Question for the devout Christians or Jews only

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We could get into a tit-fot-tat about the Muslim conquests in Africa and through India.

Or why the Christian ruler Michael of Constantinople initially begged Rome to help defend Constantinople against the Muslim invaders.

But that would be childish, don't you think?

Which is why its foolish for this topic to be addressed. Both religions have been used to kill millions of innocent people. Its not a reflection of either belief system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We could get into a tit-fot-tat about the Muslim conquests in Africa and through India.

Or why the Christian ruler Michael of Constantinople initially begged Rome to help defend Constantinople against the Muslim invaders.

But that would be childish, don't you think?

Which is why its foolish for this topic to be addressed. Both religions have been used to kill millions of innocent people. Its not a reflection of either belief system.

Yes. You're responding to me, and I think judging a religion by pointing to this or that atrocity can be misleading. Read the respective holy books (I myself have read most of them) and then form an opinion about whether, e.g., Jesus would have approved of the Inquisition.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely agree. Except for my faith, Islam, study of Islamic history is necessary so one can avoid a literalist interpretation like the Saudi's do in Wahhabism.

[Anonymous]

I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Jew and I can tell you historically I would bet Christians have engaged in more terrorism in the name of religion (certainly against Jews) than any other religion.

To me it doesn't really make sense however to blame a religion for terrorism-- it will at most be an excuse not a reason

.

stop feeling sorry for yourself. You were never a slave in America like the blacks, you were not robbed of your land like the native Americans. You live in an expensive area and send your kid to a private school and shop at wholefoods

If you like, you can try living among the muslims or communists or someone else

I am not sure if you are projecting or just aren't very good at understanding. Nowhere did I say I felt sorry for myself. But attitude that Islam is somehow a uniquely evil religion is ridiculous and offensive, given that as much or more evil has been done in the name of Christianity.

Are you a jewis person saying Christianity has caused more wars than Islam, therefore you get to be the best. I suggest you study history more. War is seldom because of religion. Christianity did not cause the American civil war or the revolutionary war, or invent the atom bomb.

I am trying to figure what's the most stunning part of your post-- that you think I mentioned being Jewish in order to claim to be "the best", that you think I should study history, when you seems to have no understanding of the murderous things done explicitly in the name of Christianity (many of which, newsflash, occurred before 1776), or that you think I was supporting the view that religion is a primary cause of war or terrorism.

[Anonymous]

Yes, in the Bible the book of Joshua. Every inhabitant had to be annihilated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

Like everything else in the bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

Like everything else in the bible.

I hate derailing this thread. But just a question. So, do Christians believe in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? This story is mentioned in the Quran and homosexuality is expressly prohibited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

Like everything else in the bible.

I hate derailing this thread. But just a question. So, do Christians believe in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? This story is mentioned in the Quran and homosexuality is expressly prohibited.

I definitely don't wan't to speak for "all" Christians, which I think is an ongoing problem in this forum. But I think a lot of what goes on the the Old Testament was nice stories (and some not so nice stories). Jesus didn't talk much about those stories and he explicitly got rid of a lot of the dietary, clothing and other rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

So your Mom said it so it must be true? This is how people just accept things without thinking about it very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

Pp, since your mother learned Greek in order to understand the gospel, curious, what does it say about homosexuality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

So your Mom said it so it must be true? This is how people just accept things without thinking about it very much.

Maybe what she meant was, since her mother learned to read the gospel in that language, others can do it too. She didn't ask anyone to rely on her mothers word, she just shared her mothers view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

So your Mom said it so it must be true? This is how people just accept things without thinking about it very much.

Please. My mom is highly intelligent and questions everything - else why would she have bothered learning koine instead of reading soft Christian lit. She's also taken tons of philosophy classes. I have no problem trusting her on this or on many other intellectual questions.

PP is right, I'm not asking you to trust my mom, that's silly. I am asking you to drop your assumption that all religious folk just, as you would like to think, "accept things without question." My mom's koine itself demonstrates how wrong this assumption is.