Do religious people ACTUALLY believe in their books?

[Coriolis]

N.B. Interestingly, Islam is different in this way. It contains a principle called abrogation whereby if there is a contradiction between two verses, the verse written later (in time) supervenes that written earlier. The result is that the Qu'ran is even more violent than people realise.

The Bible is similar in that the new testament is supposed to supercede the old. Meaning only contradictions within the NT itself should be held against it.

What do you think of the Bahai principle of progressive revelation?

 

[Kullervo]

The Bible is similar in that the new testament is supposed to supercede the old. Meaning only contradictions within the NT itself should be held against it.

Yet there are four Gospels, all written by different people at different times. And then you have Paul whose interpretation of Christianity in his letters is different again. Even if the NT supervenes the OT (which is questionable) what verses do you choose? The same fundamental problem remains, which is that the Bible was written by a host of different people over millennia.

If you are a Christian, somehow you have to reconcile all of this with the idea that God created all the world, and it was perfect, exactly as he intended.

What do you think of the Bahai principle of progressive revelation?

Apologism.

Call me an atheist fundamentalist.

 

[Coriolis]

Yet there are four Gospels, all written by different people at different times. And then you have Paul whose interpretation of Christianity in his letters is different again. Even if the NT supervenes the OT (which is questionable) what verses do you choose? The same fundamental problem remains, which is that the Bible was written by a host of different people over millennia.

If you are a Christian, somehow you have to reconcile all of this with the idea that God created all the world, and it was perfect, exactly as he intended.



Apologism.

In what sense do you consider it apologism? I find it makes more sense than the insistence of most other religions that they are the only "right way" to God.

Well, I'm no great fan of the Bible, but confining one's yardstick to the NT does reduce the number of contradictions significantly. There is a good book by Burton Mack called Who wrote the new testament?, and another by Ute Ranke-Heinemann called Putting away childish things that do a very nice job of analyzing the origins of the NT material. Both well worth reading if you are interested in getting to the bottom of this.

 

[Kullervo]

In what sense do you consider it apologism? I find it makes more sense than the insistence of most other religions that they are the only "right way" to God.

Think about it logically. Either one religion will lead you to God, or none will. They can't all be right, because they all claim to be divinely inspired. When a religion splits into different sects, you see the same phenomenon again where all of the rivals accuse each other of heresy. They can't all be right.

Well, I'm no great fan of the Bible, but confining one's yardstick to the NT does reduce the number of contradictions significantly. There is a good book by Burton Mack called Who wrote the new testament?, and another by Ute Ranke-Heinemann called Putting away childish things that do a very nice job of analyzing the origins of the NT material. Both well worth reading if you are interested in getting to the bottom of this.

...which is why I hoped you'd be more receptive than you are to what I am saying. Please, just read the Bible. Just read any "holy" book and you will see what I am saying for yourself.

 

[grey_beard]

Would be interesting to hear what religion the conquerors were of these battles.

Hmm. Barbary Pirates captured and sold many slaves, including Europeans.
And of course there are janissaries to consider.

...and William Wilberforce.

 

[grey_beard]

No religion brought slaves to America. The slave trade was conducted by humans whose primary motivation was economic gain. Given the times and culture, most probably claimed to be Christian. As such, and within a largely Christian society, they attempted to justify their actions on the basis of Christian doctrine. Had they been Muslims, Jews, or whatever else, they would have used those teachings instead.

Interesting point about Muslims and Jews. I will leave discussions of the Koran to others; but Jews were (by the Levitical books) forbidden from holding other Jews as (permanent) slaves; being enjoined to set them free (say, after 7 years, or every 50 years at the year of Jubilee, when all debts were to be canceled); unless the slave affirmatively consented to the permanence of the arrangement by allowing his ear to be pierced with a nail and an earring affixed.

The reasoning behind this is "be kind to the stranger, for you were strangers and slaves in Egypt."

 

[chubber]

Interesting point about Muslims and Jews. I will leave discussions of the Koran to others; but Jews were (by the Levitical books) forbidden from holding other Jews as (permanent) slaves; being enjoined to set them free (say, after 7 years, or every 50 years at the year of Jubilee, when all debts were to be canceled); unless the slave affirmatively consented to the permanence of the arrangement by allowing his ear to be pierced with a nail and an earring affixed.

The reasoning behind this is "be kind to the stranger, for you were strangers and slaves in Egypt."

I'm wondering if women of the past few centuries wear earrings because of their "devotion" to marriage (or because they had no rights back then)?

 

[GIjade]

That's not me.

see edit.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm wondering if women of the past few centuries wear earrings because of their "devotion" to marriage (or because they had no rights back then)?

I suppose that makes about as much sense as any other reason given for why women - or men - wear earrings.

 

[great_bay]

lol If I told you I believed in a Superman comic book, would you believe me?

 

[chubber]

I suppose that makes about as much sense as any other reason given for why women - or men - wear earrings.

It depends on the context and who assimilated who's culture. Pharaohs also wore earrings, the point is the context.

 

[Coriolis]

It depends on the context and who assimilated who's culture. Pharaohs also wore earrings, the point is the context.

It is uncommon to get a reason other than "I felt like it" when asking someone to explain their choice of clothing or jewelry.

 

[Coriolis]

Think about it logically. Either one religion will lead you to God, or none will. They can't all be right, because they all claim to be divinely inspired. When a religion splits into different sects, you see the same phenomenon again where all of the rivals accuse each other of heresy. They can't all be right.

If they are all wrong, perhaps they are wrong mainly in their claim that they are the only right one. The essence of the Bahai doctrine of progressive revelation is exactly that: that every religion is divinely inspired, because God keeps trying to get through to human beings. This makes more sense to me than a God that chooses one group at one time, and sets them up as the source or arbiter of what is right and holy. The errors or inconsistencies in religions come on the human end, when "we" try to convert that divine inspiration into human-digestible advice. It doesn't help that some of the humans involved in this process have less than constructive and charitable motives.

I see religion much like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man has valid information about the elephant, but is wrong when he claims he knows all there is to know about it. Put together, they come to a much fuller understanding of what an elephant is, but of course it is still incomplete due to their blindness and limitation to an external survey.

...which is why I hoped you'd be more receptive than you are to what I am saying. Please, just read the Bible. Just read any "holy" book and you will see what I am saying for yourself.

You are presumptuous if you assume I am not well acquainted with the Bible. If you consider the new testament within itself to have as many internal contradictions as the Bible as a whole, it is you who lack familiarity with it.

 

[Beorn]

I see religion much like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man has valid information about the elephant, but is wrong when he claims he knows all there is to know about it. Put together, they come to a much fuller understanding of what an elephant is, but of course it is still incomplete due to their blindness and limitation to an external survey.

That analogy only makes the person making it more presumptuous than each of the blind persons as they presume to know more about the whole than each blind person.

 

[Coriolis]

That analogy only makes the person making it more presumptuous than each of the blind persons as they presume to know more about the whole than each blind person.

Only if the person isn't listening to what each of the blind men have learned, and working to integrate it into a broader understanding. But then that is the usual approach of most believers I know.

The version of the blind men and the elephant that I have (in book format) ends with the local prince - and owner of the elephant - helping the blind men resolve their argument over what the elephant is like by explaining how each one of them has one piece of the puzzle, and they will understand more by learning from each other. I suppose this is what you consider presumptuous. I consider it productive.

 

[Kullervo]

If they are all wrong, perhaps they are wrong mainly in their claim that they are the only right one. The essence of the Bahai doctrine of progressive revelation is exactly that: that every religion is divinely inspired, because God keeps trying to get through to human beings. This makes more sense to me than a God that chooses one group at one time, and sets them up as the source or arbiter of what is right and holy. The errors or inconsistencies in religions come on the human end, when "we" try to convert that divine inspiration into human-digestible advice. It doesn't help that some of the humans involved in this process have less than constructive and charitable motives.

Why bother if he could just broadcast his message to all of humanity once in every single language, using the same text? Occam's Razor applies here.

I stand by what I was saying before.

I see religion much like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man has valid information about the elephant, but is wrong when he claims he knows all there is to know about it. Put together, they come to a much fuller understanding of what an elephant is, but of course it is still incomplete due to their blindness and limitation to an external survey.

If religion A makes claim C about D, and then religion B makes claim E about D, and C =/= E, who is correct? Either one, or neither of them, but not both.

Religion is about more than faith, it is about truth.

You are presumptuous if you assume I am not well acquainted with the Bible. If you consider the new testament within itself to have as many internal contradictions as the Bible as a whole, it is you who lack familiarity with it.

This is nitpicking at its finest. The question was not which part of the Bible was more contradictory (obviously that will be the OT), but whether the NT resolves all the prior contradictions without adding any new ones. The reality is the there are enough contradictions in the NT to have spawned several wars between Christians.

A good example would be the doctrine of the path to heaven, which was a big part of the Reformation and I mentioned earlier.

 

[Beorn]

Only if the person isn't listening to what each of the blind men have learned, and working to integrate it into a broader understanding. But then that is the usual approach of most believers I know.

But you have to know what is correct and what is incorrect about each blind person's understanding.
You can only do that if you see the elephant yourself.

 

[chubber]

It is uncommon to get a reason other than "I felt like it" when asking someone to explain their choice of clothing or jewelry.

It could have turned into a tradition, in schools (well at least it used to in mine), boys are expected to have short hair, no earrings. There are plenty of examples out there where something that used to be "bad" turned into a tradition. There are still women out there that gives their men a chain, around their neck.

 

[Coriolis]

But you have to know what is correct and what is incorrect about each blind person's understanding.
You can only do that if you see the elephant yourself.

Exactly. The blind men I have met have been quite willing to guide my hands to their part of the elephant.

It could have turned into a tradition, in schools (well at least it used to in mine), boys are expected to have short hair, no earrings. There are plenty of examples out there where something that used to be "bad" turned into a tradition. There are still women out there that gives their men a chain, around their neck.

And there are men out there who groom young girls to accept the same willingly when they pass the age of statutory rape. Not everything that exists should.

 

[Beorn]

Exactly. The blind men I have met have been quite willing to guide my hands to their part of the elephant.

So you claim you feel an elephant.
You're still basically just making an argument that a higher quantity of data equates to a higher quality of data which is still fallacious.