On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion

Absolam · 19-03-2015 2:41am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It always amazes me the way christians have such facility for taking the bible literally when they want the literal meaning to be enforced, and taking it allegorically when the absurdity of the passage is pointed out to them. Quite often you see them take both approaches to the exact same passage! The cognitive dissonance must surely be giving them massive migraines.

Which do you think is the more likely;
1) That none of the hundreds of thousands of scholars over the last couple of thousand years have managed to come up with a rationale for the inconsistencies in their faith which doesn't require adherants to engage in 'cognitive dissonance' sufficient to give the majority of the planet massive migraines, and all religious people are currently in extreme pain and have been for many centuries.
2) You haven't looked into the rationales sufficiently to understand them?

silverharp · 19-03-2015 11:30am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you think that was the important thing? Serious question. Judaism and Christianity as we encounter them today are clearly based much more on what contemporary believers take from the scriptures, not on what the original authors intended when they produced the text.

For example, it's entirely possible that the people who first wrote down the creation story in Genesis understood it to be a more-or-less historically accurate account of the origins of humanity, for example. But, then, they didn't have the insights we have based on the findings of geology, archaeology, etc, so we wouldn't pass the same judgment about their creationism as we would about modern creationism. \

The intentions and understandings of the original authors, editors, etc, in so far as we can divine them, may be interesting, but I don't see that they're all that important. Christianity and Judaism today have very little to do with that.

But this isn't a philosophy book , if you believed that the people wrote the book were just of another man made religion similar to the Greeks or Egyptians you wouldn't be christian right?
So I want to put it to you that the ot should demonstrate the true revealed character of god. Now I can't tell how much of the ot you imagine to be true , Moses might never actually have existed for instance but that's a minor point but i would expect the ot to show the true nature of god in the same way as the nt does with Jesus.
The ot appears to show a primitive god as a primitive people might imagine such a god . it does not show a universal god who wanted contact with its creation. Hence no reason to give it any more respect that the musings of an amazonian people

silverharp · 19-03-2015 11:37am

Absolam wrote: »

Why care? If you don't believe in God in the first place, you're hardly under an obligation to believe any part of the bible is somehow tapping into God's mind. Whether or not it's true won't change the fact that people will use it to justify their actions, and it seems unlikely an atheist telling them they must believe it says one thing, when they already know they believe it says another, is going to change their minds?
Which is all very well and good, but doesn't really give you any particular credibility when you pontificate on the meaning of the contents?

But society ought not base systems on things that arent real. Anymore then one should repair a car using a Lego manual.
I think the decline in the catholic church here and other churches around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence

obplayer · 20-03-2015 1:30am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you think that was the important thing? Serious question. Judaism and Christianity as we encounter them today are clearly based much more on what contemporary believers take from the scriptures, not on what the original authors intended when they produced the text.

For example, it's entirely possible that the people who first wrote down the creation story in Genesis understood it to be a more-or-less historically accurate account of the origins of humanity, for example. But, then, they didn't have the insights we have based on the findings of geology, archaeology, etc, so we wouldn't pass the same judgment about their creationism as we would about modern creationism. \

The intentions and understandings of the original authors, editors, etc, in so far as we can divine them, may be interesting, but I don't see that they're all that important. Christianity and Judaism today have very little to do with that.

Then why bother with the Bible at all?

Peregrinus · 20-03-2015 8:46am

silverharp wrote: »

But this isn't a philosophy book , if you believed that the people wrote the book were just of another man made religion similar to the Greeks or Egyptians you wouldn't be christian right?

Actually I think it is a philosophy book, in large part, but let that pass. I want to pick up on a slightly different point. Your question here suggests that you think it’s taking the Bible as something more than just another philosophy book which makes someone Christian (or Jewish).

I suggest that it’s better to think of it as being the other way around. People don’t become Christian from regarding the bible as especially important or authoritative. Rather, they regard the Bible as important/authoritative because they are Christian.

silverharp wrote: »

So I want to put it to you that the ot should demonstrate the true revealed character of god. Now I can't tell how much of the ot you imagine to be true , Moses might never actually have existed for instance but that's a minor point but i would expect the ot to show the true nature of god in the same way as the nt does with Jesus.
The ot appears to show a primitive god as a primitive people might imagine such a god . it does not show a universal god who wanted contact with its creation. Hence no reason to give it any more respect that the musings of an amazonian people

I’m going to quarrel with both of your assertions here.

First, I don’t think the bible shows “a true picture of God” in the sense that you can take a particular bible verse, or bible story, or even bible book and say, right, that’s it, that’s an accurate presentation of what God is like. Remember the Bible contains about 70 distinct books, written by different people at different times. Probably about 3,000 years separates the oldest of the bible texts as we have them today from the youngest, but those texts are themselves the product of preceding texts which were edited, combined, redacted, etc, and they in turn are the outcome of still older oral traditions in which stories seen as important or foundational were preserved and handed down. So the material in the bible probably represents understandings, insights, etc arrived at and built up over a period of - what, five thousand years? Ten thousand years? A very long time, anyway.

Secondly, I wouldn’t agree that the OT shows us “a primitive god”, and not “a universal god who wanted contact with his creation”. It shows both, surely? There are some passages that make god look very primitive indeed, and very much a tribal god, while others make him look very universal, and very much engaged with his creation.

What Christians (and Jews, but I’m going to stop adding that in all the time) see in the Bible is not a series of neat stories about God which can be taken individually and simplistically, but a long series of texts which reflect a slowly growing relationship with, and understanding of, god.

So, for example at one time god is seen as a nature god who sends storms and lightning and floods (and, of course, The Flood). But at a later stage there’s a different understanding that, actually, this is not what God is like. So the flood story gets edited to include a final covenant in which god promises not to send floods, and the First Book of Kings has a passage recording the prophet Elijah looking for god in the storm, and in the flood, and in the fire and not finding him in any of those places before hearing god internally in “a still small voice”. What’s captured here is a transition from an understanding of god as a nature god to an immanent god, a god encountered through reflection and reason, an interior voice.

Similarly, in Genesis Abraham cheerfully heads off to sacrifice his son Isaac at the apparent command of God, but God intervenes to prevent the human sacrifice and substitute an animal sacrifice. And later passages in scripture make it clear that the Israelites developed an abhorrence for human sacrifice (as practiced by their neighours), and in a still later passage god is explicitly said to desire not sacrifice, but mercy. What’s captured here is the development over time of an understanding on the part of the Israelites that god does not want human sacrifice - an understanding which, perhaps, at one time they did not have.

Etc, etc. So, no, you can’t just take the story of Sodom, say, and say that the Bible teaches us that God is a genocidal psychopath. (Or, at any rate, that’s not the reading you have to take out of the bible, though obviously if you are motivated to take that reading out of it you can do so.) What you can say is that the bible presents that perspective on god, but also presents competing perspectives, in the way it captures the slowly developing understanding of God by the Jewish, and later the Christian, communities.

obplayer wrote: »

Then why bother with the Bible at all?

A very good question. And I go back to what I said to Silverharp above - there’s no reason why you would bother with the Bible, unless you are already a Christian, or feel drawn to Christianity, or are at least interested for some reason in exploring/understanding Christianity.

I seriously doubt that anybody who approaches the bible with a blank slate and an open mind, so to speak, reads the Bible and says “Gosh! Yes! That’s it!” and rushes off to seek baptism. Well, possibly a few people have done that over the years, but I suspect vanishingly few. Most people who read the Bible and treat is as normative or authoritative are Christian, and that’s usually because they were reared in that faith, or they adopted it for some reason other than feeling that they had to treat the Bible as authoritative.

We’re in the A&A forum where, obviously, most boardies are not Christian, no discussion proceeds on the assumption that Christian beliefs should be treated as valid or normative, and anybody making that assumption will attract only ridicule. All of which is fair enough. It’s never been my intention to suggest to anybody on this board that they should treat the Bible as authoritative/inspired/whatever; just that if they are going to criticise Christianity by reference to its reliance on the Bible, they have to take some account of exactly what reliance Christians place on the bible. If you - not you personally, ob, but the generic “you” - can only read the Sodom story as the story of a pyschopathic god, that doesn’t tell us that Christians must believe in a psychopathic god, or that they must engage in cognitive dissonance to avoid doing so. It only tells us that they may be capable of a more sophisticated and nuanced reading than you are bringing to bear.

silverharp · 20-03-2015 9:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, I don’t think the bible shows “a true picture of God” in the sense that you can take a particular bible verse, or bible story, or even bible book and say, right, that’s it, that’s an accurate presentation of what God is like. Remember the Bible contains about 70 distinct books, written by different people at different times. Probably about 3,000 years separates the oldest of the bible texts as we have them today from the youngest, but those texts are themselves the product of preceding texts which were edited, combined, redacted, etc, and they in turn are the outcome of still older oral traditions in which stories seen as important or foundational were preserved and handed down. So the material in the bible probably represents understandings, insights, etc arrived at and built up over a period of - what, five thousand years? Ten thousand years? A very long time, anyway.

Not that it matters much but I thought from references I read that the it was written from a period starting around 1000BCE and of course an oral tradition could go back before that. but so far we are still in the realm of Finn MacCool

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, I wouldn’t agree that the OT shows us “a primitive god”, and not “a universal god who wanted contact with his creation”. It shows both, surely? There are some passages that make god look very primitive indeed, and very much a tribal god, while others make him look very universal, and very much engaged with his creation.

What Christians (and Jews, but I’m going to stop adding that in all the time) see in the Bible is not a series of neat stories about God which can be taken individually and simplistically, but a long series of texts which reflect a slowly growing relationship with, and understanding of, god.

So, for example at one time god is seen as a nature god who sends storms and lightning and floods (and, of course, The Flood). But at a later stage there’s a different understanding that, actually, this is not what God is like. So the flood story gets edited to include a final covenant in which god promises not to send floods, and the First Book of Kings has a passage recording the prophet Elijah looking for god in the storm, and in the flood, and in the fire and not finding him in any of those places before hearing god internally in “a still small voice”. What’s captured here is a transition from an understanding of god as a nature god to an immanent god, a god encountered through reflection and reason, an interior voice.

Similarly, in Genesis Abraham cheerfully heads off to sacrifice his son Isaac at the apparent command of God, but God intervenes to prevent the human sacrifice and substitute an animal sacrifice. And later passages in scripture make it clear that the Israelites developed an abhorrence for human sacrifice (as practiced by their neighours), and in a still later passage god is explicitly said to desire not sacrifice, but mercy. What’s captured here is the development over time of an understanding on the part of the Israelites that god does not want human sacrifice - an understanding which, perhaps, at one time they did not have.

Etc, etc. So, no, you can’t just take the story of Sodom, say, and say that the Bible teaches us that God is a genocidal psychopath. (Or, at any rate, that’s not the reading you have to take out of the bible, though obviously if you are motivated to take that reading out of it you can do so.) What you can say is that the bible presents that perspective on god, but also presents competing perspectives, in the way it captures the slowly developing understanding of God by the Jewish, and later the Christian, communities.

The way to see it possibly if you want to see progression is that the culture became more sophisticated. But again if you were to send a camera back in time , do you believe you would see any of this stuff happening? Was there in your view actual 2 way conversations and "visable" intervententions between god and these people? Otherwise it is just a culture imagining its relationship with God which was par for the course back then and essentially was a one way conversation.

RikuoAmero · 20-03-2015 10:27am

silverharp wrote: »

Not that it matters much but I thought from references I read that the it was written from a period starting around 1000BCE and of course an oral tradition could go back before that. but so far we are still in the realm of Finn MacCool

The way to see it possibly if you want to see progression is that the culture became more sophisticated. But again if you were to send a camera back in time , do you believe you would see any of this stuff happening? Was there in your view actual 2 way conversations and "visable" intervententions between god and these people? Otherwise it is just a culture imagining its relationship with God which was par for the course back then and essentially was a one way conversation.

This is how I think of it too. I of course fully understand the symbolic interpretation. Thing is, if we go down that route, then eventually more and more of the bible becomes not interpreted as "These things happened as they are written". It eventually becomes just a book/collection of books on philosophies and thinking that don't contain anything that can be described as having literally happened.
Think of it this way. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who read Frank Herbert's Dune series. It's an excellent story in my opinion. It contains Herbert's thoughts on economics and religion, which have shaped my own outlook on life. One thing I took from the story was to always be wary of religious prophets, especially those who are self-ordained and who claim to speak with/for a divine being, no matter how fantastical they may seem to be. Reliance on a prophet to do your thinking for you robs you of your own mental faculties, reduces you to a simpering sycophant.
Now, the lessons I learned from reading Dune are not reliant on the Dune story being true as it is written. The wariness of prophets doesn't rely on there being an actual Paul Muad'Dib, or an actual God Emperor Leto II.
Compare that with Christianity, and many, if not most of the teachings and philosophies, require that at least some of the Bible be true as it is written. How many times in the New Testament are we told to have a relationship with the living God, in the personage of Jesus Christ? I remember seeing on the bus a poster many times saying something along the lines of "If Christ be not Risen, then our faith is in vain". In other words, for the typical Christian, the philosophies and outlook they have on life depend on this one specific fellow, Jesus, being God incarnate, and having died on the cross and resurrected after three days. They cite Jesus apparently having resurrected as being the reason why we should pay attention to what he is attributed as having taught.
Whereas we skeptics (at least I hope it's not just me here) realise that well thought out teachings succeed on their own merits, and rely not at all on a specific person. We've heard from many Christians on the existence of God thread that apparently, there's more ancient documents talking about Jesus, than there are for Socrates, and yet we (the skeptics) don't believe Socrates never existed. The point they are blind to there is that Socrate's philosophies are still worth talking about even if it's proven tomorrow beyond a doubt that Socrates himself was made up.
Jesus's arn't. Too many of them rely on "You should do X, Y and Z, not because they make sense in and of themselves, but because I am the Son of God and I say so". In other words, pure argument from authority.

Brian Shanahan · 20-03-2015 12:30pm

silverharp wrote: »

Not that it matters much but I thought from references I read that the it was written from a period starting around 1000BCE and of course an oral tradition could go back before that. but so far we are still in the realm of Finn MacCool

Most of the old testament bible was written after the Babylonian Captivity, so between 500BCE and about 150BCE (there were holy books written after 150BCE but they were never accepted into Jewish canon). That is the reason why so much of Jewish mythology (especially genesis and exodus) is blatantly stolen from Babylonian mythology, and is also the point at which Judaism went from being a polytheistic/henotheistic (the latter is where you worship one god only but believe in others) religion to the monotheistic one we know today. This is clearly shown when you look at the older Semitic derived parts of the bible, the ones passed down as oral tradition, they describe yhwh as one god among many, quite often only equal to or lesser than the other gods (such as baal and molech).

The Jewish religious foundation, as we know it today, is actually not that much older (probably 300 years) than the christian religious foundation.

Absolam · 20-03-2015 12:46pm

silverharp wrote: »

But society ought not base systems on things that arent real.

Is that your justification for caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both? In all three cases it seems pretty weak, don't you think?

silverharp wrote: »

Anymore then one should repair a car using a Lego manual.

But if I'm repairing my car using a Lego manual, and you haven't bothered to learn if my car is a Lego car or not, you can see how telling me that might be a bit annoying?

silverharp wrote: »

I think the decline in the catholic church here and other churches around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence

And yet there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

silverharp · 20-03-2015 12:51pm

@Rikuo ,i hadn't considered the particular angle of depending on prophets . I'd imagine they "make sense" in a religion where you have to tap into a "force" like impersonal entity so there are "reasons" why only certain individuals with the right stuff are able to make contact.

Flip to Christianity and we have a god that can count the heirs on your head yet was only interested in the inhabitants of one minor culture in the middle east and within that limited himself to conducting business through prophets.
One question comes to mind, was contact alleged to have been continuous from say 200, 000 years ago? And what is the back story for why didnt other cultures from around the world get their own prophets if this is the preferred model of contact? Humans have been in asia for 70,000 years which is before any complex language or any form of writing so to be universal the deity would need to have kept contact with them.
The western bias is to suggest that eastern religions have gods that were clearly made up. In reality the origins of Christianity are equally absurd.

silverharp · 20-03-2015 1:18pm

Absolam wrote: »

Is that your justification for caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both? In all three cases it seems pretty weak, don't you think?
But if I'm repairing my car using a Lego manual, and you haven't bothered to learn if my car is a Lego car or not, you can see how telling me that might be a bit annoying?
And yet there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

The ot is a very flawed moral document. One can justify slavery , homophobia from it for example .

Science is enough to go on that we are not "Lego" cars. Being homosexual for instance is not a moral failing yet the bible suggests that it is. Epilepsy is not demonic possession , do you worry about being given the evil eye?

I don't underestimate the power of indoctronation , especially in backward countries. A country like Ireland is in transition.

RikuoAmero · 20-03-2015 1:19pm

silverharp wrote: »

@Rikuo ,i hadn't considered the particular angle of depending on prophets . I'd imagine they "make sense" in a religion where you have to tap into a "force" like impersonal entity so there are "reasons" why only certain individuals with the right stuff are able to make contact.

Flip to Christianity and we have a god that can count the heirs on your head yet was only interested in the inhabitants of one minor culture in the middle east and within that limited himself to conducting business through prophets.
One question comes to mind, was contact alleged to have been continuous from say 200, 000 years ago? And what is the back story for why didnt other cultures from around the world get their own prophets if this is the preferred model of contact? Humans have been in asia for 70,000 years which is before any complex language or any form of writing so to be universal the deity would need to have kept contact with them.
The western bias is to suggest that eastern religions have gods that were clearly made up. In reality the origins of Christianity are equally absurd.

Have you read/watched Dune? If you have, take a watch of this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk2015w1atg
Pay particular attention to what he's saying at about 2:20 as he's handing over the ring.
Each major religion today (excluding Hinduism for which I am not aware espouses a particular individual) traces its origin to a specific individual who claimed to speak for a divine authority. Judaism had Abraham and Moses (the existence of whom are in doubt), Christianity has Jesus (ditto) and Islam, Muhammed.
Each one of them is attributed as claiming to be able to communicate with a divine authority (or in Jesus's case, to be that divine authority) and thus, all their teachings should be upheld. For lack of a better term, let's use the word prophet.
Throughout history, I am able to see the destruction caused when people believe in a particular prophet and invest in that person infallible authority. Instead of thinking for themselves, they hand it over to this person.

Within the context of the Dune story, Paul Muad'Dib and Leto II can be argued as being legitimate fulfilments of prophecy (they were called Kwisatz Haderach). However, in the books, both are shown thinking and talking about how terrible it is that they are imbued by the people with infallible power. I remember from Dune Messiah Paul, who is now the focus of a galaxy wide relgion, ridiculing one of his priests for being so focused on ritual and ceremony.
Later in the story, Leto II takes control of the galaxy wide empire and sets himself up as the *worst tyrant in history*, all to teach a lesson that humanity will remember in its bones. Unless I read it completely wrong, that lesson was that people should never follow a prophet, even if they demonstrate great powers like Leto did (super strength, super speed and control over the giant sand worms).
When I read that and applied this lesson to Christianity, I found that I simply could not justify following Jesus's teachings even if the stories and miracles were actually true. Just because he rose from the dead doesn't mean then that I should lobby against homosexual marriage for instance. Just because Leto had super strength doesn't mean that the empire should have tolerated his oppressive regime.

Absolam · 20-03-2015 1:38pm

silverharp wrote: »

The ot is a very flawed moral document. One can justify slavery , homophobia from it for example .

I don't think that justifies caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both, either though, does it?

silverharp wrote: »

Science is enough to go on that we are not "Lego" cars.

So when I'm fixing my lego car, and you tell me not to use my lego manual, you're justified by saying 'it's science' rather than 'it's god's law'? That seems a little bit off to be honest....

silverharp wrote: »

Being homosexual for instance is not a moral failing yet the bible suggests that it is. Epilepsy is not demonic possession , do you worry about being given the evil eye?

Do either of those have anything to do with lego cars, or comdemnation fails, or tapping into god's mind? Or are we just listing things we think are wrong? Because I think most men can't carry off wearing pink, especially rugby players, but all these fashion people keep telling them they can. Do you think if I had the evil eye I could use it to fix this?

silverharp wrote: »

I don't underestimate the power of indoctronation , especially in backward countries. A country like Ireland is in transition.

Indeed! So... there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world (notwithstanding the fact that many parts of the world are, and probably often have been, in transition). Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

silverharp · 20-03-2015 2:12pm

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think that justifies caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both, either though, does it?

So when I'm fixing my lego car, and you tell me not to use my lego manual, you're justified by saying 'it's science' rather than 'it's god's law'? That seems a little bit off to be honest....

Do either of those have anything to do with lego cars, or comdemnation fails, or tapping into god's mind? Or are we just listing things we think are wrong? Because I think most men can't carry off wearing pink, especially rugby players, but all these fashion people keep telling them they can. Do you think if I had the evil eye I could use it to fix this?
Indeed! So... there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world (notwithstanding the fact that many parts of the world are, and probably often have been, in transition). Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

I'll make the assertion that a deity in contact with its people ought to demonstrate an inspired presentation of moral ideals . or if the deity was in anyway compassionate some decent medical advice which would have saved millions of people, for instance basic hygiene rules where a primitive people could not know about bacteria or viruses.
Chtistisnty sells a personal and perfect deity yet no evidence is presented above and beyond what a civilisation of the time could have invented itself or borrowered from other cultures.
I might get a bit lost with my own lego manual anology but I am certainly right to get annoyed if my mechanic tries to use a munual on me or my kids.

People do have access to more information, do they choose to look st it is a question each individual needs to answer. I' imagine that by the time someone gets to their 40' s they ain't going to be questioning do much . this decade and the last is the first time questioning teens have the world at their finger tips.

Absolam · 20-03-2015 11:21pm

silverharp wrote: »

I'll make the assertion that a deity in contact with its people ought to demonstrate an inspired presentation of moral ideals .

Surely that depends on the deity. Nor does it yet justify any of the statements you've put forward.

silverharp wrote: »

or if the deity was in anyway compassionate some decent medical advice which would have saved millions of people, for instance basic hygiene rules where a primitive people could not know about bacteria or viruses.

So the fact that the god doesn't give advice you think it should justifies what you've said? I really don't think so.

silverharp wrote: »

Chtistisnty sells a personal and perfect deity yet no evidence is presented above and beyond what a civilisation of the time could have invented itself or borrowered from other cultures.

And......?

silverharp wrote: »

I might get a bit lost with my own lego manual anology but I am certainly right to get annoyed if my mechanic tries to use a munual on me or my kids.

You might be more annoyed if your doctor didn't refer to medical texts when treating your or you kids though?

silverharp wrote: »

People do have access to more information, do they choose to look st it is a question each individual needs to answer. I' imagine that by the time someone gets to their 40' s they ain't going to be questioning do much . this decade and the last is the first time questioning teens have the world at their finger tips.

Ah, so only young people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence? But wait... there's no reason to believe there aren't more religious young people than non religious young people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious young people have access to less evidence than non religious? And, you do realise that people in their 40s were also young once. Why weren't they swayed by evidence or lack of evidence then?

silverharp · 21-03-2015 10:03am

Absolam wrote: »

Surely that depends on the deity. Nor does it yet justify any of the statements you've put forward.

indeed. I'd look at what believers have to say about the deity and test against reality from there. Christianity presents a god that gives moral codes, if I examine these moral codes they appear to be of the time, there is nothing in it that there was a god looking at them from the outside in giving them a superior and correct moral code that would help mankind.

Absolam wrote: »

So the fact that the god doesn't give advice you think it should justifies what you've said? I really don't think so..... And......?

not strictly , if the god shows a lack of interest in such things which is consistent with the rest of the theology then my expectation would be different. Christianity is marketed as presenting a god that can help people, believers get excited about healing miracles right? So I do think it is inconsistent that neither the OT or NT present a God that didnt have the slightest interest in revealing some facts that would have helped "his people"

Absolam wrote: »

Ah, so only young people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence? But wait... there's no reason to believe there aren't more religious young people than non religious young people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious young people have access to less evidence than non religious? And, you do realise that people in their 40s were also young once. Why weren't they swayed by evidence or lack of evidence then?

Early conditioning is powerful , why do you think that the catholic church fights tooth and nail to stay in Irish schools or why US evangelicals want to get in schools there? They know the gig would be up if they had to present their case to adults. So Im pretty sure there will still be christian churches in a thousand years time there will just be a lot less people believing in it.
I checked my local catholic church time table, when I was a kid there was an hourly mass from 8.30 to 12.30 , its now gone down from 5 to 3 masses on a sunday and i'm betting the age profile has increased as well and less people per service.
Its possible that people will hang on to some wishy washy version of god but Id wager that the desire to have these beliefs guiding politics or being the main distinction in how schools are run will drop.

Absolam · 21-03-2015 1:33pm

silverharp wrote: »

indeed. I'd look at what believers have to say about the deity and test against reality from there. Christianity presents a god that gives moral codes, if I examine these moral codes they appear to be of the time, there is nothing in it that there was a god looking at them from the outside in giving them a superior and correct moral code that would help mankind.

Sooo.... how does that justify caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it?

silverharp wrote: »

not strictly , if the god shows a lack of interest in such things which is consistent with the rest of the theology then my expectation would be different.

So why bring it up when answering the question?

silverharp wrote: »

Early conditioning is powerful , why do you think that the catholic church fights tooth and nail to stay in Irish schools or why US evangelicals want to get in schools there? They know the gig would be up if they had to present their case to adults. So Im pretty sure there will still be christian churches in a thousand years time there will just be a lot less people believing in it.

So, since you're asserting that only young people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence, do you think the religious young people have access to less evidence than non religious? And, why weren't older people swayed by evidence or lack of evidence when they were young people?

silverharp wrote: »

Its possible that people will hang on to some wishy washy version of god but Id wager that the desire to have these beliefs guiding politics or being the main distinction in how schools are run will drop.

Would you wager that has anything whatsoever to do with claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it?

silverharp · 21-03-2015 4:46pm

Absolam wrote: »

Sooo.... how does that justify caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it?

I m getting a bit bored of multi parced posts where you just keep repeating questions. feel free to say why my post in incorrect, offer your opinion and we can continue

Absolam · 21-03-2015 10:30pm

silverharp wrote: »

I m getting a bit bored of multi parced posts where you just keep repeating questions. feel free to say why my post in incorrect, offer your opinion and we can continue

Sure; I can see you're finding it difficult to actually justify what you post.

So. Claiming that something that is mentioned in the bible without condemnation means it is approved of (by god/the church/religious people) is a nonsense. You wouldn't apply that standard to any other text; applying it only to a religious text in order to provide yourself with something to disapprove of is simply dishonest.
Pretending that you care about the contents of the bible simply because you think it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind, when you don't believe in God, is at best disingenuous; if you don't believe in God what possible relevance can tapping into his mind have for you.
Claiming that religious decline around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence shows a disregard for critical thought on a par with any religious fundamentalist.

Feel free to continue.

marienbad · 22-03-2015 1:16am

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; I can see you're finding it difficult to actually justify what you post.

So. Claiming that something that is mentioned in the bible without condemnation means it is approved of (by god/the church/religious people) is a nonsense. You wouldn't apply that standard to any other text; applying it only to a religious text in order to provide yourself with something to disapprove of is simply dishonest.
Pretending that you care about the contents of the bible simply because you think it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind, when you don't believe in God, is at best disingenuous; if you don't believe in God what possible relevance can tapping into his mind have for you.
Claiming that religious decline around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence shows a disregard for critical thought on a par with any religious fundamentalist.

Feel free to continue.

Completely invalid line of argument, religion has every relevance whether one believes it or not - that is the whole point.

A child must be baptised to get in to the nearest school, a woman loses her life because the doctors have to consult the lawyers , a gay teacher hides his/her sexuality because they can be fired from their job for just being gay.

Need I go on ? If religion was content to keep to its own followers non believers wouldn't give a toss , it would be just another curiosity like train spotting or opera or chess . But when religion demands that its tenets are incorporated into the laws of the land ,then we have a problem.

Absolam · 22-03-2015 3:39am

marienbad wrote: »

Completely invalid line of argument, religion has every relevance whether one believes it or not - that is the whole point.

I think you missed my line of argument then; I didn't say religion wasn't relevant regardless of whether one believes in it, I said that it's irrelevant whether someone else believes they're tapping into the mind of god when you don't believe in god.

marienbad wrote: »

A child must be baptised to get in to the nearest school, a woman loses her life because the doctors have to consult the lawyers , a gay teacher hides his/her sexuality because they can be fired from their job for just being gay.

None of which are things that can be countered by misrepresenting religious peoples beliefs; telling them something is approved by their religion which they know isn't does nothing to solve these issues.

marienbad wrote: »

Need I go on ? If religion was content to keep to its own followers non believers wouldn't give a toss , it would be just another curiosity like train spotting or opera or chess . But when religion demands that its tenets are incorporated into the laws of the land ,then we have a problem.

Well, yes, you could show how anything you've said is relevant to Silverharps assertions? But to address your point, firstly,it's no justification for misrepresenting religious beliefs. Secondly, religion (in general) doesn't demand that its tenets are incorporated into the laws of the land; the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside. And so they should, just like atheists should. A democracy is by the people and for the people.

silverharp · 22-03-2015 11:16am

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; I can see you're finding it difficult to actually justify what you post.

So. Claiming that something that is mentioned in the bible without condemnation means it is approved of (by god/the church/religious people) is a nonsense. You wouldn't apply that standard to any other text; applying it only to a religious text in order to provide yourself with something to disapprove of is simply dishonest.
Pretending that you care about the contents of the bible simply because you think it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind, when you don't believe in God, is at best disingenuous; if you don't believe in God what possible relevance can tapping into his mind have for you.
Claiming that religious decline around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence shows a disregard for critical thought on a par with any religious fundamentalist.

Feel free to continue.

I look at the character of God in the OT. God commanded his people to rape on occassion , Got tortured his own people in the OT. it tells me that the god presented is a made up one by an iron age people. I am not pretending anything, i am dismissing it as no more infomative than the legends of Zeus.

Religion depends on indoctrination of kids, I find it hard to think of any other set of beliefs that need to be passed on to kids in such an all or nothing way. Ireland was a perfect example where kids being gullible were presented with a reality so they went along with it. As adults there were social pressures to conform and not question their faith in any serious manner.
I see my kids growing up (and their friend) now and its a different ball game, by the time they are adults the social pressure to follow something they dont believe in will reduce rapidly

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 11:41am

Literally just saw this two seconds ago on Facebook

"A healthy relationship will never require you to sacrifice your friends, your dreams or your dignity".

I've heard from many christians that they have a relationship with Jesus. However, of those people I've talked to, none have reported to me that they have sacrificed these things, despite what Jesus reportedly said in Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

So either these people are lying to me about having a relationship with Jesus (since they haven't done these things)...or they have, haven't mentioned it, and the relationship they have is very unhealthy.

silverharp · 22-03-2015 11:59am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

despite what Jesus reportedly said in Luke 14:26
....

Reminded me of this great sketch where a 20th century christian goes back to correct Jesus. I was thinking that Iona's scramble to the courts is against Jesus teaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 12:04pm

silverharp wrote: »

Reminded me of this great sketch where a 20th century christian goes back to correct Jesus. I was thinking that Iona's scramble to the courts is against Jesus teaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

NSC is my personal Jesus Christ

Absolam · 22-03-2015 2:31pm

silverharp wrote: »

I look at the character of God in the OT. God commanded his people to rape on occassion , Got tortured his own people in the OT. it tells me that the god presented is a made up one by an iron age people. I am not pretending anything, i am dismissing it as no more infomative than the legends of Zeus.

You didn't say you were dismissing it though, you said you said you cared about it because it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind.

silverharp wrote: »

Religion depends on indoctrination of kids, I find it hard to think of any other set of beliefs that need to be passed on to kids in such an all or nothing way.

So you're also dismissing the fact that adults convert to religions?
Would it be fair to say you simply dismiss facts that are inconvenient to your world view?

silverharp wrote: »

Ireland was a perfect example where kids being gullible were presented with a reality so they went along with it. As adults there were social pressures to conform and not question their faith in any serious manner. I see my kids growing up (and their friend) now and its a different ball game, by the time they are adults the social pressure to follow something they dont believe in will reduce rapidly

And yet an enormous proportion of kids will grow up and believe in various deities. In fact there's no indication that the majority of kids won't. Anyway, how is that in any way relevant to your previous assertions, or are you about to become 'bored' again?

marienbad · 22-03-2015 2:47pm

Absolam wrote: »

I think you missed my line of argument then; I didn't say religion wasn't relevant regardless of whether one believes in it, I said that it's irrelevant whether someone else believes they're tapping into the mind of god when you don't believe in god.

None of which are things that can be countered by misrepresenting religious peoples beliefs; telling them something is approved by their religion which they know isn't does nothing to solve these issues.
Well, yes, you could show how anything you've said is relevant to Silverharps assertions? But to address your point, firstly,it's no justification for misrepresenting religious beliefs. Secondly, religion (in general) doesn't demand that its tenets are incorporated into the laws of the land; the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside. And so they should, just like atheists should. A democracy is by the people and for the people.

I don't care what you believe if it was private belief. But you said

''if you don't believe in God what possible relevance can tapping into his mind have for you.''

I simply pointed out to you the myriad ways that belief in God by some has profound effects on all because the ways it is incorporated into the law of the land .

And far from rebutting any of that you go on to reinforce it with this extraordinary sentence

''the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside''

What next ? Obligatory conversion , forced confessions, no work on Sundays ? No thanks .

silverharp · 22-03-2015 3:04pm

Absolam wrote: »

You didn't say you were dismissing it though, you said you said you cared about it because it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind.

no, christians care about this stuff as it documents god's interactions with his people. why would christians want to find particular meaning from the OT if its just an iron age society's one way musings? would it not be better in that case to put a "bible" together that starts with the NT and roll it forward?

Absolam wrote: »

So you're also dismissing the fact that adults convert to religions?
Would it be fair to say you simply dismiss facts that are inconvenient to your world view?

sure they can , adults get involved with scientology , new age stuff , some will convert to Islam. Its a numbers game, the highest church attendance in Ireland was 90% (if I remember correctly) , thats the peak for Ireland, you will never see that again , it will drift lower generation on generation.

Absolam wrote: »

And yet an enormous proportion of kids will grow up and believe in various deities. In fact there's no indication that the majority of kids won't. Anyway, how is that in any way relevant to your previous assertions, or are you about to become 'bored' again?

they have done in the past , I'm saying it is changing. Religion indoctrination worked because kids grew up surrounded by religion be it wider family etc. Now more and more Irish catholics fall into whats called being social catholics. They are not virgins when they get married, they use contraception , they voted to allow divorce , they most likely will vote to legalise gay marriage and Im reasonably sure that an abortion referendum would pass here as well.
If you think about it a decline must happen , where in the past both parents would have towed the party line you will have now increasing number of couples where at most only one is religious (there have been enough threads on boards posted over years in various forums) the kids will grow up seeing that its an optional thing or something that they decide for themselves.

Absolam · 23-03-2015 6:38am

marienbad wrote: »

I don't care what you believe if it was private belief. But you said ''if you don't believe in God what possible relevance can tapping into his mind have for you.''
I simply pointed out to you the myriad ways that belief in God by some has profound effects on all because the ways it is incorporated into the law of the land .

And what does that have to do with tapping into Gods mind?

marienbad wrote: »

And far from rebutting any of that you go on to reinforce it with this extraordinary sentence
''the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside''
What next ? Obligatory conversion , forced confessions, no work on Sundays ? No thanks .

I never tried to rebut the idea that peoples beliefs are incorporated into the laws of the land, quite the contrary in fact.
As for what next, should our laws only be determined by people who agree with you rather than a majority of the people? No thanks.

Absolam · 23-03-2015 7:14am

silverharp wrote: »

no, christians care about this stuff as it documents god's interactions with his people.

But I didn't ask why Christians care about it, I asked why you care about it. If you don't believe in a god, what difference does it make whether it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind, or as a conversation with the avatar of the spaghetti monster?

silverharp wrote: »

sure they can , adults get involved with scientology , new age stuff , some will convert to Islam.

So, saying that religion depends on indoctrination of kids would be a misrepresentation of the facts as you're aware of them then?

silverharp wrote: »

Its a numbers game, the highest church attendance in Ireland was 90% (if I remember correctly) , thats the peak for Ireland, you will never see that again , it will drift lower generation on generation.

Would you say there's any more substantial basis for your prophecy than any religious prophecy? I mean, you've told us that religion depends on indoctrination of kids and then demonstrated that's not true, and you've told us that the decline in the catholic church here and other churches around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence, but failed to come up with any evidence for the assertion, so really, is your prophecy based on anything other than wishful thinking?

silverharp wrote: »

they have done in the past , I'm saying it is changing. Religion indoctrination worked because kids grew up surrounded by religion be it wider family etc. Now more and more Irish catholics fall into whats called being social catholics. They are not virgins when they get married, they use contraception , they voted to allow divorce , they most likely will vote to legalise gay marriage and Im reasonably sure that an abortion referendum would pass here as well.
If you think about it a decline must happen , where in the past both parents would have towed the party line you will have now increasing number of couples where at most only one is religious (there have been enough threads on boards posted over years in various forums) the kids will grow up seeing that its an optional thing or something that they decide for themselves.

None of which actually means that a decline must happen though does it? Because, let's be honest, people 40 or 50 or 150 or 1250 years ago also had sex before marriage. Your parents probably did; I know mine did. They've been using contraception in various forms for millenia, again, I know my parents did (if not millenia ago). Divorce was not an unknown concept in Christs time, in fact he mentioned it occuring in the time of Moses. Homosexuality wasn't exactly uncommon in ancient times, and induced abortion has been practiced since at least Egyptian times. Ireland may have become more publically morally liberal in the last century or so than it was in the preceding few centuries, but I think I'd like a little more evidence for your predictions than your notion that young people are swayed by evidence or lack of evidence. I suspect reports of religions death are being greatly exaggerated; whether you call them catholics, social catholics, christians, muslims or scientologists, I am doubtful religion will disappear any time soon.

On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion

Comments