts in existence. If you're SO concerned about it you could read all the different versions of a particular passage on biblegateway or something.
The Biblical texts are a collection of letters. Don't expect to get a coherent start to finish story by reading start to end. If you do read it like that take each section for what is contained in it. If you're going to read it might as well take the valuable lessons from it as well.
Also enjoy it because really, it is full of history of places people and events we know for a fact existed. Wilder spiritual claims are up to you to believe or not but if you read it as if everything is true even if you don't believe it, makes the whole thing much more exciting. One part in Judges, the people of Israel are all like "woooo sexy immorality do what we wanttttttttt wooo party" then God is like "smite" then they're all like "sufffferrrrrrrrringgggg" and God is like "... little help" -> cycle repeats 4 or 5 times and then once you expect it to start over, one day the people are all like "oh noess sufferringnnng hallp" and God just says "...No". God is so Boss :)
-
I'm probably the only person here who's smoked weed/cigs off bible paper
Never read the book though, I know how it ends
^Mizled post
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
Why do you intentionally try to fuck people over in everything you do? I just don't get it, I've never seen someone troll so consistently, I'm not sure if you're just devoted as fuck or really this fucking stupid? Get your Jehovas Witness bullshit out of here.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/neworld.htm
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
What would be wrong with just leaving in 'Lord' or 'God'
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
What would be wrong with just leaving in 'Lord' or 'God'
Semantics. Words have meaning.
The problem is that this shit is old as fuck. People can't even properly interpret literature written this year let alone things written 2000 years ago. The cultural, historical, linguistic references.....it's all so remote.
-
Yeah, and it's full of really fucked up stories. Worst comic book ever, doesn't even have any pictures.
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
Why do you intentionally try to fuck people over in everything you do? I just don't get it, I've never seen someone troll so consistently, I'm not sure if you're just devoted as fuck or really this fucking stupid? Get your Jehovas Witness bullshit out of here.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/neworld.htm
Grow up.
-
Yeah, and it's full of really fucked up stories. Worst comic book ever, doesn't even have any pictures.
(http://theuraniumcafe.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/genesis_0181.jpg)
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
What would be wrong with just leaving in 'Lord' or 'God'
That would be like me saying hello to you every morning by saying, "Hello, person." The use of actual names makes relationships personal. It's for that very reason that God's name was removed. The false and corrupted religious leaders of the day wanted people to be personal with them, not God. They wanted people to give them money and power and love, not God, so they removed his name during the translation process. In order to get away with it, they used the bogus excuse that a lowly human didn't have the right to know God personally, or even address God directly by name. They reserved that right for they themselves, but not anyone else. This is how wicked humans controlled the populace... by lessing the reality of God while making themselves the focus instead.
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
What would be wrong with just leaving in 'Lord' or 'God'
Many Jews and Christians do not speak the name of God, YHWH, so instead they say Lord.
-
Not many have, what most sheeple have read are translations...edited translations. One thing about The holy Qur'an that is far superior: any muslim will tell you that you have to read the original, otherwise it is just like the christian bible: a watered down version.
-
One thing about The holy Qur'an that is far superior
:tdown:
-
One thing about The holy Qur'an that is far superior
:tdown:
You can hate it all you want, dead cat, but the fact that it is the original does make it far superior to something that has been translated and edited. Anyone who speaks more than one language will tell you that everything loses quality in translation.
-
One thing about The holy Qur'an that is far superior
:tdown:
You can hate it all you want, dead cat, but the fact that it is the original does make it far superior to something that has been translated and edited. Anyone who speaks more than one language will tell you that everything loses quality in translation.
Translation is the first act of interpretation.
-
Read it all through several times in several versions. The New World Translation is the most accurate. In the King James version, the word YHWH from the original manuscripts has been removed and been replaced with "Lord" and "God" (except for three places, Psalms 83:18 one of the remaining three), and many, many words have been intentionally translated incorrectly to suit the political correctness of the day. The original ancient manuscripts contained thousands of references to the real name of God, which is YHWH (JHVH in English), but only the New World Translation preserved them.
What would be wrong with just leaving in 'Lord' or 'God'
That would be like me saying hello to you every morning by saying, "Hello, person." The use of actual names makes relationships personal. It's for that very reason that God's name was removed. The false and corrupted religious leaders of the day wanted people to be personal with them, not God. They wanted people to give them money and power and love, not God, so they removed his name during the translation process. In order to get away with it, they used the bogus excuse that a lowly human didn't have the right to know God personally, or even address God directly by name. They reserved that right for they themselves, but not anyone else. This is how wicked humans controlled the populace... by lessing the reality of God while making themselves the focus instead.
The Jewish people were originally not allowed to utter the name of God, only the priests, hence the term 'inutterable name' which was often used. The fact is, the name of God as translated from the tetragrammaton (which is YHVH or YHWH) has been lost. There are no vowels, the term Jehovah or Ye-ho-wah as it probably should be pronounced is one translation, as is Yahweh.
At the end of the day, Christ never referred to God as 'Jehovah' unless quoting from the ancient scrolls. As the model of the Christian walk, he referred to God as 'Father' which is how Christians should probably refer to God. Knowing his name is important yes, but in terms of the concept of a personal relationship with God the model of Father is far more logical (do you call your dad by his name?). I don't believe the bible translators were conspirators I just believe they were reflecting the traditions of the jewish people in their translations by using a supreme and all-encompassing title to reflect the name of God.
PS - the new world translation apparently had no qualified translators on board, and didn't use any of the ancient scrolls in translation. It's a contentious translation, but I guess so is the NIV for other reasons. There are biases.
PPS - the new world translation incorrently inserts the name of Jehovah into the new testament where titles such as Lord are used. There is also an interchangeable use of the term 'Lord' about Jesus and also God the Father, and they wanted to distinguish between those even though it didn't show that in the texts. they hate this obviously because they don't believe in the trinity.
yes, Bias all around.
-
I've been wanting to read the Bible. I'm not religious in any sense but could be considered spiritual. I've looked online to read a bible but end up with so many different versions and I don't know which one to choose.
honestly, use an interlinear. they are the most accurate. Go onto Biblehub and pull up a whole lot next to each other. if you google scriptures with the term interlinear you can see the actual word-for-word translation. Any translation is generally fine, just use a few. NIV, New King James, The Message for easy reading, even the New World Translation if you want to see a different bias reflected. NASV is pretty good too.
-
The Jewish people were originally not allowed to utter the name of God, only the priests, hence the term 'inutterable name' which was often used. The fact is, the name of God as translated from the tetragrammaton (which is YHVH or YHWH) has been lost. There are no vowels, the term Jehovah or Ye-ho-wah as it probably should be pronounced is one translation, as is Yahweh.
The only person allowed to utter the name of God was the high priest of the temple. He was only allowed to say the unutterable name once per year, on the day of atonement, Rosh Hashanah, when he would go behind the veil into the holy of holies to present the sacrificial blood.
Actually, to pronounce YHWH as "yahweh" or "jehovah" is entirely inaccurate because, as we have already stated, that name wasn't allowed to be pronounced. The reason we think "yahweh" or "jehovah" is the name of God is because some ignorant person long ago tried to pronounce syllables that were never meant to be pronounced in the first place.
At the end of the day, Christ never referred to God as 'Jehovah' unless quoting from the ancient scrolls. As the model of the Christian walk, he referred to God as 'Father' which is how Christians should probably refer to God. Knowing his name is important yes, but in terms of the concept of a personal relationship with God the model of Father is far more logical (do you call your dad by his name?). I don't believe the bible translators were conspirators I just believe they were reflecting the traditions of the jewish people in their translations by using a supreme and all-encompassing title to reflect the name of God.
PS - the new world translation apparently had no qualified translators on board, and didn't use any of the ancient scrolls in translation. It's a contentious translation, but I guess so is the NIV for other reasons. There are biases.
PPS - the new world translation incorrently inserts the name of Jehovah into the new testament where titles such as Lord are used. There is also an interchangeable use of the term 'Lord' about Jesus and also God the Father, and they wanted to distinguish between those even though it didn't show that in the texts. they hate this obviously because they don't believe in the trinity.
yes, Bias all around.
Christianity turns the tables on the name of God. In Christianity the name of God is not "yahweh" or "jehovah" but Jesus. This is, Jesus is the name of God. Jesus is a name we can pronounce, call upon, and have a relationship with. Jesus is God incarnate in the flesh. This is why, when the Pharisees asks Jesus about his true identity, Jesus responds with, "I AM". Jesus is God, revealed.
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)
-
One thing that should be pointed out is that the catholic bible contains seven more books than the Protestant bible.
-
Actually, to pronounce YHWH as "yahweh" or "jehovah" is entirely inaccurate because, as we have already stated, that name wasn't allowed to be pronounced. The reason we think "yahweh" or "jehovah" is the name of God is because some ignorant person long ago tried to pronounce syllables that were never meant to be pronounced in the first place.
That ignorant person being the high priest correct?
-
One thing to keep in mind about the King James version is that one of the rules the translators were given was that nothing could challenge the fact that the royalty were superior to the commoners. And that is religion in a nutshell, as far as I'm concerned.
As far as accurate translations go, I've heard that NIV is the most accurate, and it's constantly being revised. Just don't forget that back in 375, the council of Nicea edited the shit out of everything, pretty much to make it say what they wanted it to say.
-
Actually, to pronounce YHWH as "yahweh" or "jehovah" is entirely inaccurate because, as we have already stated, that name wasn't allowed to be pronounced. The reason we think "yahweh" or "jehovah" is the name of God is because some ignorant person long ago tried to pronounce syllables that were never meant to be pronounced in the first place.
Christianity turns the tables on the name of God. In Christianity the name of God is not "yahweh" or "jehovah" but Jesus. This is, Jesus is the name of God. Jesus is a name we can pronounce, call upon, and have a relationship with. Jesus is God incarnate in the flesh. This is why, when the Pharisees asks Jesus about his true identity, Jesus responds with, "I AM". Jesus is God, revealed.
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)
This is a trinitarian perspective. There are others that don't believe Jesus is God incarnate (JW's and restored church etc), and is the created being the divine Son, and don't worship him, so they obviously want to see the divine name restored and used. (1 cor 8:6, jer 16:21) By the way, just because the jews were too scared to pronounce the name of God because of religious dogma instilled into them by the pious pharisees and sadducees doesn't mean it should remain silent. Plenty of people have argued about the vowel order and there's nothing wrong with calling the God of the Bible Jehovah or Yahweh because they are the closest pronunciations we'll probably ever get.
Interestingly though, the hebrew letters in the tetragrammaton (yud hey vav hey as they'd be pronounced in english) have pictorial equivalent as does all hebrew. These equate to hand behold, nail behold. So it could be argued that in the name of the father is the name/identity of the Son, which I personally find pretty cool.
-
Actually, to pronounce YHWH as "yahweh" or "jehovah" is entirely inaccurate because, as we have already stated, that name wasn't allowed to be pronounced. The reason we think "yahweh" or "jehovah" is the name of God is because some ignorant person long ago tried to pronounce syllables that were never meant to be pronounced in the first place.
That ignorant person being the high priest correct?
No. The High Priest was the only person who knew how to pronounce the name of God and presumably he never told anyone except his successors. We have no way of knowing what the High Priest actually said when he pronounced the name of God.
-
The vowels are guesswork, because there is no vowels in Hebrew, but what the vowels most probably are can be determined from looking at words of similar nature. From that in-depth research, we can take a highly educated guess that the mising vowels are in fact E, O, and A.
-
lol
-
The closest we can come to God's actual name is (Moses asked God the question directly through the burning bush) I Am Who I Shall Prove To Be.
Moses: Who are you?
God: I am who I shall prove to be.
Moses: But if they ask me who sent me, what shall I tell them?
God: Tell them, I Am Who I Shall Prove To Be has sent you.
-
There is absolutely nothing comparable in the created world to the nature of God. Therefore, when humans attempt to describe God, we are forced to describe God by the things that God is not; to describe the Creator in terms of the creation. This is why all religious analogies ultimately fall short of the mark.
Christianity turns the tables on the name of God. In Christianity the name of God is not "yahweh" or "jehovah" but Jesus. This is, Jesus is the name of God. Jesus is a name we can pronounce, call upon, and have a relationship with. Jesus is God incarnate in the flesh.
This is contradictory. You contradict yourself.
-
Research the word, Eheyeh.
-
i read it. s'awright.
-
Research the word, Eheyeh.
It would be interesting to read your take on it.
-
Research the word, Eheyeh.
It would be interesting to read your take on it.
Eheyeh (אהיה) means "I will become." And when the phrase, "will become" is researched, we find it means that the person "will prove to be"... something... but we're left to guess what that something will be.
-
Research the word, Eheyeh.
It would be interesting to read your take on it.
Eheyeh (אהיה) means "I will become." And when the phrase, "will become" is researched, we find it means that the person "will prove to be"... something... but we're left to guess what that something will be.
So basically it isn't important.
-
Research the word, Eheyeh.
It would be interesting to read your take on it.
Eheyeh (אהיה) means "I will become." And when the phrase, "will become" is researched, we find it means that the person "will prove to be"... something... but we're left to guess what that something will be.
So basically it isn't important.
It's quite important, because the entire central issue we all face in this failed system of human governance is the challenge of God's right to rule. In saying "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be", God is saying we don't have to trust him on words alone, but also in the actions he is, and will, take. It speaks mainly to his character, and to his promise to all obedient humans here on Earth.
-
Isn't that yoru interpretation of it? What do you mean by that?
-
Isn't that yoru interpretation of it? What do you mean by that?
The entire purpose of the miracles that Jesus and his apostles performed were so that we could have faith and believe in the promise. These advanced aliens know that humans... even the best and smartest of them... will never believe something on faith alone unless they see a sign. They have to touch, feel, smell, see it before they will believe. If not for the miracles, no man would be saved. It is for this reason that God associated his very name to the acts he is, and will, perform. That is significant.
-
What aliens? Isn't this all you personal interpretation of something nobody actually understands? If so, isn't it insignificant?
-
What aliens? Isn't this all you personal interpretation of something nobody actually understands? If so, isn't it insignificant?
God, the angels, the demons... they're all highly advanced aliens with millions of years of highly advanced technical knowledge under their belts. God is the most powerful one, because he created all the rest of them. The technology they have is far beyond our wildest imagination, but they have a non-interference policy which is associated to the principles of free will. They will offer assurances and demonstrations, but they will not actively interfere in the process of determining the natural outcome of our free will. There has been a divide in their government, and we are all involved.
-
What aliens? Isn't this all you personal interpretation of something nobody actually understands? If so, isn't it insignificant?
God, the angels, the demons... they're all highly advanced aliens with millions of years of highly advanced technical knowledge under their belts. God is the most powerful one, because he created all the rest of them. The technology they have is far beyond our wildest imagination, but they have a non-interference policy which is associated to the principles of free will. They will offer assurances and demonstrations, but they will not actively interfere in the process of determining the natural outcome of our free will. There has been a divide in their government, and we are all involved.
Ummm, what makes you think that this is how everything works? What if it is something much more prosaic, but still wierd?
Maybe god is an alien, but not necessarily technologically advanced...maybe he/it is just so 'big' or somehow blends in with its 'environment' that we cannot perceive it....sort of how when we were kids and we would catch bugs and wonder if they thought we were 'god'....Maybe the stuff that we call 'dark matter' yet cannot directly perceive, is just the bulk of what we would call 'god' if we could 'see' it. IDK, I'm high as fuck.
-
[
Maybe the stuff that we call 'dark matter' yet cannot directly perceive, is just the bulk of what we would call 'god' if we could 'see' it. IDK, I'm high as fuck.
That would be a theory, but an ultimately faulty one. A rock can't think. A piece of wood can't talk. With God and the others, there is a marked intelligence and a series of demonstrations of amazing abilities. Evidence of their handwork is available for everyone to witness in a blade of grass, the flight dynamics of a bird, the pedals of a flower, or even the whisper of the wind under a midnight moon. Everything neatly arranged. Everything neatly in its place. All inter-connected and practical in every sense of the word. Intelligence. You can set your watch by the timing of the cosmos; that's how precise it is. Inanimate objects, such as magnetic fields may have properties, but they do not possess intelligence. With God, the King of all the aliens, what we're dealing with here is undoubtedly intelligent.
-
I used to go to youth group (christian) from a pretty early age to about 16 so I've read a decent part of the bible and can recall some stories.
We can talk about the bible if you wish.
-
That would be a theory, but an ultimately faulty one. A rock can't think. A piece of wood can't talk. With God and the others, there is a marked intelligence and a series of demonstrations of amazing abilities. Evidence of their handwork is available for everyone to witness in a blade of grass, the flight dynamics of a bird, the pedals of a flower, or even the whisper of the wind under a midnight moon. Everything neatly arranged. Everything neatly in its place. All inter-connected and practical in every sense of the word. Intelligence. You can set your watch by the timing of the cosmos; that's how precise it is. Inanimate objects, such as magnetic fields may have properties, but they do not possess intelligence. With God, the King of all the aliens, what we're dealing with here is undoubtedly intelligent.
I never said 'it' (god) wasn't intelligent, I did say that 'it' may not have 'technology' as we might imagine it.
And I am not thinking of 'god' as like a rock or piece of dead wood....It is more like what a walrus would be to an ant: A vast bulk with no discernable features or qualities. In the bigger picture a walrus has a measure of 'intelligence' and sentience, but an ant would not be able to perceive it.
-
That would be a theory, but an ultimately faulty one. A rock can't think. A piece of wood can't talk. With God and the others, there is a marked intelligence and a series of demonstrations of amazing abilities. Evidence of their handwork is available for everyone to witness in a blade of grass, the flight dynamics of a bird, the pedals of a flower, or even the whisper of the wind under a midnight moon. Everything neatly arranged. Everything neatly in its place. All inter-connected and practical in every sense of the word. Intelligence. You can set your watch by the timing of the cosmos; that's how precise it is. Inanimate objects, such as magnetic fields may have properties, but they do not possess intelligence. With God, the King of all the aliens, what we're dealing with here is undoubtedly intelligent.
Something else that I was thinking about while high....Our reality is far from perfect, at least to our senses...Go out into 'nature' and one can witness this for itself....While 'everything may be neatly in its place', there are funguses that make leaves look ugly and infected, spider webs hanging in tatters, animal waste, and other 'imperfections' that to our eye make this world a dismal and foreboding place. But when 'seen' at smaller scales, ugly funguses become 'perfect' arrangements of mycelial networks, spider webs become intricate ropes, ugly things become perfect landscapes when seen at different 'scales'. In space, between the majesty of stars, there are ugly lumps of rock spinning in the darkness. But when looked at from 'afar', they are not seen. Reality is perfection with threads of ugliness spun through it.
-
That would be a theory, but an ultimately faulty one. A rock can't think. A piece of wood can't talk. With God and the others, there is a marked intelligence and a series of demonstrations of amazing abilities. Evidence of their handwork is available for everyone to witness in a blade of grass, the flight dynamics of a bird, the pedals of a flower, or even the whisper of the wind under a midnight moon. Everything neatly arranged. Everything neatly in its place. All inter-connected and practical in every sense of the word. Intelligence. You can set your watch by the timing of the cosmos; that's how precise it is. Inanimate objects, such as magnetic fields may have properties, but they do not possess intelligence. With God, the King of all the aliens, what we're dealing with here is undoubtedly intelligent.
Something else that I was thinking about while high....Our reality is far from perfect, at least to our senses...Go out into 'nature' and one can witness this for itself....While 'everything may be neatly in its place', there are funguses that make leaves look ugly and infected, spider webs hanging in tatters, animal waste, and other 'imperfections' that to our eye make this world a dismal and foreboding place. But when 'seen' at smaller scales, ugly funguses become 'perfect' arrangements of mycelial networks, spider webs become intricate ropes, ugly things become perfect landscapes when seen at different 'scales'. In space, between the majesty of stars, there are ugly lumps of rock spinning in the darkness. But when looked at from 'afar', they are not seen. Reality is perfection with threads of ugliness spun through it.
Interesting thoughts. Remember, though... something ugly can still be perfect.
-
Interesting thoughts. Remember, though... something ugly can still be perfect.
Ugliness and perfection are human concepts, created by humans, based entirely on our subjective 'senses', and are ultimately illusory.
-
Interesting thoughts. Remember, though... something ugly can still be perfect.
Ugliness and perfection are human concepts, created by humans, based entirely on our subjective 'senses', and are ultimately illusory.
No, because perfection is functional, whereas beauty/ugliness is a matter of perspective.
-
No, because perfection is functional
No one knows how far down the 'scales' of reality go, and what the ultimate nature of 'reality' even is. What if the ultimate 'truth' is somehow slightly flawed? Maybe there is something even more 'perfect' out there, and there is no 'ultimate' perfect state?
edit -
far down
Excuse me, I should have added, "or how far 'up''
-
I went to a lutheran school for the last part of elementary and first half of middle school, until I got expelled.
I know enough about it to catch references, and generally know the major stories.
in today's society, especially if you live in the US, its worth reading...just to catch the parallels.
I would recommend the King James version, as it is the most complete.
I look forward to reading other religious texts when I get the chance. even if you aren't christian and have no desire to be, its worth the read.
-
Just don't forget that back in 375, the council of Nicea edited the shit out of everything, pretty much to make it say what they wanted it to say.
This is actually bullshit you got from watching the Devinci Code. There are too many copies/fragments/quotes + the dead sea scrolls for this to be true.
-
Interesting thoughts. Remember, though... something ugly can still be perfect.
Ugliness and perfection are human concepts, created by humans, based entirely on our subjective 'senses', and are ultimately illusory.
Hit the nail on the wrist.
-
I've read a fair amount of the Bible from childhood sunday school.. Honestly though, it was still less than half. Otherwise, if it counts.. I still have knowledge of most of the stories/books of the bible. While I'm unsure if I'm "technically" a christian as I believe all religions are based on one omnipotent entity, just different interpretations.. and as such, I have no problem with homosexuals, tattoos, recreational drug use, ect.. I simply believe that, for the most part, in order to live a happy fulfilling life.. you have to earnestly want to be a good person.. try to help others, and otherwise.. and this is the most important.. mind your own business. You can't force your ideologies down other peoples throats.. Plenty of people believe in these per-constructed religions.. and that's cool. Religion wouldn't be so bad if it was more on a personal level, not unlike meditation.. instead of this big capitalist market of sending money or a large sunday mass all unquestioning their devout pastor/priest or what have you.
-
Just don't forget that back in 375, the council of Nicea edited the shit out of everything, pretty much to make it say what they wanted it to say.
This is actually bullshit you got from watching the Devinci Code. There are too many copies/fragments/quotes + the dead sea scrolls for this to be true.
Davinci*
-
I am well aware of what was wrong with that horrid book/movie. I am also aware of what was wrong with Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was the source of much of that Dan Brown garbage (primarily, citing documents that the academic community is in general consensus on being fraudulent).
-
Just don't forget that back in 375, the council of Nicea edited the shit out of everything, pretty much to make it say what they wanted it to say.
This is actually bullshit you got from watching the Devinci Code. There are too many copies/fragments/quotes + the dead sea scrolls for this to be true.
You do know the bible is fiction...right?
-
Just don't forget that back in 375, the council of Nicea edited the shit out of everything, pretty much to make it say what they wanted it to say.
This is actually bullshit you got from watching the Devinci Code. There are too many copies/fragments/quotes + the dead sea scrolls for this to be true.
You do know the bible is fiction...right?
I don't think he does....