are we still discussing the issue or are you just hurling insults?
I don't think it was ever a discussion JY. Not by any standard I recognise anyway.
Religion = be nice or we wont let you play on a cloud - unless you say sorry, in which case do whatever you like and then we'll let you off anyway... Once we've rid you of the nastiness you were born with naturally!
Apparently there are some relegious folk who believe in an all forgiving being who will let you play on a cloud even if you don't say sorry and all the rest.
I used to know a vicar who believed in "Universal Reconciliation" who followed this line of thought. I think it involved quite a lot ot theological mental gymnastics but made some kind of sense at the time. This was way back when I was a Christian of sorts anyway, but that was a while ago and I can't remember much about the philosophy of it all.
are we still discussing the issue or are you just hurling insults?
In all fairness, it does rather seem that you're solely picking negative bits from the bible in response to any suggestion that there might be other, more positive aspects to it, which must be a bit frustrating.
in all fairness if people are going to paraphrase "be excellent to each other" from a big book that also contains genocide and a list of benign activities that'll qualify you for a death warrant or an eternity in hell, it'd be kinda naive of them to think they won't be pulled up on that bad stuff.In all fairness, it does rather seem that you're solely picking negative bits from the bible in response to any suggestion that there might be other, more positive aspects to it, which must be a bit frustrating.
Like I said how about bible 2.0? Keep the good stuff, lose the silly and nasty stuff. I'm guessing the trouble is, that to edit out leviticus or to say gods word was wrong, or even just say "the bloke who wrote it must have been smoking a lot of crack so lets just ignore it", well it undermines the religions based on it and a lot of the more fervent believers are going to get a bit stroppy.
A company I used to work for told us not to worry about all the extra work hours because there'd be a massive bonus at the end of the project. Turned out there wasn't.
Just saying 🙂
Like I said how about bible 2.0? Keep the good stuff, lose the silly and nasty stuff. I'm guessing the trouble is to edit out leviticus or to say gods word was wrong, or even just say "the bloke who wrote it must have been smoking a lot of crack so lets just ignore it", well it undermines the religions based on it and a lot of the more fervent believers are going to get a bit stroppy.
Oh I don't know, when the Chistians came along they basically wrote Bible 2.0 as the new testament (NT). If you compare the vengeful, angry god of the old testament wih the forgiving and self sacrificing (holy trinity assumptions of course) god of the NT it's a pretty dramatic difference.
Just remembered that TV mini series "Second Coming" I think it was called, had Christopher Eccleston in it. The ending of that was that humanity needed to write it's own third testament: Bible 3.0...
Hmm, a fair bit more peace and love shizzle but IIRC there's quite a lot of the OT that he didn't refute.....but my RE and compulsory church attendance was a long time ago.it's a pretty dramatic difference.
And the OT is still wheeled out in a lot of church services, it's not been shelved so still up for criticism shirley?
in all fairness if people are going to paraphrase "be excellent to each other" from a big book that also contains genocide and a list of benign activities that'll qualify you for a death warrant or an eternity in hell, it'd be kinda naive of them to think they won't be pulled up on that bad stuff.
But then you just get a circular debate, which seems a bit pointless. I guess the only way out of that is to look and see how it's interpreted by those who follow it, and by and large it seems most do take the "be excellent to each other" to be the underlying fundamental thing - there are exceptions, of course (Uganda, the Westboro Baptist eedjits), but in this day and age, Christianty seems to be quite a nice religion for the most part. 🙂
Like I said how about bible 2.0? Keep the good stuff, lose the silly and nasty stuff. I'm guessing the trouble is, that to edit out leviticus or to say gods word was wrong, or even just say "the bloke who wrote it must have been smoking a lot of crack so lets just ignore it", well it undermines the religions based on it and a lot of the more fervent believers are going to get a bit stroppy.
Aye - I guess it depends on how big an investment you have in believing the bible is god's word and not man's interpretation of it.
A company I used to work for told us not to worry about all the extra work hours because there'd be a massive bonus at the end of the project. Turned out there wasn't.
That's funny. 😀
And the OT is still wheeled out in a lot of church services, it's not been shelved so still up for criticism shirley?
Yeah that's true. I've still got a laptop that runs on Windows 3.1...
Christianty seems to be quite a nice religion for the most part.
Let's see now...
This christian god's creations existed on the planet for approximately 200,000 years living short lives of miserable scratching for existence, dying in pain and agony from diseases they didn't know how to cure. Also injuries they didn't know how to fix and from rotten teeth they couldn't mend.
What did this god thing decide to do to make it better? For 199,980 of those years it sat, arms folded, watching it's creatures suffer and then decided to help them by becoming human and having itself tortured to death to "absolve" humanity of sins which it hadn't even committed in the first place. Humans had to wait for another 2,000 years or thereabouts until it had discovered how to adjust all this suffering by inventing medical science.
Yeah. Nice.
Personally I reckon it's possibly OK to follow a "nice" religion (if that's your thing) and ignore some of the weirder stuff like the diet, do what you want, but it seems a bizarre situation that people are fine to identify themselves with X religion whose doctrine has passages containing stuff they themselves are diametrically opposed to and say "yeah but we just interpret that a bit different" when other more loopy sects of that religion can still quote it as that same god's word to justify their hateful views.
Personally I reckon it's possibly OK to follow a "nice" religion (if that's your thing) and ignore some of the weirder stuff like the diet, do what you want, but it seems a bizarre situation that people are fine to identify themselves with X religion whose doctrine has passages containing stuff they themselves are diametrically opposed to and say "yeah but we just interpret that a bit different" when other more loopy sects of that religion can still quote it as that same god's word to justify their hateful views.
Yeah, that I can understand. I think it's largely down to it all being based on text that's so old, written by the hand of man and reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the times. That's where your bible 2.0 would come in handy. 🙂
That's lovely that is Mr Woppit, a beautifully succinct appraisal that perfectly illustrates the root cause behind our dear nation's generally schizophrenic sociopathic personality..
It's actually pretty scary when you put it down so clearly, rendering all of our upbringings tantamount to cruel and unusual psychological abuse..
100% agree on Bible 2.0
[url=
2.0[/url]
Surely the most useful The Bible 2.0 would simply be a small business card, or maybe even more fitting, a tattoo on your forehead that just says STOP BEING A ****..
Oh I don't know, when the Chistians came along they basically wrote Bible 2.0 as the new testament (NT). If you compare the vengeful, angry god of the old testament wih the forgiving and self sacrificing (holy trinity assumptions of course) god of the NT it's a pretty dramatic difference.
The NT also contains quite a lot which today's (liberal) Christians choose to ignore.
Jesus specifically said that anyone who remarries after getting a divorce is committing adultery. I know a local priest who has remarried after divorce.
In the letters, it is specifically stated that women shouldn't speak in church. The local priest who remarried is a woman. This verse forms part of the reasoning behind not allowing women bishops in the CofE.
There's a lot more too. As a modern, wooly, liberal Christian, you get to pick and choose which parts to follow.
Interestingly, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible ]Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the bible[/url] which excluded all mentions of the supernatural and just contains passages from the four gospels, arranged in chronological order. It's considerably thinner than the usual bible.
think will wheaton owns the IP on that.a tattoo that just says STOP BEING A ****
In all fairness, it does rather seem that you're solely picking negative bits from the bible in response to any suggestion that there might be other, more positive aspects to it, which must be a bit frustrating.
Its a fair point to say this and its easily made without just resorting to criticising me personally - its a debate [ albeit not good enough for Spin] rather a competition to do the best personal dig.
As noted you cannot just pick the bits of the bible you like and ignore the bad bits- well you can and many do but its not what it asks you to do- you are meant to do it all.
Its also fair to say that the new testament is a lot less fire and brimstone and much more based on brotherly love that the OT is. it is a New Testament clearly.
Re christians I am not arguing that many christians are wandering around wanting to kill gays but look at their reaction [ or the reaction of some leaders for complete accuracy] to gay adoption and gay marriage and you can see that they are not,all, for treating them equally either.
As for doing a new version it is just like the American Constitution. It made sense at the time frame in which it was written , right to bear arms, but it is outdated for modern life.
However the problem is as they say it is the word of god how do the update or modernise it without a prophet or messenger of god?
Christianty seems to be quite a nice religion for the most part.
both yes and no - the basis message of Jesus - loy thy enemeny as thy self, do unto others as you would have done on to you, turn the other cheek etc are all excellent maxims for life and the central message is a good one.
however what they have actually done is less nice.
Look at what they did to heretics when they held all the power - it used to be illegal to commit blasphemy - that is it used to be illegal to deny that god existed - they now preach to us about tolerance when we merely criticise their faith.
they used to excommunicate their own members for disagreeing with orthodox faith - Galileo for example - this has been revised in later years as they do now accept a heliocentric world
they used to go on Holy Wars for their god
Condom use in AIDS riddled africa for a more modern example
Now of course I am focusing on only the negative stuff here but its influence is somewhat mixes
On an individual basis most religious folk are pretty decent just like atheists but the history of religion is not the history of tolerance and respect for dissenting voices, even when they come from within their own faith
As a modern, wooly, liberal Christian, you get to pick and choose which parts to follow.
I should have added: though your bishops (if you're an Anglican) will [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/jun/18/john-sentamu-church-of-england-gay-marriage ]use their unelected position in the House of lords to vote against marriage equality[/url] and some priests will place petitions against it in their churches for their congregations to sign.
Oh I don't know, when the Chistians came along they basically wrote Bible 2.0 as the new testament (NT). If you compare the vengeful, angry god of the old testament wih the forgiving and self sacrificing (holy trinity assumptions of course) god of the NT it's a pretty dramatic difference.
Can I just point out that the New Testament isn't a replacement for the Old Testament, merely an addition. Nowhere in the NT does it say 'ignore that last book'. In fact, the character 'Jesus' actually says that the character 'God's' word is the law' (or something along those lines) somewhere in the NT (I'll Google it if you're too lazy).
Good grief, that is not a very bright post I'm afraid.Belief in God does not necessarily mean following religious doctrine, or being Muslim, Christian etc
Belief in God does not necessarily mean believing in creationism or intelligent design
It's irrelevant. Just believing in nonsense allows the other people who believe in the same (or similar) nonsense AND DO follow religious doctrine to get away with what they do.
How many would actually believe the nonsense if no one else did? Very few I suggest. How many would believe in science? A great many I think, because it's there staring you in the face day to day.
The Bible is a tough book to get to grips with and I really should have a better handle on it. I try to live my life, NOW, how I think God wants me to. A lot of that comes from the Bible and a fair bit from how I think God is answering my prayers and the occasional hedging my bets when I'm not sure.
Defending the whole Bible, literally, is a tough gig and I don't know how to interpret a lot of the Leviticus stuff etc. There's plenty of stuff online that helps argue one way or the other but as this thread shows, nothing definitive. Incidentally I do cut the sides of my hair and trim the corners of my beard and have a tattoo, all of which is potentially dodgy ground. I also 'sin' on a regular basis, (whilst trying not to) so am in no position to be casting stones, as it were.
My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence, but will hold little water with most other people, I accept. I guess that's what faith is though, isn't it.
Incidentally I wouldn't call a scientifically based atheism 'stupid' as someone suggested I might. I actually think it makes a lot of sense and is far from stupid; but for me it doesn't make as much sense as there being a god.
As for doing a new version it is just like the American Constitution. It made sense at the time frame in which it was written , right to bear arms, but it is outdated for modern life.
However the problem is as they say it is the word of god how do the update or modernise it without a prophet or messenger of god?
Yeah, that's an obstacle. Kind of wondered how it works though, as I'm pretty sure there's a few different versions of the bible - how do you know which one is right!:)
Both yes and no - the basis message of Jesus - loy thy enemeny as thy self, do unto others as you would have done on to you, turn the other cheek etc are all excellent maxims for life and the central message is a good one. however what they have actually done is less nice.
I think my argument here is that you can't really blame the bible (or christianity? Hmm, need to think on that one!) if people read something into it that's different from the core message. I'm not a religious person, but I've got a lot of respect for the positive things that the bible teaches, the love thy enemy and do unto others stuff, but I don't see a link between those sweeping and (in these times) positive statements and, say, the Westboro Baptist Church parading outside the funeral of an American soldier with placards saying that god killed him because he was a fag, and I don't see it as a fair statement to blame the bible (or christianity) on their behaviour. Those are, of course, opposite ends of the spectrum, and there's bound to be a big old grey bit in the middle... 🙂
... but the history of religion is not the history of tolerance and respect for dissenting voices, even when they come from within their own faith
I'm not sure if that's limited to prople of faith, though.
This thread... 😯
That is all.
#faithinreasonisaformofmysticismafterall
How many would actually believe the nonsense if no one else did? Very few I suggest.
And I think that's kind of where we came in. 🙂
Went to church a couple of weekends ago, and the vicar related the story of a dinner party he was at where they were discussing the afterlife, and one of the other guests said "but how do we know? No-one's ever come back to say?" And the vicar said "one person has!" I'd have been interested to see how the rest of that panned out. 🙂
The thing is, I've got no doubt that the vicar (who is, can I add, an exceedingly nice man) is absolutely, positively 100% convinced that Jesus came back from the dead. I'm also reasonably sure that Tucker for example is pretty convinced that he didn't. I don't know if it can be proved either way, so who can say who's right? (I don't think he came back from the dead, FWIW 🙂 )
IIRC (could be dead wrong) those aren't "different editions" they are translations and rewording for modern parlance supposedly the message is still supposedly the same - but seem to remember a lot of people getting uppity about the king james bible not being used in services and the lords prayer getting reworded. Seemingly minor changes are a touchy subject.Kind of wondered how it works though, as I'm pretty sure there's a few different versions of the bible
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version ]Wiki for KJ[/url] but I_N_R_A_T_S at the moment.
there's probably a point in there. Believing your invisible friend talks to you and guides you through life calls your mental faculties in to question. Several thousand* people believing the same is religion.How many would actually believe the nonsense if no one else did?
*I'm not sure of the threshold.
and the vicar related the story of a dinner party he was at where they were discussing the afterlife, and one of the other guests said "but how do we know? No-one's ever come back to say?" And the vicar said "one person has!"
Well that vicar doesn't have a very good knowledge of the bible as he clearly forgot about Lazarus!
My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence,
This is called "Having a hallucination."
that's exactly the point. The westboro baptists can simply point to leviticus and say we're sending gods message here, the bible is where they get their authority from and christianity as a whole not renouncing that nasty stuff enables the situation to continue.the Westboro Baptist Church parading outside the funeral of an American soldier with placards saying that god killed him because he was a fag, and I don't see it as a fair statement to blame the bible (or christianity) on their behaviour.
I should have added: though your bishops (if you're an Anglican) will use their unelected position in the House of lords to vote against marriage equality and some priests will place petitions against it in their churches for their congregations to sign
This is where I think the CofE has a particularly difficult job. They are involved in culture and politics. People expect them to have a voice on incredibly difficult and complex issues. I don't think our laws should enforce Christian doctrine but equally I don't think a church should be made to marry people if it doesn't think it's right. I know of some vicars who won't marry divorcees for example.....at least I think that's what I think.
...christianity as a whole not renouncing that nasty stuff enables the situation to continue.
But it doesn't matter if they DO renounce it.
'We've altered our make-belief stuff now' doesn't alter the fact that's it's make-belief stuff, which in itself is a bit worrying, but of course gives other peoples 'make-belief stuff' validity (to some).
Well that vicar doesn't have a very good knowledge of the bible as he clearly forgot about Lazarus!
Heh! Maybe that was who he meant - I dunno, I ain't calling him on it! 🙂
I think my argument here is that you can't really blame the bible (or christianity? Hmm, need to think on that one!) if people read something into it that's different from the core message.
It depends though as some of the messages do detract from the central message so its a bit of both. Clearly humans are fallible and capable of acts of great cruelty whether religious or otherwise and its clearly not the case that we would all be lovely to each other if there was no religion. Has it made this better or worse. In all honesty i dont know.
I'm not sure if that's limited to prople of faith, though.
No argument from me its is not for sure
faithinreasonisaformofmysticismafterall
#theydontknowwhatthewordsmean
that's exactly the point. The westboro baptists can simply point to leviticus and say we're sending gods message here, the bible is where they get their authority from and christianity as a whole not renouncing that nasty stuff enables the situation to continue.
But how can that be reconciled with "do unto others" and all that gubbins? As convinced as they are that they're right, I'm equally as convinced that their interpretation of the bible is incorrect.
I dunno - this all made sense about half an hour ago, and now I'm all confuzzed. 😕
My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence
This is called "Having a hallucination."
It's quite a good one!
It may well be bit the question is whether it is an accurate one!
My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence,
If i commune with terry wogan A N Other and heard his voice or that rock over there telling me what to do how many folk would have respect for my beliefs?
How many would listen to my heartfelt impassioned plea that it was real, that you lacked faith and that you could not prove it was false?
I like the fact the catholic church all pray to god for guidance on the new pope and then they have to have a vote - WHY? if they have a chat surely god says the same thing to them all so why the need for a vote?
It may well be bit the question is whether it is an accurate one!My experience of a relationship with God convinces me of His existence,
Well, in simplistic terms, we'll either find out it is or it isn't or we still don't know when we/I die. Until then I'm happy believing it's real. What I can say is that it shapes my thoughts and actions such that I am more honest, generous, thoughtful and tolerant than if I didn't...I think.
I like the fact the catholic church all pray to god for guidance on the new pope and then they have to have a vote - WHY? if they have a chat surely god says the same thing to them all so why the need for a vote?
Democratic voting is a key biblical principle.... 😕
and the vicar related the story of a dinner party he was at where they were discussing the afterlife, and one of the other guests said "but how do we know? No-one's ever come back to say?" And the vicar said "one person has!"
Well that vicar doesn't have a very good knowledge of the bible as he clearly forgot about Lazarus!
As I understand it, the Christian afterlife isn't actually about going up to heaven after you die (pearly gates and all that), it's about a bodily resurrection and a new kingdom on Earth. So, Jesus and Lazarus didn't go to heaven or experience an afterlife and then come back, they died and were dead for a number of days and then came back to life.
No heaven, no afterlife. Dead.
It's only in the times described in Revelation that people come back from the dead, to live on Earth in a new Jerusalem.
Your dead grannie isn't watching over you, she's in a hole in the ground until Jesus comes back.
There are lots of possible interpretations of what heaven is. Jesus did actually say I am going to be with my father, so interpret that as you will.
My take on it is that heaven is being with God and Hell is not. I don't much care for the detail; it doesn't make a lot of difference now.
Jesus did actually say I am going to be with my father, so interpret that as you will.
That was after his resurrection and before his ascension wasn't it? Not before his death.
Heaven is where Jesus and God and the angels are. After the second coming, heaven will be on Earth.
I think junkyard is saying if they all speak to god why doesn't god say "candidate B FTW" and all the voters (cardinals?) finish their prayer, turn to each other and say "candidate B eh? sure let's get the invites written for the inauguration party" - if they are all talking to god surely it would be unanimous by gods direction not a majority vote...?Democratic voting is a key biblical principle..
another fair point,But it doesn't matter if they DO renounce it.
Moderates "our religion doesn't believe/interpret the persecution of X anymore"
Fundamentalist "well ours does so pass the hate placards this way"
but the moderate religions would atleast be distancing themselves rather than at the moment westboro possibly being seen (open to interpretation) as the fringe of the christian faith who might be saying things the others still believe but are too scared to say.
I'm not religious (did you guess? 🙂 ) so not my problem, it's upto the religion itself to make sense of the contradictory pile of books that have been (mis)remembered, passed on verbally, written, translated, rewritten and translated a bit more over the years.But how can that be reconciled with "do unto others" and all that gubbins?
interpreting the bible as a whole is a hell of an undertaking, interpreting that verse in leviticus as junkyard points out seems to be very cut and dried, but as noted, lots of people just ignore it.I'm equally as convinced that their interpretation of the bible is incorrect.
I don't know if it can be proved either way, so who can say who's right?
Also applies to:
You owing me £1,000,000
Me being a time traveller
Unicorns
Mermaids
Etc, etc.
Something either has concrete peer reviewed court admissible evidence to support it, or it doesn't. In the later case in can safely be dismissed as false.
