[Closed] The First STW Religion Poll

And there it is. Some people would rather live with a certain lie, than live with uncertainties...

Yes, we are pattern recognising animals who try to explain everything. But the ability to say I don't know is surely a good thing.

Stoatsbrother - Member
And there it is. Some people would rather live with a certain lie, than live with uncertainties...

Yes, we are pattern recognising animals who try to explain everything. But the ability to say I don't know is surely a good thing.

Are you replying to my thread or someone else? 😛

You lost me there ... 😯

Chewkh.

No. This...

The only logical conclusion then when faced with a unanswerable question is to pick an answer you like

But the ability to say I don't know is surely a good thing.

A lot of religious people do say just that.

TLDR but a mix of 3,4 & 5 for me.

You do know what the bible says about faith dont you 🙄
We need a #mollyfact for religious threads
Did you compile the big list of religious folk who want to rewrite the bible yet 😆

You're really not getting any of my points Junkyard.

It's not because I'm stupid though.

No, just stubborn. (-:

How am I being stubborn?

I know you are not stupid the problem is you are just not well informed on this subject area[or you could have listed all the religious leaders who wanted to re write the bible* and made me look like the ill informed one or realised how wrong that statement was] and you seem unwilling to accept this point. This means you make points that are not good ones.

None of us know everything abut everything [ though we may write like we do].

* Its daft look how much the archbishop of canterbury and the pope is struggling to get the flock to change its views on gays [ or the former in female bishops] nevermind suggesting re write the bible. No one is asking for this that I am aware of for it is the word** of god

** not all take it literally but they all accept its gods doctrine and it could only be rewritten by a new prophet creating a NEW TESTAMENT like what JC did.

or you could have listed all the religious leaders who wanted to re write the bible

I never said there were any, I have no idea. I made no such statement. You misunderstood what I was getting at. I did attempt to explain this earlier, you did not address it but came back to it again.

I know you are not stupid the problem is you are just not well informed on this subject area[or you could have listed all the religious leaders who wanted to re write the bible*

The good news bible? Some fairly significant 'toning down' in that little sucker - widely distributed and referred to?

Cougar said - maybe we could rewrite the bible. Of course, we can't rewrite it cos it's a historical document - what we can do is write new books talking about its contents. And I think there are quite a few of those already.

What I think Cougar meant was that the ideas are evolving over time, and have moved on from some of the ideas presented in the Bible. And I was agreeing with him.

not all take it literally but they all accept its gods doctrine and it could only be rewritten by a new prophet creating a NEW TESTAMENT like what JC did.

Unless somebody found some golden plates with a new set of Gospels on them?

its an easier to read version of the bible it has not rewritten the messages within or "changed the meaning"

Imagine it like shakespeare written in modern english- same stories , same message , easier to read.

Unless somebody found some golden plates with a new set of Gospels on them?

Personally I would have to see the golden plates though rather than read of his failure to procure them ...I am ever the doubter requiring evidence:wink:

Not quite it's interpretive so it has lead to slightly different interpretations based on dynamic equivalence vs literal translation. It's symptomatic of the iterative changes to the text that have been the accidental result of interpretation, the deliberate result of interpretation or the deliberate and conscious editing and alterations based on the policy of the holders of the docs at the time. Bit harder now it's so widespread admittedly but whether it was the proto-jewish religious orders or the early christina church deliberate and material changes, omissions and additions have been made over time.

the ideas are evolving over time,

Of course they have to try to do this as many of their/the bibles pronouncements are clearly false and many of their moral messages are, to the extent they are ignored by their flock never mind "militants" like me.

yes they are in a bit of a pickle but they cannot "modernise" as god is perfect.

How am I being stubborn?

Stubbornly?

(I'm only teasing, bud)

Cougar said - maybe we could rewrite the bible. Of course, we can't rewrite it cos it's a historical document

Is it really?

By "historical" do you mean "historically accurate" or "old"?

Not quite it's interpretive so it has lead to slightly different interpretations based on dynamic equivalence vs literal translation. It's symptomatic of the iterative changes to the text that have been the accidental result of interpretation, the deliberate result of interpretation or the deliberate and conscious editing and alterations based on the policy of the holders of the docs at the time. Bit harder now it's so widespread admittedly but whether it was the proto-jewish religious orders or the early christina church deliberate and material changes, omissions and additions have been made over time.

Everyone knows that only the King James version is correct, as it's in 18th century English like Jesus and God spoke, not these wishy washy modern versions.

At one point, I owned The Steet Bible, which had been rewritten in modern street parlance, for the youth. That was amazing.

GOD DOES NOT EVOLVE. God was always perfect

The ideas about what the faithful should do have evolved - not God.

By "historical" do you mean "historically accurate" or "old"?

The latter. It's an old document, so you can only write a new one not re-write the old one. People will still read the old one if you write a new one, and they will still consider the old one to be the actual one.

Perhaps for the creationists/literal believers that might be true but theologians are constantly questioning the meaning of the texts and their representation of 'Gods will', I don't think the majortiy of the abrahmic world sees the texts as the absolute word of god, this is something you've decided to believe.

Might want to read what revelation says on that point.

Point remains evolving the worship is just to move from god - the bible says so- no offence but it does and you would know this if ...etc

They cannot evolve either they can just "fall on the stony ground/from the path of righteousness"

When this happens the god of love is a bit wrathful.

thestabilisier - I think you're right, but Junkyard is clinging to this literalism thing so that he has something he can easily argue against.

JY Why? When the evidence to the contrary is the various and numerous interpretations and sects in the abrahamic faiths? (they might be wrong but they're still there)

Mols - yeah I think our fellow atheists 'going for the throat' of the God doesn't exist/the bible's full of shit argument all the time misses a lot of the more interesting facets of the debate, it'd be better if they let it breathe, they still might be right at the endpoint but they might learn something about the counter argument in the process

the bible says so- no offence but it does and you would know this if ...etc

It might say it, but the point we've been trying to make is that just because it says it in the bible, doesn't mean everyone has to stick to it.

Then again, if you're as bad at understanding the bible as you are at understanding our posts, then maybe you haven't got the point there either 😉

Perhaps for the creationists/literal believers that might be true but theologians are constantly questioning the meaning of the texts and their representation of 'Gods will', I don't think the majortiy of the abrahmic world sees the texts as the absolute word of god, this is something you've decided to believe.

Apparently you can do A levels and even degrees on this. Who would have thought it?

Mol your stamina is to be applauded especially when facing the A-team

Stupid, stubborn, molfacts - you have got off lightly so far 😉

Mols - yeah I think our fellow atheists 'going for the throat' of the God doesn't exist/the bible's full of shit argument all the time misses a lot of the more interesting facets of the debate, it'd be better if they let it breathe, they still might be right at the endpoint but they might learn something about the counter argument in the process

😀

If only.....

[img] [/img]

I am clinging to the fact I have read it and studies it and know it and clinging to the fact you can be taught.

I am starting to lose my faith in the later

I don't think the majortiy of the abrahmic world sees the texts as the absolute word of god, this is something you've decided to believe.

This is pretty pointless at least christians know their history and their book.

Mol your stamina is to be applauded

🙂

I just don't like it when people don't understand what I'm trying to say, and vehemently disagree with something that's not actually my point!

A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God.

So they are in the minority. This presumably applies mostly to Christians although the article does not specify.

just because it says it in the bible, doesn't mean everyone has to stick to it..

THM does not care what you say he just likes to use anyone arguing/debating with me as way of having digs - later on he will say how he just ignores me if you push him - for he is the forgiving turn the other cheek type of christian jesus implored him to be and he loves his "enemy" as himself.

My mistakes he is ignoring it all so mlly thinks your an awesome christian..keep it up
Ok enough this is futile.

The Quran is the writings of the prophet, you may know this but there is some slight controversy between a couple of the larger groups over its content.

Orthodox Jews believe literally however, again, they're not the only jews.

From da Wiki

The Talmud holds that the Torah was written by Moses, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, describing his death and burial, being written by Joshua.[18] Alternatively, Rashi quotes from the Talmud that "God spoke them, and Moses wrote them with tears."[19][20] The Mishnah includes the divine origin of the Torah as an essential tenet of Judaism.[21]

The modern scholarly consensus, known as the Documentary hypothesis, is that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.[22] This contemporary common hypothesis among biblical scholars states that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one existing today.

"The consensus of scholarship is that the stories are taken from four different written sources and that these were brought together over the course of time to form the first five books of the Bible as a composite work. The sources are known as J, the Jahwist source (from the German transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH), E, the Elohist source, P, the priestly source, and D, the Deuteronomist source. ... Thus the Pentateuch (or Torah, as it is known by Jews) comprises material taken from six centuries of human history, which has been put together to give a comprehensive picture of the creation of the world and of God's dealings with his peoples, specifically with the people of Israel." (Professor John Riches of the University of Glasgow).[23]

Jews say their books are the literal word of god

Doing a little reading here that does not seem to be quite the case in such simplistic terms, I will continue to read.

Most excellent news well in that case I am abrilliant christiana as I dont stick to any of it and god will still save me from my sins even though i id not follow a **** word of it

Uh.. really not what I said there Junkyard. Reductio ad absurdum.

And leave out the sarcasm. It's a really crap way to have a discussion.

As a rabbi, do I believe that God — the eternal, non-physical, animating and creative energy of everything — actually “wrote” the Bible and gave it to us exactly as we have it? Of course not.

Do I believe that the Bible is a holy, sacred document, and do I believe that it contains words that came from a direct human contact with the Divine? Yes, of course I do.

you did say folk did not have to stick to the bible and that is a logical conclusion from what you said. Of course its nonsense but dont blame me for your argument being so terrible.

I just don't like it when people don't understand what I'm trying to say, and vehemently disagree with something that's not actually my point!

Is this your first religion (bashing) thread mol? 😉

you did say folk did not have to stick to the bible and that is a logical conclusion from what you said.

If you want to be really specifically nitpicking for the sake of argument, try re-reading *carefully* my post:

but the point we've been trying to make is that just because it says [b]it[/b] in the bible, doesn't mean everyone has to stick to [b]it[/b].

So I've highlighted those to pronouns to make it clear that I was taking any given point contained within the bible, not the whole thing.

But hey, disregard it all if you want. You can be whatever kind of Christian you want. Some folk will disagree with that, some will be cool with it. You can say what you like, no-one made you Pope.

Anyway - you just ripped into me for talking about Christianity whilst not being one - haven't you just done the same thing?

Christians did till it started to be shown to be false

This, as I have tried to explain, is simply not accurate. I missed a few pages of this thread, so forgive me if I am not addressing some of what has gone on, but my understanding at this point is that there is still some misunderstanding of what constitutes mainstream Christian hermeneutics.

I can absolutely assure you that the Bible, comprised as it is of up to 78 books in total (depending on who you ask, and how the counting is done), has always been read, and always needs to be read, through different lenses depending on the text.

That is not 'selective reading'. That is just what ancient scholars did with texts, and it is how the earliest Christian communities knew they had to approach the texts. So for example, [url= https://rhr.revues.org/5259 ]here is a scholarly paper on the nature of Alexandrian (neo-Platonic) exegesis[/url].

Finally, I have to say that, from the perspective of the ancient Churches (Catholic and Orthodox), the Bible is second to Apostolic Tradition insofar as it constitutes a record of the Christian Faith as it emerged from the time of Jesus through the first century after.

The very idea of an 'all-or-nothing' approach to external perceptions of (at least) the Christian religion is unhelpful.

the Bible, comprised as it is of up to 78 books in total (depending on who you ask, and how the counting is done)

You can't even agree on that! 😉

I can absolutely assure you that the Bible, comprised as it is of up to 78 books in total (depending on who you ask, and how the counting is done), has always been read, and always needs to be read, through different lenses depending on the text.

I read a few articles by Rabbis and they said a similar thing.

3 to 5 depending on how grumpy I am. Concept of religion is kind of interesting or it would be if organised religion didn't meddle in so many people's lives, then it's just annoying.

Thanks for the exegesis explanation saxonrider. I do still have issues with the concept tho. Presumably all the reviewers were "of faith" so there would be a lot of pressure, (both outside and an internal compulsion) to make their faith look better, so my cynical side says they would reclassify those bits that are unacceptable by today's standards as allegorical and keeping as much of the "good stuff" as they think they could get away with in modern society - and do the same again in a few decades time when public opinion shifts and science explains more again.

It's also annoying while trying to discuss/argue the whole religion thing, as someone said "that's allegorical/back story and we don't bother with that anymore" smacks very much of edinburgh defence and just because you don't believe it there's plenty out there who seem to. AFAIK most of the "[i]be cool to each other[/i]" is NT and all the "thou shalt not", "I will smite thee", (odd bit of geno/infanti-cide) is OT. With christians being all about Jesus and NT how come there still so many christian groups attempting to block progressive legislation?
Lots of Xtians are an easy going lot and you ask them what they think about certain issue and they are cool with it, unlike their appointed religious leaders. Now I don't expect you to have to distance yourself from a lone nutter who does something [i]"in <your> god's name"[/i] but when your religious leader argues for/against something claiming he represents the will of the faithful, therefore arguing [i]"in your name"[/i] I damn well expect you to kick up a fuss if you disagree.

what we can do is write new books talking about its contents. And I think there are quite a few of those already.

Still on re-[s]writing[/s]interpeting the bible. IME (heavily involved in churchy stuff as a kid) the "this is the word of god" is a mantra trotted out a lot during services/ceremonies. It's only when you highlight (as I did quite a lot) problems/inaccuracies and question it that you get "well what god meant to say was...."

So I'd argue it's only the cynics and those enthusiasts with a more enquiring mind who get to hear the revisions/reinterpretations. I'm sure there are plenty (possibly those trying to get their kids into the local school) who just turn up go through the motions and only know the mantras.

In the wake of the Enlightenment, we are no longer trained in rhetoric, and our approach to poetry is more like that represented by the fictional Dr J Evans Pritchard of Dead Poets Society.

That said, when the Church declares 'The Word of the Lord' at the end of readings, it is not as if it thinks that somehow God whispered in someone's ear, and it was then committed to paper.

To say something is 'the word of the Lord', from a mainstream Christian point of view, is to say that human beings have had an experience that, having had some relevance to their growth and development as a collective or as individuals, is worthy of being understood as a divine lesson of some sort. But that is a bit clumsy, and poetic expressions always invite a deeper engagement than forensic detail.

I just don't like it when people don't understand what I'm trying to say, and vehemently disagree with something that's not actually my point!

Hi! 😀