Its a matter..

Post #9,390 by addison 9/16/01 5:23:48 PM Reply	Its a matter.. Of who you listen to. The Bible is bloody and gruesome. Read it sometime. Read about slaughtering women/children being sanctioned. [link\|http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bg?passage=Deuteronomy+7:2\|Deuteronomy 7:](others same link) 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[1] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. [2] The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them; also in verse 26. Deuteronomy 20: 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. Numbers 31 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Etc. etc. That's a fast grab. Take those, and you can make a decent "argument" for taking all the virgin women, and killing the rest. Shooting abortion doctors is sanctioned by some christian leaders. Etc. So now you get back to who's reading what. The Bible and Koran are of similar vintage, and have, as I understand it, similar passages. I saw a writing where they were talking about the constant wars have meant that a lot of children were raised from birth with these messages (Think Hitler Youth for a "european" analog). Do you follow a religion? If so, why that one, and not the one down the street? Why not the one across town? Addison
Post #9,403 by broomberg 9/16/01 8:45:00 PM Reply	Don't like it Thanks for the link. As a recovering Jew, I am a member of a synagogue as a heritage touchpoint for my kids. On the other hand, I hopefully instill enough cynical disbelief to counterbalance any blind faith. As proof of this dichotomy, my 12 year old son just refused to be Bar Mitzvahed. He already learned the prayers and his passage, but refused to go up and lie to everyone. Makes me proud. INFURIATES my wife, who isn't even Jewish, but is a pre-school teacher at the synagogue, and has to deal with all the back stabbing gossip. Oh well. Now I have to start going to services with my 9 year old daughter, and possibly go through the whole build up of a Bat Mitzvah only to abandon it. Oh well. As long as it is truly a decision and not a parental manipulation, I won't mind either way. Of course, I did choose this particular synagogue because I really admired the rabbi, who later killed his wife. On the other hand, who translated this? I always wanted to learned Hebrew (really learn, not just mouth it) to be able to read this stuff in the original. Not that it would matter much, since from my limited exposure to bible history, these texts were written as parts of committees and had to be approved by the ruling class, who weren't even Jewish.
Post #9,405 by addison 9/16/01 9:20:33 PM Reply	Another question. On the other hand, who translated this? That's a doggoned good question. Along with "Who wrote it?" my 12 year old son just refused to be Bar Mitzvahed. He already learned the prayers and his passage, but refused to go up and lie to everyone. Makes me proud. Fill me in. Lie about what? (We didn't have a lot of Jews around when I was growing up. Ok, none. :)) Thanks, Addison
Post #9,407 by dmarker2 9/16/01 9:47:29 PM Reply	Re: Catholics have a related process ... Called 1st communion & passing the catechism. I could understand someone saying the same about the catechism. I think Catholic kids go through their process at a younger age (when still far to young to truly understand what they are stating & claiming). 15 was a good age for processing youngsters into young men, certainly for 1000s of years in the classic tribal living, some may think it a bit young in today's rather more complex world. As for the catechism, I don't think too many catholics take it quite as seriously these days. Doug Marker
Post #9,408 by broomberg 9/16/01 9:53:05 PM Reply	Many questions It's been a while. My understanding is that the various books of the "Old Testament" were written by a whole bunch if different groups of rabbis. They were rewritten many times, and had to go through an approval process that included the Pope. So while it interests me, I certainly don't ascribe any divinity to it. Of course, being one of the "Chosen People", to me any followers of any newer religions are just some newage cult mindless zombies. (And if you don't see the humor/sarcasm here, you now realize why I usually don't engage in these conversations.) As far as 'lie' I meant professing any belief that he didn't feel, which I consider courageous considering the pressure he is under to 'conform'.
Post #9,413 by wharris2 9/16/01 11:04:58 PM Reply	Approval by the Pope? What? The current Christian scripture was set by the Council of Nicea, in something like 300 AD. At that time, the catholic church had nothing llke the structure it has today. There was no supposed infallable pope at the time; for that matter, the council was convened by Constantine. And if you believe any Jew would accept the authority of a Christian pope over their holy writings, you're crazy. My understanding is that scholars think some of the Old Testament books were written by several people, and others by one, and some may have been pre-dated to have the appearance of authenticity. Rest in peace, Jeremy, Mark, Thomas, and whoever else who helped overpower the hijackers on Flight 93.
Post #9,414 by ChrisR 9/16/01 11:25:47 PM Reply	Pope and the Old Testament It's been a while. My understanding is that the various books of the "Old Testament" were written by a whole bunch if different groups of rabbis. They were rewritten many times, and had to go through an approval process that included the Pope. So while it interests me, I certainly don't ascribe any divinity to it. Never heard that one before. For the record, the Jewish canon was codified somewhere around 90AD, some 200 to 300 years prior to Constantine, and definitely prior to Christianity becoming a world force. One of the disagreements with Christianity was the difference over the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation. For one thing, the Septuagint had some 72 books, as opposed to the 66 books of the Jewish canon. This disagreement was to become an issue in the Reformation as the Protestants embraced the 66 books as being the Old Testament, while the Catholics went with 72 books (IIRC, the Orthodox Christian bible OT has 76).
Post #9,424 by broomberg 9/17/01 6:36:21 AM Reply	Re: Pope and the Old Testament Here's one link which says a bit about various "rewrites" and the timing involved. [link\|http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm\|http://www.newadven...n/03267a.htm] I have NO idea of the validity. I try not to get into these types of discussions because the bottom line is that it almost always involves: "My passionate ignorance is more powerful than your indifferent ignorance" arguments. I acknowledge my ignorance, and my inability to judge. How do I even know the Torah that I see today is the same as the original? And WHICH original? One key thing to remember is history is written by the winners, and we have no time machines to go look. And as Addison pointed out, there is a lot to abhor no matter who wrote it or when.

Welcome to IWETHEY!