[Closed] Have we done this yet? Warning: Religious content

aaaaaannnyways, this has gone on long enough, anyone fancy a pint?
😆

but they are not,[b] nor have they ever been[/b] the mainstream.

Are you sure about that? I'm not.

I cannot stress strongly enough that this is NOT the case, nor has it ever been.

But it's the word of god?

I'm with you that in modern times you're almost certainly correct. But I'm reasonably certain - no, I have faith - that this was not it's original intention and not how it's been presented by churches throughout history. People weren't persecuted (excommunicated or worse) by the church for daring to disagree with allegories. How can we have the crime of heresy if the bible is allegorical?

Shhh! [img] [/img]

Junkyard, the fact that you keep going on about explanations for the existence of the universe and life tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are successfully criticising what you imagine religion to be, but that's not what it really is. People keep saying 'I don't understand X and Y about religious people' but then go on to assume that because you don't understand how they can believe it then they must be idiots. But you are being the idiot by assuming your point of view is the only valid one.

I think I am right in saying that for most Christians their faith is not a theory on the origin of the universe. So arguing about the lack of robust evidence for creationism is pointless.

And Christianity is not the bible. Why do you think there are four different gospels in it? It is a collection of writings by different people, everyone knows this. So why should any reader not form an opinion on each bit? This is after all the point of Protestantism afaik, which is a fairly popular movement. You are criticising Christians for not believing the whole bible literally, but why? You are in no position to do that.

Cougar - I don't think biblical inerrancy has been insisted upon throughout Christian history. Read up on it.

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

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.

Do you actually know this or is it simply an assumption?

Do you know it isn't?

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.

I just chose that as a reasonably high profile example, and because his essay was the first place I saw the word hermeneutical.

I should perhaps have chosen the issue of women bishops. For ~2000 years the scriptures have been interpreted in one way but now some have interpreted them differently. But not all, which is odd for a group of people who have a personal relationship with their God.

... Sorry Molgrips, I'm being facetious again, burden of proof and all that.

It's my understanding, I should be clearer in some posts. I may be wrong, I don't believe I am but I'd have to research further to be certain.

How can we have the crime of heresy if the bible is allegorical?

For the most part because the Magisterium - that is, the teaching authority of the Church - is made up of more than the Bible. It is traditionally posited as a three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

The Church is the 'compiler' of Scripture, and also its interpreter. She does this using reason. So, for example, it is NOT reasonable to describe God as all merciful, and then inflict death on those that disagree. When this has happened, it is not because the belief of the Church necessitated it; it is because fallen, corrupt, and evil people perpetrated it.

Ultimately, the Bible belongs to the Church; not the Church to the Bible. If that makes sense...

vickypea - Member

I don't understand the constant prodding from some atheists

I know, it's weird, personally I leave the prodding to the protestants!

As I see it and I'm only talking about Christianity,the first 100 years after Christ are the most interesting and there is very little recorded history.All the discples who knew Jesus were executed(one survived).They were an undreground outfit spread by word of mouth,outlawed and persecuted by the evil occupying empire of Rome and rejected by the corrupt Jewish religious establishment who were in cahoots with Rome to maintain the status quo and their own privileged position in Judea.Then gradually it all became mainstream, the Church of Rome took over and so created the new establishment.Sort of like an allegory for warehouse music,raves and acid house becoming all Ministry of Sound and absorbed into the establishment with New labour and peerages and all that,God skunk is great.

SR > Interesting, thank you.

I should perhaps have chosen the issue of women bishops. For ~2000 years the scriptures have been interpreted in one way but now some have interpreted them differently. But not all, which is odd for a group of people who have a personal relationship with their God.

Good point. But that's exactly why there is an ongoing debate. It was a moot point for most of the Church's life, and now one major community within the Church says women bishops are possible, while others do not. I guess the only real answer to that - from the point of view of faith - is that in comparison to eternity (against which we try to discern eternal truths), what is a mere 2000 years? 🙂 Seriously, though, I think it really is one reason why we are seeing this debate now. And it is not unreasonable that society's thoughts on the matter should have affected the timing. In the same way that feminism forced the Church to deal with other questions surrounding the theology of body and sexuality.

Do you know it isn't?

Yes and I gave you the example of Augustine who first posited a non literal interpretation in the 5th century, Thomas Acquinus also followed this line of thinking in the 13 th century. So you are wrong, very wrong.

Two people is hardly a majority.

True, Cougar, but in terms of the Magisterium I referred to above, at least with respect to the Roman Catholic Church and the Western Church more generally, there are literally no two figures bigger or more important than Augustine and Thomas Aquinas other than Jesus and St Paul.

It included many more than two, some have argued that the enlightenment was impossible without Christianity.

Anyway

Enlightenment era religious commentary was a response to the preceding century of religious conflict in Europe, especially the Thirty Years' War.[165] Theologians of the Enlightenment wanted to reform their faith to its generally non-confrontational roots and to limit the capacity for religious controversy to spill over into politics and warfare while still maintaining a true faith in God.

For moderate Christians, this meant a return to simple Scripture. John Locke abandoned the corpus of theological commentary in favor of an "unprejudiced examination" of the Word of God alone. He determined the essence of Christianity to be a belief in Christ the redeemer and recommended avoiding more detailed debate.[166] Thomas Jefferson in the Jefferson Bible went further; he dropped any passages dealing with miracles, visitations of angels, and the resurrection of Jesus after his death. He tried to extract the practical Christian moral code of the New Testament.[167]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

I'm sure I mentioned the contributions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in a previous religion thread but clearly my remarks fell on stony ground.

I gave you the example of Augustine

Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("He created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally

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.

This is what I was disputing - nothing about a majority in that - but your comment illustrates your ignorance - Augustine and Thomas Acquinus weren't just two people - they were two of the most important and influential Christian thinkers. If you are going to spout your understanding of theology, it would probably be a good idea to get a basic knowledge of its development first.

I'm sure I mentioned the contributions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in a previous religion thread but clearly my remarks fell on stony ground.

Very good.

Neither of them disputed genesis and they both believed god was the creator of everything as it is said in genesis.
Neither talked of dinosaurs either to be clear or knew that things walked the earth before us which kind of ends the god made us claim .
Only in later years has it been a metaphor of the type, I assume, Cougar means - ie we know it is a false account / now viewed as a myth. Neither of them thought creationism was untrue or just a myth/story.

But Acquinus viewed that the study of nature (i.e science) was necessary for a true understanding of God so he would have had little difficulty in accepting scientific advancements - indeed he believed in their pursuit to get a better understanding. Absent that advancement, he relied on his limited data, including the religious texts.

This is a good Augustine quote to sum it up

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture

but he still agreed god made everything and the study was to [ further]discover this [glory] not to discover the truth.
We have no idea what he would have done when he discovered the scientific truth was counter to his pre held belief as his knowledge was not great enough to reach this point. Back pedal is my guess as the vast body of evidence to counter the biblical account doe snot seem to have massively dented the faith or the church numbers globally [ neither an insult nor praise just an observation].
I still think Cougars point is valid that it is only as evidence "trumps" the bible do the views change - heliocentric universe for example, and accepting evolution FWIW i think his current position is neither one thing nor the other and he seems to think both happened another hundred years for the full back pedal ??

He [ god] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment,” Pope Francis said.

The earth’s origins were not chaotic, the pontiff said, but were created from a principle of love, reported Religion News Service.

“He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality, and so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things,” the pope said.

Pope Francis said the theory of evolution did not contradict the Bible or church teachings, as creationists claim.

Well we came from things that were not humans and other things predate us - we were not made in the image of god we evolved from apes and then all the way back to single cell organisms. TBH I am not overly sure WTF the pope is trying to say but it is not correct from an evolutionary standpoint

EDIT: written before seeing your quote - its too late for me to comment further

I'm with Mefty completely on this one, his understanding of the subject at hand is very good. I'm an atheist as well and I'm finding myself agreeing with him the more I read around the subject.

I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christian faith at all.

overly sure WTF the pope is trying to say but it is not correct from an evolutionary standpoint

Eh? There's nothing in there that contradicts evoloution, just determinism if you're a physicist who believes there's an underlying pattern to quantum mechanics.

it not really surprising someone religious knows more about religion than someone who is not religious.
I still think cougar has a point.

There's nothing in there that contradicts evoloution

Apart from the bit where god made humans and the earth was made from [gods i assume ] love.

He doesn't really implicitly say that god created humans does he, he's basically saying that he set off a chain of events that led to our creation through evolution. That doesn't contradict the basic tenant of evolution at all really.

I think the third instalment of the bible trilogy will be the best.
In summary.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Our new profit
[img] [/img]

Just kidding,

Civilisation would have long destroyed its self by then.

I'm sure I mentioned the contributions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in a previous religion thread but clearly my remarks fell on stony ground

Yeah.. Every time we do this we get some great contributions from our well informed residents and each time the everyone seems to forget what they've read and we start from scratch.

Yeah.. Every time we do this we get some great contributions from our well informed residents and each time the everyone seems to forget what they've read and we start from scratch.

Maybe we're just reinterpreting them?

I think these threads do gradually move forward. Certainly, if you look at recent ones compared to a few years ago.

He doesn't really implicitly say that god created humans does he

He [ god] created human beings

That doesn't contradict the basic tenant of evolution at all really.

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

@ mike these threads are less shouty and each thread seems to bring out at least one person of faith to argue their case. No one convinces anyone of anything as we all know all the arguments and have made our choice

No one convinces anyone of anything as we all know all the arguments and have made our choice

They've changed my views.

Someone started it - it was created and it powered by love

This is what lots of Christians have been saying for ages. Once you decide that Genesis is allegorical you can agree with science but say that God steered things in mysterious ways. The God Of The (Increasingly Small) Gaps becomes a steering force for the science.

So from what I can gather the christian faith can be pretty much whatever you interpret it as, the bible can be interpreted to be entirely compatible with anything science learns, in fact you can even sometimes clearly show that it in fact predicted it and finally the pope can follow the current Zeitgiest and change doctrine to try and stay relevant and that's all fine. Funny this isn't what I was taught for 10 years as a very active member of the church.

OK then, glad I'm not a believer I'd have trouble keeping up with what I ought to believe.

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.

This seems like a pretty scientific claim to me I assume he has proof?

molgrips - Member

Yeah.. Every time we do this we get some great contributions from our well informed residents and each time the everyone seems to forget what they've read and we start from scratch.

Which is why I've pretty much given up on these threads.

The prime example in this one being from yourself:

molgrips - Member

[b]

Maybe if they focussed on the being nice to each other bit and let the scientists do the hard sums we might get somewhere.
[/b]

That's what they do nowadays generally.

I'd love to have a sensible discussion about religion on here.
Give us a shout when you genuinely want to do so and I'll be happy to oblige.

im with the Other 100% of this planet as in I DONT REALLY KNOW! there are theories and beliefs BUT they are just what some people think.

Pint? 😆

To digress: thanks for all the name checks. I feel truly humbled.*

Back on subject: In my opinion, from observation, the reason why otherwise intelligent-seeming people believe in religious stuff is usually down to three things.

1: Indoctrination as children (cementing in the belief before the development of adult critical thinking kicks in).

2: Extreme grief leading to the grasping of the last remaining straw.

3: Mental breakdown (eg: the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus).

Carry on.

* Other offers may vary.

You forgot societal pressure.
And a lack of balanced scientific education.
But most of all, you forgot human nature.

Believing in something pleasant with no basis in fact is a lot easier than confronting reality.

And do us a favour?
If your going to behave unpleasantly toward people, don't complain when they mention it.

You know how you come across.
We know you know.
The false outrage doesn't suit you.

I got from the article that the current scientific explanation of how we came about is true but god started it and it was all him.

But does he believe we are the finished product or merely at a stage some where along the line.
And I got that god was a force rather than a being so that with my other point above questions whether we were made in gods image although I know if that was meant literally anyway.

we were mad in gods image

And do us a favour?

I see you're comfortable being the unelected spokesperson for everybody. I'm not sure all would be happy with your representation.

It IS big of you, however.

Unfortunately, you're not a moderator so I shall ignore your advice and carry on doing exactly as I please. Deal with it or not, as you wish.

Societal pressure. I'm not convinced that this brings about sincere believers, just those paying lip service as a means of avoiding censure.

Lack of science based education - see my point 2.

Human nature - see my point 2. Again.