Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

It doesn't make the original teachings wrong, it makes them misrepresented>>

Well Leviticus is pretty straightforward with the rules. What part of that is misrepresented?

If we are meant to ignore that because it's outdated that would include the whole sabbath thing and solve the problem which started this thread.

I understand why people believe in atheism

Why does atheism always get conflated with science on these threads (with particular reference to Onagar's post of 16:47)? Science is the examination of the physical world. Atheism is the belief that there is nothing meaningful to be apprehended beyond the scientifically examined physical world. These are not the same things at all.

There is no shortage of scientists who hold religious beliefs, and no shortage of atheists with a very poor grasp of scientific principles.

Science is not just the examination of the physical world unless you are in the job of cataloging species of birds etc. A large part of it is collecting information, but there is much more.

The basis of science is having an idea and testing it against evidence. Maybe proving it right or proving it wrong or more often than not leading you to something else just as interesting/useful. (There is a proper way of saying this, but you get the idea).

As soon as some evidence of a god's existence comes along that will be examined too. None has been offered so far.

The list of things for which there is no evidence whatsoever is infinite and god is just on the list with the rest. They are not in any particular order since they none can be assigned a likelihood of being true.

And actually there is a shortage of scientists who hold religious beliefs, but I can't prove it to you off hand so I don't expect you to accept that. There was a big survey showing that the longer you were a scientist and the higher you went the less likely that you were religious. I think I may have seen a link on MN, but do NOT take my word for it.

I am loving HelloBeastie's latest post. Have we met before?

I think we should start an atheist cult which involves giving dissected flowers at bus stops and letting natural selection into your heart.

Oh and the number of things currently not understood by science will also be infinite. Only non-scientists think that scientists claim to know everything.

morningpaper: "Dawkins is not widely respected in the field of theology/philosophy. That is quite true."

So you dismiss the likes of Grayling, Law, Baggini, Dennett, Bernstein, Singer? Just to name a few philosophers! Certainly Dawkins makes some theologians wax wrathful but that is hardly surprising!

As to your objection to my reduction of monotheism to Big Sky Daddies that is precisely what it comes down to when it is distilled to its most basic level. Namely, an infantile belief that if the individual is "good" on this earth they will be "rewarded" when they die and that this Supreme Being is ultimately in charge of everything that has existed, is existing, or will exist.

By the way as to your comment "Just because the Big Sky Daddies don't exist, doesn't mean that the universe is without spirituality and the divine."

Might I enquire where these metaphysical constructs are to be found within the known physical universe?

Yes ancient texts are a bugger aren't they? They don't come with big pictures and self help type bold print unfortunately.
Leviticus is a case in point where it is vital to understand the historical and cultural context. The Jewish people were trying to separate themselves from the Greco-Roman world as much as possible. Casual male to male relationships, and male to boy relationships, were celebrated in the Greco-Roman world. The complex set of rules create by the Judaic culture set them apart, it was about self preservation and protecting the lineage [fidelity, family, etc] You just cannot compare that with today's society where gay people live in life long, faithful relationships and have families. website puts it well

''In the Bible days, Greco-Roman society celebrated male-male sex. This was in great contrast to the Jewish culture of ancient Israel where any male-male sex appears to have been extremely closeted due to religious taboos. According to the Greeks, women were married to supply one with legitimate offspring, but all of a man?s real life occurred outside the home?away from his house-servant-wife who stayed at home and had no life.

Today, male-male relationships are said to be ?homosexual??a word coined in the late 19th century. Homosexuals by definition are ?persons sexually attracted to persons of the same sex.? Thus, we often speak of a person?s ?sexual orientation??gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual. In contrast, pederasty is at base a debate over age of consent (i.e., youth-adult relationships). The point is that the morality of ?homosexuality? and ?pederasty? are separate questions, and the current debate over homosexuality has virtually nothing in common with the culture of youth-adult relationships known to the ancient Greek philosophers and their biblical critics.

Therefore, even if the Bible condemns the ?homosexuality? of the Greco-Roman society, we can only say for certain that it was condemning some or at most all forms of pederasty, not modern homosexuality. Why? Because we would be violating the historical context of these texts if we fail to wrestle with the truth that homosexuality in our historical context isn?t even remotely like that which occurred in the Greco-Roman world. Homosexuality today may be a sin in the eyes of some, but you won?t prove it by referring to texts that at most are merely condemning pederasty.

and in response to Lucia's question, the divine is found within quantum physics, most definitely.

OlympedeGouges: "Well actually he used the OT an awful lot in his teachings, and loads of it postively!

Hardly surprising really, given that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, lived and died an observant Jew and the NT had yet to be written!

I think the first thing that needs to be made clear is that Jesus of Nazareth did not start any religion. That prize goes to Paul of Tarsus. It should also be noted that the texts of the NT were all written several decades after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest gospel, that of Mark, was written around 70 CE and probably for a group of Pauline Christians living in Rome.

Therefore, to put it in a nutshell, the whole idea of Christianity was invented by Paul of Tarsus. His ideas conflated the gravitas of Judaism with aspects of some of the various mystery religions that existed within the Hellenized ancient Near East.

the NT had yet to be written? gosh, lucia, hadn't thought of that.
The gospels were written decades after Christ's life? Gosh lucia, hadn't thought of that.

Jesus didn't start any religion? Well Paul certainly hijacked it, but he didn't start it. Making claims like that without any real back up doesn't make it true.

OlympedeGouges, that's fine if you are saying that this was just stuff written by an ancient tribe and nothing to do with god.

Does this mean that we can discount the sabbath problem that started this thread in the same way? That the couple were just trying to apply outdated tribal rules to modern life?

OlympedeGouges: Of course it should also be remembered that laws are not generally made forbidding things that don't actually take place or occur within a social group.

So that may explain the injunction in Leviticus 18:22!

I didn't say they were outdated tribal rules i said you had to seem them in context. A Rabbi would be your best bet to discuss the original point, I wouldn't know the theology of a liberal Jew, though I suspect it would be similar to my explanation.

Well make your mind up.

You seem to be picking rules and saying "oh well don't be silly of course that applies now and don't be silly of course that does NOT".

Anyway, if we believed the bible then god was there handing out rules. The locals might not have known any better, but surely god did?

Or is god able to change right from wrong just because time has passed. Does he get to change his mind and make something evil into something good or vice versa? that would be interesting.

OlympedeGouges: Depends how much you want to read! I could provide some very detailed information but it might prove tedious on a general chat forum.

As to your question regarding the OP and the couple, IMO Yes!

If we are going 'interpret' the rules then I can do that too. The one about not working on the sabbath is one that can be explained a couple of ways.

It could be that whoever was giving the orders wanted more worshippers in the temple and not out in the fields. It could have been that GOD wanted them to have leisure time to contemplate and learn and improve their lives. Either way 'not working' would have meant not doing major work. It would be silly to think that tripping over a brick and thus accidentally lining it up with another would qualify as 'building work' and break the law.

Therefore the whole light sensor thing is a non-issue.

but onager the bible is written by blokes. It is not like the Koran that is supposed have been the literal word of God, and even then there are a huge ranges of opinion and discussion within the Muslim world. If you really expect there to be this homogenous glob of belief and opinion on the Bible, taking the whole bible literally, when it so full of different voices and historical contexts and layers of translation, then, well, you are the flip side of the creationist trailer dwelling bible basher. [Although much posher obviously]

oh I don't take it seriously and until evidence arrives to the contrary must assume it was ALL written by men. That's why it makes no sense to follow it any more then I'd base my life on Russell Grant's astrology page, a collection of Aesops tales or a Victorian cookbook. Also why it's not grounds for people to impose it's rules on others and so on. It's just a collection of old stories reinterpreted 100 different ways by 100 different clubs to support what they wanted to do.

I don't think we have 'met', Lupusinallamasuit, I normally just glance at religion threads and then clear off to be a smartarse offer my wisdom elswhere. Pleased to make your acquaintance though!

Thanks for the 'much posher' btw

/runs around tidying up quickly.

well as far as i know Russell Grant hasn't said anything civilization changing on morality, social justice and compassion, but fair does if that's how you feel. I really don't get this demand for the bible to be totally literal and perfect in every way though, otherwise you reject it completely. I find that odd.

I am slightly baffled as to why has this turned into an argument about the Bible... the Bible is incoherent, therefore there is no God?

"As to your objection to my reduction of monotheism to Big Sky Daddies that is precisely what it comes down to when it is distilled to its most basic level. Namely, an infantile belief that if the individual is "good" on this earth they will be "rewarded" when they die and that this Supreme Being is ultimately in charge of everything that has existed, is existing, or will exist."

Thoughtful theists don't "distill it to it's most basic level". Again, you are setting up a crude version of religion in order to decry all religion. And tossing in the word 'infantile' for good measure.

The bible is the source of the rule that says other people mustn't use electrical sensors to control lights in case a believer passes it.

The 'warm spiritual feeling' that some call christianity doesn't have rules as such.

I'm not sure of the connection between the collection of ancient books and the 'spiritual feeling'. If the 'spiritual feeling' comes from god I would expect the claim to be that this is the same god who speaks in the bible, but since we're told that's just men speaking I don't see how the two are related in any way.

OlympedeGouges: You wrote:
"Leviticus is a case in point where it is vital to understand the historical and cultural context. The Jewish people were trying to separate themselves from the Greco-Roman world as much as possible."

Hardly! The injunctions in Leviticus have parallels within the Assyrian and Babylonian law codes. I must also ask to which groups of Jews are you referring? Those in Palestine or those who were living in the wider Hellenized world?

"In the Bible days, Greco-Roman society celebrated male-male sex."

No it didn't, that is a gross over simplification!

You need to clarify what you mean by "In the Bible days". To what period are you referring? The pre or post-exilic period? First century Judaea? Or the early Bronze age oral tradition of the Hebrews?

"Bible days" covers rather a long period of time and as such is historically totally meaningless!