Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

Where did I say I don't believe the entire Old Testament? There are some historical facts that are correct. But, like mainstream Christianity, I accept that the big stories are myths.

What parts of the NT have I said I don't believe?

Do you really think all Christians believe in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and all that parlaver?

They are creation myths,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93792021&postcount=153

Yes, you can read anything into the Bible. You can read anything into Shakespeare, Harry Potter or Enid Blyton.

People choose to read what they want to read into the Bible

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93792398&postcount=154

First of all, Genesis isn't a parable, it's a creation myth.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93793595&postcount=156

If you consider that literal belief in the Bible, with all its contradictions and anomalies, is the mark of a Christian, then there are a handful of Christians on this planet.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93791837&postcount=150

There is no book that can tell you definitively what bits of the bible to "believe". There are, of course, plenty books out there that prove that certain parts of it can't be true, or will outline contradictions. But no book can tell you what to believe.

Who knows whether the immaculate conception actually happened or is a myth? (By the way, I didn't say everything is a myth...) There are many stories of virgin births in the Middle East which compare to the Christian story, so it's hard to know what is myth and what isn't.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93797223&postcount=160

How on earth can I know whether what I decide is myth and what I decide is not is true?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93801828&postcount=167

It IS a mass of contradictions, but not nonsense. Jesus meant that

I like the way you know what Jesus actually meant...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93782426&postcount=141

What I asked was where does it say in Christian doctrine that you have to believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian? Not where does it say in the Bible that you have to believe...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93828221&postcount=251


Also, I'm out of this idiocy, got some RAM to install.

Andrewf20

katydid wrote: »

What I asked was where does it say in Christian doctrine that you have to believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian? Not where does it say in the Bible that you have to believe...

Nowhere that I can see but im not claiming this is an issue. Its the supernatural claims I have issue with.

The above quotes place large expectations on people to believe some pretty far fetched extraordinary claims / tenets while providing no solid rational for such ideas (as I see it).

Believing that a man called Jesus existed 2000 years ago and was seen an an unusual preacher. I can believe in the existence of this along with some of the stories (without supernatural claims). I believe that some of the Thomas Jefferson bible may have happened.

katydid

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Nowhere that I can see but im not claiming this is an issue. Its the supernatural claims I have issue with.

The above quotes place large expectations on people to believe some pretty far fetched extraordinary claims / tenets while providing no solid rational for such ideas (as I see it).

Believing that a man called Jesus existed 2000 years ago and was seen an an unusual preacher. I can believe in the existence of this along with some of the stories (without supernatural claims). I believe that some of the Thomas Jefferson bible may have happened.

Andrew was claiming that it is necessary to believe the Bible literally to be a Christian. I asked him to show me where it says that, and he cited references to believing in God, not in the Bible...

katydid

obplayer wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93792021&postcount=153


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93792398&postcount=154


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93793595&postcount=156



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93791837&postcount=150



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93797223&postcount=160



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93801828&postcount=167



I like the way you know what Jesus actually meant...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93782426&postcount=141




http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93828221&postcount=251


Also, I'm out of this idiocy, got some RAM to install.

How does any of that show I don't believe what it says? It only shows I don't believe it literally...

Andrewf20

katydid wrote: »

Andrew was claiming that it is necessary to believe the Bible literally to be a Christian. I asked him to show me where it says that, and he cited references to believing in God, not in the Bible...

Where did I say that? My key point is refering to the supernatural claims.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

There is no institution.

The Christian church has billions of members and has existed in one form or another for two thousand years, and you say there's no institution?

Are you serious?

katydid

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Where did I say that? My key point is refering to the supernatural claims.

Sorry for referring to you in the third person. I was mixing you up with someone else posting to me!

But you DID say that. Your exact words were " what about the threat of eternal damnation for not accepting what is written in this book?"

So, can you answer the question. Where does it say, in Christian doctrine, that you have to believe everything in the Bible or you will be eternally damned. Believing in God is not the same as believing everything written in the entire bible.

anothernight

katydid wrote: »

Yes, accepting Christ as God. Not as a separate entity, the son of God and brother of Satan.

I must admit that I never heard that one before in church. Funnily enough, Google tells me that's a Mormon belief. http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsteachingonlucifer.htm

katydid wrote:

The Christian church has billions of members and has existed in one form or another for two thousand years, and you say there's no institution?

Are you serious?

Something that exists in the form of thousands of denominations without any sort of central rule or organisation cannot possibly be considered an institution.

Andrewf20

katydid wrote: »

Sorry for referring to you in the third person. I was mixing you up with someone else posting to me!

But you DID say that. Your exact words were " what about the threat of eternal damnation for not accepting what is written in this book?"

So, can you answer the question. Where does it say, in Christian doctrine, that you have to believe everything in the Bible or you will be eternally damned. Believing in God is not the same as believing everything written in the entire bible.

Apologies if unclear but its the supernatural stuff, not everything in the book.

katydid

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Apologies if unclear but its the supernatural stuff, not everything in the book.

What do you mean by "the supernatural stuff"? It's hardly unexpected that a religion would expect believers to believe in God...

katydid

anothernight wrote: »

I must admit that I never heard that one before in church. Funnily enough, Google tells me that's a Mormon belief. http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsteachingonlucifer.htm







Something that exists in the form of thousands of denominations without any sort of central rule or organisation cannot possibly be considered an institution.

No, you wouldn't hear that in church!

It certainly is an institution.

Andrewf20

katydid wrote: »

What do you mean by "the supernatural stuff"? It's hardly unexpected that a religion would expect believers to believe in God...

Any of it - walking on water, virgin birth, existence of a God, rising from the dead etc. We are talking about the wider picture here - yes most religions expect some element of belief or faith in supernatural ideas, but that doesnt mean these ideas automatically should be granted respect.

anothernight

katydid wrote: »

It certainly is an institution.

Not by any definition of the word. Are you confusing Christianity with Roman Catholicism perhaps?

Kidchameleon

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Any of it - walking on water, virgin birth, existence of a God, rising from the dead etc. We are talking about the wider picture here - yes most religions expect some element of belief or faith in supernatural ideas, but that doesnt mean these ideas automatically should be granted respect.

I saw ducks walking on water today in the Phoenix park. Granted it was frozen over but still

smacl

katydid wrote: »

I didn't define Christianity. It was defined and its tenets set down fifteen hundred years ago. The first line of the Nicene Creed is "I believe in ONE God". Mormons are polytheists.

As I said, you can't play rugby with a sliothar and hurley. That's just the way it is.

That's actually just your understanding of it. While you might share that understanding with many millions or possibly even billions of other Christians, that doesn't mean that the many millions of Mormons out there cant self label as Christians if they so wish. The fact that other Christians, such as yourself, don't recognise Mormons as Christians is clearly an issue for those other Christians.

Applying and denying religious labels to others could be seen as rather unpleasant, particularly in the context of religious tolerance, and doing so tends to lead to conflict. For example, as an atheist, certain Muslims and Christians might label me as an infidel. Taking mild umbrage, I might in turn label them as ****, and things go rapidly downhill from there.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

The Christian church has billions of members and has existed in one form or another for two thousand years, and you say there's no institution?

Are you serious?

Christian churches.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

That doesn't take away from the fact that Christianity is a specific religion, existing for two thousand years, and whose tenets were set down after much discussion, about a thousand, five hundred years ago.

Jainism is a lot older whose tenets have been finalised for the last 2,500 years. Therefore by your criteria it is more "true" as a religion than christianity.

An appeal to tradition or vernerableness is useless when trying to establish the veracity of a belief.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

What I asked was where does it say in Christian doctrine that you have to believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian? Not where does it say in the Bible that you have to believe...

So the bible, the fount of all christian doctrine and theology, is not actually dissemenating doctrine and theology now?

You really are tying yourself in Gordian knots trying to defend an indefensible position. If you do not believe the bible as it stands in its entirity then you are not truly christian.

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You really are tying yourself in Gordian knots trying to defend an indefensible position.

I'm not sure about that. Having vaguely attempted to follow katydid's output, at least for the first day or two, it seems that his/her posting style simply involves responding to the immediately preceding one or two posts with the most obvious pro-religious rebuttal. Hence, I think the apparent verbal and conceptual mess that is his/her documented position is more likely to be an emergent property of running, hamster-like, around in tiny circles, rather than a description of a conscious, if contradictory, view on anything in particular. Am entirely happy to be proven completely wrong on this of course.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. Having vaguely attempted to follow katydid's output, at least for the first day or two, it seems that his/her posting style simply involves responding to the immediately preceding one or two posts with the most obvious pro-religious rebuttal. Hence, I think the apparent verbal and conceptual mess that is his/her documented position is more likely to be an emergent property of running, hamster-like, around in tiny circles, rather than a description of a conscious, if contradictory, view on anything in particular. Am entirely happy to be proven completely wrong on this of course.

If you've been unable to follow my very straightforward argument - that there are plenty Christians who are well aware that the Bible is not totally true and who have no problem reconciling that with their faith - you need to look at how you read and comprehend. I have been nothing but consistent in making this point, and it's at the basis of everything I've written on this subject.

katydid

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Any of it - walking on water, virgin birth, existence of a God, rising from the dead etc. We are talking about the wider picture here - yes most religions expect some element of belief or faith in supernatural ideas, but that doesnt mean these ideas automatically should be granted respect.

Ok, so we're not talking about Adam and Eve and all that stuff. Grand. Now I have you. You're talking about the New Testament.

Fair enough, I get where you're coming from. It does all seem pretty crazy, and I can't say for sure whether or not it's true. I believe it is, because I believe that there are things beyond our realm that we don't understand. Why couldn't those things happen>
Supernatural is a good word in that context.

I respect that you find it daft...

That's not the point I've been making though. For me, and people like me, while we may believe what you've listed, it doesn't mean we believe everything that's written down in the bible. Some things are demonstrably untrue. Maybe in a thousand years time it will all be demonstrably untrue (or proven beyond doubt) but neither of us will be around to gloat! :-)

katydid

anothernight wrote: »

Not by any definition of the word. Are you confusing Christianity with Roman Catholicism perhaps?

No. Roman Catholicism is an institution, but Christianity is also an institution, with rules, tenets, rites, rituals etc. They may vary from denomination to denomination and it may not have an overall controlling structure, but it has a common goal.

It fits into at least three definitions:

"4. a well-established and structured pattern of behaviour or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, as marriage:
the institution of the family.
5.any established law, custom, etc.

6.any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/institution

katydid

smacl wrote: »

That's actually just your understanding of it. While you might share that understanding with many millions or possibly even billions of other Christians, that doesn't mean that the many millions of Mormons out there cant self label as Christians if they so wish. The fact that other Christians, such as yourself, don't recognise Mormons as Christians is clearly an issue for those other Christians.

Applying and denying religious labels to others could be seen as rather unpleasant, particularly in the context of religious tolerance, and doing so tends to lead to conflict. For example, as an atheist, certain Muslims and Christians might label me as an infidel. Taking mild umbrage, I might in turn label them as ****, and things go rapidly downhill from there.

Anyone can self-label themselves as anything they want. It's a free country. But if you don't subscribe to guidelines and beliefs laid down and agree by billions of people over fifteen hundred years, how valid is your self-labelling.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Christian churches.

No, Christian church. There is only one Christian church. Hundreds - more - of denominations.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Jainism is a lot older whose tenets have been finalised for the last 2,500 years. Therefore by your criteria it is more "true" as a religion than christianity.

An appeal to tradition or vernerableness is useless when trying to establish the veracity of a belief.

That doesn't make it more true. But it means that if someone wants to claim to belong to Jainism, they have to follow its principles and believe in its tenets.

I'm not talking about the veracity of a belief, but about the veracity of an institution.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So the bible, the fount of all christian doctrine and theology, is not actually dissemenating doctrine and theology now?

You really are tying yourself in Gordian knots trying to defend an indefensible position. If you do not believe the bible as it stands in its entirity then you are not truly christian.

It is an aid to doctrine and theology; the starting point, if you will. But it's only the raw material.

Why can you not be Christian if you don't believe every literal word of the Bible? Where in Christian doctrine does it make this a prerequisite?

And how do you figure you could believe every word when there are so many disprovable stories and so many contradictions? It's literally impossible

robindch

katydid wrote: »

If you've been unable to follow my very straightforward argument - that there are plenty Christians who are well aware that the Bible is not totally true and who have no problem reconciling that with their faith - you need to look at how you read and comprehend.

If that was the only point you'd made, then your position would be quite clear. I happen to agree, btw, that there are plenty of people around (including, so far as I can make out, yourself) who have no very clear idea what their, or anybody else's, idea of "christianity" is, but who still feel quite happy to call themselves "christian". Seems an odd thing to, especially when one considers how happy so many people seem to be to subsume their moral outlook, their philosophy and often, even much of their identity, into something so meaningless. But I suppose it takes all types.

No, my point was that you surround this obvious, self-evident point with -- I'm afraid, but there's no other term to use here -- the most agreeably confused waffle.

Penn

Content - Is something needlessly disrespectful? Can it be phrased/worded/drawn etc in a more respectful way but still convey the same point?
Context - What point is trying to be made, and to whom is it trying to be made to? Big difference between a comedian saying something and a protester standing outside a mosque saying the same thing.
Intent - Is the intention to make a salient point or just to offend/be disrespectful? Is the intention to facilitate discussion or to shout the other side down?

Context, Content and Intent.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

If that was the only point you'd made, then your position would be quite clear. I happen to agree, btw, that there are plenty of people around (including, so far as I can make out, yourself) who have no very clear idea what their, or anybody else's, idea of "christianity" is, but who still feel quite happy to call themselves "christian". .

They're "spiritual" people.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

No, Christian church. There is only one Christian church. Hundreds - more - of denominations.

You keep telling yourself that.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

If that was the only point you'd made, then your position would be quite clear. I happen to agree, btw, that there are plenty of people around (including, so far as I can make out, yourself) who have no very clear idea what their, or anybody else's, idea of "christianity" is, but who still feel quite happy to call themselves "christian". Seems an odd thing to, especially when one considers how happy so many people seem to be to subsume their moral outlook, their philosophy and often, even much of their identity, into something so meaningless. But I suppose it takes all types.

No, my point was that you surround this obvious, self-evident point with -- I'm afraid, but there's no other term to use here -- the most agreeably confused waffle.

I made one clear, unambiguous point. The only one that is confused is you. I'm not in the slightest bit confused. I know exactly how I approach my faith.

If you don't understand that people can approach their faith with intelligence and openness, maybe you could just accept that they do...

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

I made one clear, unambiguous point. The only one that is confused is you. I'm not in the slightest bit confused. I know exactly how I approach my faith.

Nope, I'm also quite confused by your posts! In fact you've been confusing me since the last day we were debating something, and I also confused you. Your posting style is quite oblique to say the least (which used to be my user name, so I'm also a bit fond of the confusion - carry on )

robindch wrote: »

the most agreeably confused waffle.

I think it's agreeable too. Frustrating though, but sweet, in the way of a child who falls down the same rabbit hole again and again....

I like her/him.

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

Nope, I'm also quite confused by your posts! In fact you've been confusing me since the last day we were debating something, and I also confused you. Your posting style is quite oblique to say the least (which used to be my user name, so I'm also a bit fond of the confusion - carry on )

I think it's agreeable too. Frustrating though, but sweet, in the way of a child who falls down the same rabbit hole again and again....

I like her/him.

Well, not my problem you're confused. I've been quite clear and consistent. I really can't explain my position more clearly than I have.

How can my posting style be oblique when, in this case, I have said over and over again "it is possible to be a Christian by reading the bible intelligently, and accepting that it is not all true."?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Well, not my problem you're confused. I've been quite clear and consistent. I really can't explain my position more clearly than I have.

How can my posting style be oblique when, in this case, I have said over and over again "it is possible to be a Christian by reading the bible intelligently, and accepting that it is not all true."?

How do you decide what bits are true and which aren't?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

How do you decide what bits are true and which aren't?

Well, some bits are easy because they are provably wrong. As for the rest, I can only make a personal decision.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Well, some bits are easy because they are provably wrong. As for the rest, I can only make a personal decision.

Yes, because you can prove that you can't divide loaves and fishes, but the son of a deity, resurrection and the rest are obviously true.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, because you can prove that you can't divide loaves and fishes, but the son of a deity, resurrection and the rest are obviously true.

I've given several examples of what is provably untrue and what isn't. I really don't see the point of this discussion if you're going to be facetious and not try to engage in a proper discussion.

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

I have said over and over again "it is possible to be a Christian by reading the bible intelligently, and accepting that it is not all true."?

Well now. You say you Christians all worship the same god, yes? However, you all have different interpretations of what it means to worship the same god by individually cherry picking bits out of the bible, or aligning yourselves into different denominations who believe different things about the bible, yes?

You may have no difficulty reconciling that with your faith (why would you - picking good bits to believe in makes it much more effortless), but it's quite clear to most people who question these beliefs that the already unsubstantiated claims by Christians that there is a god/heaven/hell, etc. are considerably undermined by the individual Christian tendency to believe whatever they want. It doesn't make it a unified religious belief at all, just a feeling of community with other humans who are equally wishy washy about their beliefs.

shruikan2553

katydid wrote: »

Huh? When did Protestants reject the fundamental tenets of Christianity?

They decided **** this **** and went off to make their own club. The Mormons did the same. They all have the teachings of Jesus Christ as their basis, hence they are all Christians.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I've given several examples of what is provably untrue and what isn't. I really don't see the point of this discussion if you're going to be facetious and not try to engage in a proper discussion.

It's an entirely serious point.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

It's an entirely serious point.

You are ignoring the examples I've given, which are clearly and demonstrably untrue, and using examples that you know are not provable.

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

You are ignoring the examples I've given, which are clearly and demonstrably untrue, and using examples that you know are not provable.

Give us an example that is provable then. G'wan. Just for the craic.

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

Give us an example that is provable then. G'wan. Just for the craic.

I have. Several times. The age of the earth. The fact that it doesn't have four corners.

The fact that the first human was called Lucy and came from Africa...



I could go on.

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

I have. Several times. The age of the earth. The fact that it doesn't have four corners.

The fact that the first human was called Lucy and came from Africa...



I could go on.

Do, please. These are not evidence of anything except the roundness of the earth relative to a pyramid, the name of the earliest human skull we have found and what most of us consider to be the age of the earth based on our understanding of the universe. These are not proof of god or any other bible story.

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

Do, please. These are not evidence of anything except the roundness of the earth relative to a pyramid, the name of the earliest human skull we have found and what most of us consider to be the age of the earth based on our understanding of the universe. These are not proof of god or any other bible story.

Now it's really clear you haven't been following this thread at all. I said some of the Bible is clearly provable as being untrue. You asked me for examples, and I give you several. And you think I'm saying these prove the Bible is true...

That's what happens when you don't pay attention...

robindch

katydid wrote: »

I said some of the Bible is clearly provable as being untrue.

And a guy turning water into wine and later on in the story dying and coming back to life and saying he was the son of god, somebody else turning his missus into a sack of salt, and a third guy spending the weekend in a fish are all "provably true" are all the product of reading the bible "intelligently"?

katydid

robindch wrote: »

And a guy turning water into wine and later on in the story dying and coming back to life and saying he was the son of god, somebody else turning his missus into a sack of salt, and a third guy spending the weekend in a fish are all "provably true" are all the product of reading the bible "intelligently"?

Sigh.... read back what I wrote. I said some things are provably UNTRUE...

Jeez...

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

Now it's really clear you haven't been following this thread at all. I said some of the Bible is clearly provable as being untrue. You asked me for examples, and I give you several. And you think I'm saying these prove the Bible is true...

That's what happens when you don't pay attention...

No, no dear...this is what happens when you don't read posts carefully What I SAID was...

Shrap wrote: »

Give us an example that is provable then. G'wan. Just for the craic.

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

No, no dear...this is what happens when you don't read posts carefully What I SAID was...

And I gave you an example that is provable. Provable of the fact that not all the bile is literal, something most Christians accept.

You really need to read what I write.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Sigh.... read back what I wrote.

I have. Trying to find any fixed meaning amongst the hand-waves, the glib retorts, the evasions, the language games and the general haze that envelops everything you write is about as much fun as painting the Forth Bridge with a toothbrush.

katydid wrote: »

I said some things are provably UNTRUE.

And a guy in a fish isn't "provably UNTRUE"?(*)



(*) I'm not going to ask what you mean by "provably" or "UNTRUE", since from the way in which you (mis)use the words, it appears that you have little idea of what they mean.