[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

I've heard, usually Christians in the US to be fair, respond to "why do you think this" with "because it says so in the Bible."

Well that's because they are stupid, as others have said. The bible was never intended to be taken literally, it was written to provide guidance, and was never meant to be an instruction manual with 10 steps to find inner happiness. Sorta like the analogy of give someone a fish and they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they will eat everyday.

Christianity seems to be suffering from the recent (last 50 years or so) instant gratification culture. Where if I can't see it, or be given explicit instructions on how to do something then it can't be worth doing, especially it would involve any effort other than googling it.

haterz

On a point of note, I don't hate anyone (and if I did, I wouldn't spell it like a teenage boy on facebook). Can we lose the passive-aggressive insults please? It doesn't do you any favours and we've got too many people being obnoxious already.

it doesn't matter wether others don't see it as important if we let lack of logic rule then we end up with life prior to the enlightenment where religous leaders can abuse power in the name of god and do whatever they jolly well like

No, I don't think we do. It's not black and white, logic or anarchy, after all.

Hilldodger - where's the logic in ill-informed banging on and on about fairies and unicorns on a religion thread? Oh sweet irony 🙂

I'm sure (well hope I guess) that many of the haterz have room in their lives for things that aren't in accord with a rigidly deterministic logical system - art, poetry, human emotion, where's the logic in those......

I love all of these things and make space for them in my life, but that isn't the issue here. You seem to be saying if ypou don't believe in god then you can't have art poetry emotion etc?

toys - I read your posts - just nowt to respond to apart from to say I agree with you basically but maybe ease off on the pejorative language?

I got a metaphorical kicking from (IIRC) Barnsleymitch for intemperate language and accepted it as its not right to insult moderate non proselytising folk like him as well

So don't you think it's pointless to debate the bible when its just a part of whats underneath the whole umbrella of "faith"?

it doesn't matter wether others don't see it as important if we let lack of logic rule then we end up with life prior to the enlightenment where religous leaders can abuse power in the name of god and do whatever they jolly well like

I think people were still pretty religious during the Enlightenmnet, were't they?

Presumably, if "god" is all powerful, "he" could change it so that two plus two would equal three (logic being just a "construct", and all...).

Cougar - Member

haterz

On a point of note, I don't hate anyone (and if I did, I wouldn't spell it like a teenage boy on facebook). Can we lose the passive-aggressive insults please? It doesn't do you any favours and we've got too many people being obnoxious already.

Fair enough, I'm all for politeness and respect, shame it's not always reciprocated 😕

In future I shall refer to the people opposed to the free and open public discussion of religious views as "people of unfaith" unless you have a better suggestion....

. RichC

The bible was never intended to be taken literally, it was written to provide guidance, and was never meant to be an instruction manual

In whcih case how do yo anser this as put by Cougar?

if you accept that then the Bible loses its potency. It's no longer a holy book, it's a book of best guesses made by men, based on stories they'd heard hundreds of years ago, passed down by word of mouth between generations before anything got written down. Embellished with each telling.

Its either the word of god or its a made up story by fallible humans. If its the former it should be obeyed literally, if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

As opposed to a life where political leaders can abuse power in the name of progress, economics and security needs and do whatever they jolly well like.

Well that is a differnet problem but at least if we criticize cameron et al we don't get burned at the stake.

Molgrips

I think people were still pretty religious during the Enlightenmnet, were't they?

From [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment ]wikipedia[/url]: The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe and America, whose purpose was to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition, intolerance and abuses in church and state.

How nice that it happened and I celebrate those who perpetuted it, and what we are seeing in this thread is a decline of those ideals, which is very sad.

toys19 - Member

I love all of these things and make space for them in my life, but that isn't the issue here. You seem to be saying if ypou don't believe in god then you can't have art poetry emotion etc?

No, I'm replying to your point that Logic is the over riding principle for life and suggesting a few things that don't follow a logical system....

if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

Because you think it's sound advice?

There is a lot of it in there.

If you want to argue about this, it would really make sense to get a better idea of what Christianity is about. This concept of all the bible being of equal weight is facile. There is a whole academic subject of Theology which involves the study of such matters and Christians rely on priests and others to help them determine what they should give greatest weight to. As with other subjects, not all practitioners agree with each other and there are divergent views. Hence, much of the portrayal of what is important to Christians in these threads is ill educated and emphasises extremes that many of the faith do not agree with.

I think people were still pretty religious during the Enlightenmnet, were't they?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave earlier...

The sloughing off of the "bad" bits of the chosen "Holy Book" always follows the advances of secular morality.

This happens slowly though, as religion is highly resistant to change from outside it's boundaries in the society or wider secular landscape in which it squats.

Theology, Unicornology, Leprechaunology...

(Just testing the theory that the best way to educate is by repetition of the lesson).

TandemJeremy - Member
the word of god

TJ, seriously, I suggest you do some reading on the theological interpretation of the phrase "word of God", it is most certainly not a literal unquestioning adherence to ancient scriptures....

The bible was never intended to be taken literally

Never? I don't believe you.

I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that that's a massive backpedal by Christianity. And even if it isn't, the Bible would have been taken literally by most of its largely uneducated audience back in the day, so if it's true that it was never meant to be taken literally then it's essentially fraud on a huge scale.

AFAIK, the only reason we're now going, "ah, well, you see, it's allegorical" is because in these relatively enlightened time anyone with an ounce of critical thinking can see that it's complete bobbins.

As we discover more about the world and its history, the church is having a harder and harder time reconciling this with the 'facts' presented in the Bible. Something's got to give, and they've finally worked out that going "no, no, science is wrong, erm, dinosaur fossils were buried by satan to trick us!" isn't going to work except on the [i]really [/i]hard of thinking, so now it's 'not literal'.

What Christianity really needs is Bible 2.0.

One version of events goes like this:

Molgrips - nice summary, wish I could be that concise

TJ, seriously, I suggest you do some reading on the theological interpretation of the phrase "word of God", it is most certainly not a literal unquestioning adherence to ancient scriptures....

You're probably right. It's more an attempt to stifle skeptical enquiry by claiming divine infallibility. Much like the current output from the Vatican.

molgrips - Member

if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

Because you think it's sound advice?

There is a lot of it in there.

So its back to choosing which bits suit you then - what is convenient for you to beleive in. It actually has no moral authority - its simply a menu of things one can choose to believe in or not.

What Christianity really needs is Bible 2.0.

They already have it, its called the New Testament.

Hilldodger - thats not the point - its this simple one

If you can pick an chose which bits of the bible to believe in/ to follow and this choice is made on the interpretations laid down by fallible humans then actually the bible has no more validity or weight than any other code laid down by people.

Because you think it's sound advice?

There is a lot of it in there.

So why can't we have sound advice without all this pesky 'god' business? (Because people won't follow it unless it's accompanied either by a threat or a promise of a reward, perhaps?)

As the late great DNA said, is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there's fairies at the bottom of it?

They already have it, its called the New Testament.

Zing! Good point. (-:

"The Bible" is generally taken to be both the "Old" and the "New" testament.

Neither of them is a history book.

Fair enough, I'm all for politeness and respect, shame it's not always reciprocated

Yeah, if I've stepped over a line at any point then I'm sorry; I do try to be civil. (-:

In future I shall refer to the people opposed to the free and open public discussion of religious views as "people of unfaith" unless you have a better suggestion....

Well, no, that's saying that all atheists are opposed to public discussion, isn't it? I think it's pretty obvious from here that that's not the case, everyone here welcomes discussion.

Its either the word of god or its a made up story by fallible humans. If its the former it should be obeyed literally, if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

Personally I believer its the latter, as it was never meant to be taken literally and pretty much all of the sane religious leaders agree on this, just as they all agree that evolution is as close to a fact as a theory can get.

As for why should you obey the bible? Well its a book of guidelines to help you find happiness and contentment from the indescribable (hence its not written down) joy of realising that there is something more in the universe than what you can just see and touch. However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego). The bible isn't the only book to do this the Koran, Buddist Dao's, The Veda etc all echo the same theme

Also 'obey' is the wrong word, the bible was IMHO never meant to be obeyed, it was mean to be followed willingly. So if you are happy to live in ignorance of this bliss, then you have no need to pay any attention to it.

BTW; I don't go to church, and I don't believe in a man with a beard watching over us. However I am fairly open minded to any ideas, and like to find out more about things before I decide for or against them.

You keep using the word "never." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Modern Christianity is relatively enlightened these days. It wasn't always the case. People have been executed for daring to disagree.

Has there been any new points made for awhile? I think its probably time for CFHs gif again. nO one is being persuaded by anything are they?

[img] [/img]

Sorry, were we supposed to be? I didn't get the memo.

TandemJeremy - Member
Hilldodger - thats not the point - its this simple one

If you can pick an chose which bits of the bible to believe in/ to follow and this choice is made on the interpretations laid down by fallible humans then actually the bible has no more validity or weight than any other code laid down by people.

It's obvious you either "don't get it" or are being deliberately argumentative...

..as I see it (and leffeboy explained rather more eloquently earlier)
The Bible is an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.
It has become one of the more important texts for teaching in the Christian religion, not the sole basis for it's existence.

It is semingly only some people of unfaith who want to stick to a literal word-for-word interpretation of the Bible rather than those who use it as a focus for spiritual development and religious inspiration...

...anyway as several have noted, it's all getting a bit petty and niggly now, we all seem to know where the other is coming from so it's no longer a discussion but a slanging match - enjoy.......

Steel hammer, rubber nail.

I've got to go and do some work. Talk amongst yourselves.

Cougar - Member
The bible was never intended to be taken literally
Never? I don't believe you.

Doesn't matter if you believe me or not, its still true.

I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that that's a massive backpedal by Christianity. And even if it isn't, the Bible would have been taken literally by most of its largely uneducated audience back in the day, so if it's true that it was never meant to be taken literally then it's essentially fraud on a huge scale.

The real fraud was the bible being written in a language which only the church could read, and hence twist the message. As you didn't/don't have to believe in god to be in the church, especially as it was/is a way to make a lot of money (ie: selling Absolution to the rich)

Hence the protestant movement and Luther, who believed the bible was being twisted away from its intention of enlightened for the masses into a money making scheme

Throwing away belief in god, because you don't like the church seems to be a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water tbh.

I don't agree, TJ. I think that the increase in civility I have seen on this thread between many participants is precisely what discussion is about.

There is a whole academic subject of Theology which involves the study of such matters and Christians rely on priests and others to help them determine what they should give greatest weight to

Exactly. Christianity is (as I understand it) embodied by the faithful, not by a book or a small group of people. At least Anglicanism seems to be, I suppose that's less so in the case of Catholicism. Although that has evolved a lot over the years hasn't it? In response to human progress.

TJ, the thread has moved from bashing Christians to a rather interesting discussion about theology, I think. Got some good posts recently.

Hilldodger - I don't know how to explain it any better but you seem not to see the simple point. I am not claiming the bible is anything that it should be accepted literally. what I am saying is that if you don't accept it as the word of god then where does it legitimacy come from?

If the bible is this

.as I see it (and leffeboy explained rather more eloquently earlier)
The Bible is an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.
It has become one of the more important texts for teaching in the Christian religion, not the sole basis for it's existence.

If all the bible is is

an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.

MOlgrips
TJ, the thread has moved from bashing Christians to a rather interesting discussion about theology, I think. Got some good posts recently.

I am not bashing Christians - I am outlining a crucial theological point that you refuse to answer and that no one has made any answer to.

richc
Well its a book of guidelines to help you find happiness and contentment from the indescribable (hence its not written down) joy of realising that there is something more in the universe than what you can just see and touch. However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego).

So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?

600 🙂

TandemJeremy - Member

If all the bible is....

...an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.
then what value does it have?

The really important question is what value does it have to you, not what value does someone else tell you it has......

TandemJeremy - Member

I am outlining a crucial theological point

perhaps go talk to a priest then, seriously I'm sure they would have a many deep and meaningful answers to your question.
I do not subscribe to any individual faith practise but have had many long and interesting discussion with ministers & priests of many religions - they really do find time for this and are keen to share their learning

Doesn't matter if you believe me or not, its still true.
...
The real fraud was the bible being written in a language which only the church could read

This is kinda where I was going with that. Do either of us, or anyone, actually know how the Bible was intended to be interpreted, or are we both speculating here?

It seems to me that if the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, it might have said somewhere? Maybe a little foreword at the beginning perhaps? It'd have saved a lot of bother in the long run.

I could be wrong, and I'd look it up if I had the time, but was under the impression that the concept of the Bible being allegorical is a relatively modern thing.

Hey, is Jesus an allegory? How do we know that he was the son of god rather than a construct to tell a story?

MOlgrips
TJ, the thread has moved from bashing Christians to a rather interesting discussion about theology, I think. Got some good posts recently.

I am not bashing Christians - I am outlining a crucial theological point that you refuse to answer and that no one has made any answer to.

Neither am I bashing christians per se, its anyone of faith I am bashing. I too am outlining a crucial point - if you insist on believing without evidence then there is some issue with your education, sanity, or intelligence. (which is a pathetically veiled attempt to satisfy the people who like to make underhand insults instead of manning up and saying straight)

what I am saying is that if you don't accept it as the word of god then where does it legitimacy come from?

Just because it's written by men doesn't mean it has no value. Originally the men were learned and well respected philosophers. In the NT I think the books were supposedly written by people who knew Jesus and were there at many of the events, so clearly there's value there.

Lots of important books weren't written by God, of course.

if you insist on believing without evidence then there is some issue with your education, sanity, or education

No - you seem to be limiting your idea of 'belief' to mean belief about the origins of life and the universe. There's a lot more to faith than that.

So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?

I don't think that was the intention there. "Ego" has a specific meaning in this case.

Teej, honestly when will you get it, who cares who wrote it. TBH it has more legitimacy in my eyes if its written by man, as he is real, if it's written by god then it's just part of the "faith" hegemony that has still got it's claws into some people.

its anyone of faith I am bashing

Please stop bashing, it's not nice.

There's a lot more to faith than that.

No there isn't, faith means beleif without proof/evidence. All the rest of the stuff about the bible and saints and all that is as a result of that faith.

There is a whole academic subject of Theology which involves the study of such matters and Christians rely on priests and others to help them determine what they should give greatest weight to

Exactly. Christianity is (as I understand it) embodied by the faithful, not by a book or a small group of people.

What are the faithfull following if not the stuff in the books or the stuff given to them by Priest and popes and archbishops?

The Bible itself says that "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God". (2 Timothy 3:16-3:17) [33] Christians believe that the Bible consists of the inspired word of God, where God intervened and influenced the words of the Bible. For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, in that it is incapable of error within matters of faith and practice. For example, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters. A related, but distinguishable belief is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, without error in any aspect, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans. Within these broad beliefs there are many schools of hermeneutics. "Bible scholars claim that discussions about the Bible must be put into its context within church history and then into the context of contemporary culture."[30] Fundamentalist Christians are associated with the doctrine of biblical literalism, where the Bible is not only inerrant, but the meaning of the text is clear to the average reader

n the NT I think the books were supposedly written by people who knew Jesus and were there at many of the events, so clearly there's value there.

No there isn't

Sorry, but we are back to the 29er analogy again. I don't see how, as a vehement atheist, you can pronounce on what faith means..?

Please stop bashing, it's not nice.

Cougar I was using their words, I don't feel I have bashed at all. I was trying to make a point, if someone is insulted because they dont like realising that they are poorlyinformed/stupid/mad then that is their choice.

toys19 - Member

There's a lot more to faith than that.

No there isn't, faith means beleif without proof/evidence. All the rest of the stuff about the bible and saints and all that is as a result of that faith.

its those who claim that critical and rigorous logical thinking can lead you to a position of faith I have issue with

its those who claim that critical and rigorous logical thinking can lead you to a position of faith I have issue with

Who are they then? Are you talking about creationists etc? Cos they are nutters, yes 🙂

Hilldodger - I have done so and as on this thread that simple point has no answer.

If some bits of the bible can safely be ignored then any of it can be if one applies a critical, rigorous and logical thought to it

molgrips - Member

No there isn't

Sorry, but we are back to the 29er analogy again. I don't see how, as a vehement atheist, you can pronounce on what faith means..?
Posted 10 seconds ago # Report-Post

Is this a terrible attempt at some kind of ad hominen attack? Or something else.
I know what Faith is, I used to be a catholic believer and I know how to use google [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith ]wiki article on faith[/url]

quote

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity.[1][2] Depending on the religion, faith is belief in a single god or multiple gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof,[2] and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief"

It all amounts to the same thing. Believing in something which you cannot demonstrate to be real or true.

You know what 'faith' meant for you. Quoting dictionary definitions of the word would seem to imply you're an extremely literal minded person. Other kinds of mind are available.

In the NT I think the books were supposedly written by people who knew Jesus and were there at many of the events, so clearly there's value there.

IIRC, the earliest NT book is dated at about 50AD. I don't think any of it is a first-hand account, though I'm not certain.

I said supposedly.

Cougar - Member

"So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?"

I don't think that was the intention there. "Ego" has a specific meaning in this case.

Really?

However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe

You know what 'faith' meant for you. Quoting dictionary definitions of the word would seem to imply you're an extremely literal minded person. Other kinds of mind are available.

No it doesnt, it means I know how to use communication media, how else can one communicate the accepted defintion of faith? You are talking utter gobbeldygook.

Faith the word has a dictionary definition, yes.

Surely the concept of religious faith is a lot more complex?

Surely the concept of religious faith is a lot more complex?

Only if you want to obfuscate the issue, but lets play along, so instead of going about what I supposedly don't know why don't you tell us what you do know? What exactly is relgious faith then?

(Anyway that wikipedia link pretty much outlines everything you can think of to do with religious faith, even to precis it with a definition - belieiving in something which cant be proved.)

toys19 - Member

Teej, honestly when will you get it, who cares who wrote it. TBH it has more legitimacy in my eyes if its written by man, as he is real, if it's written by god then it's just part of the "faith" hegemony that has still got it's claws into some people.

I understand that

What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

if someone is insulted because they dont like realising that they are poorlyinformed/stupid/mad then that is their choice.

You can still apply Wheaton's Law though. If you went up to, say, someone who'd lost an eye calling them 'cyclops' repeatedly, would that be a nice thing to do, do you think?

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid, hm? It's not constructive, it creates bad feeling and gives the theists ammo when they want to say how horrible the godless are. So, please, knock it off.

Lifer > I missed the other half of that post, sorry. As you were. (-:

TandemJeremy - Member
What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

It seems to me that if you do that then you give god legitimacy. I am happy to live by a code written by man, if I agree with it.

So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?

Everyone has an Ego, regardless of your own personal beliefs, its part of how we are believed to be wired up to survive, but you need to be careful not to confuse 'Ego' with 'Egotist' as whilst they are related they don't mean exactly the same thing.

Hence the whole enlightenment thing of getting over being totally focused on yourself and your survival, and learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

Cougar - Member
Lifer > I missed the other half of that post, sorry. As you were. (-:

No bother chap!

belieiving in something which cant be proved

This might actually be the major plus point for many people.

What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

I don't see why it can't have legitimacy simply because it was written by man. Some people do have good stuff to say.

RichC - a lovely illustration of the arrogance and assumption of superiority of the religeous

You can still apply Wheaton's Law though. If you went up to, say, someone who'd lost an eye calling them 'cyclops' repeatedly, would that be a nice thing to do, do you think?

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid, hm? It's not constructive, it creates bad feeling and gives the theists ammo when they want to say how horrible the godless are. So, please, knock it off.

This is not something I would do, but it isn't a simple analogy is it. A partially sighted person isn't going round advocating oneeyedness, or even trying to convince oithers to poke an eye out are they? Religion is all about convincing others to believe in somethign that cannot be proved which results in the undermining of our society.

I maintain that I have not tried/intended to insult/bash anyone. I have been trying to make the point that using logic to try and prove god exists results in not proving him, so to then fall back on rejecting logic is plainly crackers. The only way this behaviour can be explained is by lack of education, madness or just inabilty to understand (which is stupidity).

Anyway cougar you just called me stupid

if you lack the mental capacity

I don't see why it can't have legitimacy simply because it was written by man. Some people do have good stuff to say.

it can - but then it has no more legitimacy than Aesops fables, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital or any other code to live by written by men.

What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

Its a guide to help people find God, written by people who have managed to do it themselves. So I am not sure why you find that a problem, as how is that massively different to many other guide books?

Or do you write off any books that you cannot understand? If so I hope that you are alone in those thoughts or else we are going to lose a lot of scientific journals in the future.

But Teej there is nothing bad about that. I see the good bits of the bible as a pretty good guide to life, love they neighbour, do unto others etc. It's way more legitimate when written by man.

it can - but then it has no more legitimacy than Aesops fables, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital or any other code to live by written by men.

Preaching to the choir, TJ!

Religion is all about convincing others to believe in somethign that cannot be proved which results in the undermining of our society.

Don't agree with that definition.

No toys - there is not.

It the lack of intellectual honesty I am attacking - people claiming it is more than a human written code of behaviour that its reasonable to pick and chose parts of to obey. As that it is acceptable.

It the lack of intellectual honesty I am attacking

An entirely valid viewpoint.

It the lack of intellectual honesty I am attacking - people claiming it is more than a human written code of behaviour that its reasonable to pick and chose parts of to obey.

OK penny dropped, point made.

Don't agree with that definition.

It's not a definiton, it's an observation.

I maintain that I have not tried/intended to insult/bash anyone.

And I'm pointing out to you that, intentional or not, that's what you're doing. It doesn't do you - or us - any favours.

Its a guide to help people find God

It's a bloody big guide to find something that's omnipresent. (-: