The beauty in religion

[peterh]

But isn't the history of the Christian churches that of belatedly accepting the mainstream opinion of the day?

What the Christian churches believed in in the 12 century is vastly different to what they believed in in the 16th century which is vastly different to what they believe in today. Adulterers aren't stoned to death any more nor are ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake. As society became enlightened over the ages, so too did the churches, though often reluctantly and always belatedly.

I know the churches are not democracies and would not expect them to be swayed by the populist opinions of the day. But the churches are their people and people, even those who are fundamentally conservative, who open their minds to new ideas will change over time. The churches will follow suit. The old guard will die out and young blood will take its place. That's how it is and I suppose how it should be.

For the church to be true to its basis then it needs to be aware of the mainstream opinion of the day but stick to its foundations. Adulterers being stoned to death and ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake are certainly not instructions from the christian bible. What the church believed during the 12th century should have been the same as they believed in the 16th century and also what they believe today. The teachings in the bible are amazingly timeless.

 

[peterh]

The core has always been changing. As science made certain positions and beliefs untenable, then the church slowly dropped those positions.

We may say that they were never core beliefs, so abandoning those beliefs is inconsequential. But at one stage they were core beliefs and the churchmen of the day would equally have said that they were part of the fundamental foundations of their faith.

I agree that the church has been changing and dropping parts of its foundation. I also think this is one of the reasons why the church is becoming more and more irrelevant today. Our increased understanding of science has not made various positions and beliefs untenable, though that is certainly what we are told in the mainstream media.

 

[bellenuit]

Adulterers being stoned to death and ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake are certainly not instructions from the christian bible.

Tourette syndrome was obviously unknown until relatively recently, so I don't expect extracts in the Bible to mention it. What I should have emphasized was that people with such disorders were often seen as being sinners (or proof of being sinners) and the churchmen of previous times then used that together with statements in the Bible as an excuse to torture and kill them.

Below are some biblical instructions (thanks to Google). I know these have been hacked to death in many forums and that most non-fundamental Christial churches do not espouse these instructions today. But that is my point. The selective reading of the Bible today is because of the Church being influenced by an enlightened society, causing the church to gradually change too.

Leviticus 20:10 >>
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

1 Kings 21:13 >>
Then the two worthless men came in and sat before him; and the worthless men testified against him, even against Naboth, before the people, saying, "Naboth cursed God and the king." So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death with stones.

Deuteronomy. Preceding number represents Chapter.

12.10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
17.2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman who hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God in transgressing His covenant,
17.3 and hath gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,
17.4 and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it and inquired diligently, and behold, it be true and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought in Israel,
17.5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.
17.6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Stonning to death punishment for disobidient sons.
21.21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he die. So shalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

Stonning to death punishment for non virgin women.
22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,(unmarried women)
22.21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the ***** in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Death punishment for adultery.
22.22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Stoning to death punishment for virgin women for adultery.
22.23 If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her,
22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die ”” the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

[peterh]

Tourette syndrome was obviously unknown until relatively recently, so I don't expect extracts in the Bible to mention it. What I should have emphasized was that people with such disorders were often seen as being sinners (or proof of being sinners) and the churchmen of previous times then used that together with statements in the Bible as an excuse to torture and kill them.

Below are some biblical instructions (thanks to Google). I know these have been hacked to death in many forums and that most non-fundamental Christial churches do not espouse these instructions today. But that is my point. The selective reading of the Bible today is because of the Church being influenced by an enlightened society, causing the church to gradually change too.

Leviticus 20:10 >>
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

1 Kings 21:13 >>
Then the two worthless men came in and sat before him; and the worthless men testified against him, even against Naboth, before the people, saying, "Naboth cursed God and the king." So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death with stones.

Deuteronomy. Preceding number represents Chapter.

12.10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
17.2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman who hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God in transgressing His covenant,
17.3 and hath gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,
17.4 and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it and inquired diligently, and behold, it be true and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought in Israel,
17.5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.
17.6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Stonning to death punishment for disobidient sons.
21.21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he die. So shalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

Stonning to death punishment for non virgin women.
22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,(unmarried women)
22.21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the ***** in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Death punishment for adultery.
22.22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Stoning to death punishment for virgin women for adultery.
22.23 If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her,
22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die ”” the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The Bible can say whatever you want it to say when verses are taken in isolation. It needs to be read as a whole book, including the Old and New Testament.

You are right that an awful lot of evil has been committed by people taking the Bible out of context. An obvious example is the 'Christian' crusades. Those people called themselves Christians, but they can't have been based on what we are taught in the Bible.

 

[darkside]

The Bible can say whatever you want it to say when verses are taken in isolation. It needs to be read as a whole book, including the Old and New Testament.

You are right that an awful lot of evil has been committed by people taking the Bible out of context. An obvious example is the 'Christian' crusades. Those people called themselves Christians, but they can't have been based on what we are taught in the Bible.

So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity, a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)? Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered. The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men. Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.

 

[peterh]

So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity, a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)? Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered. The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men. Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.

This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.

 

[bunyip]

Adulterers being stoned to death and ladies with Tourette syndrome burned at the stake are certainly not instructions from the christian bible.

Well I don't know if they are or are not instructions from the Bible.

But I can tell you of one instruction that definitely is in the Bible.....
'Stone your son to death if he's a drunkard'.
The actual wording in the Bible is somewhat more colourful, but the instruction is clear.....Kill your son if he's a drunkard!
Perhaps a drunkard is someone who is habitually drunk, or maybe it's just some poor bugger who gets a bit under the weather after a booze up with his mates when they win their weekend football match, same as my mates and I used to do. Whatever.....it's hypocrisy of the worst kind when the Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill' on the one hand, then instructs you to kill your son.

There are many examples of the Bible glorifying, promoting and encouraging the most horrible acts of murder and cruelty.
I'm happy to acknowledge that the Bible contains a lot of good advice, and that the ten commandments lay some pretty solid foundations for living life as a decent person.
But at the same time, the Bible contains a lot of very bad advice and instructions to commit barbaric and criminal acts that no decent person would countenance.

There's a lot of goodness in the Christian religion, and I've already given an example in a previous post. But there's an uglier side to it too.

 

[bellenuit]

The Bible can say whatever you want it to say when verses are taken in isolation. It needs to be read as a whole book, including the Old and New Testament.

I have some difficulty with that statement as it seems to imply that taken as a whole The Bible gives a different set of instructions/teaching than individual books or verses.

It is not in the same category as a writer saying that a critic has taken a line from his book out of context and that one must read the whole paragraph to understand or appreciate what he has written.

Verses from The Bible read in isolation are explicit (in most cases) in their meaning. There is no alternative interpretation. Those same lines read in the broader context of the Biblical Book from which they are quoted, or of the Old or of the New Testament or of both together, don't suddenly start to take on a different meaning from the initial interpretation. When read in the broader context one can only conclude that The Bible is full of contradictions. Statements about killing and raping innocents (as quoted by Darkside from Numbers 31) are not seen in a different light because of statements in the New Testament about loving your enemies or your neighbours.

The contradictions come from the origin of The Bible itself. The books were written by different people, at different times, in different places and perhaps even with different agendas. We also know some books of The Bible were suppressed by the rulers or popes in later centuries because they didn't suit their agendas or because they gave a different meaning to what was then the accepted interpretations.

The mainstream churches today no longer suppress particular books or passages in The Bible. They simply ignore them. The reason, in my opinion, is that it is hard to argue that The Bible is the word of God, while at the same time having to justify the contradictions it poses. If it is not all seen as the word of God, why should any of it be seen as the word of God.

 

[Tink]

To darkside and bunyip

Thats the difference between a 'cult' and a 'religion' - how the words are interpreted

Mine is a religion - not a cult - where they hurt people...

 

[Tink]

As for the core/ foundations/ teachings - they have been the same from when I learnt to when my children learnt - nothing has changed...

same everything to the word...

 

[bunyip]

To darkside and bunyip

Thats the difference between a 'cult' and a 'religion' - how the words are interpreted

Mine is a religion - not a cult - where they hurt people...

So tell me then Tink.....how would you interpret an instruction that tells you to stone your son to death if he gets drunk?

 

[Tink]

I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..

If you go back over old songs in history, their words are harsh, not meaning to hurt people.. some of the old Aussie songs and poems are the same..

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by Bunyip:

"So tell me then Tink.....how would you interpret an instruction that tells you to stone your son to death if he gets drunk?"

Originally posted by Tink....."I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..

If you go back over old songs in history, their words are harsh, not meaning to hurt people.. some of the old Aussie songs and poems are the same.."

Strange sort of analogy to compare the teachings of the Bible to old songs in history.

Were any of these songs or poems that you refer to written by someone that seeks to influence or lay guidelines for people on how to live their life like the Bible does?

Or let's step it up a level. Would you have the same response had Bunyip asked "how would you interpret an instruction that tells you to stone your son to death if he were an adulterer?"

 

[Tink]

well you never know - Banjo Patterson and the like might have...lol

Its all history talk - they arent gonna change the words to redo it..
You gotta read between the lines...

 

[bellenuit]

I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..

Out of curiosity, how do you think an early Christian would have interpreted that instruction? And if it is the word of God, why did he not say that you should "give your son an earful, if he gets drunk?

Not wanting to challenge your beliefs, but it is all so contradictory and arbitrary.

The other thing I find confusing is the use of the term "core" in relation to teachings and beliefs. Why should some things be core and others not. If one truly believes that The Bible is the word of God, then how can one discriminate between his instructions. Isn't that saying you know better than God what God meant?

 

[matty2.0]

1. One should separate spirituality vs. religion.

Religion is an unchecked belief in a higher being.
Whereas spirituality is a core value system with which you live your life.

Christianity incorporates both:
- a belief in a God
- and a value system, code of living e.g. "The Golden Rule - Do unto others".

You can live a life of spirituality and get along without the need for religion.

2. You can say "The Beauty in Religion", but you can also show a video of "The Ugliness of Religion", like all the extremists who use religion to destroy and destruct. If the latter, there are plenty of examples, especially in our current times.

3. This is gonna be a very long thread. Why start it for? This forum is supposed to be about stocks/trading.

 

[ColB]

Originally Posted by Matty:

This is gonna be a very long thread. Why start it for? This forum is supposed to be about stocks/trading.

It's Sunday Matty, the market is not open

 

[bunyip]

I would interpret that as moral ground - give your child an earful, its not the right thing to do..

If you go back over old songs in history, their words are harsh, not meaning to hurt people.. some of the old Aussie songs and poems are the same..

But we're not talking about a song here - we're talking about a book that's revered by Christians the world over, a book that has all the instructions and guidelines by which they're supposed to live.
I think it's highly likely that the 'Kill you son for drunkenness' command was for real, rather than just a way of saying 'give your son an earful.'
People lived by very strict codes back in those days...promiscuity, drunkenness, thieving and such like were regarded as deadly serious crimes and were punishable by death. In some countries and in some religions they still are.
Of course, nobody in their right mind would suggest these days that you should kill your son for drunkenness.

This is, in my opinion, where the Bible falls apart as a credible book of instructions for decent living.
The entire book needs to be re-written. Any instruction that goes against all codes of decency, (e.g. kill your son if he's a drunkard) should be taken out of the Bible.
Ditto for the obscene glorification of crimes in which esteemed biblical characters sacked, burned and murdered entire tribes and villages, raped women etc.

It's just not on for a book to glorify horrific crimes and promote murder, and for that very same book to be revered as a road map for Christians and recommended as essential reading for little kids, or anyone else for that matter.
Christians need to take a long hard look at what they believe in, not just on the issues of God and creation, but also in regard to what sort of behaviour they consider to be decent and acceptable. Then they need to produce a book that clearly outlines those views.
If it's not Christain policy, it shouldn't be in the Bible.

There is much in the present day Bible that's worthy of inclusion in a new updated version, but there's also much that is unworthy.

 

[Julia]

I have some difficulty with that statement as it seems to imply that taken as a whole The Bible gives a different set of instructions/teaching than individual books or verses.

It is not in the same category as a writer saying that a critic has taken a line from his book out of context and that one must read the whole paragraph to understand or appreciate what he has written.

Verses from The Bible read in isolation are explicit (in most cases) in their meaning. There is no alternative interpretation. Those same lines read in the broader context of the Biblical Book from which they are quoted, or of the Old or of the New Testament or of both together, don't suddenly start to take on a different meaning from the initial interpretation. When read in the broader context one can only conclude that The Bible is full of contradictions. Statements about killing and raping innocents (as quoted by Darkside from Numbers 31) are not seen in a different light because of statements in the New Testament about loving your enemies or your neighbours.

The contradictions come from the origin of The Bible itself. The books were written by different people, at different times, in different places and perhaps even with different agendas. We also know some books of The Bible were suppressed by the rulers or popes in later centuries because they didn't suit their agendas or because they gave a different meaning to what was then the accepted interpretations.

The mainstream churches today no longer suppress particular books or passages in The Bible. They simply ignore them. The reason, in my opinion, is that it is hard to argue that The Bible is the word of God, while at the same time having to justify the contradictions it poses. If it is not all seen as the word of God, why should any of it be seen as the word of God.

Out of curiosity, how do you think an early Christian would have interpreted that instruction? And if it is the word of God, why did he not say that you should "give your son an earful, if he gets drunk?

Not wanting to challenge your beliefs, but it is all so contradictory and arbitrary.

The other thing I find confusing is the use of the term "core" in relation to teachings and beliefs. Why should some things be core and others not. If one truly believes that The Bible is the word of God, then how can one discriminate between his instructions. Isn't that saying you know better than God what God meant?

Bellenuit, if I were religious I'd say
"Thank God for the commonsense and rational approach of Bellenuit's posts'.

 

[bunyip]

well you never know - Banjo Patterson and the like might have...lol

Its all history talk - they arent gonna change the words to redo it..
You gotta read between the lines...

The only reason 'you gotta read between the lines' is if you don't want to accept the confronting reality that the Bible is in many respects a very harsh and cruel book that promotes, glorifies, and instructs people to commit some very nasty crimes.

Your assertion that 'you gotta read between the lines' is a good example of you seeing only what you want to see.
I believe this is something that you accused others of earlier in this thread in post 108 when you said, in reference to posters who had spoken out against religion..."They only see what they want to see."