I believe it is accepted as fact that they voted on which books to include and exclude from the bible. And while I believe there were more edits than you stated I believe it is also accepted as fact that at least some books were edited. These are the only things I claimed were facts. As to how much change occurred that is a matter of opinion and I stated it as such.
I have come to the conclusion that either people are going forward or they are going backwards. That there is no such thing as staying still. From what I have read from you is that you seem to be too intelligent of a man to just stay still and not go forward in your spiritual practice. I have also noticed that unless it is something that you are really aware of, the amount of change in a long time is hard to see. It is like aging which is not as realized until looking at a picture of yourself today and then one 10 years ago or when someone brings their child who from 10 years went from 10 to 20. I am not a fan of calling a belief right because it generally means that makes another belief wrong. Being the New Age hippie that I am, the idea of right and wrong is one of the Ego. I like to keep ego out of my spirituality as much as possible.
Point made. I was reading your reply as if you were saying that wholesale politicing was going on. If that is not what you meant then I am sorry, I misunderstood. Yes there was voting, though as I said two books which made the vote ultimately were rejected and I believe two which didn't (II Peter and James, if memory serves) which had not made the cut eventually found their way into the canon. The study of the development of the canon and how it came to be is fascinating to a theological historian like me. Unfortunately there isn't as much solid evidence as folks like me would like to have. There is anecdotal evidence of the editing but except for Luke the manuscript evidence does not support the supposition. But that falls into the "how much" category and we are agreed that is impossible to fully attest.
Good stuff. I am going to need to find a parishioner who I helped thropugh something in the past and ask them if they remember how I explained something to them and then compare it to what I say now. You have me thinking, thanks! Your last paragraph brought a wistful smile to my face!
I think you're mistaken. I'm saying that no group is more "special". You are the one saying that Jews are in fact "special". I'm saying that it is fact that what is in the bible was edited and voted on. What anybody (including myself) chooses to believe is the will of God is their own opinion.
I think everything in the bible is open to interpretation. Everything was put through the lens of the writer, who had his own point of view. It was then translated and re-translated back, all by people who put their own perspective on it. I could go on and on about biblical inconsistencies but the point is that language is an imprecise method of communication. I have spoken to legislators about laws that have been passed and how well meaning courts have applied those laws. More often than not the legislators have told me "that wasn't what we meant at all". And that's despite sections after the law that are meant to explain the legislative intent. This occurs with people living in the same time period and with similar cultural perspectives. Ohiophinphan and I spent six posts going back and forth as I explained my position on one issue until we reached an understanding. And reality is that it would still be foolish for either one of us to really believe that we have a full understanding of each other's opinion on even that one issue. So IMO the gist of the bible is love one another. Everything else is a tangle of opinions and interpretations about the how and why behind that.
That's a bit of a side-step, but I'll get to the gist of your "facts" below. It's in the Torah that Israel is to be a "nation of ministers." That statement by G-d sets Israel apart from others. Since religious Jews accept the Torah as is, then stating that it's wrong is to say that our religion is wrong. Here it is again. My religion states that the Torah was written by Moses as dictated by G-d and has not been edited. If you state that your belief that it was edited is a "fact" then you are in essence stating that Judaism is wrong.
Herein lies the difference. If you say "I think" or "my opinion is" or "I believe" such and such, that's one thing. You're entitled to your opinion. There's a difference between stating that and stating that "the fact is" such and such. I don't see how your reference to laws is applicable. No one disputes that laws passed by men are written by men. Because humans are flawed, so are their laws. G-d, as I see Him, is flawless and therefore so are his laws. That's actually the one thing that we agree on.
No, it means he doesn't believe in it. I don't believe a word of the Tirah or the Bible, doesn't mean I think you're wrong. But let's be honest here...you don't think other faiths are "wrong"?
That's a far cry from "fact." Merriam-Webster defines the word "fact" as "the quality of being actual" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact To me, that means that what he says is true and that anything to contrary is wrong. That's the difference between "fact" and "opinion." As to your other questions, I believe that my faith is correct, but I respect others' beliefs in theirs.
Oh I know what he meant, but when you start talking religion, "fact" and "truth" become a bit blurry don't they? I mean, I've seen Christians proclaim their faith as "the Truth". Isn't that the same thing as him saying "fact"?
That's exactly the reason that I take exception, someone going out of his way to say that what he believes is correct and what others believe is wrong. If you say that it's a fact that the Torah has been edited, we have an issue because my belief is that it hasn't been. Throwing it back the other way, it would be like you or I going out of our way to say that G-d has no son. That may be what we believe but to put the label of "fact" on it shows disrespect for others' beliefs.
There is one thing through all this that I think we can agree on. You Pagan and you Miamian would it seems agree with my earlier statement that there is a difference between saying "I'm right" and the seeming reverse, "therfore you are wrong". From what I have seen of this thread, all three of us would speak positively of our religious positions without making the jump others would want or assume we would make to saying "yours are wrong". While the thread has been hijacked some from its initial intention (and for whatever part I played in doing that I apologize), honestly I like this ending.
My opinion is that Judaism is your opinion. It is as valid as mine. I accept that your opinion could be right. A truly tolerant opinion would accept that my opinion could be right as well. What I stated was that the bible was edited. Most people recognize the bible as being more than just the first five books which is what I believe is the Torah. So my statement of accepted fact was accurate. I have my questions regarding the authorship of the Torah as well, but I didn't make any statements of fact regarding the Torah.
The short answer is that religion is good for your health/well being but less so if your religion is one that believes that people of other faiths will burn in hell.
Now I understand what you're trying to say. A bit of friendly advice: when you say the word "Bible" please do remember that it also includes the Torah, and you are right that the Torah comprises the first five books. When you make that kind of generalization, it includes others.
I agree that there is a difference between "I'm believe I'm right but I recognize that you may be right" and "you are wrong" but is there a difference between "you are wrong" and "I believe I'm right and I have to save you or you'll burn in hell"?
Thank you. Here's a bit of friendly advice for you: When somebody says something about the bible don't jump to the conclusion that it must refer to your section of it. When somebody says "people kill each other for everyday" I recognize that I'm included in the generalization "people" but I don't assume that he's saying that I've killed people.
Of course there is a difference. What I am not sure is who you think in this thread said the bolded? As far I can tell no one brought that up before you have. It is true there are some who make that leap but one of the things we have tried to do in this forum is NOT make that leap and for the most part we have been successful. Miamian and Pagan help me out here; within this forum haven't most folks (there have been exceptions and I was involved in one of them and got angry for it) not made the jump from "I'm right!" to "therefore you are wrong"?
This thread was about religion being good for your health. That is generally true but there is a negative correlation between health and the belief that people of other faiths will burn in hell. Now unless I'm mistaken, any religion that believes that it should attempt to "save" others is trying to save them from burning in hell because they are wrong. So I'm trying to understand how the belief that those who are wrong will burn in hell is different from the belief that those who believe differently are wrong.
Is it religion as much as being at peace with "answers", a given person finds comforting? If we are really saying that having any religion makes one healthier, then aren't we saying that every religion is true?
It wasn't so much the "answers" as the community connection and the service to others which I believe were most correlated to general well being. That is something that most religions share. But the negative aspects, the "belief in hell" and that others are wrong were negatively correlated with general well being. And BTW I do think that if more people believed in the sentiment you just expressed it would be a better world.
FTR, "answers" in the context I was using it, was meant to be an all encompassing term for the "benefits" of religion (life guidelines, doctrines to follow, fellowship, etc.) Now being someone with absolutely no religion whatsoever, I feel the notion that religion improves health to be similar to saying that the ever shrinking cell phone sizes caused newspapers to go out of business. IMO, all faith needs to have an enemy for it to be followed passionately enough that one would consider this scenario as valid. Not necessarily a personified villain either like the devil or the villains du jour, like muslims or gays. It could be the villains of pride, lust, excess, or what have you. So, I don't think you have the faith, without things like (to varying degrees) "burning in hell".
Interesting thought. It almost sounds like using the carrot vs. using the stick. I think some people will only try to help others, be good, etc. out of fear of punishment (hell). Others will be motivated by the reward side (heaven or feeling good when helping others). I don't know that I've ever seen a study of this but anecdotally I would guess that those motivated by the reward side would be generally happier.
Its typical human nature. Every religion is story based. Meaning, that it is relayed to people in a narrative format. It is how people understand their religion, it is how they relate to it. Stories have to have an antagonist. Again, that antagonist might not always be personified. Take Seinfield, it was touted as a show about nothing, but even it had plenty of villains. Everything form Newman to stupidity to human social orders. We as a people love our protagonists to either succeed or even fail against the villain. If they win, we love them because they are victors, if they lose, we love them because they are like us and they tried. Point is religion is no different. In Christianity, we have basically two types, as you mentioned, those that follow for fear and those that follow for love. Thing is, regardless of which someone falls into, both of those categories are there because of the villain. The fear side is self explanatory to what i'm saying, so I'll focus on the love side. People who are Christians for the love of Jesus, are that way because of the things he did in the face of villainies. If Jesus didn't sacrifice his life or cure the sick, etc. there'd be no Christians today, because he would have been just a talker. His message could have been the same, his words too, but without his triumphs over being poor, or Roman decadence, or even God's vengeance, he'd have been little more than a philosopher, and possibly not even remembered. Faith absolutely needs strife to take hold. It is the very foundation it is built on.
I'm not doing that, never have. Judgement is God's business, proclamation is mine. I proselytize because I believe the faith I espouse is a wat that gives peace, love, and joy. There are those out there no doubt who do feel as you have described but take care that many of us in the Christian faith (and I can only talk of that faith from first hand experiance) who would reject the straw man you have set up just as fervantly as I have!
I disagree unless what you are saying is that an internal guilt (the law of God written on the individual's heart from birth) drives people to a relationship with God? If that is what you mean then there is some validity but otherwise I reject the sense that I am some pawn in an eternal cynicism as you have described.
I think, either I wasn't clear or you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Problem is, I can't think of a different way to put it.
A more accurate way of saying, "Faith absolutely needs strife to take hold. It is the very foundation it is built on" is "Faith is greatly helped by strife to take hold in many people. It is the very foundation many people's faith is built on." Unless you are talking about the masses, then it is more that strife is a huge contributor to faith.
I don't buy that. All learning is story based. If all stories need an antagonist then anything that is learned is based on strife.
