God vs. Religion

[Angel]

Angel for provided the link of your Bible.

No, that's not what I'm reading, I posted a link of what Cheri is reading from.

 

[Hwy99]

PuyoPiyo this is a very interesting topic. Have you read the
part in Revelations where Christ writes "letters" to the 7
churches? Each of the churches had started out on the
right track and gone astray. Some of them he spoke to
very harshly. It is very interesting to see where Jesus
thought they had gotten of track.

Nope, I haven't read those.. Isn't it strange that Jesus never actually create a "religion"?

 

[Angel]

*sigh* again, trying put YOUR word in my mouth with whole of misunderstanding! Plus re-read your own signature!

First of all, re-read my post, I was NOT talking about the languages!

If you're not talking about the language itself then why did you say that you prefer to read both untranslated and translated Bible for more understanding? cause untranslated is written in ancient or original language.

 

[Hwy99]

If you're not talking about the language itself then why did you say that you prefer to read both untranslated and translated Bible for more understanding? cause untranslated is written in ancient or original language.

The word "translate" can be between the same language, note the difference between the Old English, Today English, Britian English, American English, etc etc etc.

Do you know what NRsV is? That bible was translated from the KJV bible into a easier to read English, and was published in year of 1611, accord to that NRsV bible page vii, also it seems like this bible have been revision probably 3 times.

What is the difference between those is that KJV only translated into English once from a bible in different language at a very long time ago.











Angel, Cheri, Secretblend, I am done explaining. I think explaining the same thing three times are enough already, and REMEMBER, I don't talk about the language at all. If you still don't understand about something, just ask.

 

[Secretblend]

response

The word "translate" can be between the same language, note the difference between the Old English, Today English, Britian English, American English, etc etc etc.

Do you know what NRsV is? That bible was translated from the KJV bible into a easier to read English, and was published in year of 1611, accord to that NRsV bible page vii, also it seems like this bible have been revision probably 3 times.

What is the difference between those is that KJV only translated into English once from a bible in different language at a very long time ago.


Angel, Cheri, Secretblend, I am done explaining. I think explaining the same thing three times are enough already, and REMEMBER, I don't talk about the language at all. If you still don't understand about something, just ask.

You haven''t explain enough to make it clear. KJV is a translated version. Anything that is updated from KJV is still translated. That is the point we are trying to make.


If you are saying that you are comparing KJV with NRSV. You are comparing two translated version. One is indeed from 1611 and other is much more modern. However, both are still translated from original language.

 

[fredfam1]

Nope, I haven't read those.. Isn't it strange that Jesus never actually create a "religion"?

A common theme through out the Bible is that of
man rejecting an individual relationship with God
and needing to form comities and groups that end
up just getting in the way of God's will. Ask any
Church Board. But they will have to form a comitie
first, to find out who is going to pay for it, how
many people it offends, and weather the churchs
biggest financial contributors would approve. The
Bible points out the wrong ways to do things as
well as correct ways. But many people ignore the
whole Bible and take many parts out of context.
It is sad but true.

 

[Hwy99]

A common theme through out the Bible is that of
man rejecting an individual relationship with God
and needing to form comities and groups that end
up just getting in the way of God's will. Ask any
Church Board. But they will have to form a comitie
first, to find out who is going to pay for it, how
many people it offends, and weather the churchs
biggest financial contributors would approve. The
Bible points out the wrong ways to do things as
well as correct ways. But many people ignore the
whole Bible and take many parts out of context.
It is sad but true.

Ohh yeah I have to agree with you, it kinda bothers me that some people only pick one sentence out of the bible and stating that it is exactly what the bible says while they don't show whole the story which would help the people understand more...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Secretblend and Reba, you still not get my point.

Reba, I can see that you ignored my response post to Cheri´s post to correct my grammar. Roman´s relgious leader, not Roman religious leader and still twist my post here. *sigh*

Secretblend, for brought British history up to my attention.

Good, let me share the example about British empire in India. There´re bad and good Indians. Some Indians decided to join British soliders to kill innoncent Indians which belongs to British authorities or British`s soliders, no matter what kind of race they have. Should I add British, African, Indians,...... soliders... It make no sense to me... Poor & slave Indians who were living under British´s rule/law, do not want to work for them like what Jesus and his followers did.

Should you consider me as "Scottish or British Liebling" work for US Government...? Scottish Liebling live in Germany and have German husband and German boys... ? It makes no sense to me. We are human being like everyone... no matter what and which races we have.

There´s US soldiers who have many different races like Chinese, Hawaiians, Africans, white, etc. Should we name them "chinese", African, .... Army or solider? No, we consider them as US Army, not fingerpoint to their race BECAUSE they decided to join and work for US Government. They do not named us as British, Germans, Polish, CZ, go on.... employees but consider us as Local National employees as the same as we consider them as US Army or US Clivians, no matter which races they and we have because they and we work for US Government.

Relgious leaders who choose to work for Rome and living under Roman´s law/rules then consider them Roman´s Relgious leaders, no matter which race they have. If they don´t want to do anything with Rome then follow Jesus. Relgious leaders would not want do that ... why? because they prefer to live at luxury at Rome... money... greedy... and don´t care who they really are...

I consider them as human being like everyone, not see in what kind of race they have... no matter what... all what they choose to work for different countries´s authorties and obey their law/rules.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Just curious? Did you mean to say, "Hypocritical games" or did
you mean, "Hypothetical"? There is also another English phrase
that is, "Devils advocate", which means, "just for the sake of
the argument" or "not that I agree with this position but what if"..
Is one of these what you meant?

Yes, I should say "what if"...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

No, that's not what I'm reading, I posted a link of what Cheri is reading from.

Sorry, I thought you and Cheri read the same Bible... Okay, I got it.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

It has nothing to do with "belief". The Romans were Romans, and the Jews were Jews. Those are the facts of history. Why should you be allowed to change history? Just because you call the religious leaders of the Jews "Roman" doesn't magically change them into Romans.

See? You obessed their race and twisted my post.

I said Roman´s Relgious leaders. Got it?

If you wanted to call the French people Germans would that change them? Of course not. If you wanted to call dogs cats would that change them? Of course not. So why would you call Jews Romans? There is no point to that other than to try to confuse the issue.

I never call Jews Romans but Roman´s Relgious leaders because they choose to live under Roman´s law.

US soliders have different races. They are human being. We consider them as US Army because they choose to work for US Government.

I'm not attacking your "beliefs". You surely don't believe that the Jewish religious leaders were actually Romans.

It has nothing do with believe but the fact is Jewish law doesn´t exist in Rome´s time. Jesus killed by Roman authorities period, no matter which races they have.

You can post whatever links you want; it doesn't matter if I want to see them. If you think they have value, go ahead a post them.

They will see in you as a Racist for point which race they have. I see in them as human being who choose to work for other country with their own law/rules .

Calling the Jewish religious leaders "Roman" is not respect for their people. It's very offensive. The Jews hated their Roman governors, and considered them dirty. The Jews didn't want to touch the Roman palace, and the Jews would not let the Romans touch the Jewish Temple. Why on earth would you think it less offensive to call a Jew a Roman?

Excuse me, I never called Jewish relgious leaders Roman. I correct my grammar toward Cheri´s post at Cheri´s thread that Roman´s religious leaders, not Roman relgious leaders.

Excuse me, if "Jewish" Relgious leaders hated Roman Governors, etc but why they choose to work for them then instead of go with Jesus like jesus´s followers did? If they decided for Jesus and his people then they are true Jewish but they doesn´t.

It´s Relgious leaders who urged casear to kill Jesus in first place. Casear and the governors disagreed with Relgious leaders for want to see Jesus dead. Relgious Leaders made their successful to have them agreed with them for sentenced Jesus to death. Why hate? It makes no sense to me... Relgious leaders likes to live at luxury with money.... than follow Jesus... :roll: Should we consider them Jewish Relgious leaders when they decided for Rome, not follow Jesus? No... I consider Relgious leaders as Roman´s Relgious leaders. I do not see the excuse to blame Jews for kill Jesus.. We should blame Roman authorities for sentenced Jesus to death, not Jews because thereré no Jew´s law in Rome time.

I had the feeling thru your posts that you denied that Jesus killed by Roman authorities.

Where is your respect for historical accuracy?

What is with that respect for historical accuarcy when I see different as you. I see in them as human being, not fingerpoint their races. I open my mind to see both sides to the truth... You are the one who refused to see the truth that jew law/rules was not existed in Rome´s time - the link where I provided in other thread. Relgious leaders can´t sentenced Jesus to death without Roman´s permission. Got it? Why blame Jewish for?

Why should Jews be upset with me? I respect and defend them. I think it's disgusting to call them other names, like "Roman". I honor the Jews and see no reason to call them other names.

You defend Jews? I do not see anything here that you defend Jews. I showed you several links about Jews history at Rome´s time but you choose to ignore it. You choose to point your finger to which race relgious leaders have. I choose to point my finger to relgious leaders who work for Rome as Roman´s reglious leader.

Which one of Alex's rules says we aren't allowed to call Jews "Jews"?

Racist - because you fingerpointed Jewish and accused Jews for kill Jesus which is not true - it´s Roman authorities who killed Jesus, no matter which races they have.

 

[Secretblend]

They did not choose to work for Roman government. They were conqured by Romans and were under Roman's rule. They had to live according to Roman's law. It was not by choice. That is why some of the Jewish people tried to revolt against Romans. The religion leaders were not working for Roman government. They were supported by their own people which is the Jews. The leaders would have loved for the Roman to leave so they can be able to rule over their people. That's why they didn't kill Jesus themselve because Roman's law said that they were not allowed. That's why the went to the Roman's leader so they could get Roman leaders to Kill Jesus for them and were successful at that.

 

[Rio]

I'm not going to be sucked into this again. We went round and round about this topic before (probably one of the reasons the Religion forum was closed in the first place).

I'll make my statement but I'm not going to argue. No one is ever convinced by arguing. If anyone wants to know all the facts and details, they can read the original posts (no reruns here, ha).

The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments are plenarily and verbally-inspired by God without any admixture of error in truth; that the Bible is reliable in science, history and every other matter it discusses; and that the Bible is the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Either a person accepts it by faith or doesn't accept it. No one can force someone to believe. If a person's heart and mind are humble and open, he or she can believe. If a person's heart and mind are hardened (thru pride, fear, or bitterness) and closed then he or she probably won't believe. That's between the individual and God. People can present the Gospel but only the Holy Spirit can convict the heart, and only the individual can accept or reject.

I agree with your statement. I had to define religion before I can answer here. A person accepts God in their lives as a personal Lord and Savior. That's when you start to attend a church and get a spiritual counselor to pray with you and answer any questions you might have. These individuals are New Believer (babies in Christ). Later, as you grow and mature in the faith through bible studies and church.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

The topic GOD vs. Religions sound pretty much like GOD and science. Scientists don't know how life got started, despite 50 years of laboratory research, because living matter, even single-celled forms, has been found to be extremely complex. Our entire society is divided over the Theory of Evolution. This controversy has entered our schools, religious teachings and politics. Unless you haven't noticed, faith in God is currently under attack in this country by secular scientists and secularists.

So, between God versus religion. Not everything that is religious is God inspired. Who created religion, God or man? Religion is boring, but God is fun! Religion is static and predictable. God on the other hand is spontaneous and supernatural. Religion is full of rules and is not cool. God is liberating and enjoyable. Religion hinders your relationship with your Creator. An intimate relationship with God will expose the dead trappings of religion for what it is.

 

[jillio]

number one! Who cares what the Jews think! The truth is the truth. There is no changing that..

Number 2 , Roman empire covered where the Jews lived which is present day Isreal and beyond.

Since you said that you are from England. I'll use your history to help you understand..

Please correct me if I am wrong..

Did the British empire cover Africa, China, India and other places at one time?

Were the poeple of other countries) allowed to worship how ever they believed?

What law did they follow while under British rule?

If there was two different laws ( their own law) and Britsh Law are in conflict, Who would be one in authority?

Same goes for Roman and Jews, Roman conqured all the lands and including Isreal. Roman authorities allowed the Jews to follow their traditions and their beliefs with exception of executing their people. The Jews leaders wanted Jesus crucified but the Romans had to do that since it was the Roman's Law. So the Jewish leaders went and demanded the Roman leader of that area which is the Pilate (not Caesar) (I'll explain the different in a moment) and Pilate at the end allowed the Jewish leaders to get what they wanted and crucified Jesus for them.

Back to Pilate and Caesar I am from America so I will not claim to totally understand your government but I think I understand enough that i'm willing to explain..

Consider your country empire of the past..

Caesar would be the King of Empire..

Pilate would be the governor of a certain area.

I hope this clears things up..

Now there's that tolerant Christian attitude for you!

 

[Secretblend]

Now there's that tolerant Christian attitude for you!

Would you please clarify that? I don't see the relation.

 

[XBGMER]

Secretblend, for brought British history up to my attention.

Good, let me share the example about British empire in India. There´re bad and good Indians. Some Indians decided to join British soliders to kill innoncent Indians which belongs to British authorities or British`s soliders, no matter what kind of race they have. Should I add British, African, Indians,...... soliders... It make no sense to me... Poor & slave Indians who were living under British´s rule/law, do not want to work for them like what Jesus and his followers did.

liebling, I am nothing on other side or your side. but your an excellent explain post and point! Like American natives were joined US soliders to kill natives who opposed the US law and rule. In Mexico, mexicans indians joined Spain's rule and kill another mexican natives and sold females and slaves to Spariads of Spain that what they worked for. History's record is repeat itself. In Africa, Roman, Geek invaded land, black people who followed their rules and law. they ended up to allied the roman/ geekto kill blacks and sold females and childern to roman/geek like today. nothing changes. Exactly example like OBama who running for president, he follow the white culture, law, etc than his own.

 

[SxyPorkie]

OH boy... endless debate.. never resolved at all...

 

[Angel]

Now there's that tolerant Christian attitude for you!

huh? ..

 

[christlovedeaf]

Puy, you are correct, Jesus didnt create religion. Men does. Religion is useless. But relationship affect everything. It is sticky how to look at "religion". Salvation is God's idea and religion is man's idea.