Religion

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

 

[tonea2003]

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.

are you saying what it says is false?

isn't that what exactly the church does, spin

and before you go any further i did Catholicism all my junior life and i've just done 3 years at c of e church getting enough ticks to get my kids into the school i want

and not once has anything from Deuteronomy and the other awful books ever been mentioned, i wonder why... it would scare the kids to death

and this allegory nonsense has only come to pass now the literal meaning is so obviously pony your only bastion is to say "well it doesn't actually mean that it means this" its a cop out

 

[arfurclue]

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

• 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

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give your a big reward. 19:29

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 :

Blessed are those that mourn for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the humble for they shall inherit the earth.

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.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

 

[tonea2003]

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.

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?

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

Bells? Bells? Are you fucking mental?

Malts my friend, blessed with Malts.

Fucking Bells..

We would use that to clean the anal probes.

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: )

The Bells,the Bells you were weaned on as a bairn MP; ). Nae yav mooved away frome Glasgae ya think yar oll posh drinking malts matey. Pish I say.

 

[tonea2003]

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.

i stand by it whether you like or not that the bible is now taken to be allegorical because that's the only way it can remain relevant and if you are insulted by my opinion so be it

if it was meant to be allegorical then why not say it in the first place, its not hard
and even if it was it doesn't make it any more true(and i'm not saying everything in the bible is false before you get on that horse)

so to your logical flaw i never said i claimed to have a higher ground than you, you are right i have no idea who or what you are, i am only going on the words you wrote nothing more nothing less, all i was doing was giving to you flavour of my past that so that you at least know i'm coming from a position of some knowledge of christian teachings

SAB highlights these passages because they are there, for the very reason, i said the church chooses to not indulge them, hey i understand why.

of course there can be other interpretations, if you would like to counter any of them, i'm willing to read and listen

my ticks mean nothing just my copying skills i'm afraid

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

 

[arfurclue]

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?

Cheers. I write from my own experience - so please feel free to disagree with and/or disregard anything I write. In this context what I have come across would be something like this :

In many teachings there is the idea of 'outer teachings' and 'inner teachings'. The former is where most people will come to meet the teachings, the latter is what some may end up going through. In this sense - and from my understanding (whether correct or incorrect) - inner teachings involve opening to an inner teacher. In christian terms, this teacher may be called the Holy Spirit. Opening to the Inner Teacher involves a process of sorting the wheat from the chaff - keep hold of the wheat, let go of the chaff. This also goes beyond that which is just theoretical right or wrong and into practical experience. So if I come across an idea that claims to be true yet leads to a sense of disconnection, then it may well be best to drop it - whereas an idea that is of the Inner Teacher will lead to a deeper, felt sense of connection with the Divine. In this way I come to realise a kind of discernment beyond that which can be known with only intellectual study. Not everyone's cup of tea and not always so easy but such is life.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Maybe 'allegorical' should say 'figurative' - you'd need an English scholar to define the difference properly. Parables are not to be taken literally, and there are loads of them in the Bible.
Much of rhe Bible clearly to make people think - the camel through an eye of a needle verses are obviously not meant to be taken literally, but to make the reader think about what is meant by what it is contained by. Or to set about making really big needles, one or the other.

I can accept opinions, what I dislike is such as SAB's skewed excerpting. Those excerpts are misrepresented by the cuts made.

For example, this one from the SAB: "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."
That last bit - what it actually says: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Those last words make it plausible to interpret as a warning on behaviour being verging close to sin, rather than an actual sin (SAB).It's quite possible to argue when something in heart becomes in fact, and I have no wish to get into that.
That makes SAB's cutting a deliberate removal of context (in this case, the claimed meaning changes with the last three words). It's Fox Bible News type level stuff that SAB made there, creating a statement that wasn't made and then criticising it.
*
I re-read what had seemed like an insult. I think there was probably meant to be a full stop or similar after 'pony' - that makes it make sense to me now (rather than an insult it read as first). Although I still disagree that it is a cop out, I retract that it was an insult and apologise.
*
The logical flaw I referred to had nothing to do with background - it was in response to a question about whether I'd said something was false, when I had not claimed falseness/truth on anything.