The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > All the abuse and violence in the church
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 04-21-2010, 04:34 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

As I have said many times, there's nothing wrong with religon itself.

The problem is people build power structures around themselves and a false belief system THEY create. It becomes about money and power, not about the religon, helping, or enlightening people.

Why did they hide these abusers? Simple, image and money. The people in autority of the organization did not want it tained by accusations, nor did they want it affecting the cash flow. Money that is generated by hard working people (Who in alot of cases can barely affford anytihng) donating to what the belive is a worthy cause.

It's an old story, the bigger the organization, the more corrupt it eventually becomes.

Again, I want it known that I think religon itself is not to blame at all. It's PEOPLE who are to blame.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-21-2010, 05:20 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
You'll find that Greek nouns use different letters to end words depending on the case of the word and whether it is singular or plural. Very much in the way that Latin did. The word theos then seems to have many forms but they all mean the same thing. Those without a pronoun mean god and those with a pronoun mean God. Except in the following case (and others like it).

In John 1:1 "kai theos en 'o logos"
In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.

i
Yes, but it was very consistent and isolated to lesser god forms.

From the Wiki`


There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.[10] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "...a god" is the proper rendering.[11] Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god,[12][13][14] while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.[15][16][17]
Theology

The two competing beliefs which cause great controversy over this scripture center on whether Jesus was the one and only God, or was a god, lesser than and completely distinct from God.
Grammar

A major point of contention, since the theos in question occurs without the definite article (the), within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule, set out by Greek scholar E.C. Colwell, which states:
"In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb."
At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness. Apparently, it has been misused by some to defend the deity of Christ.[18]
Origen of Alexandria, who was a teacher in Greek grammar in the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article here:
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.... The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)."[19]
Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic noun "noute" in the Coptic New Testament strongly suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as "a god." For example, Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Coptic at Acts 28:6 (Bohairic) has "a god." Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives "a god" for the literal interlinear translation of "u.noute".[20]
------

The "greats" have waged this war already.
The Hebrews were monotheistic admist a region of polytheistic cultures. If God were 3 in 1 why suddenly in the NT. Many other things were confused when the Hebrews came under the influence of Greek aswell. The OT doesn't share this vantage point.

I have personally have had to assume neutrally against the Theology of the Trinity in the end that the Catholic themselves lament that it is not self evident in the scriptures themselves. To me that is a telling statement. It doesn't mean I don't have to believe as a result. It means if it isn't scriptural supported, causes inconsistencies and contradictions between Jesus own statements and between the Old Testament and the New Testament then it likely isn't grounded if the bible is meant to be consistent upon those Jews that went to such an effort to copy and advance the scrolls accurately forward in the future. How can one devise and justify a doctrine that sends the entire Bible into upheaval?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-21-2010, 06:09 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
You'll find that Greek nouns use different letters to end words depending on the case of the word and whether it is singular or plural. Very much in the way that Latin did. The word theos then seems to have many forms but they all mean the same thing. Those without a pronoun mean god and those with a pronoun mean God. Except in the following case (and others like it).

In John 1:1 "kai theos en 'o logos"
In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.

i
Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I wouldn't take the words of an apostle over than out of a Jesus parable:

"Truly I say to you, because you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Jesus always kept it simple, that's what I like about him. The folks before and after him recomplicated everything without any need to do so. There is no need for a list of dos and don'ts and Jesus wasn't a rulebook designer. His message is simple to understand yet hard to live and that's precisely why folks who couldn't cope with it made it fuzzy again afterwards.

God becomes human, tries to tell us how simple it is to live an ethical live, how important it is to love, how to find him in yourself and your fellows ... and we slaughter him and distort his beautifully simple message afterwards in all the various incarnations of Christianity.
Jesus' Opening Statements: The Sermon on the Mount.

Did Jesus disapprove of the Law?


"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill."
~Mat 5:17

Referring to Teaching against the Law

"Whoever, therefore breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect he will be called 'least' in relation to the kingdom of the heavens"~Mat 5:19

Jesus' List

(The Law)
(Jesus Goes FURTHER)


(The Law says) Not to Murder
(Jesus says) Not to even be Wrathful


(The Law says) Settle Debts
(Jesus says) Settle Debts before a Sacrifice

Not to Commit Adultery
(Jesus says) Not to EVEN LOOK at a woman with Passion



(The Law says) Keep your Vows
(Jesus says) Don't Swear at all! Just let your Yes mean Yes and your No mean No..

(The Law says) Eye for an Eye
(Jesus says) Turn the other cheek


The Young Ruler Ask:

"Teacher what Good must I do in order to get everlasting life?
Which Commandments must I obey?"


Jesus Reply:

You must not Murder
You must not commit Adultery
You must not steal
You must not Lie
Honor your Mother and Your Father
Love Your Neighbor

Matthew Chapter 5
-------

So, Jesus, directed us to Obey the Law but also to avoid behavior that would even lead to breaking these laws if anything furthering the lengths we go to in order to obey the Law. I think Jesus was trying to inculcate behavior that would keep these sins away. To love your enemies instead of to Hate means you wouldn't bring harm to another.

Did he focus on the more important things...most assuredly.
Yet as Janeway said his focus was to love and not commit these sins. He encouraged preventative love and forgiveness that prevented a cycle of violence and death.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-21-2010, 06:24 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
I see you are still watching BSG
Ya I'm loving it. I just started season 3 the other day. It's a great series. I'm actually really enjoying the religious debate with in the show more so I think due to the conversations on this board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
I had to give it up for now while I campaign in the UK election whcih has got quite exciting.
That's interesting are you campaigning for a candidate or are you a candidate?
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-23-2010, 03:13 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
Ya I'm loving it. I just started season 3 the other day. It's a great series. I'm actually really enjoying the religious debate with in the show more so I think due to the conversations on this board.

That's interesting are you campaigning for a candidate or are you a candidate?
I'm helping a candidate out. It's been great fun and the election has been blown open. it's a three horse race for the first time ever, which is great for a supporter of the party that was always 3rd. It may even lead to a change in the voting system, which is dire.


I like the religious element to BSG as well. I also love the fact that they are trying to find earth with no clear idea of where it is.
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-23-2010, 03:27 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Yes, but it was very consistent and isolated to lesser god forms.

From the Wiki`


There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.[10] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "...a god" is the proper rendering.[11] Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god,[12][13][14] while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.[15][16][17]
Theology

The two competing beliefs which cause great controversy over this scripture center on whether Jesus was the one and only God, or was a god, lesser than and completely distinct from God.
Grammar

A major point of contention, since the theos in question occurs without the definite article (the), within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule, set out by Greek scholar E.C. Colwell, which states:
"In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb."
At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness. Apparently, it has been misused by some to defend the deity of Christ.[18]
Origen of Alexandria, who was a teacher in Greek grammar in the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article here:
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.... The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)."[19]
Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic noun "noute" in the Coptic New Testament strongly suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as "a god." For example, Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Coptic at Acts 28:6 (Bohairic) has "a god." Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives "a god" for the literal interlinear translation of "u.noute".[20]
------

The "greats" have waged this war already.
The Hebrews were monotheistic admist a region of polytheistic cultures. If God were 3 in 1 why suddenly in the NT. Many other things were confused when the Hebrews came under the influence of Greek aswell. The OT doesn't share this vantage point.

I have personally have had to assume neutrally against the Theology of the Trinity in the end that the Catholic themselves lament that it is not self evident in the scriptures themselves. To me that is a telling statement. It doesn't mean I don't have to believe as a result. It means if it isn't scriptural supported, causes inconsistencies and contradictions between Jesus own statements and between the Old Testament and the New Testament then it likely isn't grounded if the bible is meant to be consistent upon those Jews that went to such an effort to copy and advance the scrolls accurately forward in the future. How can one devise and justify a doctrine that sends the entire Bible into upheaval?
The Trinity is alluded to in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. You are very sure of the veracity of the Bible, but you must remember that all the books that were chosen to be included in the Bible were chosen by a Ecclesiastical council, similar to the one that came to the conclusion of the Trinity. If the God of the Hebrews are monotheistic, why would there be polytheism in the New Testament. How can Jesus be a god if there is only one God as the Hebrew scriptures claim. Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is not a separate God to the Father but the same God. If he was not God then his sacrifice was in vain.

You are of course aware that Wikipedia is written by people who have an agenda and are not necessarily accurate, true or unbiased. That is an article that is clearly biased one way and therefore is not a source worth quoting. Now if you had quoted an article by an agnostic Greek scholar, I may have considered it worthy of more than a quick scan.

When it comes down to it. Religion is like politics. You either look around and decide which party you want to support or are born into the support of that party. You nail your colours to the mast and you dig in and fight off any onslaught. It's based on faith and faith alone. You have faith that the Bible is innerrant. I have faith that Jesus was God and therefore it was God who taught us how to live good lives. We ain't ever going to agree. In the same way, you'll hardly ever find a republican and a democrat agreeing.
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-27-2010, 06:25 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
I'm helping a candidate out. It's been great fun and the election has been blown open. it's a three horse race for the first time ever, which is great for a supporter of the party that was always 3rd. It may even lead to a change in the voting system, which is dire.
Sounds interesting. I know the Canadian political system and the British political system are very similar. In our last federal election we voted on changing the electoral system. For those that don't know we don't technically vote for a particular party we vote for a particular member of parliament that belongs to a particular political party in a particular ridding. I believe the new electoral system that was purposed was going to allow us to also vote for which party we wanted to win. I believe there where going to be a few extra seats set aside in the house for those votes and which ever party got the most votes would get those seats. Those seats would be filled by members of that party that lost in their riding but they would be assigned by that party leader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
I like the religious element to BSG as well. I also love the fact that they are trying to find earth with no clear idea of where it is.
I find it interesting that the Cylons believe in a God and the Humans appear to believe in the Greek mythological Gods. I find it interesting that in reality the stories of the Greek Gods became mythology but the story of the God of the Bible became religion. Why is one God more relevant then many Gods? As for them looking for Earth with no clear idea where it is, is an interesting twist.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-28-2010, 01:25 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
As I have said many times, there's nothing wrong with religon itself.

The problem is people build power structures around themselves and a false belief system THEY create. It becomes about money and power, not about the religon, helping, or enlightening people.
Exactly! Look at Islamic Jihadists in our own time. Every time I hear someone attacking Islam for the actions of these few nutjobs it really gets to me. There is a separation. Islam is no more violent than Christianity or any other religion that's existed, it's the institutionalization of religion that starts it. A quote from one of my favorite shows sums it up nicely:

"I have not begun to question the will of the Ori, but I have begun to question the interpretation of their words. No matter what you say, I will not believe the Book of Origin asks us to massacre innocent people! And I will not stand by while the Holy Doctrine of Good Will and Faith that I have sworn to uphold is twisted into a hammer and used to beat people down!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
The Trinity is alluded to in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. You are very sure of the veracity of the Bible, but you must remember that all the books that were chosen to be included in the Bible were chosen by a Ecclesiastical council, similar to the one that came to the conclusion of the Trinity. If the God of the Hebrews are monotheistic, why would there be polytheism in the New Testament. How can Jesus be a god if there is only one God as the Hebrew scriptures claim. Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is not a separate God to the Father but the same God. If he was not God then his sacrifice was in vain.

When it comes down to it. Religion is like politics. You either look around and decide which party you want to support or are born into the support of that party. You nail your colours to the mast and you dig in and fight off any onslaught. It's based on faith and faith alone. You have faith that the Bible is innerrant. I have faith that Jesus was God and therefore it was God who taught us how to live good lives. We ain't ever going to agree. In the same way, you'll hardly ever find a republican and a democrat agreeing.
Precisely. There were many books out there in the two or three centuries after Christ's death. Gnostic Gospels. Recently a gospel of Judas was discovered that dated to about a hundred, two hundred years after the crucifixion of Christ, well before the conversion of the Roman empire under Constantine. The gospel of Thomas, The gospel of Mary, The Book of Enoch, The Apocalypse of Peter to name a few. These texts were floating around out there for nearly two thousand years, yet are not considered canon. When you read the depiction of Christ in each, it's pretty obvious why. Times were changing, Christianity was gaining momentum and Constantine, arguably one of the first major power players for Christianity saw this and converted the empire to Christianity. Then in a council the groundwork for the bible, the trinity, the divine nature of Christ was laid out. It's all politics. The old pagan ways and holidays were transformed and were conformed to the new Christian religion. Easter and Christmas were both set on ancient pagan festivals celebrating the solstices and equinoxes. And certain aspects of Christianity, especially catholicism followed in suit. Can you get more pagan than, "drink of my blood, eat of my flesh"? Is there anything wrong with this? Of course not, but it does help to place these religions within some context. The ancient religion of Egypt is dead, no one worships those gods today. The same can be said of the ancient gods of Greece and Babylon, Sumer and Rome, which were basically the same gods as the Greeks before them. Who knows, one thousand years from now will the God of Christianity, Islam or Judaism still be worshipped or will a new religion replace these? It seems to be the pattern of history.

Regardless, the lessons of The Sermon on the Mount, certainly were not observed during many of Christianity's darkest chapters and it was because of men, men wielding power in the name of God. I personally would much rather read and follow the philosophies and teaching of Christ than follow the Church built around those teachings, though they've come along way since the crusades.

That was a bit of a rant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
I find it interesting that the Cylons believe in a God and the Humans appear to believe in the Greek mythological Gods. I find it interesting that in reality the stories of the Greek Gods became mythology but the story of the God of the Bible became religion. Why is one God more relevant then many Gods? As for them looking for Earth with no clear idea where it is, is an interesting twist.
Definitely! That is probably the most intriguing aspect of the new BSG for me and also how the 'angel' #6 and 'angel' Baltar play into it. When you get into the fourth season that 'higher power' as it were really starts to pull some strings. Fantastic show!
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"

Last edited by Livingston : 04-28-2010 at 02:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-28-2010, 03:54 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Does anyone else see some sort of parallel with the depiction of BSG's monetheism and terrorism? Is that a Christian or Muslims aspect? You do have the crusades but most current in our minds is Arabic suicide bombers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-28-2010, 11:04 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

BSG spoilers a bit so using tags
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"

Last edited by Livingston : 04-28-2010 at 11:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:43 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.