Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Ha, take that Ratzinger!

1…567911

Comments

  • #242
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    This is one of the things I find really funny about religion. I work in IT and I frequently have to write documentation for various things. I am a mere human, yet I am expected to write documentation that is understandable and does not require any interpretation. In the grand scheme of things my documentation is not particularly important, no one will die over it, yet I am held to very high standard regarding its quality.

    Then we have the bible. it is a "manual" for life. It explains how we need to live in order to attain eternal life, pretty important stuff. It was inspired by an all powerful all knowing super sky wizard who is, one would expect, of at least reasonable intelligence. And we find that, despite the importance of the book and the fact that a god had a hand in writing it, its quality, as a manual, is fcuking sh1t.

    God is luck he isn't a freelance contractor, cos I don't think he would last very long.

    MrP


  • #243
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,928 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Ah, see, there's your problem. Somebody has told you that the bible is like an IT manual, only for human life, and for whatever reason it has never occurred to you to question this.

    See, the thing is, IT manuals had not been invented when the bible texts were written, and that particular genre of literature did not exist. You might as well try to read Homer's Illiad, or Newton's Principia Mathematica, or Austen's Pride and Prejudice, as if they were something like an IT manual. You won't get very far.

    The bible does not "explain how we need to live in order to attain eternal life", and does not pretend to explain this. Someone in whom you evidently place implicit faith has told you this, but I'm afraid your faith is misplaced. You need to become a bit more critical, a bit more sceptical. A bit more thoughtful even; given what we know about the bible texts and the culture that produced them, how likely is it that they would function like, or read like, IT manuals? I mean, c'mon! Do any other texts from that periopd of human history read like manuals? No? And why do you think that might be?

    The only way to decide how to read the bible texts, I'm afraid, is actually to read them, and to do it with some thought. There's a variety of texts written in a variety of genres, some of which are familiar to us and some of which are not - history, fiction, fable, poetry, philosophy, song, apocalyptic literature, rhetoric, polemic, and more besides. But operating manual isn't there. (Neither is newspaper, for all you biblical literalists out there.)

    If you're not interested in the bible, that's fine. But not being interested in it because it doesn't read like an operating manual is a bit like not being interested in your computer's operating manual because it doesn't rhyme or because it lacks a love interest and all the characters are, you know, just so badly drawn.


  • #244
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,615 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    If you're not interested in the bible, that's fine. But not being interested in it because it doesn't read like an operating manual is a bit like not being interested in your computer's operating manual because it doesn't rhyme or because it lacks a love interest and all the characters are, you know, just so badly drawn.
    Where exactly did you get notion that MrP isn't interested from? You're address some point that wasn't made.

    What is the purpose of the Gospels etc. if not "spread the good word", and to document the life of Jesus for mankind?

    You've suggested what the bible is not - but been very vague on what it actually is.


  • #245
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is one of the things I find really funny about religion. I work in IT and I frequently have to write documentation for various things. I am a mere human, yet I am expected to write documentation that is understandable and does not require any interpretation. In the grand scheme of things my documentation is not particularly important, no one will die over it, yet I am held to very high standard regarding its quality.

    Then we have the bible. it is a "manual" for life. It explains how we need to live in order to attain eternal life, pretty important stuff. It was inspired by an all powerful all knowing super sky wizard who is, one would expect, of at least reasonable intelligence. And we find that, despite the importance of the book and the fact that a god had a hand in writing it, its quality, as a manual, is fcuking sh1t.

    God is luck he isn't a freelance contractor, cos I don't think he would last very long.

    MrP

    It's not a 'manual for life', first of all.

    The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself. In other words, it's not because it's hard to understand that you don't get it - but in fact the opposite is true. It's because you don't 'get it' (believe) that it's hard to understand.

    God is 'all powerful, 'all knowing', even by your admission. Do you really think a sovereign God would make it easily understandable to someone who views it in such a way that you do? Why would you deserve that?

    Matthew 13:13 'Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand'.

    Deuteronomy 29:4 'Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day..'

    And as Isaiah prophesied hundreds of years before Jesus and Matthew were even born:

    And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:


  • #246
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,097 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Newsite wrote: »
    It's not a 'manual for life', first of all.

    The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself.
    Sounds like catch 22. You can't understand the bible if you aren't a Christian, to become a Christian you must truly understand the bible.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    koth wrote: »
    Sounds like catch 22. You can't understand the bible if you aren't a Christian, to become a Christian you must truly understand the bible.

    It is somewhat. But ask yourself this - are you more likely to come to an understanding if you have an open heart and genuinely want to - or if you harden your heart and refer to it in the terms above?


  • #248
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,097 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Newsite wrote: »
    It is somewhat. But ask yourself this - are you more likely to come to an understanding if you have an open heart and genuinely want to - or if you harden your heart and refer to it in the terms above?

    Neither, as I'm not a Christian therefore the meaning will be hidden from me.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #249
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Newsite wrote: »
    The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself.
    I've read a lot of the NT in Ancient Greek and believe me, in comparison to what else is out there in that language and from around that time, the NT is unforgivably poor quality prose.

    The reason that you think there's more in there than meets the eye is because you desperately want there to be more there. The psychological term, as I pointed out somewhere else recently, is Pareidolia.

    Additional meaning is missing, not because we are "blasphemous unbelievers" or haven't an "open heart", but for the rather simpler reason that it's not there.


  • #250
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    robindch wrote: »
    I've read a lot of the NT in Ancient Greek and believe me, in comparison to what else is out there in that language and from around that time, the NT is unforgivably poor quality prose.

    The reason that you think there's more in there than meets the eye is because you desperately want there to be more there. The psychological term, as I pointed out somewhere else recently, is Pareidolia.

    Additional meaning is missing, not because we are "blasphemous unbelievers" or haven't an "open heart", but for the rather simpler reason that it's not there.

    On the contrary, it is rich and replete in meaning, and interwoven with verses which back up other parts of the Bible, spaced hundreds and even thousands of years apart.

    Jesus spoke in more obscure terms to the crowds, but with his apostles he spoke plainly and simply. A classic example is the parable of the workers in the Gospel of Matthew - to an unbeliever it may make little sense - to a true Christian it perfectly explains the core message.

    Also - I think Pareidolia refers more to sounds and images :)


  • #251
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Newsite wrote: »
    The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself. In other words, it's not because it's hard to understand that you don't get it - but in fact the opposite is true. It's because you don't 'get it' (believe) that it's hard to understand.

    This is self-fulfilling - what religion preaches is that if you have "faith" - i.e. pretend to believe X, then suddenly X will make sense.

    This bypasses any sort of logical or rational analysis.

    Jumping straight to belief (i.e. using "faith") is simply irrational. It's not that I'm not open to the message, it's that I refuse to believe something blindly "just because".

    I like to have beliefs that are internally self-consistent. If the bible is inconsistent with the real world as I see it, then I will assume that the bible is at fault, not the real world. What religious believers seem to do instead is to build a mental model in their heads, where there is a new reality which goes beyond the physical world about us. Hence transubstantiation can somehow make sense, because an additional "reality" has been created as a conceptual holding space for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Newsite wrote: »
    The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself.

    But since we don't believe because we don't understand and since we don't understand because we don't believe, this, therefore, implies that whatever punishment we get for being "blasphemous unbelievers" (hell, purgatory whatever) is dolled out on us because of something that is entirely out of our control, something that god does to us, rather than something we do to ourselves.


  • #253
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    swampgas wrote: »
    This is self-fulfilling - what religion preaches is that if you have "faith" - i.e. pretend to believe X, then suddenly X will make sense.

    This bypasses any sort of logical or rational analysis.

    Of course. I agree that it does bypass any sort of logical or rational analysis. That's because it's based on a hugely widespread, flawed belief, particularly common among atheists and rationalists, that faith equals your choosing to believe something, which then suddenly makes itself clear to you. That's the biggest misconception about belief and Christianity. You don't have faith because you believe - you believe because you have faith.

    In other words, belief is the result of faith, not a pre-requisite for the latter.
    swampgas wrote: »
    Jumping straight to belief (i.e. using "faith") is simply irrational. It's not that I'm not open to the message, it's that I refuse to believe something blindly "just because".

    As a corollary to the above, you don't refuse and reject it because you have no proof for it. It's because you have no faith in the first place, that you don't believe.
    swampgas wrote: »
    I like to have beliefs that are internally self-consistent. If the bible is inconsistent with the real world as I see it, then I will assume that the bible is at fault, not the real world.

    Again, that you assume this is a hallmark of the unbeliever!
    swampgas wrote: »
    What religious believers seem to do instead is to build a mental model in their heads, where there is a new reality which goes beyond the physical world about us. Hence transubstantiation can somehow make sense, because an additional "reality" has been created as a conceptual holding space for it.

    You can neither prove or disprove the existence of a new reality which lies outside the physical world about us. There could be life on distant galaxies - you might not believe that, but you cannot disprove it either. That it exists or does not exist is not dependent on your believing in it.


  • #254
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Newsite wrote: »
    On the contrary, it is rich and replete in meaning, and interwoven with verses which back up other parts of the Bible, spaced hundreds and even thousands of years apart.

    And many many contradictions....


  • #255
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Newsite wrote: »
    In other words, belief is the result of faith, not a pre-requisite for the latter.

    I was going to berate you for playing pointless, shallow word games, but it occurs to me we might just have different definitions of the word faith (as it pertains to religion). The common, dictionary definition of faith, and the one I'd imagine almost everybody else is using is "Faith : Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof", and as belief in a god or doctrines is part of the definition it is then also a pre-requisite to saying somebody has faith. Clearly this would contradict your point so please explain both your definition of faith and why it is more valid so we can properly understand the root of our misconception.


  • #256
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Galvasean wrote: »
    And many many contradictions....

    And that is your viewpoint because ^^^^ ;)


  • #257
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Newsite wrote: »
    And that is your viewpoint because ^^^^ ;)

    Because........... they are clear for all to see. ;)


  • #258
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Because........... they are clear for all to see. ;)

    Remember that gospel - which is 'hid to all that are lost'.


  • #259
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Knasher wrote: »
    I was going to berate you for playing pointless, shallow word games, but it occurs to me we might just have different definitions of the word faith (as it pertains to religion). The common, dictionary definition of faith, and the one I'd imagine almost everybody else is using is "Faith : Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof", and as belief in a god or doctrines is part of the definition it is then also a pre-requisite to saying somebody has faith. Clearly this would contradict your point so please explain both your definition of faith and why it is more valid so we can properly understand the root of our misconception.

    Might not have expressed it that well.

    Think of belief as the outward sign of faith. I say 'I believe', as a result of my faith.

    In other words, faith is a free gift from God. 'Belief' is the outward expression of that gift.

    It does not mean that belief and faith are in conflict. Rather that my believing is a result of my faith.


  • #260
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    So are you saying the Bible contains no contradictions... or did they all get repealed?


  • #261
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Maybe a link to this topic sent to fbjm might explain why it's best not to debate religion with some believers.

    It's true because it says it's true and it also says that people that don't believe it just can't understand it. Sigh.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,097 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Newsite wrote: »
    Might not have expressed it that well.

    Think of belief as the outward sign of faith. I say 'I believe', as a result of my faith.

    In other words, faith is a free gift from God. 'Belief' is the outward expression of that gift.

    It does not mean that belief and faith are in conflict. Rather that my believing is a result of my faith.


    So everyone has faith in God, but some just don't profess that faith???

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #263
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Galvasean wrote: »
    So are you saying the Bible contains no contradictions... or did they all get repealed?

    Given you're an unbeliever, you could never be convinced otherwise. So I'll leave you to your mocking - on your head be it Galvasean.

    God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.


  • #264
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Oh hush.

    I have no doubt that if hell is real, I'll see you there.


  • #265
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Newsite wrote: »
    Given you're an unbeliever, you could never be convinced otherwise. So I'll leave you to your mocking - on your head be it Galvasean.

    God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

    Blah blah blah......

    You are a tiresome one.


  • #266
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh hush.

    I have no doubt that if hell is real, I'll see you there.

    'If'??

    Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!


  • #267
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Black Eyed Peas 4:4

    "What you gon' do with all that junk?
    All that junk inside your trunk?
    I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
    Get you love drunk off my hump.
    My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
    My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps (Check it out)

    Think about it.


  • #268
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,615 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Newsite wrote: »
    Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
    What?

    Everybody knows that verse is directed at brewers of beer. (Blessed are they...)


  • #269
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Sarky wrote: »
    Think about it.

    Please note that anyone who dismisses said quote simply does not understand.


  • #270
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    No no no, they don't understand because they dismiss the quote.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    No no no, they don't understand because they are stupid.


Advertisement