That Religion Thing?

amacachi

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People fight over differences in beliefs. That's not exclusive to religion. They fight over politics, they fight over land, they can even fight over something as petty as a football match.

I wasn't particularly talking about war as it happens.

There are a surprising number of people who claim to be scientific but will automatically agree with anything reported as being "scientific consensus" in a newspaper without so much as a single thought. There are also a certain few people who believe anything they see written in print or in a newspaper.

The argument from authority, something organised religion is based on.

Here's an example of something that could be considered common sense

Be wise with your money and your resources and always think twice before expending them.

That is considered to be common sense as it is universally accepted by almost all people.

Believing that AIDS can be cured by raping a virgin is not. Whether or not said group is huge in South Africa is irrelevant. They are miniscule in proportion to all other people on the planet.

One thing, well done. Unfortunately once one has been brainwashed by a cult it's hard to blame them for erring.

amacachi

Lawliet wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the phrase but the concept. Sorry for not spelling that out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrO6LJyhII

:pac:

philologos

amacachi - Christianity teaches that we are all sinners in the sense that we've all rejected God and His standard in our lives. Sin is the falling short of God's standard, missing the mark. So yes, if we've fallen short of God's standards we are sinners. We've all fallen short of God's glory, therefore we are all sinners (Romans 3:23).

Christianity doesn't teach that there is no way that we can resolve this problem though. God has offered us a new relationship through His Son Jesus dying on the cross in our place and rising to life again. Jesus paid the price that we deserved to pay so that we won't have to should we be willing to accept it. As Jesus died according to the Bible (Romans 6) He killed our old sinful lives with Him allowing us to come to new life in His Resurrection. This is what many Christians call being 'born again'.

So yes we've all sinned. Therefore we are all sinners but this is far from the end of the story. If you don't like that fact one can only try and demonstrate that they've never done anything wrong, which will certainly fail.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Jesus paid the price that we deserved to pay so that we won't have to should we be willing to accept it.

See I don't buy the idea that we somehow deserved to pay this one bit. It's akin to convicting a child for a crime his great great great grandfather committed in the distant past before the child was born. That's just a horrible injustice and grudge to hold against any human being.

Also, if this is case why would any Christian be such an imbecile to condemn another conscious entity to the danger of hell and the shame of living a life of repenting for the actions of their past descendants. Honestly, I cannot fathom why you would conscientious reap this misery upon another being when you yourself, as a Christian, know just how much they will struggle and how likely it is they will fall by the wayside just as so many have done.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

See I don't buy the idea that we somehow deserved to pay this one bit. It's akin to convicting a child for a crime his great great great grandfather committed in the distant past before the child was born. That's just a horrible injustice and grudge to hold against any human being.

Of course you don't, because you don't believe that you justly deserve to be punished for sin. By sin I'm referring to what you and I have done, not what anyone else has done. You've misinterpreted what I've said. We've all sinned because we have all done what is wrong.

This is God's world and He has laid down standards for how we can best live in it for our own sake. We chose to reject it and as such we're liable to punishment. Through Jesus God has given us mercy and we have a new chance to put this right. We can either accept or reject this. That's our prerogative but ultimately like in every decision there are consequences that follow on from either.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Personally I believe that if you truly believe in hell and feel its a righteous punishment, you are a horribly immoral person. And so is the god you believe in. This clip illustrates my views pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uir9c07q0q0

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Personally I believe that if you truly believe in hell and feel its a righteous punishment, you are a horribly immoral person. And so is the god you believe in. This clip illustrates my views pretty well.

That's great, but it assumes that if the universe is God's that He is immoral for providing standards acceptable for it. Or indeed that He hadn't provided a way that you can restore your relationship with Him.

I guess if I murder and rape that the State is immoral for providing standards by which I can be punished for it. Who are the State to tell me how to live my life?

Or indeed as you are asking, who is God to tell me how I should best live?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Going by the bible, god could have done with someone preventing him from killing and raping.

amacachi

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Going by the bible, god could have done with someone preventing him from killing and raping.

CONTEXT!

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Going by the bible, god could have done with someone preventing him from killing and raping.

Life is a gift from God, it is His to give and it is His to take away. As for the raping part I have no clue as to what you're arguing.

amacachi - I guess next time I read Plato's Republic I should completely forget that his dialogues are set in Ancient Athens?*

* Contextual reading is used in all forms of reading. It is used extensively in the humanities. As such it is also used in Biblical scholarship. I don't agree that looking at context means explaining away the text as NoStampCollector in his youtube videos suggests. If he is to say that context cannot be used (which I don't think he is saying) in looking into texts then he might as well give up reading.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

philologos wrote: »

Life is a gift from God, it is His to give and it is His to take away. As for the raping part I have no clue as to what you're arguing.

You're on such a different level of thought from me, that I won't even bother arguing that the genocide and pillaging described in the bible are morally wrong. For others who might be more open to argument, this clip from the film 'God on Trial' rather accurately compares the described (And hopefully mostly fictional) actions of the Israelites with the holocaust. (Starting at 2.40 or so and mentioned again later in the video, but the whole clip is worth watching).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP4i6tRGw7Q

As for rape? Well the rape of female prisoners is implied in the bible on occasion, with the Israelites killing all males and married women but keeping the younger women as prisoners. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work out what they were planning.

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

As for rape? Well the rape of female prisoners is implied in the bible on occasion, with the Israelites killing all males and married women but keeping the younger women as prisoners. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work out what they were planning.

Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that God endorsed and / or encouraged rape?

If this cannot be found it seems like you're twisting the Scriptures to suit your own ends rather than treating them in and of themselves. I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, so I'm assuming that I would have come across it by now if it was there.

By the by - I find it quite insulting that you think that I'm not open to argument because I disagree with you. I believe, but I'm willing to listen, I will call out what you say if it is based on misconception though. That's entirely fair.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

philologos wrote: »

If this cannot be found it seems like you're twisting the Scriptures to suit your own ends rather than treating them in and of themselves. I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, so I'm assuming that I would have come across it by now if it was there.
.

Something many Christians are no doubt familiar with.

Seeing as you asked....

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

philologos

That is referring to the conquests of other nations into Israel and Judah following their disobedience in respect to God. It doesn't say that God thinks that rape is a desirable or good thing for mankind. Nor does it say that God perpetrated rape, but rather those invading nations. Indeed, context is important.

I suspect that you think you have this all worked out already though.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

God gathered those nations. Is he therefore not morally responsible for the results of his actions?

Lawliet

philologos wrote: »

Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that God endorsed and / or encouraged rape?

""This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives."

----


"Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"

---

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

---

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

---

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

---

Seems to me that god is not only cool with rape, but encourages it on more than one occasion.

philologos

And not one of those passages show God endorsing rape as a good thing. By the by, anyone can use Google. It's better if you read the Bible for yourself and come up with your own independent conclusions which will allow you to investigate for yourselves.

Lawliet

philologos wrote: »

And not one of those passages show God endorsing rape as a good thing. By the by, anyone can use Google. It's better if you read the Bible for yourself and come up with your own independent conclusions which will allow you to investigate for yourselves.

I have read the bible, true it was a good seven years ago but I don't think it's changed much. I could have described in my own words these instances but I figured some direct quotes would be more effective.

With all due respect I think you must have a serious case of denial if you don't realize that god is encouraging rape. What do think he intends for these men to do with their new wives? If he wanted them to have some company and a sandwich maker it seems odd that the wives would have to be virgins.

philologos

It's not that I don't realise it, it's just that it isn't actually doing it in any of those passages. One is describing what will happen to Israel in the absence of God's guidance and protection (Leviticus 26?), the others are describing how in war that the Israelites are permitted to marry women from other nations who are conquered by Israel and make use of their possessions.

There are passages where the Bible actually says that rape is a shameful thing for example in Genesis 35, and in 2 Samuel 13.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

God gathered those nations. Is he therefore not morally responsible for the results of his actions?

They are responsible for their own actions which is why God according to the Bible also punished Assyria and Babylon in turn. Habakkuk in the Old Testament explains in part the paradox of why God used a nation that could be perceived to be worse than Israel to punish them.

EuropeanSon

Oh dear. I've missed an at times interesting discussion. Alas, nothing can be done about that now.

An thought of mine which I would like to hear the views of the religious on:

Imagine, if you will, living in a world without religion. All other things are the same, to the extent that they can be without the existence of religion, which admittedly influences many other things such as politics, prejudice, etc.

I would envisage that without being told about the existence of a God, you would be unlikely to come to the conclusion that there was one (ie. a supernatural being who started everything), given an education in which you learn about scientific explanations (which are backed by convincing evidence) for natural phenomena that you don't understand. Would the natural position not be to suppose that those things which are presently beyond explanation will be understood and explained in due course by scientific research? And if that is so, where is the need for a God?

If we accept that this is the conclusion to which almost all people would come, the natural result, I think, is to conclude that the prevalence of religion at this moment in time is solely based on tradition, and not on people reaching logical conclusions about the most likely state of affairs re: God's existence or lack thereof. I think this is a very flimsy foundation upon which on build a very important part of your life.

If I've missed something blatantly obvious I apologise. Criticisms of my reasoning and/or pointing out gaping holes in my logic are welcome. Rants about how I'm evil and going to hell/how you wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift/life with me/how I should f**k off and leave the forum alone again etc, are not.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

The bible also says that a woman raped in a city should be put to death. Gods own words apparently. Its in there somewhere along with the allowances for slavery and the calls for homosexuals to be executed.

And I have indeed read most of the Bible and that was what turned me off Christianity more than anything else. Its ironic that many conservative Christians are in favour of censorship of 'indecent literature' whilst they take their morals from one of the most morally repulsive works of fiction in history (By the way I'm not accusing you of being in favour of censorship, its just an observation).

Insect Overlord

EuropeanSon wrote: »

If I've missed something blatantly obvious I apologise. Criticisms of my reasoning and/or pointing out gaping holes in my logic are welcome. Rants about how I'm evil and going to hell/how you wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift/life with me/how I should f**k off and leave the forum alone again etc, are not.

If you're going to post something really worthwhile, and then suffix it with a comment like that, then maybe you should. Seriously, what has that got to do with anything here? FFS.

philologos

EuropeanSon wrote: »

An thought of mine which I would like to hear the views of the religious on:

I wouldn't call myself "religious" I'd refer to myself solely as Christian. I find the concept of religion lends itself to judgemental Pharasaic attitudes rather than liberation which is essentially what Christianity is about. If you read the New Testament you'll see that Jesus was one of the most thorough critics of religion of his age.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I would envisage that without being told about the existence of a God, you would be unlikely to come to the conclusion that there was one (ie. a supernatural being who started everything), given an education in which you learn about scientific explanations (which are backed by convincing evidence) for natural phenomena that you don't understand. Would the natural position not be to suppose that those things which are presently beyond explanation will be understood and explained in due course by scientific research? And if that is so, where is the need for a God?

I decided to accept Christianity for myself as a teenager. I read the Bible and decided that it made good sense, I was challenged and inspired by God. Before this point the best description for me would be agnostic.

I don't regard Christianity as science, it is something different (and ultimately more important IMO) than science. Ultimately the question still exists, why is there something rather than nothing? The idea that there is a Creator is still not ludicrous even if I decide to disregard the formal theisms.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

If I've missed something blatantly obvious I apologise. Criticisms of my reasoning and/or pointing out gaping holes in my logic are welcome. Rants about how I'm evil and going to hell/how you wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift/life with me/how I should f**k off and leave the forum alone again etc, are not.

The fact that you think that I would rant at you for asking a question is absurd. It would be profoundly unchristian of me to treat you in that way. Why do you even expect that?

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The bible also says that a woman raped in a city should be put to death. Gods own words apparently. Its in there somewhere along with the allowances for slavery and the calls for homosexuals to be executed.

EDIT: Misread your post. What you have said about women being raped isn't true Deuteronomy 22 will give you an idea.

As for what is clearly sin (I.E against God's standards) the wages of sin is death (Romans 1) but since Jesus has stood in our place on the cross we don't have the right to expect such a penalty for anyone. Jesus has paid the price for us, how could we be so selfish as to assume that we have the right to expect it of others (Matthew 18)

This realisation has much more to do with Judaism than Christianity.

Here's a post I wrote on the concept of slavery in Hebrew society in comparison to the concept of colonial slavery. There is no comparison. Slaves in Hebrew society had key rights and liberties secured under the law. This might explain why William Wilberforce (and the Clapham sect) by his evangelical convictions overturned colonial slavery in Britain.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

And I have indeed read most of the Bible and that was what turned me off Christianity more than anything else. Its ironic that many conservative Christians are in favour of censorship of 'indecent literature' whilst they take their morals from one of the most morally repulsive works of fiction in history (By the way I'm not accusing you of being in favour of censorship, its just an observation).

It's a poor observation that should be left out of the discussion. We should focus on the topic. I believe that you've understood the basics of Christianity as a faith. I'd thoroughly advise you to read through the whole Bible (both testaments).

Although to be honest with you the Jewish law is a part of the Bible I really appreciate even if people claim that it is immoral. And indeed, it is just a claim. There is a reason why Moses has inspired much European concepts of law. I can see why too:

Leviticus 19:15 wrote:

“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly

Leviticus 19:9-10 wrote:

‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:33-34 wrote:

‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 22:21-27 wrote:

“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
“Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.
“If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest. If you take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it by sunset, because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 wrote:

If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.

Our societies could learn a lot from the Hebrews. I think you're not analysing this objectively. If you think I'm immoral for loving God and serving Him I don't subscribe to your concept of morality. Ultimately I think God is right.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

philologos wrote: »

Under Jewish law that's true. The wages of sin is death (Romans 1) but since Jesus has stood in our place on the cross we don't have the right to expect such a penalty for anyone. Jesus has paid the price for us, how could we be so selfish as to assume that we have the right to expect it of others (Matthew 18)

This realisation has much more to do with Judaism than Christianity.

Its the same god though. Just because he changed his mind later on, doesn't mean his earlier actions weren't despicable.

Here's a post I wrote on the concept of slavery in Hebrew society in comparison to the concept of colonial slavery. There is no comparison. Slaves in Hebrew society had key rights and liberties secured under the law. This might explain why William Wilberforce (and the Clapham sect) by his evangelical convictions overturned colonial slavery in Britain.

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21). Explain to me how this is morally acceptable, and how a benevolent god could sanction it.

Although to be honest with you the Jewish law is a part of the Bible I really appreciate even if people claim that it is immoral. And indeed, it is just a claim. There is a reason why Moses has inspired much European concepts of law. I can see why too:

Our societies could learn a lot from the Hebrews. I think you're not analysing this objectively. If you think I'm immoral for loving God and serving Him I don't subscribe to your concept of morality. Ultimately I think God is right.

I'd agree with many of the sentiments expressed in those passages. But you know what? I'd believe in such principles without having read the bible. And I know I should treat foreigners with kindness, and that I shouldn't pervert justice, but I also know that its not acceptable to own people as property or beat them if they disobey me. And I assume you do as well, which shows that you don't truly base your morality on the bible, only the bits that suit you.

And yes I do think Christianity is immoral. Primarily for this reason- what do you believe will happen to I, an atheist, when I die? Answer honestly.

MavisDavis

I think that there should be a "not applicable" option here.

I think the closest thing I've seen that could be used to label my "beliefs" is agnostic atheism. I say this because while I don't believe in any god or deity, I also don't claim that there's nothing out there.
That doesn't really cover it totally, though, because to be frank: I don't care. People can believe whatever they like about gods and deities, but I'm not particularly bothered either way. Religion plays no active part in my life whatsoever.

Humanism should be there too, by the way.

KnifeWRENCH

philologos wrote: »

It's a poor observation that should be left out of the discussion. We should focus on the topic. I believe that you've understood the basics of Christianity as a faith. I'd thoroughly advise you to read through the whole Bible (both testaments).

Have you actually read the whole Bible? From page 1 to page.....end? That's impressive!

A former religion teacher (who was also a priest) told us in secondary school that you can't sit down and read the Bible like a novel, that you have to take it in bits and pieces. Would you agree or disagree with that, just outta curiosity?

And how relevant is the Old Testament now? (I actually may have asked this before, actually, in a thread on the LGBT forum I think.) Are there parts of it, other than the ten commandments, that have a bearing on Christianity today? Or is it more a case that you need to read it just as "background reading" (for want of a better term) for the New testament?

Or does it's relevance depend on what branch of Christianity you actually follow?

MavisDavis wrote:

I think the closest thing I've seen that could be used to label my "beliefs" is agnostic atheism. I say this because while I don't believe in any god or deity, I also don't claim that there's nothing out there.
That doesn't really cover it totally, though, because to be frank: I don't care. People can believe whatever they like about gods and deities, but I'm not particularly bothered either way. Religion plays no active part in my life whatsoever.

Snap.
Don't believe in any sort of interventionist god, but wouldn't call myself an atheist because I don't claim there isn't. Even if there is something out there, I feel no connection to it and so it is not part of my life. Apatheist is a nice label - conveys just how little I actually care about the whole "atheism vs. theism" argument. (Not to say I don't find that debate interesting; I do. I just don't like either side being dickheads about it.)

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Its the same god though. Just because he changed his mind later on, doesn't mean his earlier actions weren't despicable.

I don't believe they were. I believe God has the right to punish us for violating His standards. Our lives are a gift from Him and they can be taken away by Him at any stage.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21). Explain to me how this is morally acceptable, and how a benevolent god could sanction it.

Where does the law say that that is a moral way to treat people? The Jewish law says that people should love their neighbours as themselves (Leviticus 19:17-18). This was the centre of Jesus thinking and it wasn't new, it was with the Hebrews all this time.

The law doesn't sanction that in that verse. The law simply determines when the Sanhedrin the legislative council should step in.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'd agree with many of the sentiments expressed in those passages. But you know what? I'd believe in such principles without having read the bible. And I know I should treat foreigners with kindness, and that I shouldn't pervert justice, but I also know that its not acceptable to own people as property or beat them if they disobey me. And I assume you do as well, which shows that you don't truly base your morality on the bible, only the bits that suit you.

I think you would too. Precisely because I would believe that God informs the consciences of all mankind (Romans 2).

I believe the Bible in its fullness can be used for learning what is right from wrong. I don't believe I have to pick and choose. By understanding everything in its full context I can begin to understand what God desires for me in my life which I aim to stand by Him fully in. Perhaps unorthodox in my society, but why should that bother me?

There is nothing that means more to me than my faith in Christianity. So yes technically you can doubt my faith in God, but the evidence in my own life shows that I very much care what God has planned for my life.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

And yes I do think Christianity is immoral. Primarily for this reason- what do you believe will happen to I, an atheist, when I die? Answer honestly.

I believe that all people deserve to be punished for what they have done wrong throughout their lives. I don't know where you will end up, because I don't know if you will reject God forever. Jesus has stood in our place and He has saved us if we are willing to accept it. I'll quote a passage for you and let you come to your own conclusion:

John 3:16-18 wrote:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

I'm going to have to really stop posting now and do some work for my final exam on Thursday. If you have any questions (and this applies to anyone) I'd really encourage you to PM me. I'm not ashamed of what I believe in and I really like talking about the big questions in life (not just in respect to Christianity but I am a philosophy student too).

philologos

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Have you actually read the whole Bible? From page 1 to page.....end? That's impressive!

I'll come to the rest of your post later if you don't mind (as I really should be studying :pac:) but yeah. I read the Bible once through about 4 years ago, it took about a year. I read it pretty much every day now, and I've read some parts multiple times. I suspect that I've read it nearly twice through now but I feel that I will have to read it over and over again in order to ensure that I'm living by it.

Simply put I'm a changed person because of what I've read in the Bible. Some people might want to claim that I'm immoral because of living by this, but I honestly can't see how any objective observer who knew me both before and after this stage in life could say that.

I believe your R.E teacher was right. Each section of the Bible serves a different purpose. It is better to regard the Bible as a library rather than a single text because it spans thousands of years, different authors, but at the same time writing about one God. Some are texts about morality, some poetry, some narrative, some prophetic. It takes some time to understand where everything fits in the big story which is perhaps one of the main causes of misunderstanding.

KnifeWRENCH

philologos wrote: »

I'll come to the rest of your post later if you don't mind (as I really should be studying :pac:)

Well that makes two of us! :pac: