[Closed] Religion. Again.

Who is it that the Pope is supposed to be talking to then?

As I understand it, the Pope's job is to talk to God, and interpret the Bible for you.

On the rare occasions I find myself in a church a lot of the stuff that goes on there and is on the walls seems to be about specifics, not sentiment.

Well yes - they are telling you how to interpret the Bible. Of course, a certain German monk had other ideas and thought we should all be able to interpret it for ourselves. When you think about it, this is a pretty huge idea. It means that the established church can no longer control what people think. And from a political point of view it means that the Pope can no longer control everyone, the Kings etc are then free to do so.

Calling the Bible 'just' stories doesn't mean there's nothing of importance in it. For a start, it's not just stories. Some of it is, some are parables that have a moral point (still relevant today), some of it is history and some is accounts of the teachings of an important figure.

As I understand it, much of Christianity is dealing with the implications of what that figure said. Again, I don't see a problem with focusing on this instead of the tribal code of some people from a few thousand years earlier.

As a vegan, my employers are obliged to supply me with non leather safety boots as veganism is a "strongly held ethical belief" and is considered the same as a religion for discrimination purposes.
If my employer caught me eating meat, that would prove that my ethical beliefs are not that strongly held and they can give me leather boots like everyone else.

I think you've got this backwards. You're not talking about discriminating against a belief system, you're talking about a lack of positive discrimination towards it.

The shoes thing is a slightly weak analogy in that the rules are there for your benefit. If, hypothetically, vegan-friendly safety shoes didn't exist (which they probably do but lets roll with it), you're in a position where you need to either suck it up or risk having your feet smashed to bits. An employer should be able to insist on you wearing PPE to protect its workforce (and avoid litigation), should it not?

Putting that another way; why should a doctor get to pick and choose who they treat? If their "deeply held belief" means that they won't provide help to people who really need it based on, let's be honest here, their own prejudice, surely they either need to consider a career more compatible with their belief system or take a good hard look at those beliefs.

Say we had a doctor who is also a staunch UKIP / BNP etc supporter. Should his "deeply held beliefs" permit him to refuse treatment to brown people?

Calling the Bible 'just' stories doesn't mean there's nothing of importance in it

Perhaps, but even if we take that as being the case, it's a bit of a leap from there to telling us what we shalt and shalt not do because god said so, is it not?

For a start, it's not just stories. Some of it is, some are parables that have a moral point (still relevant today), some of it is history and some is accounts of the teachings of an important figure.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Do you have the Cliff Notes to tell us which is which? It'd avoid a lot of confusion and argument.

Do you have the Cliff Notes to tell us which is which? It'd avoid a lot of confusion and argument.

No - may I suggest you go to church and ask for some help 🙂 as I believe this is much of the point of having clergy.

I will, soon as they all agree between themselves.

Why do they all need to agree?

Students of literature don't all agree on Shakespeare or Proust do they? Just because not everyone agrees, doesn't make it worthless.

It gets a bit confusing, to me at least, when you start talking about unintentionally discriminating [i]against[/i] someone and intentionally positively discriminating [i]for[/i] them.

All our buses have wheelchair ramps to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.
Old buses didn't have ramps and were deemed to discriminate against disabled people.
It wasn't intentional, but effectively it was little different to having "No Blacks or Irish" sign.

Aren't Sikh police officers exempted from wearing helmets because they won't fit over a turban?
I guess if vegan safety boots didn't exist, then I suppose that similarly, I'd have to be exempted from wearing safety boots.

I believe this is much of the point of having clergy

Why can't their invisible friend speak to me directly?

Shakespeare and Proust don't claim to be infallible and omnipotent.

Why can't their invisible friend speak to me directly?

I dunno. This too has been debated a lot.

Shakespeare and Proust don't claim to be infallible and omnipotent.

Did the authors of the Bible?

Did the authors of the Bible?

Did the authors of the Bible?

They claimed that God was telling them things, and God is claimed to be infallible.

Really? Sure about that?

Hang on a minute, this is where these sort of religious arguments become impossible.

Exactly. You can't argue that it has no value because it can't have been written by God, when not everyone's claiming that it was. It can still have value even if it was written by some humans who knew God, and some who didn't. The editors could easily have left the latter writings in becuase they thought they had value - and you (or a later church) can deicde they don't.

I'm mostly with you molgrips, it makes total sense to me to think of the bible as a sort of manual of useful things to think about, some of which might make less sense today in their literal reading than they did 2000 years ago.

I realise I'm making some assumptions here, but I assume that people that believe hard in God have in mind some sort of constant agent, a universal ultimate power who made everything and has things he likes to happen and things he doesn't like to happen, and those things aren't for us to question. I'd have thought that to believe something like that exists you'd have to believe that it exists entirely independent of what people do or don't think about the bible, and that it was the same 2000 years ago as it was today, and it will still be the same in another 2000 years. It wouldn't be much of an ultimate power or authority otherwise.

At the same time, the foundation for that belief is the bible, or at least the current politically correct interpretation of the bible, which everybody knows is subject to change. If there is a constant God it doesn't seem likely that any arbitrary interpretation of the bible is likely to be very accurate on the subject.

It's the contradiction between those two roles for the bible that I can't square, and what I don't get is how other people do.

Like I said though I'm looking in from the outside in probably quite a naive way. Maybe people think about it in a different way so the contradiction doesn't exist.

At the same time, the foundation for that belief is the bible

Is it? I honestly don't know, not being Christian myself - perhaps if any are brave or foolish enough to be on the thread they could chip in?

If there is a constant God it doesn't seem likely that any arbitrary interpretation of the bible is likely to be very accurate on the subject.

I would hazard a guess that God would guide your interpretation of it. So your dialogue with God is the Cliff Notes, and possibly even your conscience.

Like I said though I'm looking in from the outside in probably quite a naive way.

And that's really my point. Most of the religion bashers (not saying you) are doing just that.

At the same time, the foundation for that belief is the bible
Is it? I honestly don't know, not being Christian myself

Well I think it's fair to say they go hand in hand, in church anyway, which amounts to the same thing in my (good) book.

...Was it one infallible omnipotent god, or was it a collection of authors, each interpreting the voices in their head a different way?

The infallible voice of God speaking through the fallible lips of man.

Any [b]Truth[/b] comes from careful and considered reflection upon the words and their meaning to you, as one of God's children, not from chucking soundbites around the web - but then there's no hero points in that is there 😕

Any Truth comes from careful and considered reflection upon the words and their meaning to you, as one of God's children

But then it's [i]your[/i] truth, not [i]the[/i] truth. And if it's [i]your[/i] truth it's just [i]a[/i] truth. I thought the thing with God is that he's [i]the[/i] truth, the only one there has ever been or ever will be.

EDIT I'm talking myself in circles now so I'm bowing out of this one 🙂

So after all these years I find I'm a bad man for wearing cotton jeans with a little bit of lycra in them.

Ah well, to Quote the Bonzo Dog Band - "A lot of it's rubbish you know".

Students of literature don't all agree on Shakespeare or Proust do they? Just because not everyone agrees, doesn't make it worthless.

I think they're pretty much in agreement over which bits are supposed to be fictional.

All our buses have wheelchair ramps to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.

They do, but then being disabled isn't a lifestyle choice. There are no downsides to anyone, disabled or otherwise, in providing accessibility (other than a bit of extra work in building it I suppose).

I guess if vegan safety boots didn't exist, then I suppose that similarly, I'd have to be exempted from wearing safety boots.

How is that similar? Either safety equipment is necessary or it isn't. If it's necessary and you're refusing to use it, they you're a menace to yourself and others. (Speaking as a vegetarian,) given the choice between having an extra cow in the world and having feet that work, I think on balance I'd go for the latter.

Really? Sure about that?

I found this the other day. Bear in mind, this is a pro-Christianity website.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf/hottopics/defendingyourfaith/why-believe-bible-true.html

The Bible is the collected writings of people who knew God over many centuries. But more than that, as Christians we understand that God has spoken through these people.

Some Bible books recite what God has done in people's lives—like 1 and 2 Kings. Other books, like Isaiah, show God speaking directly to us through the voice of a prophet. Isaiah doesn't just reflect on his personal experiences with God. He speaks [b]for [/b]God, and God actually speaks [b]through [/b]him. And the New Testament Gospel writers have Jesus speaking directly to us.

Straight from the horse's mouth; they claimed god was telling them things.

Really? Sure about that?

Christians believe that Jesus [i]is[/i] God so any parts of the Bible which say "Jesus said" are reporting upon what God said. Even on those parts, there's rather a lot of disagreement withing individual denominations, let along among Christians. Far clearer than almost anything in the Bible is what Jesus thought about divorce, for example, but we see rather different views on that.

Given how widely interpreted the Bible can be, it seems rather silly to base modern laws on it. So, for example, exempting doctors from treating homosexual patients, preventing women accessing reproductive health services, or using it to define marriage, would all be a bit silly.

How is that similar?

Some new theology being unloaded, earlier:

[img] [/img]

I was thinking of police helmets as safety equipment. Perhaps motorcycle helmets or builder's hard hats would have been a better example.

I did wonder. Motorcycle helmets are a better example yes, and carry the same exemption. It seems somewhat irresponsible to me, but then I suppose you don't see many turban-wearing Hell's Angels knocking about (with "Sikh and Destroy" written on the back of their leathers).

with "Sikh and Destroy" written on the back of their leathers

Bravo!

Straight from the horse's mouth; they claimed god was telling them things.

for which you might get locked up if you claimed this nowadays.

An illustration of relative importance. Readings from Leviticus, which I know STW loves quoting, can be used at CofE services on three occasions during the year. To put that in perspective there are six different readings from Isaiah that can be used on the first Sunday of Advent alone.

Who made that rule up?

Acceptable forms of worship are laid out by the General Synod of the CofE, there are an quite a lot of them.

I thought the thing with God is that he's the truth, the only one there has ever been or ever will be.

Yes - to a Christian this is not in doubt, I suppose. But the question is one of communication. Was His word accurately recorded, and if so would it apply to us nowadays? If he were talking to us directly now, would he say the same things? A lot of people would say no.

Other books, like Isaiah, show God speaking directly to us through the voice of a prophet.

Was the author of Leviticus a prophet? I mean the actual man who put pen to paper, not necessarily the originator of the rules.

for which you might get locked up if you claimed this nowadays.

But then it's your truth, not the truth. And if it's your truth it's just a truth. I thought the thing with God is that he's the truth, the only one there has ever been or ever will be.

Yes, but as children of God, the [b]one truth[/b] is inherent in us and would be revealed by such contemplations 😀

O.K. go on. What is it then.

How long do I need to spend in contemplation in order for the one truth to be revealed? I mean time is a bit tight right now.

SHOULD be no time at all. hilldodger is going to tell us what it is.

Aren't you, hilly...

slowoldman - Member
Ah well, to Quote the Bonzo Dog Band - "A lot of it's rubbish you know".

I'd worship them, wouldn't you?

What is it then.

The truth is God, and his love for everyone 🙂

Even gay people who need an ambulance ?

Thing is hospitals have many care providors and not all of them may refuse through religous grounds to treat gay people.

SHOULD be no time at all. hilldodger is going to tell us what it is.

Aren't you, hilly...

Not really a matter of me telling anyone [b] The Truth[/b] just expressing the thought that contemplation of any work of spiritual teachings by someone with belief in their foundation can lead to a deep personal understanding of their place in the Universe and perhaps even enlightenment.

Even gay people who need an ambulance ?

There's a gay couple up the road who own a retired ambulance. It's got rainbow flowers painted on it and the signage has been altered to read "AMBIANCE" \o/

There's a gay couple up the road who own a retired ambulance. It's got rainbow flowers painted on it and the signage has been altered to read "AMBIANCE" \o/

That sounds lovely, apart from the picture of the business end of a birth.

If he were talking to us directly now, would he say the same things? A lot of people would say no.

Its just more fudging that they do because the believers dont even agree with the book.

Isaiah is a prophet. I think there sentence says this anyway so I am not sure why you asked.

The Truth just expressing the thought that contemplation of any work of spiritual teachings by someone with belief in their foundation can lead to a deep personal understanding of their place in the Universe and perhaps even enlightenment.

Wibble blah blah.

So, still nothing actually meaningful, then. What a surprise.

In Biblical times God had no trouble communicating with His creation. He even managed to issue Noah with a complete design spec for an ark. Now he can't even give us a straight yes or no answer on whether it's ok to take it up the wrong 'un.

Thing is hospitals have many care providors and not all of them may refuse through religous grounds to treat gay people.

There are many hospitals in Ireland, all of which refuse abortions on religious grounds.

Wibble blah blah.

So, still nothing actually meaningful, then. What a surprise

Nothing meaningful [b]to you[/b], that's where there's no surprise

hilldodger - Member

contemplation of any work of spiritual teachings by someone with belief in their foundation can lead to a deep personal understanding of their place in

😆

As a Christian I have many of the questions that have been chucked about above and others, some of which I have an answer I can live with some of which I wish I had an answer for and some I don't think matter that much (except in a theological debate).

In answer to the OP I can't think why a doctor wouldn't want to treat a gay patient. Doesn't make any sense to me. I do, however think that's quite different to performing abortions.

In (somewhat) agreement to one of the posts above, I do think that the most important message from the Bible is that of loving God and loving your neighbour. Sometimes I think we need a factory reset; start from that point and work the rest out from there.

I do think that the most important message from the Bible is that of loving God and loving your neighbour.

I think Jesus thought the same 🙂

I do think that the most important message from the Bible is that of loving God and loving your neighbour.

I think Jesus thought the same

Phew!

He was better at quoting than me though! 😀

Northwind - Member

what is known as, PARKLIFE

or you could try formulating your own thoughts instead of vox-popping 😉

but then this is the court of the cut'n'paste king

These people need to look up the meaning of the word infallible.

Not at all. Even if you are infallible it certainly makes sense to give different instructions to different groups of people who live in different societies and times. And as said, even if you give infallible instructions to someone doesn't mean they are going to record it properly.

Even if there is a God, why is he deserving of worship? Seems an utter **** to me.

Even if there is a God, why is he deserving of worship? Seems an utter **** to me.

So you have an opinion on a deity figure whose existence you doubt - interesting, or did you just want to get sweary on the internet

Ok folks what if my son is at school and they want to teach him about same sex relationships. Is this ok?

(It'll never happen as its a religious school)

Even if there is a God, why is he deserving of worship? Seems an utter **** to me.

+1000.

..I know God doesnt exist, but plenty of people disagree. I cant understand why these worship something that doesnt seem to do any good.

Ok folks what if my son is at school and they want to teach him about same sex relationships. Is this ok?

obviously - even if only from the point of view as to why same-sex people are attracted to each other when looking at nature you would think it was a counterproductive arrangement.

Religious teachings should have no place at a school, or even at home until the child is of an age where they can make their own mind up without indoctrination from their parents.

How do we know which parts of the bible are true/the word of god when you have deuteronomy 18:22 :

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/18-22.htm

…21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

?

How do we know which parts of the bible are true/the word of god .....

If you don't believe in god, then it doesn't matter does it ?

I was just interested to see if the bible can be decomposed into which directives where written by phophets (who weren't lying) and therefore are the actual 'word of god', and which of these directives have been reinterpreted for modern times?

I was just interested to see if the bible can be decomposed into which directives where written by phophets (who weren't lying) and therefore are the actual 'word of god', and which of these directives have been reinterpreted for modern times

Given the date when a lot of it was written, the number of different languages it has been translated through, the number of different versions there has been and the number of different books that have been excluded, I'd have to go with 100% of it being reinterpreted for "modern" times. Of couse in this context modern goes back a very long way.

Ok folks what if my son is at school and they want to teach him about same sex relationships. Is this ok?

In what context? I don't remember being taught about different-sex relationships when I was at school, let alone same-sex ones. What's your concern here, that they're trying to sneak "Bumming 101" into the curriculum?

If a school wants to teach about same-sex relationships if the framework of "hey kids, it's not nice to discriminate against people who are a bit different to yourself; and if you discover later in life that you're differently oriented from the majority then that's ok too" then I'd be very much in favour of that. From my memories of schooldays (and no doubt the memories of anyone who happened to be fat thin / tall / short / ginger / geeky / spotty / bespectacled / in some other way not identical to everyone else), it's a lesson many kids could do to learn.

He's your son not mine though, so I probably care considerably less than you do. Why not tell us what [i]you[/i] think rather than posing JHJ-esque questions?

I'd have to go with 100% of it being reinterpreted for "modern" times. Of couse in this context modern goes back a very long way.

or does it as the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old and the Universe is 13.8 billion years old.

So how come something that God prescribed only VERY recently (within his timeframe) is being reinterpreted so quickly?

Surely he won't have changed his mind so quickly - and if he has he should have sent us a recent prophet to record this fact.

In what context? I don't remember being taught about different-sex relationships when I was at school, let alone same-sex ones. What's your concern here, that they're trying to sneak "Bumming 101" into the curriculum?

Did you not do biology, pretty sure there was some coverage there?

Did you not do biology, pretty sure there was some coverage there?

I dropped Biology when I took my Options so only did it for a couple of years. I don't remember it ever including relationship advice though, and I'm not entirely sure that it [i]should [/i]do, that sounds like a bit of a shoehorn. We'll be teaching Creationism in Science lessons next. (-:

I suppose where it could / should appear is Sex Ed, but again I don't recall much being discussed back then beyond reproductive mechanics and learning how not to catch AIDS, galloping knobrot or, most terrifying of all when you're 14, babies. I don't think they even taught [i]how [/i]to do it, though generations of teens and 20-somethings seem to have been able to work it out fairly consistently over the years. Perhaps there's instructional videos on the Internet or something.

So yeah, maybe times have changed, or maybe it's just an oversight; maybe relationship advice [i]should [/i]be part of the curriculum? I do worry (in the sort of way that a non-parent does, which is somewhere slightly above "not at all") that there's too much focus on academia and not enough on providing life skills. What's going to be more use to most school leavers, Trigonometry or How to Find a Mortgage? To be able to order dinner in French, or actually be able to cook it yourself?

hora - Member

Ok folks what if my son is at school and they want to teach him about same sex relationships. Is this ok?

Of course. Well as long as it's theoretical not practical.

Ok folks what if my son is at school and they want to teach him about same sex relationships. Is this ok?

You know how you have mummy and a daddy well some people just have a daddy and a daddy and some people have a mummy and a mummy.

Him OK

I hope he survives the trauma of such knowledge

IMHO sex education should not be done in school but we end up abdicating our parental responsibility as far too many people are too uncomfortable or uptight to be able to deal with it, the parents that is not the kids.

yes I hope the school mention same sex relationships to my kids and I hope they teach them they are of equal worth.
I hoe they teach my kid not to be a bigot just as I do the same

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/evil-actual-real-evil-walking-about-in-daylight

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/evil-actual-real-evil-walking-about-in-daylight

Aren't these guys literally interpreting the 'word of god' as written by their prophets, rather than a modern interpretation of those words?

if that is the case who is to say they are wrong - where is the evidence that god has actually changed his mind somewhat? Why should they believe the people that did the reinterpretation if they are not prophets themselves?

So you have an opinion on a deity figure whose existence you doubt - interesting,

Perhaps there's instructional videos on the Internet or something.

maybe relationship advice should be part of the curriculum?

Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) is part of the curriculum and, in most schools, starts in Reception.

Wow. You'd think think they'd at least let them get to a classroom first.

thatcher the ex failed priminster must be gutted clause 28 got overturned and now same sex relations are being seen as more acceptable amongst certain parts of society. and the catholic church must be hating every same sex relationshjip that starts up.

About time most churches wehere closed down and rebuilt into starter flats for homeless people or those on low incomes, instead of the building staying closed 6 days a week, and then only a few turning up to chant various lines out of the bible.

I cant understand why these worship something that doesnt seem to do any good.

I dunno about that. If God does exist as per the Bible then he created trails, forests, skies, warm summer sun, beaches, beautiful women, cute bunnies etc etc. As well as all the bad stuff ofc. Of course, people might say that God gave us free will and we then created wars and violence, but that doesn't account for ebola and cancer...

A, doesn't exist B isn't omniscient/omnipotent (so not actually God as advertised then) or C doesn't care

D is testing us
E is doing a big experiment

thatcher the ex failed priminster

does that mean she is now regarded as succeeding ?

thatcher the ex failed priminster must be gutted

D is testing us
E is doing a big experiment