Firstly, is it not better to ignore the lot and follow your conscience?But is that not better than religions that advocate violence towards others?
Firstly, is it not better to ignore the lot and follow your conscience?
Secondly, that's no help to two young children whose parents become strict Buddhists and cut all ties and attachments to them.
Buddhism doesn't advocate non violence to a greater extent than any other religion so the question is pointless. In any case the answer is no, the answer is that stupidity in any religion should be ignored.I agree, that’s why I’m an atheist. But you can be an atheist and say some religions are worse than others. Would you not agree that a religion that advocates non-violence is, in the main, better than one that advocates violence?
Buddhism doesn't advocate non violence to a greater extent than any other religion so the question is pointless. In any case the answer is no, the answer is that stupidity in any religion should be ignored.
Slightly amended for accuracy.One of the things that massively annoys me about religious spokespeople is when they spout such nonsense as "Well, Jesus said......". Quoting as if it is an actual fact, when in reality it's just a bad translation of a 2000 year old fairy story.
How tolerant of you ;) Having said that, what you quoted does seem to directly contradict one of the basic tenets of 'christianity's' teachings as found in the beatitudes - 'blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy' - kinda suggests that intolerance, hatred, cruelty etc are not the way. Maybe this has something to do with how it was interpreted/rewritten/used by the romans.to such an extent that the original meaning came to hidden at best, warped at worst. In essence it speaks of the interconnectedness of all beings - is that so different from attempts to find a unified field theory. In other words is it possible that the original message was one of Unity and Peace but this message has been twisted to serve a purpose of division and war? ps that morality stuff does seem a bit nuts to say the least...
I would say that that the original message of Jesus was one of peace and unity, yes. That is to say that there is a state of peace beyond that which can be known by the conflicted mind in which one can experience a felt sense of unity. However, that is not to say that this is the message that is necessarily conveyed through the bible. But then again there is an easy argument to make that states that those who brought together the bible 'as is' today had a pretty heavy investment in war - so would not want for christianity's message to be seen as one of peace. Done quite a good job of this in fairness - at least on an outer, superficial level...and if that's as far as people want to look, then that's the only message they will receive.are you really trying to say the bible(as that where all Christianities teachings come from) original teachings were unity and peace?? you cannot be serious
Deuteronomy
God really lays down the law in Deuteronomy. And he insists that you follow it, exactly as written without adding to or subtracting from it. The law applies to everyone for all time. No excuses. (See 28:15-68 for a list of things God will do to you if you refuse to obey.)
Of course the first thing you'll have to do is kill people. Lots and lots of people.
Revelation
Everything in Revelation should probably be highlighted, because it's all violent, cruel, or absurd in one way or another. But that would make it too hard to read, and it's hard enough as it is.
Revelation has my vote for the worst book in the Bible. And since the Bible, Quran, and the Book of Mormon are the three worst books ever written, that's saying something.
Almost as if the New message was meant to be different from the Old message? So, yes in that way it's not such a surprise that they clash. It does amuse me that there is a way of thinking that effectively says that ' God sent his only son' to get beaten, imprisoned and crucified just so as to deliver the same message. Why bother? Unless God's a bit dense.Is it that surprising that the quotes clash with the Beatitudes?
The quotes made are Old Testament quotes, with Exodus/Deuteronomy thought to be from around 500 BC, not 1st century AD. 15th century morals were rather different from 21st century morals.
From recollection, there isn't a lot of compassion in the Old Testament, and the earliest books dictate/prophecy how rather than why (Deuteronomy is pretty much a video nasty for the time).
All religion IMO is a -
Although I could be tempted to join the church of Magicpole, providing i'm blessed with Bells holy water and communion tattie scones : )
I would say that that the original message of Jesus was one of peace and unity, yes. That is to say that there is a state of peace beyond that which can be known by the conflicted mind in which one can experience a felt sense of unity. However, that is not to say that this is the message that is necessarily conveyed through the bible. But then again there is an easy argument to make that states that those who brought together the bible 'as is' today had a pretty heavy investment in war - so would not want for christianity's message to be seen as one of peace. Done quite a good job of this in fairness - at least on an outer, superficial level...and if that's as far as people want to look, then that's the only message they will receive.
There quotes someone who doesn't understand allegory, favouring an overly literal interpretation helped by excising subclauses from the text.
Other interpretations are available, in addition to this Fox News approach of the self=proclaimed "skeptics annotated bible". The introduction to the point of the site reads to me that It isn't skepticism; it's spin.
cherry pick to serve your purpose you mean, i'm afraid it doesn't work like that
here is just a few from matthews gospel
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give your a big reward. 19:29
- Jesus strongly approved of the law and the prophets. He had no objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament and said that its laws will be binding forever. 5:17
- To avoid sin, Jesus told his followers to cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes. This advice was given immediately after he said that anyone who looks with lust at a women commits adultery. 5:29, 18:8
- He said that most people are going to hell. 7:13-14
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
So you are saying that you know for sure how I should or shouldn't relate with the bible? Ok. Interesting.
I wasn't brought up with religion, don't particularly identify as a christian and don't go to church.However when I came across the beatitudes (including some of the studies
of the aramaic teachings) I found that they weren't so much a set of orders but more a pretty accurate description of a process of change that I had been experiencing elsewhere.
Why would this be of interest? For me I find that, on one level, the likes of art, music, cooking, sex, even football* can all come to be an exploration of the nature of change. So anything that provides insight into this, I find to be an enriching experience. The beatitudes then can help facilitate and nurture this process of change - especially if I choose to let go of the heavy, religious dogma that has attempted to hijack them.
So to look at two examples :
For me, in this case humbleness is the result of becoming aware of, and letting go of, the arrogance within that I have identified with - the arrogance that thinks it understands but actually doesn't. So the mourning is the process of allowing this arrogance to 'die,' so as to come to know a deeper understanding. I also find that arrogance has a harsh quality to it - so in letting go of this I let go of this discomfort and come to experience a greater sense of ease. Beyond that, I can read 'inherit' as 'receive' which can then imply a sense of groundedness and thus balance. And balance is helpful with any art that involves movement - if nothing else it helps open one to a power that has its roots more in rhythm than just brute force (perhaps think of what some athletes might call 'the zone').
So, yeah - if you want to limit the conversation to solely religious doctrine then maybe picking and choosing parts of the bible isn't 'allowed' but if I want to explore beyond
these limitations then I feel free do so and so engage with the likes of the bible however I choose. I find the latter more enjoyable but each to their own.
*technique in football might be said to be - at least partly - how one changes the shape of the body so as best trap, pass, shoot the ball etc; how a team transitions form attack to defence and back again is also a process of change.
Calm down Quasipolo, of course I'm fucking mental me owd malt loaf. I don't wanna bee normal(whatever that means) Rational is better: )Bells? Bells? Are you fucking mental?
Malts my friend, blessed with Malts.
Fucking Bells..
We would use that to clean the anal probes.
Did I say that what it says is false? No, obviously I didn't. Even raising the question is a logical flaw. Not being demonstrably false does not make it true either.
Is it written as allegory rather than to be taken literally? Yes (my interpretation, but not mine alone)
Are the SAB interpretations you quoted in some cases based on selected or incomplete excerpts which eliminates context? Yes.
Do the SAB interpretations admit that other interpretations can exist? No, and that is the issue I pointed out.
Was Deuteronomy one of the SAB quotes? No, so it's not relevant to my comment. (In passing, you'll see I referred to Deuteronomy previously as a video nasty-equivalent, so hardly ignored).
Also in passing, is [pre-Christian] Deuteronomy as important as the New Testament in Christianity? No.
Your ticks reads as a needs-must action for benefit rather than interest. I note that you consider that your experience allows you to claim higher ground over mine (which you don't know, of course).
As for the last bit, that reads as ignoring the whole concept that the Bible as allegorical, and frankly I can't make sense of what you might mean by it, other than as a deliberate insult for the sake of writing a deliberate insult.
what exactly do these mean to anyone, its your interpretation
but if it make you a better person i'm all for that, good stuff to live your life by can be found here there and everywhere
and for every beatitude there is a line that is not particularly nice
here's just 2
The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
and if you are transcending beyond the lines of a beatitude which is all well and good lets do it for the not so good things said, which would be only fair wouldn't you say?