Religion

[DiscoSteve]

final point from me on this - the words 'faith' and 'belief' are not the same as 'truth' and 'reality' - so even the words used around religion admit that it's all fantasy

 

[Kippaxpete]

Ricky Gervais is always a reliable source of wisdom in my view on the existence or otherwise of some divine force. The following transcript is taken from an interview on the Stephen Colbert chat show.

RG: An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t know there is a God or not, as no one does.

SC: So you are not convicted of your atheism?

RG: Well, I am. No I am because atheism is only rejecting a claim that there is a God. Atheism isn’t a belief system. This is atheism in a nutshell. You say, “there is a God”. I say, “can you prove that?” You say, “No.” I say, “I don’t believe you then.” So, ummm, you believe in one God I assume.

SC: Uhhhhh, in three persons but go ahead.

RG: So, okay, but there are about 3,000 to choose from..

SC: I’ve done some reading, yeah.

RG: So basically, you believe, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 Gods and I don’t believe in just one more.

 

[JASR]

I’ll take one example from that list, which again is mostly Torah but this is from Matthew:

“Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30”

If the author of the article thinks this is to be taken literally, he has no business in biblical scholarship.

In fact that’s a running theme of misunderstandings he has for Matthew. He thinks everything is literal, rather than metaphorical.

So you’re saying that the bible is metaphorical, not literal?

or a mixture?

if it’s a mixture, who’s interpretation can be judged correct on each sentence?

if it’s metaphorical, then why do we have zealots saying things like the earth is 6000 odd years old?

if it’s literal, then … see most of posts on this thread, pointing out the absurdity.

 

[DiscoSteve]

if it’s literal, then … see most of posts on this thread, pointing out the absurdity.

And thus highlighting the absurdity of any religion that points to a 1000+ year old book as a reference to live a life by

 

[Metal Biker]

Ok so, again, you’ve included a quote from the Hebrew Bible Chronicles and thrown it in with the New Testament.

You’ll notice the Hewbrew Bible quotes are far more violent than the Gospels in their instruction.

Luke chapter 19 is Jesus telling a story of a master and his servants, that is NOT direct instruction, he is quoting the master in the metaphorical story he’s telling.

It really helps if you read and understand the scriptures in full, rather than taking the odd sentence that sounds worse than it is.

The rest of your post I agree with, many Christians scare the shit out of me and should keep it to themselves.

It's no different to when Christians take one odd sentence to prove their points and deliberately ignore the previous or following texts that add a different context to what the standalone sentence provides.

Also, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume I haven't read the scriptures; I have, that's the main reason why I reject them, BECAUSE I understand them and the mental manipulation that it encourages. God 'loves' us, we fear God. The take of the Lord is very simple; He is your Lord, believe in Him and be saved, reject Him and be punished. Wouldn't a benevolent God not care either way? What's with the 'punishment' angle?

I have no problem with spiritual Christians, ones who know the Bible to be bollocks but take away the message of treating others like equals and act upon it accordingly, but Christianity is not the first religious belief to promote such messages of peace and tolerance.

It's the ones who still teach Creationism as 'fact', reject evolutionary theory (by misinterpreting 'theory' to mean a disputed idea. Eg, it's called the "Theory of Gravity"... we KNOW it to be correct) to be a lie, and cite the Bible at every opportunity when debating moralistic behaviour. That's who we have an issue with, and if you truly stand by what you're stating, you should be too, regardless of faith. Accepting such lies is harmful to only yourself, forcing OTHERS to adopt those lies into their lives that you've accepted is what is most harmful to society overall, as we've seen with the persecution of LGBT+ rights, differing spiritual beliefs and women's rights.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Ricky Gervais is always a reliable source of wisdom in my view on the existence or otherwise of some divine force. The following transcript is taken from an interview on the Stephen Colbert chat show.

RG: An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t know there is a God or not, as no one does.

SC: So you are not convicted of your atheism?

RG: Well, I am. No I am because atheism is only rejecting a claim that there is a God. Atheism isn’t a belief system. This is atheism in a nutshell. You say, “there is a God”. I say, “can you prove that?” You say, “No.” I say, “I don’t believe you then.” So, ummm, you believe in one God I assume.

SC: Uhhhhh, in three persons but go ahead.

RG: So, okay, but there are about 3,000 to choose from..

SC: I’ve done some reading, yeah.

RG: So basically, you believe, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 Gods and I don’t believe in just one more.

I remember watching that (I think it's on YouTube somewhere; most things are these days). Colbert had no comeback at all.

 

[Octavian]

So you’re saying that the bible is metaphorical, not literal?

or a mixture?

if it’s a mixture, who’s interpretation can be judged correct on each sentence?

if it’s metaphorical, then why do we have zealots saying things like the earth is 6000 odd years old?

if it’s literal, then … see most of posts on this thread, pointing out the absurdity.

The Bible is many different books, written by many different people, written over a timespan of thousands of years.

It’s a big old book with many different points of view.

Of course in that you get some that are supposed to be literal and some metaphorical.

When you read it cover to cover you will know the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus, are done mostly in parables and not literal, in fact it states that. You know in Exodus the instructions to the Jews are to be taken literal.

The reason you have zealots believing the world is 6000 years old is because people are stupid. It never says that, they’ve counted the people in the Bible and decided nobody else existed, which sums up the insane parts of religion.

 

[Octavian]

It's no different to when Christians take one odd sentence to prove their points and deliberately ignore the previous or following texts that add a different context to what the standalone sentence provides.

Also, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume I haven't read the scriptures; I have, that's the main reason why I reject them, BECAUSE I understand them and the mental manipulation that it encourages. God 'loves' us, we fear God. The take of the Lord is very simple; He is your Lord, believe in Him and be saved, reject Him and be punished. Wouldn't a benevolent God not care either way? What's with the 'punishment' angle?

I have no problem with spiritual Christians, ones who know the Bible to be bollocks but take away the message of treating others like equals and act upon it accordingly, but Christianity is not the first religious belief to promote such messages of peace and tolerance.

It's the ones who still teach Creationism as 'fact', reject evolutionary theory (by misinterpreting 'theory' to mean a disputed idea. Eg, it's called the "Theory of Gravity"... we KNOW it to be correct) to be a lie, and cite the Bible at every opportunity when debating moralistic behaviour. That's who we have an issue with, and if you truly stand by what you're stating, you should be to, regardless of faith. Accepting such lies is harmful to only yourself, forcing OTHERS to adopt those lies into their lives that you've accepted is what is most harmful to society overall, as we've seen with the persecution of LGBT+ rights, differing spiritual beliefs and women's rights.

I didn’t mean to cause offence but you’re quoting Bible passages out of context and that’s what we are discussing.

I am not saying you haven’t read them but your Luke 19 example shows that you had forgotten what it was saying.

I agree with a lot of your post, I don’t mind Christians if they keep it to themselves. I don’t mind anyone if they keep it to themselves. I couldn’t care less if they believe the Bible though, let them if they keep it to themselves.

I don’t think Christians in the UK in 2021 are a cause for concern though, they’re mostly my age and nearly dead.

 

[SWP's back]

I think agnosticism is the only sensible position really.we’ll never know if there is a sky fairy or not.

All agnostics are atheists. Atheism is an absence of belief in a deity. An agnostic doesn’t know if there is one or not, therefore all agnostics are agnostic atheists. It’s like pregnancy, you can’t be a little bit pregnant, you are or you aren’t. Same with believing in a god, you do or you don’t. If I ask you if you’re currently driving a combine harvester, you either are or you aren’t. If you’re not sure if you’re driving one then reality says you aren’t.

With that said, you’ve actually just quoted the bad bits of the Jewish part of the Bible and used it to criticise Christanity, which is found in the New Testament.

No, I’ve quoted some (but very few in comparison to all the ALL the bad bits) of the Christian Old Testament. It’s very obviously an important part of the Bible for the morality of Christians. After all, it’s the OT that contains the parts outlawing homosexuality which some Christians so abhor

The Bible is many books comprised over 1000s of years, all written by people who didn’t know better. That’s the best way to view it.

The Bible is a load of bollocks whose contents were agreed upon some 200-400 years after the time of the events that are written about. The best way to view it is a work of fiction to explain phenomena that Bronze Age folk couldn’t understand and it got out of hand.

 

[Metal Biker]

I didn’t mean to cause offence but you’re quoting Bible passages out of context and that’s what we are discussing.

I am not saying you haven’t read them but your Luke 19 example shows that you had forgotten what it was saying.

I agree with a lot of your post, I don’t mind Christians if they keep it to themselves. I don’t mind anyone if they keep it to themselves. I couldn’t care less if they believe the Bible though, let them if they keep it to themselves.

I don’t think Christians in the UK in 2021 are a cause for concern though, they’re mostly my age and nearly dead.

The examples are about attitudes towards those who reject God. I can post the whole thing if you want, it still sends the same message.

This whole conversation has been about calling out those who would use scripture to force others to behave differently or deny them their liberty because of it. It's not primarily been a "lets bash Christianity and Christians debate." Those using the Bible as the prime example of morality, yet refusing to address the heinous and outright evil texts it preaches are being shown up for what they are.