Icey do you actually believe the Bible as it stands today is a close representation of the views (and story) of Jesus?
After the myriad variations, translations, editing, and so on over the millenia?
I’d be interested to hear people’s opinion on which parts of the bible you think have been significantly altered so that they no longer represent the views & story of Jesus.
Is it true that muslims believe that followers memorised the entire quran, word for word, passed on for decades before it was written down? Maybe Mohamad wasn’t a warmongering pedo, just a victim of chinese whispers - lol
Warmongering?
You and Big M have more in common than you might otherwise think.
Icey do you actually believe the Bible as it stands today is a close representation of the views (and story) of Jesus?
After the myriad variations, translations, editing, and so on over the millenia?
I’d be interested to hear people’s opinion on which parts of the bible you think have been significantly altered so that they no longer represent the views & story of Jesus.
Is it true that muslims believe that followers memorised the entire quran, word for word, passed on for decades before it was written down? Maybe Mohamad wasn’t a warmongering pedo, just a victim of chinese whispers - lol
Warmongering?
You and Big M have more in common than you might otherwise think.
You kidding, 1 wife is all the headaches I can deal with & the last thing I’d want is 1 of those wives to be the same age as my oldest son who’s in grade 2. I’m also not that interested in spending the next 8 odd years at war (yes he was a warmonger who spread Islam by the sword). Sure the riches he plundered & raped from the lands sounds enticing but I’m happy with my average life. As I’ve made clear elsewhere, I don’t believe in blindly following anyone let alone trying to set myself up as a prophet or demigod.
Icey do you actually believe the Bible as it stands today is a close representation of the views (and story) of Jesus?
After the myriad variations, translations, editing, and so on over the millenia?
I’d be interested to hear people’s opinion on which parts of the bible you think have been significantly altered so that they no longer represent the views & story of Jesus.
Is it true that muslims believe that followers memorised the entire quran, word for word, passed on for decades before it was written down? Maybe Mohamad wasn’t a warmongering pedo, just a victim of chinese whispers - lol
Whatever actual things happened, whatever was actually written down from (say) 0-100 AD when Jesus was around or at least a living memory, it’s been in the stewardship of us ever since.
The actual words of the bible were initially written in Greek, probably then translated to Hebrew, then Latin, then to English - and for 1500 years all of that copying of texts was done by candlelight, by hand.
There were other books that, for whatever reasons were excluded. Dead sea scrolls and other not-quite-canon stuff included other books from roughly the same time, which other Christians probably had at the time, which included recognisable bits of what we now know, plus other books of stuff from relatively similar time which then got cut out (Thomas, Peter) .There were various councils/synods convened by the early church where “The Bible” was solidified & codified as “The Bible”, and other stuff was ruled as being not part of “The Bible” canon, and studying it heretical.
Generally accepted by the people who study it that maybe 3-4 of the books were written in Jesus’ life time.
The rest is combined or extrapolated. And a lot of it written by early church fathers, 200-300 years after the fact.
So yes, I think there’s most likely a big difference between a copy of the bible written in, say, 50AD compared to one you’d get now.
Tbh, I think it's distasteful to be ridiculing and questioning the spiritual beliefs of decent people "just coz". Sure, imo the bible doesnt stand up in an historical sense ( I too have looked at it a lot over the years) but If they aren't raping, pillaging, persecuting, slaughtering or forcibly imposing their doctrine in its name, I really don't care any more if people worship anything at all.
Upsetting people who do no harm seems as illogical as some of the beliefs held.
I think there are valid questions which need to be asked, even when they’re uncomfortable.
Not so much about people’s beliefs but about why those beliefs play a part in our society, schooling & government.
However those sensitive questions are often asked without tact (or in an outright hurtful way).
I know I’ve crossed that line, quite a bit.
There are valid questions re how it impacts on laws, lifestyle etc. But there has to be a context. In this thread, it emerged out of " why are Christians usually conservative" which was ignored and instead immediately became a critique of the text itself.
I’m probably also looking at the fact that the Paris thread is really at least in part an argument over the validity of religion. Do we need IT trying to defend his belief(s) in here as well?
If the pollies were trying to outlaw abortion because “it says so in the Bible” , then different story. Go for it and point out the failings. If people are murdered because God will smile favourably on it, yep, rip it to shreds. But individuals quietly going about things, impacting on no one? These days, I’d rather just let them be.
Incidentally, the early pages of the Paris thread are littered with (paraphrase) " Hebdo didn’t deserve what happened, but why would you deliberately ridicule and offend?"
Tbh, I think it's distasteful to be ridiculing and questioning the spiritual beliefs of decent people "just coz". Sure, imo the bible doesnt stand up in an historical sense ( I too have looked at it a lot over the years) but If they aren't raping, pillaging, persecuting, slaughtering or forcibly imposing their doctrine in its name, I really don't care any more if people worship anything at all.
Upsetting people who do no harm seems as illogical as some of the beliefs held.
I think there are valid questions which need to be asked, even when they’re uncomfortable.
Not so much about people’s beliefs but about why those beliefs play a part in our society, schooling & government.
However those sensitive questions are often asked without tact (or in an outright hurtful way).
I know I’ve crossed that line, quite a bit.
At the very least, I’d like to see people cut out the patronising remarks about “sky monsters” and “fairy tales” when discussing religion.
Tbh, I think it's distasteful to be ridiculing and questioning the spiritual beliefs of decent people "just coz". Sure, imo the bible doesnt stand up in an historical sense ( I too have looked at it a lot over the years) but If they aren't raping, pillaging, persecuting, slaughtering or forcibly imposing their doctrine in its name, I really don't care any more if people worship anything at all.
Upsetting people who do no harm seems as illogical as some of the beliefs held.
I think there are valid questions which need to be asked, even when they’re uncomfortable.
Not so much about people’s beliefs but about why those beliefs play a part in our society, schooling & government.
However those sensitive questions are often asked without tact (or in an outright hurtful way).
I know I’ve crossed that line, quite a bit.
There are valid questions re how it impacts on laws, lifestyle etc. But there has to be a context. In this thread, it emerged out of " why are Christians usually conservative" which was ignored and instead immediately became a critique of the text itself.
I’m probably also looking at the fact that the Paris thread is really at least in part an argument over the validity of religion. Do we need IT trying to defend his belief(s) in here as well?
If the pollies were trying to outlaw abortion because “it says so in the Bible” , then different story. Go for it and point out the failings. If people are murdered because God will smile favourably on it, yep, rip it to shreds. But individuals quietly going about things, impacting on no one? These days, I’d rather just let them be.
Incidentally, the early pages of the Paris thread are littered with (paraphrase) " Hebdo didn’t deserve what happened, but why would you deliberately ridicule and offend?"
I must have missed that question. It is a good question that is fairly easily answered. The definition of conservative basically answers the question::
“Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering.”
What we call right-wing conservative and left-wing liberal comes from society’s viewpoint on how society is run and lives. So Christians, generally, believe that we should maintain the Judeo-Christian morality that our society was built on, while, generally, liberal leaning people want society to change and adapt to a new way. Then you have a mix in between those two positions and those who are not Christian who can fall into either position.
I’m not going to go out of my way to insult Christians, but I’m not holding back either.
especially considering two of them have made quite, quite personal remarks about me recently, for which they have never apologised.
Doubt they’ve even considered apologising.
I mean, that’s the big argument right? Everyone has a right to their beliefs, & the fundamental right of free speech to express them?
Free speech also comes with a responsibility to take into consideration the position of other people. So you can just as easily say you don’t believe without using words that are designed to insult others.
I'm not going to go out of my way to insult Christians, but I'm not holding back either.
especially considering two of them have made quite, quite personal remarks about me recently, for which they have never apologised.
Doubt they've even considered apologising.
So yeah…and yet nah.
Am I one of them? If I have insulted you then I sincerely apologise Wim.
I'm not going to go out of my way to insult Christians, but I'm not holding back either.
especially considering two of them have made quite, quite personal remarks about me recently, for which they have never apologised.
Doubt they've even considered apologising.
So yeah…and yet nah.
So you want equitable debate, but you’re not prepared to show a modicum of respect for their deeply personal religious beliefs?
It’s ■■■■■■ tiresome watching the same people have to defend their faith every time a tenuously linked issue arises. Now that FS has gone there is less heat in the topic, but nevertheless…
I'm not going to go out of my way to insult Christians, but I'm not holding back either.
especially considering two of them have made quite, quite personal remarks about me recently, for which they have never apologised.
Doubt they've even considered apologising.
So yeah…and yet nah.
So you want equitable debate, but you’re not prepared to show a modicum of respect for their deeply personal religious beliefs?
It’s ■■■■■■ tiresome watching the same people have to defend their faith every time a tenuously linked issue arises. Now that FS has gone there is less heat in the topic, but nevertheless…
Tbh, I think it's distasteful to be ridiculing and questioning the spiritual beliefs of decent people "just coz". Sure, imo the bible doesnt stand up in an historical sense ( I too have looked at it a lot over the years) but If they aren't raping, pillaging, persecuting, slaughtering or forcibly imposing their doctrine in its name, I really don't care any more if people worship anything at all.
Upsetting people who do no harm seems as illogical as some of the beliefs held.
I think there are valid questions which need to be asked, even when they’re uncomfortable.
Not so much about people’s beliefs but about why those beliefs play a part in our society, schooling & government.
However those sensitive questions are often asked without tact (or in an outright hurtful way).
I know I’ve crossed that line, quite a bit.
There are valid questions re how it impacts on laws, lifestyle etc. But there has to be a context. In this thread, it emerged out of " why are Christians usually conservative" which was ignored and instead immediately became a critique of the text itself.
I’m probably also looking at the fact that the Paris thread is really at least in part an argument over the validity of religion. Do we need IT trying to defend his belief(s) in here as well?
If the pollies were trying to outlaw abortion because “it says so in the Bible” , then different story. Go for it and point out the failings. If people are murdered because God will smile favourably on it, yep, rip it to shreds. But individuals quietly going about things, impacting on no one? These days, I’d rather just let them be.
Incidentally, the early pages of the Paris thread are littered with (paraphrase) " Hebdo didn’t deserve what happened, but why would you deliberately ridicule and offend?"
I must have missed that question. It is a good question that is fairly easily answered. The definition of conservative basically answers the question::
“Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering.”
What we call right-wing conservative and left-wing liberal comes from society’s viewpoint on how society is run and lives. So Christians, generally, believe that we should maintain the Judeo-Christian morality that our society was built on, while, generally, liberal leaning people want society to change and adapt to a new way. Then you have a mix in between those two positions and those who are not Christian who can fall into either position.
How far back is traditional? 20 yrs? 50 yrs? 200 yrs? 2000 yrs? or is it just a point the individual decides suits them?
I'm not going to go out of my way to insult Christians, but I'm not holding back either.
especially considering two of them have made quite, quite personal remarks about me recently, for which they have never apologised.
Doubt they've even considered apologising.
So yeah…and yet nah.
So you want equitable debate, but you’re not prepared to show a modicum of respect for their deeply personal religious beliefs?
It’s ■■■■■■ tiresome watching the same people have to defend their faith every time a tenuously linked issue arises. Now that FS has gone there is less heat in the topic, but nevertheless…
Quite frankly I don’t see why I should, as they don’t show a modicum of respect for mine.
Further, they extrapolate that into a judgement as me as a person, something which I have never, ever done.
Which is quite funny when you think about it.
Tbh, I think it's distasteful to be ridiculing and questioning the spiritual beliefs of decent people "just coz". Sure, imo the bible doesnt stand up in an historical sense ( I too have looked at it a lot over the years) but If they aren't raping, pillaging, persecuting, slaughtering or forcibly imposing their doctrine in its name, I really don't care any more if people worship anything at all.
Upsetting people who do no harm seems as illogical as some of the beliefs held.
I think there are valid questions which need to be asked, even when they’re uncomfortable.
Not so much about people’s beliefs but about why those beliefs play a part in our society, schooling & government.
However those sensitive questions are often asked without tact (or in an outright hurtful way).
I know I’ve crossed that line, quite a bit.
There are valid questions re how it impacts on laws, lifestyle etc. But there has to be a context. In this thread, it emerged out of " why are Christians usually conservative" which was ignored and instead immediately became a critique of the text itself.
I’m probably also looking at the fact that the Paris thread is really at least in part an argument over the validity of religion. Do we need IT trying to defend his belief(s) in here as well?
If the pollies were trying to outlaw abortion because “it says so in the Bible” , then different story. Go for it and point out the failings. If people are murdered because God will smile favourably on it, yep, rip it to shreds. But individuals quietly going about things, impacting on no one? These days, I’d rather just let them be.
Incidentally, the early pages of the Paris thread are littered with (paraphrase) " Hebdo didn’t deserve what happened, but why would you deliberately ridicule and offend?"
I must have missed that question. It is a good question that is fairly easily answered. The definition of conservative basically answers the question::
“Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering.”
What we call right-wing conservative and left-wing liberal comes from society’s viewpoint on how society is run and lives. So Christians, generally, believe that we should maintain the Judeo-Christian morality that our society was built on, while, generally, liberal leaning people want society to change and adapt to a new way. Then you have a mix in between those two positions and those who are not Christian who can fall into either position.
How far back is traditional? 20 yrs? 50 yrs? 200 yrs? 2000 yrs? or is it just a point the individual decides suits them?
In each generation it probably changes however purely from a Christian perspective it has been a part of society since the RCC ruled the world and everyone HAD to be conservative.
I am talking about Judeo-Christian morality and Christians being “conservative”.
I mean, that’s the big argument right? Everyone has a right to their beliefs, & the fundamental right of free speech to express them?
Free speech also comes with a responsibility to take into consideration the position of other people. So you can just as easily say you don’t believe without using words that are designed to insult others.
Lol,… you know that’s bullshit, right?? If people think religion is based on a fairy tale, they have a right to say so.If that offends so be it, but you’d have to be seriously thin skinned to let it get to you, or even consider such a statement an insult.
Lol,.. you know that's bullshit, right?? If people think religion is based on a fairy tale, they have a right to say so.If that offends so be it, but you'd have to be seriously thin skinned to let it get to you, or even consider such a statement an insult.
Saying you think something is a fairytale is fine if it is a simple statement:
“I believe God is a fairytale and what the Bible teaches as a fairytale”
A fair and reasonable statement.
However:
“I believe God is a fairytale and if anyone believes it they should have their heads read and they’re a bunch of morons”
Is not a fair statement but one that is stated to insult or deride another person.
I'm not going to go out of my way to insult Christians, but I'm not holding back either.
especially considering two of them have made quite, quite personal remarks about me recently, for which they have never apologised.
Doubt they've even considered apologising.
So yeah…and yet nah.
So you want equitable debate, but you’re not prepared to show a modicum of respect for their deeply personal religious beliefs?
It’s ■■■■■■ tiresome watching the same people have to defend their faith every time a tenuously linked issue arises. Now that FS has gone there is less heat in the topic, but nevertheless…
Quite frankly I don’t see why I should, as they don’t show a modicum of respect for mine.
Further, they extrapolate that into a judgement as me as a person, something which I have never, ever done.
Which is quite funny when you think about it.
I’m exactly sure what you took offense at - was it something to do with the possibility of you or your family going to hell?
I mean, that’s the big argument right? Everyone has a right to their beliefs, & the fundamental right of free speech to express them?
Free speech also comes with a responsibility to take into consideration the position of other people. So you can just as easily say you don’t believe without using words that are designed to insult others.
Lol,… you know that’s bullshit, right?? If people think religion is based on a fairy tale, they have a right to say so.If that offends so be it, but you’d have to be seriously thin skinned to let it get to you, or even consider such a statement an insult.
What part of it is BS? That it’s condescending? That those words are designed to inflame?
Do you think these issues can’t discussed without diminishing their faith?