Organised religion debate

[ACubed]

Greetings! After a good debate in another thread it was suggested someone makes a new thread posing some questions about religion, so here are some talking points, I'll number them so easier to reference:

1. holy books - do people believe the stories actually happened? If so how can you square this with modern science/evolution, and if not how can you pick and choose what exists?

2. do people of faith acknowledge that the holy books contradict themselves?

3. is the sexism in the holy texts acceptable? How can this be the true word of God if it's so darn mean?

4. if you had been born into another religion would you follow it or convert? For example, if any muslims on here had instead been born in a Jewish family do you think you would have converted to Islam?

5. following on from that, is it not surely luck which faith most people follow? How does this affect your certainty in your faith?

6. why do none of the holy texts mention the evolution of mankind, other planets or galaxies, or any other modern science which has been proven?

Sure there are lots more questions but I've gone blank. I'm more than happy to answer any questions like these on my lack of faith!

I see your point altik.

user have you been reading The Da Vinci Code by any chance? There's nothing to say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute - she's often taken to be the same as the woman who Jesus saved from stoning for adultery, but there's no actual evidence for that. Mary was a prominent follower of Jesus but we can't jump to the conclusion that she was his wife just because of that! And God didn't write the Bible, people did - so the early church had to try and sort out which of the writings about Jesus came the closest to the truth about him and which were full of made up stories (like Mary Magdalene being Jesus's wife), ideas that have little to do with Christianity and other stuff.

The only Biblical literalist I have met ran his own splinter church as he could not agree with any one denomination. He gave me all sorts of links to odd websites that 'proved' that the world was only 4000ish years old. The only sense I could make of it was that for him the authority of the Bible was tied up in the authorship of the text. God wrote it, God is infallible thus the Bible is infallible. As a result arguing with him was pointless as I was a woman and women are not allowed to teach in his denomination but all to argue about the status of the Bible was tied up in the status of God, perfect and inerrant.

Does that help?

ideas that have little to do with Christianity and other stuff.

That's the whole point though. Your ideas of what Christianity is, is based on what books the niceans decided.

My religion is kindness - none of the above has any relevance at all for me.

Well, it seems reasonable to me that Christians decide what Christianity is and isn't.

That's my point niminy- if it is Gods Devine law, you can't pick and choose what you want?

The other thing that abhors me about organised religion is the arrogance of man deciding he knows what God is like, or what he wants.

What I've trying to understand is why some people can not take the bible stories literally, but ones about Jesus they do take literally - how can people decide what's real and what's a metaphor? Why isn't god then a metaphor for justice?

The thing that I don't get with the bible is that it was written by humans, and humans decided which bits should go in it. Yet it's presented as the Word of God.

The part perhaps you are missing is that it is the inspired word of God. God often came to people in visions and dreams (think Joseph interpreting the dream none of the magicians or wise men could, when he was a slave) and gave many an instruction to prophets to take to the people. This is the sort of inspiration God gave to the writers as they penned the pages. That’s why it’s an honest book about people’s faults as well as their amazing faith.

Altik I invited someone who had studied it out first. You clearly haven’t if you’re telling me you teach the basics but have no idea what Christians think. Those websites are out there if you can be bothered to look. The fact you haven’t, comes across more as just wanting to trap and discredit something you have no interest in understanding. But I will answer anyway for the benefit of lurkers interested in my answer.

The order of creation is like this. Chapter one has it in consecutive order. Chapter two is a synopsis of events. Imagine if my diary is as follows:

9am school run
10am Hospital appointment
11am post office for stamps
12:30pm lunch with work colleagues
3pm school run
4pm visist to the park
6pm Cooked dinner
7pm bathed kids
8pm went out to the cinema with husband

Then, in a phone call to my mum the next day, when she asks what I did yesterday, I tell her that I ate out with friends, managed to post my Christmas cards, and saw “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” and quite enjoyed it. Oh and I could hardly believe how many trees in the park when I was there, still have their leaves on in December.

This doesn’t change a single thing about my day, but I’ve recounted it jumbled up. If someone was going to pick me apart they could say that I was lying about taking the kids to the park after the school run because they saw me at the hospital appointment. Or they could argue I didn’t go to my hospital appointment because I have left that out of my conversation with Mum on the phone.

Secondly, in Genesis 1 you have day and night several days before the sun and moon being created. How does this work...?

If God was miraculously creating the universe then I think he's well capable of sorting this one out as well. God provided light himself, then created the “lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night” so they could serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and light on the earth. Various different parts of the bible tell us God is a bright light:

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5).

Revelation 21:23
And the city has no need for sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.

Altik The genealogies have already been discussed I realise, but in short, people say that it’s not impossible one account follows Mary’s line (since she was a virgin) and the other Joseph’s (since he is the earthly father) and critics aren’t taking into account the tradition of widows being taken in by a closest relative (not always a brother) to continue the family line. If you’re doing the family tree, do you go through the first family line or the second, or if a widow has more than 2 husbands, a third or a fourth? All of these are reasonable explanations for the differences. Matthew traces genealogy from Jesus to Abraham and Luke traces from Jesus to Adam, however there is good reason to believe that they are tracing different genealogies because for example, Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob, while Luke gives Joseph’s father as Heli. Matthew traces the line through David’s son Solomon but Luke traces it through David’s son Nathan. The Jews were meticulous record-keepers when it comes to genealogies, and so very unlikely that they’d have made a mistake here. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi and Mattham were married at different times to the same woman Estha). This would make Heli and Jacob half brothers. Heli then died without a son so his half brother married Heli’s widow when then gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the son of Heli legally and son of Jacob biologically. Matthew following one line and Luke the other.

And finally, In Matthew 2, it says Jesus was born under the rule of Herod, but in Luke 2, it says Jesus was born under the rule of Quirinius in Syria (who commissioned the census). But historical records show Herod died sometime between 6 and 4 BCE, but Quirinius was not governor until 6CE

AS usual there is more than one reasonable explanation. When stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. People who study this out think this shows Quirinius may not have been the “official” governor of Judea, but he was given the position of governor for the census because he was more able than the person actually holding that full position (Saturninus).

It’s not impossible that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. And on account of his handling of the 7 B.C. census, Augustus later put him in charge of the official 7 A.D. census."7 Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch. If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later.

Also Ezekiel 28 is supposed to depict the fall, but it does state that it was about the fall of the King of Babylon. Do you take it to mean both literally? Or is one metaphorical? If so, which one?

The prince/king of Tyre is a dual prophesy, represented Satan’s fall. Both happened. Here’s a bit of good bedtime reading for further details gotquestions.org/King-of-Tyre.html

I would love any feedback on what believers think about people with limited brain capacity being allowed into heaven if they have not accepted god

David had a child die, and he comforted himself with the thought, “Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). David knew that he would see his child in heaven one day. From that statement, we can assume that babies and young children were, by God's grace, covered for salvation by Christ’s death. Remember that God chooses the day we are born and the day we die, and a God of mercy will be consistent with this.

ACubed. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Christians are taking a different approach to the old and new treatment. If a Christian is from a very conservative stream that takes the Bible literally (and that is rare in the UK) then they will be taking both books literally. Those of us in the mainstream denominations whether we are conservative or liberal or somewhere in the middle are well aware that we are dealing with different genre so the gospels in the New Testament are different to the myths of the book of Genesis, the poetry of the psalms and the words of the prophets. We have four gospels which were designed for different audiences and were never intended to be modern reportage as that didn't exist then.

To work with the Bible is complex. As I prepare to preach I have to go back to who wrote the passage, who were the intended audience, translation issues and how a NT passage is informed by the OT scriptures and the culture it is written in. I might look at what the tradition such as the desert fathers says about a passage or Christians from another tradition. All that happens before I ask how that might inform where we are today and how we might apply it in the 21st century. What I don't do is read off a page on a Sunday and tell people to believe it.

greenheart again this highlights my point. - going back and studying the translation context etc and then applying it to the modern day means that the bible/word of God is again interpreted by man, and and slant is put on it - the bible is again being "diluted" or changed iyswim?

I'm not saying you are wrong but it seems to me to be a lot like the game of Chinese whispers that used to be played as kids - no one has any intention of doing wrong or changing the message but it gets changed all the same

I'm not sure what your point is.

I have been a Christian for over 30 years now so it does get on my wick slightly to be told how I should be reading the Bible give that I have studied it at undergraduate and post graduate level at a secular universities as well as continued private study. I spend hours each week wrestling with it and I've got three sermons to preach over the next 12 days which are as yet unwritten so I need to get back to that. If you want to believe that the Bible should be treated as text downloaded from the Almighty then fine but please realise that is not what (most) Christians do, even if you really want them to. It is a fairly common move by anti theists to portray all Christians as fundamentalists. There are only so many ways I can say that this is not the case so I will get back to sermon writing.

it does get on my wick slightly to be told how I should be reading the Bible give that I have studied it at undergraduate and post graduate level at a secular universities as well as continued private study

Which can be said for all biblical scholars, of which many reject any of the supernatural claims within.

Going back to the Nicean creed: how did they know which gospels/books to reject and which became part of the official library? It calls to mind the CofE vote on female bishops, there wasn't a consensus then, even among the highest tier of the clergy. Going on your logic that time+depth = accuracy of interpretation then how so not all the top level of the CofE were in unanimous agreement? Again, seeing that everyone with a lot of biblical study under the belt feel they are getting the real gist of it, it appears that it comes down to the reader.

It seems more sensible to me to conclude that people interpret the bible in line with their own established beliefs on morality. This would explain a similar correlation of attitudes towards gay rights within and without religion in that I know religious and non-religious people who both reject or actively champion LGBT rights.

Can any of the christians here think of a time their attitude/belief about something was at odds with what they interpreted the bible to be saying?

It is a fairly common move by anti theists to portray all Christians as fundamentalists.

Ah, I think I know why it feels this way. As a skeptic I draw out the logical fallacies/cognitive dissonance within a believer to illustrate the contradictions within the belief system. It's because I know you're not a fundamentalist that I can debate, I can get your own morals and empathy and reason to do the work, the trick is to ask the right question.

greenheart My point which is similar to what boolifooli appears to be saying - that the bible is the interpretation of Man, let's take in theory that the Original gospels were inspired by God, and that man wrote the Gospel, that being the word or the inspiration from God - man has now diluted the Gospel so far that it cannot be regarded as the original teachings - take for example the King James Bible - (from Wikipedia) James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[7] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

This is basically saying that King James told them to translate it to a firm which suited a purpose.

Re the NT there are also issues when the Council of Nicea discounted a large number of gospels and chose four which suited the church at the time - if these gospels were all inspired by God then Why we're only four included as the main text????

I don't see us going past the gospels being written by God argument. Everything else hangs off this. Really no.

The KJV is poetic but new discoveries of earlier and more complete manuscripts means that it is not the most accurate translation. All our Bibles are in translation and because language reflects culture you can't get word for word correspondence. I suppose from the outside it may look as if Christians are being obtuse and surely there must be one answer but what we are trying to do is make sense of the text and the culture and our culture and psychology and science and ourselves and humbly do our best. I said upthread was that if you get 3 Christians in a room you get 4 opinions. Which makes life interesting. But we are all committed to try and work out how to live life in relationship with Jesus, love our God and love our neighbour.

I suppose if your worldview says there can be no God it looks a bit weird. I tried very hard to be an atheist but it didn't work for me. My experiences of the triune God meant that I started to explore what Christians believed rather than what I wanted to think they believed and that ended in ordination. Asking questions can be the start of an interesting journey....

As a skeptic I draw out the logical fallacies/cognitive dissonance within a believer to illustrate the contradictions within the belief system.

boolifooli, I don't know what you'd do with me, then, because I am drawn to an experience of cognitive dissonance. It fascinates me. What it often indicates, I feel, is a complex relationship between things, where pole opposites can be true, depending on context, over time. So I look for context and patterns over time.

Funny green I was speaking to a minister the other day and that's exactly what he said, although I believe in a higher power God if you like I'm not a follower of organised religion, and the reason for that is the organiser of religion, that organiser being man.

I think that there are a lot of things that man has included In the bible that are poetic licence shall we say - an illustration of this wasn't a documentary on Netflix regarding the exodus - this doc showed that the Old Testament is wrong as regards exodus, and it could not possibly have happened as described - now if this was correct then this throws all modern "popular" religion into doubt. - no exodus means no Judaism, no Judaism means that Jesus was incorrect in his teaching, and his talk of the prophecies beforehand, but when it is drilled down to brass tacks, it is believed that there was a mass exodus - however in translation or writing someone has written "in the time of Rameses" in the bible - man has added his slant to it and has literally rewritten history.

Christmas Peace

Altik I invited someone who had studied it out first. You clearly haven’t if you’re telling me you teach the basics but have no idea what Christians think. Those websites are out there if you can be bothered to look. The fact you haven’t, comes across more as just wanting to trap and discredit something you have no interest in understanding. But I will answer anyway for the benefit of lurkers interested in my answer.

Thank you... believe me I have researched these issues out. I was just trying to be brief and keep my posts short. For example, for the differences between Genesis 1 and 2, I usually teach my students that many theologians believe in the documentary hypothesis, and that Genesis 1 was written by the Priestly source, whereas from Genesis 2v4b onwards, it was taught by the Yahwehistic source, with a redactor in between.

The questions asked are ones that students have specifically asked in relation to topics covered.

However, at the moment, my students have been studying Bultmann's theory of demythologisation. And in particular, his claim that to believe the Bible literally, one has to undergo the "sacrificium intellectus" as he put it. Hence, there has been lots of questions about Biblical literalists of late, how they interpret the Bible and whether Bultmann has got a point, or is it rather insulting to Christians. They have been studying this in conjunction with David Jenkins. So in short - Bultmann claims you have three approaches to the Bible...

Be a biblical literalist, but undergo the sacrificium intellectus.

Be a biblical conservative, but reduce the bible to a social gospel

Or demythologise the Bible.

Those who are Christians in my class, have already contributed to the debate on the relative strengths and merits of the conservative / liberal approach, because that is the view of most Christians in my group. But none are Biblical literalists, which has made it difficult to evaluate Bultmann's claims, because they haven't had any "real life" Christian views to put it against. So, if you don't mind, I'll share your responses (as an anonymous Christian) to see what they will think.

Out of interest, my other class concluded that Bultmann was wrong; his approach was patronising and he ultimately undermined belief in the Bible, and so achieved nothing. Many students felt comfortable demythologising some parts of the Bible (Jonah, Moses, Noah etc...) but they felt uncomfortable with demythologising other parts - particularly the nativity and events surrounding the life of Jesus. Many students felt that Bultmann's approach ultimately undermined religious belief and several preferred William James' pragmatic theory of truth instead.

So thank you, this really was a genuine question, for genuine reasons... and thank you for giving me a reasoned response.. it will really help my students, in a way that is relevant and responds to debates they've had, questions they've raised rather than random comments I could have got from the internet, but would not have had the same value. I hope you can see why!

If a book is written in different languages then re written then would you consider it still to be the original words as was said at a particular time or more of a collection of words inspired by ?

Sorry, forgot to add - I appreciate I have over simplified some points for brevity!

The fact you haven’t, comes across more as just wanting to trap and discredit something you have no interest in understanding.

But that's a debate. One side points out an inconsistency and the other side answers and dismantles the criticism. If they can't then there is a habit to attack the person, attack their reasons for asking. Truth is it doesn't matter. What matters is being able to lay out a water right reason.

If you find you can't then an online debate probably isn't for you.

where pole opposites can be true, depending on context, over time. So I look for context and patterns over time

Yes I look for patterns to when I'm not sure. When I first met my DH I took my time to work out his character. He seemed polite and funny and kind. If I had found out he had a history of genocide or drowning babies it would be fairly clear cut for me no matter how many old ladies he helped across the road today. If I told you I had found out he drowned a bath full of 2 week old babies, but that I stayed with him because, you know, life is mysterious and complex and full of contradictions I'm fairly certain you'd be very alarmed with my wellbeing.