Bibles, Religion and other uncomfortable topics

[bloss]

Message withdrawn

I sort of get the feeling that a lot of what I say is being ignored here. There are many Christians, including church leaders, who do not condemn homosexuality. If two people are in a loving, mutually exclusive relationship then I believe that God sees that as valid, regardless of the sexes of the people involved.

And people DO NOT go to hell because they don't believe in Christianity - we have a just and loving God who loves all equally. Nor is God only there with those that pray/ are prayed for. Prayer enables people to feel God's presence in any situation, but he is there even when we are unaware of it.

God created the world in which we live for no other reason than that he loves us. Yes, a lot of shit happens but because of his outrageuos love for us all will be put right. When I look into my daughter's eyes I see a soul, not an accident of evolution that will end with her last breath.

I think atheism is a cop-out, quite frankly. Whilst Christianity answers some questions it also raises far more. Much easier to believe in nothing and treat the simpletons who do with a patronising "aren't they sweet?"

Why is atheism a copout? Isn't it more of a copout to believe in God and the afterlife rather than believe this life is all there is and death is really the end?

No, not really. Because it then raises the sorts of issues that keep coming up here - why suffering, are we going to be divided into the winners and losers, what is judgement etc. Of course, it is easy to take a cosy view of the idea of life after death but even a cursory study of the Bible shows that this isn't the case. I'm a universalist in belief so I don't believe that we can do anything that will get us into heaven - only Jesus did that by dying for us. But because I also believe in a God whose love is so huge that no-one will be able to resist it in the end, it also means that evryone will be forgiven, and there sre an awful lot of people that I don't want to be forgiven. And I am required to love all my brothers and sisters, and I don't want to do that either.

But if I don't believe, I don't have to worry. I can pick and choose what I do "so long as it isn't hurting anyone" even though the reality may well be that I'm hurting myself. And if the end is simply oblivion, with no process of judgement (which I believe to be a revealing to ourselves of all the ugly things which we have done) -well, I don't need to worry about that either.

I can only say what I believe. I can't see into the mind of God and I could be wrong. But if I were an atheist then I'd know that I was right.

Personally I find the comment that atheism is a copout patronising at best and it could even be considered offensive.

Surely atheism is not about believing in nothing. I would imagine most atheists have beliefs about morals, about how to live their lives, about tolerance for other people, about how the world was created... it just happens that those beliefs are not based in a spiritual world. An atheist will still live by a personal moral code, it's just not one decided for them by an mysterious being.

1Cor 14(34 &35) Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.And if they learn anything let them ask their husbands at home for it is a shame for women to speak in the churches.

I love that one - how are you meant to say your marriage vows then?

I think believing that this is all there is is far more frightening. That means I really do have to face myself, and myself alone about the ugly things I do. I can't refer to a book for guidance, I am on my own here.

I really don't think that most people sail through life, living how they please, and if that means hurting someone, so be it. I think people struggle daily worrying about the effect of their decisions on others. You only need to read the site to hear of people's angst.

I think that neither is 'easy' - a belief in god gives you a set of rules that you can turn to, and gives you limitations. Not believing in god means you're on your own.

What I do find interesting is that those who believe often seem to have been looking for something, seeking a creed which suits them Surely exploring something suggests that there is a desire to find something? ie that person is more susceptible to to believing in god because, fundamentally, they want to.

I've been reading this all day and I keep wanting to ask more things but the moment seems to have passed or I've forgotten what it was I wanted to ask. I'll have to re-read most of this to remind myself what it was I wanted to ask!

So atheists don't believe in anything. I believe in trying to forgive our enemies, loving and protecting my family and friends, not dropping litter (ever), not shouting in the street at night, reading to children, giving to charity, that the death penalty is wrong, that men and women should be equal, that life is short and should be enjoyed, that forced marriage is an abomination, that racism is wrong.... and a million other things. Don't we all? Morality isn't confined to Christianity. In fact, quite a few of unbelievers find some rather immoral things in religion of all kinds.

With regard to God showing/proving himself with all all-singing-all-dancing multi-media extravaganza, maybe Luke 16:19 might help. A brief summary : Man calls from hell to send warning (in the form of dead Lazarus) to his brothers to change their ways. Abraham says no, as they have Moses and the prophets to tell them. Rich man says, no, they'll definitely pay attention if Lazarus shows up. (Substitut eany apparition, miracle "believable" idea you might have.) Abraham says if they don't believe all of the teachings they've already been given, they won't believe in Lazarus' warnings.

See, as Liamsmum (or Bloss? - sorry) pointed out the reactons to the witnessed miracles.

Jesus was tested in the desert by Satan (Luke 4:12). Satan also called for God to prove Himself , but Jesus says that you should not test God

Come on, I think God,creator of all the universe could do something a little more global than that. BTW, John says that 'you cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live' - yet he quite clearly appears to Moses and Abram. Hmm. I really don't think anyone can be a Bible believing Christian without believing two quite contradictory things at once. Or indeed, that you should be stoned to death for gathering wood (Numbers), for wearing polycotton clothes (Leviticus), for cursing your mother or father (Deuteronomy), for committing adultery, for being a dissolute son, or indeed, a rebellious one. Or do you also believe that if you and your husband have sex during your period you should both be deported (Deuteronomy). It's fab stuff the Bible, but most of it makes no sense.

Another reason why I found Christianity often immoral... 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children.'

'You may acquire male and female slaves form the pagan nations that are around you'

You see, I am nicer than God. I wouldn't do any of this!

Aloha, I'm with sobernow and WWW - you're articulating my views so clearly. I've only skimmed thro'...not enough time to read in depth, but I don't see any replies to your query as to how God can be seen in the face of both a baby and a paedophile (to paraphrase ). I guess God can't be a homophobe, since so many of those he chooses to be his priests are gay. But then, he seems to choose an awful lot of paedophiles too. Why is that? I've met some jolly nice JW's, but they've never tried to convert me. I feel a bit offended now...don't they think I'm worth saving?I heard recently that there are over 50 practicing religions in London...I've tried to work out what they can be, but I get stuck at about 15. sorry, this isn't very coherent.

Sorry if I am causing offence but I do think that there is a deliberate mis-interpretation of my words. By nothing I mean no God, not any code that you live by. And I do believe that aheism is a faith like any other.

Soupdragon- I really don't want to offend you and I apologise. It's just that I get very angry at being told by those who don't believe that my religion is worthless and that if my God exists then he is a cruel despot. Oh, and "happy- clappy" Christians are good for a laugh. Seems we Christians aren't allowed to be offended.

Actually I can see where threeangels is coming from in her earlier posting. I think I'd better leave before I hurt someone else.

But iones mum - what some of us are saying is that we do have a code by which we live but it does not come from a belief in God, but from (speaking for myself anyway) a humanistic point of view. I'm not talking about you here in particular, but I have often been struck by how very religious people often feel so threatened by the idea of people living a good life because it is the obvious thing to do, not because of an ancient work of literature.

No, ionesmum, don't go! That's not what I meant from my comment at all. I'm not hurt at all, I was merely pointing out how your comment could be constued - I would never dream of calling a belief in god a cop out.

And I don't think there was a deliberate misinterpretaiton of your words, it was a natural conclusion to draw from "much easier to believe in nothing". It certainly wasn't deliberate on my part.

No discussion about religion is ever going to be anything the than heated. It's something that people generally feel quite strongly about one way or another. Cetainly none of the things I have said are intended to be personal or hurtful. I am more than happy to accept other people's beliefs if they are prepared to accept mine - even if they are a cop out

Actually Ionesmum I agree with you so please don't leave. I don't think my posts are being read either, people are still going on about homosexuality even when I quoted from Jesus saying that he knew about them and it wasn't wrong.

Also with regards to the Old Testament and women, death, etc. You must remember that the OT was written more than 2,000 years ago when times were very different. These men may have been prophets, but at the same time they still retained many of the prejudices of their time and many of the views expressed by them are their own opinions, not God's. Jesus explained this in some way when he answered the Pharisees question about divorce, "Tell us, does our Law allow a man to divorce his wife?" Jesus answered with a question "What law did Moses give you?".."Moses gave permission for a man to write a divorce notice and send his wife away" Jesus said to them "Moses wrote this law for you because you are so hard to teach. But in the beginning God made them male and female...And for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and unite with his wife, and the two will become one...Man must not separate then, what God has joined together" So Jesus explained that some of the laws of the OT were made because basically the people needed laws, they were a bit thick then!

Simon, you say you don't like rules and regulations, but we all need rules to obey, countless experiments have been made where society has fallen apart with no rules. The Bible gives us guidelines about how to live our lives. Please read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 - 8)and you will see that Jesus issues only guidelines, if we follow his guidelines we will not go wrong. Other rules and regulations are made by individual churches, but you do not have to belong to any organised religion to be religious.

For all those intent on finding bad quotes from the Bible (mainly the OT), I challenge you to stop and read the NT, especially the Sermon on the Mount and then come back and tell me that religion is wrong and Jesus was just some geezer, son of a carpenter.

Rhubarb, but the bible is very specific on homosexuality - Leviticus says that men laying down with men is 'an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.' Not much room for doubt on that one. And Bloss has posted several times saying she is absolutely sure that it is a sin in the eyes of God. Are you saying the OT doesn't count? Or that God and Jesus don't agree? I thought they were the same person. Leviticus is supposed to be the word of God, is it not?

Faith, did you include the Aphrodite worshipping pantheists? I managed to offend one accidentally on this very thread.

No aloha, you didn't offend an 'aphrodite worshipping pantheist' either. I said I was a pagan and that SOME pagans might be offended by your comments, not that I was. I don't happen to worship Aphrodite but thanks for making an offhand flippant assumption again.

Thank you .

I must sound like I have a real downer on atheists but actually dd's nominated guardians are non-believers, who are two of the most moral people I know. And one of the most abusive relationships that I know is in a Christian family, so I don't claim that we have the moral high ground at all. And I certainly don't feel threatened by humanist belief, but then I don't base my faith on an ancient piece of literature either.

I base my conclusions on homosexuality on the words of Jesus Christ : Love others as you wish to be loved yourself; and he that is without sin cast the first stone. (Big paraphrases here.) I have no right to judge others but I should love and understand them. Of course the O.T. is still relevant but with Jesus came a new covenant with his people. There are huge chunks of Leviticus which have been ignored for centuries but the bit about homosexuality is always dragged up.

I do get tired with the crap that is thrown at Christianity. It seems to me that we are expected just to take it, and it's hard not to be offended by some of the comments that have been made here, not about Christians but about God himself.

Rhubarb, the quote that you have posted here is v. interesting. Thanks for your support.

I hope that you don't think I'm a bigoted old bag now.

Back to the original topic of bible translations and specifically the allegations regards the King James Version being the only reliable one, I asked my theologically minded father to comment, and for what it's worth, I received his reply this evening. I reproduce it here and have not altered any of it ( no translations here, mate!)It's a bit heavy but it may be of interest to some of you.

Re. our previous correspondence I have been looking into the various references.
The ref. in Isaiah 14;12 is primarily a ref. to the king of Babylon who had set himself up as a god. It is used tauntingly by Isaiah. It was not God who considered him to be the morning star but that he himself did. It was similar to the "I am the greatest" boast of Muhammed Ali.There may be here a hint of Satan's original fall although that would be a secondary meaning. If you compare this with Ezek.28;2 you will see what I mean. Jesus is the true morning star (Rev.22;16) and the Babylonian king and maybe Satan as well were arrogating this title to themselves and usurping His title.This arrogance would inevitably lead to their downfall. Clearly the N.I.V. translators would not take a divine title and apply it to Satan. The lady's misunderstanding seems to arise from her failure to understand the context and the way the title is tauntingly applied by Isaiah to the king of Babylon.
Re. Isaiah 9;3. The K.J.V. is out on a limb on this one. The N.I.V. and all other modern translations agree. If you read the rest of the verse you will see that the N.I.V. makes sense. The K.J.V. appears to contradict itself. It says "Thou has NOT increased the joy " and then says " they joy before Thee". Does that make sense to you?
With regard to the verses left out, these are all included in the footnotes and have been omitted from the main text for sound scholarly reasons. None of them relate to any of the principal doctrines of the faith.
The lady appears. in my opinion, to be under the following misapprehensions.

1. She appears to be under the impression that the K.J.V. is inspired and divinely approved in a way that other versions are not.
2. She seems to impugn the integrity and motivation of those who produced the N.I.V.
3. She appears to deprecate the research and scholarship which went into the production of the N.I.V. If you read the preface you will see what I mean.
4. She is mistaken in saying that the .KJV. was the first Bible in English. Has she never heard of Wycliffe, Tyndale or Coverdale?
5. She herself is unique in having been a Christian from birth. What about being born again - Jn.3;7 " ye must br born again"KJV. Thanks for passing a copy of her original email to me. I have found the research quite stimulating. Love, Dad.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn