Should religion be taught in schools?

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

I believe mans heart is inclined towards evil. All you need to do is pick up the newspaper and see what screwed up stuff that people have done today. Honestly I can look back at my life and say that I've done some screwed up things, take stock of that and be accountable for it. Accountable to others, myself and ultimately to my Creator. I want to live as He wanted me to live.

The good news is that I can because the Lord Jesus made a way for me to be able to. That's why I praise God. He has guided me and He has shown me the way that leads to life.

1. The number of people involved in said evil is a statistically irrelevant percentage of the world population. Most people are, by and large, well intentioned. Personally, I'm not inclined towards evil.
2. From what you've said in recent posts, I think it's more correct to say that you want to live according to your interpretation of what god wants you to do.
3. Jesus didn't make a way for anyone to do anything. All he said, fundamentally, was "be nice to people". I doubt he was the first person to come up with that idea.

philologos

Jethropool wrote: »

1. The number of people involved in said evil is a statistically irrelevant percentage of the world population. Most people are, by and large, well intentioned. Personally, I'm not inclined towards evil.
2. From what you've said in recent posts, I think it's more correct to say that you want to live according to your interpretation of what god wants you to do.
3. Jesus didn't make a way for anyone to do anything. All he said, fundamentally, was "be nice to people". I doubt he was the first person to come up with that idea.

1. Don't you believe that everyone has done what is evil? If one has done something seriously illegal say 30 years ago and then lives a honourable life in human terms from that point on are they still guilty of what they did 30 years ago?

2. What do you mean by this?

3. I'd honestly advise you to pick up the New Testament and give it a read. You'll be as surprised at how different Christianity is from the common perception that people have of it.

steve06 wrote: »

He has not guided you in the slightest, your upbringing guided you to believe in a misconception. It's a matter of circumstance, if you had been born in another country you would have a different god, different beliefs and a very different life. And you can't bring that back to your faith or your path that god has chosen... it's to do with the belief in a god that your parents/teachers/whoever believed in and passed on to you.

I decided to follow Jesus for myself when I was 17. Before that point I hadn't the bluntest idea about who or what to believe. Indeed I suspect that a lot of other issues / interests got in the way of thinking about the most important questions at all.

I suspect that many people may be like me in this respect.

The geography argument is defunct in the 21st century where most Christians live outside of the Western world and where Christianity is growing faster than it has ever grown before outside of the West.

getz

philologos wrote: »

1. Don't you believe that everyone has done what is evil? If one has done something seriously illegal say 30 years ago and then lives a honourable life in human terms from that point on are they still guilty of what they did 30 years ago?

2. What do you mean by this?

3. I'd honestly advise you to pick up the New Testament and give it a read. You'll be as surprised at how different Christianity is from the common perception that people have of it.

thats true,jesus said ;it is easer for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,than a rich man to go to heaven...note the vatican made a profit of 10 million euro in 2010.

philologos

getz wrote: »

thats true,jesus said ;it is easer for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,than a rich man to go to heaven...note the vatican made a profit of 10 million euro in 2010.

I don't see why you expect me to comment on the Vatican's financial affairs given that I'm not a member of that church.

smash

philologos wrote: »

I decided to follow Jesus for myself when I was 17. Before that point I hadn't the bluntest idea about who or what to believe. Indeed I suspect that a lot of other issues / interests got in the way of thinking about the most important questions at all.

I'm guessing it was as a result of circumstance, you were looking for a reason or an escape from something you couldn't justify for yourself. And since that day you've probably been doing it every day when you can't find a reason for something. Instead of looking to a bible for something to interpret as a reason or justification why don't you try and logically think about it or perhaps see a counsellor about whatever might have happened when you were young that made you turn to the bible. Nobody picks it up and follows it for no reason.

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

1. Don't you believe that everyone has done what is evil? If one has done something seriously illegal say 30 years ago and then lives a honourable life in human terms from that point on are they still guilty of what they did 30 years ago?

2. What do you mean by this?

3. I'd honestly advise you to pick up the New Testament and give it a read. You'll be as surprised at how different Christianity is from the common perception that people have of it.




I decided to follow Jesus for myself when I was 17. Before that point I hadn't the bluntest idea about who or what to believe. Indeed I suspect that a lot of other issues / interests got in the way of thinking about the most important questions at all.

I suspect that many people may be like me in this respect.

The geography argument is defunct in the 21st century where most Christians live outside of the Western world and where Christianity is growing faster than it has ever grown before outside of the West.

It depends on what you mean by evil. Your definition of evil is probably different to mine. I don't keep any of the sabbaths for example.

Point 2: You said that you wanted to live as God wants you to live. I'm just pointing out that means that you're interpreting what you're being told God says.

I've read large swathes of the bible, but as it's a modern translation of a middle english translation of a book written in a dead language which had large parts of it expurgated (Enoch, Gnostic Gospels), I find it hard to accept it as, if you'll pardon the expression, gospel. There is enough evidence in the bible to suggest that Jesus was a married, practising bisexual with several brothers and sisters for example, but this is not a widely accepted idea among christians.

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

I'm guessing it was as a result of circumstance, you were looking for a reason or an escape from something you couldn't justify for yourself. And since that day you've probably been doing it every day when you can't find a reason for something. Instead of looking to a bible for something to interpret as a reason or justification why don't you try and logically think about it or perhaps see a counsellor about whatever might have happened when you were young that made you turn to the bible. Nobody picks it up and follows it for no reason.

Guess as much as you like steve06. I can only tell you about what actually happened.

I think it's highly condescending to suggest that I should see a counsellor by the by. I've managed to remain respectful to you, I don't think anyone could realistically claim otherwise.

I never suggested that I decided to follow Christ for no reason by the way. I decided to do so because I found the case absolutely compelling.

The_Hitman

Children should be taught in schools.

careca11

religion should only be thought in school as an after-school subject,

religion during school hours is simply a waste of time , that time could be spent better teaching kids/teenager's about health (extra physical exercise) well-being , food , managing finance's , life in employment, discipline , respect for elder's.

philologos

Jethropool wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by evil. Your definition of evil is probably different to mine. I don't keep any of the sabbaths for example.

Evil is evil is evil as far as I see it. There is no point in calling what is good evil and calling what is evil good. I don't believe that morality is subjective.

Jethropool wrote: »

Point 2: You said that you wanted to live as God wants you to live. I'm just pointing out that means that you're interpreting what you're being told God says.

Being told by whom?

Jethropool wrote: »

I've read large swathes of the bible, but as it's a modern translation of a middle english translation of a book written in a dead language which had large parts of it expurgated (Enoch, Gnostic Gospels), I find it hard to accept it as, if you'll pardon the expression, gospel. There is enough evidence in the bible to suggest that Jesus was a married, practising bisexual with several brothers and sisters for example, but this is not a widely accepted idea among christians.

This isn't how Bible translation is done. Modern translations are done based on the oldest and most reliable Biblical manuscripts in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and are translated directly into the English we presently use. There is no translation from Middle English to Modern English.

As for the "evidence" to suggest that Jesus was married, or bisexual I am seriously doubting this and I would ask you to present the passages based on your own reading.

I don't doubt that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

smash

philologos wrote: »

Guess as much as you like steve06. I can only tell you about what actually happened.

I think it's highly condescending to suggest that I should see a counsellor by the by. I've managed to remain respectful to you, I don't think anyone could realistically claim otherwise.

I never suggested that I decided to follow Christ for no reason by the way. I decided to do so because I found the case absolutely compelling.

I'm not trying to be condescending, I just find it hard to understand how a 17 year old can for no reason decide to follow Jesus and how someone at that age without having it drilled into them could find the case absolutely compelling. Especially since you've managed to interpret it to fit into your own circumstances rather than take it for what it is.

philologos wrote: »

This isn't how Bible translation is done. Modern translations are done based on the oldest and most reliable Biblical manuscripts in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and are translated directly into the English we presently use. There is no translation from Middle English to Modern English.

I hope you accept that the bible was also written 400 years after the supposed death of Jesus under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.... this inspiration holds zero fact, just myth.

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

I'm not trying to be condescending, I just find it hard to understand how a 17 year old can for no reason decide to follow Jesus and how someone at that age without having it drilled into them could find the case absolutely compelling. Especially since you've managed to interpret it to fit into your own circumstances rather than take it for what it is.

You're making an assumption.

The second bolded section needs clarification.

steve06 wrote: »

I hope you accept that the bible was also written 400 years after the supposed death of Jesus under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.... this inspiration holds zero fact, just myth.

I don't. The Bible was written long before this, it was just compiled at the Council of Nicea. Compilation != writing.

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

Evil is evil is evil as far as I see it. There is no point in calling what is good evil and calling what is evil good. I don't believe that morality is subjective.



Being told by whom?



This isn't how Bible translation is done. Modern translations are done based on the oldest and most reliable Biblical manuscripts in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and are translated directly into the English we presently use. There is no translation from Middle English to Modern English.

As for the "evidence" to suggest that Jesus was married, or bisexual I am seriously doubting this and I would ask you to present the passages based on your own reading.

I don't doubt that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Nah. I'll just direct you to the Umberto Eco book Travels in Hyperreality. You can read it for yourself there.

smash

philologos wrote: »

The second bolded section needs clarification.

It's been said by a lot of posters that you are interpreting what you want from it so I'm not making it up. I've even read some of your posts in the religious forum that you've linked to on previous threads where you've discussed your interpretation of passages.

philologos wrote: »

I don't. The Bible was written long before this, it was just compiled at the Council of Nicea. Compilation != writing.

The bible was not written.... multiple books were written, then Compiled, re-written and cut to fit it's purpose as a bible.

Turtwig

Philogos instead of answering the same easy stuff over and over for the umpteenth time do you think, you could, you know, delve a little deeper. I'm like literally counting down the days until you reply to Nozzie's post somewhere over the boards.ie forums.
Please don't leave me waiting too long

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

It's been said by a lot of posters that you are interpreting what you want from it so I'm not making it up. I've even read some of your posts in the religious forum that you've linked to on previous threads where you've discussed your interpretation of passages.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not a Roman Catholic. This means that it is possible that the church I attend disputes the idea of mankind being responsible for someone elses sin.

As for discussing my interpretation of passages, I don't see what's the issue with that to be honest with you.

steve06 wrote: »

The bible was not written.... multiple books were written, then Compiled, re-written and cut to fit it's purpose as a bible.

They weren't rewritten, they were simply selected on the basis of date, language and authorship so that unauthentic texts were excluded. That's common sense.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

As for discussing my interpretation of passages, I don't see what's the issue with that to be honest with you.

It being open to interpretation is not a strength, it is by far it's biggest flaw.

A book of truth should not flex to the reader's will.

Read it literal or read it figuratively, anything else is projection of self and cherry-picking.

That's not my opinion by the way, it's observable in the number of Christian sects who dispute eachother to no end.

smash

philologos wrote: »

I've said repeatedly that I'm not a Roman Catholic. This means that it is possible that the church I attend disputes the idea of mankind being responsible for someone elses sin.

i never mentioned anything about sin?

philologos wrote: »

As for discussing my interpretation of passages, I don't see what's the issue with that to be honest with you.

If you're going to follow it then follow it, don't nit pick. How can you chose to believe one thing but not another when it's all "the word of god".

philologos wrote: »

They weren't rewritten, they were simply selected on the basis of date, language and authorship so that unauthentic texts were excluded. That's common sense.

It's common sense to omit the most important stuff and make sure it never sees the light of day while replacing it with loosely based stories that can be interpreted with multiple meaning because then you have better control over people.

philologos

Seachmall wrote: »

A book as important to our existence as the Bible shouldn't be open to interpretation.

Everything we say is subject to hermeneutical analysis, everything that we write is subject to hermeneutical analysis.

In a conversation if you are speaking, I will aim to listen to you. Following what I have heard I think about what I've just heard. If what I have heard seems miscommunicated or if some of the content of the speech has been lost in transit between you and me I will ask you to repeat what you've said. Otherwise if I am sufficiently happy that I've heard you correctly I will aim to convert your speech to aim to resemble the thought that you had when you first uttered it using a best-effort approach.

There are different means for the written word. There are more means for the ancient written word than the contemporary written word, and more still for what is originally written in foreign languages. In a sense when we read anything particularly as a translation we can only do a best-effort at understanding it.

It's nothing short of ridiculous to say that people shouldn't need to interpret anything because it is a necessity to read or speak or hear people speak in an intelligible manner.

Seachmall wrote: »

It being open to interpretation is not a strength, it is by far it's biggest flaw.

See above.

Seachmall wrote: »

A book of truth should not flex to the reader's will.

I never said it did. In fact at first I was challenged by reading the Bible because it expected a different lifestyle from me than the one I was leading at the time. As a result I aimed with God's help to live more as He wanted me to because I trusted that He knew what was best for me.

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

i never mentioned anything about sin?

The others did earlier. You spoke about the accusation that they made, therefore we have to look at what it was made about. Simples

steve06 wrote: »

If you're going to follow it then follow it, don't nit pick. How can you chose to believe one thing but not another when it's all "the word of god".

I'm not "nitpicking" at all. The Bible makes no mention of "original sin" in that phrase. What the Bible does say is that we are inclined to sin as a result of our free will.

steve06 wrote: »

It's common sense to omit the most important stuff and make sure it never sees the light of day while replacing it with loosely based stories that can be interpreted with multiple meaning because then you have better control over people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

It's nothing short of ridiculous to say that people shouldn't need to interpret anything because it is a necessity to read or speak or hear people speak in an intelligible manner.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to interpret it, I'm saying it's only open to interpretation. For a book that claims divine truth to only be open to interpretation is poor penmanship to say the least, and for people to claim those interpretations are absolutes or facts is delusional.

There is no objective way to distinguish between what is fact and what is metaphor. You're not a creationist, why? Why do you believe that part of the book to be metaphorical? Can you provide a specific instance in the Bible where it explicitly states what is real and what is fiction? If not, how do you distinguish what you believe to be true and relevant from that you believe not to be? If you can't do it objectively then you're cherry picking and projecting your wants onto the Bible.

philologos

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to interpret it, I'm saying it's only open to interpretation. For a book that claims divine truth to only be open to interpretation is poor penmanship to say the least, and for people to claim those interpretations are absolutes or facts is delusional.

Interpretation is necessary in any reading. However, this is no doubt the reason why most Christians I've come across as well as Christians whom I've prayed and studied the Bible with would ask God to show them something new with each reading. That's the best hope that I have. If I believe that God is truly living and active I believe that He will help me to know more about Him.

Do Christians have disagreements from time to time? Certainly. However, what is incredible is that every Christian that I've met of any denomination can agree with me on the essentials of the Christian faith. That's spectacular as far as I see it.

Seachmall wrote: »

There is no objective way to distinguish between what is fact and what is metaphor. You're not a creationist, why? Why do you believe that part of the book to be metaphorical? Can you provide a specific instance in the Bible where it explicitly states what is real and what is fiction? If not, how do you distinguish what you believe to be true and relevant from that you believe not to be? If you can't do it objectively then you're cherry picking and projecting your wants onto the Bible.

One learns about the context, and language in a given passage. For example the parables of Jesus aren't to be taken literally because if you did take them literally you wouldn't understand what was intended to be communicated. You'd go home thinking that Jesus gave great agricultural advice about where to put ones seeds (Mark 4) or about throwing the weeds into the fire (John 15).

As far as I see it myself and the one who would call himself the most ardent literalist, fundamentalist or even the most liberal would be in full agreement with one another.

What we do when we're unsure about the context of the passage is firstly to read what comes before and after it in the text. The most basic misunderstandings I've had have been resolved in this way. If that fails and we still strain to understand it we aim to try and learn something of the cultural context. Commentaries are great for this. If we are unsure about a word in the passage, look to the footnotes and see if there are other suggestions for what that word would be rendered as or look to a concordance with the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek term in it. If a term cannot be directly translated into English it at least shows the other ways that that word is rendered in other Scriptural passages so that we can have a better basis of working it out. That said, the first port of call in reading the Bible is to ask God to guide you in reading it.

I think there are ways that we can efficiently distinguish the Bible into genre.
In the case of the Tanakh the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament it is split up into parts. The Torah the law of Israel (Genesis - Deuteronomy), The Historical Books (Joshua - Esther), the Poetic Books (Job - Song of Solomon), Prophets (Isaiah - Malachi). In the case of the New Testament the Gospels and the Apostolic Writings can be distinguished similarly. Each text has a genre and one can discern this at least on a basic level even by simply reading it carefully.

I believe that Genesis could be describing a longer term of time because the word used for day in Hebrew "yom" is also used in the Old Testament to describe longer periods of time.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

However, what is incredible is that every Christian that I've met of any denomination can agree with me on the essentials of the Christian faith. That's spectacular as far as I see it.

Not that spectacular as otherwise they wouldn't be Christian.

I interpreted the rest of your post as "There is no objective way, we interpret it in whichever way makes sense to us".

Not good enough for me I'm afraid. A Jew, for example, would read the Bible and question why you believe Jesus to be the Son of God, surely that was metaphorical? They would read it as Jesus being an important prophet, but not the literal Son of God.

The Bible, as with all religious texts, leaves it's self too malleable to be considered truth, as evidenced by different religions and different beliefs within those religions.

philologos

Seachmall: I don't see how it is "too malleable" when the vast majority of Christians can find themselves in agreement with eachother over the central claims of Christianity. Sure if we cut off God from the top it is impossible to have any form of objective anything. Nothing is objective without God. If we are to suggest that it is possible for God to guide our reading as Christians, if we are to suggest that it is possible for God to speak into our lives as Christians things become a good deal different.

If anyone decides to doubt it I can ultimately offer you one piece of advice - Don't knock it until you've tried it. If you don't want to try it that's something entirely different. Heck, when I first prayed seriously to seek God I doubted that anything would come of it, that it would fall on deaf ears. How wrong I was, especially given that I'm here defending Him as Lord over all to you today!

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: I don't see how it is "too malleable" when the vast majority of Christians can find themselves in agreement with eachother over the central claims of Christianity.

Because we refer to Christians who don't agree with the central claims of Christianity as Jews, or Muslims, or Sikhs, or any of the other Theistic religions that don't agree with the central claims of Christianity. That is why you haven't met a Christian who doesn't agree with the definitive claims of Christianity, we don't call them Christians.

It's like saying "I've never met a black whiteman", by definition they're not a whiteman. It's not really that impressive.

Also, I edited my previous post, think it explains my point better.

philologos

Seachmall wrote: »

Because we refer to Christians who don't agree with the central claims of Christianity as Jews, or Muslims, or Sikhs, or any of the other Theistic religions that don't agree with the central claims of Christianity. That is why you haven't met a Christian who doesn't agree with the definitive claims of Christianity, we don't call them Christians.

It's like saying "I've never met a black whiteman", by definition they're not white. It's not really that impressive.

It does call into question what you've raised about interpretation though. That's precisely the point. It isn't as disparate as you're making it out to be.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

It does call into question what you've raised about interpretation though. That's precisely the point. It isn't as disparate as you're making it out to be.

No it doesn't, read my point about Jews in my edited post. People who interpret "Son of God" differently aren't Christian, they're a different religion.

Do all Christians agree on the fundamentals of Christianity? Yes. Those that don't aren't Christian, hence why you've never met a Christian who disagreed with them.

A much better point would be if all theists agreed on the interpretation of the Bible but of course they don't, they interpret it differently. Those bits that you take literally (Son of God) they take metaphorically.

Akrasia

philologos wrote: »

The others did earlier. You spoke about the accusation that they made, therefore we have to look at what it was made about. Simples



I'm not "nitpicking" at all. The Bible makes no mention of "original sin" in that phrase. What the Bible does say is that we are inclined to sin as a result of our free will.

When they're writing the next bible, they should talk to the guys who write IKEA instruction manuals

It's important that instructions for assembling flatpack furniture are clear, easy to follow and not open to interpretation, yet it's acceptable for the bible to be vague and unclear to the point that it is used to justify the beliefs of everyone from the westborough baptist church to the quakers?

Knight who says Meh

ALL HAIL IKEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

smash

philologos wrote: »

If anyone decides to doubt it I can ultimately offer you one piece of advice - Don't knock it until you've tried it.

The basis to a Christian way of life is to lead a good life and be good to others... This is entirely possible without being a Christian, most people do it every day without looking to the bible to help them.