Jump to content
DerelictStudios Forums
Count von Phoib

Adam Was 60 Feet

Recommended Posts

Don't go reinventing the wheel as a square Logan. I held you in better regard than to play a switch up between all 'evangelism' and and 'evangelicalism'. You used it, just now (and months ago in a PM to me) as a modifier for what type of Christian you are. You're too good with words to be that needlessly redundant if you actually believe that the vast majority of Christians are evangelicals anyway.

...and who qualified my use of the word "evangelical"? It's got a much broader definition than the one you so subtly selected from the list of Wikipedia choices. I treat the word from its original definition, not some modern association tacked onto the word.

 

I am an evangelical Christian in the basic definition of the word. The definition derived from the Biblical word "evangel". To assume a different definition is to assume too much, and it's on you if that definition proved to be inaccurate, not on me for using the word. The Bible is the beginning and the end of my doctrine, not some church ordinances with no basis in Scripture.

 

I said I will not argue religion; I am keeping to that. If you guys want to argue my faith in my absence, go right on ahead. Let me know what you decide.

 

Icon, MehMan -- enjoy your popcorn.

 

Logan Hartke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so can you define what you are? In your own words? You wont be breaking your argument rule by answering...

 

I find it funny how people put so much stock in the bible, a work of man, as the word/will/work of god.Personally I prefer my sensory intake and own reasonings to a heavily translated and compromised text written by the kind of people we would put in straight jackets these days.Boggles the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God's a lot like anime. Awesome and all, but dear sweet fuck the fanboys are nuts. :(

You just summed up half my ideals in a single statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, archaeological evidence suggests that on average humans are in fact taller now than ever before. Part of that being natural selection and part being the fact that we have much better nutrition available to us nowadays, so we can make the most of our genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so can you define what you are? In your own words? You wont be breaking your argument rule by answering...

 

I find it funny how people put so much stock in the bible, a work of man, as the word/will/work of god.Personally I prefer my sensory intake and own reasonings to a heavily translated and compromised text written by the kind of people we would put in straight jackets these days.Boggles the mind.

I already have. You want to understand where I am coming from and what I believe? Read the Bible. Not just the New Testament, not just the Old Testament, not just the Gospels or Revelation, and certainly not just what someone else points out to you as "important" or "controversial". Read it all. I can find seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible all day long, but in its entirety, it stands the test of time and human criticism.

 

There is a degree of accuracy lost in the Bible when translated due to the human changes inflicted upon our languages. This in no way disqualifies the Bible as untrue when translated, however.

 

Have you ever heard the argument that "Anne Frank's Diary" in anything but its original Dutch is full of inaccuracies and perversion's of Anne Frank's original meaning? Certainly not.

 

The idea that the Bible evolved over time is also false when one studies Jewish history. I'd like to see someone approach a Rabbi and tell him that his Hebrew Torah is not the original inspired work of God because it's been changed over centuries. He'd know that it was as false as anyone else since it was punishable by death to change the original text when scribes copied it. The Dead Sea Scrolls do a nice job of confirming this.

 

If you are truly willing to challenge your own statements, key0p, and willing to get a little deeper into a subject that you obviously feel so strongly about, take a look at this document:

 

The Challenge of Bible Translation

 

or a slew of documents that are made freely available on the NIV:

 

About the NIV Bible Translation

 

Maybe consider the NASB if you're really worried about accuracy but don't want to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

 

 

Most of the people in my church consult numerous translations to get the most accurate understanding of the Bible, reading more literal translations such as the NASB to ensure literal accuracy up to and including such translations as The Message to try to get as much meaning from a passage as possible. Furthermore, I've not had a pastor yet that hasn't studied the Bible in its original languages.

 

As humans, we can't attain 100% accuracy in the translation of the Bible, but if we had to be perfect to go to Heaven, then there would be no hope at all. We do the best we can for the sake of God because it is by faith that we are saved.

 

Logan Hartke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you kinda go back on your word just there by threatening to be done with the thread.... and still debate? (Not that it's a bad thing to debate Key0p, futile possibly, but nothing wrong with it.)

 

I am an evangelical Christian in the basic definition of the word.  The definition derived from the Biblical word "evangel".  To assume a different definition is to assume too much, and it's on you if that definition proved to be inaccurate, not on me for using the word.  The Bible is the beginning and the end of my doctrine, not some church ordinances with no basis in Scripture.

Like a good little boyscout I took your word for it and went a snooping. Although the word 'evangelist' (I searched for 'evangel') appears a few times in the English translations, mostly referring to people, I did find one in some versions (like KJV) that came the closest to a definition.

 

2 Timothy 4:5

 

Even that's pretty vague, although not too muchso in relative terms.

 

Words themselves do not a society make, so it needs interpretation by the reader... but how do you get an added ideology from that one line is what's confusing me here.

 

This isn't poker. What do you have to lose by simply placing down your hand?

Edited by Rattuskid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Key0p wanted me to explain my belief system, that's what I did.

 

As far as "evangel" goes, I was speaking of the original Greek, the basis for the words "evangelize" and "evangelical". "Evangel" is the "good news" of the Gospel, a version of the literal Greek "euangélion" or "good news".

 

Understand?

 

Logan Hartke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"good news"

 

Understand?

Ah, that does the trick. It wasn't a Guess That Scripture thread, so you could have mentioned that earlier. This actually does make sense.

 

See, before it seemed like you claimed that Scripture was your doctrine, but you conducted yourself on the Bible's theme. I get... twitchy towards people like that.

 

My original response though still stands, because although you know your shit concerning the book, many a person who describes themself as an 'evangelical Christian' does not. Dualities and osbification seem like dangerous first steps to me in a similar vein to what happened with Islam centuries ago, and has come to bear terrible fruit in our time.

 

So yeah, sorry about busting on you like that. You just seemed very... unLogan there.

 

Oh, and Key0p you're still a P.O.S.

Edited by Rattuskid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My original response though still stands, because although you know your shit concerning the book, many a person who describes themself as an 'evangelical Christian' does not.

I never disagreed on that point. I have long agreed with the concept that, just like the only problem with Communism is Communists, the only problem with Christianity is Christians. Does that mean that you may as well lump the whole group together as just like jihadists with a different spin on things? Not on my watch.

 

Logan Hartke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logan, its still a work of man, and Ive read my share as a kid.Theres some great reading in there granted.I used to enjoy stephen king as well.

 

I know you understand that things can be interperated by different people in different ways logan, so I know you appreciate that flaws are inevitably made in translation no matter how meticulous the process.Even if they hypothetically were not, people would still take polarized interperatations of the same subject matter.But why am I explaining to you, of course you are already aware, so the question really is why the smokescreen?

 

To clear me up, when you state you are an evangellywhatever christkin, what you are saying is that you believe everythng in the bible? As literal?

 

just so you know I dont care about religion that much(other than from an anthropological viewpoint), Im happy to be a simple agnostic ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To clear me up, when you state you are an evangellywhatever christkin, what you are saying is that you believe everythng in the bible? As literal?

I do. You want to know the main reason that I do believe that? Because I have a personal relationship with the author. As a Christian, I believe that knowledge of the Bible is all well and good, but there is only so much of it that you can truly understand without prayer for wisdom and understanding. King David (described as having been "a man after God's own heart") wrote often of reading Scripture, but he used a different word when writing in Psalms: "meditate". It's not merely the act of reading letters on a page, but a combination of prayer, reading the Bible, and a commitment to daily application of its teachings.

 

You are far more confident of your understanding of a piece of work when you can go to the original author for clarification.

 

Logan Hartke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that hard. You don't want to get into spirits though. My dad and his entire family have had enough with spirits. My ma also used to sense them.

 

Again, not see. They had a lot of sense, though my grandma did see some. And my uncle. Usually you don't want to be seeing spirits. Many of them are pure nasty.

 

Yes this confirms everyone's view I'm insane.

 

But no, Logan means that he has a relationship with God, at least thats what I hope he's saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that hard. You don't want to get into spirits though. My dad and his entire family have had enough with spirits. My ma also used to sense them.

 

Again, not see. They had a lot of sense, though my grandma did see some. And my uncle. Usually you don't want to be seeing spirits. Many of them are pure nasty.

 

Yes this confirms everyone's view I'm insane.

 

But no, Logan means that he has a relationship with God, at least thats what I hope he's saying.

No, you're not really insane. Every religion does have somewhat acknowledgement of spirits and supernatural stuffs. In Christianity, you can see when the priest prays at funeral, saying something like, "May you soul rest in peace." it might have hope that the soul may have peaceful times in other world AND not wandering back in the previous world. That's what I understand from someone who told me.

 

In a way, I don't believe a soul to be reincarnated or going back to this world. There are other spirits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY, most of the time, these were souls that never moved on. Exactly.

 

Though about reincarnation...I do believe that, but in a different sense. But yes there are other spirits. No you usually don't want to meet them. Its good that they aren't on the Physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Logan takes the bible literally, perhaps you should direct that at him.He did not make it clear who he was referring to, so it begged mockery.God didnt write the bible, hell, he didnt even write the ten commandments.I find this blind faith in an historical text very strange from logan.

 

Icon, I know about spirits and whatnot, Ive had visits from various deities in my time, there are many ways for humans to hallucinate, and studying neurochemistry and various aboriginal 'entheobotanics' gives you an excellent understanding of how to achieve it.I just didnt realize logan has auditory hallucinations on que :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
most of the time, these were souls that never moved on.

I don't believe such things. Like I said, they are actually other spirits. Not really a soul. Most of the religions out there believe about a soul that didn't move on or such thing. Mine doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, Logan takes the bible literally, perhaps you should direct that at him.He did not make it clear who he was referring to, so it begged mockery.God didnt write the bible, hell, he didnt even write the ten commandments.I find this blind faith in an historical text very strange from logan.

 

Icon, I know about spirits and whatnot, Ive had visits from various deities in my time, there are many ways for humans to hallucinate, and studying neurochemistry and various aboriginal 'entheobotanics' gives you an excellent understanding of how to achieve it.I just didnt realize logan has auditory hallucinations on que :unsure:

I don't think someone, who doesn't even believe in the same God and the things which He has done, do, and will do, as another, is in any position to criticise and mock its accuracy, authenticity, or seriousness, or to ridicule a person based on his beliefs in these things because he didn't understand them. Low down? I don't know really, but that's just what I think, it sounded pretty insensitive to me, not to mention, totally not funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I regret in this type of discussions is that they always end up in mockery, ridiculization on one side and consequently, in a bitter, defensive position on the other side.

 

It could have been avoided if you start discussing these things with respect for each other. Even if you're an atheist and find strict evangelism laughable, you should always realise that religion is a valuable spiritual and moral guideline in life for a lot of people. With what arrogance are you to determine that all these people are mistaking and should be brought to the right (your) path? Then you’re no better then the radical fundamentalists who degrade every one everyone to sub-humans when they do not belong to their faith…

What pleasure is there in attempting to break other peoples believes (or non-believes)?

 

I understand Logan’s reaction and his need to specify that he doesn’t belong to the stereotype of the “wacky Christian fundamentalists”. I find nothing laughable about that, Keop….

I have respect for all sorts of religions, even if they are not mine, as long they do not want me to convert by force, be that by physical or psychological pressure.

There is nothing wrong with "fundamentalist religion" on its own, as long it doesn't serve to subdue others and achieve self rightfulness...

If people want to believe in creationism, fe, that’s their “personal world vision”. It becomes a problem however if they want schools to abandon scientific teaching, simply because it doesn’t fit with their world view.

 

 

It's not so much a matter of what banner you fly, but whether you let it wrap around your eyes while it waves.

 

Rattus, must say you’ve landed in my personal top 3 for 2006 with that quote… superb graphical wordplay… thanks !! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Godwin - how do you know its not the same god? I dont, thats part of being agnostic.Many monoethists who follow a particular brand think that everyone else follows the same god, just with a different take, so I dont see any validity to your argument whatsoever.You think the ridicule comes from a lack of understanding? Please.It comes from things such as a reasonable man like logan believing in genesis over science(bible as literal fact).

 

You want to believe in organised religion fine, I wont try to stop you, but by the same token dont expect me to take it as seriously as you do.I strongly beleive that one of the best tests of a persons faith and tolerance is in their ability to deal with mockery.Take is as insensitive, because it most likely is, I dont bother with kid gloves when talking mythology.BTW, that post you quoted, wasnt meant to be funny.Im not sorry if the use of a medical term such as 'hallucination' bothers you, I cant see what else you would call low down or think was a joke.

 

dont eat from the tree of knowledge? fuck that, gorge away.

 

@Flyby, you didnt find his reaction funny and over the top, I did, big deal, we have different tastes in humour.It wasnt his faith I was laughing at, it was his defensiveness.Same way I laughed when a banana fell on my cat and it spent the next 15 minutes growling at it waiting for its next move :lol:

Edited by key0p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where it has gotten too confrontational and I have to leave this discussion. It's no longer a statement of beliefs, it's a battle of them.

 

Logan Hartke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It comes from things such as a reasonable man like logan believing in genesis over science (bible as literal fact).

I don't think Logan ever claimed something like that...

As Phoib once put it: there is nothing reasonable about religion. Religion is about believing and that doesn't need scientific evidence.

 

However, it may indeed prove to be an increasingly heavy task for today's religious people to come to a synthesis between "the Bible" on one side and the evolutions in technology and science at the other end. Because they are inherently conflicting...

 

I think that a lot of people have a hard time to come to such a modern synthesis and fall back to either one side (fundamentalist or atheist) and as a result, deliberately ignore parts of the world that conflict with their simplified worldview.

 

Those who reject modern evolution and technological achievements are fools, but so are those who reject any form of religion as being outdated, obsolete or imaginary.

Religion is one of the elements that set us apart from being just mere mammals, living from day to day, without being able to give real purpose to life.

I can't help to observe that in regions where atheism is biggest, the loss of purpose in life is also highest. Also, social commitment and networking is a lot stronger in religious communities. If not abused, there is definitely something good to be found in religion and it is foolish to dismiss it just like that because it doesn’t hold any tangible, clear visible and immediate advantage.

 

The most important value of religion is that it gives you a backbone or framework to orient your life on; it gives a sense of purpose and places a lot of things in a specific context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×