Any atheists within this group - Page 12
   

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Any atheists within this group

This is a discussion on Any atheists within this group within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree325Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        07-24-2013, 10:20 AM
      #111
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Speed Racer    
    Not sure what an atheist chaplain would preach. Since there is no God according to them, what kind of doctrine would they expect to follow?
    Humanism.
    The man trying to be endorsed as a chaplain is endorsed by the Humanist Society. The Humanist Society is not on the list of approved organizations to receive endorsement to be chaplain and this the push.

    It's about people who would like to receive support from like minded individuals. From someone who shares their outlook on life and would have a similar approach to things.

    It's like if you're a dressage rider and have a problem, are you going to another dressage rider or someone who is a bull rider? Or a western pleasure rider? No, you want a dressage rider.

    If I have a crisis and wanted support, I would not want words of god as help or an anecdote from the bible. That would ring hollow to me since I do not find strength in those things.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    RedHorseRidge and nicoles like this.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        07-24-2013, 10:28 AM
      #112
    Showing
    I see the comparisons DA, but why the push to be recognized as actual chaplains? Do those endorsed by the Humanist Society call themselves chaplains?
         
        07-24-2013, 10:42 AM
      #113
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Darrin    
    Have to ask on this thread if this makes any sense. Heard on the news last night that atheist are insisting the military start recruiting atheist chaplains for them.
    Yes, it makes sense to me. If the alternative to going to "chapel" is work, there should be "equal treatment". If not for that, I think someone finding or being inspired to find/remember their moral compass doesn't require one to be religious.
         
        07-24-2013, 10:56 AM
      #114
    Super Moderator
    I know that many religious people are hypocritical but honestly I've never been confronted by anyone that was rude in their proselytizing or said anything that would offend me or make me even mildly annoyed
    Maybe the UK is just lacking in religious fervor
    We used to get Jehovahs Witnesses at least once a month, I tell them I'm not interested and they go away with no argument - same as they do here
    The Mormon missionaries the same - always very polite, respectful and pleasant young people.
    Perhaps I'm just lucky but IMO there are plenty of people out there wanting to rudely force their beliefs and opinions on other people that has nothing to do with religion that are way more offensive.
         
        07-24-2013, 10:57 AM
      #115
    Trained
    Having a "do not knock" list akin to "do not call" list would be fine by me. That would put the onus on a solicitor to determine if your residence accepts door to door solicitations.

    But, as far as religion in general goes, there are more religions than just Christianity/Judaism. In the big picture, states (governments) that do not allow or control religious activity, or that are governed by religious law are the "alternative" to freedom of religion. That freedom, of course, is accompanied by the right to criticize or promote religion.
         
        07-24-2013, 11:02 AM
      #116
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Saddlebag    
    The writings of the bible were borrowed from over 5500 transcripts. Let's suppose there are 5 or 6 smucks who've been given this job of editing. The hours are long, the candlelight it hard on the eyes and soon they decided to liven the stories up a little, to break the monotony and who's going to know? So now there's a revised and edited version. Wait a minute, still too big, it would take a donkey to carry a tome like that. More editing. Well now, these 6 schmucks are the only ones who can read this so it must be translated into another language so others can read it. And on it went. Translation after translation and more and more editing. The most drastic editing came about with the invention of the press. Then King James ordered a new revised version that could be printed. Is there anything of the original transcripts in the present day bible?
    " New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time. Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine."
    Stand to Reason | Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

    Also:

    Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
    " Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that obscured the original message of the author.

    The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the Bible’s textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130)."
    Apologetics Press - The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity

    Also, translations are translations. In English, the first full translation of the Bible was Wycliffe's, based on the Latin translation done around 400 AD. The next was Tyndale's, about 100 years prior to the KJV and based on the original languages. Interestingly enough (to me) is that Tyndale's translation (1526) is very close to modern English, except for spelling:
    Nicodemus said unto him: how can a man be born, when he is old? Can he enter into his mother's body and be born again? Iesus answered: verily, verily I say unto thee: except that a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh. And that which is born of the spirit, is spirit. Marvel not that I said to thee, ye must be born a new. The wind bloweth where he listeth, and thou hearest his sound: but canst not tell whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every man that is born of the spirit. And Nicodemus answered and said unto him: how can these things be? Iesus answered and said unto him: Art thou a master in Israhell, and knowest not these things? Verily verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we know, and testify that we have seen: And ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things and ye have not believe: How should ye believe if I shall tell you of heavenly things?

    And no man ascendeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, that is to say, the son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lift up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lift up, that none which believeth in him perish: but have eternal life.

    God so loved the world, that he gave his only son for the intent, that none that believe in him, should perish: But should have everlasting life. For God sent not his son into the world, to condemn the world: But that the world through him, might be saved. He that believeth on him shall not be condemned. But he that believeth not, is condemned all ready, because he believeth not in the name of the only son of God.
    the newe testiment. John Chapter 3:1-36.

    The KJV was deliberately translated into more ornate language, since King James believed "No bishop, No king" - after all, if the church was not top-down, why should the rest of society be? People who chose their own pastors might want to chose their own king...

    From the English Standard Bible website:
    "The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

    The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.

    In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Pe****ta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition."
    About the ESV Translation « ESV Bible
         
        07-24-2013, 11:22 AM
      #117
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Speed Racer    
    I see the comparisons DA, but why the push to be recognized as actual chaplains? Do those endorsed by the Humanist Society call themselves chaplains?
    Chaplains are the ones you seek out for counseling and advice in addition to moral support. Right now, seeking the services of a chaplain have to either choose a chaplain endorsed by a religion or go without.

    The endorsement is something the military requires of chaplains. Since this guy is the first I assume he would still be a chaplain but who knows. I don't know if chaplains exist outside the military but they probably have roles specific to their church, and titles to go with it. You cannot be a chaplain without an endorsement, the military has a list of specific organizations whose endorsement they recognize and the humanist society is not on there. He is pushing for the society to be added to the list so his endorsement can be recognized and thus be allowed to be a chaplain. He can't just set up a booth and accept walk ins, he's trying to get this as his iob.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        07-24-2013, 11:30 AM
      #118
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DancingArabian    
    Humanism.
    The man trying to be endorsed as a chaplain is endorsed by the Humanist Society. The Humanist Society is not on the list of approved organizations to receive endorsement to be chaplain and this the push.

    It's about people who would like to receive support from like minded individuals. From someone who shares their outlook on life and would have a similar approach to things.

    It's like if you're a dressage rider and have a problem, are you going to another dressage rider or someone who is a bull rider? Or a western pleasure rider? No, you want a dressage rider.

    If I have a crisis and wanted support, I would not want words of god as help or an anecdote from the bible. That would ring hollow to me since I do not find strength in those things.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    Here's the problem with what they are trying to do. I was on an air craft carrier, we had one chaplain. That one chaplain had to take care of all the denominations on board, not one. So our chaplain was as capable of taking care of an atheist as any other religious people we had on board. Will a humanist (first I've heard the term) who doesn't believe in god be able to comfort the religious people on board? I ask because there's something non military don't understand a lot of the time. There isn't enough space to accommodate everything everyone demands. So 1 person, all faiths. Not 1 per faith.
    bsms likes this.
         
        07-24-2013, 12:09 PM
      #119
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Darrin    
    Here's the problem with what they are trying to do. I was on an air craft carrier, we had one chaplain. That one chaplain had to take care of all the denominations on board, not one. So our chaplain was as capable of taking care of an atheist as any other religious people we had on board. Will a humanist (first I've heard the term) who doesn't believe in god be able to comfort the religious people on board? I ask because there's something non military don't understand a lot of the time. There isn't enough space to accommodate everything everyone demands. So 1 person, all faiths. Not 1 per faith.
    Which is fine but the military requires each chaplain to be endorsed by ONE organization of their choice. This particular person has the endorsement from the place of his choice but that organization is not on the military's list.

    So even though he will have to help all faiths in need, he still needs one faith to endorse him

    Edited to add: Humanism has been around for something like 500 years. Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        07-24-2013, 12:32 PM
      #120
    Green Broke
    That link shows why the military doesn't accept Humanism for a chaplain.

    Humanism rejects:
    -revelation
    -mysticism
    -divinity
    -tradition
    -authoritarianism
    -faith

    So if you reject things like divinity, faith and revelation just exactly how would a humanist chaplain deal with his religious congregation? If you reject tradition and authoritarianism how will a humanist chaplain fair in the military over all? I can see why they are not a recognized organization.
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Is this group in the right? bnayc Horse Talk 11 07-07-2012 09:02 AM
    new to the group brogan Meet the Community 3 08-06-2008 05:11 AM
    New to the group Frog Horse Pictures 5 05-26-2007 08:33 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0