ok, since I have some time on my hands today...
spurrier;1202793; said:
You gotta know that no article written on a subject like that isnt going to instigate philosophical thinking.
It's not the NYTimes' job to consider ensuing philosophical debate. The NYTimes' job is to research, report the facts and get opinions from witnesses or experts (except in clearly labeled editorials). Whether or not the paper always does this well is debatable, but the 'Tablet' article presented a series of facts: a stone tablet, presumably dated to the first century BCE was found years ago, held by a collector, and recently translated. It further went on to
interview several 'expert' sources from academia for interpretation. It did not instruct anyone how to feel about their faith, though it did suggest that the tablet provokes academic discussions about the origins of Christianity and
could, perhaps, stir some new thoughts in various directions amongst believers.
spurrier said:
Everything about that article brings religion into question.
Plainly wrong.
spurrier said:
I didnt see you make a comment to the guy saying that organized religion is the downfall of religion itself.
Also wrong. I did
not comment on buckiprof's comment nor did I reply to Bleed S&G. In fact, I steered my way back to the article itself to discuss its
historical implications relative to the first century CE Jesus-movement.
spurrier said:
if you dismiss the final part for the sake of disorganization you dont have the courage to face those questions posed.
What the fuck are you talking about here? If you look below, your post is not only in complete disarray, but it only contains only one question mark, which I assumed (read: hoped) was a rhetorical question regarding your own misguided summary of Islam.
spurrier;1202780; said:
this whole thing is rediculous. just because they found something written in stone doesnt make it remotely true, i mean if the nyt was around then they would have also used stone. Orthodox Jews dont even believe Jesus was anything more than a heretic anyway.
Jesus said that "in the time of the end what is wrong shall be right and what right shall be wrong"...We have Mormons who follow Joseph Smith, a guy who didnt come around until the 1800s, and to get around the question of "so, what about the billions of people that have been here before us", he says to pray for the dead souls. You have Islam wich teaches that someone needs to die physically in order to attain paradise and virgins..what? The bottom line is that the Bible is the Word of God on paper for us to use as a guide. God never intended this to happen. You have rampant homosexuality when the Bible state MANY times that that lifestyle is an atrocity. But people are going to do what they want and will allow many more immoral things just as long as they can be left to do what they want.
Someone above said that organized religion has ruined spirituality. That is nonsense. That is one thing that should be organized. We just get jaded over time and our "free thinking" is what gets us in trouble.
Let me see if I can summarize:
The tablet is untrue. Of course, I'm not sure which part you mean. If you mean to say that it's not true that they found a stone tablet with ink writing on it, you're wrong - hence the Indiana Jones reference regarding fact versus truth.
Maybe you mean that what the tablet
says is untrue, meaning you don't think that Simon was the true messiah. Fine, I concede. You're right.
Or maybe you don't believe that the tablet is actually authentic? Fine, I concede again. They are still researching to make sure that it is, though, so far, initial reports indicate that it is.
Fact is, I have no idea that the hell you're talking about, because all you said was the "whole thing is rediculous."
Moving on:
In your expert opinion, the Orthodox Judaism is wrong, Mormonism is wrong, Islam is wrong, but the Bible
is undoubtedly the word of God on paper for us. Listen, I respect that you have faith, but we try to be respectful of other people's faith here. If you have a specific argument about a particular part of a certain faith, fine. Present your argument and be ready for someone to debate you (see BKB v. grad, or, more recently, MufflerDragon v. 'Bus).
Lastly, if you want to debate "free thinking" (also known to some as "free will" in a religious studies context), also fine. But please make your argument something better than "'free thinking' is what gets us in trouble." Remember, if it weren't for some very free thinking, our buddy Jesus wouldn't be the Man.
