Just a thought...

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 01:52AM

Jernal wrote: »

All that aside, I have to ask what you think of the current state of your church and what, if any, criticisms towards it you think are warranted?

I think there is a lot wrong with the church today, it has in a way moved away from the message of God and has become some sort of club whereby if you don't follow the rules, you're out. The institutional church in Rome has become unattractive and sterile. Its continuing desire to exclude women from decision making in the upper ranks is doing it no favors and it's inability to adapt to the modern world is disappointing for everyone. The whole system is ran by old men who sometimes spend most if their time condemning the modern world than preaching Christ's message of love. For ordinary Catholics its very very easy get disillusioned from it all but you have to keep going I suppose. And i don't think women priest and married clergy will sort it, if your local priest was a woman would it encourage you more to go to mass? of course not, similarly if your priest was married it wouldn't really change anything. People think if you change the obvious flaws within the church such as those mentioned above all will be well, but a radical re-examination personal faith is required I think, when religion becomes a matter of habit it dies. Faith should be actively lived through compassion and love for your fellow man, not through condemnation of those who are different or those who don't believe, that achieves nothing.

ShooterSF · 09-07-2012 02:52AM

whatsup? wrote: »

I think there is a lot wrong with the church today, it has in a way moved away from the message of God and has become some sort of club whereby if you don't follow the rules, you're out.

Not to be rude but isn't that the message of god? "My rules or you're out!". It's the reason hell "exists" in Christianity. You seem to believe the church should be something it has never been, claimed to be, one of compassion, love and with a live and let live mentality. It is an organisation built on strict rules and laws (often similar to rules and laws someone would have in place to keep power) on how to live, laws that extend past love one another, which it has been more than honest about for a long time, only these days it doesn't have the ability to punish those who break it's laws. If anything, looking back on history the catholic church is not the menace it once was (though that might not be their choice) and it really confuses me when people say it has lost it's way. I'd love to be pointed to a time when the Catholic church hadn't lost it's way as a comparison...

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 03:18AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not to be rude but isn't that the message of god? "My rules or you're out!". It's the reason hell "exists" in Christianity. You seem to believe the church should be something it has never been, claimed to be, one of compassion, love and with a live and let live mentality. It is an organisation built on strict rules and laws (often similar to rules and laws someone would have in place to keep power) on how to live, laws that extend past love one another, which it has been more than honest about for a long time, only these days it doesn't have the ability to punish those who break it's laws. If anything, looking back on history the catholic church is not the menace it once was (though that might not be their choice) and it really confuses me when people say it has lost it's way. I'd love to be pointed to a time when the Catholic church hadn't lost it's way as a comparison...

To say the message of God is "my rules or out" is completely wrong. Our faith is based on the Gospels which preach love, compassion and forgiveness..that's it really. The church in my view was at its best two thousand years ago when the 11 disciples went out and preached the love of God after the resurrection against unbearable circumstances, which saw them all killed for their beliefs.
When talking about faith its important to separate the "church" from God. God is love, the church is the people of god so is therefore is well capable of getting things wrong and we all agree it certainly has got many things wrong down through the centuries. The church took on the message of Jesus and introduced rules and regulations governing it and eventually the "club" mentality emerged. You say the church is built on rules, and it certainly is, too many rules actually but God just had one rule, to love one as yourself.
Its naive and dumb to think the Church could ever be perfect and i wasn't trying to say that it is (or ever will be), its made up of humans after all.
Faith is so so much more than the church or the pope or rules and regulation its about your own personal relationship with God..thats my opinion anyways:)

joseph brand · 09-07-2012 03:31AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not to be rude but isn't that the message of god? "My rules or you're out!". It's the reason hell "exists" in Christianity. You seem to believe the church should be something it has never been, claimed to be, one of compassion, love and with a live and let live mentality. It is an organisation built on strict rules and laws (often similar to rules and laws someone would have in place to keep power) on how to live, laws that extend past love one another, which it has been more than honest about for a long time, only these days it doesn't have the ability to punish those who break it's laws. If anything, looking back on history the catholic church is not the menace it once was (though that might not be their choice) and it really confuses me when people say it has lost it's way. I'd love to be pointed to a time when the Catholic church hadn't lost it's way as a comparison...

Perhaps when they say the word 'way' here, they actually mean 'power'.

In Muslim countries which practise Sharia Law, we can see that their religion hasn't lost it's 'way'.

The church has changed it's tune somewhat lately. Not so much "Do as we say" any more. Mostly just "Leave us alone", "Where are you all going?" and "He couldn't have raped those young boys, eh, eh, he's a man of God!"

ShooterSF · 09-07-2012 03:35AM

whatsup? wrote: »

To say the message of God is "my rules or out" is completely wrong. Our faith is based on the Gospels which preach love, compassion and forgiveness..that's it really. The church in my view was at its best two thousand years ago when the 11 disciples went out and preached the love of God after the resurrection against unbearable circumstances, which saw them all killed for their beliefs.
When talking about faith its important to separate the "church" from God. God is love, the church is the people of god so is therefore is well capable of getting things wrong and we all agree it certainly has got many things wrong down through the centuries. The church took on the message of Jesus and introduced rules and regulations governing it and eventually the "club" mentality emerged. You say the church is built on rules, and it certainly is, too many rules actually but God just had one rule, to love one as yourself.
Its naive and dumb to think the Church could ever be perfect and i wasn't trying to say that it is (or ever will be), its made up of humans after all.
Faith is so so much more than the church or the pope or rules and regulation its about your own personal relationship with God..thats my opinion anyways:)

2000 years ago? It's been a mess for along time so and "You say the church is built on rules, and it certainly is, too many rules actually but God just had one rule, to love one as yourself." Sorry, but that's crap. God has loads of rules. Have you read the bible? I'm not being facetious here. No one that has read the bible can say that god has only one rule or that it was "to love one as yourself". I can point you to Deut 22:28 as one of the more nasty ones.

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 05:50AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

2000 years ago? It's been a mess for along time so and "You say the church is built on rules, and it certainly is, too many rules actually but God just had one rule, to love one as yourself." Sorry, but that's crap. God has loads of rules. Have you read the bible? I'm not being facetious here. No one that has read the bible can say that god has only one rule or that it was "to love one as yourself". I can point you to Deut 22:28 as one of the more nasty ones.

Deuteronomy was written by Moses and most Biblical scholars consider many of the events from the OT to be peoples perception of God not actual historical events, Noah and the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were probably linked to natural disasters such as great rainfalls or earthquakes, the people of the time interpreted them as God's wrath and so stories were written that made it into the Bible. Not every word of the Bible should be interpreted as fact, it says in Matthews Gospel that if your foot causes you to sin, then cut it off! (18:8) yet you don't hear the Pope telling people to maim themselves.
Deut 22:28 seems to condone rape, of course it doesn't mean that rape is ok in Gods eyes, it was written by man not God and the text should be read in the context of the time it was written, it has no relevance to today's society.

The Old testament is more the perceived view of God in the context of the time. It has some crazy stuff in there that couldn't possibly be viewed as Gods will (it says in Deut 22:22 that an adulterer should be put to death..crazy stuff) The Gospels are what we base the faith on as they can only be interpreted as Gods love as revealed by Jesus. "this is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you." John 13:34

Please do assume that Christians follow every word of the Bible as fact when its more an historical account of peoples relationship with, and perception of, God down through the ages.

Sorry if i sound preachy i just wanted to get my point across

Dades · 09-07-2012 10:36AM

The problem with that is that the New Testament God is the same God as the Old Testament one (just with different personalities). If the Old Testament one is essentially a fabrication of superstitious tribesmen, well then the entire premise is built on sand. The New Testament God can only be as real as the old one.

So you can't have it both ways and say vengeful, wrathful God was never as real as the new "peace and love" one.

Corkfeen · 09-07-2012 10:47AM

Dades wrote: »

The problem with that is that the New Testament God is the same God as the Old Testament one (just with different personalities). If the Old Testament one is essentially a fabrication of superstitious tribesmen, well then the entire premise is built on sand. The New Testament God can only be as real as the old one.

So you can't have it both ways and say vengeful, wrathful God was never as real as the new "peace and love" one.

I always viewed it as awful plot progression. Somewhat similar to Anakin becoming Darth Vader in the Star Wars prequels. It requires a massive leap. I remember asking someone as a child 'Wasn't the old testament God rather evil?' Their response was that it was too complex for a human mind to comprehend. It always struck me as a crap explanation. You could apply that statement to every genocidal maniac by their logic.

ShooterSF · 09-07-2012 11:10AM

Woah now there's worms everywhere!

If you can see the old testament for what it was, perceptions of a people who were ignorant at the time of nature, why stop using this critical thinking when you arrive at the new testament. Especially as it is claimed Jesus is the son of this same god and fulfilled prophesies outlined in the old "man made" testament as the only proof of such?

Even still you quote John 13:34 as it's a direct quote from Jesus but cast off Matthew 18:8 in the same post even though it is also a quote from Jesus. This is really getting into a territory where you are molding your own god to fit your beliefs rather than the other way around. You are not taking what to believe from god but putting it on him.

Here's another quote from Jesus I bet dollars for doughnuts you don't agree with,

“That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

The problem with this is that while you may be a level headed person with a level headed god, bigots will have a bigoted god (with the same name and son) and will pick the passages like above to mold said god with the same reasoning as yourself and when argued with will point to their god as the reason for their beliefs.

Also I can't see how you can claim the RCC has lost it's way when it has never even considered the idea that parts of the bible are mistaken. Surely at best you are Christian rather than RCC.

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 08:14PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Even still you quote John 13:34 as it's a direct quote from Jesus but cast off Matthew 18:8 in the same post even though it is also a quote from Jesus. This is really getting into a territory where you are molding your own god to fit your beliefs rather than the other way around.

I'm not "molding" God to suit my own beliefs, i'm simply stating that to literally interpret quotes from the Bible is incorrect from a religious and historical point of view.Matthew 18:8 "if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off"..are you really saying that Christians should be expected to obey this just because its in the Bible. You have to look at the context of the quote and its place within the entire text. That specific quote deals with sin and how damaging it is to the person, yes Matthew says to "cut off" a limb that causes you to sin but its said in such a graphic way so as to make the person think..(well i'm not going to cut off my foot so maybe the easier thing to do would just be to not sin in the first place.). It could even have been some half witted attempt at humor on Matthews part. The quote deals with the evil of sin, not the maiming of oneself.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Here's another quote from Jesus I bet dollars for doughnuts you don't agree with,

“That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

Again, its not to be literally interpreted. If it were then Jesus would be saying to beat the living daylights out of someone who "doesn't do their masters will". No sane person on the planet could attribute such a statement to a loving God. It simply says to submit to God, that's all. No one is going to be hit with blows as a literal interpretation would lead you to assume. The most important part of the text is the last line and is extremely relevant to today's society "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked". It more or less says that those with most should give to those with less....Pity the bankers and the likes didn't take this to heart.

ShooterSF wrote: »

The problem with this is that while you may be a level headed person with a level headed god, bigots will have a bigoted god (with the same name and son) and will pick the passages like above to mold said god with the same reasoning as yourself and when argued with will point to their god as the reason for their beliefs.

Couldn't agree with you more, that's why you have people going around with placards saying "god hates gays" and stuff like that. Its important to remember that from a Catholic point of view, God is Love so to view any part of the Bible as saying something different is just being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Also I can't see how you can claim the RCC has lost it's way when it has never even considered the idea that parts of the bible are mistaken. Surely at best you are Christian rather than RCC.

I am Catholic. I meant it lost its way by becoming too caught up with its image and wielding power rather than proclaiming the Gospels. And i don't see the "Bible" as a mistake and either does the Church. It is peoples perceptions of God, historical fact, but some portrayals of God as recorded in it are a mistake. The Bible is plainly the peoples view of God down through the ages and at times they obviously got it wrong, that's why Jesus came into the world in the first place so as to reveal the true God. Parts of the Bible that seem daft and evil to us were the just the peoples idea of what God was to them, not what he is for us. We therefore take solace from the fact that all down through the ages mankind sought to find God and so if religion was so important to them, likewise it should be a big part of our own lives. that's why the OT is so important in today's Church, not for its actual wording but its portrayal of a world that loved God.

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 08:24PM

Dades wrote: »

The problem with that is that the New Testament God is the same God as the Old Testament one (just with different personalities). If the Old Testament one is essentially a fabrication of superstitious tribesmen, well then the entire premise is built on sand. The New Testament God can only be as real as the old one.

So you can't have it both ways and say vengeful, wrathful God was never as real as the new "peace and love" one.

Its the same God in both Testaments some communities misinterpreted his message so that's why you read things such as kill the adulterer and so on. the whole reason why Jesus came into the world so the true loving God that we have today could be revealed.

Also its worth pointing out that thousands of years ago, the God people worshiped and adored such as the ancient Greek and Roman Gods or the pagan Gods of fire and wind were vengeful and angry Gods therefore the people found it hard to adjust to the loving God that the Prophets in The OT proclaimed. Jesus was the first to preach about a God of compassion and love. All the other communities before this had inherited an almighty who liked to through his weight around.

swampgas · 09-07-2012 08:49PM

whatsup? wrote: »

Its the same God in both Testaments some communities misinterpreted his message so that's why you read things such as kill the adulterer and so on. the whole reason why Jesus came into the world so the true loving God that we have today could be revealed.

The problem is who gets to decide which bits of the bible are misinterpreted, which bits are just analogies and parables, and which bits are literally true? If the bible was all it is cracked up to be (the Word of God, no less) then surely wouldn't be such a contradictory mess?

If you can use your own judgement to decide that killing adulterers is wrong, why not just keep on using your own judgement? Stop letting other people (i.e the church/religion) tell you what's right and wrong - you can figure that out for yourself.

swampgas · 09-07-2012 09:09PM

whatsup? wrote: »

And i don't see any part of the Bible as mistaken and either does the Church.

The Bible is plainly the peoples view of God down through the ages and at times they obviously got it wrong, that's why Jesus came into the world in the first place so as to reveal the true God.

Do you realise that in one post you are claiming that:

(1) no part of the Bible is mistaken
(2) the Bible is the work of fallible people who got some of it wrong

This is religious belief in a nutshell - the ability to hold contradictory ideas and not see a problem.

Parts of the Bible that seem daft and evil to us were the just the peoples idea of what God was to them, not what he is for us. We therefore take solace from the fact that all down through the ages mankind sought to find God and so if religion was so important to them, likewise it should be a big part of our own lives. that's why the OT is so important in today's Church, not for its actual wording but its portrayal of a world that loved God.

Maybe a simpler explanation for why parts of the Bible seem daft and evil, is that they really are daft and evil? Doesn't that seem like a much more likely explanation?

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 09:23PM

swampgas wrote: »

Do you realise that in one post you are claiming that:

(1) no part of the Bible is mistaken
(2) the Bible is the work of fallible people who got some of it wrong

This is religious belief in a nutshell - the ability to hold contradictory ideas and not see a problem.

Maybe a simpler explanation for why parts of the Bible seem daft and evil, is that they really are daft and evil? Doesn't that seem like a much more likely explanation?

I didn't say no part of the Bible is mistaken you're mixing my words. The Bible as it stands is what it is and tells of mankind's perception of God-that is not a mistake its historic fact. of course the literal interpretations of the text are very much mistaken when you consider God is full of love etc.

The NT is as improvement of the OT. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Word and summed it up with God is Love. The Bible is not a mistake, but some of the perceptions of God as recorded in it are.

fitz0 · 09-07-2012 09:26PM

whatsup? wrote: »

I didn't say no part of the Bible is mistaken you're mixing my words.

whatsup? wrote: »

And i don't see any part of the Bible as mistaken and either does the Church.

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 09:29PM

fitz0 wrote: »

hahaha yes i realized that a second ago. Sorry if i didn't make myself clear before but the last post i did might have summed it up.:)

joseph brand · 09-07-2012 09:34PM

whatsup? wrote: »

I didn't say no part of the Bible is mistaken you're mixing my words. The Bible as it stands is what it is and tells of mankind's perception of God-that is not a mistake its historic fact. of course the literal interpretations of the text are very much mistaken when you consider God is full of love etc.

The NT is as improvement of the OT. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Word and summed it up with God is Love. The Bible is not a mistake, but some of the perceptions of God as recorded in it are.

Let's pretend for a second that god doesn't exist.

Now. Let that thought sit there for a moment.

Now ask yourself "what is the bible?" (see my sig for an answer)

I just noticed. bible.

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 09:41PM

joseph brand wrote: »

Let's pretend for a second that god doesn't exist.

Now. Let that thought sit there for a moment.

Now ask yourself "what is the bible?" (see my sig for an answer)

I just noticed. bible.

haha ok i did all that...for me if God doesn't exist then the Bible is one way of showing he does.
Its hard discussing this with ye guys because anytime I mention "faith or Church" ye insert the word "fairytale bullsh*t"....so it makes me look completly daft:p

mrac · 09-07-2012 09:46PM

whatsup? wrote: »

haha ok i did all that...for me if God doesn't exist then the Bible is one way of showing he does.
Its hard discussing this with ye guys because anytime I mention "faith or Church" ye insert the word "fairytale bullsh*t"....so it makes me look completly daft:p

If it were the word of god it souldnt be so easy to take to piss out of it.

joseph brand · 09-07-2012 09:49PM

whatsup? wrote: »

haha ok i did all that...for me if God doesn't exist then the Bible is one way of showing he does.
Its hard discussing this with ye guys because anytime I mention "faith or Church" ye insert the word "fairytale bullsh*t"....so it makes me look completly daft:p

That sentence doesn't really make any sense.

If, for instance, an elephant doesn't exist in my shed, then NO book could show that it does. Doesn't matter how old, dusty and revered the book is, there's no elephant in my shed.

Surely you've seen this?

whatsup? · 09-07-2012 10:00PM

joseph brand wrote: »

That sentence doesn't really make any sense.

If, for instance, an elephant doesn't exist in my shed, then NO book could show that it does. Doesn't matter how old, dusty and revered the book is, there's no elephant in my shed.

Surely you've seen this?

The Bible is just one revelation that points towards a God not the only one.

Your story of the elephant makes little sense in this context and i'd be the same and say there is no elephant in the shed! but when taking about God its a whole different conversation. Philosophy, nature, the Gospels, lives of saints etc for me point towards a God. Also the question "why are we here?" is it all just a big coincidence that we ended up in existence or is there something else? Philosophy for me points towards a greater force..of course people disagree with me but that's just what I think.

and no i didn't see your link before....made me giggle haha

ShooterSF · 09-07-2012 11:14PM

whatsup? wrote: »

I'm not "molding" God to suit my own beliefs, i'm simply stating that to literally interpret quotes from the Bible is incorrect from a religious and historical point of view.Matthew 18:8 "if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off"..are you really saying that Christians should be expected to obey this just because its in the Bible. You have to look at the context of the quote and its place within the entire text. That specific quote deals with sin and how damaging it is to the person, yes Matthew says to "cut off" a limb that causes you to sin but its said in such a graphic way so as to make the person think..(well i'm not going to cut off my foot so maybe the easier thing to do would just be to not sin in the first place.). It could even have been some half witted attempt at humor on Matthews part. The quote deals with the evil of sin, not the maiming of oneself.

You are molding it imo. Of course I don't think Christians should chop off their limbs but I'm not the one claiming you need the bible to give you morals and guidance. I'm not the one pointing to it when looking to ban contraception, gay marriage, abortion and a whole host of other crap. You either know what's right and wrong without the book or not and if you do and THEN fit the passages with what you already know applying "context", "mistake" and "parable" to the ones you don't like while holding up the good bits and praising them that is molding.

Again, its not to be literally interpreted. If it were then Jesus would be saying to beat the living daylights out of someone who "doesn't do their masters will". No sane person on the planet could attribute such a statement to a loving God. It simply says to submit to God, that's all. No one is going to be hit with blows as a literal interpretation would lead you to assume.

Even with that interpretation the consequence of not submitting to god is the metaphorical equivalent of an arse kicking. I assume that's the loving threat of eternal (think what that word means) hellfire. Also where do you get loving god from? That's a filter you are approaching the bible with which doesn't help critical analysis. At least an argument from the 10 commandments can suggest he's a self described Jealous god (unless you claim Moses couldn't even take down dictation properly).

The most important part of the text is the last line and is extremely relevant to today's society "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked". It more or less says that those with most should give to those with less....Pity the bankers and the likes didn't take this to heart.

Because it fit's your world view. Maybe that's a parable and means that more will be expected of God and his preachers as they have the most (power). See this game can be fun/pointless.

Couldn't agree with you more, that's why you have people going around with placards saying "god hates gays" and stuff like that. Its important to remember that from a Catholic point of view, God is Love so to view any part of the Bible as saying something different is just being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

On whose authority in the Catholic Church is god love? Im sorry but even the basic tenet of Christianity, believe and love in me and heaven awaits or else, is not the actions of a loving person. If he was a parent you would call his type of love sick.

I am Catholic. I meant it lost its way by becoming too caught up with its image and wielding power rather than proclaiming the Gospels. And i don't see the "Bible" as a mistake and either does the Church. It is peoples perceptions of God, historical fact, but some portrayals of God as recorded in it are a mistake.

I think someone pointed out the oddness of those sentences already.

The Bible is plainly the peoples view of God down through the ages and at times they obviously got it wrong, that's why Jesus came into the world in the first place so as to reveal the true God. Parts of the Bible that seem daft and evil to us were the just the peoples idea of what God was to them, not what he is for us. We therefore take solace from the fact that all down through the ages mankind sought to find God and so if religion was so important to them, likewise it should be a big part of our own lives. that's why the OT is so important in today's Church, not for its actual wording but its portrayal of a world that loved God.

First Jesus clearly didn't clear up jack if you had to correct the meaning of some of his quotes above already. He was horribly ambiguous at best. I'm sure I could pull a few more direct quotes that need to be "understood" non-literally and in the right non-literal sense. He only cleared things up when you assume he meant to teach people to be good to one another and nothing else.
Secondly I cringe at the idea that the OT is held up as evidence of people's love of god. It's evidence of people using the idea of a vengeful actively punishing god to scare people into doing what they say, if it wasn't you wouldn't need to be white washing over it's lessons.

Kidchameleon · 09-07-2012 11:25PM

mrac wrote: »

If it were the word of god it souldnt be so easy to take to piss out of it.

Its easy to take the piss out of anything anyone says though if your good enough at it

fitz0 · 09-07-2012 11:28PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its easy to take the piss out of anything anyone says though if your good enough at it

*You're

Yet the infallible word of the universe's creator is just so easy that you don't even ave to be very good.

Kidchameleon · 09-07-2012 11:40PM

fitz0 wrote: »

*You're

Yet the infallible word of the universe's creator is just so easy that you don't even ave to be very good.

Don't you mean the "infallible" word that the church / bible tells us is god? To be honest I don't think Ive ever heard god speak...

whatsup? · 10-07-2012 01:22AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

You are molding it imo. Of course I don't think Christians should chop off their limbs but I'm not the one claiming you need the bible to give you morals and guidance. I'm not the one pointing to it when looking to ban contraception, gay marriage, abortion and a whole host of other crap. You either know what's right and wrong without the book or not and if you do and THEN fit the passages with what you already know applying "context", "mistake" and "parable" to the ones you don't like while holding up the good bits and praising them that is molding.

Again i'm not "molding" my own God. Everything I've said about interpreting the Bible correctly is based on academic principal. That is how one studies the Bible, through examining and interpreting historical written texts and figuring out the message and what it reveals about about God. seeing as your not religious i suggest you approach it with an historical/academic perspective. The Bible is a historical source of God's relationship with man. "context" as you refer to is highly important when looking at the book as it all must be read in the context of the time it was written. That doesn't mean leaving out bits that don't look good and including other parts, it involves intellectually reading the texts and seeing the ultimate message at the core. which is God's love. All biblical scholars, atheists and religious accept this...its fact. Its not molding.

ShooterSF wrote: »

where do you get loving god from? That's a filter you are approaching the bible with which doesn't help critical analysis. At least an argument from the 10 commandments can suggest he's a self described Jealous god (unless you claim Moses couldn't even take down dictation properly).

A Loving God comes from the Gospels. "God is Love"
john 4:8. The whole Bible is concerned with Gods love for mankind Even the bits in the OT which seem to do the opposite when read at first hand really have Gods love at the core. How does the 10 commandments suggest God is jealous?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Because it fit's your world view. Maybe that's a parable and means that more will be expected of God and his preachers as they have the most (power). See this game can be fun/pointless.

What game? That quote suits everyone's world, "that those with the most will give to those with less" its called equality.

ShooterSF wrote: »

On whose authority in the Catholic Church is god love? Im sorry but even the basic tenet of Christianity, believe and love in me and heaven awaits or else, is not the actions of a loving person. If he was a parent you would call his type of love sick.

What do you mean on whose authority? The basic tenant of Christianity is love one another, not watch out or you'll burn in hell if you don't do as I say. Why would you call God's Love sick when its anything but..God loves us even when we ignore him, kill, steal, worship other Gods etc he still loves us. How is that sick? Its a proper example of parental love.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think someone pointed out the oddness of those sentences already.

Those sentences are not odd. I'll repeat them again....."i don't see the "Bible" as a mistake and either does the Church. It is peoples perceptions of God, historical fact, but some portrayals of God as recorded in it are a mistake"
That is what the Bible is from an academic point of view, even non believers should accept that.

ShooterSF wrote: »

He only cleared things up when you assume he meant to teach people to be good to one another and nothing else.

That exactly what he taught.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Secondly I cringe at the idea that the OT is held up as evidence of people's love of god. It's evidence of people using the idea of a vengeful actively punishing god to scare people into doing what they say, if it wasn't you wouldn't need to be white washing over it's lessons.

I'm certainly not "white-washing" over anything, just pointing out how Christians are supposed to read the Bible. Remember the Bible is 66 individual books written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years by more than 40 authors. of course context and proper examination of all sections should be engaged upon before arriving at an opinion of the Almighty.

robindch · 10-07-2012 02:43AM

whatsup? wrote: »

context and proper examination of all sections should be engaged upon before arriving at an opinion of the Almighty.

That the Almighty kept changing his opinion?

Turtwig · 10-07-2012 02:51AM

Ok this has gone on for far too long now.

When you mean to say "it is" or "it has" the shortened form is "it's" not "its".
"Its" is used when indicating possession e.g The dog likes playing with its ball.:)

aidan24326 · 10-07-2012 10:08AM

whatsup? wrote: »

Philosophy, nature, the Gospels, lives of saints etc for me point towards a God

The lives of saints?

Philosophy for me points towards a greater force..of course people disagree with me but that's just what I think.

Something happened to make the universe (and us) exist of course, and call it a greater force if you like. But why attach that 'greater force' to the god of religion? The naieve and downright idiotic version of a god foisted on us by the catholic church and just about every other church you care to mention. A greater force? Maybe, whatever that might mean. God as portrayed by religion? Not a chance.

fitz0 · 10-07-2012 10:43AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Don't you mean the "infallible" word that the church / bible tells us is god? To be honest I don't think Ive ever heard god speak...

So if the Bible is not the word of a god, it's not evidence for ones existence. After all, if god didn't write it then its just the collected stories of the region. Similarly with the other holy books.

Tell me then, what is the basis for believing in any sort of deity?

Just a thought...

Comments