[Closed] The First STW Religion Poll

say homeopathy then we would rightly call the folk stupid.

Allow me to get in touch with my inner Molgrips for a moment:

We wouldn't say the folk are stupid; rather, that the belief is.

Hmm yes but the efficacy of homeopathy is firmly within the realms of science. (Placebo effect notwithstanding). In other words, it's knowable. If you give someone a homeopathic remedy, then it has a clear verifiable effect.

This is not so with the question of the existence of God. And as we have been told, this does not matter.

This is not so with the question of the existence of God.

Hmm yes but the efficacy of homeopathy is firmly within the realms of science. (Placebo effect notwithstanding). In other words, it's knowable. If you give someone a homeopathic remedy, then it has a clear verifiable effect.

One might substitute the word 'homeopathy' with 'prayer', and the statement holds?

the efficacy of homeopathy is firmly within the realms of science

are you saying the origins of the universe , the laws of physics and how we were "created" are not within the realms of science?
Is the question of whether we have a "soul" not part of physiology or anatomy?

are you saying the origins of the universe , the laws of physics and how we were "created" are not within the realms of science?

What happened before the big bang?
What caused the big bang?
What is outside the universe?
Why is the universe here?
Why are the fundamental constants what they are?
Why does anything exist?

One might substitute the word 'homeopathy' with 'prayer', and the statement holds?

Perhaps, I dunno. I have my own thoughts about metaphysics which may or may not include God; I have strong views on how we should behave to each other; but I do not know what prayer is meant to be. Asking God to make you well when you're sick seems a little odd given that God should've had a hand in making you sick in the first place? I don't understand.

ah the molly side step shuffle

are you saying the origins of the universe , the laws of physics and how we were "created" are not within the realms of science?

Are they science questions or not?

I do not know what prayer is meant to be. Asking God to make you well when you're sick seems a little odd given that God should've had a hand in making you sick in the first place? I don't understand.

After my mum was diagnosed with cancer last year, our vicar said he'd pray for her. I'm not sure what he thought that would achieve, but I chose to interpret it in the same way as if he'd said he'd be thinking of us.

Given that a committed member of the church had very recently died of cancer, I assume he didn't think the prayer would make any difference to my mum's survival chances.

As it happens, she seems to be cancer-free, which is nice, but I doubt it had anything to do with the prayer.

I chose to interpret it in the same way as if he'd said he'd be thinking of us.

That makes sense.

It's the 'I'm sitting an exam today pray for me' or praying before the start of a football match. I'm no expert but I think God's probably going to sit back and see how well you've trained to take advantage of the talent He gave you, rather than make you his favourite over the other guy just because you prayed.

she seems to be cancer-free, which is nice

This is good, regardless 🙂

Are they science questions or not?

It wasn't a side step, I was countering your point. Yes, those are science questions, however they don't answer everything. I suspect SaxonRider would say they are different epistemic categories.

What happened before the big bang?
What caused the big bang?
What is outside the universe?
Why is the universe here?
Why are the fundamental constants what they are?
Why does anything exist?

Also,

"We don't know (yet)" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

I have no idea but I wouldn't try to make up an explanation.

Not even if it made you feel good? I think many Christians would also admit to not yet knowing for sure - but they believe something. Don't see a problem.

We should enter a race with the team name as STW Theological Society; the slogan on the jersey should say "That is a different epistemic category".

"We don't know (yet)" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Not even if it made you feel good?

I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you? It can only tell us the consequences of some other set of initial conditions. Which are the consequences of other initial conditions, and so on. But why? Why any of it?

Interesting to note that Christianity doesn't answer this either - why does God exist? I'm just giving it as an example of a question that science can't answer, and perhaps nothing can.

I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you?

molgrips - Member
What happened before the big bang?

What caused the big bang?

What is outside the universe?

Why is the universe here?

Why are the fundamental constants what they are?

Why does anything exist?

molgrips - Member
I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you?

I don't think science will ever be able to tell us WHY the big bang happened, do you?

Maybe not. Maybe there isn't a reason. So what? Again, "we don't know" is a perfectly viable position.

"But whhyyyyyy?" is human nature, just look at your average five year old. Religion is pretty good at filling this gap in knowledge - to be fair, it's pretty good at making up any old shit to fill any and all gaps in knowledge until we prove otherwise - but it's nothing more than an answer of convenience.

And, it's often not a particularly satisfying answer. "God did it" doesn't actually answer anything, it just displaces the question.

[b]I would rather scientists focus on things like teleportation or hover car[/b], which are much more useful then trying to find out the origin of the universe ... what a waste of time.

Invent teleporting machine and hover car please.

Beam me up Scotty!

indeed why i lost faith in primary

If god made me who made god...the unanswered unknowable question remains unanswered

Furthermore it raises serious issues/ more unanswerable questions where we cannot prove some of its assumptions.

What is my soul - how doe this non physical - for it can transcend death - interact with my physical body what translates for it - why can we not find it, why can we not prove god etc. God is a crap answer that worked 4000 years ago when we thought the earth was flat and we had no idea what elements were or why 29 ers were better than 26 ers.

Today its a rubbish answer* enduring but rubbish.

* its so rubbish even most of the followers dont think creation is true. It can no longer convince the flock let alone the rest of us. Their faith is waning.

I agree it might seem unlikely but science has surprised us with many discoveries in a pretty short space of time

It's impossible. Science can break everything down to fundamental laws based on fundamental constants. It can't tell us why those constants have the values they are or indeed why reality exists, because there is no concept other than reality in which to formulate an answer that isn't self referential.

Again, "we don't know" is a perfectly viable position.

It is, yes.

"God did it" doesn't actually answer anything, it just displaces the question.

That's exactly what I said a few posts ago. The only logical conclusion then when faced with a unanswerable question is to pick an answer you like. I think that's checkmate 🙂

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

That's my point, it patently isn't. The only [i]logical [/i]conclusion is to simply accept that we don't know, that we don't have the answer. Some people just can't get their head around accepting this, which is one of the reasons religion can appear attractive.

Please invent teleportation and hover car ... 😛

Much more useful me say.

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

The logical answer with schrodinger's cat is not to guess as you prefer it to be alive than dead its to realise out knowledge is incomplete as we dont know the answer.

Please go and study some logic.

Science can break everything down to fundamental laws based on fundamental constants. It can't tell us why those constants have the values they are or indeed why reality exists, because there is no concept other than reality in which to formulate an answer that isn't self referential.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Please invent teleportation and hover car ...

Plus, it's nice to know things innit?

slowoldman - Member

Please invent teleportation and hover car ...

I think you will find some pretty high level physics needs to be understood to get to the point of developing teleportation. That's why understanding the universe and how it works is important.

Plus, it's nice to know things innit?

Honestly my dear slowoldman chap I was going to say (exactly what you just said but decided to say something else ... funnily) they have very high chance of accidental discovery of something else than trying to find out the origin of universe.

Ya, it is always nice to have accidental discovery but with regards to finding the origin of universe, I say let them get on with it and with all the brain cells available to them. But to say that science is the only truth ... I think we have a long way to go.

Beam me up Scotty!

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! 😀

PS: Lots of detailed material about the nuts and bolts and various shades of what religious thought is all about and so on. Exegesis. Hermeneutics. Very salutary.

It's still looking like a lot of guff about Unicorns and Giant Invisible Penguins to me, though...

Fair enough.

I want to know what happened to all those old Gods with cool names and bad tempers. The Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse ones.

They're right behind you.

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.

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.

AFAIK there isn't any controversy about the content of the Quran. The controversy is over who exactly is a descendent of Muhammed, and who has a right to guide the community. The book itself is "perfect".

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

It's far more complex than that.

Another way to think of it: God communicated somehow with these ancients, and they then wrote down as best they could what they experienced. However human language is inadequate to fully convey what was meant, plus the writings are themselves misinterpreted, translated, edited and taken without crucial context, so literal readings just don't have value. I don't see this as such a strange idea? People argue over meaning of text all the time. A bit like here on STW, really. Finnegan's Wake is the literal word of James Joyce, but people are still debating over what it actually means.

and just because you don't believe it there's plenty out there who seem to

A minority though, it would seem.

Sufis treat it as allegorical and years ago the majority of christians would have said the same about the bible, currently conservative islam is dominant, that wasn't the case 500 years ago. Things change, texts change, interpretations change.

A minority though, it would seem.

It's far more complex than that.

says who? That's almost exactly what I was lead to believe when I was a church goer.

As in all institutions made up of human beings, there is the Institution, and there is the institution. In other words, there is the thing that is bigger than the sum of its parts, and then there are the parts.

I don't disbelieve you when you say that it's what you were led to believe. But doesn't it stand to reason that a monolith like the Church, which has produced some of the greatest minds and works of art known to humankind, should have a slightly less provincial take on things than a person's local parish/vicar/Sunday school teacher?

Brandon, Manitoba is a legitimate, if tiny, part of Canada, and one born and raised there will certainly be Canadian. But what Canada is, and what it is to be Canadian is a whole lot bigger than that.