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.
Side note...feel free to decline to answer, or I'll ask in a new thread...but I'm curious why you don't use the Joseph Smith translation?
The main reason was that Joseph Smith was still working on it at the time of his martyrdom and was never able to publish it. When the members of the Church were preparing to migrate west, Brigham Young (then President of the Church) requested Joseph's manuscript from his widow. She refused to turn it over to him and it became the official property of what is now called The Community of Christ. For many years, they held the exclusive copyright.
For practical purposes, using the Joseph Smith translation would be a huge stumbling block for potential converts, much as the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation is for people outside of their denomination. While we believe Joseph made some important corrections, the KJV has always been considered a very adequate translation. Portions of the JST have been canonized in the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew, both of which are part of the Pearl of Great Price, but for all intents and purposes, we continue to use the KJV.
There are different versions, some paraphrases but when I say different versions, I mean like:
They don't all have different verses, they just put it in different styles. I have quite a few, but I like the King James. The only ones that I can think of that have really different bibles are the New World translations that the Mormons use. Those bibles change verses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
You must have Mormons confused with someone else. We use the King James Version, almost exclusively.
"He made that rule at the beginning of the universe that it "becomes" our "natural state somehow deserving of eternal torture/torment" by our very distant ancestor eating some fruit off some tree in a garden!"
Reading the above in blue cause me to think you believe in eternal torture/torment.
I'm so glad you see the ridiculousness of eternal torture.
When I wrote that, my point was to show how this modern theology doesn't make any logical or moral sense in its popular form. I wasn't saying it because I necessarily agree with that statement, I was just laying out modern conservative Christian theology in a "big picture" form to show its problems.
I've posted similar argumentation before on the forum many times and it amazes me how still none of these conservative Christians can respond to this set of argumentation. Its simply a matter of using their own theological model against them. The only response I ever got besides "your wrong!" (without telling me why or how my layout was different from their theology) was "go study Reformed theology and it will all make sense." When I asked them what parts of it "explain it," they couldn't give me any specifics. Its like saying "go to seminary for 4 years and it will all become clear!" lol
Agreed that some do this, but you said ALL and that is simply not true. There are churches and believers that believe all parts of the Bible.
This is the same as saying all atheists are condescending, angry, self righteous antagonists that are bitter about bad life circumstances and choose to turn their back on God and pretend He doesn't exist.
There are these types in these forums as well and it would be disingenuous to say all atheists are like this.
Same thing with your broad brush.
I can almost guarantee that if I challenge any Christian on what the Bible says, they will eventually tell me that "it really doesn't mean that", or "I believe that's only a metaphor", or "Jesus did away with the Old Law". They'll pick and choose what verses to believe, because they cannot believe diametrically opposed verses simultaneously.
When I wrote that, my point was to show how this modern theology doesn't make any logical or moral sense in its popular form. I wasn't saying it because I necessarily agree with that statement, I was just laying out modern conservative Christian theology in a "big picture" form to show its problems.
I've posted similar argumentation before on the forum many times and it amazes me how still none of these conservative Christians can respond to this set of argumentation. Its simply a matter of using their own theological model against them. The only response I ever got besides "your wrong!" (without telling me why or how my layout was different from their theology) was "go study Reformed theology and it will all make sense." When I asked them what parts of it "explain it," they couldn't give me any specifics. Its like saying "go to seminary for 4 years and it will all become clear!" lol
Sure, go to seminary for 4 years and you will be just as enlightened as the teachers and students. LOL!
Meh. I don't bother with the logical inconsistencies of religion. I can't engage with it to that level, simply because there is no empirical proof of any divine influence. Just because it's written in the Bible does not mean it's the word of a supernatural being.
Debating the existence of a god, to me is like debating the existence of hobbits or unicorns. I can't even get up to the level of discussing whether Christianity makes moral sense.
The main reason was that Joseph Smith was still working on it at the time of his martyrdom and was never able to publish it. When the members of the Church were preparing to migrate west, Brigham Young (then President of the Church) requested Joseph's manuscript from his widow. She refused to turn it over to him and it became the official property of what is now called The Community of Christ. For many years, they held the exclusive copyright.
For practical purposes, using the Joseph Smith translation would be a huge stumbling block for potential converts, much as the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation is for people outside of their denomination. While we believe Joseph made some important corrections, the KJV has always been considered a very adequate translation. Portions of the JST have been canonized in the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew, both of which are part of the Pearl of Great Price, but for all intents and purposes, we continue to use the KJV.
Mike, if your bibles have "eternal torment" or "everlasting torment" then such a poor translation turns God from a loving God to an aberration of a god far worse than the gods of the heathens.
God tortures no human in fire. He denounced the Jews for burning their children in the valley of Tophet. He told them such a horrible thing never came upon His heart to do this.
When the Israelites went into Egypt for 400+ years and held as slaves they were in a "furnace of fire." Was Egypt a literal furnace? Was Egypt literally filled with fire for 400+ years? Were the Israelites and Egyptians getting burned? In the New Testament Jesus talks about the furnace of fire once again. Is it Hell? No. It is a literal furnace? No. Is there literally fire in it? No. It just stands metaphorically for "fiery trials." Even today we say so and so was tried by fire. Was he literally? No.
In Matthew 25:31-46 the fire and the chastening is not a literal fire.
The God/god of ChristenDUMB is very much like the scenario in my OP. And Christians put on a front that they really love this horrid being OR ELSE they fear they will share a similar fate.
You wouldn't believe how many times Christians have told me "Well I can do whatever I want if God is going to save everyone" and say it very smugly. In other words, the ONLY reason they love this horrid being and don't ever want to upset him is they fear He will eternally torture them in literal fire. Their love and obedience is hypocritical. That's like a wife who tells her abusive husband who has threatened her with a knife and a gun that she loves him just so he won't kill her or the kids.
The last paragraph I get. I've run into these Christians as well and prefer to avoid them. I have a good friend that is the sweetest lady around and she is an atheist. We just don't talk religion and respect each other's beliefs. But, as I've said time and again, it's not all Christians that are like this. Just as not all atheists are nice people.
I can almost guarantee that if I challenge any Christian on what the Bible says, they will eventually tell me that "it really doesn't mean that", or "I believe that's only a metaphor", or "Jesus did away with the Old Law". They'll pick and choose what verses to believe, because they cannot believe diametrically opposed verses simultaneously.
I can't help it if you don't understand the Bible or the purpose of the law vs. the new covenant.
By the way, isn't it about time for you to trot out your photo of the starving African children to prove how bad God is?
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.
Its like saying "go to seminary for 4 years and it will all become clear!" lol
