Catholic Church and other religions!

Theology: Blah blah blah blah blah…

Blah. 🙄

Mr Woppit – Member
Theology: Blah blah blah blah blah…

Blah.

Funny, Woppit. I believe that that is exactly what this man

would say about science. 😀

That’s nice for you. He looks like a duck.

… are both typical of the apocalyptic literature of their time, and are in no way meant literally.

Isn’t that a relatively modern stance, though? They’re not taken literally these days (by most people) but throughout history they’re absolutely supposed to be literal. People have been killed for daring to disagree with that. It’s only in relatively enlightened times where most people have been educated enough to go “hang on a minute, creating light three days before creating a light source? That doesn’t make much sense” and start rejecting the idea of stoning homosexuals.

Going “ah, well, it’s all an allegory really (apart from the bits we don’t want to be)” seems to be a bit of a back-pedal. I mean, it’s progress, don’t get me wrong; but, still.

@SaxonRider – I was not thinking specifically, but as an example the recent comments of a couple of Bishops in the Catholic branch of Christianity seemed very sure about the absolute truth of certain parts of the bible. They have both preached about the adherence to the word of the book.

Cougar – Moderator

… are both typical of the apocalyptic literature of their time, and are in no way meant literally.

Isn’t that a relatively modern stance, though? They’re not taken literally these days (by most people) but throughout history they’re absolutely supposed to be literal. People have been killed for daring to disagree with that. It’s only in relatively enlightened times where most people have been educated enough to go “hang on a minute, creating light three days before creating a light source? That doesn’t make much sense.”

No, this is where it gets frustrating communicating traditional points of view outside of a course on late antique literature (or whatever). People have too many (albeit reasonable) assumptions about the material that just aren’t correct.

[To illustrate what I mean: I was once teaching a course on early medieval history to a group of adults, and I opened by asking them what came to mind when I said ‘medieval’. And I got answers like ‘bloody’, ‘fighting’, ‘torture’, ‘intolerance’, etc. It made me want to pull my own hair out. ‘What about the Carolingian Renaissance?’ I asked. And they thought I was making it up, because they couldn’t believe that there was any concern for scholarship until modernity rolled around.]

In any case, it is true that there have always been literalist movements within the Church, but these have never represented what the Church has understood from the Bible. Indeed, groups like the Montanists were excommunicated precisely because of their insistance on literal understandings of the Bible, and – most importantly – the idea that one man or woman could simply sit down and interpret the Bible the way s/he wanted (among other things).

SaxonRider, excellent and very interesting contributions to the thread. Definitely more interesting than ‘there’s no proof, so it’s rubbish’ that we were seeing a while back. Do you have a background in theology or something?

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?

You could, and I suspect many do. Which Bishop was it a while ago that caused a scandal by saying he didn’t believe in God, in a roundabout way?

Going “ah, well, it’s all an allegory really (apart from the bits we don’t want to be)” seems to be a bit of a back-pedal. I mean, it’s progress, don’t get me wrong; but, still

You sound like a fundamentalist Christian whilst still being an atheist 🙂 The thing is, if you recognise the bible as a series of writings on a subject, then you have a lot of leeway. God didn’t write the Bible, people did, and they wrote about their experiences with God and/or Jesus. So as we develop in intelligence as a society, we can apply that intelligence to the Bible and gain a better understanding of the nature of God. Progress, as you say.

molgrips – Member
SaxonRider, excellent and very interesting contributions to the thread. Definitely more interesting than ‘there’s no proof, so it’s rubbish’ that we were seeing a while back. Do you have a background in theology or something?

I’d prefer not to say, or no one will want to go riding with me anymore. 😉

people did, and they wrote about their experiences with God temporal lobe epilepsy and/or Jesus making up stories about a fictional superhero. So as we develop in intelligence discovery and understanding as a society, we can apply that intelligence to the Bible and gain a better understanding of the nature of God the need to invent imaginary beings. Progress, as you say.

could you explain what would happen if say a gay catholic refused to follow the rules and say take confessions?

JY, do you mean ‘make a confession’? If so, then nothing would happen. It would be between that gay Catholic, whatever priest they were talking to, and God. As you will know, there are countless gay Catholics, and a good many of them will go to confession. When they do, they can expect to be treated like every other human being who hopes to be unburdened of whatever it is that weighs on their conscience, and that they feel separates them from God. Beyond that priests don’t pry. They try to hear what the confessor is trying to say, and then apply the most appropriate ‘medicine’ – which will normally be an admonition to pray (or something similar).

Which Bishop was it a while ago that caused a scandal by saying he didn’t believe in God, in a roundabout way?

That was the former Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, in his excellent programme on the BBC, ‘Faith and Doubt’.

I’d prefer not to say, or no one will want to go riding with me anymore.

I already want to go riding with you 🙂

Woppit – you really are getting boring now. Maybe it’s time to check out of the thread?

Thanks to SaxonRider for a great exposition on how religion is a nasty, poisonous inflicter of terrible psychological damage.

Look at that poor old Scottish Cardinal. All he really needed was a hug…

Junkyard – Member
However the thrust of muy post was to counter this point

I gave some possible answers to your question, you can engage your free-will to counter why they would be wrong.

could you explain what would happen if say a gay catholic refused to follow the rules and say take confessions?

Why would a gay person want to be a member of the RC and engage in their rituals – it would be like me wanting to be a member of the WI or Mothers Union? There is no point (but the RCs here may be able to give you a better answer). But let’s say that he/she refused to follow the rules, then again he/she would be following their own free-will….

Only on stw could you debate whether religions attempt to save you by getting you to follow thier rules

….which is the fundamental point. There are three theological virtues at the centre of the Christian faith namely Faith, Hope and Charity. In each case the RC, begins by defining each as a “supernatural gift” from God. Why are they so explicit and why the use of the word “gift” each time? Because in each case it is left to each and everyone to exercise their own free will in choosing whether to “accept” the gift.

Freewill is central and fundamental. That is so far away from force as to be almost the perfect antonym.

I think its nice that people like Saxon Rider have taken the time to explain their faith on this thread, its genuinely interesting.

I don’t really have any faith myself but I always enjoy speaking to people who are able to articulate their views on faith.

One of my friends is the daughter of a minister. Her explanation of the Genesis myth is that the 6 days are entirely allegorical and “god days” could be any length of time. She is perfectly happy to accept the Big Bang as the origin of the universe and evolution as how we got here.

I still personally think that religion is basically a human construct born out of the need to keep tribes together once they grew beyond the numbers that could be sustained by familial bonds but I have nothing against well meaning people of faith as a lot of what they say makes sense.

I still think organised religions privileged position needs to be looked at though.

Ditto what richmtb said. Somewhere way back on about page 6 of this epistle according to STW, I did say something along the lines of no issues regarding peoples personal belief systems, its about the time they start giving it the one true faith that I start getting bilious. In fact no real problems with the generality of the rules for life inherant in religioning. Its just the mumbo jumbo to protect privilige and hypocracy that has the proverbial piss at 100 degrees Celsius.

molgrips – Member

I already want to go riding with you

Thanks, molgrips! We really should arrange something, seeing as I think we only live about ten minutes apart.

I still personally think that religion is basically a human construct born out of the need to keep tribes together once they grew beyond the numbers that could be sustained by familial bonds

That sort of implies there were tribes organised in some sort of civilisation already and that it was artificially created. I remember reading somewhere that there is also the idea that religion came before civilisation

found it – http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text

I think its nice that people like Saxon Rider have taken the time to explain their faith on this thread, its genuinely interesting.

+1, agreed.

the 6 days are entirely allegorical and “god days” could be any length of time.

As I understand it, the Hebrew word for ‘day’ can mean ‘a period of time’, but ‘one day’ is pretty unambiguously literal. I may be wrong as I don’t claim to be an expert, but I think this is another modern hack.

Regardless though, it still falls down on order. How did he create light (day 1) before creating the Sun (day 4)? Also, there’s the small matter of creating land animals and man on the same day; walking with dinosaurs?

It’s just a poorly thought-out story by an ignorant sheep-herding primitive, featuring an imaginary super-being. It has nothing to do with what actually happened.

Cougar – Moderator
but I think this is another modern hack.

…or something along those lines. Given the endless translations and more recent dumbing down of English for greater accessibility (sic), it makes you wonder how anyone can argue that the Bible could/should be taken completely literally. One game of Chinese Whispers quickly falsifies that idea.

Regardless though, it still falls down on order. How did he create light (day 1) before creating the Sun (day 4)? Also, there’s the small matter of creating land animals and man on the same day; walking with dinosaurs?

The beauty of poetry? Notice the symmetry in days 1+4, 2+5, 3+6? Ring any bells with literature?

We really should arrange something, seeing as I think we only live about ten minutes apart.

Definitely.. I’ve been using all my spare time lately repairing this caravan to be sold, but once that’s done there should be some time for riding, just in time for the snow that’s being talked about for the middle of March…

Regardless though, it still falls down on order. How did he create light (day 1) before creating the Sun (day 4)? Also, there’s the small matter of creating land animals and man on the same day; walking with dinosaurs?

It’s really not that important…. If you want to be really really literally minded about it, just remember that people weren’t actually there during this process, so they’ve only got what God told them. And perhaps God told them a simple story, because they hadn’t learned enough about science to understand what really happened.

Don’t get hung up on it though.

As I understand it, the Hebrew word for ‘day’ can mean ‘a period of time’, but ‘one day’ is pretty unambiguously literal. I may be wrong as I don’t claim to be an expert, but I think this is another modern hack.

I don’t disagree. I was just relaying my friends explanation of it.

And with the greatest of respect to people (Saxon Rider in particular) who’ve tried to explain this I don’t understand who decides which parts of the Bible are either plain wrong; allegorical or correct in their literal sense. I can’t square this with the Bible being the word of God.

The end point of all this revisionism would seem to be ignoring almost all of the original text

What whoppit said it was an explanation as good as any other 2000+years ago.today it just looks silly hence why even the devout tend not to defend lest they look foolish see also earth at the centre of the universe etc
THM thanks for yet another patronising answer but you quoted.one part of my post and answered that hence why I asked.you to answer.the main point. I know that will be much harder but jts very poor to resort to claiming you have answered whilst being dismissive. Its obvious religion aims to save ny following its rules

It’s just a poorly thought-out story by an ignorant sheep-herding primitive, featuring an imaginary super-being. It has nothing to do with what actually happened.

And yet for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it’s done remarkably well. It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world’s population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, to which, whether or not taken literally, the Book of Genesis is significant.

I don’t understand who decides which parts of the Bible are either plain wrong;

Well, you’ve got a few thousand years’ worth of theology to catch up on, get reading.

@ ernie… There’s nowt as queer as folk.

JY, that isn’t why the ‘devout tend not to defend’ it. It’s because there has never been anything to defend. It’s never been anything other than a mythical description of the original principal, and a theological-poetic treatise on what separates creation from creator.

To read it as anything but, is tantamount to saying that ancient Greeks were stupid for believing that Poseidon kept Odysseus from getting home for 10 years. Ultimately, the Odyssey is an epic poem filled with great heroism and folly, all kicked off because of Odysseus’ irrepressible pride. We could all stand to read the Illiad and the Odyssey, and – dare I say it – to learn something from it!

I don’t understand who decides which parts of the Bible are either plain wrong;

Historians.

Woppit, I’m not really sure why you are still reading this thread.

Thankfully it’s moved on from people sniping at religion into a very interesting read.

Move with it, or move on maybe ?

ernie_lynch – Member
And yet for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it’s done remarkably well. It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world’s population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, to which, whether or not taken literally, the Book of Genesis is significant.

But it’s more complex than that, it’s not possible to negate the fact that there were other factors involved in its longevity, from personal ambitions through political involvement, imperialism, conquest and subjugation and a few very well funded promotional bodies to support its propagation, not just personal discovery and enlightenment.

But it’s more complex than that, it’s not possible to negate the fact that there were other factors involved in its longevity

What do you mean ? I haven’t given any factors at all for its longevity.

I merely pointed out that for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it’s done remarkably well.

Junkyard – Member
THM thanks for yet another patronising answer but you quoted.one part of my post and answered that hence why I asked.you to answer.the main point. I know that will be much harder but jts very poor to resort to claiming you have answered whilst being dismissive. Its obvious religion aims to save ny following its rules

JY – why the odd tactics? Throwing words like ad hom/partonising etc whilst using then both liberally yourself (I know that will be much harder) is a very weird choice ? Of course its obvious that religion aims to save (maintain the link with their chosen God) through guidance or rules (you chose). But you asked a very specific question:

“WHy else would you follow a religion except to be saved?”

To which I gave a list of possible reasons in addition to agreeing with your actual point (edit, at least we have moved on from “force” to “save”). No need to be silly in response. As you would say, “you are cleverer than that”! A shockingly patronising line!

ernie_lynch – Member
I merely pointed out that for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it’s done remarkably well.

Exactly!

@SaxonRider – all good stuff and great reading but you seem to be forgetting that there are devout persons defending and promoting a number of faiths, be that RC or other brands. Some of them are pretty vociferous in their promotion, challenging, and defensive activities based upon the text.

The Odyssey and the Illiad are good rip roaring reads in the same way that Lord of the Rings is an entertaining read. Does it not seem more likely that the Old Testament is more a combination of tales (morality tales or otherwise) for the people of the time and whose relevance is of that time. There would clearly be some parts that have resonance today, as there are with Chaucer, Aesop, Shakespeare and any other author who touches upon the human condition. Just because it has had the best marketing department in the history of humanity does not make it the word of God.

ernie_lynch – Member

What do you mean ? I haven’t given any factors at all for its longevity.

I merely pointed out that for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it’s done remarkably well.

You also added

It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world’s population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, to which, whether or not taken literally, the Book of Genesis is significant.

And I merely pointed out that there were extenuating factors in it’s longevity, over and above it being popular for its own sake.

yet for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it’s done remarkably well. It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world’s population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions

Popularity is no indication of quality, as readily demonstrated every time you switch on the TV or radio, or pick up a tabloid. But anyway.

Religions survive because they have survival built in by design. To a greater or lesser extent, followers are usually encouraged to spread the word and to procreate as much as possible in order to create the next generation of true believers. Following of other faiths is frowned upon (‘false gods’) and attempting to leave can have serious consequences. Bribery and blackmail (eg, heaven and hell, the “fear of god”) are common tools to stop people wandering. Over time, they build wealth and power, and influence law.

It’s hardly surprising that religion has endured, really. It’s more difficult, culturally, to break away from that cycle than to keep it going.

Cougar – Moderator
Popularity is no indication of quality, as readily demonstrated every time you switch on the TV or radio, or pick up a tabloid. But anyway.

Thank you, I now have a mental image of a world order based upon 50 Shades of Grey! At least the uniforms of those organising the faith would be interesting and a red room of pain on every street corner. May have to go lie down for a while! 😀

Cougar – Moderator
To a greater or lesser extent, followers are usually encouraged to spread the word and to procreate as much as possible in order to create the next generation of true believers.

Crikey, Cougar, that’s a very low opinion of mankind. Generations incapable of thinking for themselves or exercising their own freewill? How have we progressed so far, if that is true? I would argue that it is far easier, culturally, to break away, hence Ernie makes a very good point IMO.

I merely pointed out that there were extenuating factors in it’s longevity

Well thank you very much. I gave no reasons for its longevity.

It was simply a response to Woppit’s reference to ‘ignorant and primitive sheep-herders’ which was clearly intended to ridicule. No problem with that. But if we are going to ridicule this ‘poorly thought-out story’, don’t you think we should consider how successful it has or has not been ?