Oh no I do have a real answer and your analogy helps me with that. In both cases the form of the meat has changed radically. The meat was on an animal and it was raw. Both people (religions) are using processed meat (distorted perception) and make up two different types of food that deviate from the source equally.What if only one way of preparing the meat tastes good? ...and the other poisons people...? :( :cry:;)
Teenaged
Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same god.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
.... Prove otherwise, because as it stands whether you are religious or not, or of a different religion.. You tend to always share the same general morals and views in the same society.. Yet again prove to me how god is any way different, the beings general teachings are similar in nature.. The beings powers and charactersitics are similar in nature.. Whether you like it or not the Bible is a interepretation it isn't neccesarly realitiy or fact..[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] Religion has to do with more than morality... Religion deals with reality. If I did not believe Christianity was a reality, I sure wouldn't have the same moral code.mindstorm
You are using Postmodern presumptions into your view of religion. Keep it in the realm of literature and art.
The only way what you say could be true is if all truth was relative. If you are right, I suppose I should start sacrificing some virgins for the sake of morality... Why not? All religion is true isn't it?
How bout we start stoning people who don't work on Sundays? As it is written in the good book.. But HEY! Guess what we have evolved socially from that, hell we are seeing to the point that homosexuals are being publically accepted in churches.. Religious "values" change as society changes.. And the typical things like don't murder existed before those religions existed, not to mentionw ere constantly broken by the so called holiniests organizations.. Many Christians pick and choose what to follow in the bible, what to take as a metaphor and what not. FURTHERMORE, the bible holds teremendous similarities with Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, men who lived full 200 to 500 years before Jesus.. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are following their ideals seeing as the ancient greek philosophers were the pregenerators of many of those ideals.
This guy was automatically banned just for talking about religion?
What if only one way of preparing the meat tastes good? ...and the other poisons people...? :( :cry:Hot dogs are tastier and stakes are usually hard. :P You lost![QUOTE="Teenaged"]Oh no I do have a real answer and your analogy helps me with that. In both cases the form of the meat has changed radically. The meat was on an animal and it was raw. Both people (religions) are using processed meat (distorted perception) and make up two different types of food that deviate from the source equally.
;)
mindstorm
Can you explain this phrase to me?[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
You are using Postmodern presumptions into your view of religion. Keep it in the realm of literature and art.
Teenaged
Everything is subject to opinion (the most extreme form of postmodernism is when reality itself is subject to opinion) and no one opinion is better than the other.
In addition to being self refuting, it is this kind of idea that has pretty much ruined art (somebody once took a picture of an old toilet and called it art), music (Hannah Montana, ICP), television (Seinfeld), pretty much everything it's ever touched because it completely blows any objective criticism out of the water.
What if only one way of preparing the meat tastes good? ...and the other poisons people...? :( :cry:Hot dogs are tastier and stakes are usually hard. :P You lost! Hot dogs are made out of the disgusting parts of the animal. A good steak is a treat....[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Oh no I do have a real answer and your analogy helps me with that. In both cases the form of the meat has changed radically. The meat was on an animal and it was raw. Both people (religions) are using processed meat (distorted perception) and make up two different types of food that deviate from the source equally.
;)
Teenaged
Basically, Postmodernism is an idea that originated in literature which made authorial intent worthless. All that matters is your own opinion of the text. That way of thinking as contributed to bad interpreting of the Bible and even life. It's "helped" contribute to an idea in culture that everything is relative especially morality.Can you explain this phrase to me?
Teenaged
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
You are using Postmodern presumptions into your view of religion. Keep it in the realm of literature and art.
Theokhoth
In fact, keep it out of those, too. A toilet is not a work of art any more than a Palahniuk novel is a work of literature. *Runs*
True.... Some aspects of Postmodernism I like (in that it has helped me become more questioning of many things) but it is sadly taken waaaaay too far. It saddens me. :(Can you explain this phrase to me?[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
You are using Postmodern presumptions into your view of religion. Keep it in the realm of literature and art.
Theokhoth
Everything is subject to opinion (the most extreme form of postmodernism is when reality itself is subject to opinion) and no one opinion is better than the other.
In addition to being self refuting, it is this kind of idea that has pretty much ruined art (somebody once took a picture of an old toilet and called it art), music (Hannah Montana, ICP), television (Seinfeld), pretty much everything it's ever touched because it completely blows any objective criticism out of the water.
Ah ok thanks.But seriously though I saw no such train of thought in Subzero's post. :?
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Hot dogs are tastier and stakes are usually hard. :P You lost! Hot dogs are made out of the disgusting parts of the animal. A good steak is a treat....Hey his criterion was taste! :x[QUOTE="mindstorm"] What if only one way of preparing the meat tastes good? ...and the other poisons people...? :( :cry:
LJS9502_basic
Therefore hot dogs win! :P
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Can you explain this phrase to me?
Teenaged
Everything is subject to opinion (the most extreme form of postmodernism is when reality itself is subject to opinion) and no one opinion is better than the other.
In addition to being self refuting, it is this kind of idea that has pretty much ruined art (somebody once took a picture of an old toilet and called it art), music (Hannah Montana, ICP), television (Seinfeld), pretty much everything it's ever touched because it completely blows any objective criticism out of the water.
Ah ok thanks.But seriously though I saw no such train of thought in Subzero's post. :?
When applied to religion it goes like this: No one interpretation of God or the Bible is better than any other, they're all correct, blah blah blah, and to say yours is better or "more correct" than any other is wrong.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] Basically, Postmodernism is an idea that originated in literature which made authorial intent worthless. All that matters is your own opinion of the text. That way of thinking as contributed to bad interpreting of the Bible and even life. It's "helped" contribute to an idea in culture that everything is relative especially morality.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
You are using Postmodern presumptions into your view of religion. Keep it in the realm of literature and art.
mindstorm
In fact, keep it out of those, too. A toilet is not a work of art any more than a Palahniuk novel is a work of literature. *Runs*
True.... Some aspects of Postmodernism I like (in that it has helped me become more questioning of many things) but it is sadly taken waaaaay too far. It saddens me. :( Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.Ah ok thanks.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Everything is subject to opinion (the most extreme form of postmodernism is when reality itself is subject to opinion) and no one opinion is better than the other.
In addition to being self refuting, it is this kind of idea that has pretty much ruined art (somebody once took a picture of an old toilet and called it art), music (Hannah Montana, ICP), television (Seinfeld), pretty much everything it's ever touched because it completely blows any objective criticism out of the water.
Theokhoth
But seriously though I saw no such train of thought in Subzero's post. :?
When applied to religion it goes like this: No one interpretation of God or the Bible is better than any other, they're all correct, blah blah blah, and to say yours is better or "more correct" than any other is wrong.
You are not religious I take it?Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.
sSubZerOo
What a bucnh of people deem acceptable is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong (appeal to popularity). If everybody thought slavery was acceptable 300 years ago then they were simply mistaken.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Ah ok thanks.
But seriously though I saw no such train of thought in Subzero's post. :?
LJS9502_basic
When applied to religion it goes like this: No one interpretation of God or the Bible is better than any other, they're all correct, blah blah blah, and to say yours is better or "more correct" than any other is wrong.
You are not religious I take it?Me? >_>
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Everything is subject to opinion (the most extreme form of postmodernism is when reality itself is subject to opinion) and no one opinion is better than the other.
In addition to being self refuting, it is this kind of idea that has pretty much ruined art (somebody once took a picture of an old toilet and called it art), music (Hannah Montana, ICP), television (Seinfeld), pretty much everything it's ever touched because it completely blows any objective criticism out of the water.
Ah ok thanks.But seriously though I saw no such train of thought in Subzero's post. :?
When applied to religion it goes like this: No one interpretation of God or the Bible is better than any other, they're all correct, blah blah blah, and to say yours is better or "more correct" than any other is wrong.
That isn't neccesarly true.. Most would consider the people who believe in a young earth, Noahs Ark as being completely fact etc etc as completely wrong.
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]I can't help but point out that this usually deals with ideals of salvation.. That you basically HAVE to accept the core beliefs, now if you disagreed with that you don't accept salvation now do you? Not to mention that chart points out that as society becomes more developed or liberal, they tend to disagree.. But in the end this is a fallacy of appealing to the majority.According to an ICM survey, done for the BBC in 2004, your view is not shared by many of the faithful.
The differences between the Gods and core beliefs of the various world religions does seem to indicate that their Gods are seperate.
sSubZerOo
Isn't the idea of a God all wrapped up with ideas of salvation? Your point being...?
Do you blame religion for its inflexibility of belief? You'll still find the majority (inc USA) agree with the "my God is the only God" statement.
What is a fallacy? Are you disputing the validity of the only sourced evidence in this thread so far, that I used to disagree with the OPs statement?
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Ah ok thanks.
But seriously though I saw no such train of thought in Subzero's post. :?
LJS9502_basic
When applied to religion it goes like this: No one interpretation of God or the Bible is better than any other, they're all correct, blah blah blah, and to say yours is better or "more correct" than any other is wrong.
You are not religious I take it?He's Christian
Ah ok thanks.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Everything is subject to opinion (the most extreme form of postmodernism is when reality itself is subject to opinion) and no one opinion is better than the other.
In addition to being self refuting, it is this kind of idea that has pretty much ruined art (somebody once took a picture of an old toilet and called it art), music (Hannah Montana, ICP), television (Seinfeld), pretty much everything it's ever touched because it completely blows any objective criticism out of the water.
Theokhoth
But seriously though I saw no such train of thought in Subzero's post. :?
When applied to religion it goes like this: No one interpretation of God or the Bible is better than any other, they're all correct, blah blah blah, and to say yours is better or "more correct" than any other is wrong.
Again is Subzero's post only the latter part was leaning towards Postmodernism.We cant label everything else he said (basic morals are shared by everyone, request for proof of one's interpretation/view/opinion) as postmodern thinking just because his last phrase could indicate such a thing.
Besides mindstorm said he appreciates postmodernism when applied in a moderate fashion, and I dont see how subzero applied it more than is logical.
That does not mean Christianity condoned slavery. People live in a society and societal mores are not always compatible with religious morals. Justifying one's bad actions to continue usage does not mean the ideology encouraged it.Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.
sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.
What a bucnh of people deem acceptable is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong (appeal to popularity). If everybody thought slavery was acceptable 300 years ago then they were simply mistaken.
Just like how christians think Homosexuality to be wrong now? Even though thats starting to chagne where some churchs are beginning to accept homosexuals openly? Our morality changes constantly with hindsight in mind we OBVIOUSLY see slavery and racism wrong, but back than none such thing.. They may change in 100 years time where we see people not getting health care as savage, cruel and wrong..[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.
That does not mean Christianity condoned slavery. People live in a society and societal mores are not always compatible with religious morals. Justifying one's bad actions to continue usage does not mean the ideology encouraged it. The ideology rarely encourages anything, in the end its the norms of society that changes it.. Societies before Christianity existed weren't neccesarly dramatically different.. There are quite a few things we see wrong that have kept as absolutes sense the inception of civilization that being things like murder.(1)How bout we start stoning people who don't work on Sundays? As it is written in the good book.. (2) But HEY! Guess what we have evolved socially from that, hell we are seeing to the point that homosexuals are being publically accepted in churches.. (3) Religious "values" change as society changes.. (4) And the typical things like don't murder existed before those religions existed, not to mentionw ere constantly broken by the so called holiniests organizations.. (5) Many Christians pick and choose what to follow in the bible, (6) what to take as a metaphor and what not. (7) FURTHERMORE, the bible holds teremendous similarities with Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, men who lived full 200 to 500 years before Jesus.. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are following their ideals seeing as the ancient greek philosophers were the pregenerators of many of those ideals.sSubZerOo
(1) That's a rather bad view of the Old Testament. Jesus even speak ill of this type of viewing of the law.
(2) Well... Christianity is a religion of repentance. Aka, it's aways trying to correct itself and improve. Though, I do agree homosexuals should be accepted in churches but their actions should be no more accepted than people who commit premarital sex or lying.
(3) Sometimes the values change because it's in more alignment with Scripture, other times it's because people take on the morals of culture and reject Scripture.
(4) Scripture never says unbelievers have no concept of morality... in fact, it says the opposite. Go read Romans a little. :wink:
(5) Yes many Christians do pick and choose what to follow out of the Bible. Is that the Bible's fault? No. Is that Christianity's fault? No. It's the fault of the individual and that individual needs to repent.
(6) The vast majority of Scripture is rather clear about what is figurative and not. Simply put, being the fallen creations that we are intellectually, we often debate a few passages that are not as clear.
(7) Scripture also argues against many ideas from those philosophers such as Plutonian Dualism. And btw, the philosopher Solomon was around long before those three. :wink:
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.
sSubZerOo
What a bucnh of people deem acceptable is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong (appeal to popularity). If everybody thought slavery was acceptable 300 years ago then they were simply mistaken.
Just like how christians think Homosexuality to be wrong now?Pretty much. They could be right or wrong, but not on the basis that most of them believe so.
Even though thats starting to chagne where some churchs are beginning to accept homosexuals openly?
Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. But not on the basis that they are the minority.
Our morality changes constantly with hindsight in mind we OBVIOUSLY see slavery and racism wrong, but back than none such thing..
Our morality doesn't change at all; what changes is our perception of morality.
They may change in 100 years time where we see people not getting health care as savage, cruel and wrong..
Goody.
Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.sSubZerOo
It's funny you mention the topic of slavery. I actually wrote a blog about it yesterday. In other words, I disagree. :wink:
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.
mindstorm
It's funny you mention the topic of slavery. I actually wrote a blog about it yesterday. In other words, I disagree. :wink:
Your interpretation of the bible doesn't some how disprove the fact of what yout hink of the bible.. Yeah I agree the bible doesn't condone nor should accept slavery.. But people used it, because int he end its peoples interpretations of the Bible that change.. OUr understanding of what we see as morality changes constantly.. And in the end there is no real right or wrong.. Because put in the context of 300 years ago, society was extremely primitive compared to today.. Our society will only evolve more (whether thats a improvement or not, in the end its chagne)..[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Its pretty blantently obvious why morality is relative.. Christians defended and supported slavery 300 years ago thinking the Bible justfied it as a majority.. Even after that racism was rampent and thought it perfectly acceptable.. And are you suggesting there is only one way to interpret the Bible, because I would like to point out the hundreds if not thousands of different Christain sects.
That does not mean Christianity condoned slavery. People live in a society and societal mores are not always compatible with religious morals. Justifying one's bad actions to continue usage does not mean the ideology encouraged it. The ideology rarely encourages anything, in the end its the norms of society that changes it.. Societies before Christianity existed weren't neccesarly dramatically different.. There are quite a few things we see wrong that have kept as absolutes sense the inception of civilization that being things like murder.Christianity teaches tolerance, love of neighbor and respect of said neighbor. I fail to see how that is not a positive message.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That does not mean Christianity condoned slavery. People live in a society and societal mores are not always compatible with religious morals. Justifying one's bad actions to continue usage does not mean the ideology encouraged it.The ideology rarely encourages anything, in the end its the norms of society that changes it.. Societies before Christianity existed weren't neccesarly dramatically different.. There are quite a few things we see wrong that have kept as absolutes sense the inception of civilization that being things like murder.Christianity teaches tolerance, love of neighbor and respect of said neighbor. I fail to see how that is not a positive message. Thats the current intereptations of Christianity for you yes.. That wasn't neccesarly the interepretation of others out there.. Christianity is entirely open to interpretation so much so, that its still widely argued on whats fact, metaphorical, or exgerrations... Its like any other ancient texts out there.. Many have different interpreations and views of it.LJS9502_basic
They all pray to the same god. Jesus was raised as a jew and spread the gospel, and then Mohammad heard about Jesus, went crazy and spread his own version of religion. So everyone is praying to the same god. ZombievegetableYeah accept for the part where Mohammad's god allah wants different things (according to mohammad) than my God, Yahweh. So they aren't the same...
Christianity teaches tolerance, love of neighbor and respect of said neighbor. I fail to see how that is not a positive message. Thats the current intereptations of Christianity for you yes.. That wasn't neccesarly the interepretation of others out there.. Christianity is entirely open to interpretation so much so, that its still widely argued on whats fact, metaphorical, or exgerrations... Its like any other ancient texts out there.. Many have different interpreations and views of it. The text hasn't changed though....:|[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] The ideology rarely encourages anything, in the end its the norms of society that changes it.. Societies before Christianity existed weren't neccesarly dramatically different.. There are quite a few things we see wrong that have kept as absolutes sense the inception of civilization that being things like murder.sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Thats the current intereptations of Christianity for you yes.. That wasn't neccesarly the interepretation of others out there.. Christianity is entirely open to interpretation so much so, that its still widely argued on whats fact, metaphorical, or exgerrations... Its like any other ancient texts out there.. Many have different interpreations and views of it. The text hasn't changed though....:| Interpetations have though.. In the new testament it says that women shouldn't speak in churchs inless spoken to.. We obviously don't follow that because its silly.. More and more Christians for instance itnerpet teh bibles stories to be metaphorical now rather than literal for instance. This isn't to say the Bible is right orwrong, I am indifferent in the end.. Its just interpretation and I really could care less of how you interpret it in what your seeing is what is correct or wrong.. Some of the largest disagreements are on the ideals of how one can be saved.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Christianity teaches tolerance, love of neighbor and respect of said neighbor. I fail to see how that is not a positive message.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Thats the current intereptations of Christianity for you yes.. That wasn't neccesarly the interepretation of others out there.. Christianity is entirely open to interpretation so much so, that its still widely argued on whats fact, metaphorical, or exgerrations... Its like any other ancient texts out there.. Many have different interpreations and views of it.The text hasn't changed though....:| Interpetations have though.. In the new testament it says that women shouldn't speak in churchs inless spoken to.. We obviously don't follow that because its silly.. More and more Christians for instance itnerpet teh bibles stories to be metaphorical now rather than literal for instance.The interpretation hasn't changed per se. We just don't adhere to the social mores of that time frame anymore.sSubZerOo
As for metaphors...I believe initially they were understood but along the way people without knowledge of the symbolism in the culture/language tried to force a literal translation. Now with study on both language and culture we can interprete the Bible correctly AS INTENDED.
Interpetations have though.. In the new testament it says that women shouldn't speak in churchs inless spoken to.. We obviously don't follow that because its silly.. More and more Christians for instance itnerpet teh bibles stories to be metaphorical now rather than literal for instance.sSubZerOoBeing that people do not always follow what Scripture says does not mean they interpret that text differently. Also, only a few texts have been debated over the centuries about how literal (Genesis 1, whether the communion bread and wine literally changes into flesh and blood o_O, etc.). Christians do not try to argue that a central doctrine like the resurrection is figurative (or they wouldn't be a Christian).
Interpetations have though.. In the new testament it says that women shouldn't speak in churchs inless spoken to.. We obviously don't follow that because its silly.. More and more Christians for instance itnerpet teh bibles stories to be metaphorical now rather than literal for instance.The interpretation hasn't changed per se. We just don't adhere to the social mores of that time frame anymore. People interpreted 300 years ago that the story of Adam and Eve, infact supported the idea of slavery.. That Eve was Adam's property.. Interpretations change always.. And no matter what you say, people will always read a text, see a event, and interpret differently than you.. Its pretty common sense...[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The text hasn't changed though....:|LJS9502_basic
People interpreted 300 years ago that the story of Adam and Eve, infact supported the idea of slavery.. That Eve was Adam's property.. Interpretations change always.. And no matter what you say, people will always read a text, see a event, and interpret differently than you.. Its pretty common sense... sSubZerOo
Social historian Rodney Stark has once stated, "Although it has been fashionable to deny it, anti-slavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently 'lost' from history until recently. Finally, the abolition of New World slavery was initiated and achieved by Christian activists."
In other words, I disagree.
Interpetations have though.. In the new testament it says that women shouldn't speak in churchs inless spoken to.. We obviously don't follow that because its silly.. More and more Christians for instance itnerpet teh bibles stories to be metaphorical now rather than literal for instance.The interpretation hasn't changed per se. We just don't adhere to the social mores of that time frame anymore.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The text hasn't changed though....:|LJS9502_basic
As for metaphors...I believe initially they were understood but along the way people without knowledge of the symbolism in the culture/language tried to force a literal translation. Now with study on both language and culture we can interprete the Bible correctly AS INTENDED.
Large groups of Christian groups would disagree with you.. If it was this cut and dry there wouldn't be so many different sects and I think it very insulting and arrogant to suggest that one is right or wrong (except in cases of extremes that goes against societies laws).. Afterall I would think humility is a important characteristic is there is yoru beliefs and my beliefs, I would consider neither one way or the other better inless facts were interpretated.. Hell WE HAVE TROUBLE deciding what really happened on historical events only 10 to 20 years ago! Now we are discussing a text that has gone through 2000 years of rewrittings, during a a time were written history is scarce.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]People interpreted 300 years ago that the story of Adam and Eve, infact supported the idea of slavery.. That Eve was Adam's property.. Interpretations change always.. And no matter what you say, people will always read a text, see a event, and interpret differently than you.. Its pretty common sense... mindstorm
Social historian Rodney Stark has once stated, "Although it has been fashionable to deny it, anti-slavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently 'lost' from history until recently. Finally, the abolition of New World slavery was initiated and achieved by Christian activists."
In other words, I disagree.
... What in the hell are you talking about? I see so the Catholic church says is law? Famous statemen have quoted this in the whole slavery debate during those times! How can you disagree that people actually interpreteted their religion that way? When it came from their very mouths? I mean what really are we argueing here? Because all I am saying is it constantly changes...[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The interpretation hasn't changed per se. We just don't adhere to the social mores of that time frame anymore.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Interpetations have though.. In the new testament it says that women shouldn't speak in churchs inless spoken to.. We obviously don't follow that because its silly.. More and more Christians for instance itnerpet teh bibles stories to be metaphorical now rather than literal for instance.sSubZerOo
As for metaphors...I believe initially they were understood but along the way people without knowledge of the symbolism in the culture/language tried to force a literal translation. Now with study on both language and culture we can interprete the Bible correctly AS INTENDED.
Large groups of Christian groups would disagree with you.. If it was this cut and dry there wouldn't be so many different sects and I think it very insulting and arrogant to suggest that one is right or wrong (except in cases of extremes that goes against societies laws).. Afterall I would think humility is a important characteristic is there is yoru beliefs and my beliefs, I would consider neither one way or the other better inless facts were interpretated.. Hell WE HAVE TROUBLE deciding what really happened on historical events only 10 to 20 years ago! Now we are discussing a text that has gone through 2000 years of rewrittings, during a a time were written history is scarce. The fundamentalist would disagree and if you look at the time line they are relatively new....[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]People interpreted 300 years ago that the story of Adam and Eve, infact supported the idea of slavery.. That Eve was Adam's property.. Interpretations change always.. And no matter what you say, people will always read a text, see a event, and interpret differently than you.. Its pretty common sense... sSubZerOo
Social historian Rodney Stark has once stated, "Although it has been fashionable to deny it, anti-slavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently 'lost' from history until recently. Finally, the abolition of New World slavery was initiated and achieved by Christian activists."
In other words, I disagree.
... What in the hell are you talking about? I see so the Catholic church says is law? Famous statemen have quoted this in the whole slavery debate during those times! How can you disagree that people actually interpreteted their religion that way? When it came from their very mouths? I mean what really are we argueing here? Because all I am saying is it constantly changes... lol, I'm a Protestant but I'll even admit that Catholics can do a good thing on occasion. :P And as for people's interpretation of the text, there is a huge difference between trying to justify your actions by making a biblical argument for it and simply doing what the Bible says. The people who were against slavery did the later. :wink:[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The interpretation hasn't changed per se. We just don't adhere to the social mores of that time frame anymore.Large groups of Christian groups would disagree with you.. If it was this cut and dry there wouldn't be so many different sects and I think it very insulting and arrogant to suggest that one is right or wrong (except in cases of extremes that goes against societies laws).. Afterall I would think humility is a important characteristic is there is yoru beliefs and my beliefs, I would consider neither one way or the other better inless facts were interpretated.. Hell WE HAVE TROUBLE deciding what really happened on historical events only 10 to 20 years ago! Now we are discussing a text that has gone through 2000 years of rewrittings, during a a time were written history is scarce. The fundamentalist would disagree and if you look at the time line they are relatively new.... Fundamentalist is another word for extremist.. Something people don't take any stock in.. Relatively new? The ideas of being saved came only 600 to 800 years after its creation, in which it caused a huge division in Christianity.. Some Christians believe that people are decided before they are being born that they are saved, and others condemended.. And their good fortune and the like is illustration that they have been chosen to be saved..As for metaphors...I believe initially they were understood but along the way people without knowledge of the symbolism in the culture/language tried to force a literal translation. Now with study on both language and culture we can interprete the Bible correctly AS INTENDED.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]... What in the hell are you talking about? I see so the Catholic church says is law? Famous statemen have quoted this in the whole slavery debate during those times! How can you disagree that people actually interpreteted their religion that way? When it came from their very mouths? I mean what really are we argueing here? Because all I am saying is it constantly changes... lol, I'm a Protestant but I'll even admit that Catholics can do a good thing on occasion. :P And as for people's interpretation of the text, there is a huge difference between trying to justify your actions by making a biblical argument for it and simply doing what the Bible says. The people who were against slavery did the later. :wink: That was asmall minority.. Racism was rampent.. And if you grew up in those times I would argue you would not agree with your self of today.. People outlooks, interepretations in life, and such change as we change as a society.. Hell even people that would we consider origianl thinkers like Aristotle had flaws in which they thought women should never serve in politics..Social historian Rodney Stark has once stated, "Although it has been fashionable to deny it, anti-slavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently 'lost' from history until recently. Finally, the abolition of New World slavery was initiated and achieved by Christian activists."
In other words, I disagree.
mindstorm
What are you talking about? I'm referring to the "fundamentalist" movement in the states that take the bible literally in all things. Idea of being saved came at creation.Fundamentalist is another word for extremist.. Something people don't take any stock in.. Relatively new? The ideas of being saved came only 600 to 800 years after its creation, in which it caused a huge division in Christianity.. Some Christians believe that people are decided before they are being born that they are saved, and others condemended.. And their good fortune and the like is illustration that they have been chosen to be saved..
sSubZerOo
(1) Fundamentalist is another word for extremist.. Something people don't take any stock in.. Relatively new? (2) The ideas of being saved came only 600 to 800 years after its creation, in which it caused a huge division in Christianity.. (3) Some Christians believe that people are decided before they are being born that they are saved, and others condemended.. And their good fortune and the like is illustration that they have been chosen to be saved..(1) I know a few Christian fundamentalists... *cough* I am not one (unless you define it as "believing in the fundamentals of the faith"). :PsSubZerOo
(2) I have no idea what you are talking about here from a theological or historical perspective. That is, unless you are talking about the Reformation or something.
(3) And I am one who believes God has an elect who will be saved. :wink: You seem to have a slightly twisted view of that form of theology however.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Fundamentalist is another word for extremist.. Something people don't take any stock in.. Relatively new? The ideas of being saved came only 600 to 800 years after its creation, in which it caused a huge division in Christianity.. Some Christians believe that people are decided before they are being born that they are saved, and others condemended.. And their good fortune and the like is illustration that they have been chosen to be saved..
What are you talking about? I'm referring to the "fundamentalist" movement in the states that take the bible literally in all things. Idea of being saved came at creation. Are you saying that side is correct? Because I am indifferent ont hat side.. The only thing I will argue about them is the stories of Noah, young earth etc etc.. But in the end these are just interpretations and its funny how each sect usually thinks they are correct and the others are wrong.. So much so that groups like the Catholics and Protestants have killed each other for centuries.What are you talking about? I'm referring to the "fundamentalist" movement in the states that take the bible literally in all things. Idea of being saved came at creation.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Fundamentalist is another word for extremist.. Something people don't take any stock in.. Relatively new? The ideas of being saved came only 600 to 800 years after its creation, in which it caused a huge division in Christianity.. Some Christians believe that people are decided before they are being born that they are saved, and others condemended.. And their good fortune and the like is illustration that they have been chosen to be saved..
LJS9502_basic
Aren't there quite a few fundamentalist Christian organisations in the States?
If so, doesn't that mean there is no way of getting one true interpretation from the bible?
That was asmall minority.. Racism was rampent.. And if you grew up in those times I would argue you would not agree with your self of today.. People outlooks, interepretations in life, and such change as we change as a society.. Hell even people that would we consider origianl thinkers like Aristotle had flaws in which they thought women should never serve in politics..I recommend you read my blog on slavery. It also mentions racism to some degree and will respond to many of your statements. Also, with the idea that women should not serve in politics, while I agree with letting women vote the mindset of the people (not completely, but many) was that the men simply did not want the involve the women in the crude nature of politics. Essentially, it could be a form of over-protection. I'm not sure how you are trying to relate this to Christianity however. (though, I sure know how to relate the two subjects. :P )sSubZerOo
Are you saying that side is correct? Because I am indifferent ont hat side.. The only thing I will argue about them is the stories of Noah, young earth etc etc.. But in the end these are just interpretations and its funny how each sect usually thinks they are correct and the others are wrong.. So much so that groups like the Catholics and Protestants have killed each other for centuries.sSubZerOoWhat side? I'm saying that the fundamentalists are relatively new. Fights occur for many reasons and even when religion is involved it's usually just one reason. For instance many liken to the fight or "troubles" in Ireland to religious differences. But if you look at the overall arc it's that another group was given land that had formerly belonged to the other side and they were given the political clout to make decisions affecting those that had been living on the island for generations. Yes, they happened to be different denominations but even if they were not....you can see where that would involve some difficulties at the very least.
As for Noah's arc....there was a flood in a particular area around that time that was metaphorically inserted into the bible. So while it wasn't the entire earth that was covered....it was the entire earth as far as those early people knew. Likewise, important animals were taken with the family but not all species. Creation is not meant as 7 days but 7 eras. Seven by the way is the number that stands for perfection and thus was used in reference to God's creation and day of rest.
What are you talking about? I'm referring to the "fundamentalist" movement in the states that take the bible literally in all things. Idea of being saved came at creation.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Fundamentalist is another word for extremist.. Something people don't take any stock in.. Relatively new? The ideas of being saved came only 600 to 800 years after its creation, in which it caused a huge division in Christianity.. Some Christians believe that people are decided before they are being born that they are saved, and others condemended.. And their good fortune and the like is illustration that they have been chosen to be saved..
RationalAtheist
Aren't there quite a few fundamentalist Christian organisations in the States?
If so, doesn't that mean there is no way of getting one true interpretation from the bible?
I'd imagine. That depends on whether you want a fundamentalists interpretation or read up on culture/language/other denominations and history.I recommend you read my blog on slavery. It also mentions racism to some degree and will respond to many of your statements. Also, with the idea that women should not serve in politics, while I agree with letting women vote the mindset of the people (not completely, but many) was that the men simply did not want the involve the women in the crude nature of politics. Essentially, it could be a form of over-protection. I'm not sure how you are trying to relate this to Christianity however. (though, I sure know how to relate the two subjects. :P )[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]That was asmall minority.. Racism was rampent.. And if you grew up in those times I would argue you would not agree with your self of today.. People outlooks, interepretations in life, and such change as we change as a society.. Hell even people that would we consider origianl thinkers like Aristotle had flaws in which they thought women should never serve in politics..
mindstorm
Don't forget the Christian church had the market entirely cornered on servitude and poverty during the middle ages in Europe.
Women in Christianity? Genesis 3:16, Corrinthioans 34:13, Ephesians 5:22, Collosians 3:18, Peter 3:1, Timothy 2:11, etc...
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What are you talking about? I'm referring to the "fundamentalist" movement in the states that take the bible literally in all things. Idea of being saved came at creation.
LJS9502_basic
Aren't there quite a few fundamentalist Christian organisations in the States?
If so, doesn't that mean there is no way of getting one true interpretation from the bible?
I'd imagine. That depends on whether you want a fundamentalists interpretation or read up on culture/language/other denominations and history.The fact that it can only ever be interpreted makes the bible little use to me in forming any of my own strategies for living.
How other people can steadfastly cling to their versions of the "truth", despite countless other (equally valid) interpretations, is endlessly fascinating to me.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment