A pagan vindicated?

[Nearly Sane]

Why so partisan?

As far as I am concerned it has to be all or nothing as far as the Big-3 are concerned.

Surely that's either applied to all beliefs or none?

[Owlswing]

Surely that's either applied to all beliefs or none?

Why?

I am Pagan - I do not tell any other Pagan how they should  approach the way in which they follow their Pagan path nor do I expect any other Pagan to tell me how to approach my path (if you don't believe me, ask Riannon) - hence why I am not Gardnerian or Alexandrian.

[Nearly Sane]

Why?

I am Pagan - I do not tell any other Pagan how they should  approach the way in which they follow their Pagan path nor do I expect any other Pagan to tell me how to approach my path (if you don't believe me, ask Riannon) - hence why I am not Gardnerian or Alexandrian.

Because if you apply the idea that something is all true or not, then you apply it consistently?

[Robbie]

What is the Big-3?

[Owlswing]

Because if you apply the idea that something is all true or not, then you apply it consistently?

To put it bluntly I don't give a tuppenny whether what the Big £ believe and preach is true or false - it is their insistance upon telling their followers exactly how they should think, exactly how they must relate to their deity and therr clergy and, of course, the rule by fear.

I know all three do not hit all these points but it is they all hit some of them.

[Owlswing]

What is the Big-3?

Christianity, Islam and Judaism

[Robbie]

Thanks Owlswing.  Never heard the Abrahamic religions referred to as that before. (I did google and came up with basketball.)

Going back to ippy, no-one does have to take any notice of the Pope or his utterances if they don't want to, I rarely think about him, but this thread was about him updating the Lord's prayer so not surprising he is mentioned on it.

[Shaker]

Going back to ippy, no-one does have to take any notice of the Pope or his utterances if they don't want to

This is what royally screws over JeremyP's #69 and was the whole point of the Carlin quote. That the Pope has power and authority is a matter of belief and not objective fact. He does if you believe he does, but not until and unless. If you don't, he doesn't. That a large number of people think that the Pope has power and authority, therefore the Pope has power and authority is about as nifty an example of the ad populum/ad numeram fallacy as I can recall. This was the thrust of the Carlin quote.

[Robbie]

Quite.
Also the Pope's authority is only relevant to Catholics but, as I understand it, he's only considered to be 'infallible' if he makes a dogmatic pronouncement & no pope has done that for a very long time. What he talks about is just his opinion.

Interesting!

[ippy]

Thanks Owlswing.  Never heard the Abrahamic religions referred to as that before. (I did google and came up with basketball.)

Going back to ippy, no-one does have to take any notice of the Pope or his utterances if they don't want to, I rarely think about him, but this thread was about him updating the Lord's prayer so not surprising he is mentioned on it.

This post of yours Rob gives me the impression that you still don't get it?

Regards ippy

[Sassy]

Further to the above - Sassy, in particular, and others have argued that the quoted passage is a mis-translation going back to the year Dot almost.

No mistranslations... People simply getting it wrong because they try and make something say, more than it does.
Human slant is not mistranslation.... they believe what others tell them instead of listening to God.

My argument was, and is, that the translation error has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that millions upon millions of Christian kids, from the first day they are sent to Sunday School or church, are taught the Lord's Prayer including the line asking God not to "lead us not into temptation".

Christ taught the disciples how to pray. God not interested in long speeches and already knows our needs.
I am sure Christ and his life explains a lot of the Lords Prayer.

The matter of a possible translation error would not be discussed at any level of schooling before, as far as I am aware, a University degree course in Divinity or Theology, a bit late to change the perception of all those Christian kids who will never get within a hundred miles of such a course.

A man made course any better than the bible? Surely you are educated enough to know why that cancels itself out?

[Owlswing]

No mistranslations... People simply getting it wrong because they try and make something say, more than it does.
Human slant is not mistranslation.... they believe what others tell them instead of listening to God.

Christ taught the disciples how to pray. God not interested in long speeches and already knows our needs.
I am sure Christ and his life explains a lot of the Lords Prayer.
 A man made course any better than the bible? Surely you are educated enough to know why that cancels itself out?

A very long=winded way of saying nothing relevant. As expected.

[Sassy]

A very long=winded way of saying nothing relevant. As expected.

It took you all those words to say NOTHING OF USE...
Why should you change the habit of your life-time?

[Sebastian Toe]

It took you all those words to say NOTHING OF USE...
Why should you change the habit of your life-time?

Well if that is true, at least he only used one sentence....rather than several paragraphs, many quotes from the KJV, over use of caps-lock and an overbearing sentiment of self rightiousness and never, ever, ever being wrong! 

[ippy]

No mistranslations... People simply getting it wrong because they try and make something say, more than it does.
Human slant is not mistranslation.... they believe what others tell them instead of listening to God.

Christ taught the disciples how to pray. God not interested in long speeches and already knows our needs.
I am sure Christ and his life explains a lot of the Lords Prayer.
 A man made course any better than the bible? Surely you are educated enough to know why that cancels itself out?

Hi there Sass, see you're still going strong on the unsupported assertions.

Why can't you see that there's no way you can possibly know the things you insist on asserting and try to convey it as though you've acquired this knowledge first hand?

You're being daft Sass.

Regards ippy

[ippy]

Why so partisan?

As far as I am concerned it has to be all or nothing as far as the Big-3 are concerned.

The pope was brought into the thread so I referred to the pope in reply.

As it happens I don't go with any of the superstition based beliefs whatever they might be, whatever they refer to themselves as.

Regards Owl, ippy

[Sassy]

Well if that is true, at least he only used one sentence....rather than several paragraphs, many quotes from the KJV, over use of caps-lock and an overbearing sentiment of self rightiousness and never, ever, ever being wrong! 

You don't understand debate?
Well if that is the case why are you here? Oh! Yes to jump in feet first in something that does not concern you.
You have no ability to be fair. You see the other person made the first improper and unfair remark.
Why is it, as an atheist you cannot be honest or judge fairly. Could that be the reason you remain an atheist, because you don't like truth or fairness. Fairness and truth and not personality contests would have had you saying he deserved it.

Guess your scared of TRUTH. Your personal attacks reveal more about your inability to be fair than anything you say.
Grow up! Some of us, already have.

[Sassy]

Hi there Sass, see you're still going strong on the unsupported assertions.

Why can't you see that there's no way you can possibly know the things you insist on asserting and try to convey it as though you've acquired this knowledge first hand?

You're being daft Sass.

Regards ippy

Why can't you admit you have more unanswered questions than answered questions.

We have to wait till Christ comes back before we will know all the answers.

[Shaker]

Good luck with that one

[Sebastian Toe]

You don't understand debate?

I think I do.

Well if that is the case why are you here?

Oh! Yes to jump in feet first in something that does not concern you.

Irrelevant, see above.

If you understood  forums, which it looks like you don't, then you would know why people interject with comment.

You have no ability to be fair.
You see the other person made the first improper and unfair remark.

Yes I do.

If you took the time to read my post, instead of jumping in feet first because you think I am an atheist any you automatically go into your standard anti-atheist mode, you would see that I acknowledged that possibility.

Why is it, as an atheist you cannot be honest or judge fairly. Could that be the reason you remain an atheist, because you don't like truth or fairness. Fairness and truth and not personality contests would have had you saying he deserved it.

There you go! Just as I said!

Please tell me where and when I have stated that I am an atheist.

Guess your scared of TRUTH.

No. But maybe you are?

Your personal attacks reveal more about your inability to be fair than anything you say.

Right back at you , with jam on!

Grow up! Some of us, already have.

Not from what I'm seeing.

[Robbie]

This post of yours Rob gives me the impression that you still don't get it?

Regards ippy

Possible. I get that the thread concerns the Pope updating some language - which has already been done many times.  Also that youngsters were taught the prayer in question parrot fashion in days gone by and some were confused about the 'temptation' bit. The thread then went on about the Abrahamic religions, or some parts of them, telling people what was right and not right, etc. We know  all about that!

Then it was discussed that none of it matters to non-believers anyway.

I liked what Sassy said about God already knowing our needs & the language used by us to express them is not relevant. Again none of that is significant to non-believers.

I can't think of anything else to say in this thread now but what I did think about last night, being as it originally was about the Pope and language, I'd ask a Catholic friend if she considered it all  that significant (or even knows about it). I believe we only have one Catholic poster on here who seems to stick to one thread.

[ippy]

Why can't you admit you have more unanswered questions than answered questions.

We have to wait till Christ comes back before we will know all the answers.

Of course I've got unanswered questions Sass, what has that got to do with the mailing of mine I'm assuming is the one you're responding to?

As for where you say: 'We have to wait till Christ comes back before we will know all the answers', it's not even a certainty the this Jesus you're always on about was ever here in the first place which in turn would enable him to come back if he indeed ever did exist in the first place.

Suppose I was to start a series of quotes that this talking unicorn had made about life in general and was to try telling you about the things this unicorn had said to me; what would you want to know about my relationship with this unicorn, especially if I was to say he has gone now and would be back one day to question all of us, including you Sass, about how we had lead our lives bearing in mind we couldn't lie to him because he was all seeing and all knowing?

Really what would you be thinking if I was to tell you all of the above?

Can you see the parallels Sass?

And you expect people to believe, in effect, the bible proves the bible?

Regards ippy

[ippy]

Possible. I get that the thread concerns the Pope updating some language - which has already been done many times.  Also that youngsters were taught the prayer in question parrot fashion in days gone by and some were confused about the 'temptation' bit. The thread then went on about the Abrahamic religions, or some parts of them, telling people what was right and not right, etc. We know  all about that!

Then it was discussed that none of it matters to non-believers anyway.

I liked what Sassy said about God already knowing our needs & the language used by us to express them is not relevant. Again none of that is significant to non-believers.

I can't think of anything else to say in this thread now but what I did think about last night, being as it originally was about the Pope and language, I'd ask a Catholic friend if she considered it all  that significant (or even knows about it). I believe we only have one Catholic poster on here who seems to stick to one thread.

Why should anyone take any notice of anyone that has even sold out the very little credibility they once might of had, no matter whatever it was he was talking about?

Regards ippy

[Robbie]

No 'should' about it as far as I'm concerned, ippy. I dunno what the fuss is about, admit to knowing nothing about the proposed updates in translation until I saw this thread & it doesn't affect me personally. However it's not surprising that it is discussed on the Christian Topic.

[ippy]

No 'should' about it as far as I'm concerned, ippy. I dunno what the fuss is about, admit to knowing nothing about the proposed updates in translation until I saw this thread & it doesn't affect me personally. However it's not surprising that it is discussed on the Christian Topic.

With his past record of judgements, why would it matter whatever he said about anything why should we listen to him at all?