Favourite Bible Quotes

Schuhart

Jakkass wrote:

Why don't you bother to analyse and discuss the texts of any other faith?

I think that's been well gone over. The concentration on the Bible is simply because mostly we're people who were raised in some Christian faith. The conclusions we've come to are that all religion is bunk, but we illustrate that with reference to the one we are most familiar with.

If you feel we're a tad virulent, then you could cast an eye at http://www.apostatesofislam.com/. On the scriptural front, they carry a changing random ugly quote from the Quran and from the Hadith that can be guranteed to illustrate much the same point as we make here.

DocNellie

Hi all. My favourite bible quote used to be this...

Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding"

but then I read...

Corrinthians: 1:19 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent"

rolled a spliff and went back to watching the tele

PDN

finlma wrote:

How about these from the New Testament and not only that but from Jesus himself apparently. Maybe some of the Christians can give their interpretations but personnaly I can only see one meaning:

Matthew 10:34 (New International Version)
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

It is always important to treat Bible verses in context, as part of a broader document, not to try to interpret them in isolation.

Matthew 10 records the calling of the 12 disciples. Then Jesus warns them that following Him is going to bring persecution. In effect He is saying,
"Forget your preconceptions that I, as the Messiah, am going to kill all the Romans and usher in a glorious Kingdom where the Jews are in charge. Following me is not going to be a walk in the park. You will face persecution and even death. My coming will not bring an immediate outbreak of world peace. In fact some people will hate Me so much that they will take up swords and commit unspeakable acts of violence against My followers."

And you know what? The Man was right!

aidan24326

"...so when he went into his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground...And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord and He slew him also."
..........Genesis 38:9

DocNellie

PDN wrote:

It is always important to treat Bible verses in context, as part of a broader document, not to try to interpret them in isolation.

Matthew 10 records the calling of the 12 disciples. Then Jesus warns them that following Him is going to bring persecution. In effect He is saying,
"Forget your preconceptions that I, as the Messiah, am going to kill all the Romans and usher in a glorious Kingdom where the Jews are in charge. Following me is not going to be a walk in the park. You will face persecution and even death. My coming will not bring an immediate outbreak of world peace. In fact some people will hate Me so much that they will take up swords and commit unspeakable acts of violence against My followers."

And you know what? The Man was right!

I wonder if Jesus added "But if yous hang in there, stick with it and keep spreading the word, in 2000 years My followers will run half the planet be armed to the teeth with nukes, rockets and tanks and they'll be the ones dishing out the unspeakable acts" Or did he wait till they had got to heaven and tell them then.

robindch

PDN wrote:

It is always important to treat Bible verses in context, as part of a broader document, not to try to interpret them in isolation. [...] In effect He is saying [...]

So why on earth didn't Jesus actually *say* what you believe he's saying "in effect"? Why the circumlocution?

And why would a "loving god" specifically come to earth to spread unhappiness anyway? Since the christian deity is supposed to have created everything, why did he create it so that it was necessary to "come not to bring peace" much later? Wouldn't that imply that he didn't create it correctly the first time around (implying non-omnipotence) or that he didn't know that it would go pear-shaped (implying non-omniscience) or that he knew that it would cause sword-play (implying non-omnibenificence)?

Scofflaw

Unfortunately, my own personal favourites are completely and utterly unrelated to my beliefs or lack thereof. I just like the language of the KJV - sonorous and poetic.

Of course, almost anything is good as interpreted by the Brick Testament.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

robindch wrote:

So why on earth didn't Jesus actually *say* what you believe he's saying "in effect"? Why the circumlocution?

And why would a "loving god" specifically come to earth to spread unhappiness anyway? Since the christian deity is supposed to have created everything, why did he create it so that it was necessary to "come not to bring peace" much later? Wouldn't that imply that he didn't create it correctly the first time around (implying non-omnipotence) or that he didn't know that it would go pear-shaped (implying non-omniscience) or that he knew that it would cause sword-play (implying non-omnibenificence)?

Read the whole chapter before you select verses on their own, as they can mean something entirely different if you don't take the entire chapter they are based in into context.

PDN

robindch wrote:

So why on earth didn't Jesus actually *say* what you believe he's saying "in effect"? Why the circumlocution?

This reminds me of my daughter's comment when, as a little girl, she first saw opera on the TV: "Why don't they just speak the words in English? Then it would be easier to understand." Poetry rarely makes sense to a scientist!

Seriously, the Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, used poetry in a way that (while perfectly understandable to anyone who is half-way intelligent and not deliberately seeking to misunderstand) can be easily memorised. This ensured that Jesus' sayings would be repeated by word of mouth long before the manuscripts of the Gospels could be copied and distributed. Oral tradition.

In fact we do the same ourselves.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" (John F Kennedy)

Imagine someone in 2000 years saying, "Look, this Kennedy character was a liar. He said he was a Berliner, but he clearly came from an Irish criminal family in Boston."

Someobody who is better educated relies, "No, don't be silly. He was expressing solidarity with the people of Berlin who were being threatened by the Soviets. In effect he was saying, I support you and, even though I'm really an American, I feel like part of me belongs to Berlin."

The first person, who is determined to believe that Kennedy is a liar, says "So why on earth didn't Kennedy actually say what you believe he's saying 'in effect'? Why the circumlocution?"

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

In fact we do the same ourselves.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" (John F Kennedy)

Well are you going to deny that this is argument by analogy?
The problem with this analogy is that there is video and audio evidence of JFK saying that, there is no leap of faith.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This reminds me of my daughter's comment when, as a little girl, she first saw opera on the TV: "Why don't they just speak the words in English? Then it would be easier to understand." Poetry rarely makes sense to a scientist!

Seriously, the Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, used poetry in a way that (while perfectly understandable to anyone who is half-way intelligent and not deliberately seeking to misunderstand) can be easily memorised. This ensured that Jesus' sayings would be repeated by word of mouth long before the manuscripts of the Gospels could be copied and distributed. Oral tradition.

Hmm...in the literate society of Roman Palestine? Why?

PDN wrote:

In fact we do the same ourselves.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" (John F Kennedy)

Imagine someone in 2000 years saying, "Look, this Kennedy character was a liar. He said he was a Berliner, but he clearly came from an Irish criminal family in Boston."

Someobody who is better educated relies, "No, don't be silly. He was expressing solidarity with the people of Berlin who were being threatened by the Soviets. In effect he was saying, I support you and, even though I'm really an American, I feel like part of me belongs to Berlin."

The first person, who is determined to believe that Kennedy is a liar, says "So why on earth didn't Kennedy actually say what you believe he's saying 'in effect'? Why the circumlocution?"

There's some important differences - JFK was a liar, as all politicians are, and he was making a political statement, not teaching humanity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Woah, you guys are more obsessed with us than I originally thought. Just one question. Why don't you bother to analyse and discuss the texts of any other faith?

Well we do, but remember that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very closely related. There is little exposure to religions like Hinduism.

Scientology gets its ass kicked around here all the time. As does "new age" religions and spiritualism.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Still, rather than quibble over exact percentages, are any of the Christian posters claiming that this is a non-nominally-Christian country? Smart remarks about how materialist Irish society is earn extra noodle points - the question is not of how Christian people are, but whether the majority of religious observance in this country is Christian in form.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would argue that the 'how' in how Christian a person is essential to determining the actual percentage of Christians in Ireland. However, I feel that this true figure would never be truly attainable because what people say and what is in their hearts are two completely different things. I also realise that this line of thought could be considered at odds with what Jesus taught, and therefore not desirable.

Yes, that majority of religious observance would be Christian - insofar as they identify with a tradition they have been brought into - yet I feel that far fewer than 90% would in anyway espouse the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in any concious form.

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm...in the literate society of Roman Palestine? Why?

What was the percentage of literacy across all the classes? How prevalent were books? How likely that a commoner could afford one?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, that majority of religious observance would be Christian - insofar as they identify with a tradition they have been brought into - yet I feel that far fewer than 90% would in anyway espouse the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in any concious form.

I think you are touching on a very interesting point here. Christianity means different things to different people and can't really be objectively or precisely defined. Or at least, it's appears it's much harder to define what is Christian faith objectively than some of those who claim to have it think it is.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would argue that the 'how' in how Christian a person is essential to determining the actual percentage of Christians in Ireland. However, I feel that this true figure would never be truly attainable because what people say and what is in their hearts are two completely different things. I also realise that this line of thought could be considered at odds with what Jesus taught, and therefore not desirable.

Also, any such determination requires us to accept some specific opinion or other on what constitutes "true Christianity".

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, that majority of religious observance would be Christian - insofar as they identify with a tradition they have been brought into - yet I feel that far fewer than 90% would in anyway espouse the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in any concious form.

Quite possibly so - but I think you'll find they think they do. Some of that is ignorance, some of that is interpretation. I suspect that most people would espouse most of the teachings.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

What was the percentage of literacy across all the classes? How prevalent were books? How likely that a commoner could afford one?

Sufficiently common that the Gospels were worth writing, and the Epistles etc. Books would not be necessary, as the Epistles show.

Also, are you or PDN claiming that God's message had to be delivered only in a form suitable for Roman Palestine? That's a bit of a slippery slope when we are dealing with the word of God to the people of Earth...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, any such determination requires us to accept some specific opinion or other on what constitutes "true Christianity".

Quite possibly so - but I think you'll find they think they do. Some of that is ignorance, some of that is interpretation. I suspect that most people would espouse most of the teachings.

Yes, many would possibly consider themselves Christians, and I'm not one to determine if they are or not, but I would argue that the knowledge of Christianity often wouldn't go beyond the basics learnt in Mass. Bearing this in mind, I can't see how you can claim to be a Christian if you don't follow the teaching of Christ, know a great deal about Christianity or, for that matter, have any real desire to do so. Again, I will temper that by saying that I am not the one to judge.

Scofflaw wrote:

Sufficiently common that the Gospels were worth writing, and the Epistles etc. Books would not be necessary, as the Epistles show.

Also, are you or PDN claiming that God's message had to be delivered only in a form suitable for Roman Palestine? That's a bit of a slippery slope when we are dealing with the word of God to the people of Earth...

cordially,
Scofflaw

They were indeed worth writing, but at the time I would imagine that the oral tradition may have been a more effective way of spreading the word.

I'm not making any claims. You asked the question: why? I gave my answer... in question form

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, are you or PDN claiming that God's message had to be delivered only in a form suitable for Roman Palestine? That's a bit of a slippery slope when we are dealing with the word of God to the people of Earth...

That is a good point. It seems a little short sighted of God to write the Bible in a form suitable for a small handful of the potential people who would read it.

Was the Bible written for everyone, or just the people of the time?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well are you going to deny that this is argument by analogy?
The problem with this analogy is that there is video and audio evidence of JFK saying that, there is no leap of faith.

The video and audio evidence is neither here nor there. I am not debating the fact whether Jesus spoke these words or not, but rather how anyone would understand the words themselves.

Yes, it is an analogy. If you debate with me you'd better get used to it because I use lots of analogies.

Argument by analogy is only a fallacy if used in deductive logic. A deductive argument is an argument where if we assume the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. In contrast, an inductive argument is an argument where the truth of the premises provides reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. Deductive logic rarely works in the areas of morals and ethics.

If you want to participate in debates about morals, ethics, history etc. then you will have to move beyond trying to rigidly apply rules of formal logic. For example, in a debate on history it is pointless to accuse your opponent of making an appeal to authority, for all of history is relying upon what another person closer to the situation has told us. If we rule out any appeals to authority then we can only talk about events to which we were eye witnesses.

Here is a useful link explaining the legitimate and illegitimate uses of the argument by analogy: http://www.radford.edu/~kzanelott2/analogy.htm

Formal logic is a useful tool, but it is inadequate for debate in many areas of life.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

That is a good point. It seems a little short sighted of God to write the Bible in a form suitable for a small handful of the potential people who would read it.

Was the Bible written for everyone, or just the people of the time?

Any Christian out there will tell you it was written for the benefit of everyone. The fact that we are currently discussing Jesus and events of the Bible would suggest that it was a most effective method. One that has spread throughout the world.

P.s. I'm assuming no one here is posting from Roman Palestine

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

That is a good point. It seems a little short sighted of God to write the Bible in a form suitable for a small handful of the potential people who would read it.

Was the Bible written for everyone, or just the people of the time?

The words spoken by Jesus would originally have been spoken in Aramaic, because they had to be understood by the original hearers. It would be a bit pointess Jesus speaking them in English to cater for a future audience centuries later.

Then the words were written down in Greek by Matthew, because that was the language that would most effectively reach his intended audience. The fact that the words had to be translated in no way invalidates their relevance for those readers who would not have understood the original Aramaic.

Once you allow that linguistic translation is necessary to reach a greater audience, then it is sensible to allow for cultural translation as well (in fact we see this in Mark's Gospel particularly, where Jewish phrases and customs are explained for the intended Gentile audience). The fact that translation, both linguistic and cultural, is necessary in no way indicates that Jesus did not intend His words to be spread to a wider audience.

The logic behind your objection would indicate that you think a revelation from God could only be given in a document where everything is explained explicitly and accompanied by translations into every language and dialect that has ever been devised. That is your slippery slope. Do you, or Scofflaw, really want to slither down it?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The words spoken by Jesus would originally have been spoken in Aramaic, because they had to be understood by the original hearers. It would be a bit pointess Jesus speaking them in English to cater for a future audience centuries later.

Well you raise another interesting question. Why do it this way? With a book in an obscure part of the world that is made up mostly of stories open to wide interpretation?

PDN wrote:

The fact that translation, both linguistic and cultural, is necessary in no way indicates that Jesus did not intend His words to be spread to a wider audience.

But why is it in parables and stories using words that can lead to various interpretations and translations? It seems a rather silly way of doing it if the purpose is to be as clear as possible.

The argument that the people of the time were stupid and needed parables is far enough, but that doesn't hold today. Imagine the constitution written as a parable, or the UN Human Rights Declaration written as a story. It would be nonsense.

PDN wrote:

The logic behind your objection would indicate that you think a revelation from God could only be given in a document where everything is explained explicitly and accompanied by translations into every language and dialect that has ever been devised.

Why couldn't it be that way? In fact shouldn't it be that way if the purpose is to instruct humans on the important issues?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Any Christian out there will tell you it was written for the benefit of everyone.

Yet clearly it wasn't. It was written in parables for the people of the day because that is how they were used to hearing issues on morality. Today that is considered a bad way to convey moral rules. Which is why our Constitution isn't written in parables.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The fact that we are currently discussing Jesus and events of the Bible would suggest that it was a most effective method

Why would it suggest that? But your own admission most people in the history of Christianity were probably not true Christians

Would the hundreds of different religious interpretations of Jesus' message, and the millions who have died in religious wars between these groups through the centuries since it was written not suggest to you that it possibly wasn't the most effective way.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Argument by analogy is only a fallacy if used in deductive logic. A deductive argument is an argument where if we assume the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. In contrast, an inductive argument is an argument where the truth of the premises provides reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. Deductive logic rarely works in the areas of morals and ethics.

Argument by analogy has very little place in logic.
AS your referenced article states:
"whether the alleged similarity is strong enough to warrant the conclusion that is being drawn." This is the problem. It is rarely similar enough.
What matters is whether the inference is valid or not, and what type of validity it is. Arguing by analogy is more a technique of sophism rather than logic or reason. It can deceive the untrained eye but should be ruthlessly questioned by those who value truth.

If you want to participate in debates about morals, ethics, history etc. then you will have to move beyond trying to rigidly apply rules of formal logic.

There is no point having a debate without adherence to the rules of logic. It is impossible to resolve disagreement without some adherence to logic or question a conclusion fairly and objectively without using logic.

For example, in a debate on history it is pointless to accuse your opponent of making an appeal to authority, for all of history is relying upon what another person closer to the situation has told us. If we rule out any appeals to authority then we can only talk about events to which we were eye witnesses.

No we could use corraborating evidence, we could use video / audio analysis, we could use articfacts, we could statistical surveys, we could even use carbon dating. Again it depends on the particular argument, you can't just make a sweeping statement.

Here is a useful link explaining the legitimate and illegitimate uses of the argument by analogy: http://www.radford.edu/~kzanelott2/analogy.htm

Formal logic is a useful tool, but it is inadequate for debate in many areas of life.

Your analogy to Kennedy is still not valid as we have more reliable evidence on Kennedy from which to deduce what he meant. The Gospels give us a very subjective few of Jesus which pertain predominately to only 50 days of his life. There is no video or audio record of the life of Jesus. He didn't even read anything written about him. He never wrote anything himself.

This evidence is from a time when literacy rates were very low, and skeptical thinking was nowhere near what it is today. There was no consensus on Jesus, some Jews followed him others categorically rejected him.

There is far more evidence about Kennedy, so it is for easier to have a well informed opinion about him although the probability of being wrong still exists. Ultimately your analogy fails due to the reason listed and explained in your reference:
"whether the alleged similarity is strong enough to warrant the conclusion that is being drawn."

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The words spoken by Jesus would originally have been spoken in Aramaic, because they had to be understood by the original hearers. It would be a bit pointess Jesus speaking them in English to cater for a future audience centuries later.

Then the words were written down in Greek by Matthew, because that was the language that would most effectively reach his intended audience. The fact that the words had to be translated in no way invalidates their relevance for those readers who would not have understood the original Aramaic.

Once you allow that linguistic translation is necessary to reach a greater audience, then it is sensible to allow for cultural translation as well (in fact we see this in Mark's Gospel particularly, where Jewish phrases and customs are explained for the intended Gentile audience). The fact that translation, both linguistic and cultural, is necessary in no way indicates that Jesus did not intend His words to be spread to a wider audience.

The logic behind your objection would indicate that you think a revelation from God could only be given in a document where everything is explained explicitly and accompanied by translations into every language and dialect that has ever been devised. That is your slippery slope. Do you, or Scofflaw, really want to slither down it?

Sure - I'll buy one of those for a dollar.

If you gave me access to any resources I wanted, and asked me to give a long and complex safety message to 400 children and adults of many different cultures and languages, what should I do?

Are you suggesting that the best approach possible would be to tell (verbally) a couple of friends of mine, who all speak one of the languages, get them pumped up about it, and let them use their best efforts to tell everyone else - by personal example, or translations, or whatever? That's really the best approach?

Are you suggesting that the best approach possible to law is the same? Sort of spread it about by chinese whispers? Never let anyone know whether they have the right version of a law?

Funny way for a God to behave, if you ask me?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

If you want to participate in debates about morals, ethics, history etc. then you will have to move beyond trying to rigidly apply rules of formal logic.

Tim Robbins wrote:

There is no point having a debate without adherence to the rules of logic. It is impossible to resolve disagreement without some adherence to logic or question a conclusion fairly and objectively without using logic.

I like the way you ignored two words, "rigidly" and "formal", so as to completely alter the sense of my point. Was that accidental or deliberate?

raido9

Dueteronomy23:1 wrote:

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (KJV)

:eek:

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

The logic behind your objection would indicate that you think a revelation from God could only be given in a document where everything is explained explicitly and accompanied by translations into every language and dialect that has ever been devised. That is your slippery slope. Do you, or Scofflaw, really want to slither down it?

I’m just popping in to labour the point already made by Scofflaw and Wicknight. I don’t see why God wouldn’t make his message as clear and unmistakeable as the Topsy and Tim books. This is one slope he needs to slide down.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

Yet clearly it wasn't. It was written in parables for the people of the day because that is how they were used to hearing issues on morality. Today that is considered a bad way to convey moral rules

Those parables and their meaning are still understood to this day. As their message remains intact, I would conclude that they are a most effective method of conveying the message Jesus desired.

Wicknight wrote:

Why would it suggest that? But your own admission most people in the history of Christianity were probably not true Christians

I don't believe I said that. I was referring to the CSO census that stated ~ 90% of the people in Ireland were Christians. I also stated that I'm not one to judge who is a 'true' Christian and who isn't. That's for God only.

Wicknight wrote:

Would the hundreds of different religious interpretations of Jesus' message, and the millions who have died in religious wars between these groups through the centuries since it was written not suggest to you that it possibly wasn't the most effective way.

You are watching a game of football and a dubious foul is given - 'Give him a yellow!' shouts one fan. 'No! It was a dive...' retorts the other. Despite these opposing opinions there remains a single truth.

No doubt this will revolve around your argument: 'You can interpret the Bible any way you like. Their interpretations are as valid as yours' and my assertion that 'Yes, I agree you can. But, interpretations aside, there is only one truth'.

Justifying the spread of hate and war seems at odds with that which Jesus taught us. Many things have been done under the pretence that they were for the glory of God - this doesn't make it true, however. I do not believe that there is any method that God could have used to convey his message (whilst also bestowing free will) that would have eliminated the inevitability that some will interpret the Bible in a way they see fit, i.e. for their own desires.

finlma

People are gone way off topic. What happened to all the nasty evil bible quotes. Just to get us back on track:

Jeremiah 50:21-22 (New International Version)

"Attack the land of Merathaim
and those who live in Pekod.
Pursue, kill and completely destroy them,"
declares the LORD.
"Do everything I have commanded you.

The loving lord tells all to go and slaughter a whole population. George Bush must be fulfilling the prophecy - he sure is destroying the people of Babylon

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Those parables and their meaning are still understood to this day.

Clearly not, considering the amount of religious violence in the last 2000 years between different Christian groups. It would appear they are as clear as mud.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I don't believe I said that. I was referring to the CSO census that stated ~ 90% of the people in Ireland were Christians. I also stated that I'm not one to judge who is a 'true' Christian and who isn't. That's for God only.

So do you think that most people in Europe in the last 2000 years who lived i times of religious war and oppression were true Christians?

Do you think the Popes were true Christians? The ones who started wars? Or who persecuted people? What about those who carried out these orders? Or the people who lived under them and respected and followed them?

What about the Crusaders? Or the exploration of the New World were sailors forced locals to convert to Christianity or be killed? Were these true Christians?

Fanny Cradock wrote:

No doubt this will revolve around your argument: 'You can interpret the Bible any way you like. Their interpretations are as valid as yours' and my assertion that 'Yes, I agree you can. But, interpretations aside, there is only one truth'.

Doesn't matter. The argument here is if parables and stories is the best way to convey that "truth". Clearly it isn't judging by how many people through history have missed what you consider to be the "truth" behind the Bible.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Justifying the spread of hate and war seems at odds with that which Jesus taught us.

Then you are left with 2 possible conclusions

1 - The message was clear and these people didn't not actually believe in God or his punishment. Doubtful considering the times

2 - The message wasn't clear at all and these people believed that the Bible to support their actions.

The second seems a lot more likely, judging by how even today religious devotion can drive people horrible crimes. Any suicide bomber will tell you that.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I do not believe that there is any method that God could have used to convey his message (whilst also bestowing free will) that would have eliminated the inevitability that some will interpret the Bible in a way they see fit, i.e. for their own desires.

I'm pretty sure God in his infinite wisdom and power could have come up with one :rolleyes: