And if he was a carpenter of any calibre, what joint did he use for his cross?

If it wasn’t a dove tail, I’d have to question his ability.

That’s not strictly true, Woppit. A year or so ago, you asked about religious experience,

It’s completely true. I don’t have any religious questions.

Don’t know why your confusing now with the past.

Perhaps you’re suffering from fuzzy thinking.

My main question is about why do people believe in or want to believe in a god who is essentially punishing us. So Adam took a bite out of the apple so as a result we all born into sin and the rest of humanity have to pay for his minor indiscretion? Forever. And he expects us to love and worship him for it. Sort of bribing us to love and believe in his greatness. What sort of Sick twisted, egotistical and sadistic individual is this God?

Even if there is a god then by these terms he can stick it. He could fix the ills of mankind. He could irradiate cancer, child mortality, war, death, destruction, natural disasters taking hundreds of lives etc. He could do all that with a click of his fingers. But he doesn’t. Instead he wants to punish us and watches upon high (supposedly) as events unfold like some sadistic kid experimenting by pulling legs off insects.

Another great one is the Bible in its current form, it could never be described as faithful to the original texts if you know anything about ancient texts that have been transcribed over centuries and across different cultures and languages.. Each adding thier own (consciously or not) slant in interpretation and translation.

The modern Bible could at best be described as an incredibly vague approximation of the original texts it’s based on.

The Bible (other nonsense religious books are available), dare I say it, has evolved over time.

Oh the irony. 😆

And so the point scoring begins… 🙄

Predictable is predictable 🙁

Why did anyone have to die for our sins?

I had this explained properly to me once, and I got it, but now I’ve forgotten again – so this one too please. Not sure how Jesus dying helped me? But also, I still have original sin too..?

mattyfez, don’t feel too smug about the cleverness of your point. I do work with ancient texts – and know exactly how they are transmitted. And your suggestion is supremely elementary.

By all means ask a question, but don’t act like an arse by trying to answer it with your own assumptions.

If you could talk to a religious (specifically Christian) know-it-all, and ask anything at all about faith generally, or Christianity in particular, what sorts of things would you ask?

I know that issues around how Christians read Scripture have come up here quite a bit, alongside the ubiquitous questions around whether or not God can be said to exist…. Those are the sorts of things – along with anything else that may be on your mind – I would be interested in knowing about.

The more I think about it SR was looking to see what questions we had. Not that he was going to answer them. I know he could have a stab at some but others are something theologians have been discussing for centuries without reaching an absolute agreement.
So come on OP whats the purpose of this thread ? If you don’t step up it’ll go the way of all the others that have a religious content 🙁

mattyfez – Member

The modern Bible could at best be described as an incredibly vague approximation of the original texts it’s based on.

The Bible (other nonsense religious books are available), dare I say it, has evolved over time.

The Tanakh and the Koran are largely unchanged. Obviously there are schisms and disagreements in every religion but as I understand it the Koran isn’t the Koran unless it’s in the exact original language, dialect and format. Any deviation, translation or alternative interpretation is forbidden.

slackalice – Member

And so the point scoring begins…

I doubt God is worried.

Let’s leave this thread running, and I’ll open another in which I explain why I started it in the first place.

Sounds great. And then we’ll each start a thread to reply to that thread shall we? Can you make your reply thread about Trump too? Please. Trump or Brexit.

nothing – it would be pointless.

OK, i’ll ask a serious question…

Many religions have evolved, developed and been refined over thousands of years (christianity especially so). Do modern christians accept this? If not, why? If so, where do you (and they) see religion heading in the years to come? And does science (a religion of sorts) play a part?

Ok that’s several questions but as i mentioned earlier – as a child i had many questions 😀

Thanks for the sarcasm, jimjam.

My hope had been to let this thread stay dedicated to people’s questions and issues.

I didn’t want to derail it by offering my explanation, especially seeing as I already offered a preliminary explanation in a previous post, and no one seems to have noticed.

In any case, as far as I understand, there is no quota for threads.

And does science (a religion of sorts) play a part?

I’d have to disagree with that, there’s a fundamental difference between religion and science, that difference being that science is pursuit of truth, and so is constantly being updated as new facts are uncovered. It’s based on repeatable observable tests.

Religion is the complete opposite, it’s ‘here’s the rules, do as your told, don’t ask questions’.

Religion is historically just a social tool to exert control over others, nothing more.

And if he was a carpenter of any calibre, what joint did he use for his cross?

I reckon he’d of used a cross halving joint, gets the job done and no more complex than it needs to be. If Jesus had been Japanese then he’d probably have opted for the slightly more intricate Interlocking cross half lap joint.

Religion is the complete opposite, it’s ‘here’s the rules, do as your told, don’t ask questions’.

Well no, religion has evolved hugely over the centuries. As evidenced in this very thread as people cite the mixed fibres and shellfish rules that are no longer observed etc.

SaxonRider – Member

Thanks for the sarcasm, jimjam.

In any case, as far as I understand, there is no quota for threads.

Well look, crack on with the threads. I’m obviously not a mod (unlike the many stealth mods) but if you start another thread to address this thread it could be at best mildly annoying for posters to track and respond to others across two threads.

Religion is the complete opposite, it’s ‘here’s the rules, do as your told, don’t ask questions’.

No, that is your belief of religion; with only churches obsessed with medieval dogma as a reference point.

Lookup Shelby Spong:

“Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense, because they assume”
? John Shelby Spong,

@saxonrider Do you believe Christians such as Shelby Spong are Christians or heretics?

Well no, religion has evolved hugely over the centuries.

OK, then other than for a political /social agenda, what makes an old version of a text more or less valid than a newer version?

No, that is your belief of religion; with only churches obsessed with medieval dogma as a reference point.

Have you ever approached a priest /imam /rabbi with some evidence that something is wrong? Did they duley rewrite the book in light of the new information?

Because that’s how science works, and it’s why it’s completely incompatible with religion.

😆

mattyfez – Member

Well no, religion has evolved hugely over the centuries.

OK, then other than for a political /social agenda, what makes an old version of a text more or less valid than a newer version? [/quote]

If it’s based on words spoken by a god or gods the literalness or accuracy of them is important. It’s not up to men to interpret or edit god.

literalness or accuracy of them is important. It’s not up to men to interpret or edit god.

So do as your told and don’t ask questions then.

I would ask:

Did you ever try the Buddhist religion?

(Buddhist monks appear to be sooo happy and relaxed…)

I was wondering when Spong might spring.

Apparently the whole “carpenter” thing was a mistranslation. Origin Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever had some word relating to wisdom which was the same as carpenter.

Now if that’s not a half-baked little factlet, I don’t know what is. Pretty sure there’s some truth in it though.

I would ask:

Did you ever try the Buddhist religion?

(Buddhist monks appear to be sooo happy and relaxed…)

Buddhism, in the main (there are exceptions, see the ethnic cleansing in Bhutan for a recent example) is kinda the odd one out in the context of mainstream religion…

… In that it largely focuses on mutual respect for all living things, and the environment we rely upon, (allegedly) but as above, that does not prevent atrocities from occurring.

Apparently the whole “carpenter” thing was a mistranslation. Origin Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever had some word relating to wisdom which was the same as carpenter.

Now if that’s not a half-baked little factlet, I don’t know what is. Pretty sure there’s some truth in it though.

It’s a perfect example of ‘Chinese whispers’.. It’s impossible to avoid when texts are translated and transcribed over centuries and various languages and cultures.
We would be foolish to think any modernised religious text bears much resemblance to the spirit of the originals. Which were probably a load of bollocks anyway.

If I met him/her/it I would ask God who is in charge / creator of the other planets?

Edit – sorry to keen to post – if God is in charge of it all (the universe) are the other planets working out as good as Earth.

mattyfez – Member

It’s a perfect example of ‘Chinese whispers’.. It’s impossible to avoid when texts are translated and transcribed over centuries and various languages and cultures.

And that’s why you can’t have an English Koran, for example. It’s also one of the reasons put forward for why reforming Islam is nigh on impossible.

genesiscore502011 – Member

If I met him I would ask God who is in charge / creator of the other planets?

Thanos obviously.

OK, then other than for a political /social agenda, what makes an old version of a text more or less valid than a newer version?

The Bible, as I understand it, is not the word of God, it’s mostly the words of men. But many belive it does *contain* the word of God – somewhere buried in it.

It’s a perfect example of ‘Chinese whispers’.. It’s impossible to avoid when texts are translated and transcribed over centuries and various languages and cultures.

Yeah but some scholars can read the very oldest versions, because they’ve studied the languages.

Indeed, you can be the wrong type of a religion and still be persecuted for being a non believer of the *real truth.

See shites and sunnies
See catholics and protestants

*may have been made up in order to scare a population away from freedom of thought into conformity, usually for prophet profit.

Read to the end of this page. No idea who the people behind that site are mind.

Read to the end of this page. No idea who the people behind that site are mind.

I read it, I want my 5 minutes of life back that I wasted on it.

One question answered.

Well I read it MG but it didn’t reveal much. We all know the word of god was relayed by people. But how are we to know which people are to be believed and which are not. ( if any )
Again I’d be interested to hear from SR (as far as his knowlege of christian thinking goes) why some prophets are accepted and others dismissed.

Matty, I used the phrase ‘of sorts’ to describe science as a religion as it shares many similarities – not so much in the having faith sense (though there is an element of that) but more in the attitudes of the believers in science. It’s perhaps a religion for our times? As a example…religion is often cited as a crutch – science can be compared to a crutch too. An aid to help understand the world around us and explain things we really don’t understand. Science has rules/laws that seem to stand up to scrutiny with the knowledge we current have but who’s to say in the future we wont discover something(s) that makes a mockery of the these laws. Relegating what we call science today to the equivalent of the old testament. Or something so unimaginable to us it spawns a whole new ‘religion’.

We all know the word of god was relayed by people.

That’s what I was trying to establish, in relation to points like jimjam’s:

“If it’s based on words spoken by a god or gods the literalness or accuracy of them is important. It’s not up to men to interpret or edit god.”

It really IS up to us to interpret what the writers of the Bible meant, and even if we want to believe them. Because it’s not the direct literal word of God. Although God is quoted sometimes. This is well established and understood, as far as I know, but the angry atheists still want to beat Christians with the ‘you can’t pick and choose or interpret’ stick. Which is wrong – I think.

I still completely disagree with you, science is incompatible with religion.

Science is simply, in the most basic terms possible, what we can observe to be true, and we can repeat the exercise as many times as we like and already know what the outcome will be, it’s pure logic.

Religion is based on apparently groundless assumptions and ‘faith’, whatever that is supposed to mean.

molgrips – Member

It really IS up to us to interpret what the writers of the Bible meant, and even if we want to believe them. Because it’s not the direct literal word of God. Although God is quoted sometimes. This is well established and understood, as far as I know, but the angry atheists still want to beat Christians with the ‘you can’t pick and choose or interpret’ stick. Which is wrong – I think.

Er, here’s the problem. Religion is only important if it’s derived from divine authority. If we “mere” humans can interpret it as we want, then why is it important? Why is relevant? It cannot simultaneously be divine, all knowing and inscrutable, but also open to interpretation by any Tom Dick or Harriet.

It’s not beating anyone with a stick, religion can’t argue both sides of the debate at once.