The First STW Religion Poll

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

Are you sure? Have asked him? Sounds a bit intransigent to me.

slowoldman – Member

Slowoldman chap have you done good or at least not done harm to others in this life? 😈

I’m absolutely sure I have never done anyone any harm. I have no desire to. I’m your actual mild mannered man.

slowoldman – Member
I’m absolutely sure I have never done anyone any harm. I have no desire to. I’m your actual mild mannered man.

Good old Slowoldman chap. Well done! Yes, you are indeed.

In that case you might be going to a nice place in future. 😛

Just keep shouting “STW! STW!” in the after world (in future so not now) see how many responses you get. 😀

14 pages! crikey Moses!
fwiw I’ma 5 – but with a bit of 3 because I am interested.
But, each to their own so I’m going with a 4 unless someone gets hurt…
Oh no – back to a 5. 🙂

“Do you lot have Asperger’s Syndrome or something?”- yep. 🙂

I refer you to the point i made some time ago and also Dunning Kruger

I’m not too stupid to understand what you are saying. I just don’t agree with you. There is a difference 🙂

Please highlight the great theologian thinkers who demand a re write.

Uhh.. I didn’t mean it quite as literally as that. There’d be no point in re-writing a historical document, it’s not really possible. In order to do that you’d have to erase the old version. However you can write new things without deleting the old ones. New writing like, I dunno, Martin Luther’s theses? Enough of a famous theological thinker for you?

Uhh.. I didn’t mean it quite as literally as that. There’d be no point in re-writing a historical document, it’s not really possible. In order to do that you’d have to erase the old version. However you can write new things without deleting the old ones. New writing like, I dunno, Martin Luther’s theses? Enough of a famous theological thinker for you?

There are newer edits of the bible – Thomas Jefferson created his own edit of the Bible (literally cutting and pasting) without any mentions of miracles, the supernatural, or the resurrection.

There have also been attempts to create an atheist bible, taking writings from various humanist/atheist philosophers and combining them into one book. Hitchens’ “The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer” is one I’ve read.

For anyone with teenagers, I’d recommend Alom Shaha’s Young Atheist’s Handbook, which is less likely to make your kid into an insufferable prick than reading something by Dawkins or Hitchins.

I’d be up for a theology/shed building ride and beers. In theory at least, practicalities may scupper it for me

I’d be up for a theology/shed building

I like where you’re going with this.
>>

In the beginning was the yard. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the shedbuilder.

And the shedbuilder said, “let there be light,” and nipped out to buy a box of 60W bulbs from Wilkinson’s.

And the shedbuilder saw the light, and saw that it’d do he supposed.

And the shedbuilder thought he’d have got more done in the first day.

And the shedbuilder said, “let there be a firmament.”

And the shedbuilder made the firmament, and divided the hardcore below from the concrete above, and it was so.

And the shedbuilder called the firmament a rude word, for the shedbuilder was a bit puffed out. And the evening was the second day.

I’d agree with Tyson.

I agree with Richard, despite the barbed eloquence (which I actually quite enjoy).

Possibly no surprise…

Sorry, I’ve been away for a few hours. I’ll try and catch up.

Mr Woppit – Do tell.

I’m trying to live by God’s standards, not mans.

Hell is not the same across all Christian denominations.

So True.

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

In what way? As far as I’m aware, the Quran also has many authors that add to it over time and some still do. The first being Mohammed

LD – 1 although don’t like to call it religion/religious.

I’m the same.

slowoldman – Are you sure? Have asked him? Sounds a bit intransigent to me.

His Word hasn’t changed since it was first written.

I’ve prayed to Him and asked these questions. The answers are in the Bible and history. The British Museum do a fascinating Bible tour, backing up a lot of what’s in there.

One of the things I’ve never been able to get my heard round with religion is the idea that you can pick and choose which bits to believe and follow. Surely in my head, if you believe then you believe it all? So, in my head at least, you can’t rewrite the bible for modern values as by doing so you’re saying the original is not fact. And so, by extension, if it’s not fact you’re basing your beliefs on a work of fiction which is at best, a bit odd.

In an odd way, the ultra religious people I have more respect for, they’ve said they believe and they follow everything as opposed to discarding the bits that don’t fit for them. The idea it can be changed to fit a modern world is a very strange concept for me.

Lunge – the CoE seem to really struggle with this. More orthodox religions less so and then they get flak for maintaining positions on issues that have changed in the public eye homsexuality, role of woman, abortion etc. Can’t win.

I disagree with the pick and chose bit. I think that is a great strategy especially across religions. I find guidance with regard peace and happiness and the meaning of life in all of them. It’s a pity to be restricted to one version and that’s before you get into the wider aspects of architecture, music, poetry, art, philosophy/ethics etc

Surely in my head, if you believe then you believe it all?

….or you believe that it’s a highly modified and edited collection of allegorical tales collected over two millenia which is open to interpretation and , if viewed through the prism of historical context, provides someone who inexplicably believes in a higher power, with a basic set of guidance notes about how not be a dick and how to try and fix it if you are?

If you’re a Calvinist Presbyterian, we’re generally pretty cool about lots of shit* and rarely burn heretics at the stake.

*except Popes and that. Not cool.

Lunge – the CoE seem to really struggle with this. More orthodox religions less so and then they get flak for maintaining positions on issues that have changed in the public eye homsexuality, role of woman, abortion etc. Can’t win.

I don’t see why they’re trying to win though. If your religion says, for arguments sake, homosexuality is bad, then that’s what it says and that can’t be changed without saying that what you said before was incorrect. It’s not a case of winning, it’s a case of saying “this is what is said/believed, it’s part of the religion, if you don’t like believe it then you don’t believe the religion”.

or you believe that it’s a highly modified and edited collection of allegorical tales collected over two millenia which is open to interpretation and , if viewed through the prism of historical context, provides someone who inexplicably believes in a higher power, with a basic set of guidance notes about how not be a dick and how to try and fix it if you are?

And I understand that too, but I struggle with the idea you can base your life and beliefs on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can’t pick the fact from the fiction.

However, if that is what people choose to believe then good luck to them, I don’t want to knock them, I just can’t understand it myself.

can’t pick the fact from the fiction.

In my view,* it’s neither fact nor fiction.

It’s guidance. You may choose to be guided… or not.
It’s the choice of the individual.

*(other views are available and will, no doubt be expressed in short order)

all this “well there are various versions I just pick and choose the bits that work for me/my church/what gets more punters and money in” just irritates the fluff out of me.

sorry its guilt by association, if you are part of the club, you cant then say decide that the bit over there murders doctors which work in abortion clinics is not part of you and your system.

It would be like someone in ISIS saying ” well I like the black uniforms and basic principles of a sharia state the bits about not being a dick if I can ignore the other stuff, but like that murdering, torturing, beheading bit….well that’s just interpretation and that, i’m like the pacifist bit…but still ISIS…yeah baby”

I think religion is great, but I prefer my fiction with a bit more magic in it, ala Scott Bakker.

Lunge, I’m pretty much in the same place.

We’ve already established (for some value of “established”) on this thread that the Bible is in fact allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. Which is a bit of a retcon IMHO, but lets roll with it. So given that, I don’t really understand how it can justifiably be used to back up contentious world views.

I mean, if you’re against same-sex marriage because you find the idea of bumming to be a bit icky then fair enough; if you’re against it because Adam and Eve, every sperm is sacred, make babies and all that jazz then really you’re on pretty shaky ground because as we’ve said, it’s not supposed to be taken literally.

So then we’re into the realms of, it’s all allegorical, apart from the bits an individual chooses to take literally. It’s a quandary, isn’t it.

I don’t see why they’re trying to win though. If your religion says, for arguments sake, homosexuality is bad, then that’s what it says and that can’t be changed without saying that what you said before was incorrect.

I agree. While I disagree with many aspects of RC teaching I do respect that they are more consistent than the CoE which seems too desperate to move with the times. Much easier IMO to understand what the RC stands for than the CoE.

So then we’re into the realms of, it’s all allegorical, apart from the bits an individual chooses to take literally. It’s a quandary, isn’t it.

It really is, and it’s something I just can’t get my head round. This annoys me as religion in it’s various forms has a huge influence, positive and negative, on the world around us and so I want to understand it. But I can’t, and that doesn’t sit well with me at all. I think I’m more annoyed with myself for not being able to understand that anyone else for choosing to believe/interpret in truth.

THM, yes, 100% agree.

To try to understand the RC faith I enjoyed

WE BELIEVE Monsignor AN Gilbey – a simple commentary on the Catechisms, with the wonderfully emotive conclusion that

The gift to believe in the Divine reality which is incarnate in these accidentals is one which God alone can give

Beautifully written book which I oddly first read in India in 1994 and still have in my bookcase now.

5 Utterly detest all aspects of religion.

And I understand that too, but I struggle with the idea you can base your life and beliefs on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can’t pick the fact from the fiction.

It is important to appreciate there are plenty of instances of conflict within “codes”, for want of a better word, there are conflicts within the law, accounting standards, etc etc. However, we appear to be comfortable to rely on experts who help us resolve these conflicts and generally develop our thinking over time as we learn more.

So now it seems that cherry picking bits of the bible is recognised as being OK from a “religious” standpoint.

This is an interesting development.

Question: from whence comes the guidance as to what are bits that are OK to pick?

My reply would be that the guide is from advances made by secular culture. For instance – it’s not OK to kill someone because you don’t like the way they have sex.

As the gaps get smaller, religion continues to be dragged kicking and screaming behind the ethical advances made by non-religious developments.

Also, this makes the different “books” of the bible no more or less important than any other book, magazine, article or the like as being something from which to pick up useful philosophical points.

The gift to believe in the Divine reality which is incarnate in these accidentals is one which God alone can give

I understand, THM, that you find this beautiful and so on, but to me, it’s essentially meaningless.

Like saying “I got a present from the invisible penguin that lives on the moon to enable me to visualise the essential teapotness of chocolate …”

No offense.

Question: from whence comes the guidance as to what are bits that are OK to pick?

Jesus, in the first instance.

I struggle with the idea you can base your life and beliefs on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can’t pick the fact from the fiction

In my experience, some/most people base their interpretation of the text on their beliefs, not the other way round.

… I struggle with the idea you can base your life… on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can’t pick the fact from the fiction

we’re talking about science, right?

(not that long ago, plate tectonics wasn’t even a thing, for example)

Utterly detest all aspects of religion.

What, even the peace and love?

None taken Woppit, although I note that you are disagreeing with something that I didn’t say. But not for the first time….Are you Ernie in disguise?

Jesus, in the first instance.

We know what bits to believe in the Bible, because it says so in the Bible?

I think I’ve missed something here somewhere.

… I struggle with the idea you can base your life… on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can’t pick the fact from the fiction

we’re talking about science, right?

(not that long ago, plate tectonics wasn’t even a thing, for example)[/quote]

Damn, I based my opinion of gay marriage on plate tectonics.

Jesus, in the first instance.

We know what bits to believe in the Bible, because it says so in the Bible?

I think I’ve missed something here somewhere.[/quote]

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

I wasn’t being that sophisticated – the simple point I was alluding to is that Jesus’s teachings as documented in the New Testament inform our analysis of the Old Testament. Hence why I continually stress bracketing the two Testaments together is overly simplistic.

teamhurtmore – Member
None taken Woppit, although I note that you are disagreeing with something that I didn’t say. But not for the first time….Are you Ernie in disguise?

Let’s not start that again, I’ll never hear the end of it.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

So you say.

4
No problem with stuff like ‘though shalt not steal’ – but then it doesn’t take a God to state ‘guidance like’ that.
Obviously no time for ‘I’ll cut your head off in the name of my God’ guff.
The world was a better place when ancient folk were all worshipping sun Gods etc…more in tune with their environment (says the hippy).