Have you read John’s Gospel? (If not, you’ll have heard some bits at Carol services down the years: that logos stuff – “and the word was with god and the word was God …and the word became flesh and dwelt among us” I mean, it’s pretty psychedelic is that. Words walking around, WTF?) How do you even try to take that “literally” as “fact” “at face value” – some big alphabet blocks on legs strolling around the place with the spirit of God within them?

I haven’t read it. I bet you haven’t either. Hint: it’s not written in English.

I am sure he would say the state would provide care

He says literally the exact opposite in that passage I quoted. “This sort of thing is not something to subcontract” and he’s “still spitting blood” at someone even suggesting otherwise. That’s not exactly a vague statement which is open to interpretation now, is it.

The one concession he makes is “Even better, care should be embedded within the context of the wider family and community.” Well the only blood family I have other than distant cousins whom I’ve not seen in decades (if ever) is my mother and I’m rather hoping to outlast her, and any local community I could take part in where I live would involve me growing a big beard and turning my bed round to face East.

I haven’t read it. I bet you haven’t either. Hint: it’s not written in English.

I’m rather afraid you’ve just left yourself an open goal there, mate.

Aaaaaah, I see what I did. I started a religion thread *slaps forehead*

I’m rather afraid you’ve just left yourself an open goal there, mate.

that being?

Hint: it’s not written in English

The version I’ve read is 😉

if you have an interest I suggest listening to the podcast I mentioned earlier concerning the Hebrew bible. As mentioned, it’s just a collection of stories rather than one book that a single person sat down and wrote. There’s plenty of material that didn’t make the final cut. (A quick google reveals one of these was the Infancy Gospel of Thomas).

I kind of do have an interest, and I kind of know that already.

I haven’t read it. I bet you haven’t either. Hint: it’s not written in English.

I’ve read it. In English, in its original Greek, in Latin, and in a few MFLs as well.

When Lionel Blue started to irritate me I knew it was time to give up on TFTD.

The version I’ve read is 😉

can you be certain then of the meanings of an almost 2000 year old document and the intentions of its authors, going of a (likely inaccurate) 400 year old translation? Is the phrase/metaphor that you’ve mentioned exactly as it appears it the original? If not you can’t really use it to prove or disprove anything!

I’ve read it. In English, in its original Greek, in Latin, and in a few MFLs as well.

maybe you can tell us then 😃

I kind of do have an interest, and I kind of know that already.

so you probably knew what I was referring to then? So why the “WTF”? Or are you saying it’s not correct?

in its original Greek

Not got any love for the hypothesis that it was originally Aramaic, translated into Greek, SaxonRider?

‘ I’ll back away and put some trust in people that have done the hard yards and do understand the issue’ is a rather deferential position to take given that academics have a patchy record of getting it right, witness the banking crisis which none of them predicted. Fraser is an ex-public schoolboy who votes Tory, no surprises there, so why would you trust his interpretation of things over your own? I certainly wouldn’t. Religious academics would be even harder to pin down on empirical data/events, secret friends, angels and bogeymen abound.
Senior church leaders have recently pronounced no sex before marriage and people in civil partnerships should remain celibate (does that include the hetero civil partnerships too?). Should we really be taking these people seriously?

Senior church leaders have recently pronounced no sex before marriage and people in civil partnerships should remain celibate (does that include the hetero civil partnerships too?). Should we really be taking these people seriously?

This was the subject of the Rev Dr’s piece on TFTD this morning. He disagreed with said pronouncement.

ok, so you’re clearly trolling now, but what the hell..

can you be certain then of the meanings of an almost 2000 year old document

Nope, isn’t that brilliant?

the intentions of its authors

Also nope. Wonderful isn’t it, having to bring your own mind to things? Almost as though that itself was intended.

a (likely inaccurate) 400 year old translation

no “likely” about it – all translations are imperfect, any age you want to choose.

Is the phrase/metaphor that you’ve mentioned exactly as it appears it the original?

In order for that question to be valid, presupposes that “the original” is a thing that exists, or has existed. Best scholarly evidence suggests several distinct and earlier drafts from the one that appears in The Bible so your question is meaningless.

If not you can’t really use it to prove or disprove anything!

Whether “so” or “not” you can’t really use it to prove anything other than its own existence, and even that is a stretch that requires a load of supposition and assumption beyond the existence of your own mind, so on this one we agree: you definitely can’t really use it to prove or disprove anything. On a side note, I can’t find anyone trying to use it to prove or disprove anything, although that might be because I’m not 100% certain what the “it” is to which you refer. The Gospel? The existence of the Gospel? The existence of an “original” version? A version written in the original language? You could be clearer on this point perhaps.

@BillMC

It’s a fair point well made. In my defence I had just flagged in general terms that the previous regime of keeping the peasants in ignorance hadn’t proved so completely awesome either.

My take is that somewhere in between “Don’t think for yourself peasant, do what you’re told” and “we’ve had enough of experts” is a sweet middle ground where we can avoid the worst excesses at both ends.

Sure, there are plenty of examples of people ending up in the shit from trusting experts / authority, but on the other side of that coin I give you: Anti-Vaxx

You could be clearer on this point perhaps.

it’s pretty clear. The question asked:

you’re saying that when the Gospels et al were written, they were never intended to be historical account of the life of Jesus and his mates (and never interpreted as such) but rather just a bunch of stories

your answer:

to an extent yes

given all your successive waffle above about uncertainty, the phrase you need to acquaint yourself with is “in my opinion” 😂

So which bits can be relied on?

These two:

Judge not lest you be judged &

Love thy neighbour as thyself. (Note no exclusions or qualifications).

Our religious leaders of all colours fail miserably on one or both of these requirements.

I’m having a chuckle at Saxonrider being lectured on religion given his background, profession and calling! Well done sir for remaining objective and courteous.

Well done sir for remaining objective and courteous.

“WTF are you talking about?” passes for being courteous now does it?! 🤔 Maybe that is the Wetherspoons version of being polite we can all look forward to post-Brexit 😂

I’m assuming Saxonrider is sharpening his stake before coming back for the kill….😄

killed this thread anyway

It’s OK, it’ll rise again in three days.

Sandwich
Judge not lest you be judged &

Love thy neighbour as thyself.

Good advice even for atheists like me. 🙂

I am sure he would say the state would provide care – not really very difficult – but illustrative of the intolerance of so many of anyone who dares think Brexit might be a good idea.

Since brexit makes it even less likely that the state will provide care, their is, at best, an odd thing to say.

Since brexit was also a howl of cowardly selfishness, it’s also rather odd to try and paint remainers as callous uncaring people with no sense of family. Just because your identity is based on something other than a sense of place, or tribal loyalty, it doesn’t mean that you have no empathy or compassion. Or love. That article was disgusting, and reminded me forcefully of why my opinion of the Reverend Fraser is diametrically opposite to that expressed by the OP. The man wouldn’t recognize Christianity if it bit him on the arse.

Great another **** **** Brexit thread,

I’ve managed to combine Brexit and religion in one thread. Can I ban myself?

I’ve managed to combine Brexit and religion in one thread. Can I ban myself?

Not until Jesus buys an e-bike

This sort of thing is not something to subcontract”

But in your case there would be noone to sub-contract your care and therefore one needs to look at community solutions, so no he doesn’t say the opposite. His article is essentially a critique of neo-liberalism, which he sees the EU as an agent of, and it impact on our society, especially the role of the family therein. There is nothing particularly new in it and it is shares many themes with those who argued for Brexit from the left. Ernielynch’s views on it would be very interesting, but sadly his return was brief – probably saw what a barren land this site had become.

I heard the broadcast, I thought it was quite fair and agreed with the message.

I disagree with that Brexit article.

It is quite possible and indeed normal to be able to agree and disagree with the same person over different issues. Who’d have thought it?

So, perhaps getting back to a vaguely connected to the thread topic point I was making earlier about reading stuff without understanding the context due to being remote from that original context, especially with added assumptions that come with translation between languages, an example, not from the Bible:

You’ll be familiar from the news that when “the West” has done something that annoys crowds of people in the middle East (such as bombing their homes) those crowds chant things, and often the translation that is given is “Death to America” (or “Death to Britain”). People hear that, and react to it in the way you might expect when people seem to be calling for your death.

But here’s the thing: in a lot of these places, the “Death to…” idiom, is just an idiom. An example I was given was someone who’s uncle stubbed their toe on an Ottoman, and exclaimed in pain “Death to this ottoman.”

Same words, somewhat different meaning, when you layer on the cultural context. Suddenly the “literal” interpretation seems as smart as thinking that when someone says in frustration “damn this laptop” they are actually calling on their God to condemn the hardware to an eternity of pain and suffering in the bowels of hell.

And that’s about understanding contemporary cultural language misunderstandings a few yours flight away. Now add a few thousand years of history…

But here’s the thing: in a lot of these places, the “Death to…” idiom, is just an idiom. An example I was given was someone who’s uncle stubbed their toe on an Ottoman, and exclaimed in pain “Death to this ottoman.”

Same words, somewhat different meaning, when you layer on the cultural context. Suddenly the “literal” interpretation seems as smart as thinking that when someone says in frustration “damn this laptop” they are actually calling on their God to condemn the hardware to an eternity of pain and suffering in the bowels of hell.

I’ve been on this planet a very long time and never even considered that. Thanks for pointing it out. (And I have never trusted an Ottoman, especially the square ones.)