You're in a club with a several billion members, it's great you're not asking me to join but in other places membership is compulsory and comes at a stiff price. That levy is made all the more possible the bigger the club grows. Casual memberships keep the club going and frankly it's not a great club for a large percentage of the membership. The basis for the clubs existence is unproven and the rules it can apply are often awful.
That's "my" problem, on the whole I think the club is a bad thing.
FFS. Another kwality cut and paste-a-thon full of the usual ****tery all round.Why not talk about bikes or something instead, eh? Go on, try it. You might even enjoy it.
Thank gods you're here to provide such a useful and insightful contribution instead then, hey? Really setting the bar.
meh.
Keep leading by example cougs. How do you know where I get my moral compass from? What makes you think it's "a book".
I cheerfully and unreservedly withdraw that comment, I was making assumptions.
Report me, then.
Touché.
I think you need to take that one up with the disciple of christ / bible
Why is it that those of faith just ignore the bits of the book they have no interest in defending? Like say hell or killing gays or marrying your brothers wife ?or say taking slaves and concubines after battle?- i can quote for all of those if you really want.
I can't remember if it was to you, Junkyard, that I specifically responded to on this point in a past thread, but I remember trying to explain this.
In any case, when it comes to the Bible - a collection of many texts representing different periods, genres, and writers - [i]not[/i] reading some texts literally, while reading others so, has always been a feature of mainstream Christian hermeneutics. There is no inconsistency in spending a lifetime studying ancient texts and understanding them from within the context in which they were written.
Biblical fundamentalism and corresponding errors in interpretation, while not unknown in ancient Christianity, is a 19th century American phenomenon that grew up in response to social liberalism.
Why not talk about bikes or something instead, eh?
Metal tubes, with wheels at each end. What's to discuss? After a decade and a half of posting here, I couldn't care less about wheel sizes or tyre choice.
Thank you cougs (you were 😉 ).
I actually enjoy reading all of them, especially the ones without a god in them. Even more interesting when you compare the message of both types too.
Hey flashy is here to moan about things he does not like
BINGO
Junkyard- fair question about apparently "ignoring" parts of the Bible. I'm a scientist not a theologian, but this is what I understand about Orthodoxy (can't speak for other denominations): The Bible contains a lot of allegory, never intended to be taken literally in its entirety. Orthodoxy teaches that the interpretation of the Bible has been passed down directly from the apostles over the centuries by the Church- that is, taken together with the Church.
Obviously the Bible wasn't originally written in English, so the difficult concept of hell could conceivably have changed slightly in translations.
when it comes to the Bible - a collection of many texts representing different periods, genres, and writers - not reading some texts literally, while reading others so, has always been a feature of mainstream Christian hermeneutics. There is no inconsistency in spending a lifetime studying ancient texts and understanding them from within the context in which they were written.
I find this aspect of religion fascinating. From the outside it looks an awful lot like deciding what you want to be true and then using your hermeneutical lense to prove it. [url= http://www.christiantoday.com/article/steve.chalkes.oasis.trust.removed.from.the.evangelical.alliance/37171.htm ]Steve Chalke's recent change in position on gay marriage[/url], for example, looks a lot like seeing which way the wind is blowing and then reorienting your theological sails.
I'm genuinely interested in how a scientist rationalises their faith in god (lacking any evidence) can you try and explain? Not being rude I'd really like to understand?
Hardly surprising that a 2000 plus year old collection of stories has a whole heap of weird stuff within it. Especially when at various points in history those in the positions of power have quite openly held various synod meetings to decide which of the stories they want to use and keep and which ones they are going to get rid off.
Going back to the point that OP was asking - remember him? - I think the new Pope is trying to start to turn around the oil tanker and bring Catholic doctrine more up to date, which can only be a good thing. Whether he will succeed or not is open to debate. Whether he is doing it because he believes in it, or doing it to keep the Catholic Church in "business", is largely irrelevant. If he is only doing it to be pragmatic, I'd sooner have a pragmatic realist as a Pope than a blinkered idealogically driven maniac.
The Bible contains a lot of allegory, never intended to be taken literally in its entirety
That's a very modern viewpoint though. It was absolutely supposed to be taken literally for many years, it's only in recent times where we've gained a better understanding of the world and the universe that we've had this "allegory" back-pedal.
Obviously the Bible wasn't originally written in English, so the difficult concept of hell could conceivably have changed slightly in translations.
That's the tip of a very large iceberg; translation difficulties are a big problem, which is why as an atheist I struggle with the concept of 'faith' in something which could quite readily have been accidentally or intentionally misinterpreted.
n any case, when it comes to the Bible - a collection of many texts representing different periods, genres, and writers - not reading some texts literally, while reading others so, has always been a feature of mainstream Christian hermeneutics. There is no inconsistency in spending a lifetime studying ancient texts and understanding them from within the context in which they were written.
TBH I find this the weirdest thing about it it is the word of god, no its just metaphor, its apocryphal, not that bit is not real etc no one believed creationism but its still true god made us all - its gibberish IMHO. Believers just pick and mix the bits they want to try and defend - hence why they have not engaged on the quote about burning with the devil but have said it is not true 😕 - its pretty damn clear what it means and you either follow what the book says or you dont. Apparently they now want to follow bits of it and not others and still maintain its true and not daft.
Its nothing something i can respect or admire tbh
a 2000 plus year old collection of stories
It's not that old. Well, the OT maybe, I don't know a great deal about that, but the NT is on average 1500 years old IIRC, give or take a few centuries.
Going back to the point that OP was asking - remember him? - I think the new Pope is trying to start to turn around the oil tanker and bring Catholic doctrine more up to date, which can only be a good thing.
No arguments here.
You wouldn't have IS without this belief system.
Sadly, you probably would.
IS are just another bunch of brutal ideologues using religion as a justification for their actions. History is littered with incidences of groups of people using their strength to dominate and massacre others, sometimes religion is the justification, often it isn't. The Nazis, Khmer Rouge and Stalin all committed genocide, they just replaced religion with another ideology. The Rwandan massacre was tribal.
It is too easy to blame the actions of some on the beliefs of many.
Cougar- when I talked of "constant prodding", I hoped that sounded somewhat milder than "attacking". I didn't feel like you were attacking me.... or prodding for that matter!
I'm happy to discuss, but have been a bit burnt by previous discussions in which some (obviously not all) atheists have brought nothing but sarcasm and mockery to the table.
The Bible contains a lot of allegory, never intended to be taken literally in its entirety
Its a rationalisation designed to paper over the fact we know much of it at odds with the actual reality and known facts as they are today
I would not want to defend creationism nor stoning of gays nor marrying my brothers wife if he dies nor taking slaves and concubines after war nor slaughtering [male] children but it is all in the bible.
Its like folk taking ying and yang, and then karma, then lay lines and then claiming they are a wican druidh. You either take the bible as the word of god or throw it away as a made up myth. It cannot be both and we now argue about which bits are the "real" bits and which bits just non literal stories.
atheists have brought nothing but sarcasm and mockery to the table
Some have brought nothing but this some of us bring that and still try to discuss. Some of faith - you may have seen it- turn up insult and go away.
I find this aspect of religion fascinating. From the outside it looks an awful lot like deciding what you want to be true and then using your hermeneutical lense to prove it. Steve Chalke's recent change in position on gay marriage, for example, looks a lot like seeing which way the wind is blowing and then reorienting your theological sails.
I genuinely understand why it comes across this way, but neither in the Church nor in the academy is it the case. Again, I have used this analogy on here before, but to Catholic and Orthodox Christians, along with most mainstream Protestants, Scripture and doctrine is not unlike poetry. People of faith record their experience - both communal and individual - of a reality they perceive as metaphysical or divine. Because it is precisely [i]meta[/i]-physical, it is also inscrutable, and so interpretable by means of a language that does not correspond precisely with everyday language. Not unlike art. Of course, some take that language literally; but clearly it is meant to convey something [i]other[/i], as would be the case with poetry.
When Shakespeare said in reference to his mistress that 'black wires grow on her head', he was obviously not suggesting that literal wires were growing out of her scalp (unless he was, in which case, ugh); one would need to read the whole of Sonnet 130 to see that he was saying that, while he was not going to gush in unrealistic romantic terms about her, his mistress was his, and he loved her.
Cougar- when I talked of "constant prodding", I hoped that sounded somewhat milder than "attacking". I didn't feel like you were attacking me.... or prodding for that matter!
I'm happy to discuss, but have been a bit burnt by previous discussions in which some (obviously not all) atheists have brought nothing but sarcasm and mockery to the table.
Point taken. Though I wasn't really implying that [i]you[/i] were suggesting an attack, it was a generalisation.
I'd like to think that the nasty debates of yore are a bit 'old testament' these days. We've culled a number of the more disruptive elements of this forum over the last couple of years and personal attacks are as verboten and thus moderated on this subject as they are any other. If they aren't it's because we've missed them rather than out of any STW 'officially sanctioned abuse' policy. Far as I'm aware, the only moderator or admin with any sort of interest in this topic is me.
I've deleted every post reported on this thread so far, which as THM declined to answer my question I can clarify is "none whatsoever." I vigorously reject the accusation that there's some sort of anti-theism conspiracy amongst the moderation team, it's simply not true.
Which is a good thing because, when people aren't being nobby, an interesting discussion occasionally breaks out.
Cougar - Moderator
a 2000 plus year old collection of stories
It's not that old. Well, the OT maybe, I don't know a great deal about that, but the NT is on average 1500 years old IIRC, give or take a few centuries.
The Gospel of Mark, by way of example, was written just after the halfway mark of the first century. So yes, about 2000 years old.
When Shakespeare said in reference to his mistress that 'black wires grow on her head', he was obviously not suggesting that literal wires were growing out of her scalp
Difference is, he never claimed to, nor did any of his readers.
Previously it was specific enough to tell me not to eat owls but now it's inscrutable?
How come the Evangelical Alliance were sure enough about God not liking bum fun that they expelled Steve Chalke's church when he changed his interpretation of the poetry?
The Gospel of Mark, by way of example, was written just after the halfway mark of the first century. So yes, about 2000 years old.
All of it? My understanding was that the beginnings and ends of the gospels were rather newer, to play up the divine aspects of Christ and that this is why there some discrepancy within the gospels.
The Gospel of Mark, by way of example, was written just after the halfway mark of the first century. So yes, about 2000 years old.
Yeah, you're right, I was misremembering; the gospels are believed to be between AD60-100. From the gospel of Wikipedia,
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs.
Point was, it's not "over 2000 years old", it was written after Jesus's death(*), which is an important distinction. Ie, they are not eye witness accounts.
(* - assuming for the sake of argument here that the depiction of Jesus's life and death are factually correct.)
miketually, I can not stress enough that the Evangelical Alliance is not, nor has it ever been, considered part of the mainstream Christian tradition. In saying this, I am not trying to obfuscate or avoid what you are querying, but the Evangelical Alliance, along with many denominations such as various Pentecostal groups, Evangelical Free, different Baptist groups: while a few of them find their roots in the Radical Reformation, they all take their approach to Scripture from 19th century American fundamentalism. They have a strong voice because of the American religious landscape which has been so affected by them, but otherwise we would hardly hear about them. And of course, they have found some traction here in the UK as well.
Because it is precisely meta-physical, it is also inscrutable,
Is it not a bit crap having an inscrutable message from a god? How does god tell you what to do then? Its like "through a glass darkly" - it means believers cannot explain why god does stuff or why the bible and facts dont match so you dont even try. Its straw clutching
When Shakespeare said in reference
Shakespeare is a work of fiction but even still if he did not get his message across he has still failed.
When god says homosexuality is an abomination and they should be killed - it is not poetry nor metaphor nor vague. Its just you dont want to talk about those bits
I can not stress enough that the Evangelical Alliance is not, nor has it ever been, considered part of the mainstream Christian tradition.
Well said. I don't think it's particularly fair or helpful to judge the majority of modern-day Xtianity based on the views of a few fringe (largely American) churches (any more than it's valid to use Dawkins for criticism of all Atheists).
Cougar - ModeratorDifference is, he never claimed to, nor did any of his readers.
But Christians don't claim literal truth for everything in the Bible either. Of course there are claims that [i]need[/i] to be true, such as the actual life of a man called Jesus, but beyond that, details such as the Resurrection are matters of faith.
The Bible isn't literally true, apart from the bits that are? How can you tell the difference?
Why does Jesus [i]need[/i] to be true? If we applied the same allegorical logic against the entire thing (and other than tradition, why can't / wouldn't we?) then [i]both [/i]sides might actually get somewhere.
Sadly, you probably would.IS are just another bunch of brutal ideologues using religion as a justification for their actions. History is littered with incidences of groups of people using their strength to dominate and massacre others, sometimes religion is the justification, often it isn't. The Nazis, Khmer Rouge and Stalin all committed genocide, they just replaced religion with another ideology. The Rwandan massacre was tribal.
It is too easy to blame the actions of some on the beliefs of many.
True.
"For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities." - E. Hoffer
He's so quotable 😀
Christians don't claim literal truth for everything in the Bible either.
You used to though till even you knew it was wring and indefensible
Numbers 31:7-18New International Version (NIV)7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Is this true then ?
What is the moral here then ?
But Christians don't claim literal truth for everything in the Bible either
Oh I think you'll find a subset who do.
The Bible isn't literally true, apart from the bits that are? How can you tell the difference?
It makes no sense to claim this but it is the latest attempt as some parts are indefensible
for example
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."[1]
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
When i studies theology what I realised was that even if you accept that god is true the message is still utterly inconsistent. This is what is being exhibited here with the it is true it is not true argument
Is it not a bit crap having an inscrutable message from a god? How does god tell you what to do then? Its like "through a glass darkly" - it means believers cannot explain why god does stuff or why the bible and facts dont match so you dont even try. Its straw clutching
God does not 'tell you what to do'. To a believer, the language of God infuses all that is. That language speaks of beauty, symmetry, love, etc. When that language is misappropriated, then we end up with the opposite of those things. A great deal of what appears in the Old Testament records the development of a nation (that of the Israelites). As we would expect across any antique society, there was any combination of injustice, death, cruelty, etc., among them. The OT records these things, and sometimes comments on them, and sometimes condemns them. And some of what it recounts is mythological in the same way that the Gilgamesh Epic or the Iliad is mythological. I am no OT scholar, but that is the reality of the text. You are right: it is like seeing through a glass darkly (nice citation of St Paul, BTW); that's why we have a history of religious teachers such as rabbis to read the stuff and interpret it.
Shakespeare is a work of fiction but even still if he did not get his message across he has still failed.
When god says homosexuality is an abomination and they should be killed - it is not poetry nor metaphor nor vague. Its just you dont want to talk about those bits
I disagree that Shakespeare is fiction. His work is poetry. Poetry is about very real human experience; that it is not written as an empirical textbook does not make it less true.
You used to though
Some still do, of course. "Christians do / don't believe..." well, anything, frankly, is a generalisation. There are so many different denominations, and inside that everyone holds their own personal view (in the more liberal strains anyway), that such blanket statements are nonsensical.
I disagree that Shakespeare is fiction. His work is poetry.
I don't recall ever going into a library and seeing "fiction," "non-fiction" and "other" sections.
You either take the bible as the word of god or throw it away as a made up myth. It cannot be both and we now argue about which bits are the "real" bits and which bits just non literal stories.
Sort of agree or disagrre,can't really decide ! The Bible and all religious texts for that matter were written ,edited ,compiled and interpreted by humans( some of whom claimed to have been spoken to by god)usally from oral traditions a long time ago then translated and amended throughout the ages.So it is consequently filled with all the flaws that inevitably come from that.Yes there are some eternal human truths in there (same with Shakespeare),allegorical truths and even "relative truths",now debunked as well as lots of nonsense and now discredited interpretations of history and evolution.
If there is a god why does he need a book when he's got the universe(s)?
It's people who need the books.
nice citation of St Paul, BTW
Every now and again I like to come over as informed 😉
Can i also say as I rarely do on these threads IMHO religious people tend to be trying to live to an ideal that is very hard to adhere to. They tend to be amongst the nicest people on the planet and they are capable of things I could never even contemplate - immense acts of compassion and forgiveness for example
You are till wrong though.
You used to though till even you knew it was wring and indefensible
What I am trying to say is that, no, this assertion is not accurate. I am sure that there have always been Christians who have read the Bible literally, but they are not, nor have they ever been the mainstream.
I am not saying I always know what to make of all the texts you cite. But the implication inherent in your qualms with various passages is that each word and passage is equivalent in weight with every other word and passage just because it appears in the Bible. I cannot stress strongly enough that this is NOT the case, nor has it ever been. If it was, the Church would have shaped her doctrines in a very different way to what she has.
If I were to lay out the 'important passages' in the OT for mainstream Christian theology (read: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.), I would probably include (off the top of my head) the Creation, the Exodus, the Babylonian captivity, the Wisdom Literature (eg. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes).
Also, judging by some of the posts in this thread I reckon some of Hoffers books should be required reading for some of the posters on here.
it's only in recent times where we've gained a better understanding of the world and the universe that we've had this "allegory" back-pedal.
It can't have been a back pedal because the bike hadn't been invented, Augustine was suggesting a non literal reading of Genesis and he died at the beginning of the 5th century.
It can't have been a back pedal because the bike hadn't been invented, Augustine was suggesting a non literal reading of Genesis and he died at the beginning of the 5th century.
You amuse me, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Carry on.
