Religious people really don't know much about religion

[Yurt]

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

 

[Terral]

Hi Yurt with Euusebius and Kittenkoder mentioned:

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

Here is a challenge to Ms. Kitty and Yurt and everyone here: This is your opportunity to ask ANY Bible question about ANYTHING from Genesis to Revelation right here on Yurt’s thread, then everyone can decide. A brief summary of my OP “Religion” Topics was posted here for Eusebius and I am more than happy to answer any questions, or debate any Bible Topic at all, if anybody is interested.

BTW, Ms. Kitty put her foot in mouth in the Conspiracy Forum (starting here) if anybody is keeping score. This is the post right here (Post #45) that she cannot even begin to answer. :0)

GL,

Terral

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

Quite a few atheists I've encountered grew up with religious parents and/or grandparents who made them go to Sunday school, but when they critically analyzed their religion and others they turned to agnosticism/atheism.

Most atheists I've ever talked to say they've studied various religions in their quest for understanding other people or driven by doubt combined with fear of death.

While there are intelligent religious people out there, and even some who study their own religion and others, the majority of religious people do not seem interested in studying religions because they have faith that they have already found the right one and find any other extra information irrelevant or distracting.

It's ironic when Christians say to read the Bible. I can't imagine how reading that book could bring somebody to faith, but then again the last time I read it is off of www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Might help if they skipped the Old Testament though.

Anyway, I'd recommend the Religulous documentary that the quote is from.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

And Terral, your posts sometimes lead me to believe you're from another planet as your avatar suggests, but I'll name a few things i don't get.

Why is the death of Jesus portrayed so differently in the earlier gospel (Matthew) versus the later gospels? For example, the last thing we hear from Jesus in Matthew, aside from a scream, is 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' Meaning, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matthew 27:46). That's just not something somebody who considers himself God would say. It's almost like a self-invalidation of the claim of divinity because you wouldn't say, "Myself, myself, what have I forsaken me?"

Then, for whatever reason, the lamentation was not mentioned in later gospels, instead Jesus says totally different things:

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Then there's the whole Geneology problem:

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The geneologies are totally different, actually. Some apologists say one refers to Mary, but both verses explicitly state they are referring to Joseph. Not that Joseph should matter, because he is Jesus's adoptive father. Jesus being a descendent of David via Joseph is meaningless in that sense, and it would not have made sense to patriarchal Jewish society even if they had been referring to Mary's geneology.

And the whole virgin birth idea would not have made sense given patriarchy, as one could not be a descendent of David while being born of a virgin. Of course this is because there actually is no prophecy in the OT about the messiah being born of a virgin.

 

[dilloduck]

Spirituality is not an intellectual excercise nor are it's rewards based on what you have read or "know".

Thanks for playing tho !

 

[Terral]

Hi Uninhibited:

Why is the death of Jesus portrayed so differently in the earlier gospel (Matthew) versus the later gospels? For example, the last thing we hear from Jesus in Matthew, aside from a scream, is 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' Meaning, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matthew 27:46). That's just not something somebody who considers himself God would say. It's almost like a self-invalidation of the claim of divinity because you wouldn't say, "Myself, myself, what have I forsaken me?"

First of all, while I can answer any Bible question accurately, there is no guarantee whatsoever that you are capable or even ready to accept the right answer (like Christ taught = "IF you ware willing . . ."). The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is portrayed differently in the synoptic accounts, because the people involved are genuine and the story is being told from a variety of perspectives. Secondly, if you go backwards to Isaiah 53 and read the entire chapter, then you realize that the entire passage is written in the ‘past’ tense and for a very good reason. In fact, solving that mystery will also answer your question above. The reason that Jesus Christ choose ‘all’ of His words very carefully is because He is walking the same steps has His ‘son of God’ (Adam) that he suffered under Satan’s heel for 930 years, but compressed into just three years in this Earthly Ministry described in the Four Gospels. When Christ shouted “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?,” then the “Lord God” of Genesis 2 (Christ = Lord God of Heaven) is reciting the same exact words that He heard coming through the wings of the cherubim guarding the way to the ‘tree of life’ on the day that He drove His ‘son of God’ from the garden in Genesis 3:21-24 on the day that ‘he died spiritually.’ BTW, Jesus Christ never pretends to be “God,” because He is the “Son of God” (John 1:34) incarnate in this universe as “The Word” (John 1:1-3) made flesh (John 1:14 = pic). Jesus Christ is the “Heavenly Messiah” and John the Baptist is the “Earthly Messiah” (man of The Earth = blue sphere) who He formed back in the Garden. A full explanation is here.

Then there's the whole Geneology problem . . .

Both Genealogical Record listings pertain to “Joseph” without regard to Mary at all. Many people looking for Bible contradictions run to the Four Gospels and directly to this kind of thing, so welcome to the party. :0) The difference is that Matthew is tracing a ‘Royal’ line through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is using a natural line through David’s son Nathan. Remember that Matthew is describing a “King” and Luke is describing a ‘Servant/Man.’ Remember also that you have ‘two’ grandfathers where a particular lineage can travel along ‘two’ lines and meander back and forth depending upon the propensity of the person making the family tree and availability of the records themselves. Then remember that Jews oftentimes have two names like Cephas is Simon and Paul is Saul and so forth. Therefore, civil records in Tarsus (where Paul was born) might list his Gentile name rather than his Jewish name that would appear if he was born in Jerusalem or Bethlehem.

And the whole virgin birth idea would not have made sense given patriarchy, as one could not be a descendent of David while being born of a virgin. Of course this is because there actually is no prophecy in the OT about the messiah being born of a virgin.

Jesus Christ taught that the greatest born of woman is none other than John the Baptist. Matthew 11:11a. Jesus Christ is no literal ‘man’ at all, but was “found in appearance AS A MAN.” Philippians 2:8. Jesus Christ is “The Word” (F+S+HS) made flesh, while John the Baptist (Adam, Abraham, Joshua, David, Elijah) represents ‘this universe’ (heavens, heaven and earth) in one ‘man sent from God’ (John 1:6) so that all would believe through him (John 1: 7). And yes, they thought that John had a demon too (Luke 7:33). :0)

GL,

Terral

 

[ABikerSailor]

Of course religious people (mainly the fanatics and zealots) don't know anything about their religion. It's much easier to just say "God did it" than to actually think for yourself and look for how all these things fit together.

By the way, as far as the Old Testament goes? It makes a LOT more sense when it is interpreted from the Hebrew. A show that I really like to watch is "Hidden in the Hebrew" on God's Learning Channel (local channel 20), on Sundays at 6:30 pm. The teacher is a man named Uri Harrel who is a Torah scholar that takes the original text and explains the meanings of each Bible verse in the OT.

Interestingly enough, until I watched that show (as well as some others on the 'net, Universal Torah Network is a phenomenal resource), I always thought that the commandment against killing was "thou shalt not kill", but, the REAL translation is "thou shalt not murder".

Hey......the OT is a Jewish book, and if you really want to understand it, you should probably translate it from the original, rather than depend on the Latin and Greek translations (which is the King James version).

Recently, it has been discovered (saw it on Naked Archaeologist), that the miracle of Jesus healing the lepers may have been a mistranslation also. The disease that was referred to was actually the heartbreak of psoriasis, rather than Hansen's Disease, but, the rules concerning both were the same, you had to leave the village. Personally? I think that Yeshua saw people being kicked out to leper colonies who only had psoriasis, and He figured out how to cure them.

By the way........they've also recently discovered the actual Well of Salome (you know, the one that Yeshua healed them at), which is one of the first genuine connections between archeology and the Bible.

On that show they also showed Jewish medical instruments from 2,000 years ago. They would look right at home in a modern operating room. Saw that on the show also.

 

[KittenKoder]

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

Well ... the comment to me is more of pointing out the conundrum of those who use their religious beliefs to justify their hatred, anger, or evil acts. Such as those who will slaughter innocent people because their books told them to. In reality it's not a fact, there are many religious and non-religious people who do know a lot about religion, those who chose their religion after experiencing others have to, as well as those who chose no religion after experiencing many religious beliefs. The problem are those born into a religion and never expanding beyond what they are told is truth without ever even questioning it, like Terral, they will justify their stagnation by even twisting their own beliefs to suite whatever it is they want to make others believe.

Here's a clue to look for: people using the source as proof of that source have never even considered other possibilities, and therefore know nothing of even their own religion.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's a perfect example of religious people not knowing their religion.........

Most Christians like to cite Leviticus as prohibition against homosexuality, but, they follow Christianity. Leviticus was a book of rules for Jewish Priests, so, what is a Christian doing using it? Have you ever seen a Baptist minister use Catholic rites in their sermon? No. Their congregation would tear them apart.

Same deal.

 

[Againsheila]

Here's a perfect example of religious people not knowing their religion.........

Most Christians like to cite Leviticus as prohibition against homosexuality, but, they follow Christianity. Leviticus was a book of rules for Jewish Priests, so, what is a Christian doing using it? Have you ever seen a Baptist minister use Catholic rites in their sermon? No. Their congregation would tear them apart.

Same deal.

Um, no.

Most Christians believe the New Testament is built on the old testament and that unless something in the new testament is counter to what's in the old testament, then the old testament stands.

BTW, there are some Jews who believe that Jesus was the Messiah, they are called "Jews for Jesus". They believe in both the old and the New Testaments.

Remember, Jesus was a Jew.

 

[Amanda]

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

The quote is from Mahr... that should say it all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Leviticus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leviticus (from Greek Λευιτικός, "relating to the Levites") is the third book of the Torah (Pentateuch), the name given in Judaism to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament).

Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals, but in a wider sense is about the working out of God's covenant with Israel set out in Genesis and Exodus - what is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God. These consequences are set out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.

The first 16 chapters and the last chapter make up the Priestly Code, with rules for ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the Day of Atonement, including Chapter 12 which mandates male circumcision. Chapters 17-26 contain the Holiness Code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (the Great Commandment). The book is largely concerned with "abominations", largely dietary and sexual restrictions. The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for the prohibition in chapter 20 against sacrificing children to Molech, which applies equally to "the strangers that sojourn in Israel."

According to tradition, Moses authored Leviticus[1] as well as the other four books of the Torah. Some Biblical scholars believe Leviticus to be almost entirely from the priestly source (P), marked by emphasis on priestly concerns, composed c 550-400 BC, and incorporated into the Torah c 400 BC. Other Biblical scholars have presented evidence for a date of composition in approximately the 15th century BC, based on literary and legal customs of the ancient Near East. See the Composition section below for a discussion of these views.

Additionally, the Christians are taking their translations from Greek material, rather than the original Hebrew that it is in. Think about this.......translate a book (say....one of Shakespear's plays), then, translate it into Greek, and then translate the Greek into Spanish.

You're gonna miss a lot of stuff that way, as well as get quite a few things wrong.

Same with the Christians using a Greek translation of a Hebrew text, it just doesn't work very well.

Title

The English name is derived from the Latin Liber Leviticus, which is derived in turn from the Greek βιβλίον το Λευιτικόν, (biblion to Levitikon), meaning "book of the Levites". The English title is somewhat misleading, as the book makes a very strong distinction between the priesthood, descended from Aaron, and mere Levites. The custom in the Hebrew bible is to name the books of the Torah by their first word, in this case Vayikra וַיִּקְרָא, "and He called"[2] - vayikra is also the name of the first weekly Torah reading or parshah in the book.

Leviticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, no........it's not really a book that Christians should be using unless they are Hebrew priests.

 

[Luissa]

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

The quote is from Mahr... that should say it all.

and if you watched his movie, you would see why he made the statement. I am not saying it is completly true but most of the religious people he interviews don't know shit about their own religion.

 

[BrokenAngel]

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

The quote is from Mahr... that should say it all.

and if you watched his movie, you would see why he made the statement. I am not saying it is completly true but most of the religious people he interviews don't know shit about their own religion.

Sad as it is that is true. There is another truth though, that those who persecute the religious don't always know much of anything that they are talking about. It is a double-edged sword and an issue that will only get worse in coming years. With the Bible no longer taught in schools and children being told Christian faiths are oppresive and wrong you will be finding more and more uneducated people spewing faith or hate in regards to the Bible without a shred of truth to a single statement.

No I am not saying the Bible should be taught in school.. lets say that now so the flames don't go off topic.

Point is America as a whole is a little under educated and until people start working with their kids, take interest in what they are learning, expand their own knowledge, and stop letting the teachers do all of the teaching these issues will continue to grow. I say stop complaining, sit down with your child, and read a book or two with them.

 

[Avatar4321]

How can someone be religious and not know about their religion? You can't live practices you dont know. It just doesnt make sense.

 

[BrokenAngel]

How can someone be religious and not know about their religion? You can't live practices you dont know. It just doesnt make sense.

Yes Avatar it does.. sadly enough.

How many people go to church and pray, listen to the pastor, preacher, or whatever their religious leader is but don't understand the meanings within the teachings. How many people go to church every day and can't even list the Ten Commandments off the top of their head? To be honest I can't do it.. and the Commandments are the base ruleset of ANY Judeo-Christian belief structure.. they are rules on how to live and conduct yourself sent down from our Lord God. You tell a kid "Don't steal" and leave it at that the kid might take a shirt and say they were just borrowing it. If you don't go in depth on a topic how is someone supposed to understand?

You can follow a faith, something that in your heart seems to be true, but if you never bother to learn anything outside of "This is what we are telling you is true" then you don't know your religion. I have actually had people try to claim that Christians would never kill someone or that the Catholic Church has never done anything evil.. I mean give me a break.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes Avatar it does.. sadly enough.

How many people go to church and pray, listen to the pastor, preacher, or whatever their religious leader is but don't understand the meanings within the teachings. How many people go to church every day and can't even list the Ten Commandments off the top of their head? To be honest I can't do it.. and the Commandments are the base ruleset of ANY Judeo-Christian belief structure.. they are rules on how to live and conduct yourself sent down from our Lord God. You tell a kid "Don't steal" and leave it at that the kid might take a shirt and say they were just borrowing it. If you don't go in depth on a topic how is someone supposed to understand?

You can follow a faith, something that in your heart seems to be true, but if you never bother to learn anything outside of "This is what we are telling you is true" then you don't know your religion. I have actually had people try to claim that Christians would never kill someone or that the Catholic Church has never done anything evil.. I mean give me a break.

I would argue that those people aren't religious. Going to church doesnt make you religious. Living it does. And you cant live what you don't know.

I have no doubt you've met people that ignorant. But can they really claim to be religious?

What makes someone religious? Is it going to Church or is it actively living their faith?

Man cannot be saved in ignorance.

 

[BrokenAngel]

I would argue that those people aren't religious. Going to church doesnt make you religious. Living it does. And you cant live what you don't know.

I have no doubt you've met people that ignorant. But can they really claim to be religious?

What makes someone religious? Is it going to Church or is it actively living their faith?

Man cannot be saved in ignorance.

The point that is being made, Avatar is that those people are what athiests see as the faithful and religious. Those are the people individuals like Bill Mahr and George Carlon use/used as a basis for their hate towards faith and the faithful.

Knowledge is like wealth in more ways than one. You don't see an over abundance of wealthy individuals. More than likely you are going to see people who have just enough to survive on, just enough to scrape by. It is the same thing with knowledge, intellectually or faithfully speaking, you are more likely than not to find someone who can scrape by in society or at church than you are to find someone with an over abundance.

It is sad, but that is today's America..

 

[xsited1]

Religious people really don't know much about religion

kittenkoder has this in her sig line....

explain....how is it then that "non religious" people know more about religion, that is what the comment means...let's assume it doesn't because kittencoder will tell us it doesn't....so then, if religious people don't, who then does?

Obviously the quote that religious people really don't know much about religion is false. However, there are some religious people who don't know much about their own religion. For example, I've noticed that many Catholics know very little about the Bible.

 

[Care4all]

And Terral, your posts sometimes lead me to believe you're from another planet as your avatar suggests, but I'll name a few things i don't get.

Why is the death of Jesus portrayed so differently in the earlier gospel (Matthew) versus the later gospels? For example, the last thing we hear from Jesus in Matthew, aside from a scream, is 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' Meaning, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matthew 27:46). That's just not something somebody who considers himself God would say. It's almost like a self-invalidation of the claim of divinity because you wouldn't say, "Myself, myself, what have I forsaken me?"

Then, for whatever reason, the lamentation was not mentioned in later gospels, instead Jesus says totally different things:

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Then there's the whole Geneology problem:

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The geneologies are totally different, actually. Some apologists say one refers to Mary, but both verses explicitly state they are referring to Joseph. Not that Joseph should matter, because he is Jesus's adoptive father. Jesus being a descendent of David via Joseph is meaningless in that sense, and it would not have made sense to patriarchal Jewish society even if they had been referring to Mary's geneology.

And the whole virgin birth idea would not have made sense given patriarchy, as one could not be a descendent of David while being born of a virgin. Of course this is because there actually is no prophecy in the OT about the messiah being born of a virgin.

Heli was mary's father, it is her geneology that is traced.... reasons why this was done are here: BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST