[Closed] The First STW Religion Poll

Surely in my head, if you believe then you believe it all?

....or you believe that it's a highly modified and edited collection of allegorical tales collected over two millenia which is open to interpretation and , if viewed through the prism of historical context, provides someone who inexplicably believes in a higher power, with a basic set of guidance notes about how not be a dick and how to try and fix it if you are?

If you're a Calvinist Presbyterian, we're generally pretty cool about lots of shit* and rarely burn heretics at the stake.

*except Popes and that. Not cool.

Lunge - the CoE seem to really struggle with this. More orthodox religions less so and then they get flak for maintaining positions on issues that have changed in the public eye homsexuality, role of woman, abortion etc. Can't win.

or you believe that it's a highly modified and edited collection of allegorical tales collected over two millenia which is open to interpretation and , if viewed through the prism of historical context, provides someone who inexplicably believes in a higher power, with a basic set of guidance notes about how not be a dick and how to try and fix it if you are?

However, if that is what people choose to believe then good luck to them, I don't want to knock them, I just can't understand it myself.

can't pick the fact from the fiction.

In my view,* it's neither fact nor fiction.

It's guidance. You may choose to be guided... or not.
It's the choice of the individual.

*(other views are available and will, no doubt be expressed in short order)

all this "well there are various versions I just pick and choose the bits that work for me/my church/what gets more punters and money in" just irritates the fluff out of me.

sorry its guilt by association, if you are part of the club, you cant then say decide that the bit over there murders doctors which work in abortion clinics is not part of you and your system.

It would be like someone in ISIS saying " well I like the black uniforms and basic principles of a sharia state the bits about not being a dick if I can ignore the other stuff, but like that murdering, torturing, beheading bit....well that's just interpretation and that, i'm like the pacifist bit...but still ISIS...yeah baby"

I think religion is great, but I prefer my fiction with a bit more magic in it, ala Scott Bakker.

Lunge, I'm pretty much in the same place.

We've already established (for some value of "established") on this thread that the Bible is in fact allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. Which is a bit of a retcon IMHO, but lets roll with it. So given that, I don't really understand how it can justifiably be used to back up contentious world views.

I mean, if you're against same-sex marriage because you find the idea of bumming to be a bit icky then fair enough; if you're against it because Adam and Eve, every sperm is sacred, make babies and all that jazz then really you're on pretty shaky ground because as we've said, [i]it's not supposed to be taken literally.[/i]

So then we're into the realms of, it's all allegorical, apart from the bits an individual chooses to take literally. It's a quandary, isn't it.

I don't see why they're trying to win though. If your religion says, for arguments sake, homosexuality is bad, then that's what it says and that can't be changed without saying that what you said before was incorrect.

I agree. While I disagree with many aspects of RC teaching I do respect that they are more consistent than the CoE which seems too desperate to move with the times. Much easier IMO to understand what the RC stands for than the CoE.

So then we're into the realms of, it's all allegorical, apart from the bits an individual chooses to take literally. It's a quandary, isn't it.

THM, yes, 100% agree.

To try to understand the RC faith I enjoyed

[i]WE BELIEVE[/i] Monsignor AN Gilbey - a simple commentary on the Catechisms, with the wonderfully emotive conclusion that

[b]The gift to believe[/b] in the Divine reality which is incarnate in these accidentals is one which God alone can give

Beautifully written book which I oddly first read in India in 1994 and still have in my bookcase now.

5 Utterly detest all aspects of religion.

And I understand that too, but I struggle with the idea you can base your life and beliefs on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction.

It is important to appreciate there are plenty of instances of conflict within "codes", for want of a better word, there are conflicts within the law, accounting standards, etc etc. However, we appear to be comfortable to rely on experts who help us resolve these conflicts and generally develop our thinking over time as we learn more.

So now it seems that cherry picking bits of the bible is recognised as being OK from a "religious" standpoint.

This is an interesting development.

Question: from whence comes the guidance as to what are bits that are OK to pick?

My reply would be that the guide is from advances made by secular culture. For instance - it's not OK to kill someone because you don't like the way they have sex.

As the gaps get smaller, religion continues to be dragged kicking and screaming behind the ethical advances made by non-religious developments.

Also, this makes the different "books" of the bible no more or less important than any other book, magazine, article or the like as being something from which to pick up useful philosophical points.

The gift to believe in the Divine reality which is incarnate in these accidentals is one which God alone can give

I understand, THM, that you find this beautiful and so on, but to me, it's essentially meaningless.

Like saying "I got a present from the invisible penguin that lives on the moon to enable me to visualise the essential teapotness of chocolate ..."

No offense.

Question: from whence comes the guidance as to what are bits that are OK to pick?

Jesus, in the first instance.

I struggle with the idea you can base your life and beliefs on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction

In my experience, some/most people base their interpretation of the text on their beliefs, not the other way round.

... I struggle with the idea you can base your life... on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction

we're talking about science, right?

(not that long ago, plate tectonics wasn't even a thing, for example)

Utterly detest all aspects of religion.

What, even the peace and love?

None taken Woppit, although I note that you are disagreeing with something that I didn't say. But not for the first time....Are you Ernie in disguise?

Jesus, in the first instance.

We know what bits to believe in the Bible, because it says so in the Bible?

I think I've missed something here somewhere.

... I struggle with the idea you can base your life... on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction

we're talking about science, right?

(not that long ago, plate tectonics wasn't even a thing, for example)

Damn, I based my opinion of gay marriage on plate tectonics.

Jesus, in the first instance.

We know what bits to believe in the Bible, because it says so in the Bible?

I think I've missed something here somewhere.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

I wasn't being that sophisticated - the simple point I was alluding to is that Jesus's teachings as documented in the New Testament inform our analysis of the Old Testament. Hence why I continually stress bracketing the two Testaments together is overly simplistic.

teamhurtmore - Member
None taken Woppit, although I note that you are disagreeing with something that I didn't say. But not for the first time....Are you Ernie in disguise?

Let's not start that again, I'll never hear the end of it.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

So you say.

4
No problem with stuff like 'though shalt not steal' - but then it doesn't take a God to state 'guidance like' that.
Obviously no time for 'I'll cut your head off in the name of my God' guff.
The world was a better place when ancient folk were all worshipping sun Gods etc...more in tune with their environment (says the hippy).

Spiritual, but not religious. I am interested in some of the ideas and philosophies from Buddhism and Taoism, but cannot stand the religious parts of either.

I'd say 4 or a 5, if I have to chose.

Organised religion IMO is just a means of controlling people and amassing money and power.

I've met lovely Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc. The sad thing is modern religions are typically so far removed from the original ideas of the founders it is laughable. Rather than uniting people they tend to divide.

Religion to me is just like Chinese whispers, by the time it reaches the end of the line, it is completely different from what those at the beginning were whispering.

Damn, I based my opinion of gay marriage on plate tectonics.

The earth moved for you?

3.

but only because when i ejaculate i use the jesus h christ, other holy words, **** in HELL a lot and find it odd as it's the only time I ever
use them!

OK, so... Given it is accepted that the Bible is the work of a large number of contributors, who say it is the word of God?

Well this debate is interesting, but it has quite clearly been done quite a lot over the centuries. I'm sure SaxonRider, if he survived his hockey match, will be able to provide more background, but this is basically what caused the Reformation. As I understand it, originally the Pope decided what Western Christianity was all about, and was the ultimate referee. So there was only one version in the West. Then Mr Luther asked why we needed a middle man, and we should all be able to talk to God ourselves, read the bible for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

A lot of people agreed, and they thought God would be ok with this, so that's why we have protestants. So that answers the question I think - yes, you can pick and choose, but (again as I understand it) you have to be able to give a good account of yourself in the end. The ultimate test is did you do good? If you pick and choose parts of the bible to suit your own selfish ends, then that's bad, mkay, so you're in trouble. If you can justify whatever you did, then you should be ok.

I find this fascinating, because these kind of protestant ideas are quite closely aligned with the way secular society conducts itself in this country all over the place - especially on this thread.

Organised religion IMO is just a means of controlling people

So I couldn't vote as I have a similar PoV as Kudos100 - in all these polls there is an implied suggestion that you can only be spiritual/religious if you subscribe to an organised faith that is one of the big 5 religions otherwise you must be an atheist.
Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

I don't suppose anyone would complain if you added a bit of information about other types of religious belief - the blood drinking wrathful deities of Buddhism, for example, or elephant-headed Ganesh from Hinduism. They certainly sound more entertaining than talking shrubbery.

mogrim - Member

Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

I don't suppose anyone would complain if you added a bit of information about other types of religious belief - the blood drinking wrathful deities of Buddhism, for example, or elephant-headed Ganesh from Hinduism. They certainly sound more entertaining than talking shrubbery.

There is nothing wrong with deities striking down on the wicked ones. The deities are NOT evil but merely doing their jobs. We have no problem with ALL of them even the guardian of the underworld (not the movie). You the wicked ones? In that case have fear ... very very fearful. 😛

If I may digress for a moment...

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about?

I think we've moved on from Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

For anyone with teenagers, I'd [i]...(anything)...[/i], which is [b]less likely to make your kid into an insufferable prick than reading something by Dawkins or Hitchins[/b].

I only got here from a comment on another thread. Not certain, but I feel that my soul hasn't been at all cleansed by reading AT(^)S

Put me down as doubting there's a god or a higher purpose, accepting that anyone's allowed to believe in any gods they like, disapproving of "the management" of any religion and having no time whatsoever for proselytisers toward either side in this debate (see Dawkins^). People as "clever" as that should know better than to be so bloody condescending.

We're a tribal bunch by nature and if it wasn't religion it'd just be something else to align with IMO

mogrim - Member

WTF are you talking about?

I think we've moved on from Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

I am responding on behalf of [b]ALL[/b] religions with deities so whoever or whatever faith you are.

in all these polls there is an implied suggestion that you can only be spiritual/religious if you subscribe to an organised faith that is one of the big 5 religions otherwise you must be an atheist.

Which is an interesting point in itself. Can one be a spiritual atheist? I can't immediately think of a compelling reason why not.

In fact if you think about it, it's arguably a more plausible explanation for "god." The theists have troubles, so they sit and pray, and feel better. They go away feeling that god has listened, that he / she / it has helped. But really, they've had "someone to talk to" which we all know can be beneficial (and whilst some of us choose to talk to a spouse or a mate down the pub rather than an invisible friend, the outcome is broadly the same), and at the same time they've given themselves a talking to and perhaps thrashed out a problem in the process.

So here we have a "god" which is, depending on your point of view, either an internal spiritual strength outside of external factors, or a pretty effective demonstration of the placebo effect. In essence you've pulled your socks up, you've got something to believe which might actually prove beneficial for no other reason than [i]because[/i] you believe it. And then of course we've got positive reinforcement, your prayers are answered, your faith strengthened.

It's kinda the same principle as homeopathy. It's simple to say "homeopathy doesn't work" but that's fallacious; rather, homeopathy doesn't work [i]beyond placebo.[/i] And as placebos go it can be rather effective.

So whether you're praying to god, indulging in a spot of Buddhist meditation, hugging a tree, yogic flying, having your chakra realigned, or going for a bike ride to clear your thoughts, ultimately we're all doing the same thing in all but name.

Funny things, people.

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am not a fan of either.

Can one be a spiritual atheist?

Surely paganism is that?

I think your post generally though Cougar is one of the more common explanations for the existence of different religions. As in, they are all manifestations of the same thing - whatever that is.

Foxmulderitis?

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am a fan of neither.

The you've fundamentally misunderstood one of those two terms.

Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn't be further apart.

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am not a fan of either.

An atheist is someone without the belief in the existence of a deity. That's all.

There's no dogma.

Atheism is questioning everything.

An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Without whom (IMHO) this culturally popular debate would not be happening.

The God Delusion
God Is Not Great

Plus massive presence on social media.

All excellent.