You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Magical sky wizard will probably be happy with those not going out of their way to be an arse
There seems to be a distinct correlation (and I suspect causation) between those overly restrictive religions and "Being an Arse" both in the macro and micro senses.
![23kk8j3w1gp11[1]](https://stw-forum-images.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/13431547/py9hi1jj27eta52sf5izczibuonkw6qw.jpg)
Surely at some point of rule manipulation its best just to ask god for an updated copy covering modern life and when she doesnt deliver give up on any which dont obviously apply.
Surely at some point of rule manipulation
I think at this point it's been explained why it's not manipulation and anyone still saying this has not bothered to follow any of my explanations or looked at the links. Or of course, I'm useless at explaining :-p
ask god for an updated copy covering modern life
Exactly missing the point that the original copy is intended to cover every occasion for all time, there is no updated copy needed because the laws DO cover modern life (what you call manipulation or loopholes). I cannot speak for any other religion but with Judaism people often miss the fact that the Old Testament is only half the Torah and it's not always to be taken literally.
give up on any which dont obviously apply
See Reform or Conservative.
I think at this point it’s been explained why it’s not manipulation and anyone still saying this has not bothered to follow any of my explanations or looked at the links
Or perhaps we have and arent convinced by your explanation and the links? Since, frankly, its a rather hard sell.
Exactly missing the point that the original copy is intended to cover every occasion for all time
Which is a problem for the original rules. Why didnt it have something covering LEDs and electricity in general so we know how to respond rather than needing lots of interpretation?
Or perhaps we have and arent convinced
Embracing the diversity of human cultures isn't everyone's thing* I realise, but I accept this.
* It is the fridge's bloody thing, obv.
Excuse my ignorance but is using your freezer against religious law? I’ve worked with church goers and Jehovah’s Witnesses and never heard of this.
Amish may not have freezers in their homes.
This is as they don't have electricity in their houses. However, they may rent freezer space from an "Engish" (non-Amish) neighbour. The lab-tech during my post-doc, in rural Ohio, rented freezers to her neighbours for this reason. Depending on the exact instructions from the church elders they could run electricity to the corner of their land, and you would then see a cluster of sheds around an electrical pole. Very much varied from church to church.
No cars so everything was horse-drawn (but you hire an English driver to drive a minibus, or scrounge a lift to work in the lumber yard etc). The MacDonalds in Millersburg had a horse hitch for this reason.
It was based around keeping the outside world from your home and keeping the family and church together.
I can’t think of anything more bizarre than atheists debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives and by definition they don’t believe in
I’m exaggerating, i probably can. But it’s an expression
the original copy is intended to cover every occasion for all time, there is no updated copy needed because the laws DO cover modern life
...
the Old Testament is... not always to be taken literally.
These two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.
I can’t think of anything more bizarre than atheists debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives and by definition they don’t believe in
Discussion Bad? Talking about things we don't understand is how we learn things.
Discussion is good. But I’d say the language in many posts here isn’t along the lines of “help me understand” but more along the lines of “ridicule”
I can’t think of anything more bizarre than atheists debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives and by definition they don’t believe in
How about CofE bishops being able to debate (and legislate) rules that do have an impact on my life, simply because of their affiliation to a regional denomination of a religion following a deity that I don't believe exists. That's pretty bizarre.
but more along the lines of “ridicule”
Yes
I fully understand but it still worthy of ridicule when you stop and think about it for longer than a second.
I’m exaggerating, i probably can.
Wait until you hear about these people who want special fridge modes because someone has interpreted a bronze age text as saying so.
How about CofE bishops being able to debate (and legislate) rules that do have an impact on my life, simply because of their affiliation to a regional denomination of a religion following a deity that I don’t believe exists. That’s pretty bizarre.
That would not fit
debating the interpretation of rules that, one way or another, have no impact on their lives
Or perhaps we have and arent convinced by your explanation and the links? Since, frankly, its a rather hard sell.
Fair enough 🙂
These two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.
How so? If it's not taken literally, then its laws (or at least the details and practical applications of the laws) are interpreted according to the knowledge and technology of each generation.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just to defend that maybe it's not as ridiculous as it may appear at first glance (yes yes, we know, all religion is ridiculous so everything in it is also....)
Basically, the difference between:
Perception from the outside - "ancient verse says X, those who claim to follow it but not to the letter are cheating, they should do X"
And reality - "ancient verse says X, the rest of the law traditionally passed down orally and now filling many bookshelves has plenty of rules on how to interpret X, has many nuances and plenty of very intelligent people have spent the last couple of thousand years learning and discussing it"
Why didnt it have something covering LEDs and electricity in general so we know how to respond rather than needing lots of interpretation?
Wait until you hear about these people who want special fridge modes because someone has interpreted a bronze age text as saying so.
Somewhat answered by the response to Cougar above, interesting question though, which can really be rephrased as "why didn't it just tell us about LEDs etc instead of us needing to discover/invent it for ourselves?"
...I think I've mixed up the quotes in this post somewhat, lost track of who they all belong to :-p
There must surely, surely come a point where you think to yourself, “what the actual **** am I doing?”
Apparently not.
That would not fit
I know, they're granted the right to debate rules that really do affect people's lives. It's bizarre!
I fully understand but it still worthy of ridicule when you stop and think about it for longer than a second.
You can find it strange, sure. You can think it pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say "isn't it stupid, and aren't the people who believe it stupid", which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there's no need for that.
That’s pretty bizarre.
It's no more bizarre than getting to do that because of who your ancestor is, or you're mates with some-one who can get you appointed.
But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who believe it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it.
Dunno about the "being a dick" thing - we're happy to say it's stupid to not lne your tyre logos up with your valves, but suddenly it's forbidden to question whether it makes sense to define how your freezer works?
Dunno about the “being a dick” thing – we’re happy to say it’s stupid to not lne your tyre logos up with your valves, but suddenly it’s forbidden to question whether it makes sense to define how your freezer works?
Hang on, I'll try something
You can find that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is strange, sure. You can think that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who do that it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there’s no need for that.
Yep, still works.
And no-one said it's forbidden to question, indeed there's been some interesting questions and responses in this thread. Questionning with the aim of learning about people's beliefs and customs can only be a good thing. If you don't hold those beliefs, that's fine. However, and I don't know how to make this any clearer, there's no need to be a dick about it.
It might be being a dick, but it doesn't make it any less true.... ( Valves)
You can find that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is strange, sure. You can think that not lining up your valves with your tyre logos is pointless, obviously, But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who do that it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it. And there’s no need for that.
I've obviously missed the posts where you popped up on valve threads to defend the integrity of the non-liner-uppers. But you are making a leap from people pointing out that something is bonkers to a claim that people are accusing others of "stupidity". That's a bit of a straw man.
However, and I don’t know how to make this any clearer, there’s no need to be a dick about it.
Ooh la la. Le repassage.
But you are making a leap from people pointing out that something is bonkers to a claim that people are accusing others of “stupidity”. That’s a bit of a straw man.
Hang on, I didn't make a leap from anything, the post that I was initially referring to literally said the beliefs were worthy of ridicule.
Anyway, this has now reached the point where it's just middle-aged men arguing on the internet, so I'm going to bow out gracefully.
You leaped to "stupid"
ChatGPT:
“Ridiculous” and “stupid” have different nuances, so which is “worse” depends on the context.
•Ridiculous generally implies something absurd or laughable. When we call something ridiculous, we’re saying it lacks sense or reason to the point of being almost laughable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unintelligent or harmful.
•Stupid has a harsher tone. It suggests a lack of intelligence, good judgment, or reasoning and can feel more like a personal criticism. Calling someone or something “stupid” tends to carry more judgment.
If you’re looking to avoid offense, “ridiculous” is usually milder. However, if you’re looking to highlight a lack of intelligence, “stupid” is definitely the sharper word.
this has now reached the point
...where we all need to chill.
(Valves and logos ffs? I'm happy if I get the knobbles pointing in the right direction.)
There's a direction ?
?
Is Sabbath mode better suited to bread and fishes? Asking for a friend…
Works a treat on headless bats.
And reality – “ancient verse says X, the rest of the law traditionally passed down orally and now filling many bookshelves has plenty of rules on how to interpret X, has many nuances and plenty of very intelligent people have spent the last couple of thousand years learning and discussing it”
... which is where it falls down for me.
Most religions are based around ancient texts. These are at their core supposed to be god's instruction manual to man, no? But a lot of it is incompatible with 21st Century life in the Western world either due to societal norms or increased knowledge, which presents a quandary. So do we:
a) go "this is the word of god so lump it and do as you're told,"
b) cherry-pick which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical all along honest guv,
c) have apparently very intelligent men try to unpick the vagaries of dead languages over several centuries to try to tell everyone else what they think it probably meant, then mandate that folk can't have chilled food on the sabbath because it's what god would have wanted. Also, whilst god is infallible he ****ed up with foreskins so they'll have to go.
…where we all need to chill.
Oh very good. *applause*
@Cougar all of the above, kind of. Did I mention it's complicated?
which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical
All are both. But you can't just cherry-pick. Did I mention it's complicated?
foreskins so they’ll have to go.
I thought we'd established it's not good to be a bit of a dick?
Most religions are based around ancient texts. These are at their core supposed to be god’s instruction manual to man, no?
That's a sweeping assumption, and a moment's thought will reveal that.
The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that were selected to be included in one volume at some point in the past. That's why all the parts are called 'books' because they aren't one book. It's obvious that they are pretty diverse and cover all sorts of different things. They deliberately included four re-tellings of the same story that don't agree, and the compilers knew this full well. They were simply deemed important texts that you may wish to study. For Christians, Jesus' teachings are important, and they are simply recounted in part of the Bible and the authors are even credited so you know it's not God or Jesus who wrote them. Now - some fanatics have taken things a bit too far, but that's what fanatics do.
There are a few books which were meant to be dictated directly to a person from God, but I can only think of two - the Quran and the book of Mormon. I know the Quran is still subject to interpretation, as it obviously must be, because times have changed and unless God comes down and chooses another prophet, it's all we've got.
Some folk will get together and adopt a particular interpretation, and they will have followers and also people who disagree. That's why we have multiple churches within Christianity, and multiple sects etc. You seem to be pouring scorn on the idea of having an open mind and trying to understand something, which I think is probably not what you really want to be doing 🙂
There must surely, surely come a point where you think to yourself, “what the actual **** am I doing?”
Apparently not.
Well yes, because there are multiple sects. The members of the less restrictive groups are the ones who objected to the stringent interpretations. People leave and join these groups for those very reasons.
It's highly ironic but also kind of satisfying that a bunch of atheists are now having a debate about the interpretation of scripture 🙂 satisfying because this is a very important topic in terms of how we relate to our fellow humans. I bet most of you are probably horrified that they have RE in schools, but this is exactly why we need it.
b) cherry-pick which bits are the word of god and which bits were allegorical all along honest guv,
The answer has always been B, from the day after any - in this case as we're discussing biblical texts, book was written, the answer has been B all along, and this isn't a modern thing. Which is why all the denominations, sect and religions that share an Abrahamic tradition have a version of an Apocrypha
Also, whilst god is infallible he ****ed up with foreskins so they’ll have to go
It's OK to say "I don't know why religious groups do some things", rather than make up straw-man arguments - that probably work well in your head but don't survive contact with an anthropologist let alone a theologian
Thank you for a less flippant/facetious response than I'm capable of at this point 😉
But to ridicule it is to basically point and laugh and say “isn’t it stupid, and aren’t the people who believe it stupid”, which, for me, is being a bit of a dick about it.
Can I just check if it's still ok to ridicule David Icke? Scientology? Must we now acknowledge that those Heaven's Gate cultists are on the spaceship hidden behind Hale-Bopp?
Did I mention it’s complicated?
I don't believe you did.
In which case though, is this not in itself inherently flawed? Why isn't it simple? Surely it should be.
Actually, I suspect I know the answer to that. There's an Internet meme stating something like "if I want the answer to a problem, I post a wrong answer on the Internet." If a religion were simple, it'd die out. What perpetuates it is the People's Front of Judea butting heads with the Judean People's Front. By having god moving in mysterious ways we can debate it until the cows evolve into Bovine Sapiens rather than going "completed it, mate" and getting bored.
Even if your holy books are the literal word of god, they're translated into modern-day language by men potentially with an agenda, and are wildly open to interpretation. It's a castle built on sand, even if it's all true the system is flawed.
Tax exemption? bigger budgets. cant think of anything else?
I think there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults.
Care to explain the difference?
It’s OK to say “I don’t know why religious groups do some things”, rather than make up straw-man arguments – that probably work well in your head but don’t survive contact with an anthropologist let alone a theologian
To the best of my limited knowledge, the whole circumcision thing was born of hygiene issues from getting the old chap pebbledashed in a sandstorm. You don't get many sandstorms outwith the Middle East. Happy to be corrected if you know better.
Just so you know, it’s perfectly fine to be an atheist and not be a dick about it.
Sure, but it's also fine to laugh at this kind of bollocks.
Is not firing a weapon making fire?
Easy now.... Don't want anyone thinking you're referring to the genocide currently being committed by Isreal against the Palestinians.
That’s a sweeping assumption, and a moment’s thought will reveal that.
Good to see the dont be a dick doesnt apply to the supporters. Lets have a moments thought about your equally sweeping assumption the other way
"For Christians" I note you try a quick excuse about some "fanatics" but lets just take the Catholic view of the sacred scriptures and the flexible and varying use of "inspired" which goes from vague to be pretty much ghost written.
Obviously for some parts, eg the historical bits, there is a less of a claim but plenty is taken as the direct word or are you suggesting the ten commandants wasnt handed down directly?
So it doesnt seem an unreasonable casual conversation to say what Cougar did. Its not
I bet most of you are probably horrified that they have RE in schools, but this is exactly why we need it.
In my experience its mostly the religious who need proper lessons rather than just the selected highlights. However sociology or anthropology would be a better choice. It doesnt come with the risk of someone treating the classroom as a pulpit.
To the best of my limited knowledge, the whole circumcision thing was born of hygiene issues from getting the old chap pebbledashed in a sandstorm. You don’t get many sandstorms outwith the Middle East. Happy to be corrected if you know better.
Same as some of the 'banned' foods. They are mostly things that would quickly go off in the heat, leading to food poisoning.
I bet most of you are probably horrified that they have RE in schools, but this is exactly why we need it.
I missed Mol's post, cheers for that.
I'm all for RE in schools, as presented as theological study / history. Ie, "Faith System X believes this, whereas Faith System Y believes that." At an academic level it is (arguably perhaps) interesting.
What I'm against is it being a core subject (back when doing my GCSEs I couldn't drop it as a lesson despite not choosing it as an elective subject and so not carrying an exam), and it being presented as fact.
There are a few books which were meant to be dictated directly to a person from God
Today perhaps, but revisionism is doing some heavy lifting here. People have been murdered to death for holding such progressive ideas and not recanting.
I thought we’d established it’s not good to be a bit of a dick?
Fair play, that was funny.
I’m all for RE in schools
It seems to be useful as a sort of inoculation. Compare and contrast with the nuttiness of places where it's banned, like the US.
the whole circumcision thing was born of hygiene issues
Same as some of the ‘banned’ foods.
Be careful to not fall into theological or anthropological "just-so" stories. There's no evidence that tribes in the Levant or wider Arabian peninsula decided that it was more hygienic to not have some bits of your body, or that they couldn't keep food fresh (or even if they'd need or want to) There doesn't have to be any reason for a group to do anything other than "We just don't want to do , or look like what that that other group do (or don't look like)"
Early Jewish-Christians struggled to set out what they thought was the "rules" - read the Pauline Epistles for really interesting insight about how the very very early church (35-60AD) thought it should/shouldn't do things. I think so far it's fair to say it hasn't really settled the original arguments.
What I’m against is it being a core subject (back when doing my GCSEs I couldn’t drop it as a lesson despite not choosing it as an elective subject and so not carrying an exam), and it being presented as fact.
I've never seen any evidence of this either when I was in school or now when my kids are. They say 'Muslims do this" or "Jews do that" it never says "God did that". I have a feeling that some snowflake atheists might be interpreting the lessons as that. I mean, it's still shit, because they don't really explain why anyone does any of it, which is why you lot seem to be so ignorant 🙂
There doesn’t have to be any reason for a group to do anything other than “We just don’t want to do , or look like what that that other group do (or don’t look like)”
Yes. See also Orthodox priests having beards simply because Catholic priests are told not to have them. Also those African tribes who stick holes in their women's lips because they want to have a thing to be different to all the other tribes.
Compare and contrast with the nuttiness of places where it’s banned, like the US
Wait, what? Religious Education is banned in the US?
I’ve never seen any evidence of this either when I was in school or now when my kids are.
Shrug emoji. I can't evidence it, but every piece of religious education I encountered within and without school growing up was presented as factual.
I still remember the very first RE lesson in high school, the teacher posited that "Jesus was who he said he was, or he was the greatest con artist who ever lived." Begging the question aside, that second clause was never explored.
which is why you lot seem to be so ignorant
Hey now.
See also Orthodox priests having beards
I worked alongside a Mormon for a while. He rocked up one day sporting a beard, when comments were made he said he'd grown it because god had appeared in a dream and told him to do it.
Frankly, it could've been a lot worse.
Be careful to not fall into theological or anthropological “just-so” stories.
A valid point.
But... so, why then?
I think so far it’s fair to say it hasn’t really settled the original arguments.
Weird, we're told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
Wait, what? Religious Education is banned in the US?
The US has a very strict separation of religion and state. What it hasn't managed is a separation of religion and politics...
Weird, we’re told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
D'you think all the arguments have been settled?
Weird, we’re told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
D’you think all the arguments have been settled?
Hold on, I'll look out of the windows.....
No, I can't see any peace on earth yet, and the cheesemakers don't seem to be any more blessed today than they were yesterday.
I can’t evidence it, but every piece of religious education I encountered within and without school growing up was presented as factual.
Well in mine too - but it was factual. Jews really do circumcise their kids and have Bar Mitzvahs. This is a fact.
Well in mine too – but it was factual. Jews really do circumcise their kids and have Bar Mitzvahs. This is a fact.
Doesn't really advance anyone's knowledge of RE though, does it? It's pretty commonly known that Jews do this so it could useful to know why, and an RE lesson would be a great place to pass that info on. If the answer is 'because God' that makes the lesson useless. And seeing as plenty on this thread will have been exposed to UK RE lessons at some point and we are still none the wiser, I think there may be something missing somewhere.
we’re told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
But they've always been and still are all stuck in a doom loop of shouting at each other - you said .....no you said ...(sounds familiar) and never get to an agreement and just go off and set up their own new religion based on some of the bits they did like (were strict enough for me) and then go and set up an even narrower version of that religion cos i want to become even more holy/adherent/strict/need a divorce - and then they'll eff off to a differenet city/country/continent sometimes on sailing boats to try and create a fenced off nirvana over there and it all just kicks off again, until some daft splinter group drinks industrial quantities of weedkiller
It's all a bit bl**dy ridiculous at some level
Weird, we’re told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
We've only given it a day or so, guessing most of us are men and surely some are intelligentish?
D’you think all the arguments have been settled?
We're getting there. Me, I'm with the fridge.
we’re told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
Imagine this thread continued for two thousand years, do you think it would get to a conclusion?
The US has a very strict separation of religion and state.
"One nation under god," that US?
I've driven around the Bible Belt, if there's a strict separation it ain't working.
Well in mine too – but it was factual. Jews really do circumcise their kids and have Bar Mitzvahs. This is a fact.
Oddly enough, I don't recall a deep-dive into ritual doctrine-based infant genital surgery cropping up in my RE lessons. It was more a feeding the five thousand with a box of Findus fish fingers and a Warbie's toastie sort of affair. It's a missed opportunity really, talking about willies would've been far more engaging to your average 14-year old.
Less flippantly: Non-Xtian religions didn't get a look-in, at all. Jesus was the king of the Jews, but Judaism itself was never mentioned as far as I remember. I grew up in an area with a way above average Muslim presence and I think(?) Jesus is held as a prophet within Islam but again, it was scantly acknowledged. Religious Education was Christian Education and delivered as a History lesson. It might as well have been Tooth Fairy Education for the value it carried.
Theology could have been an interesting topic, but droning on about CLEARLY BLINGINGLY OBVIOUSLY blatant gibberish like Moses parting the Red Sea and then using it to murder his enemies, not so much. There was not one kid in that class who wasn't thinking "well, this is nonsense of the highest order, how long till lunchtime?" Even if we accept today that it was supposed to be an allegorical tale (and spoiler: bollocks it was, this is revisionism) then what's the life lesson to be had here?
Imagine this thread continued for two thousand years, do you think it would get to a conclusion?
Not a chance - but there would be maybe 3 different main threads and multiple highly specialized threads within each of the 3 main threads. Some of those specialized threads would focus on coffee beans, while others would advocate for sourdough based diets. The third thread would be craft beer based, with a few gluten-free splinter groups differentiated by hop choice. The coffee beans would go to war with the beer drinkers over which is the best water resource for your coffee that is owned by the craft brewers
Theology could have been an interesting topic,
I'm sensing a missed vocation
Doesn’t really advance anyone’s knowledge of RE though, does it?
Oh aye. It was universally shit, but it wasn't any kind of proselytising. It could have been very useful but it wasn't - as this thread demonstrates.
“One nation under god,” that US?
Yes. The constitution mandates that there can be no official religion (unlike the UK) and there isn't. The fact that the actual people are religious is nothing to do with the government or state. A political candidate is free to share their religion and the people are free to vote for them or not depending on their view of that religion, but the state has no rules on this.
we’re told that very intelligent men have been working on this for millennia.
Imagine this thread continued for two thousand years, do you think it would get to a conclusion?
They said "very intelligent" though.
spoiler: bollocks it was, this is revisionism
Given your contempt for the subject I'm surprised you've done enough reading to assert that.
It’s no more bizarre than getting to do that because of who your ancestor is, or you’re mates with some-one who can get you appointed.
Absolutely correct. All bizarre and wrong.
I’ve driven around the Bible Belt, if there’s a strict separation it ain’t working.
That's sort of my point. In the UK kids have been to RE classes and concluded that the sky fairy is boring and irrelevant. In the US that doesn't happen so the feeble-witted are prey to indoctrination by cults (I may be over-simplifying, but you get the idea).
It’s all a bit bl**dy ridiculous at some level
If it happened today, we wouldn't stand for it.
If David Blaine walked across the Thames we'd all be going "well, it's obviously a trick." There are those today who still think the moon landings were faked despite there being multiple pieces of video footage, photos and corroborating evidence from across the globe taken within out parents' living memory. Yet an anthology of texts about a bloke mostly written several hundred years after his death two thousand years ago is sacrosanct? Do me a quaver.
Oh aye. It was universally shit, but it wasn’t any kind of proselytising. It could have been very useful but it wasn’t – as this thread demonstrates.
So, as a matter of interest, in your view what would have been the content of these "very useful" RE classes ?
Given your contempt for the subject I’m surprised you’ve done enough reading to assert that.
I'm genuinely surprised that you're surprised. Don't confuse a rejection of 'belief' with ignorance. I read plenty, and when I don't know or understand something I'll hold my hand up. Threads like this are really good for that.
So, as a matter of interest, in your view what would have been the content of these “very useful” RE classes ?
"Useful" is perhaps a poor choice of words there. Like, what use is History? I (vaguely) recall learning about the Roundheads and the Cavaliers at school. For all that some may cry "what use is long multiplication* when I have a calculator?" the usefulness of knowledge of a war in the C17 is limited to pub quizzes.
If there is a value in teaching History then there is an equal value in teaching Religion. Personally, I'd like to see it rub shoulders with Greek mythology.**
(* - I used this just yesterday.)
(* - I used this last week.)
Roundheads vs cavaliers? Johnson vs Corb and we're out of the EU. Played out in Union vs Confederacy... Lancashire cotton famine etc, and continuing with Harris v Trump... Rise of China, WW3 .
I may have abbreviated a bit but there is a thread.
Sadly we don't live in the moment, we live in history. Ask your fridge.
Imagine this thread continued for two thousand years, do you think it would get to a conclusion?
No, as we’re missing an infinite number of contributors.
Anyway…Back to Shabbat, this turned up in my Threads feed, d’you get it?
Hah. A loophole 😉
Explanation for those wondering (no one) - certain things that religious Jews aren't allowed to do on the sabbath (eg turning on AC, lights...), also aren't allowed to ask a non-Jew to do for them. If the non-Jew wants to do it for their own benefit, then everyone else can also use the results as well. Hence the solution of finding a random non-Jew and hinting something like "isn't it hot today, wouldn't you like to come into our shul (synagogue) and turn the AC on?" but not asking outright, which leads to awkward/hilarious situations unless said non-Jew is familiar with this!
Poke fun below.
I'm more than happy to be called a dick for ridiculing this. I've actually read quite extensively on many religions and I'm not seeing why I can't find something funny because it really is. If that makes me a dick, meh!
If any religious types want to take the piss out of my lack of belief, go for it. Having a fridge to comply with parts of an ancient text that has zero bearing on the modern world is equal parts funny and tragic to me.
On the RE thing I can unequivocally state that it is taught as fact in some schools. I had to have a word with my son's year two teacher when he came home and stated God placed the sun in the sky. When I tried to explain it was something some people chose to believe he called me and his mum liars. That didn't sit too well with me to be honest and I'm a live and let live kind of guy. Still find all religions pretty ****ing funny though, dick that I am. However, I'll defend anyone's right to believe whatever they like.
find all religions pretty * funny though
yeah, if it wasn't all so *ing sad how much grief they have caused in the name of god and enlightenment
Do your genuflecting and singing and stuff - just don't go to war over it. Some of the singing and stuff, architecture etc can be very lovely btw
If it wasn't religion, people would find another excuse. You don't get to be the dominant species without being a bit of a ****. Religion is sometimes used as an excuse, rarely is it the root cause.
Not fully up to date on where this thread currently is, my apologies. However at some point it caused me to think about bicycles, you know, a religion based upon riding bicycles. Basically, rather than worhshipping a god or gods, we dispense with all that and instead strive to be reach the highest state of being - pure bicycle riding - bicycle nirvana - at one with the bicycle, our minds empty of all other than this body perched upon this bicycle, riding it. THE END.
One other thought too, but unfortunately forgotten it during recollection of the bicycle religion.
Hence the solution of finding a random non-Jew and hinting something like “isn’t it hot today, wouldn’t you like to come into our shul (synagogue) and turn the AC on?”
What if it was on to start with? Is the act of turning it off not "work?" Do you wait until tomorrow to do anything if your house is on fire?
a religion based upon riding bicycles
But i was cast out because i professed my love for my downcountry bike, so i shall create a new religion where downcountry is the chosen one