General question to all siblings...

[Bluenose]

Now as you know I am not a believer but it seems to me that the way to look at this is like this:

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God (or whatever sacred text you choose and whatever corresponding deity), and if that god made us in his/her/its "image" - which I have always taken to be a figurative thing (in fact a Jewish friend of mine put thusly: (any errors are mine) the image of god is spirit, that spark that makes us human, intelligent), then it follows that this god would want us to use our intelligence to understand what is written.  It seems to me that given the many inconsistencies in the various accounts of different parts of the Bible, then "the word of God" cannot mean the literal word, rather it is a figurative thing and that the important things are not the literal words but the meaning behind them.  Take Genesis for example.  I do not think the important truth is that God made the world in six days, but that he/she/it made it at all.  I would have thought that God would want us to use our intelligence to find the truth behind the words.  So going back to Genesis, primitive tribal people 5,000 years ago would not have had the knowledge-base to understand things like the Big Bang, or Brane Theory or timescales of billions of years and evolution and the whole lot.  So the story would of necessity be simplified.  It is, IMHO, for a believer a travesty of one's God given intelligence not to use that intelligence to understand the sacred texts.

Now, of course, this is not my position as an unbeliever, but I wish some of those more fundamentalist believers would use such logic rather than the very childish nonsense that they so often do spruik (fortunately, I am happy to report that I do not find these types in the Monastery, but as we all know, they are out there - just look at the Kansas School Board).  Of course, as a good Toadfish, I know that I must practice to;erance. so it will be interesting to see how it goes when we do have some come here.

I have no trouble accepting the belief of others.  In my way of looking at things, it is a logical progression from the opposite Basic Premise to that which I employ.  My BP is that there is no ultimate meaning to the Universe and thus, logically, no God.  Take the opposite BP, and God is one possible logical solution.  At the end of the day we can argue about which BP is correct but as in all logical argument the premise is given and cannot be proved by any chain if logic deriving from it.  All such arguments are circular.  That does not exclude the possibility of people using such arguments and in fact not even realising that they are making a Basic Premise at all!

[Griffin NoName]

it is a logical progression from the opposite Basic Premise to that which I employ

Yes.  Newton indicates ("Every action has an equal and opposite reaction")  that for everyone that believes there is someone else who does not believe.

[Opsa]

I think the fundamental problem we have is with fundamentalists of any religion, and they're not likely to come here and talk with us, especially since we take an intolerant stance towards intolerance.

As you can tell, it makes my head spin.

Still, there must be a way for us to figure out how to communicate with fundamentalists, so we can attempt to make the point that in order to create peace between the religions of the world, we have to communicate, and in order to communicate, we can't be telling people that they are damned for believeing what they believe. Is there any way we can we do this nicely and in a non-threatening way?

One thing we'll need to do is to knock down our temptation to assume that fundamentalists are too closed-minded. Maybe we need to make a welcoming thread here for fundamentalists who may be open to trying to fix this problem.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Opas, I believe that trying isn't a *sin* (as not trying), but we have to acknowledge that most of us have our minds set in whatever we do or do not believe. For some of us it is easier to admit the beliefs of others but for many it is almost by definition impossible. The people I know that have changed their mind have done so because a very particular, personal and almost always tragic incident that made them reconsider their beliefs.

Trying also means being patient. How long did it took for regular folks to vote? How long it took for women/blacks/indians to vote? How long it took for a woman to be elected as a senator? etc, etc etc. Changes take time and in most cases take generations. It is a safer bet to make sure that the new generations will see the light than trying to convince the current one (which BTW has backfired in many occasions).

[Opsa]

You're right, Zone, it has backfired and any change will take patience. I just wish we could find some people who are sort of in the middle, so we can learn from them how to not offend them and how we can talk with them.

I'm also concerned about the young people who are being threatened with Hell, etc. in an attempt to scare them into following a religion. Is that really necessary?

[Sibling Chatty]

Who gets to make the directors cut?

That's the deal...no one director (or directorial philosophy) no cuts.

The main assertion I have about Genesis, timelines and Biblical inerrancy with fundamentalist Christians always annoys them beyond belief.

First I get them to agree that the Bible says a day shall be as a thousand years and a thousand years shall be as a day. THEN I ask them if they're really sure they want to tell me that Genesis means 6 literal 24 hour days, seein' as how there WERE no days until darkness was divided from light...

Most of 'em tell me they'll pray for me, and I tell them thanks, but God knows my name already and if they'd direct that prayer toward my health and not toward my being as small minded and small of faith as they are, I would appreciate it. (On the plus side, the pastor of the biker church here has backed away from the 6,000 year bullshit after I asked him to tell me WHERE it said that God couldn't use metaphors when he directed people to tell a story they weren't around for. That keeps it out of a number of families homes and 'religious legacies'.)

[Griffin NoName]

That "I'll pray for you" is a funny one.

Especially when contemplating alternatives:

I'll think of you
I'll light a candle for you
I'll send you healing
I'll do some sums for you (believers in mathematics only)

[Swatopluk]

But it certainly beats praying against somebody like certain TV evangelists (like calling for a meteor strike on Pennsylvania)

[Darlica]

Sometimes I wonder where the teachings of Christ went in many of today's modern Christian cults and churches. What happened to "you that are without sin may throw the first stone"?*
The more I see of those TV evangelists the more I wonder if they have read The New Testament at all or if they perhaps read  the "blood, guts and vengeance" readers digest version?



*The quote might be translated wrong, I didn't have the time to find it in English right now, but I think you know which quote I mean.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

That's more or less the exact wording, Darl.

I'm not entirely sure what version they're reading. Certainly not the version I ever read, but then I was reading the Catholic version (has a couple of books the Protestants took out), and I rarely hear the priests at my church go for the fire and brimstone and praying against people sort of thing.

[anthrobabe]

I have always enjoyed having Mormon/LDS friends and extended family members (B's dad was adopted from Mexico at 2 months old by --- drum roll please--- a caucasian/hispanic couple from back East (Jersey) named Goldsworthy who were converts from Judaism to Mormonism who'd moved to Tuscon to help do the 'stake' and 'ward' founding thing in the early 60's. Anyway-- very interesting-- so I don't see the problem people have (or allegedly) have with Mitt Romney--- it's just silly IMO.

goes back to throwing rocks and people in glass houses shouldn't throw them either--- it's like do they have nothing better to do that
Gasp! he's a mormon Oh we can't have a Mormon presnit-- no we've got to have a formerly fatboy Baptis preacher or we're Dooooooomed I tell ya dooooomed!

religion is important to people- and should be in whatever way the choose it to be but it's not the big question people make it out to be when deciding a presnit--- or is it- after all I am concerned that a really over the top push it down my (our) throat religious zealot not be presnit...... hmmmmm

[Opsa]

The problem is that it is part of some religions to shove their religions down other people's throats. They mean it well, they think they're saving other people.

I want to tell them that it's part of my religion to try to make peace in this world and to do that we have to respect eachother's beliefs and trust that the intention of any belief, even atheism, is to give enlightenment. Enlightenment has to come from within. When shoved down a throat it becomes endarkenment.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Enlightenment has to come from within. When shoved down a throat it becomes endarkenment.

Endarkenment.  I like that. (I finally got around to catching up on this thread from a year ago, when I last commented).

It would be quite interesting to see an impartial translation of the Bible.

But, in order to do that, you'd have to really, really understand the people that wrote it.  You'd literally have to understand their day-to-day thoughts, habits, attitudes and so on.

For that would be the only way to translate the meanings of what they wrote.  The words by themselves do not have meaing at all-- there must be context.  Especially if the concept has an emotional component (and, what in the bible is devoid of emotional content? Very, very little, if memory serves.  Perhaps the line of begats?   ).

Thus, the only way a truly impartial translation could be made was if we had a time machine, or at least a time viewer. *sigh*

At best, we try to re-create the society that originated much of the Bible, and make assumptions from there.

It would be a series of assumptions, actually.

I think an honest preamble would include the assumptions made, about the authorial peoples. 

Perhaps, one day, in the coming age of computer intelligences, we can design software to do those translations for us-- complete with various assumptions.

You could have several side-by-side versions, each with a slightly different assumption about the authors' societies.

Now that would be some fascinating reading.

[Griffin NoName]

Just maybe don't ask Martin Amis at the moment.

I always find those plays which do the same story several times, once from each person/part's viewpoint each.

But then that is a bit like what my mind does as a counsellor.