to ask how you feel when someone is at the opposite end of the faith spectrum?

[Morphene]

I've recently discovered two separate people I have been getting closer to (professional/friendship wise) are at the other end of the faith scale from me. I have actually felt a little upset and unbalanced by it.

IABU? I mean I know I am, but do other people get this? Does it make a difference if you are the one with or without faith?

I am sure I will still get on just fine with them, but I feel a little sadness that in this important respect we are very far from each others wavelength.

Do people who blame many of the world's problems on religion, think that if there was no religion those problems would go away?

So if religion was not a factor, would we still have/have had fighting in the Middle East, in Ireland, still have terrorists blowing up planes and shooting journalists?

Or do you genuinely believe that without religion, the world would be at peace and everyone would suddenly get along?

Arseholes are arseholes no matter what. People who are violent/murderous/extremist would find something else to pin their colours to, if religion wasn't a factor.

Let's not forget what we would lose as well. 1 in 4 British charities is faith based. Religious people give more to charity than atheists. Donating to charity/volunteering is a compulsory part of worship/belief in some religions.

There always seems to be a focus from atheists on threads like these on the negatives of religion rather than a balanced look at the positives as well.

Jed I don't think global atheism would fix all the worlds problems, just as I don't think it would lead to much if any of a dip in charity work.

I do think that religion (well that aspect of it that involves giving weight to books written thousands of years ago) exacerbates problems. It seems to give people an additional reason to not just sit down and find a compromise. It gives some people a reason to refuse to compromise EVER about ANYTHING that is written in the precious book.

If we could keep the 'God loves me' aspects of religion and ditch the dependence on outdated literature then we would have a deal less war and possibly even more charity work (certainly more charity work with no strings attached).

Morphene, doesn't the fact that so many produce, read and buy religious literature suggest that many are still finding it relevant and not outdated?

And actually are any ancient historical texts ever outdated? Can we not still find relevance and learn important lessons from the past?

Morpheme - I think you misunderstand the nature of religious texts. Only fundamentalists say that the Bible is the literal word of God. All the mainstream denominations argue endlessly about interpretation as the Bible is a library of different styles of writing which were written and rewritten over hundreds of years in ancient languages that reflect ancient cultures. The Islamic journals that I've read also talk about interpretation but I'm no expert here.

The Bible is neither a rule book nor a text book in ethics. It has some rules which we all argue about such as just war theory or assisted dying and some very good core principals - love your neighbour as yourself but how to make that work takes reflection and a lot of talking.

JedBartlet: " 1 in 4 British charities is faith based. Religious people give more to charity than atheists. Donating to charity/volunteering is a compulsory part of worship/belief in some religions."

So in your view, the bad things that are done in the name of religion can't be attributed to religion, but the good things done in the name of religion can be?

You don't see a flaw in your logic...?

Do people who blame many of the world's problems on religion, think that if there was no religion those problems would go away?

of course not. Lots of problems have nothing to do with religion. They are often territorial, economic or tribal.

The trouble is that religion rarely helps. Sometimes the problems are at their heart religious and sometimes the heart of the problem is something else, but throwing religion in the mix provides another unhelpful divisive piece, which at it's heart can't be resolved because of the nature of the claims. The best you can hope for is that people are able to live in peace despite their religious differences (which does happen in many places).

dowager the church of england was founded on a whim by henry v111, when it suited him to break away from rome, so i can't take it too seriously. Catholism on the other hand was passed down to St. peter by Christ. I'm sure if he wanted a woman pope he would have had women amongst his apostles. I refuse to acknowledge the royal family anyway so don't waste your time arguing with me. But then again that's all you seeem to want to do, carry on keep derailing the thread.

dowager the church of england was founded on a whim by henry v111, when it suited him to break away from rome, so i can't take it too seriously. Catholism on the other hand was passed down to St. peter by Christ. I'm sure if he wanted a woman pope he would have had women amongst his apostles. I refuse to acknowledge the royal family anyway so don't waste your time arguing with me. But then again that's all you seeem to want to do, carry on keep derailing the thread.

clarity depends on your definitions....

A book like 'Swallows and Amazons' is outdated in that it is packed with gender stereotypes and attitudes towards children that we don't mostly don't acknowledge anymore.

But I still read it to DD, (although I switched the gender of all the children and left out some bits), because it does have some really interesting bits in it.

If anyone was using it as the definitive guide to how to live your life in 2017 I would frankly rather see it replaced, than used that way.

If people could be relied on to read the bible with filters and upgrades, and leaving out the bits that we have gotten past now, then it would just be another cool book of giant historical significance.

Its the part where people think it tells them how to live their life now that means it should be replaced immediately if possible!

Oops sorry wrong thread.

It was a weirdly good hit if it was the wrong thread :)

Morphene so you would censor historical texts rather than using their similarities and differences from modern society to promote discussion?

I find it odd that you talk about outdated literature, would you include Sophocles and Shakespeare in that?

Even though I am not a Christian, I find the bible epic and full of relevant food for thought.

Even though I am not a Christian, I find the bible epic and full of relevant food for thought. The greatest story ever told.

Even though I am not a Christian, I find the bible epic and full of relevant food for thought.

Like what? I'd say it's historically important, and influential.

The trouble is, going back to the Shakespeare and Sophocles comment, no one is deluded into the importance of those authors/works. They are important, influential, and poetic.

The bible, on the other hand, fundamentalist or not, christians think the book is special and divinely inspired, and that's where the problem lies. If we all treated the bible like a book whose contents should be taken on their merits, we would all get along much better.

chili, I do take the Bible on it's merits, it fascinates me and I'm a Christian, though not a particularly literal fundamentalist. I do not think you can separate books from the context they were written in and I appreciate symbolism and poetry too much for that.

clarity no! I would keep the bible as it is, but each new Pope should bring out their own version.

They have the direct line, (and the current one seems massively blessed in the intellect and diplomacy departments) so why not have, what God says NOW. Then all the catholics can follow the holy book without having to deal with the bits that were written by men according to the morality of their time (no matter whether or not their inspiration was divine).

A 2017 version of the bible would be brilliant. The bible according to Pope Francis would be a MASSIVE improvement.

Which is it Morphene? Keep it as it is or bring out new versions (revised by each catholic Pope)? The Catholic Catechism gets revised anyway but I think there is a record of older versions.

I hate to think what kind of bible some popes would have brought out

They have the direct line, (and the current one seems massively blessed in the intellect and diplomacy departments) so why not have, what God says NOW. Then all the catholics can follow the holy book without having to deal with the bits that were written by men according to the morality of their time
But God doesn't actually say much which is different to the new testament, surely? And if he did, different denominations of Christianity believe slightly different things anyhow, so would this bible suddenly be irrelevant for then? (why only Catholics having a new bible, have I missed something?) Or were you being sarcastic and I missed that?

Surely the big deal about the New Testament-well, apart from the founding of Christianity thing- is "A new commandment I give unto you....." (not sure what that is in modern-I'm a KJV woman, myself)

I do take the Bible on it's merits, it fascinates me and I'm a Christian, though not a particularly literal fundamentalist. I do not think you can separate books from the context they were written in and I appreciate symbolism and poetry too much for that.

if you ascribe it any more importance than a book written by humans about 2 millenia ago, then you aren't taking it on its merits. It may contain some poetry and symbolism, but many many christians take it for much more (a moral guide, for example).

atenco that is actually a very fair point....be careful what you wish for!