Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal insanecarbonbasedlif's Journal: [Religion] Interesting Slashdot post... 28

Journal by insanecarbonbasedlif
Re:Oh noes!

As it happens, I have a friend who was a believer, so much so that he learned Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic so that he could read older versions. He ended up concluding that the translators had done so much revising that if god existed, he would have prevented the distortion.

He's a happy atheist today.

For me, this is a fundamental problem as well (I know there are acres of discussion on the nature of inspiration that allow for lots of variance in translation and copying, but I'm speaking about how I feel about the whole matter). If god exists and wants a relationship with me and other people, why does he not directly and clearly reveal himself, or the essentials of what he wants in a relationship, in a way that anyone looking to believe in god can understand without confusion? The revisions that have occurred in copying and translation over time are, for me, significant. Not to mention the effect of decisions about what to include as canon. A system with more robust error checking could easily have been devised by god, and would be magnitudes more compelling to me that current "inspired" texts (Clarification, I don't know any ancient languages, I just know what I've read from respected researchers about specific passages, manuscripts, and whatnot.)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

[Religion] Interesting Slashdot post... More

[Religion] Interesting Slashdot post...

Comments Filter:

  • it's all perspective. the more i studied greek and textual criticism the more confident i became in what we currently have. i don't think the variations we have in the extent manuscripts hit on anything significant. i respect that you think so, but i do think that one can approach the situation with intellectual honesty and walk away with a different conclusion.

    • Yeah, I definitely don't claim that it's an insurmountable problem for belief, just not something I can get past currently (along with a host of other things).

      • I understand. When I was younger I couldn't figure out why everyone didn't see things my way. I figured they didn't have or understand all the facts. Or maybe they just had some deficiency in their ability to reason. I was such an arrogant prick.

        Now, though I don't understand it all, I realize that a lot of people can look at the same set of facts or circumstances and come to very different conclusions about what it all means. And it isn't because they don't get it or are missing something. I

  • Why is God such a fucking cunt? The only difference between him and Hitler is Hitler didn't create those he destroyed.

    Oops! Godwined.

  • Anthropomorphizing God.

  • ...far from being insightful, looks like a blatant troll to me.

    Inciteful rather than insightful.

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    • Hmmm, seems pretty on topic - the article is about a 1600 year old text, and the thread was about whether that 1600 year old version affects peoples' beliefs in the current versions that we have. So, here's an anecdote about how studying ancient texts affected one person's beliefs. Not really trollish, in my opinion.

      There's some non-sequitur comments after it, about atheists who come to believe, but they are not even about the same avenue of questioning, let alone the fact that the other anecdotes don't c

      • Dude, a thoroughly unsubstantiated claim about some "friend" who had read the "original"? Come on. That fairly reeks of troll. (As do the converted atheist remarks.)

        Cheers,

        Ethelred

        • Dude, it's an anecdote, not a logical premise on which an argument is stated... And the poster was clear that it was an anecdote. The most trollish thing was the implications of the "happy atheist" comment at the end, but why wouldn't that be true? I've known many people with all sorts of different beliefs about the supernatural that are happy. That shouldn't be an offensive remark, it should be a clarification of how his friend dealt with things that were bothering him.

          • There are anecdotes and then there are anecdotes.

            Even anecdotes can be substantiated, which didn't happen here. Yes, it's quite possible that it's true or at least contains a grain of truth. But the best trolls are the more subtle ones, and the dig about being happier as an atheist -- while also quite possibly true -- strikes me as a straightforward troll.

            It's not a matter of whether I find it offensive. I couldn't care less myself. More a matter of the intent of the post, and I treat such posts with a

            • It strikes me as pretty odd (or at least inconsistent) that you'd have issues believing the authenticity of the Bible, but then would buy into a post like that at face value.

              I guess clarification is in order - I found the post interesting, as it brought to mind things I had thought of as well. The post is not something that I'm using as a support for any of my positions on anything, and as such, is not something that needs rigorous proof. It's just a story (that may be apocryphal, I don't know) that brought

    • Yes, that'd be my take on it. Not even subtle. There does seem to be some humor about it, though.

  • If god exists and wants a relationship with me and other people, why does he not directly and clearly reveal himself, or the essentials of what he wants in a relationship, in a way that anyone looking to believe in god can understand without confusion?

    • God has, and it is tasteless to repeat the question until the Answer That We Want comes up, or
    • God hasn't, and the ambiguous mix of the revealed and the hidden has its purpose in glorifying God

    I mostly lean towards the first.

  • ...why does he not directly and clearly reveal himself, or the essentials of what he wants in a relationship, in a way that anyone looking to believe in god can understand without confusion?

    Obviously, god is a woman :-)

  • is a little like comparing your wives' cup size or bathroom habits? It seems to me like such a personal issue.

    • No - they're not even close, in terms of how personal they are, what they deal with in terms of social norms, and the implications that they have for all the rest of life.

      Your post is one of the most nonsensical remarks I've read all week.

      • Well, I think it's weird to treat religion any different than any other type of philosophy. And if you want god to reveal himself, look in the mirror. There he is.

Slashdot Top Deals

MAC user's dynamic debugging list evaluator? Never heard of that.

Close