Catholic Church and other religions!

Well – you are saying it’s all rubbish, cos there’s no proof, because only things that have proof are real, and you only care about stuff that is real.

What you saying that it is not real but still important?
Not really getting your point tbh Surely a crucial aspect of an explanatrion of our existence and reason for being here is that it is both an accurate refelection of reality and real. otherwise you have a work of fiction. I think the religious think it is real as well.

Ad I’m just asking you to accept that it works FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

Yes i accept it works for them but they have no evidence to support their view which is quite an important point when they claim to know why we are here and what our purpose is. It is a vital question we should all consider ? Why am I here etc, an answer that has no evidence is not that good an answer for thios question or any other. you know this as well.
For example not believing in gravity would work for me and i have no proof for this but I have faith and it works for me ..I assume you are fine with that then? Is that not quite aweak argument versus say Einstein?

I know they have faith, i know they are sincere but again this has no impact on whether they are right or wrong

It really is a sophist argument to suggest that you are not saved by following the religion of your choice and condemned to not be saved by not following – if this was not the case their would literally be no point adhering to the religion.
there are tons of quotes

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It really is not fair or accurate to claim we can somehow do as we please and still end up in heaven

As for catholics i would ned to see a priest and confess would i not to be saved [ whihc would ia ssume involve baptism and confirmation??} so I think i would rather have to foloow their rules a tad to be saved 🙄

WHy else would you follow a religion except to be saved – no one would worship if it did not lead to salvation

Granteed we could tease each religion apart on exactly what they say but salvation only comes from following their rules

Here’s some questions asked without prejudice for anyone of either viewpoint to answer

Can faith exist without humans?

If there is other life somewhere in the universe were they created by the same god?

If we aren’t alone are we equal to other life or are we special (eg created in god’s image)

Would proof of existence of life elsewhere in the universe shake anyone’s faith (i guess that one is specifically for the faithful)

What you saying that it is not real but still important?

If you like, yeah. Seems reasonable.

they have no evidence to support their view which is quite an important point when they claim to know why we are here and what our purpose is

To you, yes, because your world-view is evidence based.

For example not believing in gravity

Well gravity is a verifiable thing. As explained above, the existence of God is not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say.

I know they have faith, i know they are sincere but again this has no impact on whether they are right or wrong

The faith is the whole point.

Let me draw another parallel. Let’s assume you support your local football team. Why?

Let me draw another parallel. Let’s assume you support your local football team. Why?

I thought you were going to “draw a parallel”

So with the Christian’s there is no concept that failure to follow the rules (I assume you mean the 10C) will lead to damnation.

Apart from where they clearly state there is, repeatedly, as I’ve already quoted numerous times in this thread.

Here’s one from the Catechism ‘user manual’:

Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”614

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

I really can’t see how people can keep denying this. 😕

And according to wikipedia (yes I know), mortal sins would include things like blasphemy, following other religions, and not believing in any deity (though there is lots of debate over this).

Junkyard – Member
WHy else would you follow a religion except to be saved – no one would worship if it did not lead to salvation

Well, salvation I would assume must be near the top of the list followed by (in not particular order):

1. Religion may/may not address key questions that have challenged mankind for a long time – why am I here? Who made me (the first question in the RC Catechisms)? What happens when I die?
2. Religion may/may not address key questions of justice – what is the right thing to do?
3. Rather than being seen as a series of rules, some religious teaching may/may not provide people with guidance on how to be happy (enlightened?) or how to feel fulfilled?
4. From 3, some religious teachings may/may not help people to avoid the things that would otherwise make them unhappy?
5. Religion may/may not provide inspiration – St Matthews Passion, Sistine Chapel, Kings Cambridge?
6. Religion may/may not be an excuse to provide good things for other people
7. etc, etc

Obviously not an exhaustive nor an exclusive list (ie you can argue that other things do exactly the same…), but there really must be some reasons why this alleged charade (?) manages to keep going, surely?

Or perhaps….

8. Maybe Pascal and his wager?

edit: Grum – and dont stop there, carry on with Q1036 sorry, rest of Q1035 and note that this is for those who commit mortal (not venial) sin and terror of terrors, it leads to…..I will let you fill in the blanks as I am tired of typing the same phrase! 😉

Let’s assume you support your local football team. Why?

Avoiding getting a beating for giving the wrong answer in the infant school playground. I guess that would explain a lot about religion.

But apart from that football is much much more important, and has been proven to take place on pitches up and down the nation on a weekly basis. If I went to watch football and had to imagine that there were grown men running around the field kicking a ball I might struggle a bit more with my support.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ (CCC 1035).

Now, the church defines what is a “mortal sin” and communicates this to its followers. This may be based upon information the church claims to have been handed down to them, via whatever means, but it remains their teaching.

Oh and there’s : “If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment” (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

And…Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).

We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire” (ibid., 21).

As has already been quoted elsewhere in this thread – JPII also confirmed this in his book – Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

They all read very much like threats of damnation to me.

THM – (not sure when you have said that to me but I will accept that I have been told – hairshirt now on) The fact that I am a non believer does not preclude me from having a contrary opinion to that held by those who do. I know it cannot happen but am offended by powerful people using it as a mechanism to exert control over others.

@nealglover – ok should have said Hell rather than Purgatory (incorrectly identifying made up places, Doh!) as the latter is a place of cleansing – so those who are only a bit bad and who repent can be cleansed and admitted to heaven (Rev. 21:27) & (1 Cor 3:15). Whereas Hell has no redemption opportunity as mentioned by Jesus who said of the worst sinners that they “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32)

@nealglover – ok should have said Hell rather than Purgatory (incorrectly identifying made up places, Doh!) as the latter is a place of cleansing – so those who are only a bit bad and who repent can be cleansed and admitted to heaven (Rev. 21:27) & (1 Cor 3:15). Whereas Hell has no redemption opportunity as mentioned by Jesus who said of the worst sinners that they “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32)

That’s fine. At least you have now tried to learn a bit about the subject you are debating 😉

That’s fine. At least you have now tried to learn a bit about the subject you are debating

Whereas you pedantically (and rather patronisingly) picked up on a minor mistake rather than engaging with the actual issue under discussion.

Hardly adding much to the debate is it.

edit: Grum – and dont stop there, carry on with Q1036 sorry, rest of Q1035 and note that this is for those who commit mortal (not venial) sin and terror of terrors, it leads to…..I will let you fill in the blanks as I am tired of typing the same phrase!

Is this your version of admitting you were wrong to say ‘Roger – as I have said before, it would be really a good idea to familiarise yourself with what religions actually say. So with the Christian’s there is no concept that failure to follow the rules (I assume you mean the 10C) will lead to damnation. ‘? I already discussed mortal sin in that post btw.

Plus, to repeat myself…so what? If hell is defined simply as seperation from Almighty God ie, something that you are sure doesn’t exist, then the perceived “threat” is meaningless anyway.

It’s more the principle that threatening people isn’t really a very constructive or decent way of getting people to do what you want, especially from an organisation claiming some kind of moral high ground.

I can see why it might once have been quite effective, but it just seems a bit….. well….. primitive?

Whereas you pedantically (and rather patronisingly) picked up on a minor mistake rather than engaging with the actual issue under discussion.

I would have thought It’s quite important to be accurate when you are claiming something is “clearly stated”
But some people obviously don’t mind.

Personally I think if you want your point to be made well, it helps to get at least the basics correct.

Hardly adding much to the debate is it.

I think it’s important to be accurate if you are giving someone else’s stance so you can argue against it.

Sorry if I didn’t meet your high standards of debating.

I will obviously try harder in future, but do please let me know if I fall below par again.

I think it’s important to be accurate if you are giving someone else’s stance so you can argue against it.

It’s a reasonable mistake to point out, just no need to be quite so supercilious about it.

There’s also dozens of examples of people in this thread being wildly inaccurate about what my and others’ stance is (a whole army of straw men), but strangely you seem less bothered about that, presumably because they are arguing on the same ‘side’ as you.

Oxford dictionary Definition of FAITH: “strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof”

For those who keep insisting that proof/ facts should be the basis of faith.

Gentlemen please, happy to admit I was in error.
I was a little more interested in the whole concept of the threatened punishment after death.

threatening people isn’t really a very constructive or decent way of getting people to do what you want,

It can be effective, though.

TBF, outside of fundie American evangelists, the whole ‘burning in hell’ thing has fallen out of favour these days. Historically it was a two-pronged attack; sign up with us and you get eternal life, virgins and kittens, don’t and it’s the red hot poker up the arse for you sonny jim.

We’re quite lucky that most modern religions are a bit more easy going these days; and if ever there was somewhere you don’t want a monopoly, it’s religion. So I don’t think it’s particularly fair to still use this as a stick to beat religion with (mostly).

something that you are sure doesn’t exist, then the perceived “threat” is meaningless anyway.

Perhaps this is in part why it’s fallen out of favour. There’s been similar comments earlier in this thread too. Point is, it requires a reasonably strong atheist (or I suppose, some other conflicting theism) stance to start with in order to render it ineffective.

In the past, when religion was taught as fact and people weren’t equipped to know any better, it’s far from meaningless. It’s a very powerful tool against the ignorant and mentally immature (eg, kids), and that’s pretty insidious IMHO.

There’s also dozens of examples of people in this thread being wildly inaccurate about what my and others’ stance is (a whole army of straw men), but strangely you seem less bothered about that, presumably because they are arguing on the same ‘side’ as you.

I’m not particularly on either “side” to be honest, and I don’t think I’ve come a cross that way either.
If I have it’s purely accidental because all I have posted really is personal experiences of a Catholic Education and how I’m no longer in the least bit Catholic.

I’m interested in the subject in general though.

I’m not really sure how going to hell if you don’t believe in God is even up for debate.

Surely its a central doctrine of Christian faith. Eg the faithful will be saved and the unfaithful will be damned.

Or are we debating the new Bible / Christianity where we ignore all the bits we don’t like or that might upset the more liberal minded paritioners?

Grum – since I am not a RC, I cannot be an expert on what they say either, but I have tried to understand what they say. So for example, in addition to the Catechisms themselves (and I only really read the bits about Faith, Hope and Charity – the so-called theological virtues) I have read what is widely considered the best explanation and interpretation of them (Gilbey’s “We believe” that I quoted earlier). Now Gilbey (who was the RC Chaplain at Cambridge) criticises The Catecisms for not being clear about the distinction between venial (pardonable?) and mortal sins (the nasty stuff that leads to all the fire!). I know that your quote highlighted mortal sins, but like TC themselves, you do not explain what they are. Interestingly Gilbey does and also goes on to say that mortal sin does not necessarily lead to hell anyway.

Now the fire stuff certainly is emotive language and yes, would work wonders if you do want to control others, but that does not take away from the fact that hell (the fiery place) is defined just after you ended your Q1035 quote as “separation from God.” So my point remains, for those who do not believe in God, what is there to worry about? Separation from nothing, if that is the case, is hardly terrifying now is it? Even less that the sky falling on your head or the bogeyman in the cupboard.

Roger – FWIW, I am also offended by those who use religion (and other things?) to exercise power of others.

or those who do not believe in God, what is there to worry about?

At a personal level, absolutely nothing. If you think we’re objecting to being condemned to hell because we’re scared of hell, you’re missing the point (well, above and beyond it not being very nice to threaten people, anyway).

The problem is when that sort of argument is used with someone more impressionable like, say, children, or remote African villagers. That’s what we’re upset about.

But as I said above, I think it’s a bit of a red herring these days. I could be wrong, but I’ve not seen many fire-and-brimstone preachers lately. The Old Testament seems to be a bit of an embarrassment to the Xtians these days, far as I can glean.

@Grum – if only it were true that it’s in the past. Whilst UK schools may teach a more liberal Catholicism, schools in other countries are a different matter:

Bishop Robert Vasa in the Diocese of Santa Rosa commenting upon teachers in Catholic Schools:

The Santa Rosa Catholic Diocese is requiring its 200 schoolteachers to sign an agreement affirming that “modern errors” such as contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage and euthanasia are “matters that gravely offend human dignity.”

I find these threads very difficult, because I don’t know which points to address, and by the time I choose and type something in response, the discussion has moved on. 😕

In any case, we are talking about things that are always far more nuanced than brief entries on a forum can give justice to. There are points being made on here, meanwhile, that need to be corrected and/or explained further if they are to be accurately argued, so I will give it a try.

Above all, when theology speaks about matters of faith, it does so somewhat poetically. So, when the Catechism speaks of hell, it does so using the language of antiquity to describe what it understands to be an eternal reality. That is, if a person lives in the presence of God (who is often portrayed using metaphors of light), yet chooses to turn his or her back to the light, then he or she would naturally get burned. (I described this a few pages back.) In that sense, we create our own hell. Of course, if one does not believe in a god at all, then this is irrelevant, but hell is, understood the way I have described it, a natural corollary of God. Importantly, it is not a vindictive concept; it is a neutral, consequential one.

The idea of purgatory arises from the conception of life as a pilgrimage toward God. Neo-Platonism, which had a huge influence over the way Christian theology expressed itself, posited that all things return to their origin, and in Christian cosmology, this meant that all humanity would find itself drawn back to its original place of origin. On the way, the soul -the essence of the person – would be increasingly unburdened (purged) of those things that separated it from God (sin, along with psychological burdens as well). So purgatory, far from being punitive, is merely the process of movement towards the Godhead.

The Bible, which some of you have drawn upon to suggest one thing or another – whether it something about how the universe and the world came into existence, or whether or not people are condemned to hell – is far more helpfully understood for what it is, than for what only non-mainstream folk would say it is. The Bible is a series of books, written over a very long period of time, made up of many genres, with any number of purposes. It is written by people to record their experience of God, of the world around them, and with a view to explain things according to some measure of poetic truth. One doesn’t read Milton or Dante and call them fools for expressing what they did. One doesn’t say that Shakespeare was an idiot for saying that his lover’s hair was a tangle of black wires. No. One reads and asks, ‘what does the poet mean by this?’ That is what the theologian does with the ancient texts. S/he does NOT say, ‘well, it says here that so and so is going to burn in hell. Must be true.’

Anyway, these are just some thoughts in response to what people have been writing. If I can grab another few minutes, I will try to weigh in again. Congrats to all, again, though for being fairly measured. From my point of view, this is refreshing. 🙂

I should add, in response to rogerthecat, that when the Church teaches anything, it is not doing so with a view to offering a list of dos and don’ts, even when it comes across this way.

The Church understands itself to have a vocation to discern and embody what is true.

Once it has thought something through, and determined that it is true, it can’t do anything else but to state it as such when asked.

For example:

Winston in Orwell’s 1984 is asked by Big Brother what 2+2 equals, and he says 4. Big Brother says no, it is whatever Big Brother says it is. Winston says no, and then gets tortured. Well, the Church believes certain things to be true, and as such, can not capitulate, even when society overwhelmingly disagrees. It would say that, whatever society says about abortion, for instance, life must always be understood as sacred. Of courses you are free to disagree with that, or wish it was expressed differently or whatever, but you can hardly be surprised when the Church stands by what it believes.

It’s more the principle that threatening people isn’t really a very constructive or decent way of getting people to do what you want, especially from an organisation claiming some kind of moral high ground.

Never stopped fundamentalist groups world-wide.

And according to wikipedia (yes I know), mortal sins would include things like blasphemy, following other religions, and not believing in any deity (though there is lots of debate over this).

Well, I’m stuffed, then, the pr0n alone would do for me! 🙁
Well, it might, if I believed it would, but I don’t. 😀
That’s the thing, I really can’t believe this is still being argued about. If someone fervently believes in whatever faith, to the point they’re determined that others do as well, and the other party(ies) are not interested, then they just shrug and walk away, or shut the door.
Unless Mr Insistent has a gun or IED, in which case option goes out of the window.
But it’s still coercion, and it’s the thing that fundamentalists seem incapable of understanding, that is you cannot force someone to believe. Faith has to be discovered by an individual, in whatever form it takes. Or not, as the case may be. if others find that in some way personally offensive, well, I think that’s their problem, it’s no good ranting about it in a letters page or interwebz forum. For either side in this debate, it’s like trying to teach a pig to dance, it wastes your time and pisses off the pig.
I don’t believe, and I don’t care if friends of mine do, it’s just not important to me how they live their lives. If they want to talk about it, fine; I’ll just nod and smile and be happy that they’re happy.
If, however, a close friend were to suggest that my life could be somehow improved if I were to join them in prayer, or at church, then I would quietly suggest that however I live my life is entirely my business, and not to be offended, but I would be happy if they never, ever suggest it again, otherwise I might start to feel offended myself.
And leave it at that.
Which ought to be how everyone treats the whole subject. Why can’t we all just get along? It has been a fascinating debate, mind. 😀
Whatever, I’m hungry, going to get food.

I am of the opinion at fundamentalism of all types, and coercion, are inherently wrong, and pretty much agree with everything CountZero just said. Except the eating bit. I don’t need anything more.

SR > interesting reading, thanks.

A question on the back of that, if you’ll indulge me?

You’re saying, I think, that the Bible is allegorical. It’s a collection of stories rather than THE WORD OF GOD and should be taken as such. Why can’t we apply the same view to god himself then? If we reject the notion that god exists because it says so in the Bible, what does that leave us with?

Years ago, before I fell wholly on the side of atheism, I posited that “god” conceptually is something inside us, an inner strength if you like. When someone prays to their god, they’re really going “come on mate, pull your socks up.” Prayer works because the prayer believes it does. Ostensibly, it’s the placebo effect. To me that makes a lot more sense than some supernatural sky wizard; those who’ve been ‘touched by god’ have really just tapped into reserves they had all along and didn’t realise.

Apologies if I’ve misunderstood you completely.

ah right so when you said then you meant now and not actually then – i cannot think why that confused me

Jeez! Let it go! I was talkin to him, not you. He understood, you didn’t. Guess what, it doesn’t matter that you didn’t!

@CountZero – if only it could be like that.

Why can’t we apply the same view to god himself then?

We can. But then they’d have to stop mutilating children genitals, because they’d be no reason to.

I don’t apologise for continuing to bring genital mutilation up every time religion is discussed and defended. It is THE best example of everything that is wrong with religion.

It doesn’t really matter how much good religion does if it turns people into monsters who can’t see what’s wrong with defiling bodies of minors who by definition are unable to have a say or make an informed choice.

I am definitely saying that parts of the Bible can be read allegoricaly, yes. But I would also say that, just because we read something allegorically, does not mean that it is a lesser truth. If one of the great poets talks about love, it will be in very different terms to those of a biologist who may talk in terms of evolutionary impulse, a chemist who talks in terms of reactions, or a psychologist who talks in terms of psychometrics.

So with respect to the Bible, when it talks about the origins of things, it is not giving any kind of literal explanation for the way the beginning of time unfolded. It is saying, in ancient, mythological language, that God was somehow the cause. (In fact, it is saying more than that, but it is not within the scope of this discussion to unpack the entire, multi-layered Genesis story!) [One thing I should say though, is that it is the ancients were not concerned with origins in the same terms that we are. And this is why the scope of evolution does not present, and never really has presented, a problem to ‘mainstream’ religionists.]

That said, the very premise of the Bible is that God is a given. Not so much that God exists, but that he is a given. The shared worldview of the human race until very recently was that there was a divine reality beyond the material reality of our empirical experience. The Bible calls this ‘God’ or ‘Yahweh’ and later, ‘Jesus’. Native North Americans call this ‘Manitou’, Hindus call it ‘Brahma’ or ‘Krishna’ (or whomever), Muslims ‘Allah’, etc., etc. Few, if any, of these traditions are traditionally interested in ‘proving’ the existence of divine reality, since the idea of proof is something not normally applied to such things. It is medieval Scholasticism that begins to talk in terms of proofs for God’s existence, and subsequent philosophical inquiry never entirely gives up on the question.

But that is why so many of these discussions go the way they do, and also a partial answer to you, Cougar.

The person of faith looks at the world’s data and reads it two ways. In the first instance, s/he reads it empirically just as any rational person would. S/he draws on scientific knowledge and mathematical language to explain what s/he sees. But then s/he will see in it the hand of the divine. Note I do say ‘proof’ of the divine; just an experience. We will not all interpret that experience as such, but that is okay. S/he may use what I would call religio-poetic language to decribe this experience. Finally, s/he may feel something else – not necessarily religious, but something more familiar to all of us – something romantic, maybe – but which s/he could express in what I will call literary-poetic language.

Whatever the language, it is all ‘true’. Some would just see one of those true descriptions as being more important than the others.

Does that make sense?

I don’t apologise for continuing to bring genital mutilation up every time religion is discussed and defended

Nobody is asking you to.

But do you need to bring up the same (largely unchallenged) point so many times in one thread ?

it’s like trying to teach a pig to dance, it wastes your time and pisses off the pig.

I imagine it would probably uspet a fair number of deitys and religionists so I am totally up for it. I have after all being practising something similar in nightclubs for the past decade

What tyres for hell?

That said, the very premise of the Bible is that God is a given. Not so much that God exists, but that he is a given. The shared worldview of the human race until very recently was that there was a divine reality beyond the material reality of our empirical experience. The Bible calls this ‘God’ or ‘Yahweh’ and later, ‘Jesus’. Native North Americans call this ‘Manitou’, Hindus call it ‘Brahma’ or ‘Krishna’ (or whomever), Muslims ‘Allah’, etc., etc. Few, if any, of these traditions are traditionally interested in ‘proving’ the existence of divine reality, since the idea of proof is something not normally applied to such things. It is medieval Scholasticism that begins to talk in terms of proofs for God’s existence, and subsequent philosophical inquiry never entirely gives up on the question.

To be honest this is a massive leap. Equating all gods to a single ‘god’, usually Abrahamic.

SaxonRider- thanks for expressing all of that in a way that I would have attempted to, but I didn’t have the energy last night!

I’ve not responded to the genital mutilation part of this discussion as I fail to see how it is relevant to Christianity. Jesus did away with it in the New Testament.

@SaxonRider – I have a bit of an issue with Biblical allegory, if this is the case as you suggest, then why are some elements open to interpretation or to be dismissed and others are treated as an absolute truth? It seems a big stretch to be able to pick and choose. And, clearly elements of those who believe in God also believe that the written word of God is not to be questioned.

, salvation I would assume must be near the top of the list followed by (in not particular order):

its a reasonable point that individuals would join for a variety of reasons.
However the thrust of muy post was to counter this point

So with the Christian’s there is no concept that failure to follow the rules (I assume you mean the 10C) will lead to damnation.

could you explain what would happen if say a gay catholic refused to follow the rules and say take confessions?
Only on stw could you debate whether religions attempt to save you by getting you to follow thier rules

when the Church teaches anything, it is not doing so with a view to offering a list of dos and don’ts, even when it comes across this way.

SR: Thats on a par with trying to understand what the Liberal parties stance is on anything.

Frankly that whole spiel was a complete load of hockum. i.e. We’re always right, even when we’re wrong but then we deploy the “its up to the individual to interprete in whatever ways suits our best interest at that moment in time” defence. Sorry, and I’m sure you do geuninely beleive it but thats utter drivel.

@SaxonRider – I have a bit of an issue with Biblical allegory, if this is the case as you suggest, then why are some elements open to interpretation or to be dismissed and others are treated as an absolute truth? It seems a big stretch to be able to pick and choose. And, clearly elements of those who believe in God also believe that the written word of God is not to be questioned.

It depends on which aspects you are thinking of, I suppose. Which are you thinking are to be treated as absolute truth, for example? From a Christian point of view, the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are obviously central, and the ‘key’ to the entire remainder of the Bible. Beyond that, for example, the Books of Revelation (NT) and Daniel (OT), are both typical of the apocalyptic literature of their time, and are in no way meant literally. Yet for all that, the number of fundamentalists that spend their time reading Revelation looking for signs that China is going to take over the world (during the Cold War it was the Soviets, of course), is probably considerable. This is in spite of the fact that scholarship and traditional theological interpretation do not – and never have – recognised such literature as having any literal meaning, other than to give hints as to the time and context in which they were written.

SR: Thats on a par with trying to understand what the Liberal parties stance is on anything.

Frankly that whole spiel was a complete load of hockum. i.e. We’re always right, even when we’re wrong but then we deploy the “its up to the individual to interprete in whatever ways suits our best interest at that moment in time” defence. Sorry, and I’m sure you do geuninely beleive it but thats utter drivel.

As to your first comment, BB, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. I have used the analogy of poetry to describe traditional religious doctrine, and I think that it probably does not yield very satisfactory interpretations to those who are looking for absolute certainty. Again, in Christian terms, the certainty of the Incarnation (the life of Christ) is the single certainty necessary. There is nothing else in Scripture that needs to be read in such absolute terms. There is a story of a rabbi I remember being told back in the days when I was reading world religions:

He is staring down the barrel of a gun and his captor tells him he has five minutes to sum up the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), or he dies. The rabbi laughs, and says ‘That’s easy. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and your neighbour as yourself. The rest is just commentary.’

An apocryphal story, most likely; but indicative of what I am trying to describe.