Poll: Was your religion influenced?

[awmperry]

This was a very interesting thread... two or three pages ago. Could we get back to the actual interesting, rational discussion rather than the "My imaginary friend's bigger than yours" religion-bashing? (And yes, I'm counting atheism as a religion. Because I can.) ;-)

 

[maximilian]

No they are not! Everyone gets bashed here! Fat people, religious people, atheists, PS3 fans, socialists, Halo fans--oh my goodness, don't even get started on Halo and this board--no matter what the population subscribing to any kind of idea on here, there is a corresponding who looks to bash that idea.

The only things universally bashed on here are bad grammar and spelling. The only thing you can really say is that the Powers That Be think software piracy is bad, and Ayn Rand is good.

Saying "everything gets bashed" doesn't disprove my statement that this is a place Christianity gets bashed. Like you said, everything gets a reaction - and I am the reaction.

I...didn't think I was 'teaching' you.

I assumed you were hanging me out to dry, therefore you were teaching whoever was watching - as you didn't want to PM me.

Three letters that can communicate a paragraph of explanation, a three-letter word that basically has no other major use in the English language that I'm aware of? That kind of economy and precision of language in one package will *always* have novelty for me.

Good reply. I was being an asshole in pressing hyper-semantics and having a personal shot at discreditation (which, it appears we are both beyond now).

I'm not interested in discrediting you--it's just crazy to me that a person could hold a degree in theology and hold the views you do of the subject. Makes sense now, I mean, what do you want from a university in a country where the civil rights of Catholics were severely restricted until 1829 and the last PM had to wait to convert to Catholicism until leaving office because the PM is still involved in the selection of clergy?

Hahaha. To think university influenced me AT ALL is laughable. It was a repository of information. What you will know about the UK is that "evangelical Christianity" is very liberal. I am not. I'm going to kick and fuss over anything that places the bible second. It's fairness. Also, you can read my anti-liberalism in that thread.

No, it means I *still* can't believe that someone with a degree from Cambridge hasn't heard of someone like Germain Grisez. The revival of natural law? Ring any bells?

Yes, alarm bells. Grisez mangled a brand of philosophy (ie. not bible) with Roman Catholic Doctrine (not bible) to create a vague theorem of, well, I don't know what in The Way to the Lord Jesus. Not only is most of it wrong hermeneutically and academically, it's just history now. Also, it took you 4 replies to name him. The point isn't for you to name a theologian for my benefit, it's that you name a Catholic theologian with an ounce of respected evangelical perspective. Otherwise, you might as well be a professor in biology or head of the Rotary society for all effect that has on Christian theology and understanding. Surely it isn't that hard to pinpoint ONE Catholic theologian who knows their bible?

Not to a non-Christian!

Which, if you've been following, is exactly WHY I started the thread. So that they may ask and find out what the Bible SAYS.

Um no--it wasn't you disagreement. It was the fact that you weren't forthcoming about that disagreement and were giving people the mistaken impression that ALL non-Catholic Christians believed what you do.

Bible believing Christians do believe what I do. There are second order issues such as female leadership, and there are first order issues of salvation, repentance and power of the church. All non-catholic Christians firmly believe in not-Catholicism, which is why they aren't Catholics in the first place. In any case, this line is not worth pursuing because you've just invented a demographic that may have a chance to be offended (even though I've already proven they won't exist - and non-Christians don't count).

Mistakes? I made no mistakes as far as I can re-read. I did OWN that thread because I was THE theologian. It's an open forum and I was there to answer questions. Otherwise, by that logic, a geneticist could start a thread and I could spout something adverse to "genetics"

I spouted nothing adverse to evangelical reformed Christianity as I recall, and I'm certainly not bringing that up in what I'm saying here if I did. What I spouted something adverse to is that you were answering these questions in a way that people were going to think that all non-Catholic Christians believed what you did.

See above. Second order issues and I was willing to present different opinions. First order/tenets of the biblical faith, I was not.

How about "From what I know, Catholics believe on the basis of what they consider years of founded tradition that...; however, evangelical reformed Christians like me believe that the tradition Catholics rely on is unfounded"

You do realise that I didn't start a thread for both Christianity and Roman Catholicism (the difference exists now, you know)? The bible is my source and Mary aint in it. Founded traditions means nothing. It's human clutter put onto the primary source. Also, if you look at my posts, they were often around 1000 words as is. I was replying for nearly 6 hours a day on the weekend. Not only would it be counter productive to one intention of the post (to answer from the bible and evangelically) it would also have taken twice as long and confused people further. Instead, you could have just started your own in tandem. But you didn't.

Why do you keep insisting that I'm "keen on advocating the "unevangelical" (whatever that looks like) position"? How many times do I have to tell you that I:

1) have no desire to do so;

2) don't care if you do with your position;

3) only care that you sold the thread as if you were going to answer questions to clear up misunderstandings, but really wanted to advocate for your position?

Because every other position than mine = unevangelical. The most dangerous position I'm going to be in presenting a view on something such as women leadership (I presented two views for the record) in a biased way. If it isn't actually IN the bible, then how is it in any way evangelical? So yeah, "misunderstandings" are "misunderstandings" when they are contrasted against the original, unsullied source material. Otherwise there would be no misunderstandings. So much of my life is spent attempting to make best sense of the bible (i.e. living as a thinking Christian), that that is the unique thing that I can bring to the Escapist. I have no ties or patriotism to "reformed" as a name - my master is God in the bible.

No, I cried "dishonest." Do you understand the difference between those two concepts? Why do you keep trying to make like I had a problem with the *substance* of what you said as opposed to the *form* in which you presented it?
Besides, you know--it would make it a lot easier to argue against me if that were true?

So I'm not mean by being dishonest? I'm not dishonest. Evangelical, reformed theologian who studied it for a prolonged period. If you're too lazy to read the whole OP, then you don't deserve to complain. What WOULD have been dishonest is if I had stated that I was a Christian theologian and then answered however I felt - with disregard for the bible (ie. source material). It's ironic that for someone so academically minded, they are willing to throw the central source out of the window.
That's like complaining because your Ancient Roman History Professor is using Tacitus as a source without telling anyone "really, really loudly."
Similarly, you MUST have a problem with the substance, if you noticed the way it was presented at all. Especially when you don't actually have the knowledge required to attack the substance. So you attack the presentation - which is why this argument is so semantic.
And I'm having no problem arguing with you. It's really quite enjoyable in an periodic sort of way. Something that transcends work and night.

Yes you are! In a thread where you're answering the questions of people who hold the Bible to be no greater authority than Catholic tradition, you are! Of course you can say 'from my standpoint it is heresy' and that's great--that's clearing up misconceptions of non-Christians why some Protestants like you call Catholics heretics, and other Protestants like Anglicans become Catholic priests even while still married!

If anything, the only thing you can argue is that my use of heresy is ironic/wrong because it is a Roman Catholic word. Otherwise:
Definition:
Heresy: opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
Doctrine: a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject

so where does the Roman Catholic doctrine come from? Both Christianity and Roman Catholicism take the Bible as a source. Only one holds it unique. That is Christianity. Therefore (ipso facto), in a thread designed to remonstrate Christianity, I am doing a disservice by starting on a point of said misinformation (that RC tradition and the bible are equal in Christian mind).




You've redefined the purpose of a thread you didn't start based on your own precepts.[/quote]

No, I held you to the purpose that the words you wrote communicated as opposed to what your uncommunicated purpose was.

No. Read the original thread post again - the starting sentence. It's not difficult to understand. I suppose I can break it down word by word and throw in some presuppositions to help explain, but you'll see that it's quite clearly an ask and find out - not a run in and bash thread.

Well, when you just start attacking Catholicism by calling it a heresy as if you were advocating and not informing, people are going to think 'hey--this is an attack thread'. Here on The Escapist, if people didn't think your thread was crap, someone would have shouted them down.
That someone might have been me.

If you read the purpose of the thread, it isn't an attack thread, it's a sieve thread. And I believe you were the only RC minded user to vocalise your dislike. Much of the rest of the anger was stereotypical 15 year old crap. They see "Zeitgeist" the film once, and think they're intellectually invincible.
Similarly, 100+ amiable PM's to me and over 10,000 replies of varying degrees of hate, love and disinterest don't equate to my thread being crap by any sense of the word. And being shouted down doesn't actually do anything to someone like Bright_raven, which is exactly why it is so annoying to talk/argue with him. I asked him to quote my points over 10 times and he always replies with non-sequiter angst.
I appreciate the vague coup de gras friendship to ashes thing, but I'm really not that phased by things like this. You don't survive as an evangelical where I did without being pretty resolute in your own conclusions (drawn from academic study).

To a non-Christian--the audience you invited in--that's EXACTLY what Christianity is--history!

Yeah, but that's assuming that I was taking a macro, socio historical study. Theology is far different to "church history". They're two different ball games. It's all in the name. Also, you're arguing for a user who doesn't exist and assuming that they can't access theological debate from their own position - which many users have proved they can in insightful and clever PMs and replies in that thread. I can understand Foucault, but it doesn't mean I have to apply his ideas in my life. Vice versa.

Are you screwin' with me ;-/

(I don't know the smiley of 'wary')

Not directly, but it's certainly been a while since someone has remembered something I've said and taken such strong opposition. Similarly, you actually quote and address most of my argument points, which sets you head and shoulders above many others.

 

[The Black Adder]

Hey, I went Pagan first, my mum followed me because she thought it was cool.

Your mom is such a sheeple. Gosh.

Heh, mom.
Yes, just a little bit though,
I've kinda gone off the whole religion thing now.

How are you a Pagan, then not into religion? It is some kind of trend? Yeah, let's all pretend we worship deities that were crushed by the Christian over 600 years ago so a bunch of people think we are cool. I really doubt that you are a real Pagan, you can just choose, it's not like subscription based religions. And you already debunked yourself by saying that your mom followed you, so the values and rituals weren't passed down, so where would you get them from?

 

[The Black Adder]

And on another note, I utterly loathe Christians and Christianity, because from what I've seen from personal experience, they are a bunch of self righteous and hypocritical morons as well as blind. If God exists and he created the universe, thus he created evil, then he obviously wants you to suffer, so why do you bother adorning a shadow, a ghost, a phantasm with such ornate and elaborate rituals? Why do you slay your brother in the name of the one who supposedly gave his life for you? And those of you who value your education so much, you are doing the work of Satan. By learning more we become closer to God, and isn't that the reason why man was cast from Eden? Because he ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge that gave him sight to the duality of the world? An open minded christian in an oxymoron. You judge yourself and other based on a book that half of it is about who you should hate and how wicked you are, and the other half is about loving and forgiven everyone is. Is God bi-polar? I guess the bible is just one giant ironic juxtaposition. If you believe that something was done a certain way, then how can you be open minded about anything? And your beloved St. Paul was the biggest bigot and misogynist going, not forgetting his utter hatred of non-Christians. All men are bothers to you, unless they aren't Christians. Hell, even if they are Christians they'll still spiritual and intellectually rape this world dry with thier Christian capitalism.

 

[The Black Adder]

Yes, my religions is influenced by the glorious bringer of dawn and enlightenment and supreme regent of Earth, Lucifer.

 

[chaser[phoenix]]

My parents are Christian, though not actively.
As a child they never dragged me kicking and screaming to church early in the morning; in fact, decided when I was a baby that I would find my own way and I believe I did. Agnostic now, really. Because who knows? I'd prefer not be really religious or really not so since both seem to be dangerous extremes.

It seems (or at least in my scenario) the majority of the religious devout were force-fed their teachings from childhood.

To be honest, the entire scenario probably would have interested me a lot more if we still worshiped the Norse or Greek gods. Jesus and his story (or what I know of it) always seemed so boring.

If I grew up worshiping Thor, Odin or Zeus and all of the stories in "mythology" now, which I half expect the Bible to some day be a "work of mythology"; may be long off but one day maybe.
Like I want to go to Valhalla (Norse, anyway), though I suppose I'd have to die in battle first.

 

[xxDarlenexx]

I grew up with a religion and then I had a sort of a "falling out" with God when I was in my early teens. I thought He existed, I just thought He hated me and liked to torture me. Then as I got older I didnt feel anything about the subject. Finally when I was in college I made the decision to go back to my faith and am happy with that choice.

But no one forced me to do such a thing. My brother is a hardcore atheist, which I'm sure my mom isn't overjoyed about, but she doesnt FORCE him to participate in anything religious, or rip her shirt and cry, "I have no son!!!!" So im sure if I had continued to not be of the religion of my parents I wouldn't have been forced to.


For me it was my own choice, which makes it all the more meaningful.

 

[Dentedgod]

Raised Catholic, 8 years of Catholic school, and now I'm an Athiest. I went through a stage in between where I was Agnostic but now I'm a full blown disbeliever.

 

[Andalusa]

How are you a Pagan, then not into religion?
It is some kind of trend? Yeah, let's all pretend we worship deities that were crushed by the Christian over 600 years ago so a bunch of people think we are cool.
I really doubt that you are a real Pagan, you can just choose, it's not like subscription based religions.
And you already debunked yourself by saying that your mom followed you, so the values and rituals weren't passed down, so where would you get them from?

1)I still am, I jost don't follow it as closely to the book as I used to.
2)Nope.
3)I actually am, so there.
4)It's not necessarily a blood line thing.

Oh and don't judge a person you've never met, I really don't like people who do that.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

Kind of.

 

[AntiThom]

I think the question should be was your religion influenced by the pledge of allegiance or U.S. currency. no? then leave it alone.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I became a committed Skeptic and Agnostic because my parents always displayed a remarkable disinterest in religion, and severely disapprove of certain belief systems, Mormonism most notably. My best friends growing up were Mormons and Catholics so I was exposed to a variety of religious beliefs but I didn't actually become an "atheist" or whatever you want to call me until I hit age 15, when I had a big argument with a street preacher over the Automatic Condemnation of non-believers. Talking to him was a big eye opener and that was pretty much when I turned my back from "God" and figured that either he doesn't exist, or humanity is better off without him.

That would be partially among my point and would agree that the world would be better without his take on god. Maybe someday you will explore this field further and find a deity that fits you. Or, maybe not. Good luck with whichever path you take.

That was just what started me down the path, I've taken leaps and bounds in my own Strong Agnostic opinions since then. I've written 3 University Papers on the concept of "Justification Through Faith" and I know that with the right words you can easily twist any strong believers towards violence and darkness. I've come to see faith as a weapon, nothing more. Something to be abused by the evil and ambitious.

Hence I have no strong beliefs, except that NOTHING is to be held sacred and everything is to be questioned.

 

[maximilian]

It is, however, misleading. It gives the impression to people that there's some specific, heightened anti-Christian general attitude on here.

Frankly, I think this is about as friendly as it gets on the internet for Christians in a general-purpose forum. I think the ratio of informed, thoughtful disagreement to bashing is pretty damn high.

Your experience must be different to mine. I'd take a stab and say 40% of gamers profess a distinct militant atheism. Read the posts in that thread if you want some bashing.

That's circular logic. If the only perspective respected by evangelicals as theology is that which is based only on the Bible and therefore Roman Catholic Doctrine is just philosophy and not theology, of course you're not going to find any major Catholic theologians "with an ounce of respected evangelical perspective"!

Which is my point exactly. Now you have to prove why secular (ie, unevangelical philosophy) has any ounce of hold or sway on Christian theology. It doesn't because it isn't.

And yet you only mention the word 'Bible' once in the OP. In a parenthetical.

Why did you say you'd be answering questions about Bible-only believing Christians than?

The difference did not and still does not exist for the audience you invited in. If it's that important, why didn't you put it right in the OP?

And? Like I said, read something in it's entirety or not at all. You're fighting over hypotheticals that spring out of semantics that are misinterpreted by a predicted reader laziness.
So where is the line drawn as to what a Christian is? The only way you'll answer that is on information from the bible. So, to state anything OTHER than "a christian is bible believing" (as one key criterion and for them to actually subscribe to a knowledge of Christianity at all) is ludicrous.

And that's great, but here on The Escapist, we require people to be more precise than you were.

First off, it's real nice that you're using language like "we" and being all exclusive in your position here at the Escapist, but it's a poor man's tactic. I was precise. So precise that you're that riled we're having this discussion 4 months later. Similarly, you are the only person who is having this problem with said "lack of precision".

No, it's a little more like complaining because your Ancient Roman History Professor left 476 and Odavacer out from the course entirely and instead taught that the Fall of Rome occurred in the 7th century when Arab expansion disrupted the unity of the Mediterranean basin because his name was Henri Pirenne.

That analogy would work if Christianity had a pluralist source. It doesn't. It's one "book". I was using Tactitus as the closest possible example of a mega source on ancient Rome. The difference between the relevance of the bible on Christian thought and that of Catholic teaching is so mammoth that it bears no resemblance to Odavacer at al. The reasons why have been explained in nearly every reply to you.

No, in a thread designed to remonstrate Christianity *as you define it when your definition varies radically from that of your audience* the disservice is misinforming them because you're using a different definition of 'Christian' than them and you buried any chance for them to realize that in a parenthetical.

The question remains, if I am "misleading the audience" re Christianity by generating answers from the bible, then what on earth would I be doing if I generated them from anything else? I can't believe I had to ask that. What the hell would I be answering from? "Well, Kant says..." That undermines the ENTIRE purpose of the thread. Just because misinformation is paradigm, doesn't mean I have to conform to it. It also doesn't mean I have to conform to it in a thread designed to do the exact opposite.

So we're supposed to read the first line of the OP with presuppositions that if they can be found at all, can only be found in a parenthetical underneath a line about where you live at the end of the post in a section entitled Background?

Hmm--you don't see anything wrong with that as a writing style?

No, I was being snide by referencing presuppositions. My point is that it's extremely lazy not to read 10 lines of text introducing a thread before you post in it. Who debates intelligently in an argument when they have no idea of what it's about? Lazy people is who. I can't control human laziness.

You never said you were doing theology! You said you were going to clear up misconceptions.

Thread title, what I studied, my introduction, my background and basic logic. All these things are clearly stating "theology". That's essentially the entire constituent of the thread and OP. This is not deception in any way. Refusing to believe that my thread was on theology is absolute semantic idiocy. I can't argue against how you personally interpreted "ask a Christian theologian" ("well, I thought it meant you were going to reply using postmodern philosophy!". Again, what was I going to answer from then? "I'm a physicist and I'm going to answer your questions on church history"?

Well...that does sound like me.

To your credit.

 

[Huey1000]

I'm a Jew and my traditions are in a way cute and fun... and hot Jewish girls dig my kippah! so I don't have a problem with my religion. But I ain't no shofar blowing ************ either! Readings from the torah mean to me as much as a fortune fcking cookie does. And I'm cool with everyone who is chill and does not interfere with someone else's 'domain', which rules out a lot of people in my group.

 

[ejhio]

i'm a stubborn mutt
has and always will be stuck to my religion =D
blind faith works!

 

[pieeater911]

I was raised Methodist Christian.
I stopped believing in God at about the age of thirteen, but I did not tell anyone until I was about sixteen.

I live in the "Bible Belt" of America. The people here hate you if you don't believe in their god. That was what kept me from speaking out, but eventually I got fed up with living a lie. I could no longer pretend to believe in what is truly unbelievable.

I don't try to pretend to know what happens after people die. Anybody who tells you they do know is a liar.
And the fact that people make so much money off of religion disgusts me. They are basically selling an invisible product, and it's selling faster than hot-cakes covered in cocaine.
"Scared of what might happen to you after you die? Believe in my god and you'll be set for all eternity!. Oh, and while I've got you here, why don't you donate some money to my church/mosque/temple/whatever and buy the holy book of this religion...and a study book that "explains" the metaphors of the holy book...and a DVD that goes along with the study book....and a tee-shirt?"

Good people, don't be timid if you don't believe in any kind of god or deity. You have just as much of a right to voice your skepticism as they have to voice their faith.

 

[maximilian]

Then why did you ask me the question about a Catholic theologian! What is it with you and burying the most important part of what you're saying? Why can't you just be clear about the things you mean?

If you're going to tell me that any unevangelical religious philosophy is secular and cannot by your definition rise to the level of theology, then why did you ask me to go looking for a Catholic theologian when no Catholic theologian would *be* evangelical?

To prove the point.

Your fetch quest has a bug in it that prevents completion--how is that not the fault of the programmer!

Yes, a bug that illustrates exactly why it isn't helpful to include catholicism in a thread about *Christian* theology.

So in a thread to clear up the perception of Christianity by non-Christians, you call those who misinterpret words which have a meaning specific to evangelical Reformed Christianity 'lazy'.

No, I'm saying that you're lazy if you don't read the OP in its entirety.

"You're only digging yourself in deeper dude...you are going have to fabricate another idea to get this back on track."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.76426.903603

Brilliant, the blind quoting the blind.
Fabrication is the last thing I'm doing when I use the Bible as my sole theological reference.
I may have been strong, but I didn't fabricate anything.

"Seconded."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.76426.903691

Then you should have started your own thread.

Wherever your audience decides to draw it. When you're going to clear up misconceptions, you don't get to make someone's decisions on religious taxonomy for them. You can of course present the evangelical Reformed viewpoint, but you should present it as a viewpoint, not use it as an unstated premise.

By that logic, I can state that physics is the study of trees. What you have said is completely contradictory. How can I clear up misconceptions (how can there be misconceptions in the first place?) if there isn't something on which it can be said to be misconception? Taxonomy is everything and so is empiricism. My statement isn't "reformed theology" is best - don't get hung up on a name. My statement is "the bible is best". It's the source, it defines Christianity, not popular opinion, otherwise no law or tangible theory would exist - just random, uneducated opinion. The strongest aspect of Christianity is that it is an answer for life outside of the earth.

Don't you understand the difference between two people having a different viewpoint, and two people having a different viewpoint where the one misunderstands the facts?

Yes I actually do understand that difference, but the point is I'm not going to defend the one that misunderstands the facts when that misunderstanding it what I am trying to correct.

Yeah. But they're all wrong. For the same reason you're wrong here--to a non-Christian, Christianity *does* have a pluralist source because to them it's a descriptive question, not a normative one if they're not one of those militant atheists you think this board is full of.

I'm repeating myself, but I'll state it again. The point is "the very fact that people think Christianity has a pluralist source is misinformation in itself that needs correcting - not affirming".

Snarky atheists is more like it. Militant means people like Christoper Hutchens. These knuckleheads probably also by t-shirts at Hot Topic with anarchy symbols on them to 'fight the man'

Probably.

What if someone asked you a question about what happened during the Reformation? Is the history of the Reformation part of the evangelical Reformed Bible? Did you not discuss the historical events of the Reformation at some point in your theology education? If so did you not use sources other than the Bible in that discussion?

A. This is a question of church history. I attempted to focus on theology. B. The reformation happened BECAUSE of what the bible teaches. So while I did look at sources regarding people influential in the reformation - the meat of the subject was WHY it happened. And to find that out you have to look in the bible. So yes, the history of the reformation is intrinsically linked to the bible as it is the catalyst and very reason for the reformation.

It's lazy to conclude that the post is arranged in some sort of order where the principle that will form the entire context of the thread won't be buried in a parenthetical below information about where you live in a section called 'background'?

You think I was maliciously trying to hide the fact that I was using the bible as my source. Even if I was, it's more academically honest to use the bible than not.

If it was only Christian theology, what were you doing giving answers about religious history?

" '7. how come Jesus and John the Baptist both have birthdays on the solstice, which are overly pagan holidays and have a lot to do with a venus cycle?'

Most likely because the early Christian institution probably tried to overlap them to squash the pagan equivalent or stay in line with when people were already experiencing holidays."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.76426?page=4#903722

"The *idiots* (largely ignorant of the actual scripture due to the Catholic church segregating the Bible in Latin)"

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.76426.903326

"Thought to add in that contraception isn't unbiblical, it's Catholic heresy designed to create prolific Catholic congregations."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.76426.903353

Where in this evangelical Reformed Christian Bible does it say that 'the Catholics are against contraception because they want lots of Catholic babies' or 'Catholics kept the Bible in Latin and that kept everyone ignorant' and I'd LOVE to see the part where Jesus started a statement with "Most likely..."

The guy (who turned out to be part of an obscure Essene cult), was asking about church history - so I answered him.
In terms of the anti-catholic replies, the bible does not say anything about banning contraception. Ipso facto it's unbiblical to state that Christianity upholds anti-contraception.

Catholics did keep the bible in latin and that did keep everyone (the uneducated populace) ignorant. Nowhere does it say that the bible must be read in a certain language in the bible.

And no, I'm definitely not Jesus.