|
Post by IllyriaWorshipper on Aug 2, 2004 18:34:59 GMT -5
religion gives people inner peace. thats why i choose not to beleave in any because not beleaving gives me inner peace and also i dont have to follow specific rules that i think are stupid. take greek ortherdox for example, when someone greek ortherdox dies and you know them and are greek ortherdox, you cannot listen to the radio, watch tv and shave or get a hair cut for 40 days. im half greek and half kiwi.
|
|
MaxC
Big Bad
ooh yeah
Posts: 198
|
Post by MaxC on Aug 3, 2004 5:10:16 GMT -5
I dont mean to be rude but... half kiwi?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Nasty on Aug 3, 2004 9:40:51 GMT -5
I assume that means half New Zealander. Not the fruit.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled Gremlin on Aug 3, 2004 13:17:01 GMT -5
(laughs hysterically at the thought of a fuzzy Illyria Worshipper with green innards)
|
|
|
Post by IllyriaWorshipper on Aug 3, 2004 21:00:54 GMT -5
mr.nasty is right, only there is no New Zealander, its kiwi for some reason. the natives are called, well i dont know how to spell it but its pronownced marry or something similar.
also im not fuzzy with green innerds.
|
|
|
Post by ReadyToBake on Aug 4, 2004 10:01:22 GMT -5
Do you mean Maori, the indigenous people? Have you seen the movie ''Whale Rider'' ? About a young Maori tribal rulers daughter, she's the oldest in her family but female and the story line is that the tribe people don't believe in letting a female ascend to ruler status.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled Gremlin on Aug 4, 2004 10:21:45 GMT -5
My elementary school principal was Maori...we did all kinds of cool traditional music and dance stuff. Great fun.
(goes to eat a kiwi fruit)
|
|
|
Post by IllyriaWorshipper on Aug 6, 2004 2:22:14 GMT -5
go to the pictures and wallpapers area to see some great pics i made, and i also made a few avatars too.
now we should get back on subject.
|
|
|
Post by TheMasterGeek on Aug 6, 2004 6:31:56 GMT -5
The bible is not fiction, it is based on historical fact, however there are some inconsistencies in the Bible, because I took a religion class on the Old Testament in the 1st semester. The Bible I was given was a scholarly Bible that had all the stories in its original translation, and not the selective translation of bible. There are 4 different sources of the Bible, I cant remember them right now, but they all tell the story differently. Now I wish that I didnt sell those books back to the school store. But one biblical version of the creation of man. Heck, there are two different stories about how God created man in the first two chapters in Genesis. In Gen. 1:27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." So right here, it says God created man and woman at the same time, but when you read Gen. 2.7 "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life, and the man became a living being." This chapter says God created man before woman, and that differs from earlier story. There was also a difference between the way God created humans. Later in Genesis 2, God uses a rib from Adam to create Eve. There is an inconsistency there, that cannot be explained, but it does say that God created man.
The Bible is based in fact, there is historical evidence that Jesus did exist in the time of the Roman Empire, but since he was from the Middle East he spoke Aramiac and Hebrew, since that is the language of the Jews at the time. Also there are a few extra books of the Bible that are not part of the King James's version, that some orthodox people read, I cant remember the official name of the book.
|
|
|
Post by IllyriaWorshipper on Aug 6, 2004 14:57:58 GMT -5
as far as im concerned, the bible is a hippiecrite. isnt one of the ten comantments or what ever say thou shant not kill or somethng and its got stories of people killing each other or something other than human.
|
|
|
Post by Bango on Aug 6, 2004 23:24:03 GMT -5
The Bible I was given was a scholarly Bible that had all the stories in its original translation, and not the selective translation of bible. There are 4 different sources of the Bible, I cant remember them right now, but they all tell the story differently. Now I wish that I didnt sell those books back to the school store. But one biblical version of the creation of man. Heck, there are two different stories about how God created man in the first two chapters in Genesis. In Gen. 1:27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." So right here, it says God created man and woman at the same time, but when you read Gen. 2.7 "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life, and the man became a living being." This chapter says God created man before woman, and that differs from earlier story. There was also a difference between the way God created humans. Later in Genesis 2, God uses a rib from Adam to create Eve. There is an inconsistency there, that cannot be explained. Crazygolfa, back in the day, when the Bible was a hot topic in the early centuries, and when people started translating from the original 'autographs', some people decided to not follow the traditional manuscripts, and they would choose, and nit-pick stuff and place them out of order. Some stuff weren't even actual facts and yet they would place them in it. People still do that today. The King James Version is only type of Bible that is exactly like the ancient manuscripts. But that's what people did, they made their "own" versions, and placed what they would want. And I'll simply say it, those kinds were translated from the Alexandrian Texts. Even English Bibles, except the NKJV, and the original KJV, are based on that text, which included heresey and attacks the deity of Christ...it could be that was one of the texts you read, that had that malarky in it. My advise to you, ignore that crap, because you were handed one of those contradictory texts that are contradictory for one reason, and that's because some people wanted it the way that they wanted it. If I could go back in time to when they were doing that junk, ooh they'd really pay!
|
|
|
Post by Bango on Aug 7, 2004 0:01:04 GMT -5
as far as im concerned, the bible is a hippiecrite. isnt one of the ten comantments or what ever say thou shant not kill or somethng and its got stories of people killing each other or something other than human. If you think the Bible is a hypocrite, then you think God is a hypocrite, because God is the livining word of the Bible...and I'd really watch out...even if you don't believe in him, that still doesn't make him not real.... Anyway, yeah, it does say 'Thou shalt not kill'. And what that simply means is that you can not have murder in your heart, and simply murder someone. Let's take me and Mr.Nasty....since he really hates me. Say he wanted me dead. He had this burning desire to kill me...and he finally does. That would be against the commandments, and if this was placed back in the early days, then he'd be severly punished by God,(now days it's up to the police force to do justice). BUT defending yourself against someone else who's trying to kill you, or someone else, and you end up killing that person, then it doesn't fall of going against the commandments. God calls you a fool if you don't protect yourself or someone else in that situation. But the 'shall not kill' means to have feelings of murder towards someone, and you carry out that plan...think of Cain and Abel for a minute. Cain was jealous of the relationship of God and Abel had,(God would bless his brother Abel because Abel didn't do his work just to benefit praise and such...he did his work for good, unselfish reasons), so Cain murdered Abel, and God put a curse upon Cain, a mark, telling of what he did. Cain tells God, that people would surely murder him now, and God tells him that they who murders him, will also be convicted also. And think of King David. This is,(I think), the best example for you Illyriaworshipper666. When David was a youngster, and he was fighting Goliath, an evil person from the Canonnite,(sp?), clan, when little ole' David was fighting him, Goliath was trying to kill David. So God gave David the strength to defend himself, and that led to the death of Goliath. Message...Its alright to kill someone, if it means you're protecting/defending yourself, or the people around you. It's not murder. It's self-defense for you, or someone else. It's not against the commandments. Next, think of when King David had one of his soldiers killed in battle. While that soldier was off fighting the wars that were happening in that period of time, David slept with that mans wife, and she got pregnant for David. When the man came home, (David ordered him back),David had the man's wife, try and sleep with her husband,(so later down the line the man would think it was his). They didn't sleep with each other. The man went back to the battles, and David ordered one of his men have it so that the man would die in battle. He did. Later, the woman gave birth to David's son, and guess what...the baby died. God punished David by taking away David's son that he conceived with that woman, because David took another man's life away. Message...Premeditated murder, or murder just to benefit your nasty needs, is wrong. It is murder, and it's against the commandments, and you'll pay later for that crime. And please note this only applys to human beings...don't try later saying what about animals and such...this is only for human beings.
|
|
|
Post by IllyriaWorshipper on Aug 7, 2004 1:17:34 GMT -5
i still say its a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Insane Troll Logic on Aug 7, 2004 1:34:11 GMT -5
OK - I just want to say something about the historical/cultural basis of the Old Testament. I won't be getting into the existence/non-existence of God debate.
If you look at the historical evolution of the Old Testament, it becomes clear that most of it was compiled from older sources. Most of it is written about events that apparently occurred hundreds or even thousands of years before the original Hebrew texts were written and compiled.
Genesis is a case in point - The origins of Genesis go back through the Babylonian creation story (which the Hebrews in Babylon adapted to accomodate their monotheiseism) and back to the Sumerian creation story before that. As the original Patriarchs of the Old Testament were apparently Sumerian (apparently Abraham was from the Sumerian citystate of Ur) the Hebrews of Babylon saw this story as part of their history. There is also a lot of Cannanite lore in there as well - and the Cannanite religion was very similar to the Sumerian/Babylonian.
I know the Hebrews had a culture and religion that goes back much futher than the Bablyonian Exile period - but that period was when a lot of texts and stories were compiled and adapted.
But stories change through time - the Sumerian/Cannanite pantheon was changed into the Babylonian pantheon, which was eventually superceded by the concept of Jehovah (The Old Testament says that the Hebrews "Did put away Baal and Ashteroth" - this is thought to have happened about 1000 BC). Even the Sumerian religion was a link in the chain, which goes back into pre-history.
So it comes as no suprise to me that the Old Testament contains many seemingly contradictory references and stories - that's what happens when religions change, adapt and mutate over thousands of years.
Make of that what you will.
(BTW - I'm not Jewish, Christian, Atheist, or religious/not religious - so some of you may find my thoughts irrelevant - And if you're a Christian whose views are not so concerned with the Old Testament, you may find them even more irrelevant! lol)
;D
|
|
|
Post by TheMasterGeek on Aug 7, 2004 9:38:44 GMT -5
Crazygolfa, back in the day, when the Bible was a hot topic in the early centuries, and when people started translating from the original 'autographs', some people decided to not follow the traditional manuscripts, and they would choose, and nit-pick stuff and place them out of order. Some stuff weren't even actual facts and yet they would place them in it. People still do that today. The King James Version is only type of Bible that is exactly like the ancient manuscripts. But that's what people did, they made their "own" versions, and placed what they would want. And I'll simply say it, those kinds were translated from the Alexandrian Texts. Even English Bibles, except the NKJV, and the original KJV, are based on that text, which included heresey and attacks the deity of Christ...it could be that was one of the texts you read, that had that malarky in it. My advise to you, ignore that crap, because you were handed one of those contradictory texts that are contradictory for one reason, and that's because some people wanted it the way that they wanted it. If I could go back in time to when they were doing that junk, ooh they'd really pay! Actually the Bible I was using was the King James version. And ITL is right that most of the Hebrew Bible was compiled in the Babylonian Exile period. Especially the first two parts of the Tanak, the Torah and Nevithium(sp.) Genesis to 2 Kings. The third part was the Kevithium, which was compiled later and that part includes the writings of the Prophets like Isaiah. The Babylonian and Hebrew creation and flood stories are very similiar, as well as the Laws of Moses and Hammurabi's code. Moses's Law and Hammurabi's code has the same writing style as well as a lot of the smae punishments. Most Biblical scholars believe Moses's law came from Hamurabi's code, either through the time spent in Exile by the Hebrews or sent down through the generations from Abraham, because he lived in Babylonian around the time of Hammurabi.
|
|