Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dark Scipio wrote:
As I said the approach of Communism and Socialism and Christianity to achieve a better world are opposites.

Whereas the approach of Capitalism is much more in sync?

I think you're going to have real trouble making any useful comparisons between a religion over 2000 years old and modern political views.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:
As I said the approach of Communism and Socialism and Christianity to achieve a better world are opposites.

Whereas the approach of Capitalism is much more in sync?

I think you're going to have real trouble making any useful comparisons between a religion over 2000 years old and modern political views.

Not really,

Jesus is against war
Jesus was against public prayer
God is for abortions
Jesus is all about helping the poor, from feeding them, to selling off all your stuff to help them.
Jesus is against churches as we know them
Jesus is against using a church for profit.
Jesus is ok with prostitutes

I think that's most of the topics being raised by the election this year. If I missed any, just look at what todays christians are saying, and jesus probably had the opposite view.

sirlynchmob wrote:
God is for abortions

I'm sorry, what was that?!

Jesus is ok with prostitutes

No, he wasn't. He tolerated and wanted to help them see their sins for what they were (as he did with everyone) but that's a far cry from what you suggest. Like most of your silly oversimplifications of my religion.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
God is for abortions

I'm sorry, what was that?!

Jesus is ok with prostitutes

No, he wasn't. He tolerated and wanted to help them see their sins for what they were (as he did with everyone) but that's a far cry from what you suggest. Like most of your silly oversimplifications of my religion.

All of the pro life versus they like to quote from the bible come from the old testament, except 1 from the new. The whole pro life movement is taking the bible out of context. Numbers 5:11-31 God running the first abortion clinic, ie the church.

I mention the prostitute to illustrate that jesus loved everyone, and even though he was without sin he never threw a stone. or was he, did he have some sins so he couldn't stone her either?

All the christians I have met are just following a silly oversimplification of your religion. They can mention a few bumper sticker verses they agree with, yet almost none of them have ever read the bible.

I was just trying to focus on the topics of the day that the republican candidates in america keep bringing up, and showing that their positions have nothing to do with jesus teachings.

While its true most Christian's don't have a clue what they're talking about half the time, you're not really performing much better in the understanding department lynch.

Numbers 5:11-31 is about abortion (surprise) but its a very different situation from the one commonly seen in modern society, and its certainly not an abortion clinic. The abortion debate is dumb as crap, but saying that God is for abortion outright is misrepresenting what is actually said. That verse is about maintaining the integrity of marriage, not women aborting children they don't want/can't care for (which is how the current debate is framed).

LordofHats wrote:While its true most Christian's don't have a clue what they're talking about half the time, you're not really performing much better in the understanding department lynch.

Numbers 5:11-31 is about abortion (surprise) but its a very different situation from the one commonly seen in modern society, and its certainly not an abortion clinic. The abortion debate is dumb as crap, but saying that God is for abortion outright is misrepresenting what is actually said. That verse is about maintaining the integrity of marriage, not women aborting children they don't want/can't care for (which is how the current debate is framed).

What do you call a place a women goes to get an abortion?

Thats not how the debate is framed though, they want all abortions to be illegal. Including pregnancies from rape, incest, infidelity, and pregnancies that endanger the womans life. The only difference from the numbers is it's the man who chooses to take his wife to get an abortion for suspected infidelity. If the wife had been unfaithful, god would abort the baby and cause horrible pain to the woman. Its really no difference than a woman taking the morning after pill and saying "let gods will be done" Ergo god is OK with abortions in cases of infidelity, and from there we could conclude he would be for abortions in all cases I listed.

Ok so I can add a bit for theatrics to highlight the absurdities found in the bible, but that does not mean I'm not understanding what is in your bible.

sirlynchmob wrote:What do you call a place a women goes to get an abortion?

The woman is sent to the temple for a religious/legal purpose to perform a ritual that results in an abortion. It doesn't make the temple an abortion clinic. It's unlikely the ritual was performed all that often anyway. Most men would rather take the kid than have everyone know their wife cheated on them. EDIT: Irony being that in small ancient communities everyone probably knew anyway.

Thats not how the debate is framed though, they want all abortions to be illegal. Including pregnancies from rape, incest, infidelity, and pregnancies that endanger the womans life.

When dealing with rhetoric you have to cut through the crap that spews from the mouth to get at what people are really against. Hard core prolifers are against abortion in all cases, but the typical Christian is not. The abortion debate has been framed on an image of promiscuous women having relations out of wedlock and then 'murdering' their child to avoid the consequences of their actions. That's what most Christians (EDIT: I really shouldn't say most, because most don't care anymore) are against and why they become involved in the debate. Few people actively oppose aborting a fetus to save the mother's life. There's more opposition to rape but it too tends to have wide support. What people say is rarely what they mean, especially when they have to boil their talking points don't to one liners that they think the typical American voter can grasp.

Ergo god is OK with abortions in cases of infidelity, and from there we could conclude he would be for abortions in all cases I listed.

That's about as faulty as logic can get.

Example: I'm okay with gene-therapy to wipe out down syndrome, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with gene-therapy so that someone's baby can have blue eyes instead of brown.

Ok so I can add a bit for theatrics to highlight the absurdities found in the bible, but that does not mean I'm not understanding what is in your bible.

Your theatrics are just theatrical and while they certainly can demonstrate an absurdity in the way Christian's act, they misrepresent what is actually in the text. But I doubt we need that to see the absurdity in the abortion debate. It's as big a waste of time as the gay-marriage debate.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Luco wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Plus as was pointed out in another thread, the Chinese are still proof there was no biblical flood.

If I'm not mistaken the Bible uses the term 'world' not 'planet'. World is subjective, especially in ancient times when it takes place. Things like this needs to be seen in the context of the society that witnessed it, not in modern terms.

Since the only people that survived the alledged flood would be Noah and whoever was fortunate enough to be on his Ark, you're kind of grasping at straws here.

eh, reread it, may be a different translation or my faulty memory. either way ignore me for the moment.

LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:What do you call a place a women goes to get an abortion?

The woman is sent to the temple for a religious/legal purpose to perform a ritual that results in an abortion. It doesn't make the temple an abortion clinic. It's unlikely the ritual was performed all that often anyway. Most men would rather take the kid than have everyone know their wife cheated on them. EDIT: Irony being that in small ancient communities everyone probably knew anyway.

Thats not how the debate is framed though, they want all abortions to be illegal. Including pregnancies from rape, incest, infidelity, and pregnancies that endanger the womans life.

When dealing with rhetoric you have to cut through the crap that spews from the mouth to get at what people are really against. Hard core prolifers are against abortion in all cases, but the typical Christian is not. The abortion debate has been framed on an image of promiscuous women having relations out of wedlock and then 'murdering' their child to avoid the consequences of their actions. That's what most Christians (EDIT: I really shouldn't say most, because most don't care anymore) are against and why they become involved in the debate. Few people actively oppose aborting a fetus to save the mother's life. There's more opposition to rape but it too tends to have wide support. What people say is rarely what they mean, especially when they have to boil their talking points don't to one liners that they think the typical American voter can grasp.

Ergo god is OK with abortions in cases of infidelity, and from there we could conclude he would be for abortions in all cases I listed.

That's about as faulty as logic can get.

Example: I'm okay with gene-therapy to wipe out down syndrome, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with gene-therapy so that someone's baby can have blue eyes instead of brown.

Ok so I can add a bit for theatrics to highlight the absurdities found in the bible, but that does not mean I'm not understanding what is in your bible.

Your theatrics are just theatrical and while they certainly can demonstrate an absurdity in the way Christian's act, they misrepresent what is actually in the text. But I doubt we need that to see the absurdity in the abortion debate. It's as big a waste of time as the gay-marriage debate.

But who's logic is really faulty here, who's really misrepresenting the bible? the pro lifers won't even mention Numbers 5, but cite many other verses that still don't say anything about abortions. God no where condemns abortions, neither does jesus, and apparently its fine to have them as long as you have them in a church and god gets to murder the baby. What I think the real issue here is that the church is just opposed to women having a choice in anything. If you take the whole bible into consideration, you can easily show how god is not only for abortions, but he's ok with killing any kids. you know, take them to the river and stone them, sacrifice them, feed them to bears, etc.

Its not by any means a waste of time though, those hard core pro lifers are trying to have their morals passed into laws to affect everyone, weather they believe in god or not. If its immoral to you, don't do it. When they try to push it into laws, they need to be reminded their morals have no place in our laws, and your religion should have no affect on anyone who's not a part of your religion.

Gay marriage shouldn't even be a debatable issue. If you are for personal freedom and the government staying out of your personal life, then why should anyone have to ask permission to marry another consenting adult?

sirlynchmob wrote:But who's logic is really faulty here, who's really misrepresenting the bible? the pro lifers won't even mention Numbers 5, but cite many other verses that still don't say anything about abortions.

"They misrepresented it first." Isn't that a little childish? Most pro-lifers have probably never read Genesis... Well maybe the first two or three chapters. I doubt they made it to Numbers. And from experience, Deuteronomy and Numbers are boring to read.

God no where condemns abortions, neither does jesus, and apparently its fine to have them as long as you have them in a church and god gets to murder the baby.

No but they both sanctify human life, which is apparently enough for a lot of people. This stems from the advance of the times. While abortion is an ancient concept (contrary to what Pro-lifers seem to think) it's wasn't common back then. We're talking about an age where infant mortality was enough to drop average human life expectancy to 40. No one aborted children back then and the morality of it didn't really need addressing. So here we stand, fumbling about the figure it out.

What I think the real issue here is that the church is just opposed to women having a choice in anything.

Or they have an honest belief that there is a moral wrong in abortion, and there are arguments to that effect. Calling everyone who is against abortion a sexist is ignorant of what they're really arguing against.

If you take the whole bible into consideration, you can easily show how god is not only for abortions, but he's ok with killing any kids. you know, take them to the river and stone them, sacrifice them, feed them to bears, etc.

Theatrical misrepresentation. But it's okay, other people did it first.

Its not by any means a waste of time though, those hard core pro lifers are trying to have their morals passed into laws to affect everyone, weather they believe in god or not.

And pro-choicers aren't trying to get their morals passed into law (or rather, to remain in law)? People try to get things they agree with passed into law. It happens. Everyone does it. My problem is that its not changing, so the debate really only exists as a talking point.

Gay marriage shouldn't even be a debatable issue. If you are for personal freedom and the government staying out of your personal life, then why should anyone have to ask permission to marry another consenting adult?

Welcome to the silliness of the right wing of US politics and its self-destroying tendencies There's a reason I'm tempted to not even bother voting.

Either side using the Bible (especially the OT) to condone or condemn current actions is really a bit silly.

There is a massive difference between the current American culture and the ancient Hebraic culture. Taking messages out of cultural context renders them meaningless. Outside of the Golden Rule and the concept of forgiveness there is very little in the Bible that can be applied universally.

LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:But who's logic is really faulty here, who's really misrepresenting the bible? the pro lifers won't even mention Numbers 5, but cite many other verses that still don't say anything about abortions.

"They misrepresented it first." Isn't that a little childish? Most pro-lifers have probably never read Genesis... Well maybe the first two or three chapters. I doubt they made it to Numbers. And from experience, Deuteronomy and Numbers are boring to read.

I'm not misrepresenting it though, if you want to see what the bible says about abortions, you read numbers 5. Numbers 5 clearly described the procedure for getting an abortion. Here you have the LORD saying to Moses, if you think your wife is unfaithful, send her to a church for the priests to give her a curse which will cause her to miscarry if she was unfaithful. Then when we add in:
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person."

biblically speaking, you could even start to make a case its ok to abort a baby before it reaches 1 month of age.

Now its hard to track down actual facts on how often or if ever this was done, what they were made to drink, or if it ever not resulted in a aborted pregnancy. If the church kept records on it, they never made it to the internet to be googled.

Seeing as how our population just topped 7 billion, even with the Chinese trying to control pregnancy rates, and all the women in america getting abortions, we are no where near extinction. But if we don't get our populations under control we can over populate the planet and cause our own extinction.

LordofHats wrote:No but they both sanctify human life, which is apparently enough for a lot of people. This stems from the advance of the times. While abortion is an ancient concept (contrary to what Pro-lifers seem to think) it's wasn't common back then. We're talking about an age where infant mortality was enough to drop average human life expectancy to 40. No one aborted children back then and the morality of it didn't really need addressing. So here we stand, fumbling about the figure it out.

yes here we stand at over 7 billion people with life expectancies into the 100's, and we still have no need to force someone to have children the don't want.

sirlynchmob wrote:I'm not misrepresenting it though, if you want to see what the bible says about abortions, you read numbers 5. Numbers 5 clearly described the procedure for getting an abortion. Here you have the LORD saying to Moses, if you think your wife is unfaithful, send her to a church for the priests to give her a curse which will cause her to miscarry if she was unfaithful. Then when we add in:
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person."

You are misrepresenting. You've got a quote here full of it. Numbers 5 is not describing the procedure for an abortion, its describing what to do if you believe your wife has been unfaithful and is lying about it. Its a punishment for the wife that includes an abortion. Its done, not because the woman doesn't want the child but to preserve the sanctity of the marriage and the family. Boiling all of Numbers 5 to "God says abortion is okay" is such a huge misrepresentation it's nearly a lie.

A monetary value is placed on a child for two reason: appropriate sacrifice for the temple and legal reparations. A family when making sacrifices at the temple needed their sacrifice to match a certain value (this was likely done so that a baseline existed for religious purposes). This value would be based on each person in the family and their supposed value which was laid out in Leviticus. If the child is killed then the punishment often included reparations to the family. In an agrarian society, children were important sources of labor. Losing a child was not only an emotional loss but a monetary loss. At the same time, younger children had a tendency to die of natural causes anyway, decreasing the value. You'll find this was a common Mesopotamian concept as well. It's not even an absurd concept. There are numerous ways to monotized the value of a person. We do it all the time.

There's a blatantly obvious reason a census would ignore children under a month. Its called infant mortality. A family could have dozen's of children in Ancient times, and more than half of them would die, often while being born or immediately after. It's quite practical.

All you've demonstrated is that you can fish for versus but are incapable of analyzing their meaning.

Palindrome wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Palindrome wrote:Unless there is something more concrete than its inclusion in a 2,000 year old book that has been extensively rewritten over the centuries then its going to have to stay a myth.

I would be careful of that persecution complex that you seem to have developed.

That's an incorrect and common assumption. The message has remained unchanged, the only differences are minor translation issues.

The Torah and tradition are extremely important to the Jewish people, they would not easily let it be changed. It is enough to point out that nearly every book in the Bible was recorded decades to centuries after the fact, which alone should cause doubt to its credibility.

Minor translational issues may become highly significant, especially after multiple translations. Either way I would be very hesitant to take the bible as gospel (heh).

No they wont because we can go back to earlier texts, which are widely propogated. Most translations today are taken directly from copies in the traditional Hebrew and Greek and not from third party languages. The King James version for example is a very good translation, it was translated by several groups of monks and language scholars who were not allowed gto confirm a translation of any verse without unanimous agreement. It made thre translation a mammoth task, but it resulted in a very good translation, which is why it is still used today in either modern of archaic language.
Do not dismiss thre extent to which Christians Moslems and Jews will go to ensure an uncorrupted translation/copy. I will say this for Islam, you can see an ancient Koran over a thousand years old and a modern copy and it will be the same. The book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea scrolls was ideticle to the modern version also.

... The KJV of the Bible is one of the most translation error covered versions of the Bible. The problem was that they went for something that sounded nice in their native language which meant a lot of original meaning got lost. Plus, its NT isn't even accurate being based on the Textus Receptus, a 14th century Byzantine translation that is so littered with errors its almost laughable. How a Greek speaking culture failed to translate their own language is baffling. The KJV isn't very common beyond the UK, US, and Canada and for good reason.

Translation is less an issue for the NT than the OT. Its been said that there is no decent translation of the OT by a lot of Jewish scholars, simply because the nuance of Aramaic is lost in translation even when the translation is roughly accurate. While almost any Biblical text is probably going to be about 75-80% the same to any other, that 25-20% has resulted in numerous problems. Fortunately most of them are of no consequence to the typical believer.

Which is why anyone who cares about getting an extremely accurate Bible gets a study Bible (or two) and has access to the original phrases and text on their perceived meaning.

The biggest problem with 'Christians' is that most do not study the Bible. They simply go to church and believe what they are told or sleep through the service.

LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:I'm not misrepresenting it though, if you want to see what the bible says about abortions, you read numbers 5. Numbers 5 clearly described the procedure for getting an abortion. Here you have the LORD saying to Moses, if you think your wife is unfaithful, send her to a church for the priests to give her a curse which will cause her to miscarry if she was unfaithful. Then when we add in:
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person."

You are misrepresenting. You've got a quote here full of it. Numbers 5 is not describing the procedure for an abortion, its describing what to do if you believe your wife has been unfaithful and is lying about it. Its a punishment for the wife that includes an abortion. Its done, not because the woman doesn't want the child but to preserve the sanctity of the marriage and the family. Boiling all of Numbers 5 to "God says abortion is okay" is such a huge misrepresentation it's nearly a lie.
.

It really comes down to what the priests where giving the girls. The Egyptians knew ways to make drinks that cause women to miscarry. So any woman could get any man to walk her into the church, drink the morning after pill, and miscarry.

Its the implications this passage creates. The priests knew how to cause miscarriages ie abortions. So depending on what was being used, anyone suspicious of his wife could walk into the church, she drinks the stuff and miscarries, therefore she was unfaithful. Even if she was faithful.

So we get back to today, and from what you are saying, if I think my wife was unfaithful, I can give her the morning after pill, if the pregnancy is aborted she was unfaithful right? or would that only work in a church? Its for the sanctity of my marriage right? But in any case what you're reading is god saying its ok for the priests to test women (probably against their will) based on the word of their husband, and if she was "unfaithful" its ok for an abortion to occur, or as you put it earlier to murder the baby.

Amaya wrote:
Either side using the Bible (especially the OT) to condone or condemn current actions is really a bit silly.

There is a massive difference between the current American culture and the ancient Hebraic culture. Taking messages out of cultural context renders them meaningless. Outside of the Golden Rule and the concept of forgiveness there is very little in the Bible that can be applied universally.

I agree, the problem with the OT is some christians quote it, but when anyone else points to a different quote they get the dismissal "that's just the OT" then when pressed does that mean anything in the OT is still applicable or not, they tend to get quiet and turn away. For the pro life argument though, most of their quotes are from the OT so it opens up everything in it to refute them. Then you have this growing movement where its basically the bible is just a bunch of metaphors. so if its just a book of metaphors, than there is no more reason to read it than Grimms fairy tales.

If you're super-serial, you get a Study Bible + A Biblical Commentary Now that's some good reading. I miss my old Baptist college sometimes, simply because the library there had a half-dozen multi-volume commentary sets and it was awesome. I would get one of them if they didn't cost in excess of $300. Someday I'm going to get my own damned library just so I can sit down with these things.

I'd become a Theologian if I thought there was any money in it XD That and I really would rather not learn ancient Hebrew + three different kinds of Greek.

So we get back to today, and from what you are saying, if I think my wife was unfaithful, I can give her the morning after pill, if the pregnancy is aborted she was unfaithful right? or would that only work in a church? Its for the sanctity of my marriage right? But in any case what you're reading is god saying its ok for the priests to test women (probably against their will) based on the word of their husband, and if she was "unfaithful" its ok for an abortion to occur, or as you put it earlier to murder the baby.

Who said that? I'm talking about what the text says. To the ancient Hebrews, and most ancient cultures for that matter, religion was the source of the law. Even modern Jews tend not to put a lot of these ancient laws into practice, because they aren't applicable anymore (some of them can be made applicable, but it takes some imagination).

LordofHats wrote:If you're super-serial, you get a Study Bible + A Biblical Commentary Now that's some good reading. I miss my old Baptist college sometimes, simply because the library there had a half-dozen multi-volume commentary sets and it was awesome. I would get one of them if they didn't cost in excess of $300. Someday I'm going to get my own damned library just so I can sit down with these things.

I'd become a Theologian if I thought there was any money in it XD That and I really would rather not learn ancient Hebrew + three different kinds of Greek.

So we get back to today, and from what you are saying, if I think my wife was unfaithful, I can give her the morning after pill, if the pregnancy is aborted she was unfaithful right? or would that only work in a church? Its for the sanctity of my marriage right? But in any case what you're reading is god saying its ok for the priests to test women (probably against their will) based on the word of their husband, and if she was "unfaithful" its ok for an abortion to occur, or as you put it earlier to murder the baby.

Who said that? I'm talking about what the text says. To the ancient Hebrews, and most ancient cultures for that matter, religion was the source of the law. Even modern Jews tend not to put a lot of these ancient laws into practice, because they aren't applicable anymore (some of them can be made applicable, but it takes some imagination).

we're just going to have to agree to disagree on what numbers 5 means.

But then again I guess that's why there are 42,000 different types of christians, not even the faithful can agree on what the bible says. Its also a good reason not to base any laws limiting anyones freedom from it.

What Numbers 5 means is fairly apparent and straight forward. The problem is that I see no reason to embrace a slippery slope and declare God is okay with all abortions simply because his law has an instance of it happening under very specific circumstances.

to quote Bill Cosby repeating something his father said to he and his brother.

"I brought you into this world and I can take you back out, and then make another one who will look just like you...."

I think a lot of people just project what they want or hope for onto this concept they have of God / Divinity.
Where as what God is and they way he does things is something else entirely.

LordofHats wrote:What Numbers 5 means is fairly apparent and straight forward. The problem is that I see no reason to embrace a slippery slope and declare God is okay with all abortions simply because his law has an instance of it happening under very specific circumstances.

I'd agree with that in that one instance god is ok with abortions.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
You might mean later on. Immediately after the plagues in Egypt there was the conquest of the promised land which, from the perspective of anyone but the jewish people themselves, came across as an earlier version of the Mongol invasions. Don't let that whole thing about being conquered by several different civilisations fool you, back in their day the Israelites were scary fethers to say the least.

By "early on" I meant with respect to the history of Judaism.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
These were some pretty battered people by that time.

I mean, that was pretty much life back then. The Jews did their fair share of battering early on.

You might mean later on. Immediately after the plagues in Egypt there was the conquest of the promised land which, from the perspective of anyone but the jewish people themselves, came across as an earlier version of the Mongol invasions. Don't let that whole thing about being conquered by several different civilisations fool you, back in their day the Israelites were scary fethers to say the least.

The Jews had endured about 300 plus years of slavery in Egypt by the time Moses came on the scene and had the first born male babies of Moses generation killed in an effort to kill him.
Yes, they were quite battered before the Exodus.

Relapse wrote:
The Jews had endured about 300 plus years of slavery in Egypt by the time Moses came on the scene and had the first born male babies of Moses generation killed in an effort to kill him.

Not at all, there was no particular search for Moses himself, it was simply a move to cull the growing slave population (and I believe the 300 years is not the period of slavery, but the time between Joseph and Moses).

I'd add that the Aramaic word for 'Slavery' is somewhat unclear. It was likely more akin to some form of long term indentured servitude than chattel slavery.

Honestly, argument about Ancient Egypt aside, I am shocked at the level of deliberate misinterpretation and wheedling by certain posters. The bible can be interpreted in different ways, that much is true, but this is getting ridiculous.

Hell, the Mormons interpret Psalms 82:6 to mean that we are gods while ignoring translation issues and the surrounding verses.

Jewish scholars lament the addition of Jehova, a word that doesn't not exist in the OT, to the New World Version of the Bible (Produced by the Latter Day Saints), declared to otherwise be one of the most accurate and well done English translations, baring certain radical alterations.

There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.

LordofHats wrote:Jewish scholars lament the addition of Jehova, a word that doesn't not exist in the OT, to the New World Version of the Bible (Produced by the Latter Day Saints), declared to otherwise be one of the most accurate and well done English translations, baring certain radical alterations.

There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.

Yeah, they are undoubtedly an Abrahamic religion, but the whole recent "Mormons are Christians' deal is just a PR thing to gain mainstream acceptance. It really doesn't make sense to me, why can't you be proud of your beliefs? Why do you feel the need to piggyback onto Christianity and go from being a separate religion to just being another denomination?