How Many Know the 2nd verse of the Star Spangled Banner? - Page 5

[quote=Skippymjp;2888769] What do you mean beg the questions. I only asked you what God do you serve. I have told you the one I serve. You have yet to answer.

Have you read the King James Version of the Bible, the Scofield version and the others I named. I told you what they all teach, that there is one God and his son is Jesus. They are all accepted versions of the Bible in Christianity. I want you to know once and for all, I am not examining my faith. I am not uncomfortable with my faith. I am a Christian and I am happy with that. The only reason I keep anwering you is because you keep saying things that are not true, ie like I am uncomfortable with my faith. I tell you over and over again that I am comfortable. I wonder about you though because you have yet to say what faith you follow, what God you believe in, or if you believe in one. I believe that Jesus died for my sins and when I die I will go to Heaven. Are you just going to die and be put in the ground and that is the end of you. What do you believe is going to happen to you when you die. What is your faith Mike, What do you believe. Do you even know what you believe. If you do and you are comfortable with it then why won't you say what you believe.

[quote=blueyedgirl5946;2888844] By "begging the question" I mean that you talk around it without answering it. I know, again, that there are numerous versions of the Bible. And I know that people feel they are all acceptable. But they ARE all different, that's WHY there are different versions. So, of all these different versions, which one does Jesus say is the correct one? Or is the book of Mormon right, as they are the last ones to have claimed to have seen him? Or are the Jews right, and nothing has changed since the Exodus?

Deism isn't a belief, it's a conclusion. A conclusion of thought that the Universe is just too complex to have "just happened", but that the revealed Gods of all the different religions simply display too many imperfections to have been the creator.

All these versions were collected and translated after our most recent information from Jesus, so we don't have access to his opinion on the subject.

Correctness of any version rests on at least two things...the authority of the original texts (i.e. whether they were at some point recorded or dictated by people who knew what they claimed to know), and accuracy of the translation. Authority of the text is basically a moot point in comparing translations of the works accepted as sacred by most Christian denominations because they are the same text. Accuracy of the translation can be inferred from the translation's intent to be relatively close to word-for-word, from the scholarly credentials of and attempt to eliminate or balance doctrinal bias among the translation team, and from works written after the translation is published that examine or critique issues of translation present in the published text. Or you can go all-out, learn Greek and Hebrew, and read it in the original languages.

Given the diversity of translators, one reasonable rule to establish accuracy of translation that is accessible to a layman is that if half a dozen translations agree on something in a given verse or chapter, they probably do represent the meaning of the original text.

But anyway, there is no one right translation. Some translations are meant for hardcore study, so they stick to contextual meanings of words and give options when there's ambiguity. Other translations are meant for reading aloud, so they take a few liberties with phrasing to make it sound good, or for evangelism, so they use deliberately more "hip" modern language...I could go on, but you get the idea. All this also dodges the legitimate questions of authorial intent in those original texts which aren't obviously fairly simple narrative, but those questions are also basically the same in any translation.

(In case you were wondering, I was raised Baptist to the extent I was raised anything, but my dad is agnostic which is probably why I tend toward a historical/analytical approach in explaining and discussing issues of religion.)

Joseph Smith Jr. claimed to have have contact in the 1830's. Would that not be more recent that most of the translations?

But no contemporary texts exist. I'd love to do that, but there's nothing to read. The oldest traces of the Old Testament are only around 2000 years old, and the oldest fragments of the New Testament are from over a century after the "fact". From decades to centuries passed between the time the events were supposed to have taken place till writings about them appeared. Little white lies have turned into legends in less time than that.

But translation from one language to the other aside, why do different denominations require different versions (altered) of the bible? Why is it that when creating a "Protestant Bible" from the "Catholic Bible", huge chunks, entire books of the bible, were thrown out like last Saturday's shopping list? If the bible is the "undiluted word of God", why did they simply throw away so much of it? Is "basically the same" good enough, or is it similar to "Let's Make a Deal", where you hope the denominational door you choose is the right one?

I was guessing it was something similar. Many of the devoutly religions just aren't comfortable putting that much though into it. They'd just rather take it at face value and not ask any questions.

Oh my...well, if the United States is a "Christian Nation", then I would imagine that this little ditty hangs around everyone's neck.

It would appear that a major leading Christian Organization in the US, even after trying to distance themselves from Uganda's "Kill all the gays" bill...have been spending money hand over fist lobbying Washington to try to derail a US resolution condemning that bill.

Family Research Council lobbied against resolution condemning Uganda anti-homosexuality law

So the religious leaders of our "Christian Nation" want same to support the execution of gays for being gay.

Would being a "Christian Nation" mean that this would become acceptable behavior?

More than one year after 13-year-old Tyler McMillan's death, Brice and Sandra McMillan were sentenced to prison Monday in Edgecombe County Superior Court.

One notable result of having a "Christian Nation" is, that the majority of inmates in our vastly abundant prison population are Christians. Imagine that.

More prison inmates say they're Baptist Than any other religion

Christian Nation or a Nation founded in Judeo–Christian Principles

The Media is good to dig up anything that is anti-Christian - that's easy enough, and you know it, Mike

How about listing the good things that has been done in the name of Christianity, - Mother Theresa comes to mind, and she's just one strong example of Christianity in its best form.

or

how about the support of Israel - the Christians have long been staunch supporters of Israel and her right to exist

Mother Theresa is an excellent example...her entire time of service helping the poor of Calcutta was spent with her in deep introspection, noting from almost day 1 an absence of any God, and doing what she did simply for love of people.

And far, far fewer Christians support Israel for religious reasons than you might think. Christian Zionism isn't as widespread as Christian Zionists would like to think. In fact, there are quite a few US Christian churches and organizations that are actively critical of it. That's a very incorrect blanket statement. Which is another point. How can the US be a Christian Nation if Christianity can't even get on the same page about Israel?

Now, political support for Israel in the US is very widespread, but it is just that...purely political. One Nation for another.

After I thought about this for a bit, I had to come back and address it just a bit. Are you suggesting that the media simply reporting the actual actions and statements, actually made by Christians, is "anti-Christian"?

nope

interesting take, though -


I'm saying that there are those in the media that are anti-Christian, and if/when a negative event occurs by a Christian, or Christian organization, they seem to be more quick to point out the damaging event.

This article is talking about the prison population in Austin, Texas only.

[quote=Skippymjp;2888848] So then who is the creator according to the Deists or whatever they call themselves?

And how is that different from those that point out damaging events by Muslims, or Hispanics, or political parties, etc? Why should there be any expectation for them to be treated differently?

Ok, and you're suggesting...what? That Texas is an anomaly, freakish; that's it's population isn't the least bit representative of the US?

"The" Creator. Why would humans try to limit it by identifying it as a "who", or insisting that it have a name? "Who" and names are for people (or gods, when there are other gods around), and they simply are used to differentiate them from other people. The Creator, being unique, isn't a "who", and has no need of a name.

Well, if you survey any large group that's not defined by a particular religion but drawn from the population of the South, you are going to come up with a disproportionate number of Baptists...I could've predicted that from a drive around town or a quick flip through the yellow pages.

Very true. The demographics of people in prison is very heavily affected by the population center the prison serves.

So, if 70'ish % of the US is one flavor of Christian or another, then that would mean that a near same number of prison inmates are one flavor of Christian or another.

If true...a new high in creepiness.

Alleged son of Legion's priest-founder sues order

This seems very out of step with what I've been told so far.

Presbyterian report condemns Israeli policies in Palestinian territories