Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the problem with discussions like this. Those opposing religion tend to misinterpret one of two clauses in the Constitution. First, there will never be an "official" religion in the U.S. This is spelled out in what is referred to as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...". This means that Congress cannot make any religion the official religion. This is also the clause that opponents of religion tend to get their knickers in a knot over when there is any mention of any term they deem religious on any government property or document. The other religious clause in the First Amendment is the Free Exercise Clause. This is the one that the new breed of militant atheists tend to overlook or forget entirely, or worse yet, misinterpret to mean freedom from religion versus the intended freedom of religion. I have no problem with anyone of any faith, or atheists or agnostics being free to worship, or to not worship as they see fit. What I do take issue with is when one school of thought tries to force their view on others. It's rather ironic that the new breed of militant atheists seem to take particular enjoyment in not only mocking people of faith, but also fail to see how their efforts for force religion out of the world is the very same thing they criticize people of faith for. Forcing their view on others.
One of the problems some folks have is - there are certain US States Constitutions which include restrictions on people who don’t believe in a supreme being:
Quote:
Arkansas
Article 19, section 1: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”
Maryland
Article 37: “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
Mississippi
Article 14, section 265: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this State.” ...
There are eight States Constitutions in all - more here:
that is because they are still a tiny minority here. once they get above 15% saturation, they start making demands that sharia law must be taken into account in the courts, this has already started in this country by the way as muslims are demanding in some states that sharia law be considered when making civil litigation decisions in some courts. in europe, there are sections where sharia law rules, though not the complete sharia law set.
No they want to decide many of their disputes on their own. This is a good thing. The Amish do it also. Its good because it then doesn't clog our courts.
If two Muslims (or two Amish) have a dispute and want to handle on their own I say go for it. If they want some dude that practices SHaria beliefs deciding property beefs or the such, great. Its what the Amish do also.
In certain cases, say murder our system steps in. You know, the Amish make women cover up and treat them in ways most don't agree with but yet we haven't had to start bogus wars over it.
One of the problems some folks have is - there are certain US States Constitutions which include restrictions on people who don’t believe in a supreme being:
There are eight States Constitutions in all - more here:
I was raised fundamentalist. And I am still Christian. However, I never liked the notion that a 2000+ year old text, interpreted by hundreds, was the inerrant and final word of God. Our understanding of everything evolves. That seemed a recipe for close-mindedness. The 9/11 attacks showed me that it is far more serious than that. If you can completely control peoples' minds, you can get them to do just about anything. I am done with fundamentalist anything, religion, politics, even science. Nothing conceived by humans is fixed and perfect.
You are uniformed about the Bible and how it has been translated, and passed on for thousands of years. All translation are from original manuscripts (Hebrew, Greek), and do not represent different interpretations, but only different translations into the modern languages. Every effort has been made in each case to preserve the essential meaning of the original; however (as in the case of translating to English, for example), some words/phrases cannot be directly translated because we do not have in English the same words. For example, in Greek, there are many words for "love," each with a different meaning (different kinds of "love") We only have one word. Therefore, it is necessary when studying the scriptures to know what word was used in the original language so as to properly understand the meaning of the passage in question. This is the goal of any good Bible Study, and it is the reason that Seminary students must learn Greek and Hebrew, if they are going to teach the Bible.
For you, I would suggest you read some of Josh McDowell's excellent books on the Bible, which explain in detail how the Bible has been translated and preserved, leaving no doubt that we have accurate translations that, as much as is humanly possible, accurately reflect the meaning of the original manuscripts.
I also suggest you examine your Faith. It sounds to me as though you have never really accepted Christ. Being "raised a fundamentalist" does not mean there has ever been a personal commitment.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat
Here is the problem with discussions like this. Those opposing religion tend to misinterpret one of two clauses in the Constitution. First, there will never be an "official" religion in the U.S. This is spelled out in what is referred to as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...". This means that Congress cannot make any religion the official religion. This is also the clause that opponents of religion tend to get their knickers in a knot over when there is any mention of any term they deem religious on any government property or document. The other religious clause in the First Amendment is the Free Exercise Clause. This is the one that the new breed of militant atheists tend to overlook or forget entirely, or worse yet, misinterpret to mean freedom from religion versus the intended freedom of religion. I have no problem with anyone of any faith, or atheists or agnostics being free to worship, or to not worship as they see fit. What I do take issue with is when one school of thought tries to force their view on others. It's rather ironic that the new breed of militant atheists seem to take particular enjoyment in not only mocking people of faith, but also fail to see how their efforts for force religion out of the world is the very same thing they criticize people of faith for. Forcing their view on others.
How are the so-called new breed of atheists forcing their views on others? If the answer is that court cases are brought forward which requires the government not to spend public funds or to display accoutrements of one religion without allowing others or those who may have no religion the same benefit, then how is this forcing their views on others?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
You are uniformed about the Bible and how it has been translated, and passed on for thousands of years. All translation are from original manuscripts (Hebrew, Greek), and do not represent different interpretations, but only different translations into the modern languages. Every effort has been made in each case to preserve the essential meaning of the original; however (as in the case of translating to English, for example), some words/phrases cannot be directly translated because we do not have in English the same words. For example, in Greek, there are many words for "love," each with a different meaning (different kinds of "love") We only have one word. Therefore, it is necessary when studying the scriptures to know what word was used in the original language so as to properly understand the meaning of the passage in question. This is the goal of any good Bible Study, and it is the reason that Seminary students must learn Greek and Hebrew, if they are going to teach the Bible.
For you, I would suggest you read some of Josh McDowell's excellent books on the Bible, which explain in detail how the Bible has been translated and preserved, leaving no doubt that we have accurate translations that, as much as is humanly possible, accurately reflect the meaning of the original manuscripts.
I also suggest you examine your Faith. It sounds to me as though you have never really accepted Christ. Being "raised a fundamentalist" does not mean there has ever been a personal commitment.
Please advise how you would translate the word "almah"?
You are uniformed about the Bible and how it has been translated, and passed on for thousands of years. All translation are from original manuscripts (Hebrew, Greek), and do not represent different interpretations, but only different translations into the modern languages. Every effort has been made in each case to preserve the essential meaning of the original; however (as in the case of translating to English, for example), some words/phrases cannot be directly translated because we do not have in English the same words. For example, in Greek, there are many words for "love," each with a different meaning (different kinds of "love") We only have one word. Therefore, it is necessary when studying the scriptures to know what word was used in the original language so as to properly understand the meaning of the passage in question. This is the goal of any good Bible Study, and it is the reason that Seminary students must learn Greek and Hebrew, if they are going to teach the Bible.
For you, I would suggest you read some of Josh McDowell's excellent books on the Bible, which explain in detail how the Bible has been translated and preserved, leaving no doubt that we have accurate translations that, as much as is humanly possible, accurately reflect the meaning of the original manuscripts.
I also suggest you examine your Faith. It sounds to me as though you have never really accepted Christ. Being "raised a fundamentalist" does not mean there has ever been a personal commitment.
" . . amongst the 'three-brained beings' (humans) of the planet Earth. Beelzebub covers the entire history of the strange behaviors and customs of these beings."
"Ordinary text indicates passages that are present in both the original and revised versions. Struck out text indicates passages that were in the original but not in the revision. Underlined text indicates passages that are in the revision but not in the original. Page numbers refer to the 1999 reprint of the 1950 version."
Page 242:
"So, my boy, when, as I have already told you, those three-centered beings there among the second and third generation of the contemporaries of Saint Buddha in whose psyche, already from the time of the loss of Atlantis, that peculiarity had been fixed, called the 'organic-psychic need to wiseacre,' began-unfortunately for . . ."
Page 240:
"Little by little they so changed these indications and counsels of His that if their Saintly Author Himself should chance to appear there and for some reason or other should wish to make Himself acquainted with them, He would not be able even to suspect that these indications and counsels were made by Him Himself.
Page 750: (note that the original is hyphenated into one word)
'The-line-of-the-flow-of-forces-constantly-deflecting-according-to-law-and-uniting-again-at-its-ends.'
"The name Beelzebub is a derogatory Hebrew renaming of the pre-Judaic Canaanite god Baal, meaning literally "Lord House-fly" (Baal-zevuv) (monotheistic Jewish reference to Baal was almost certainly pejorative, and grew to be used among other terms for Satan. The name later appears as the name of a demon or devil, often interchanged with Beelzebul), while the name Hassein has the same linguistic root with Husayn (Arabic: حسین). Sigmund Freud theorized Judaism and Christianity as expressing a relationship between father (Judaism) and son (Christianity). In this light, Gurdjieff's choice of grandfather and grandson suggests a pre-Judaic and post-Christian relationship."
Please advise how you would translate the word "almah"?
Nice try. I'm not taking the bait.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
