Since Jesus was an oriental gentleman ...

[Dunamis]

Tent.,

“Even as fuzzy as I can be, at heart, I’m fairly pragmatic and I can see that there is a desperate need to begin some form of dialog that could result in, if nothing else, changed attitudes among the religions.”

" Some effort has to be made, why not start with us?"

The problem is, we had already begun it, in the - perhaps constructive -criticism of this translation. It can only be done, in my mind, case by case, but also as this thread has shown, those that propose the “noble”, find looking at the possible shadow of such a project impalpable, and ultimately threatening to their purposes. Good will and feelings are in some people’s minds, enough. If you want start a thread on this topic, I’d be glad to comment if I see something important to share. But the abstract contemplation of “reconciliation” pales when the particular is at stake.

Dunamis

[Bob]

Hi Dunamis,

I really had to laugh when I read this:

To “translate” the revered words of a particular holy text, a texts that many in a religion believe to be the literal word of God - even if you do not believe so yourself -, into a language more amenable to “greater understanding between religions”, might very well produce that understanding through a radical re-structuring of the host religion’s religious thought.

In what language did God speak his word? What is the literal word of God, the American English, Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew? And if the original language questioned the “host” religions structure, could that not eventually be beneficial - or is it not allowed to happen? Wasn’t that the question that was placed at the Reformation?

This is exactly the challenge that Religions have to subject themselves to to remain up to date. It may be that American Religion, which seems from Europe to be as much nationalism as religion, is going through a phase that Europe had in the middle ages - and which was challenged with the Reformation. In fact, the common denominator of the Roman Catholic Church and (protestant) American Evangelism is it’s conservatism.

When you alter the words of the God, even with the ambition of cross-religious communication, you are altering the anchor points of religious tenets. This is no small act. And I suggest that it should not be done lightly. The proposal to do such comes rather from a position which does not take religious text literally, and a general concept that the distinctions between religions are not important. I also imagine that the project itself understands the consequences of its ambitions, that a translation would be far more radical than a commentary. That this approach underlies such a project of re-translation, was my only point.

This brings precisely the protest (from protestant) that should be made to mind. A whole army of theologians argue that taking religious texts literally is completely misleading. The assumption of a smooth orderly transition from idolatry to faith in God, whether in the OT or NT is a fallacy. Because the authors of the canon didn’t address the matter doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Even in the whitewash that the Acts gives the beginning of the church, certain substantial problems couldn’t remain concealed.

My motivation on a continent where religion has been put to shame by bigotery, hypocrisy, perversion and disgrace, is to find and show the original motivation and inspiration. There are several ways to do that, one of them is to use the assistance we are given from the aramaic language, which should question our images of Christ. In fact, it is interesting that the semitic languages don’t like images, and that Judaism and Islam forbid “graven images”, whereas Christianity competes with Hinduism with the overabundance of pictures.

Shalom

[Dunamis]

Bob,

“I really had to laugh when I read this…In what language did God speak his word? What is the literal word of God, the American English, Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew?”

I did not say that I believe this, I said many of the religions you imagine must be “reconciled” believe this. So is your project of reconciliation a basic attempt to undermine the essential belief to many that their holy text is the “word of God”? If you are “laughing” at the predominate beliefs of others, how in the world do you imagine you would reconcile them? Simply by converting them to the unified thought of the Religion of Bob?

This is exactly the challenge that Religions have to subject themselves to to remain up to date.

What does “up to date” mean to you? Does it mean for religions to be acceptable to the things that “Bob” values. All three religions can unite if they all agree with “Bob”?

A whole army of theologians argue that taking religious texts literally is completely misleading.

Misleading to “Bob”, but not to those that you seek to unite.

Even in the whitewash that the Acts gives the beginning of the church

A whitewash that “Bob” can see through with penetrating eyes, down to the exposed brick of spiritual truth. Paul’s conversions were of “poor quality”, an army of theologians have mislead millions from the truth which “Bob” sees, a truth that could lead to the reconciliation of all religions. Let’s just retranslate all religious texts into the most vague and allegorical of meanings as possible, and then everyone will join hands, having seen the light.

My motivation on a continent where religion has been put to shame by bigotery, hypocrisy, perversion and disgrace, is to find and show the original motivation and inspiration.

It’s a good thing you know how to insult all those you wish to unite. Demagoguery is always been known to be the first step towards reconciliation. I’m glad to know that the Religion of Bob is here to set things straight and bring world peace. There is nothing more dangerous than a man in anger preaching world peace.

Dunamis

[Impenitent]

@Bob

…There are several ways to do that, one of them is to use the assistance we are given from the aramaic language, which should question our images of Christ. In fact, it is interesting that the semitic languages don’t like images, and that Judaism and Islam forbid “graven images”, whereas Christianity competes with Hinduism with the overabundance of pictures.

Shalom

just a quick observation:

pay attention to the differences of the imagery…

the images (generally speaking) of hinduism are of flowery cosmic nirvana…

the images of christianity? the images of betrayal, guilt, brutality, human torture, (unavoidable) sin, murder, and death…

oh sure, most religions have images of heavenly reward, but those are not emphasized by the priests… it is a question of how to get there…

thou shalt do this and this… why? to get heaven? perhaps…

could it be to avoid the inhuman actions of other humans as illustrated by the crucifixion… in the original languages of aramaic and hebrew, the carrot is key… in the others, it (christianity) is the stick…

-Imp

[scythekain]

could it be to avoid the inhuman actions of other humans as illustrated by the crucifixion… in the original languages of aramaic and hebrew, the carrot is key… in the others, it (christianity) is the stick…

brilliant metaphor.

[Bob]

Dunamis,

you can’t stick to the subject. You continually have to make it into a attack against me. In every single sentence you claim that I alone see things the way I have described, but don’t you read the newspapers, watch news on TV, read weekly magazines? Don’t you read history books, haven’t you read church history? Haven’t you read the reports of abused priests, abused church-goers? Has this all passed by without you taking notice?

This isn’t about Bob, though I assume you would like it to be. It isn’t about the normal people looking for orientation in religion, it is about organised religion, about the misuse of power and influence. It is about manipulation of masses. It is about creating anymosity against other faiths - especially Islam - to the degree of calling Allah the Devil (especially when Alaha is Aramaic for God). It is about the creating of prejudice and racism.

You are talking about damagogues, look in the mirror. I am telling people we have more in common than organised religion would have us know. You are telling them that exclusivism must remain intact, the idea of God’s elite is not far around the corner, next to the idea of rapture and the imaginations of the end of the world. You are saying the only way out of the mess we are in is by way of conflict - join Dr. Satanical, I’m sure he would agree!

Shalom

[Bob]

Hi Impenitent,

could it be to avoid the inhuman actions of other humans as illustrated by the crucifixion… in the original languages of aramaic and hebrew, the carrot is key… in the others, it (christianity) is the stick…

There is a well quoted example that I can’t find just yet, in which a Jew who is suffering persecution say’s something like, “they have taken the cross and turned it around. They have made the cross into a sword and now they are beating us with it!”

I agree with Scythethkain - a good metaphor

Shalom

[Dunamis]

Bob,

In every single sentence you claim that I alone see things the way I have described, but don’t you read the newspapers, watch news on TV, read weekly magazines?

I read them, I just don’t interpret them the way that “Bob’ does.

Don’t you read history books, haven’t you read church history?

I have read them, but I don’t interpret them the way that “Bob” does.

This isn’t about Bob, though I assume you would like it to be.

It seems to be about “Bob” imposing his intolerant view of other’s opinions, upon the very people he claims to seek to reconcile.

It is about manipulation of masses.

A manipulation that “Bob” is immune to? Despite the fact that “Bob” cites newpapers and T.V. and his source for information about the world

You are talking about damagogues, look in the mirror.

I have not called the people I claim to seek to reconcile producers of : bigotery, hypocrisy, perversion and disgrace

I am telling people we have more in common than organised religion would have us know.

As long as these people drop the beliefs they cherish and agree with “Bob”.

You are saying the only way out of the mess we are in is by way on conflict

The imposition of a unified thought upon distinctively evolved forms of worship or behavior is a violence. The violence in your project is marked by your words which describe the very people you wish to unite. There is conflict in your voice as you call for “no conflict”.

Dunamis

[Bob]

Hi Dunamis,

You bore me!

What a waste of intelligence - I genuinely consider you as being intelligent, but what you are doing is avoiding the issue.

Shalom

[Dunamis]

Bob,

“I genuinely consider you as being intelligent, but what you are doing is avoiding the issue.”

The issue is, look at your shadow, or at the very least the shadow of your project. Unless you do, you cannot lead others.

Dunamis

[scythekain]

As long as these people drop the beliefs they cherish and agree with “Bob”.

You don’t have to drop your beliefs, you have to drop your exclusive RIGHT to your beliefs. You have to drop the madness. You have to give up the insanity.

But you gain access to an inclusive spirituality.

we need to confront behaviour like this to stop further madness:

godhatesfags.com/featured/20 … -bomb.html

fundamentalist exclusive beliefs (religious is to narrow a brush, secularists and atheists can fit under the exclusive belief brush.) endanger our livelyhood.

we can stay exclusive and have massive losses of human life.

Or we can become more inclusive and accepting of people who are different. It doesn’t mean “giving up your self” it means “adding to who you are.”

[tentative]

Dunamis,

You are clearly interested in this issue. I asked you, very politely, to begin a thread addressing these issues and you declined. What is it? Put yourself out there. You obviously have an agenda, or you wouldn’t keep responding, what are you driving at other than taking pot shots. It’s time to play fair.

JT

[Dunamis]

Scy,

“You don’t have to drop your beliefs, you have to drop your exclusive RIGHT to your beliefs.”

And if your belief is that you have knowledge of the exclusive path?

Dunamis

[Dunamis]

Tent,

“You obviously have an agenda, or you wouldn’t keep responding, what are you driving at other than taking pot shots.”

I find those that speak of world peace and other spiritualized conceptions have projects that include a violence which they do not recognize. I do not have a position or agenda other than to point out this violence when I see it. If you call this taking pot shots, I call it making people responsible to the consequences of their views. I do not agree with over all spritual social engeneering, but rather in case by case review. In other words, apparently I do not think like you. Is there room in your mind for people who do not think like you?

Dunamis

[Bob]

Dunamis,

JT is right, I can’t find a single thread you have started. You enjoy sitting in the second row criticising the players at the table but you keep away from the table yourself. Come on, put your money down!

Shalom

[tentative]

Dunamis,

Is there room in your mind for people who do not think like you?

Of course I do. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be responding to you. You couch your response in lofty terms, but you speak to Bob as if he’s the only person in the world with the views he has expressed. Your animosity isn’t directed at the issues, but at Bob personally. The transparency of this is obvious. If you disagree, fine. But you discredit yourself by directing your comments AT Bob instead of the issues. Again, play fair.

JT

[Dunamis]

Tent,

“You couch your response in lofty terms, but you speak to Bob as if he’s the only person in the world with the views he has expressed. Your animosity isn’t directed at the issues, but at Bob personally.”

I have nothing against Bob personally, but I do not appreciate how “Bob” has represented himself. He tosses around hostility under very subtle innuendo. “Conservative Christian” in his use becomes a derogatory remark, a remark in tone which one poster has already taken objection to. He has accidentally grouped me with his experiences in Bible groups and the such, and yet he presents his view as if they should be transparent to all. The reason for personalizing his view as “Bob” is to make distinct the violence he is inadvertently committing against the personal views of other people, that he is not working from authority but from singular view, and as such must take all other singular views into account if he is going to bring about “reconciliation”. I would have much less a problem if this was Dr. Satanical, in fact probably no problem at all, because Dr. Satanical’s ideology matches his action. What I do have a problem with, enough to make a firm point of it, is when one claims to preach peace and reconciliation, but one’s mouth is filled with judgment and criticism. Perhaps this is a sore point with me, spiritual hypocrisy has more to do with the problems in the world than do the “authoritative” and literal readings of texts. I have no ill will towards Bob personally, in fact I suspect he is a very nice person and good to be around, but in a public arena, this kind of hypocrisy of project, even if subtle is the kind of thing I speak out against. Call this conviction.

Dunamis

[tentative]

Dunamis,

If this is your viewpoint and your conviction, why all the run around? Why all the posts to this thread to draw this out? There might have been a kinder, gentler, more direct way of addressing all this… or perhaps not.

JT

[scythekain]

@Dunamis

Scy,

“You don’t have to drop your beliefs, you have to drop your exclusive RIGHT to your beliefs.”

And if your belief is that you have knowledge of the exclusive path?

Dunamis

tell me how your exclusive path is better than john’s exclusive path?

[Dunamis]

Tent.,

"If this is your viewpoint and your conviction, why all the run around? Why all the posts to this thread to draw this out?

What you call drawing something out, I call point by point responding to that to which I object.

There might have been a kinder, gentler, more direct way of addressing all this… or perhaps not."

There might have been. I am a sharpened sword at times, and make no claims not to be. But if you check the history of the thread, it was when Bob claimed that I was purposively not understanding him - his second response to me -, that the social contract of reasoned exchange was broken. I ignored the intent at the time but eventually the agression of his vision raised its head. Again, from Dr. Satanical I wouldn’t have even thought twice. But when making claims as to a spirit of reconciliation, one must be held to them. “Freedom for all” at some point turns into “Death to the enemies of Freedom”, something those that chant the first slogan seldom think about.

Dunamis