At the invitation of Professor Robert, I'm starting a new thread.

Dr Bob, you are continually trying to draw clear distinctions between Catholicism and other (especially Christian) religions. I grant that Catholics are (a little) different, but, as they still fundamentally believe in the magic, invisible daddy in the sky, there is really NO difference.

Two points: The Bible (whether or not you take it literally) is the foundation of your (and all Christian) religions. A cursory examination of the Bible reveals a SMALL handful of usable tenets along with pages and chapters FULL of utter nonsense. The fact that any religion would base itself upon such a holey book, makes that religion as creditable as Joseph's golden tablets from God which he, unfortunately, misplaced.

God: I will be heartily disagreed with here, but I find the idea of God to be completely understandable. Here we have, at the dawn of civilization, various groups of totally ignorant people trying to put words, meanings, and causes to all manner of things which they couldn't possible understand. Combine this with a clever but ruthless set who have come to realize that, if they ascribed words, meanings, and causes to the world around them, people would actually BELIEVE them (as they no other source of information). These priests could and did use this power to govern the people - insisting that everyone in the tribe bow before them.

Then came the age of knowledge. We could start to actually understand all these things that the priests had, up till then, kept to themselves. As the power base for all civilized people rested with these priests, they were (and, of course, still are) wildly defensive of their position.

There is, however, NO CONCEIVABLE REASON for any educated person to believe in the supernatural - aside from these historic pressures.,

Views: 1582

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm sorry, was there a question in there?  Oh, about the translation of sanctus spiritus.  Yes, the English translation was "Holy Ghost" for a while.  I have no idea why.  After Vatican II the Church paid more attention to and devoted more time to translations into the vernacular.  It was then that it changed to "Holy Spirit", which is to my mind a better translation, since "ghost" in modern English refers to those spectres that haunt old buildings in odd "reality" shows with poor camera work.

I've always been amused by the retention of archaic English words in the Bible. "The Compilers" of the Bible are quite happy to change Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit, but they retain, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - as if God speaks in Middle English.

A bit off the Catholicism wagon for a sec, but some of the modern English versions are a crack up from time to time. A couple of days ago the forum conversations had drawn me back to Leviticus 18:22, and I started going through different version on a whim:

Good News Translation:
"No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."

New International Reader's:
"Do not have sex with a man as you would have sex with a woman. I hate that."

Sometimes it just loses all its charm that way, and "I hate that" is pretty bold translation, imo.

When it comes to 'Thou shalt not kill', however, the archaic pronoun and verb aren't such a big concern, while the word 'kill' is worth consideration. Some people tell me it means 'kill', and some clarify it is 'murder'. I've never spoken with a suitable scholar for clarification because it is ultimately unimportant to me in my life, but for those trying to hold true to the ten commandments, you can see how it's a pretty significant distinction.

"When it comes to 'Thou shalt not kill', however, the archaic pronoun and verb aren't such a big concern"

I'm not concerned - just amused that, apparently God carved Middle English onto Moses' tablets. What other explanation is there for not moving to "You must not kill" when other, less obvious changes are made to the Word of God. Does anyone but God speak in Middle English?

Actually, that's a good point. I retract my earlier position.

I can understand attempts to preserve older iterations against further interpretations of interpretations, but if one was really going to address the issue, then they might as well start anew from the most authentic source they can find and render the whole thing in the most accurate contemporary terms.

I guess it's mostly just for effect. Kind of like how Brad Pitt dons a fake British accent to play Achilles. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but it somehow seems fitting.

Didn't you know that all the baddies in American films have an English accent?  It's how you can tell that they are the baddies :)

What's entertaining is that we carry forward bigotry with the varied accents and dialects, yet have almost no knowledge of their backgrounds or the fact that there seem to be more accents in England than there are people.

That and Vincent Price.

Well, now we're touching on the cultural contributions of my homeland:

as if God speaks in Middle English.

That dialect was already a bit archaic when the KJV was translated; it was deliberately chosen because it sounded more grandiose than what they were saying in the streets in London.

There is an old joke that if the KJV was good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me!


Matthew 23:9

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Of course there is always an argument about what the bible really means.

interesting so I can't call my dad "father"? 


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service