[Closed] The First STW Religion Poll

You can type what you like and side step as you wish but the book you follow is quite clear- there is no interpretation required of abomination put them to death

I wouldn't try to deliberately side-step anything. At worst I might not be able to answer something sufficiently without a bit of research; more likely is the fact that it is hard to stay on top of all the points being bandied about.

You're right when you point out such ugly aspects of the ancient tribal moral code. They are there in the Bible. I can't deny them, but I [i]can[/i] explain them. As I have said before, the Bible is not one book, but many books. That is a simple fact. Many of those books are a record of oral traditions, together with additional material by different editors and writers spanning the course of centuries. The genres covered include religious law, history, poetry, mythology, and wisdom literature. So far, so indisputable.

The various Rabbinic schools of exegesis (Biblical interpretation) have spent millenia scouring the texts and interpreting them. These are broadly divisible into 3 groups: the Pharisaic (legally-oriented), the Hellenistic (allegorical), and the prophetic-apocalyptic. Such varied approaches were in some ways inherited by the earliest Christian communities: the Alexandrian (allegorical), the Antiochene (literal-historical), and the Roman. Of IMMENSE IMPORTANCE is the fact that even when the early Fathers of the Church use literal language, only in certain circles is it meant literally. This is NOT a matter of picking and choosing; it is a matter of them having applied all the (considerable) rhetorical, rational, philosophical powers at their disposal and applied them to texts that seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy.

They were always asking 'what does this actually mean?'

While there have always been literalists in the Jewish and Christian traditions, they have equally always been on the margins, or the movements they have spawned eschewed by the wider tradition. This is no less the case in the wake of the rise of 19th century American biblical fundamentalism than it was in the early centuries of the Church.

That, then, is a very very brief history of the nature of Christian exegesis, and why it is that Christians are not remotely worried about the fact that somewhere in the Bible it says to stone someone. Neither Christians nor Jews have ever picked up the texts and pointed to lines and said, 'Well that's it, then. I guess I'm off to stone someone.' In the distant past of the ancient Hebrew tribal people, perhaps, and however such laws evolved in various Imperial contexts maybe (Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman), but not due to a religious imperative.

I did see a video once that suggested an eternity in hell was like standing in a damp tent in the USA watching a bunch of bad amateur actors act out a little play about demons stealing an aborted foetus. Or something.

Certainly sounds hellish to me. Not even a bar for the intermission.

stoatsbrother- the only people I've heard talking about burning in hell, etc, are people who say they dislike Christianity because Christians are a self-righteous bunch who threaten non-Christians with burning for all eternity in hell as punishment. My point really was that this is not a universal Christian teaching.

I know they ignore so much of the teachings dont they

I really can't stress enough the fact that they don't. I suggest that this would be a point better communicated over a pint than a keyboard. I simply can't type fast enough.

EDIT: Well, maybe some do. But not in the systematic way you're suggesting!

Junkyard, are you referring to molgrips' physics degree because you want to point out that he's a scientist, and you think scientists should be anti-religion?

He's playing the man rather than the ball. Something he likes to call out regularly as an ad hominem attack.

I suggest that this would be a point better communicated over a pint than a keyboard.

Definitely. STW theological society ride-out. When're you free?

Indeed since hell is defined at least by the RCs as Vicky describes and since atheists don't believe in god, why the angst? The religious are saying that you will be simply separated from something that you believe doesn't exist.

I was asking in the context of the preceding discussion of Biblical interpretation. As Biblical interpretation influences our laws, it's relevant to non-believers.

Relax- you might as well worry about being separated from Santa which is more relevant given the preferred worship of consumerism and consumption

You really like the decline of religion = rise in consumerism thing. Have you looked at the posting histories of those who answered 1 in this thread? I see as much consumerism and consumption there as I do in non-believers.

When're you free?

Sunday mornings 😉

BTW, I don't get this idea that buying a load of stuff means that you're "worshipping" it?

Sunday mornings

Punch-line of the week!

Definitely. STW theological society ride-out. When're you free?

I like it.

a) I can always make myself free for such an amusing prospect, and

b) Should we get jerseys made up?

Sunday mornings

For the win... 😀

I do admire the way you do seem stick to the word. Less equivocation. The trouble is that means you will end up believing somethings which are pretty offensive and considered deserving of criticism by most people.

Thing is, if you stick to Gods view (which never changes) then you are putting yourself up there for ridicule. At the end of the day, who am I trying to please?

Can we have a "Leprechaunology" ride too?

Thing is, if you stick to Gods view (which never changes)

So you say.

who am I trying to please?

Do tell.

Can we have a "Leprechaunology" ride too?

Different epistemic category. Sorry. But we can always meet up with you at a pub along the way.

Shall we keep our eyes open for the little guy in the green jersey?

[b]vickypea[/b] err... then, as I said, your approach has not been exactly ecumenical and your experience of preaching rather limited... Not sure why you think your lack of hearing this from theists proves anything. A look at classical religous art might convince you this isn't exactly a new idea.

[b]saxonrider[/b] you know that thing I said, that you didn't exactly like, about being a lay preacher... welllll... 😉

Different epistemic category. Sorry. But we can always meet up with you at a pub along the way.

Shall we keep our eyes open for the little guy in the green jersey?

I'm pleased to see you rate the one as just as significant and worthy of attention as the other... (kissy emoticon here)

you know that thing I said, that you didn't exactly like, about being a lay preacher... welllll...

The thing is, I'm neither lay nor preacher. 😛

Miketually- you're being a bit presumptuous in your "consumption and consumerism"
comment. You know nothing about me except that I like mountain biking, which admittedly involves a certain amount of materialism. However, you don't know anything about me. I don't have to justify myself, but I will point out that I live in a tiny house with a small yard, my watch cost me £35, I have a small car, I own no handbags or fancy shoes. Not trying to point out that this is all perfect, but just that you shouldn't make assumptions.

Stoatsbrother- I'm not an ecumenical preacher, I'm just a Greek Orthodox Christian who is trying to say that the understanding of hell is not the same across all Christian denominations.

Miketually- you're being a bit presumptuous in your "consumption and consumerism" comment. You know nothing about me except that I like mountain biking, which admittedly involves a certain amount of materialism. However, you don't know anything about me. I don't have to justify myself, but I will point out that I live in a tiny house with a small yard, my watch cost me £35, I have a small car, I own no handbags or fancy shoes. Not trying to point out that this is all perfect, but just that you shouldn't make assumptions.

I'm saying nothing about you at all. I think you might want to reread my post.

Earlier today, I clicked through to the profiles of some/most of the people who said 1, because I was interested in seeing what threads they've started and what discussions they join in with in light on teamhurtmore's comments on consumerism in the earlier religion thread.

I saw pretty much the usual mix of posts that I'd expect to see on anyone's profile. What I saw matched my own experiences, that religious people are no less consumerist than non-religious people.

I can't remember at all what was on yours, because I didn't look that closely at individuals. I couldn't care less what car you drive or how big your house is.

Should we get jerseys made up?

Cannot imagine what would be on them. Maybe "I'm with stupid --->"

Serious about a ride btw if anyone does fancy one... I think it would be fun 🙂

VickyP - your definition of hell is the same as that taught in the Church of England in my experience.

I was asking in the context of the preceding discussion of Biblical interpretation. As Biblical interpretation influences our laws, it's relevant to non-believers.

I answered in the same context - Snap!

You really like the decline of religion = rise in consumerism thing.

True. One only has to look at shopping legislation for evidence.

Have you looked at the posting histories of those who answered 1 in this thread? ....

......I can't remember at all what was on yours, because I didn't look that closely at individuals.

Enough said 😉

BTW, I don't get this idea that buying a load of stuff means that you're "worshipping" it?

Why would you? Its an alien concept... 😉

I suggest that this would be a point better communicated over a pint than a keyboard. I simply can't type fast enough.

Quite.

There's about 40 posts I want to reply to and the thread is moving faster than I can read it whilst still working. So I just wanted to interject here to say thanks to SaxonRider for the explanations earlier; I don't think it quite got to the nub of what I was asking, or rather what I was meaning, as reading back I may have worded the question poorly. But regardless, thanks for that.

So if hell is the absence of good does that mean all atheists are in hell?

I'm currently on the 1716 to Northampton, it's not exactly awesome, but it's really not that bad

He's playing the man rather than the ball. Something he likes to call out regularly as an ad hominem attack.

PLease leave the religious to defend their beliefs as you do a terrible job due to being an ill informed atheist.

Of IMMENSE IMPORTANCE is the fact that even when the early Fathers of the Church use literal language, only in certain circles is it meant literally. This is NOT a matter of picking and choosing; it is a matter of them having applied all the (considerable) rhetorical, rational, philosophical powers at their disposal and applied them to texts that seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy.

Two things here.

1) They really could have done with printing a disclaimer at the beginning then, like they do at the start of many other works of fiction. It would've saved a lot of arguing.

2) If they're applying them to texts which "seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy," isn't that the very definition of cherry-picking? They're using their "considerable" powers to rewrite history to better fit their own agenda.

I'm no theologian, but it'd seem to me that the whole "ah, yes, but it's allegorical you see" is in biblical terms a relatively recent phenomenon. It's essentially the Edinburgh Defence for when we discover things like the moon isn't actually attached to the firmament with celestial Araldite because we've, y'know, been there now and found out for ourselves. And we [i]keep[/i] having to backpedal and retcon this stuff.

Which, really, would be fine, I can dig that. Except the bits we can't yet disprove, they're all obviously still true? Like an actual Jesus O'God bloke wandering around 2,000 years ago, that definitely happened, because four blokes who were born several hundred years later say that he did. Obviously.

And if the Bible [i]isn't[/i] meant to be taken literally, how is it anything more than Aesop's Fables; how can we actually really believe anything it tells us? (Other than as someone hilariously asserted earlier, we know it's influenced by god because it says so in the Bible.)

I'm no theologian, but it'd seem to me that the whole "ah, yes, but it's allegorical you see" is in biblical terms a relatively recent phenomenon.

Read the Steve Chalke article I linked to earlier, it's a brilliant example of this kind of interpretation.

@kimbers: sorry that I haven't been following the string that you have been discussing, but I just want to say that from a Christian point of view, atheism does not, in itself, equal the absence of good, anymore than belief equals its presence.

Choosing good equals good.

Ergo, an atheist in pursuit of the good is the same as a Christian in pursuit of the good is the same as a Sikh in pursuit of the good, etc., etc.

@Cougar: I will try to pick this up later tonight. I've got to run now, as my ice hockey team is playing against the Royal Marines. God help us.

I admire those willing to participate here to explain the religious views. Personally I have found the abuse from agressive atheiests on these kind of threads far more severe than any other topic including Gaza and Israel. Hence, I don't take part.

PHEW

QED

In the context of the importance of the Old Testament it is useful to look at it use in the services of any given church. For instance, if you look at the Lectionary of Common Worship, you will see that the Book of Leviticus, which atheists love quoting from, is used 9 times in total. To put that into context, there are 125 different readings from John. Likewise, of all those nasty things that Kimbers quoted.a few pages ago, the only one that is included in any reading is the one about animal sacrifice - probably because it is being juxtaposed to the sacrifice made on the cross. I only go to Communion services so I never hear a reading from the Old Testament.

Now Common Worship was only published in 2000, but there is a direct link to the 1664 Book of Common Prayer, so this emphasis is hardly new.

1. I don't know poll is still running or not, but I'm a 1.

Thats a new one on me mefty.

When there are only two readings at the principal service and that service is Holy Communion, the second reading is always the Gospel reading.

If there are only two readings at the principal service on Easter Day, the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth or Seventh Sunday of Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, the Conversion of Paul or the Festivals of Matthias, Barnabas, James and Stephen, the reading from the Acts of the Apostles must always be used.

In the choice of readings other than the Gospel reading, the minister should ensure that, in any year, a balance is maintained between readings from the Old and New Testaments and that, where a particular biblical book is appointed to be read over several weeks, the choice ensures that this continuity of one book is not lost.

Not a regular "practiser" 😉 so could be out of date!!!

I am pointing out you have no understanding nor training

You think I have no understanding, because my opinion differs from yours. However my reading of your posts makes me think that you don't have any understanding. I said you were playing the man because you questioned my credentials without properly addressing what I said.

And why do I have to have had formal training? Have you? Who else on this thread has?

In the context of the importance of the Old Testament

TBH, I think it'd be beneficial to both camps if we both agreed that the OT is largely an irrelevance in this day and age. Quoting Leviticus et all does no-one any favours.

my ice hockey team is playing against the Royal Marines. God help us.

He's going to have to. Good luck.

If they're applying them to texts which "seemed inconsistent with a God of mercy," isn't that the very definition of cherry-picking?

Well the whole thing is cherry picked to begin with. The Bible is NOT A BOOK. It is a collection of books. With many authors. They are presented and curated for your edification and enlightenment in matters Christian. I don't see why anyone needs to agree with it all. It's various authors talking about God and recounting stories of Jesus.

Unlike the Quran (as far as I know anyway).

how can we actually really believe anything it tells us?

Well that's up to you, isn't it? Aesop has value, despite being fictional. Surely the value is what the reader takes from it?

slowoldman - Member

If you have arrived at purgatory there is no one that can help you

I think you need to look up "purgatory".

Sorry from lazy [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory ]Wiki [/url]

... and therefore no one in Purgatory will remain forever in that state [b]or go to hell.[/b] ...

See no guarantee you will go up ... 😛

What is the probability of going down that is the question?

[img] http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-64080526985815_2272_25725470 [/img]

Happy clappy 1 here

It's great

You should give it a go

Just to expand on my previous post,

I think where we're going with this perhaps is a separation between the notion of a "god" and religion / religious texts. Because even if we agree that the Bible or [insert Good Book here] is a valuable source of life lessons, and we agree that some form of 'god' actually exists, the former is still a piss poor piece of evidence for the latter given that the accounts upon which it's based are hand-me-down tales which are by human nature fundamentally unreliable.

What I mean by this is, for example, we still don't really know for sure whether Robin Hood really existed. Our modern understanding is based on legends some 500 years old, which isn't a world apart from the NT's accounts of Jesus (and record-keeping has probably improved slightly in the intervening millennium). It's not a great leap to see how there might have been a bit of embellishment along the way. Maybe Jesus is an amalgam of a number of people who have been nice to each other over the years, maybe he was a proto-Derren Brown whose parlour tricks amazed the largely uneducated populace. Over five centuries of word-of-mouth retellings it's easy to see how rocking up to a handful of people armed with a packed lunch and a finger buffet could turn into the Sermon on the Mount.

I wonder idly whether what's needed is a rewrite of the Bible. So we can have an updated, modern guide to life that's in line with 21st Century thinking, laws and morals, but isn't dependant on circular logic and a tenuous belief in the supernatural.

Write one cougar - we have free will after all....

Leave those who want to stick to their old fairy tales/pis poor stuff to their own devices

Everyone is happy

I don't see why anyone needs to agree with it all.

Because if you don't then it's just another book. And if it's just another book then you might as well live your life by the Jedi code or the Gospel According to Stan Lee, it's equally valid.

And you could of course, but then if they turned up at work dressed as Spider-Man and some people started laughing at them, we'd have to afford them special privilege for balance. Dogs and cats, living together.

I think where we're going with this perhaps is a separation between the notion of a "god" and religion / religious texts. Because even if we agree that the Bible or [insert Good Book here] is a valuable source of life lessons, and we agree that some form of 'god' actually exists, the former is still a piss poor piece of evidence for the latter given that the accounts upon which it's based are hand-me-down tales which are by human nature fundamentally unreliable.

That's the point I've been trying to make for years 🙂

I wonder idly whether what's needed is a rewrite of the Bible. So we can have an updated, modern guide to life that's in line with 21st Century thinking, laws and morals, but isn't dependant on circular logic and a tenuous belief in the supernatural

Without wishing to insult in any way - I suspect that you are arriving at a point at which many other people who live and breathe this stuff their whole lives have already been through.

Because if you don't then it's just another book

Yes and no. The subject matter is quite weighty, and with respect to Stan Lee he doesn't have three thousand years of intellectual thought on a variety of topics behind his works. As I said, even if you don't believe it's the literal word of God it doesn't mean it's worthless.

maybe he was a proto-Derren Brown whose parlour tricks amazed the largely uneducated populace. Over five centuries of word-of-mouth retellings it's easy to see how rocking up to a handful of people armed with a packed lunch and a finger buffet could turn into the Sermon on the Mount.

Monty Python are ahead of you too. Life of Brian is not simply a piss-take, it does actually raise a lot of interesting points...

Write one cougar - we have free will after all....

The thought crossed my mind.

The Gospel According to St Molgrips, 11:15 - "Why can't we all just get along?"

Because if you don't then it's just another book. And if it's just another book then you might as well live your life by the Jedi code or the Gospel According to Stan Lee, it's equally valid.

Given the scores so far, that is not far off the truth...

vickypea - Member
In response to the various comments about purgatory and burning in hell, they are things I've never heard said in Church or by any priest I've known. I don't know which denomination teaches that, but my understanding of "hell" is absence from God. Nothing to do with burning in fire or terrible things happening to unbaptised babies.

You have taken out the fun!

How can there be no hell?

Without hell there is be no heaven vice versa.

Without death you have no life (as in living) vice versa.

Without light there is no darkness vice versa (no I ain't talking about black hole in the universe but it is dark innit)

Think about it.

Okay, I am not from the Abrahamic faith so heaven and hell are just the norm in our understanding.

I am particularly interested in finding out the ways punishment are being carried out.

I want the details!

As a kid I read my aunt RC book where the book depicted plenty hell guards punishing people and I thought it was so wonderful to read them because it's like reading an interesting story book ...

What is your faith background, chewkw? I am curious?

molgrips - Member
What is your faith background, chewkw? I am curious?

Buddhist

I ain't a saint and I am responsible for my own action.

If I get it wrong then I get it ... no ifs or buts ... no one will help me apart from myself.

For the none believers let's bet ... (I like betting this but it's a sin I can handle I think)

If there is heaven or hell upon your physical body turning carbon and if you are in the afterlife can you keep shouting out STW to every passing "soul" so you can group together? Really remember this coz you only have a very short time frame to remember this. 😛

If I happen to walk pass then I shall say ... how can I help?

4) Not interested and I know how to be a good person.

5) When religions lead to war and hatred.

Yes and no. The subject matter is quite weighty, and with respect to Stan Lee he doesn't have three thousand years of intellectual thought on a variety of topics behind his works

By that argument, why aren't we all worshipping the pantheon of the Ancient Greeks / Romans / Egyptians? They're as old again.

Good question, the answer to which is in history books.

hat I mean by this is, for example, we still don't really know for sure whether Robin Hood really existed. Our modern understanding is based on legends some 500 years old, which isn't a world apart from the NT's accounts of Jesus (and record-keeping has probably improved slightly in the intervening millennium). It's not a great leap to see how there might have been a bit of embellishment along the way. Maybe Jesus is an amalgam of a number of people who have been nice to each other over the years, maybe he was a proto-Derren Brown whose parlour tricks amazed the largely uneducated populace. Over five centuries of word-of-mouth retellings it's easy to see how rocking up to a handful of people armed with a packed lunch and a finger buffet could turn into the Sermon on the Mount.

I believe current thinking is that he's either historicised myth or mythologised history.

By that argument, why aren't we all worshipping the pantheon of the Ancient Greeks / Romans / Egyptians? They're as old again.

We sort of are. Much of the Jesus story is (possibly) a rehash of older religion.

Frankenstein - Member
4) Not interested and I know how to be a good person.

Interesting. How?

😛

By dint of not being an inherent sociopath, I'd expect.

1. But not a huge fan of organised religion.

Cougar - Moderator
By dint of not being an inherent sociopath, I'd expect.

I just checked the definition of sociopath

"sociopath/?s??s??(?)pa?,?s?????(?)-/
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour."

That is not actually a sin if you have personality disorder ... (madness?)
i.e. you have no control over yourself ...

You're all far more bonkers, than those that have faith in religion!

Must 'ave a leek.

Was he some sort of Pharaoh?

Carry on 🙂

Cougar - Moderator
Was he some sort of Pharaoh?

I wonder idly whether what's needed is a rewrite of the Bible. So we can have an updated, modern guide to life that's in line with 21st Century thinking, laws and morals, but isn't dependant on circular logic and a tenuous belief in the supernatural

Well it is a work of fiction so why not - sarcasm but the point is it has to have some meaning and really tell us about god or it is meaningless and so is any re write.
God's law is NOT ineffable its infallible or how could we worship the think we dont understand?.Secondly God's mind is not changed it is always correct. I suppose the Church could say we got it wrong for a couple of millennia but this time we are sure even though no define revelation was involved ....good luck with that one
Not going to happem but yes we are stuck with the morals of 2-4,000 years ago and its pretty outdated.

Without wishing to insult in any way - I suspect that you are arriving at a point at which many other people who live and breathe this stuff their whole lives have already been through.

Please highlight the great theologian thinkers who demand a re write...go on lets have a list - Jesus wept* - see what I did there...probably not but hey ho.

* shortest verse in the Bible as I am sure you knew.

5 - Not a fan.

THM - where are you quoting from? Can't work out how to use iPad so can't highlight and search. To be fair I am a bit of traditionalist so historically most communion services I go to are based on 1664. We now have service sheets, but when I used the whole book there was space in the service for three readings - one from the Old Testament, one from the epistles and one from the gospel. However, the first one has never been used in my experience. Haven't followed liturgical development much, but the alternative forms of service may have different instructions. I do know worshipping using the ASB which I have at home is now illegal!

wonder idly whether what's needed is a rewrite of the Bible

Needs a reboot by JJ Abrams I think.

4 normally
5 when religious beliefs kill good people

most communion services I go to are based on 1664.

To be fair, I've have a few communions to St Kronenbourg in my time as well.

Mefty, I claim no expertise but was surprised by your comment. From google I got to

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/the-calendar/lect/lectrules.aspx

Correct me if I got it wrong.

Reboot you say

How about the Matrix?

That was a typo or Freudian slip, should be 1662.

4 normally
5 when religious beliefs kill good people

And obviously:

[img] [/img]

THM - I saw that - I am confused as it conflicts with my experience - I will persecute our new gay vicar by asking him. To be honest this year I was half asleep on Easter Day because I went to the sunrise service.

😀

(1664 was funny too)

Started as a 1
Then a 2
Now a 4

1 although don't like to call it religion/religious.

I'd be a 4 if it were't for the fact that people use religion to justify doing so much harm.
So 5.

When's the results out?

5