You can type what you like and side step as you wish but the book you follow is quite clear- there is no interpretation required of abomination put them to death

I wouldn’t try to deliberately side-step anything. At worst I might not be able to answer something sufficiently without a bit of research; more likely is the fact that it is hard to stay on top of all the points being bandied about.

You’re right when you point out such ugly aspects of the ancient tribal moral code. They are there in the Bible. I can’t deny them, but I can explain them. As I have said before, the Bible is not one book, but many books. That is a simple fact. Many of those books are a record of oral traditions, together with additional material by different editors and writers spanning the course of centuries. The genres covered include religious law, history, poetry, mythology, and wisdom literature. So far, so indisputable.

The various Rabbinic schools of exegesis (Biblical interpretation) have spent millenia scouring the texts and interpreting them. These are broadly divisible into 3 groups: the Pharisaic (legally-oriented), the Hellenistic (allegorical), and the prophetic-apocalyptic. Such varied approaches were in some ways inherited by the earliest Christian communities: the Alexandrian (allegorical), the Antiochene (literal-historical), and the Roman. Of IMMENSE IMPORTANCE is the fact that even when the early Fathers of the Church use literal language, only in certain circles is it meant literally. This is NOT a matter of picking and choosing; it is a matter of them having applied all the (considerable) rhetorical, rational, philosophical powers at their disposal and applied them to texts that seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy.

They were always asking ‘what does this actually mean?’

While there have always been literalists in the Jewish and Christian traditions, they have equally always been on the margins, or the movements they have spawned eschewed by the wider tradition. This is no less the case in the wake of the rise of 19th century American biblical fundamentalism than it was in the early centuries of the Church.

That, then, is a very very brief history of the nature of Christian exegesis, and why it is that Christians are not remotely worried about the fact that somewhere in the Bible it says to stone someone. Neither Christians nor Jews have ever picked up the texts and pointed to lines and said, ‘Well that’s it, then. I guess I’m off to stone someone.’ In the distant past of the ancient Hebrew tribal people, perhaps, and however such laws evolved in various Imperial contexts maybe (Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman), but not due to a religious imperative.

I did see a video once that suggested an eternity in hell was like standing in a damp tent in the USA watching a bunch of bad amateur actors act out a little play about demons stealing an aborted foetus. Or something.

Certainly sounds hellish to me. Not even a bar for the intermission.

stoatsbrother- the only people I’ve heard talking about burning in hell, etc, are people who say they dislike Christianity because Christians are a self-righteous bunch who threaten non-Christians with burning for all eternity in hell as punishment. My point really was that this is not a universal Christian teaching.

I know they ignore so much of the teachings dont they

I really can’t stress enough the fact that they don’t. I suggest that this would be a point better communicated over a pint than a keyboard. I simply can’t type fast enough.

EDIT: Well, maybe some do. But not in the systematic way you’re suggesting!

Junkyard, are you referring to molgrips’ physics degree because you want to point out that he’s a scientist, and you think scientists should be anti-religion?

He’s playing the man rather than the ball. Something he likes to call out regularly as an ad hominem attack.

I suggest that this would be a point better communicated over a pint than a keyboard.

Definitely. STW theological society ride-out. When’re you free?

Indeed since hell is defined at least by the RCs as Vicky describes and since atheists don’t believe in god, why the angst? The religious are saying that you will be simply separated from something that you believe doesn’t exist.

I was asking in the context of the preceding discussion of Biblical interpretation. As Biblical interpretation influences our laws, it’s relevant to non-believers.

Relax- you might as well worry about being separated from Santa which is more relevant given the preferred worship of consumerism and consumption

You really like the decline of religion = rise in consumerism thing. Have you looked at the posting histories of those who answered 1 in this thread? I see as much consumerism and consumption there as I do in non-believers.

When’re you free?

Sunday mornings 😉

BTW, I don’t get this idea that buying a load of stuff means that you’re “worshipping” it?

Sunday mornings

Punch-line of the week!

Definitely. STW theological society ride-out. When’re you free?

I like it.

a) I can always make myself free for such an amusing prospect, and

b) Should we get jerseys made up?

Sunday mornings

For the win… 😀

I do admire the way you do seem stick to the word. Less equivocation. The trouble is that means you will end up believing somethings which are pretty offensive and considered deserving of criticism by most people.

Thank you and yes, I am fully aware of this.

Thing is, if you stick to Gods view (which never changes) then you are putting yourself up there for ridicule. At the end of the day, who am I trying to please?

Can we have a “Leprechaunology” ride too?

Thing is, if you stick to Gods view (which never changes)

So you say.

who am I trying to please?

Do tell.

Can we have a “Leprechaunology” ride too?

Different epistemic category. Sorry. But we can always meet up with you at a pub along the way.

Shall we keep our eyes open for the little guy in the green jersey?

vickypea err… then, as I said, your approach has not been exactly ecumenical and your experience of preaching rather limited… Not sure why you think your lack of hearing this from theists proves anything. A look at classical religous art might convince you this isn’t exactly a new idea.

saxonrider you know that thing I said, that you didn’t exactly like, about being a lay preacher… welllll… 😉

Different epistemic category. Sorry. But we can always meet up with you at a pub along the way.

Shall we keep our eyes open for the little guy in the green jersey?

I’m pleased to see you rate the one as just as significant and worthy of attention as the other… (kissy emoticon here)

you know that thing I said, that you didn’t exactly like, about being a lay preacher… welllll…

The thing is, I’m neither lay nor preacher. 😛

Miketually- you’re being a bit presumptuous in your “consumption and consumerism”
comment. You know nothing about me except that I like mountain biking, which admittedly involves a certain amount of materialism. However, you don’t know anything about me. I don’t have to justify myself, but I will point out that I live in a tiny house with a small yard, my watch cost me £35, I have a small car, I own no handbags or fancy shoes. Not trying to point out that this is all perfect, but just that you shouldn’t make assumptions.

Stoatsbrother- I’m not an ecumenical preacher, I’m just a Greek Orthodox Christian who is trying to say that the understanding of hell is not the same across all Christian denominations.

Miketually- you’re being a bit presumptuous in your “consumption and consumerism” comment. You know nothing about me except that I like mountain biking, which admittedly involves a certain amount of materialism. However, you don’t know anything about me. I don’t have to justify myself, but I will point out that I live in a tiny house with a small yard, my watch cost me £35, I have a small car, I own no handbags or fancy shoes. Not trying to point out that this is all perfect, but just that you shouldn’t make assumptions.

I’m saying nothing about you at all. I think you might want to reread my post.

Earlier today, I clicked through to the profiles of some/most of the people who said 1, because I was interested in seeing what threads they’ve started and what discussions they join in with in light on teamhurtmore’s comments on consumerism in the earlier religion thread.

I saw pretty much the usual mix of posts that I’d expect to see on anyone’s profile. What I saw matched my own experiences, that religious people are no less consumerist than non-religious people.

I can’t remember at all what was on yours, because I didn’t look that closely at individuals. I couldn’t care less what car you drive or how big your house is.

Should we get jerseys made up?

Cannot imagine what would be on them. Maybe “I’m with stupid —>”

Serious about a ride btw if anyone does fancy one… I think it would be fun 🙂

VickyP – your definition of hell is the same as that taught in the Church of England in my experience.

I was asking in the context of the preceding discussion of Biblical interpretation. As Biblical interpretation influences our laws, it’s relevant to non-believers.

I answered in the same context – Snap!

You really like the decline of religion = rise in consumerism thing.

True. One only has to look at shopping legislation for evidence.

Have you looked at the posting histories of those who answered 1 in this thread? ….

……I can’t remember at all what was on yours, because I didn’t look that closely at individuals.

Enough said 😉

BTW, I don’t get this idea that buying a load of stuff means that you’re “worshipping” it?

Why would you? Its an alien concept… 😉

I suggest that this would be a point better communicated over a pint than a keyboard. I simply can’t type fast enough.

Quite.

There’s about 40 posts I want to reply to and the thread is moving faster than I can read it whilst still working. So I just wanted to interject here to say thanks to SaxonRider for the explanations earlier; I don’t think it quite got to the nub of what I was asking, or rather what I was meaning, as reading back I may have worded the question poorly. But regardless, thanks for that.

So if hell is the absence of good does that mean all atheists are in hell?

I’m currently on the 1716 to Northampton, it’s not exactly awesome, but it’s really not that bad

He’s playing the man rather than the ball. Something he likes to call out regularly as an ad hominem attack.

I am pointing out you have no understanding nor training [ for you dont believe] in the matter being debated. Its a perfectly legitimate point.
Start a physics thread and I will join in and you will very quickly be able to see the large gaps in my knowledge – the first bit of actual maths FWIW. When you point this out I will remind you its not relevant at all to the discussion and you will nod sagely in agreement 😕
Its obvious you did not do philosophy either from that as its not an ad hom 😉

PLease leave the religious to defend their beliefs as you do a terrible job due to being an ill informed atheist.

Of IMMENSE IMPORTANCE is the fact that even when the early Fathers of the Church use literal language, only in certain circles is it meant literally. This is NOT a matter of picking and choosing; it is a matter of them having applied all the (considerable) rhetorical, rational, philosophical powers at their disposal and applied them to texts that seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy.

Two things here.

1) They really could have done with printing a disclaimer at the beginning then, like they do at the start of many other works of fiction. It would’ve saved a lot of arguing.

2) If they’re applying them to texts which “seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy,” isn’t that the very definition of cherry-picking? They’re using their “considerable” powers to rewrite history to better fit their own agenda.

I’m no theologian, but it’d seem to me that the whole “ah, yes, but it’s allegorical you see” is in biblical terms a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s essentially the Edinburgh Defence for when we discover things like the moon isn’t actually attached to the firmament with celestial Araldite because we’ve, y’know, been there now and found out for ourselves. And we keep having to backpedal and retcon this stuff.

Which, really, would be fine, I can dig that. Except the bits we can’t yet disprove, they’re all obviously still true? Like an actual Jesus O’God bloke wandering around 2,000 years ago, that definitely happened, because four blokes who were born several hundred years later say that he did. Obviously.

And if the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally, how is it anything more than Aesop’s Fables; how can we actually really believe anything it tells us? (Other than as someone hilariously asserted earlier, we know it’s influenced by god because it says so in the Bible.)

I’m no theologian, but it’d seem to me that the whole “ah, yes, but it’s allegorical you see” is in biblical terms a relatively recent phenomenon.

Read the Steve Chalke article I linked to earlier, it’s a brilliant example of this kind of interpretation.

@kimbers: sorry that I haven’t been following the string that you have been discussing, but I just want to say that from a Christian point of view, atheism does not, in itself, equal the absence of good, anymore than belief equals its presence.

Choosing good equals good.

Ergo, an atheist in pursuit of the good is the same as a Christian in pursuit of the good is the same as a Sikh in pursuit of the good, etc., etc.

@Cougar: I will try to pick this up later tonight. I’ve got to run now, as my ice hockey team is playing against the Royal Marines. God help us.

I admire those willing to participate here to explain the religious views. Personally I have found the abuse from agressive atheiests on these kind of threads far more severe than any other topic including Gaza and Israel. Hence, I don’t take part.

PHEW

QED

In the context of the importance of the Old Testament it is useful to look at it use in the services of any given church. For instance, if you look at the Lectionary of Common Worship, you will see that the Book of Leviticus, which atheists love quoting from, is used 9 times in total. To put that into context, there are 125 different readings from John. Likewise, of all those nasty things that Kimbers quoted.a few pages ago, the only one that is included in any reading is the one about animal sacrifice – probably because it is being juxtaposed to the sacrifice made on the cross. I only go to Communion services so I never hear a reading from the Old Testament.

Now Common Worship was only published in 2000, but there is a direct link to the 1664 Book of Common Prayer, so this emphasis is hardly new.

1. I don’t know poll is still running or not, but I’m a 1.

Thats a new one on me mefty.

When there are only two readings at the principal service and that service is Holy Communion, the second reading is always the Gospel reading.

If there are only two readings at the principal service on Easter Day, the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth or Seventh Sunday of Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, the Conversion of Paul or the Festivals of Matthias, Barnabas, James and Stephen, the reading from the Acts of the Apostles must always be used.

In the choice of readings other than the Gospel reading, the minister should ensure that, in any year, a balance is maintained between readings from the Old and New Testaments and that, where a particular biblical book is appointed to be read over several weeks, the choice ensures that this continuity of one book is not lost.

Not a regular “practiser” 😉 so could be out of date!!!

I am pointing out you have no understanding nor training

You think I have no understanding, because my opinion differs from yours. However my reading of your posts makes me think that you don’t have any understanding. I said you were playing the man because you questioned my credentials without properly addressing what I said.

And why do I have to have had formal training? Have you? Who else on this thread has?

In the context of the importance of the Old Testament

TBH, I think it’d be beneficial to both camps if we both agreed that the OT is largely an irrelevance in this day and age. Quoting Leviticus et all does no-one any favours.

my ice hockey team is playing against the Royal Marines. God help us.

He’s going to have to. Good luck.

If they’re applying them to texts which “seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy,” isn’t that the very definition of cherry-picking?

Well the whole thing is cherry picked to begin with. The Bible is NOT A BOOK. It is a collection of books. With many authors. They are presented and curated for your edification and enlightenment in matters Christian. I don’t see why anyone needs to agree with it all. It’s various authors talking about God and recounting stories of Jesus.

Unlike the Quran (as far as I know anyway).

how can we actually really believe anything it tells us?

Well that’s up to you, isn’t it? Aesop has value, despite being fictional. Surely the value is what the reader takes from it?

slowoldman – Member

If you have arrived at purgatory there is no one that can help you

I think you need to look up “purgatory”. [/quote]

Sorry from lazy Wiki

… and therefore no one in Purgatory will remain forever in that state or go to hell. …

See no guarantee you will go up … 😛

What is the probability of going down that is the question?