Was the condemnation of man justified?

Yes. I read that they -plan to take all anti-Christ references out of it.

No wonder Christianity has, what, 3,000 odd sects.

Regards
DL

True true. I think it's good that there are multiple sects. Makes taking over the whole religion much more difficult. Similar to a compartmentalized ship. Seal all the compartments and flooding in a few of them won't sink the whole boat. The main problem with the Catholic church is it's hierarchical structure and, prior to the Protestant Reformation, it's exclusive rights to administer spirituality. I do not agree with rewriting the books. I'm at least 2000 years too late however.

As I see it the problem is that the multiple sects that have arisen - and continue to arise - since Luther (and the printing press) have each evolved their own hierarchical structure. Therefore the initial impulse, that nothing should stand between the individual human being and their God, is lost.

The word "nothing" is instructive in this context. Without involving the "mumbo jumbo" of the so called "east", here is T.S. Eliot (or at least, an assessment of his thought):-


Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of the poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine.

A rewrite would be silly, I agree.

Then again, the sheeple likely do not care what their tribe preaches as they are just there for the security of the tribe. Their selfish gene has corrupted their thinking.

Regards
DL

Sounds like an esoteric ecumenist. Full respect.

Regards
DL

I'm not sure what T.S.Eliot was, although he did profess the Anglican Faith eventually.

Ecumenism I'm happy with. The building of relationships between people of different creedal formulas, even different Religions.

For me though, not esoteric at all. I'm a very simple guy. I trust in Reality without feeling any need to give it names. I see simple trust as the foundation (call it the universal substratum, Word, Logos, or even as Thomas Merton said in one of his letters, "The Hidden Ground of Love" )

Personally I find the various creeds and dogmas "esoteric"!!

If the bible was never "rewritten" then everyone would have to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek in order to be able to read it. I think most of us can see the flaw in requiring everyone to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek so they can read the bible.

Of course the reality is that most of the "rewrites" are actually "translations" from one language into another... latin to english... english to Spanish... etc.

> The 1st major "translation" was from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek to Latin; i.e. the Vulgate.

> Later translations were made from Latin into German, English, etc.

> Still later some people felt that the translations from Hebrew, Aramaic & Koine Greek to Latin and then to German, English, Spanish... etc.... were not accurate (for a variety of reasons from accidental to intentional mistakes/changes) so some people went back to the source documents and tried (or claimed to try) to make more accurate translations.

So, again, while there are various "versions" most of these "versions" are really just different "translations".

The over all content of the bible, in spite of the possible (minor) errors in some translations, has been surprisingly consistent.

Of course there are some differences that are based on which books are included; i.e. between the Coptic bible, the Roman Catholic, the Protestant, etc). Still the overall content is consistent. The OT is largely a "history" from the beginning up to a point, plus Psalms, Song of Solomon, Proverbs. The NT is "history" of Jesus and (for the most part) the writings of Paul, plus Revelations.

The various versions translations of the bible really don't stray from this .

In fact, the biggest difference seems to be a modern habit of rephrase some passages in the bible that refer to multiple gods as if they were real beings to make it appear that the bible did not refer to multiple gods as real beings.... the council of El and all that.

In addition, there is much commentary and discussion suggesting that there are in fact different variations of the bible that have significantly different passages (i.e. translations) that do in fact make some huge difference.

The problem with these arguments include two major issues:

1. The critics rarely explain why or how the differences actually impact the overall theme of the bible. They don't show how they change the "history" as presented, nor the overall spiritual message.

2. These criticism rarely if ever, tell us which version of the bible is the correct one.

Of course some people want to say that the bible is entirely invalidated as demonstrated by the differences between different "versions".

Others want to say that their version is the correct version because of something.

It is a bit like saying: One person says the the sky is blue, another says the sky is azure, so they fight each other to the death...

Or one person says the sky is blue, another says that the sky is sometimes grey, or black at night, or...

etc...

Therefore we all should recognize that the sky is actually invalid.

Translation is really an art form. A Chinese translation of the Bible has for the opening of St John's Gospel:- "In the beginning was the Tao" for "In the beginning was the Word".

I would think that many Christians who place great weight upon each and every word of the Bible and insist upon just one legitimate interpretation only are immediately driven to understandings of the "Word" as "the beginning" which would be at variance with many Chinese Christians. I would think anyway! Irrespective of the Word becoming flesh.

Then there was the lady who, hearing of another foreign translation, was heard to exclaim:- "If English was good enough for St Paul it should be good enough for them" !

She must be one of the people who think the King James Bible is not just the "best" version, but the true and unadulterated word of god.

That sounds like official Catholic doctrine

Only to a complete idiot moron who has never fully read a single version of the bible, let alone multiple "versions" in two or more different languages.

Actually, what it sounds like is that you are unprepared to refute what I wrote with specific examples, because you only parrot the BS from other people.

PS
For you information, since you typically don't pay attention.
> I am not a catholic.
> I am not a christian.
> I don't believe in the the god of the bible.
> But unlike you, I have read it multiple times from first word to last word, in multiple languages.
> Also unlike you, I have actually studied the history and formation of the Bible for well over 40 years.

But thanks for the weak and failed insult, it makes you look like a buffoon.

Esoteric ecumenism is more as how one looks at religions and not so much what they are.

At least that is how this French man interprets this English scholars definition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hbITRFib9w

Regards
DL

Translations are one issue.

Plagiarism has likely more harm than good to Christianity as it is easy to see that they took bit's and pieces from many better overall ideologies. Like from the Chrestians.

Here they plagiarize a good human god and turn him into the so called son of a vile genocidal god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls

Regards
DL

A fun fact all should know. King James was gay.

Just do not ever tell Christians that King James was gay.

Regards
DL