I am reading-studying Da Bible

[HoodedRat]

I trust you are reading-studying it in the 'original languages' ... otherwise, apparently, it is not really valid.

 

[bankside]

Well you know Christendom is allowed to claim a billion adherents based on everyone's lay understanding of badly translated bibles. But the minute you want to question Christianity, you're criticizing it "based on a badly translated bible so therefore your criticism doesn't count. NO BACKSIES!"

 

[belamyi]

Well you know Christendom is allowed to claim a billion adherents based on everyone's SlEaZy understanding of badly translated bibles. But the minute you want to question Christianity, you're criticizing it "based on a badly translated bible so therefore your criticism doesn't count. NO BACKSIES!"

......

 

[belamyi]

I trust you are reading-studying it in the 'original languages' ... otherwise, apparently, it is not really valid.

That's right, so ..?

 

[HoodedRat]

^
From my occasional forays into the [STRIKE]American Christianity[/STRIKE] Religion, Spirituality & Philosophy sub-forum, I have learned that no one is qualified to criticise a 'sacred text' unless one reads it in the 'original language'.

I am quite amazed at the number of posters there who must be fluent in Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, Sanskrit, Ancient Egyptian, Chinese, etc, etc, based on their willingness to dimiss the claims of rival text-derived religious.

 

[bankside]

^
From my occasional forays into the [STRIKE]American Christianity[/STRIKE] Religion, Spirituality & Philosophy sub-forum, I have learned that no one is qualified to criticise a 'sacred text' unless one reads it in the 'original language'.

I am quite amazed at the number of posters there who must be fluent in Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, Sanskrit, Ancient Egyptian, Chinese, etc, etc, based on their willingness to dimiss the claims of rival text-derived religious.

It's a book that has so fucked up people's minds, lives and history that you are forced to read in order to know precisely how it has been used to bring all that confusion, and how you can put it in its right place or, at least, to fight back those who use it as a weapon backing (and baking) their own agendas.
That's it.

For these two beautiful comments I would like to hug you. Or, you know, three-way or something. I have british ancestry. We can't really do hugs without it seeming awkward or sexual anyway, so might as well just toss it in the ring - the towel that is - and admit it up front...

 

[belamyi]

^
From my occasional forays into the [STRIKE]American Christianity[/STRIKE] Religion, Spirituality & Philosophy sub-forum, I have learned that no one is qualified to criticise a 'sacred text' unless one reads it in the 'original language'.

I am quite amazed at the number of posters there who must be fluent in Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, Sanskrit, [STRIKE]Ancient[/STRIKE] Egyptian, ANCIENT* Chinese, etc, etc, based on their willingness to dimiss the claims of rival text-derived religious.

Beliefs use justification, not argumentation. You are not suppose to discuss your own beliefs to refute them. That's also how half of the academia works, as long as they talk more about "knowledge" and their belief and faith in it, rather than about science. The "spiritual" are only a lazier version, but not in any way fundamentally different: the academia rests its feet on science and investigation, the spiritual ones just kick all that away, but both want to hold THE Truth: the point in which they stop thinking and feeling and they just claim to be know-it-all/know-all-the-basics-you-need-to-know sort of gods, bigger or lesser.




*In fact, Old and Classical Chinese, but for the sake of symmetry with your post, let's just be improper, entre nous