Plus, I Got Religion

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Anyway, that's not where I wanted to go.

I think the reason it irks me is that it's kinda like someone saying, "I'm a Conservative Republican, and I believe in larger government, more taxes, and social welfare."


What they actually believe in and what they say they believe in are two very different things.  

Oh, I don't think much of Christians in general, don't get me wrong. It just strikes me that arguing against believing in the Bible because it's illogical is like arguing with a tree for growing.

Their arguments are and will always be completely circular, because religion is not logical. It doesn't need to be: that's not it's function.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So how can a person claim that "the" bible "is" the literal word of God, if they can't even identify which translation to use?


...Lemme guess.  "All translations are correct, even the ones that contradict each other," right?

No, the one their church uses is the correct one, of course.

[LMNO]

Anyway, that's not where I wanted to go.

I think the reason it irks me is that it's kinda like someone saying, "I'm a Conservative Republican, and I believe in larger government, more taxes, and social welfare."


What they actually believe in and what they say they believe in are two very different things.  

Oh, I don't think much of Christians in general, don't get me wrong. It just strikes me that arguing against believing in the Bible because it's illogical is like arguing with a tree for growing.

Their arguments are and will always be completely circular, because religion is not logical. It doesn't need to be: that's not it's function.

I'm not saying they shouldn't "believe in the bible". 

It's that they're believeing what they think is in the bible, instead of what's actually there.

[potato]

I'm not saying they shouldn't "believe in the bible". 

It's that they're believeing what they think is in the bible, instead of what's actually there.

who gets to decide what's actually there?

[LMNO]

What?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Was this guy I think

[potato]

What?

if you're replying to my question, "who gets to decide what's actually there", that's all I'm asking.

for instance:
is it a history book? if so, what's actually there are historical records.
is it a book of parables? if so, what's actually there are life lessons expressed in figurative language.
is it a book of poetry? if so, what's actually there are writings of praise and fear.
is it all of those and more? which parts are which? do the historical records contain any lessons? any strange customs that need to be understood in context of the culture in which they're written? should the parables be narrowly interpreted, or do they have fluid application in different cultural contexts?

everyone is going to think the bible says something... same with other spiritual texts... same with other categories of writings. commentaries exist for novels, historical records, spiritual writings and on and on and on.

seriously, if someone wants to believe someone and it's not hurting anyone, who cares?

[LMNO]

You're not adressing my point.  You're talking about intepretation of what's in the bible.  I'm talking about the words themselves.

[AFK]

I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You're not adressing my point.  You're talking about intepretation of what's in the bible.  I'm talking about the words themselves.

But even the words themselves are up for debate. I have yet to see anything that one could call a completely unbiased interpretation of the 66 books that make up the OT/NT in most christian systems.

JW's claim that theirs is the most accurate because they reinserted the Name of God, where the KJV put LORD and GOD (rather than Lord and God which reference other entities).

The KJV itself has a number of instances where the words it uses are simply so archaic that a modern human is likely to mistranslate the Kings English.

The Living Bible, on the other hand is full of 'editor' commentary. So when King Solomon says that "The Dead are conscious of nothing" and that they return to the dust, the editors of The Living Bible have a footnote which states that Solomon was depressed and these statements don't reflect the Truth.

So, unless someone has a strong grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, plus access to all the oldest scrolls and manuscripts still available, plus a deep understanding of the social and ethnic dynamics of the ancient Hebrews and First century Greeks/Christians/Jews/Romans.... they're not gonna know what the book actually says. They have to trust the interpreter.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

Ah oh... never mind my last post then.

[AFK]

I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

Ah oh... never mind my last post then.

Well, that was my interpretation of what he was getting at.  I could be wrong.  What's with all this God talk lately anyway?  I'm gonna go somewhere else and talk about football, beer, and women.  Have at it spags. 

[LMNO]

For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is written in the Old Testament that gays are not allowed to marry.


If you ask them where it says that, they won't know.  Because it's not there.  And while I think that basing your biases and prejudices because a book told you to is silly, basing it on a book that doesn't even say it is downright idiotic.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's kind of a bummer that any given discussion about religion or faith eventually degenerates to talking about Christians and Christianity. I think too many people see the word "religion" and in some conditioned way subconsciously translate it to "Christian", so that it becomes almost impossible to discuss religion without it turning into a conversation about how stupid Christians are.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Every time I try to reply to this thread, I look at what I've typed and then I feel dumb.

It sure would be nice if I had the wherewithal to finish my attempts to discuss The Religious Case Against Belief in that one thread I made. I thought it was an interesting and fairly original take on this whole mess.