Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
From what I understand, and as someone who once had an interest in ancient bibles, even ordering a re-print of scans of an original tyndale bible in Olde English, I don't believe it's quite so cut and dried. Biblical texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls were originally in Hebrew, and from modern archeology it appears that even then, there were multiple versions, with some differing greatly.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible/
The Catholic Church was the first sect of Christianity to add in those 7 books later, in their own Latin translation of the Bible..
Personally I must observe it is rather convenient that the books they added just so happened to contain material which bolstered their political power, wealth, and importance in society by requiring the Church as a necessary intermediary (besides it being in a language only they could read).
I'm not quite sure how that applies. The concept of original sin only exists in the abrahamic religions. When you were assessing the other religions, were you doing so under the assumption that Christianity's original sin was already a truism and determined the merit of the other religions based on how they applied to that concept? If so, how did you determine that Original Sin is by default, a scientific universal truth?
The Catholic Church is the original church, and the Pope holds the same authority as Peter.
And the Bible is just a bunch of books joined together.
Original Sin is true, that is fact. Take a look around the world. It will let you know.
And if 7 books are the problem, why remove 6?
Jesus literally handed Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Personally I would put forward that starting with that assumption is more gut-feeling/vibe based than science based, since our negative behaviors are able to be explained without the need for a supernatural answer.
I guess I'll conclude with an observation; I started with equating ML's to religious indoctrination since they have a sunk cost and interest only believing sources that reinforce their worldview despite solid evidence that is contrary to their views. I personally believe all dogmatic religions encourage that same phenomena, with the abrahamic religions and their offshoots being particularly stifling (though others such as Confucianism can be similarly bad), due to their direct encouragement of seeing any outside information as the devil's work.
As someone who believed those dogmas for a long time, I know that such teachings essentially give a perception of paranoia that any person who isn't in the same club is a potential source of evil or temptation into the mind, which results in automatically assuming all counter-information being dismissed or not properly investigated out of the discomfort it can create. I personally look back on those days as a very bleak and sad time due to that worldview, I hope you avoid it.
As all of the information presented was exclusively from biased pro-catholic sources, I'm sorry to say I remain unconvinced, just as I remain unconvinced by ML's for similar reasons. However, I want to say thank you for taking the time to explain how you came to these conclusions and views, I did find it enlightening.
I wish you the best.
May the Lord be with you, Frater.