Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

swampgas · 11-01-2015 6:32pm

katydid wrote: »

So you can be sarcastic, but you can't figure out that someone else might choose to speak in parables and symbols. Hmmm

Thing is, you can read anything you want into the Bible - quite often what people find is a reflection of themselves. You can do the same with a lot of other holy books though. In fact you could do the same with Harry Potter or Star Wars - there is a lot of morality in story-telling.

If you already know right from wrong, why do you feel the need to look for confirmation in cherry-picked bits of the Bible? Surely you could trust your own conscience?

katydid · 11-01-2015 6:37pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If the old testament is not true then the whole thing begins to unravel.
If the prophesies of a messiah are not true then there was no point in the New Testament.
If there was no Adam and Eve then there was no original sin so no point in Jesus.
The bible is considered a holy book. It should be accepted or rejected with no grey areas.

I do not see any way that a person can be a true believer without the constant terror of the consequences of their actions. The only true believers are the creationists and otgher nuts who go around shouting down anyone who dares oppose them. The rest of them (us) are following tradition and are happy to have a vague sense of comfort of something after death but really don't want to have to read into it too much.

Do you really think all Christians believe in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and all that parlaver?

They are creation myths, put together by a simple nomadic people to explain in the best way they could the vagaries of human nature and their attempts to understand and have a connection with the divine. Their myths were written down by later generations, who were no longer nomadic, and wanted something to focus their developing religion round. Just because people lived three thousand years ago doesn't mean they were stupid or unimaginative; there's no reason to suppose that they understood any less than we do today that these were stories. They probably took them more literally, since they didn't have the scientific proof we have that they can't be factually true, but nevertheless, like us, their main purpose was to use them to explain universal truths. Original sin is something you don't have to be Christian to understand; it's the fundamental flaw in us human beings that means that we can do great things, but are capable of great evil.

It's a shame that you can't bring yourself to even try to understand that people who read and "believe" the Bible or the Torah or the Qur'an are not morons, but people with a brain which most of them use.

It's so easy to make facile judgements, though, it saves so much thinking of your own.

katydid · 11-01-2015 6:57pm

swampgas wrote: »

Thing is, you can read anything you want into the Bible - quite often what people find is a reflection of themselves. You can do the same with a lot of other holy books though. In fact you could do the same with Harry Potter or Star Wars - there is a lot of morality in story-telling.

If you already know right from wrong, why do you feel the need to look for confirmation in cherry-picked bits of the Bible? Surely you could trust your own conscience?

Yes, you can read anything into the Bible. You can read anything into Shakespeare, Harry Potter or Enid Blyton.

People choose to read what they want to read into the Bible because, among other thing, it's a very old collection of texts which have survived the test of time and have given consistency and meaning to many people's lives for millennia. The fact that people three thousand years ago or two thousand years ago thought along similar lines to us today is, at the very least, interesting and telling.

Also, it's a history of the developing understanding of the relationship between humankind and God. From the all powerful, vengeful king looking down on his subjects, as seen by the early Jews, to the complex and involved deity of the Trinity that Christians see has having an individual relationship with each of them.

I respect your lack of belief in this, but it is both unfair and facile to dismiss how and why people attach themselves to and value scriptures.

Pawwed Rig · 11-01-2015 7:52pm

katydid wrote: »

Do you really think all Christians believe in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and all that parlaver?

Only the most naive of them. But a Christian should believe in it as it is the basis of the religion and without it the whole tapestry unravels.

katydid wrote: »

They are creation myths, put together by a simple nomadic people to explain in the best way they could the vagaries of human nature and their attempts to understand and have a connection with the divine. Their myths were written down by later generations, who were no longer nomadic, and wanted something to focus their developing religion round.

That is true. Noone is saying they were stupid but the Chinese, Greeks and Egyptians were much more sophisticated at that point in time but we don't see any merit in their myths as a basis for religion

katydid wrote: »

Original sin is something you don't have to be Christian to understand; it's the fundamental flaw in us human beings that means that we can do great things, but are capable of great evil.

So Jesus died for a parable? Without the original sin being fact Jesus' whole purpose on Earth needs to be questioned. And where the prophesies are dismissed as myth well then there is no requirement for a messiah in the Judeo/Christian faith.

katydid wrote: »

It's a shame that you can't bring yourself to even try to understand that people who read and "believe" the Bible or the Torah or the Qur'an are not morons, but people with a brain which most of them use.

I am actually doing my best to understand religion. It is something that I am looking at more as I get older. However I have yet to see a credible speaker on the subject who doesn't have their fingers in their ears ignoring anything that may contradict their reasoning. If you provide one I am happy to listen.

katydid wrote: »

It's so easy to make facile judgements, though, it saves so much thinking of your own.

I don't think I did?? That said I would think not blindly following in the traditions or beliefs of my forefathers would show that I have thought about the subject on my own.

katydid · 11-01-2015 8:14pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Only the most naive of them. But a Christian should believe in it as it is the basis of the religion and without it the whole tapestry unravels.

That is true. Noone is saying they were stupid but the Chinese, Greeks and Egyptians were much more sophisticated at that point in time but we don't see any merit in their myths as a basis for religion

So Jesus died for a parable? Without the original sin being fact Jesus' whole purpose on Earth needs to be questioned. And where the prophesies are dismissed as myth well then there is no requirement for a messiah in the Judeo/Christian faith.

I am actually doing my best to understand religion. It is something that I am looking at more as I get older. However I have yet to see a credible speaker on the subject who doesn't have their fingers in their ears ignoring anything that may contradict their reasoning. If you provide one I am happy to listen.

I don't think I did?? That said I would think not blindly following in the traditions or beliefs of my forefathers would show that I have thought about the subject on my own.

How does the tapestry unravel? I've tried to explain to you how an intelligent and contextual reading of the Bible, and the OT in particular, is perfectly in keeping with Christian belief in the nature of God and the relationship of God with humanity.

Of course the Jews weren't the only people putting together their legends and ideas. The growth of writing was what prompted people to collect and collage their oral history and to put it into a more permanent format, and this lead naturally to a more coherent theology. It's just an accident of history that Christianity takes the place it does in our modern world - it was adopted as the state religion in the Roman Empire, and because the Roman Empire had such an influence on Western European civilisation the influence of Christianity spread through the world with emigration and colonialism. If history had been different, we might all be Taoists or worshippers of Zeus...

What do you mean "Jesus died for a parable?". First of all, Genesis isn't a parable, it's a creation myth. Every civilisation has them. They are ways for people to try to explain human nature and its origins. You don't have to believe in Adam and Eve and a snake to believe that we humans are flawed. That is what Jesus was about; making us face up to our flawed humanity and trying to overcome it.

Brian Shanahan · 11-01-2015 10:29pm

katydid wrote: »

If you consider that literal belief in the Bible, with all its contradictions and anomalies, is the mark of a Christian, then there are a handful of Christians on this planet.

That's my point. When you look at things properly there are very few christians out there. There are those who follow along because of group think, or belief that they don't need to follow the rules. But when one reads the bible it becomes clear that to qualify one has to take everything as gospel including the bits that contradict the other bits.

obplayer · 11-01-2015 11:01pm

katydid wrote: »

If you consider that literal belief in the Bible, with all its contradictions and anomalies, is the mark of a Christian, then there are a handful of Christians on this planet.

So all you believe is that some chap got crucified by the Romans for helping people? Hail Spartacus!

Pawwed Rig · 11-01-2015 11:06pm

katydid wrote: »

How does the tapestry unravel? I've tried to explain to you how an intelligent and contextual reading of the Bible, and the OT in particular, is perfectly in keeping with Christian belief in the nature of God and the relationship of God with humanity.

If the prophesies were myths then Luke shoehorning Jesus into the prophesy was not required. Now if we are to believe that Luke's gospel contains these untruths then can we really rely on the other parts he wrote as fact? Likewise the other gospels. How are we to be sure that when they were arbitrarily inserting ancient texts into a 'bible' that they chose the correct ones?
Could you point me in the direction of a site or book that points out which bits of the bible we should believe and which are the myth parts as I have not been able to get any agreement on this other than from creationists.

katydid wrote: »

What do you mean "Jesus died for a parable?". First of all, Genesis isn't a parable, it's a creation myth. Every civilisation has them. They are ways for people to try to explain human nature and its origins. You don't have to believe in Adam and Eve and a snake to believe that we humans are flawed. That is what Jesus was about; making us face up to our flawed humanity and trying to overcome it.

So if it was a myth then there was no immaculate conception. With no immaculate conception can we believe the virgin birth? As I said the tapestry unravels. With no virgin birth then Jesus was born a man from a man Joseph*.

Can you think of a coherent commentator that is a believer. I would be interested in exploring.

*which ironically better fits in with the prohesies than if there was a virgin birth

katydid · 11-01-2015 11:25pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If the prophesies were myths then Luke shoehorning Jesus into the prophesy was not required. Now if we are to believe that Luke's gospel contains these untruths then can we really rely on the other parts he wrote as fact? Likewise the other gospels. How are we to be sure that when they were arbitrarily inserting ancient texts into a 'bible' that they chose the correct ones?
Could you point me in the direction of a site or book that points out which bits of the bible we should believe and which are the myth parts as I have not been able to get any agreement on this other than from creationists.

So if it was a myth then there was no immaculate conception. With no immaculate conception can we believe the virgin birth? As I said the tapestry unravels. With no virgin birth then Jesus was born a man from a man Joseph*.

Can you think of a coherent commentator that is a believer. I would be interested in exploring.

*which ironically better fits in with the prohesies than if there was a virgin birth

The "shoehorning" of Jesus was to reinforce the connection between Judaism and the new religion. This was important to the early Christians, and of course they would look back to the Old Testament and look for indications there. Not only the prophecies, but Jesus himself is reported as referring back to the Old Testament in terms of his words and actions.

There is no book that can tell you definitively what bits of the bible to "believe". There are, of course, plenty books out there that prove that certain parts of it can't be true, or will outline contradictions. But no book can tell you what to believe.

Who knows whether the immaculate conception actually happened or is a myth? (By the way, I didn't say everything is a myth...) There are many stories of virgin births in the Middle East which compare to the Christian story, so it's hard to know what is myth and what isn't.

Very complicated...

katydid · 11-01-2015 11:27pm

obplayer wrote: »

So all you believe is that some chap got crucified by the Romans for helping people? Hail Spartacus!

There is a lot of ground between not believing everything written in the Bible, and believing none of it...

lazygal · 11-01-2015 11:51pm

katydid wrote: »

There is a lot of ground between not believing everything written in the Bible, and believing none of it...

Indeed. So what ground is myth and what is fact? And how do you know which is which?

katydid · 11-01-2015 11:59pm

lazygal wrote: »

Indeed. So what ground is myth and what is fact? And how do you know which is which?

Good question. If I could answer it, I'd be rich and famous.

Cabaal · 12-01-2015 10:33am

katydid wrote: »

Good question. If I could answer it, I'd be rich and famous.

yet you're confident enough to say the bible is not the word of god,
thats a good trick you can do,

You should inform the Vatican and your local priest, they'll be very surprised at your discovery

lazygal · 12-01-2015 10:36am

katydid wrote: »

Good question. If I could answer it, I'd be rich and famous.

Well then what is the religion you practice? Some of the good bits, none of the bad bits and most of the bible viewed as a myth and/or parable? What respect does that type of religion require?

Pawwed Rig · 12-01-2015 10:49am

katydid wrote: »

Good question. If I could answer it, I'd be rich and famous.

But But But But you have been telling us that selected bits were myth while others were fact for the last 4 pages of this thread!!! Are you saying now that you don't know? So it could all be myth or could all be fact?

What if you thought a bit was fact but someone else thought it was myth. Which of you is right?

Anyway back to the OP - I will respect a religious person when they can give a clear coherant answer to a question without seeking to constantly muddy the waters.

katydid · 12-01-2015 11:50am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But But But But you have been telling us that selected bits were myth while others were fact for the last 4 pages of this thread!!! Are you saying now that you don't know? So it could all be myth or could all be fact?

What if you thought a bit was fact but someone else thought it was myth. Which of you is right?

Anyway back to the OP - I will respect a religious person when they can give a clear coherant answer to a question without seeking to constantly muddy the waters.

How on earth can I know whether what I decide is myth and what I decide is not is true? I'm not omniscient. What you don't seem to grasp is that religion is not about certainties but about faith.

katydid · 12-01-2015 11:53am

Cabaal wrote: »

yet you're confident enough to say the bible is not the word of god,
thats a good trick you can do,

You should inform the Vatican and your local priest, they'll be very surprised at your discovery

Somehow I think they already know...

katydid · 12-01-2015 11:54am

lazygal wrote: »

Well then what is the religion you practice? Some of the good bits, none of the bad bits and most of the bible viewed as a myth and/or parable? What respect does that type of religion require?

I practice Christianity the way the vast majority of Christians do.

Pawwed Rig · 12-01-2015 12:05pm

katydid wrote: »

How on earth can I know whether what I decide is myth and what I decide is not is true? I'm not omniscient. What you don't seem to grasp is that religion is not about certainties but about faith.

I appreciate you taking the time here to respond on thread. It is not often a religious person would venture into here and spend as much of their time debating. Where we won't agree is with the fuzzy concept of faith which you seem happy with but I am seeking a more definite line than 'sure some of it is true and other parts might be true and yet other parts are pure myth but sure noone knows which is which but that is ok LOLz'.
Despite the best efforts of the RCC I have grown up to question anything I am told as fact as believing what others say at face value leaves one open to ridicule. Unfortunately where I ask these questions I never receive satisfactory answers. Maybe God made me this way, so as it is his fault I can't see how I could be denied access to heaven.

lazygal · 12-01-2015 12:08pm

katydid wrote: »

I practice Christianity the way the vast majority of Christians do.

How do you know? There are thousands of 'christian' sects. How can you be sure you've picked the right bits of the bible to follow? Are mormons christian, with their restored gospel in addition to the bible?

katydid · 12-01-2015 12:15pm

lazygal wrote: »

How do you know? There are thousands of 'christian' sects. How can you be sure you've picked the right bits of the bible to follow? Are mormons christian, with their restored gospel in addition to the bible?

No, Mormons aren't Christian, since they don't believe the basic tenets of Christianity as worked out by the early church fathers, and agreed in the Nicene Creed.

Given that most Christians are members of the big denominations, and the big denominations have long ago acknowledged that the Bible can't be read literally, then it stands to reason that most of them don't take the Bible literally. Of course there are hundreds, if not thousands of little sects, especially in places like America, but if you put them all together, they aren't the majority.

katydid · 12-01-2015 12:19pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I appreciate you taking the time here to respond on thread. It is not often a religious person would venture into here and spend as much of their time debating. Where we won't agree is with the fuzzy concept of faith which you seem happy with but I am seeking a more definite line than 'sure some of it is true and other parts might be true and yet other parts are pure myth but sure noone knows which is which but that is ok LOLz'.
Despite the best efforts of the RCC I have grown up to question anything I am told as fact as believing what others say at face value leaves one open to ridicule. Unfortunately where I ask these questions I never receive satisfactory answers. Maybe God made me this way, so as it is his fault I can't see how I could be denied access to heaven.

You see, I don't see it as "fuzzy". I see it as being realistic about my faith. If you study the scripture in any depth at all, it's clear as the nose on your face that it can't all be true, because, apart from anything else, it's full of contradictions.

You can easily take out some of it and dismiss it straight away. The rest you can look on and read intelligently as you would read any piece of literature. We don't believe that Romeo and Juliet were real people, but we read and watch the play to learn human truths from it.

The missing element is that one then has to take a leap of faith to believe that there is more behind the myths than simple fairy stories. You can't possibly know where the line is, you just have to have faith. I genuinely can't explain it more.

I went through the rejection phase, and then thought about it a bit more, and came to the point I'm at.

lazygal · 12-01-2015 12:23pm

katydid wrote: »

No, Mormons aren't Christian, since they don't believe the basic tenets of Christianity as worked out by the early church fathers, and agreed in the Nicene Creed.

Given that most Christians are members of the big denominations, and the big denominations have long ago acknowledged that the Bible can't be read literally, then it stands to reason that most of them don't take the Bible literally. Of course there are hundreds, if not thousands of little sects, especially in places like America, but if you put them all together, they aren't the majority.

You say they aren't christian-mormons say they are, most definitely, christian. How can you know for certain that passage 1 is myth and passage 1,001 is fact? How can you claim to be practicing what the majority of christians believe? Does God say 'well, most of them don't take Noah literally, so I guess that's ok'?
Either the bible is the complete word of god, perfect for all time, or is isn't. You can't have it both ways, because some bits of it make christians uncomfortable.

Kidchameleon · 12-01-2015 1:07pm

The bible was written by people. It has been chopped and changed to suit agendas for millenia. The word of "god" it is not.

shruikan2553 · 12-01-2015 1:15pm

There is no problem with Christians picking and choosing what to follow. It just makes things awkward when they decide to tell others which bits they should be following based on because they said so.

katydid · 12-01-2015 1:17pm

lazygal wrote: »

You say they aren't christian-mormons say they are, most definitely, christian. How can you know for certain that passage 1 is myth and passage 1,001 is fact? How can you claim to be practicing what the majority of christians believe? Does God say 'well, most of them don't take Noah literally, so I guess that's ok'?
Either the bible is the complete word of god, perfect for all time, or is isn't. You can't have it both ways, because some bits of it make christians uncomfortable.

Mormons can't be Christians, since they reject the basic tenets of Christianity. They are polytheistic, and believe that all humans can become gods. They believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. They believe that Jesus visited America, while Christians believe he ascended to heaven after the Resurrection. They believe there are three celestial degrees through which a person must progress through.

You might say, as a non-religious person that Christian beliefs are just as bizarre. Fair enough. But that's not the point. If someone turns up at a rugby match with a hurley and sliothar and insist on playing rugby, you would say they were wrong. If someone rejects the tenets of a religion, as agreed by millions of people, and claims they belong to that religion, it's equally wrong.

Why do you insist that the Bible being the complete word of God is necessary for Christian belief, when millions of Christians don't think so?

katydid · 12-01-2015 1:17pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

There is no problem with Christians picking and choosing what to follow. It just makes things awkward when they decide to tell others which bits they should be following based on because they said so.

Absolutely.

Delirium · 12-01-2015 1:20pm

katydid wrote: »

Mormons can't be Christians, since they reject the basic tenets of Christianity. They are polytheistic, and believe that all humans can become gods. They believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. They believe that Jesus visited America, while Christians believe he ascended to heaven after the Resurrection. They believe there are three celestial degrees through which a person must progress through.

You might say, as a non-religious person that Christian beliefs are just as bizarre. Fair enough. But that's not the point. If someone turns up at a rugby match with a hurley and sliothar and insist on playing rugby, you would say they were wrong. If someone rejects the tenets of a religion, as agreed by millions of people, and claims they belong to that religion, it's equally wrong.

Why do you insist that the Bible being the complete word of God is necessary for Christian belief, when millions of Christians don't think so?

They believe in Jesus Christ and the bible is part of the religious faith. That surely puts them under the umbrella of Christianity.

smacl · 12-01-2015 2:39pm

katydid wrote: »

Mormons can't be Christians, since they reject the basic tenets of Christianity.

If Mormons call themselves Christians, what makes you think that you have the right to deny them that? Given the topic of this thread is respect for the religious, you would appear to have scant respect for other religious people whose religion is not well aligned with your own. In my experience, this is typical of many major religions; They look for respect when they feel they've been slighted, but its all 'burn the infidels' behind the scenes. True respect is only ever earned, it is not something that can be demanded of others.

aidan24326 · 12-01-2015 2:44pm

katydid wrote: »

How on earth can I know whether what I decide is myth and what I decide is not is true? I'm not omniscient. What you don't seem to grasp is that religion is not about certainties but about faith.

And 'faith' ultimately means that you believe whatever you want to believe, that objectivity doesn't come into it.

To be fair you seem to have grasped this and seem ok with it, which is fine since that's your choice and your right. But so many religious followers will assert what they believe (through blind subjective faith) to be fact, and will resist all contrary evidence to the point of shutting their eyes and sticking their fingers in their ears.

Christian dogma decrees that the bible is the word of god, literally. This modern fuzzy version whereby 'it's all just metaphor don't you know' only arose after just about every truth and supposed revelation contained in that book turned out to be either false, wildly exaggerated, plagiarised or just plain made-up. And christians to this day are still making it up, in a hopeless attempt to defend the indefensible.

katydid · 12-01-2015 5:29pm

aidan24326 wrote: »

And 'faith' ultimately means that you believe whatever you want to believe, that objectivity doesn't come into it.

To be fair you seem to have grasped this and seem ok with it, which is fine since that's your choice and your right. But so many religious followers will assert what they believe (through blind subjective faith) to be fact, and will resist all contrary evidence to the point of shutting their eyes and sticking their fingers in their ears.

Christian dogma decrees that the bible is the word of god, literally. This modern fuzzy version whereby 'it's all just metaphor don't you know' only arose after just about every truth and supposed revelation contained in that book turned out to be either false, wildly exaggerated, plagiarised or just plain made-up. And christians to this day are still making it up, in a hopeless attempt to defend the indefensible.

Christian dogma is couched in old language and has to be interpreted in a modern way, like everything else. When it says "the word of God", why can that not be interpreted as "inspired by God"? It's a more reasonable interpretation than to imagine that God personally wrote such a contradictory and often negative book. We KNOW it was written over several hundred years or even more by dozens, at least, of people. Even the most conservative Bible scholar can't deny that, because the evidence is there. So unless God decided to do some kind of automatic writing trick with dozens of people over centuries, and get them to write things that were untrue or contradictory, it makes more sense to understand is as these people being inspired to write as they did, but, being imperfect humans, not getting it always right.

No, objectivity can't come into it, since it's not verifiable truth. But common sense can.

I agree that many followers of religion don't take the same stance as I do; mine comes from thinking and studying and from an interest and love of history and literature. I don't see a contradiction between seeing the Bible as a text which contains literature and history and contains a lot of useless bumpf as well, and accepting it as a basis for trying to reach an understanding of the divine. There is an awful lot of wisdom in it, and if you can contextualise it as a document of its time, and try to understand it from a modern point of view, it's easy to see its essence.

Of course none of it is provable but then it's not supposed to be. That's where the leap of faith comes in; the acceptance that, as Hamlet says, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Just my opinion. I fully respect anyone who doesn't see it that way. I'd just like a bit of mutual respect and not an automatic assumption that someone who believes in a religion is stupid.

daUbiq · 12-01-2015 5:38pm

katydid wrote: »

Christian dogma is couched in old language and has to be interpreted in a modern way, like everything else. When it says "the word of God", why can that not be interpreted as "inspired by God"? It's a more reasonable interpretation than to imagine that God personally wrote such a contradictory and often negative book. We KNOW it was written over several hundred years or even more by dozens, at least, of people. Even the most conservative Bible scholar can't deny that, because the evidence is there. So unless God decided to do some kind of automatic writing trick with dozens of people over centuries, and get them to write things that were untrue or contradictory, it makes more sense to understand is as these people being inspired to write as they did, but, being imperfect humans, not getting it always right.

No, objectivity can't come into it, since it's not verifiable truth. But common sense can.

I agree that many followers of religion don't take the same stance as I do; mine comes from thinking and studying and from an interest and love of history and literature. I don't see a contradiction between seeing the Bible as a text which contains literature and history and contains a lot of useless bumpf as well, and accepting it as a basis for trying to reach an understanding of the divine. There is an awful lot of wisdom in it, and if you can contextualise it as a document of its time, and try to understand it from a modern point of view, it's easy to see its essence.

Of course none of it is provable but then it's not supposed to be. That's where the leap of faith comes in; the acceptance that, as Hamlet says, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Just my opinion. I fully respect anyone who doesn't see it that way. I'd just like a bit of mutual respect and not an automatic assumption that someone who believes in a religion is stupid.

"Of course none of it is provable but then it's not supposed to be." What is it supposed to be? Who decided what it's supposed to be?

Why shouldn't I continue to believe religion is mostly fairytales? Why do you need some untouchable and not contactable entity to tell you what's right or wrong?

Andrewf20 · 12-01-2015 6:02pm

katydid wrote: »

You see, I don't see it as "fuzzy". I see it as being realistic about my faith. If you study the scripture in any depth at all, it's clear as the nose on your face that it can't all be true, because, apart from anything else, it's full of contradictions.

You can easily take out some of it and dismiss it straight away. The rest you can look on and read intelligently as you would read any piece of literature. We don't believe that Romeo and Juliet were real people, but we read and watch the play to learn human truths from it.

But the story of Romeo and Juliet doesnt make supernatural claims that must be believed / followed for a place in heaven. Its the supernatural claims that are the issue for me and possibly for most people, otherwise we wouldnt be here discussing it.

How can one respect a book that has contradictions and unclear messages (at times) when one of its main aims to try and set out eternal moral laws? Its a poor form of communication.

You can twist the argument on its head and say I take a leap of faith in saying I dont believe the Bible is true. Why would this not be just as valid a statement as saying I taking a leap of faith in believing it? If there is no solid evidence or reasoning (as one sees it), peoples personal gut feelings will land on different conclusions.

smacl · 12-01-2015 6:23pm

katydid wrote: »

I fully respect anyone who doesn't see it that way. I'd just like a bit of mutual respect and not an automatic assumption that someone who believes in a religion is stupid.

While I don't think of religious people as stupid, I do consider any belief in the supernatural, be it gods, fairies, demons or the Easter bunny, to be delusional. I also consider a demand to silence any criticism of those seemingly absurd beliefs an unacceptable infringement on my rights. So while I'd strongly support restriction on speech that was incitement to hatred of a living person or group of people, this does not extend to unverifiable abstract beliefs. I think the notion of blasphemy in this day and age is ridiculous, and find those who support it arrogant. So not stupid, but particularly within the upper echelons of the hierarchy by times arrogant and delusional.

Nodin · 12-01-2015 7:02pm

katydid wrote: »

Christian dogma is couched in old language and has to be interpreted in a modern way, like everything else. When it says "the word of God", why can that not be interpreted as "inspired by God"?
.

So God couldn't inspire them to write the correct "inspired by god" bit but could only manage "the word of god". Hmmmmmm.

katydid wrote: »

It's a more reasonable interpretation than to imagine that God personally wrote such a contradictory and often negative book.
.

But not as reasonable as - bear with me now - the notion that no God had anything to do with the shoddy business in the first place.

katydid · 12-01-2015 10:04pm

daUbiq wrote: »

"Of course none of it is provable but then it's not supposed to be." What is it supposed to be? Who decided what it's supposed to be?

Why shouldn't I continue to believe religion is mostly fairytales? Why do you need some untouchable and not contactable entity to tell you what's right or wrong?

Nobody decided it's supposed to be. But non-religious people seem to think it should be.

If you want to continue to believe religion is mostly fairytales, that's your choice. I've no problem with that. I didn't suggest you should change your mind, did I?

And if I chose to do otherwise, and believe that there is something beyond our world that offers me spiritual guidance, what is it to you?

obplayer · 12-01-2015 10:08pm

katydid wrote: »

Nobody decided it's supposed to be. But non-religious people seem to think it should be.

If you want to continue to believe religion is mostly fairytales, that's your choice. I've no problem with that. I didn't suggest you should change your mind, did I?

And if I chose to do otherwise, and believe that there is something beyond our world that offers me spiritual guidance, what is it to you?

I think we are all just fascinated by someone who calls herself a Christian and yet admits she believes little of what the Church teaches, indeed isn't even sure which bits to believe. Why not just pray to Ghandi? He seems to have been a decent sort and at least there is hard evidence he existed.

katydid · 12-01-2015 10:31pm

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But the story of Romeo and Juliet doesnt make supernatural claims that must be believed / followed for a place in heaven. Its the supernatural claims that are the issue for me and possibly for most people, otherwise we wouldnt be here discussing it.

How can one respect a book that has contradictions and unclear messages (at times) when one of its main aims to try and set out eternal moral laws? Its a poor form of communication.

You can twist the argument on its head and say I take a leap of faith in saying I dont believe the Bible is true. Why would this not be just as valid a statement as saying I taking a leap of faith in believing it? If there is no solid evidence or reasoning (as one sees it), peoples personal gut feelings will land on different conclusions.

I only used Romeo and Juliet as a comparison. Of course Shakespeare doesn't make supernatural claims about his work. The point I was making is that stories don't just tell about a series of events, they point at deeper truths. That applies to literature and to scripture. The simple story of star crossed lovers tells us about the human condition, as does the simple story of the first people and how they came to live in the world.

Any text written by humans in different locations over a period of a thousand years or more is by its nature a poor form of communication. But it's what we have, and what we have to work with. We have to use our intelligence to work on it.

Your statement that you don't believe the Bible to be true is just as valid as my statement that I believe in it. But I fail to see how your statement would result from a leap of faith. Surely it results from a lack of faith... :-)

katydid · 12-01-2015 10:36pm

smacl wrote: »

While I don't think of religious people as stupid, I do consider any belief in the supernatural, be it gods, fairies, demons or the Easter bunny, to be delusional. I also consider a demand to silence any criticism of those seemingly absurd beliefs an unacceptable infringement on my rights. So while I'd strongly support restriction on speech that was incitement to hatred of a living person or group of people, this does not extend to unverifiable abstract beliefs. I think the notion of blasphemy in this day and age is ridiculous, and find those who support it arrogant. So not stupid, but particularly within the upper echelons of the hierarchy by times arrogant and delusional.

And I consider those who don't believe in the supernatural to be lacking in the ability to understand/perceive that there is something beyond the reality that we can see.

That's where we both stand...surely we can respect each other's differences?

As for the rest of your post, I agree 100%.

katydid · 12-01-2015 10:38pm

Nodin wrote: »

So God couldn't inspire them to write the correct "inspired by god" bit but could only manage "the word of god". Hmmmmmm.

But not as reasonable as - bear with me now - the notion that no God had anything to do with the shoddy business in the first place.

Do you actually think that I actually think God was standing over the writers of scripture or the formulating of the tenets of the faith, whispering into their ear?

obplayer · 12-01-2015 11:13pm

katydid wrote: »

And I consider those who don't believe in the supernatural to be lacking in the ability to understand/perceive that there is something beyond the reality that we can see.

That's where we both stand...surely we can respect each other's differences?

As for the rest of your post, I agree 100%.

I think you have to consider this thread in context, and the context is the murder of people for not showing "respect" to a particular Abrahamic religion. In that context anyone showing support for religion in general and for any Abrahamic religion in particular is going to be subject to scrutiny and questioning. Someone showing support while admitting they believe in virtually nothing which that religion claims will be subject to jaw-dropped looks of stupefaction. I hope I have put it in context for you.

katydid · 12-01-2015 11:26pm

obplayer wrote: »

I think you have to consider this thread in context, and the context is the murder of people for not showing "respect" to a particular Abrahamic religion. In that context anyone showing support for religion in general and for any Abrahamic religion in particular is going to be subject to scrutiny and questioning. Someone showing support while admitting they believe in virtually nothing which that religion claims will be subject to jaw-dropped looks of stupefaction. I hope I have put it in context for you.

Well, the initial context was some childish poster boasting gleefully about not going to mass at Christmas. From that, the discussion of respect for religion in general arose. Naturally in the context of what we has happened over the past few days, it's hard to ignore the question of extremists. But it's not the context of the thread.

As in any "ism" or belief system, there are fundamentalists and moderates. You can always subject both to scrutiny and questioning, but you have to learn to differentiate too.

Kidchameleon · 13-01-2015 12:45am

obplayer wrote: »

I think we are all just fascinated by someone who calls herself a Christian and yet admits she believes little of what the Church teaches, indeed isn't even sure which bits to believe. Why not just pray to Ghandi? He seems to have been a decent sort and at least there is hard evidence he existed.

One can be a Christian and believe nothing that the church teaches. Christian != Catholic.

obplayer · 13-01-2015 1:58am

Kidchameleon wrote: »

One can be a Christian and believe nothing that the church teaches. Christian != Catholic.

I don't mean just the Catholic Church, she appears to believe almost nothing of what any Christian Church believes.

Andrewf20 · 13-01-2015 3:23am

katydid wrote: »

I only used Romeo and Juliet as a comparison. Of course Shakespeare doesn't make supernatural claims about his work. The point I was making is that stories don't just tell about a series of events, they point at deeper truths. That applies to literature and to scripture. The simple story of star crossed lovers tells us about the human condition, as does the simple story of the first people and how they came to live in the world.

Any text written by humans in different locations over a period of a thousand years or more is by its nature a poor form of communication. But it's what we have, and what we have to work with. We have to use our intelligence to work on it.

But what about the threat of eternal damnation for not accepting what is written in this book? I can put up with an ancient book being vague or having contradictions in places, but as soon it makes unsubstantiated supernatural claims, especially with the threat of eternal damnation to non believers, I really struggle to see how this wouldnt raise a few eyebrows.

The fact that its all we have as you say, is in my opinion, not good enough if the destiny of our souls rests on it.

katydid wrote: »

Your statement that you don't believe the Bible to be true is just as valid as my statement that I believe in it. But I fail to see how your statement would result from a leap of faith. Surely it results from a lack of faith... :-)

When i say faith in X, I mean a belief in X - i.e. a belief its purely man made with no genuine supernatural intelligence involved.

It has the hallmarks of man making God, not the other way around.

Nodin · 13-01-2015 4:38am

katydid wrote: »

Do you actually think that I actually think God was standing over the writers of scripture or the formulating of the tenets of the faith, whispering into their ear?

"the faiths"

No. What do you think he was doing, exactly?

smacl · 13-01-2015 8:38am

katydid wrote: »

And I consider those who don't believe in the supernatural to be lacking in the ability to understand/perceive that there is something beyond the reality that we can see.

That's where we both stand...surely we can respect each other's differences?

As for the rest of your post, I agree 100%.

Absolutely. No problem respecting the difference in belief held, or the right to hold that belief. Similarly, there are many devout people that have my deepest respect, though this respect was gained through their actions and abilities rather than their belief. That said, they would say that their faith is what inspires them to do the good work that they do, and this is clearly their prerogative.

For me this is why secularism is so important in a multicultural society. It acknowledges that people have different beliefs that when examined are in conflict with one another. As such, those beliefs are not suitable as the basis of any decision making for the entire group, and should not influence public policy decisions. Fine that people hold beliefs and visibly exhibit and celebrate them, not fine to foist them on anyone else.

Cabaal · 13-01-2015 8:41am

katydid wrote: »

Somehow I think they already know...

They might want to tell their followers then...

Kidchameleon · 13-01-2015 9:22am

obplayer wrote: »

I don't mean just the Catholic Church, she appears to believe almost nothing of what any Christian Church believes.

I think she is pretty in line with what Jesus was on about, who cares what some flawed church thinks? A Christian is somebody who allows Jesus into their life, one could even be an atheist Christian.

smacl · 13-01-2015 10:23am

Kidchameleon wrote: »

...one could even be an atheist Christian...

But not a Mormon one

Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

Comments