but more along the lines of “ridicule”
Yes
I fully understand but it still worthy of ridicule when you stop and think about it for longer than a second.
I’m exaggerating, i probably can.
Wait until you hear about these people who want special fridge modes because someone has interpreted a bronze age text as saying so.
How about CofE bishops being able to debate (and legislate) rules that do have an impact on my life, simply because of their affiliation to a regional denomination of a religion following a deity that I don’t believe exists. That’s pretty bizarre.
That would not fit
debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives
Or perhaps we have and arent convinced by your explanation and the links? Since, frankly, its a rather hard sell.
Fair enough 🙂
These two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.
How so? If it's not taken literally, then its laws (or at least the details and practical applications of the laws) are interpreted according to the knowledge and technology of each generation.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just to defend that maybe it's not as ridiculous as it may appear at first glance (yes yes, we know, all religion is ridiculous so everything in it is also....)
Basically, the difference between:
Perception from the outside - "ancient verse says X, those who claim to follow it but not to the letter are cheating, they should do X"
And reality - "ancient verse says X, the rest of the law traditionally passed down orally and now filling many bookshelves has plenty of rules on how to interpret X, has many nuances and plenty of very intelligent people have spent the last couple of thousand years learning and discussing it"
Why didnt it have something covering LEDs and electricity in general so we know how to respond rather than needing lots of interpretation?
Wait until you hear about these people who want special fridge modes because someone has interpreted a bronze age text as saying so.
Somewhat answered by the response to Cougar above, interesting question though, which can really be rephrased as "why didn't it just tell us about LEDs etc instead of us needing to discover/invent it for ourselves?"
...I think I've mixed up the quotes in this post somewhat, lost track of who they all belong to :-p
There must surely, surely come a point where you think to yourself, “what the actual **** am I doing?”
Apparently not.
That would not fit
I know, they're granted the right to debate rules that really do affect people's lives. It's bizarre!
I fully understand but it still worthy of ridicule when you stop and think about it for longer than a second.
You can find it strange, sure. You can think it pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say "isn't it stupid, and aren't the people who believe it stupid", which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there's no need for that.
That’s pretty bizarre.
It's no more bizarre than getting to do that because of who your ancestor is, or you're mates with some-one who can get you appointed.
But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who believe it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it.
Dunno about the "being a dick" thing - we're happy to say it's stupid to not lne your tyre logos up with your valves, but suddenly it's forbidden to question whether it makes sense to define how your freezer works?
Dunno about the “being a dick” thing – we’re happy to say it’s stupid to not lne your tyre logos up with your valves, but suddenly it’s forbidden to question whether it makes sense to define how your freezer works?
Hang on, I'll try something
You can find that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is strange, sure. You can think that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who do that it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there’s no need for that.
Yep, still works.
And no-one said it's forbidden to question, indeed there's been some interesting questions and responses in this thread. Questionning with the aim of learning about people's beliefs and customs can only be a good thing. If you don't hold those beliefs, that's fine. However, and I don't know how to make this any clearer, there's no need to be a dick about it.
It might be being a dick, but it doesn't make it any less true.... ( Valves)
You can find that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is strange, sure. You can think that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who do that it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there’s no need for that.
I've obviously missed the posts where you popped up on valve threads to defend the integrity of the non-liner-uppers. But you are making a leap from people pointing out that something is bonkers to a claim that people are accusing others of "stupidity". That's a bit of a straw man.
However, and I don’t know how to make this any clearer, there’s no need to be a dick about it.
Ooh la la. Le repassage.
But you are making a leap from people pointing out that something is bonkers to a claim that people are accusing others of “stupidity”. That’s a bit of a straw man.
Hang on, I didn't make a leap from anything, the post that I was initially referring to literally said the beliefs were worthy of ridicule.
Anyway, this has now reached the point where it's just middle-aged men arguing on the internet, so I'm going to bow out gracefully.
You leaped to "stupid"
ChatGPT:
“Ridiculous” and “stupid” have different nuances, so which is “worse” depends on the context.
•Ridiculous generally implies something absurd or laughable. When we call something ridiculous, we’re saying it lacks sense or reason to the point of being almost laughable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unintelligent or harmful.
•Stupid has a harsher tone. It suggests a lack of intelligence, good judgment, or reasoning and can feel more like a personal criticism. Calling someone or something “stupid” tends to carry more judgment.
If you’re looking to avoid offense, “ridiculous” is usually milder. However, if you’re looking to highlight a lack of intelligence, “stupid” is definitely the sharper word.
this has now reached the point
...where we all need to chill.
(Valves and logos ffs? I'm happy if I get the knobbles pointing in the right direction.)
There's a direction ?
?
Is Sabbath mode better suited to bread and fishes? Asking for a friend…
Works a treat on headless bats.
And reality – “ancient verse says X, the rest of the law traditionally passed down orally and now filling many bookshelves has plenty of rules on how to interpret X, has many nuances and plenty of very intelligent people have spent the last couple of thousand years learning and discussing it”
... which is where it falls down for me.
Most religions are based around ancient texts. These are at their core supposed to be god's instruction manual to man, no? But a lot of it is incompatible with 21st Century life in the Western world either due to societal norms or increased knowledge, which presents a quandary. So do we:
a) go "this is the word of god so lump it and do as you're told,"
b) cherry-pick which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical all along honest guv,
c) have apparently very intelligent men try to unpick the vagaries of dead languages over several centuries to try to tell everyone else what they think it probably meant, then mandate that folk can't have chilled food on the sabbath because it's what god would have wanted. Also, whilst god is infallible he ****ed up with foreskins so they'll have to go.
…where we all need to chill.
Oh very good. *applause*
@Cougar all of the above, kind of. Did I mention it's complicated?
which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical
All are both. But you can't just cherry-pick. Did I mention it's complicated?
foreskins so they’ll have to go.
I thought we'd established it's not good to be a bit of a dick?
Most religions are based around ancient texts. These are at their core supposed to be god’s instruction manual to man, no?
That's a sweeping assumption, and a moment's thought will reveal that.
The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that were selected to be included in one volume at some point in the past. That's why all the parts are called 'books' because they aren't one book. It's obvious that they are pretty diverse and cover all sorts of different things. They deliberately included four re-tellings of the same story that don't agree, and the compilers knew this full well. They were simply deemed important texts that you may wish to study. For Christians, Jesus' teachings are important, and they are simply recounted in part of the Bible and the authors are even credited so you know it's not God or Jesus who wrote them. Now - some fanatics have taken things a bit too far, but that's what fanatics do.
There are a few books which were meant to be dictated directly to a person from God, but I can only think of two - the Quran and the book of Mormon. I know the Quran is still subject to interpretation, as it obviously must be, because times have changed and unless God comes down and chooses another prophet, it's all we've got.
Some folk will get together and adopt a particular interpretation, and they will have followers and also people who disagree. That's why we have multiple churches within Christianity, and multiple sects etc. You seem to be pouring scorn on the idea of having an open mind and trying to understand something, which I think is probably not what you really want to be doing 🙂
There must surely, surely come a point where you think to yourself, “what the actual **** am I doing?”
Apparently not.
Well yes, because there are multiple sects. The members of the less restrictive groups are the ones who objected to the stringent interpretations. People leave and join these groups for those very reasons.
It's highly ironic but also kind of satisfying that a bunch of atheists are now having a debate about the interpretation of scripture 🙂 satisfying because this is a very important topic in terms of how we relate to our fellow humans. I bet most of you are probably horrified that they have RE in schools, but this is exactly why we need it.
b) cherry-pick which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical all along honest guv,
The answer has always been B, from the day after any - in this case as we're discussing biblical texts, book was written, the answer has been B all along, and this isn't a modern thing. Which is why all the denominations, sect and religions that share an Abrahamic tradition have a version of an Apocrypha
Also, whilst god is infallible he ****ed up with foreskins so they’ll have to go
It's OK to say "I don't know why religious groups do some things", rather than make up straw-man arguments - that probably work well in your head but don't survive contact with an anthropologist let alone a theologian
Thank you for a less flippant/facetious response than I'm capable of at this point 😉
But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who believe it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it.
Can I just check if it's still ok to ridicule David Icke? Scientology? Must we now acknowledge that those Heaven's Gate cultists are on the spaceship hidden behind Hale-Bopp?
Did I mention it’s complicated?
I don't believe you did.
In which case though, is this not in itself inherently flawed? Why isn't it simple? Surely it should be.
Actually, I suspect I know the answer to that. There's an Internet meme stating something like "if I want the answer to a problem, I post a wrong answer on the Internet." If a religion were simple, it'd die out. What perpetuates it is the People's Front of Judea butting heads with the Judean People's Front. By having god moving in mysterious ways we can debate it until the cows evolve into Bovine Sapiens rather than going "completed it, mate" and getting bored.
Even if your holy books are the literal word of god, they're translated into modern-day language by men potentially with an agenda, and are wildly open to interpretation. It's a castle built on sand, even if it's all true the system is flawed.
Tax exemption? bigger budgets. cant think of anything else?
I think there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults.
Care to explain the difference?
It’s OK to say “I don’t know why religious groups do some things”, rather than make up straw-man arguments – that probably work well in your head but don’t survive contact with an anthropologist let alone a theologian
To the best of my limited knowledge, the whole circumcision thing was born of hygiene issues from getting the old chap pebbledashed in a sandstorm. You don't get many sandstorms outwith the Middle East. Happy to be corrected if you know better.
Just so you know, it’s perfectly fine to be an atheist and not be a dick about it.
Sure, but it's also fine to laugh at this kind of bollocks.
Is not firing a weapon making fire?
Easy now.... Don't want anyone thinking you're referring to the genocide currently being committed by Isreal against the Palestinians.
That’s a sweeping assumption, and a moment’s thought will reveal that.
Good to see the dont be a dick doesnt apply to the supporters. Lets have a moments thought about your equally sweeping assumption the other way
"For Christians" I note you try a quick excuse about some "fanatics" but lets just take the Catholic view of the sacred scriptures and the flexible and varying use of "inspired" which goes from vague to be pretty much ghost written.
Obviously for some parts, eg the historical bits, there is a less of a claim but plenty is taken as the direct word or are you suggesting the ten commandants wasnt handed down directly?
So it doesnt seem an unreasonable casual conversation to say what Cougar did. Its not
I bet most of you are probably horrified that they have RE in schools, but this is exactly why we need it.
In my experience its mostly the religious who need proper lessons rather than just the selected highlights. However sociology or anthropology would be a better choice. It doesnt come with the risk of someone treating the classroom as a pulpit.
To the best of my limited knowledge, the whole circumcision thing was born of hygiene issues from getting the old chap pebbledashed in a sandstorm. You don’t get many sandstorms outwith the Middle East. Happy to be corrected if you know better.
Same as some of the 'banned' foods. They are mostly things that would quickly go off in the heat, leading to food poisoning.
I bet most of you are probably horrified that they have RE in schools, but this is exactly why we need it.
I missed Mol's post, cheers for that.
I'm all for RE in schools, as presented as theological study / history. Ie, "Faith System X believes this, whereas Faith System Y believes that." At an academic level it is (arguably perhaps) interesting.
What I'm against is it being a core subject (back when doing my GCSEs I couldn't drop it as a lesson despite not choosing it as an elective subject and so not carrying an exam), and it being presented as fact.
There are a few books which were meant to be dictated directly to a person from God
Today perhaps, but revisionism is doing some heavy lifting here. People have been murdered to death for holding such progressive ideas and not recanting.
I thought we’d established it’s not good to be a bit of a dick?
Fair play, that was funny.
I’m all for RE in schools
It seems to be useful as a sort of inoculation. Compare and contrast with the nuttiness of places where it's banned, like the US.
the whole circumcision thing was born of hygiene issues
Same as some of the ‘banned’ foods.
Be careful to not fall into theological or anthropological "just-so" stories. There's no evidence that tribes in the Levant or wider Arabian peninsula decided that it was more hygienic to not have some bits of your body, or that they couldn't keep food fresh (or even if they'd need or want to) There doesn't have to be any reason for a group to do anything other than "We just don't want to do , or look like what that that other group do (or don't look like)"
Early Jewish-Christians struggled to set out what they thought was the "rules" - read the Pauline Epistles for really interesting insight about how the very very early church (35-60AD) thought it should/shouldn't do things. I think so far it's fair to say it hasn't really settled the original arguments.
What I’m against is it being a core subject (back when doing my GCSEs I couldn’t drop it as a lesson despite not choosing it as an elective subject and so not carrying an exam), and it being presented as fact.
I've never seen any evidence of this either when I was in school or now when my kids are. They say 'Muslims do this" or "Jews do that" it never says "God did that". I have a feeling that some snowflake atheists might be interpreting the lessons as that. I mean, it's still shit, because they don't really explain why anyone does any of it, which is why you lot seem to be so ignorant 🙂
There doesn’t have to be any reason for a group to do anything other than “We just don’t want to do , or look like what that that other group do (or don’t look like)”
Yes. See also Orthodox priests having beards simply because Catholic priests are told not to have them. Also those African tribes who stick holes in their women's lips because they want to have a thing to be different to all the other tribes.
Compare and contrast with the nuttiness of places where it’s banned, like the US
Wait, what? Religious Education is banned in the US?
I’ve never seen any evidence of this either when I was in school or now when my kids are.
Shrug emoji. I can't evidence it, but every piece of religious education I encountered within and without school growing up was presented as factual.
I still remember the very first RE lesson in high school, the teacher posited that "Jesus was who he said he was, or he was the greatest con artist who ever lived." Begging the question aside, that second clause was never explored.
which is why you lot seem to be so ignorant
Hey now.
See also Orthodox priests having beards
I worked alongside a Mormon for a while. He rocked up one day sporting a beard, when comments were made he said he'd grown it because god had appeared in a dream and told him to do it.
Frankly, it could've been a lot worse.
Be careful to not fall into theological or anthropological “just-so” stories.
A valid point.
But... so, why then?
I think so far it’s fair to say it hasn’t really settled the original arguments.
Weird, we're told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
Wait, what? Religious Education is banned in the US?
The US has a very strict separation of religion and state. What it hasn't managed is a separation of religion and politics...
Weird, we’re told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
D'you think all the arguments have been settled?
