23 Aug 11
Originally posted by divegeesterI'm not the one who put the plethora of quotes against the rich into your bible.
Assuming that social justice is exists only within the framework of your preconceived socialist viewpoint makes you sound more extreme than those who get berated for their spiritual beliefs.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by rwingettI entirely agree. I, too, have my own struggles against the more conservative Christians. Aside from the "individual salvation" concept we've touched on elsewhere, the best societal impact of Christianity on man is indeed the emphasis on social justice and being reminded to care for our fellow man. It's too bad that all too often, the more zealous take the Christian message as an excuse to slaughter (or at least continue oppressing) their fellow man, instead of lifting him up.
As an atheist, my beef with Christians these days is restricted primarily to conservative Christians. Whether someone believes in god, in and of itself, is of little concern to me. Unlike many other atheists on this forum, I no longer have any interest in bashing all religious belief, but restrict my bashing to the more conservative manifestations of that b ...[text shortened]... mphasis on social justice (which too many Christians choose to ignore) may be its saving grace.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by SuzianneBut is there any evidence that any such 'societal impact' exists? Do societies with a majority of Christians now or historically show any significant trend towards greater social justice or care for fellow men? I personally suspect the opposite.
.... the best societal impact of Christianity on man is indeed the emphasis on social justice and being reminded to care for our fellow man.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is indeed the tragedy and the great indictment on organised Christianity.
But is there any evidence that any such 'societal impact' exists? Do societies with a majority of Christians now or historically show any significant trend towards greater social justice or care for fellow men? I personally suspect the opposite.
Remember Ghandi's words, something to the effect that he admired the Christian teaching, just a pity he hadn't met any Christians yet...
In the larger society with a majority of nominal "Christians", you are absolutely correct - all the usual societal indicators of divorce, crime, etc etc are exactly the same for "Christian" and non-Christian societies. (Sorry, don't know the reference for this, I got it out of a Human Relations Handbook from the US many years ago!)
Having said that, I have found that in smaller communities, with common purpose and shared values, such as the one in which I find myself, the commands of Christ in caring for each other, etc, are lovingly and diligently carried out.
24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969Two of the three Scriptural quotations of this statement are quite similar. According
Jesus said it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, and that it is easier for a "camel" to go through the "eye of a needle" than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25.
Is it possible that there is a mistranslation in the Bible, and that the Bible is not 100% accurate? That the Gr oesn't "rope" really make more sense and a better fit than "camel" in the metaphor?
to Matthew’s account, Jesus said: “It is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s
eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24) Similarly,
Mark 10:25 reads: “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Some reference works suggest that the “needle’s eye” was a small gate in one of
Jerusalem’s large gates. If the big gate was closed at night, the small one could be
opened. It is held that a camel could fit through it. Is this what Jesus had in mind?
Evidently it is not. Jesus apparently was referring to a sewing needle. Since both
bone and metal needles of ancient origin have been found in that region, they must
have been common household items. Luke 18:25 removes any uncertainty about
Jesus’ words, for it quotes him as saying: “It is easier, in fact, for a camel to get
through the eye of a sewing needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of
God.”
Various lexicographers agree with the rendering “sewing needle” as found in the
New World Translation. The Greek word for ‘needle’ at Matthew 19:24 and Mark
10:25 (rhaphis) is drawn from a verb meaning “sew.” And the Greek term found at
Luke 18:25 (belone) is used to refer to a literal surgical needle. Says Vine’s
Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: “The idea of applying ‘the
needle’s eye’ to small gates seems to be a modern one; there is no ancient trace of
it. The Lord’s object in the statement is to express human impossibility and there is
no need to endeavour to soften the difficulty by taking the needle to mean anything
more than the ordinary instrument.”—1981, Volume 3, page 106.
Some suggest that in these verses “camel” should be rendered “rope.” The Greek
words for rope (kamilos) and camel (kamelos) are similar. However, the Greek word
for “camel” rather than the one for “rope” appears at Matthew 19:24 in the oldest
extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel (the Sinaitic, the Vatican No. 1209,
and the Alexandrine). Reportedly, Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and
may personally have translated it into Greek. He knew exactly what Jesus said and
therefore used the proper word.
So, then, Jesus meant a literal sewing needle and a real camel. He was using these
to emphasize the impossibility of something. But did Jesus mean that no rich man
could ever get into the Kingdom? No, for Jesus’ statement was not meant to be
taken literally. He was using hyperbole to illustrate that just as a literal camel cannot
go through the eye of an actual sewing needle, it is impossible for a rich man to
enter into the Kingdom if he continues to cling to his riches and does not put
Jehovah first in his life.—Luke 13:24; 1 Timothy 6:17-19.
Jesus made this statement just after a rich young ruler turned down the grand
privilege of becoming Jesus’ follower. (Luke 18:18-24) A wealthy individual having
greater love for his possessions than for spiritual things cannot expect to gain
everlasting life in the Kingdom arrangement. Yet, certain rich people did become
Jesus’ disciples. (Matthew 27:57; Luke 19:2, 9) So a rich person who is conscious of
his spiritual need and who seeks divine help can receive God-given salvation.
—Matthew 5:3; 19:16-26.
Conclusion: No mistranslation, historical, contextual and cultural evidence point to
the fact that Christ was using hyperbole in this instance.
24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustBut do they differ significantly from equivalent small societies of people from other religions or small societies of atheists?
Having said that, I have found that in smaller communities, with common purpose and shared values, such as the one in which I find myself, the commands of Christ in caring for each other, etc, are lovingly and diligently carried out.
Would you be more, or less, caring if you did not feel commanded to do so?
24 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadstart your own threads or keep on topic, the original poster asked a point with
But do they differ significantly from equivalent small societies of people from other religions or small societies of atheists?
relevance to translation of a particular Biblical verse, why must you people hijack it
with irrelevant details and unrelated questions?
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen you get rid of Dasa, then I might concede that this forum has rules, or at least a measure of decorum. Until then, its a free for all!
start your own threads or keep on topic, the original poster asked a point with relevance to translation of a particular Biblical verse, why must you people hijack it with irrelevant details and unrelated questions?
24 Aug 11
2 edits
Look i dont have time for this, so you are prepared to let what Dasa does control the
way you personally act? So be it, but you cannot complain when others bring the
matter to your attention. That is all i have to say, hopefully someone may post a
comment that has some relevance to the topic at hand instead of obfuscating it with
irrelevant details.
24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is evident that on an institutional level Christianity can accommodate itself to any number of unjust social systems. Feudalism, Fascism, Capitalism, Slavery, Dictatorships, etc. Too often it is used to justify and strengthen those systems and perpetuate their injustices.
But is there any evidence that any such 'societal impact' exists? Do societies with a majority of Christians now or historically show any significant trend towards greater social justice or care for fellow men? I personally suspect the opposite.
But on the other hand, it is also clear to me that Christianity can motivate a great number of individual people to do a great deal of good. I've done a little volunteer work in recent years, helping to bring food to the homeless and hungry. In the worst neighborhoods of Detroit, amongst all the squalor, devastation and abject poverty, who do you find there doing the difficult and thankless tasks of cooking those meals and distributing that food to 'the least of these' among us? By and large they aren't secular humanists or social scientists. By and large they're Christians. If they're motivated by their Christianity to do so, then who am I to get in their way with quibbles about the plausibility of their theology?
It may be that good people will find a way to do good, with or without a Christian motivation. But it seems to me that whether or not their god actually exists, there is a core of material within Christianity that does motivate people to work for social justice and that the rest of society would do well to work with them toward that end.
Originally posted by rwingettEnthralling i am sure, now can we get back to the real interesting aspect of the post,
It is evident that on an institutional level Christianity can accommodate itself to any number of unjust social systems. Feudalism, Fascism, Capitalism, Slavery, Dictatorships, etc. Too often it is used to justify and strengthen those systems and perpetuate their injustices.
But on the other hand, it is also clear to me that Christianity can motivate a cial justice and that the rest of society would do well to work with them toward that end.
that would be the accuracy of translation of certain Greek words as proposed by the
original contributor, that being the linguistic content on whether a translator has used
Greek properly, whether it adheres to the historical development of the ancient text,
the cultural ramifications of the translation and how it has a bearing upon
contemporary understanding of the passage and the etymological significance of
certain words or phrases, . . . . . . . . . . . .instead of this namby pamby social work
convention that you people are determined to make it!
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally? really? are you sure/ perhaps you need to take a few sociology classes and then maybe a few classes on the history of western civilization, then maybe you will begin to understand the impact christianity has had on society at large (both good and bad I will grant)
But is there any evidence that any such 'societal impact' exists? Do societies with a majority of Christians now or historically show any significant trend towards greater social justice or care for fellow men? I personally suspect the opposite.
Does christianity have an impact on social justice? ask Martin Luther King Jr. (or his family). Maybe you might ask mother Teresa or the millions of lives she has saved. Yes of course these are big names, but why not ask Pasotr Rudy and Jaunita Rasmus from Houston Texas or visit their website: http://www.stjohnsdowntown.org/
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGiven the similarity of the two words in Koine Greek and the far more logical metaphor that the use of 'kamêlos' makes, is anybody actually arguing that this was not either a mistranslation or error in scribing?
Enthralling i am sure, now can we get back to the real interesting aspect of the post,
that would be the accuracy of translation of certain Greek words as proposed by the
original contributor, that being the linguistic content on whether a translator has used
Greek properly, whether it adheres to the historical development of the ancient text, ...[text shortened]... .instead of this namby pamby social work
convention that you people are determined to make it!
24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, rc, here is my contribution to this topic:
start your own threads or keep on topic, the original poster asked a point with
relevance to translation of a particular Biblical verse, why must you people hijack it
with irrelevant details and unrelated questions?
The entire preoccupation with the accuracy or not of TRANSLATIONS is a total red herring.
Nobody cares two hoots about such accuracy - in fact, several translations such as the Living Bible and the Message make no bones about being Paraphrases rather than translations.
The key issue is the context of the original words, and the meaning that those to whom they were addressed would attach to them.
A typical example - I have heard that in the Eskimo Bible hell is dscribed as a place of intense and eternal COLD. A HOT hell would seem downright attractive! So literality goes out the window.
The only matter that is of interest as far as ACCURACY of the Bible is concerned, is the authenticity of the original languages, i.e. Greek and Aramaic. Many books have been written about that, and if somebody wanted to attack the origin or accuracy of a specific word, phrase or whatever in the ORIGINAL language, then there might be something to talk about.
Happy, rc? Is this on topic??
PS: Btw, twhitehead, I cannot answer your question, not knowing a big enough sample of such communities. It is, however, interesting to note that wherever there are RULES in such places, they tend to follow Biblical ethics and virtues, e.g. the ten commandments (although not called such, of course!), and brotherly love, compassion, etc. These seem to be universal basics. But, again, probably food for a separate thread...
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustWhy is that the 'key issue'?
The key issue is the context of the original words, and the meaning that those to whom they were addressed would attach to them.
Why is it important to know what the writer (or speaker) wanted his immediate audience to think?
If you believe the text is inspired by God, then what should matter is what God is telling you. If most people are mistranslating it and God has good foresight, then it is the mistranslation that he intended.
If the text is not inspired, then you need to ask whether a given translation is in line with your theology and reject it if it isn't.
PS: Btw, twhitehead, I cannot answer your question, not knowing a big enough sample of such communities. It is, however, interesting to note that wherever there are RULES in such places, they tend to follow Biblical ethics and virtues, e.g. the ten commandments (although not called such, of course!), and brotherly love, compassion, etc. These seem to be universal basics. But, again, probably food for a separate thread...
Society simply cannot survive without some rules, and people in general do have empathy. I am not sure why you find it 'interesting' to note that such rules exist in the Bible. After all, the Bible contains laws and advice for living in society amongst other things. It would be 'interesting' if no such rules existed or if they were significantly different from the norm (which they are in some respects which you neglect to mention).