Since we've gotten told to stop talking generally about religion twice in the Homosexuality and Religion thread and were told that, if we want to talk generally about religion, we need to make a new thread, I have made a new thread.
Full disclosure: I am an agnostic atheist and anti-theist, but I'm very interested in theology and religion.
Mod Edit: All right, there are a couple of ground rules here:
- This is not a thread for mindless bashing of religion or of atheism/agnosticism etc. All view points are welcome here. Let's have a civil debate.
- Religion is a volatile subject. Please don't post here if you can't manage a civil discussion with viewpoints you disagree with. There will be no tolerance for people who can't keep the tone light hearted.
- There is no one true answer for this thread. Don't try to force out opposing voices.
edited 9th Feb '14 1:01:31 PM by Madrugada
![]()
Doesn't the Qur'an do it too? I heard that even translating it to another language was considered sacrilegious and the Qur'an only retained its sacredness in Arabic. On the other hand though, i also heard Arabic is a language that lends itself to being interpreted in multiple ways so there is that too.
And then it is also possible for it to have been written with clarity by its authors but failing against humanity's ability to offer different interpretations of any work due to cultural, political and other influences.
![]()
It speaks less about the Bible and the Christians, but more about the Romans.
Shit, maybe I should have been worshipping Romans instead all these times.
That's more of inguistic superiority and exclusivity.
It helps that the Qur’an was verifiably written by one guy.
The thing about Biblical infallibility is really annoying too, because the way it’s talked about means it’s referring to the Hebrew Scriptures and not anything in the New Testament (I think it’s Paul who talks about it and he probably didn’t know about the Gospels) and the bit about how not one word must be changed is in Revelation and it’s just a standard bit of boilerplate for books like that from that time period, it doesn’t actually apply to the rest of the Bible.
The idea that "the Qur'an was verifiably written by one guy" is more of a religious dogma than something we actually have scholarly or scientific knowledge of. The Other Wiki
quotes a scholar of Islamic studies:
Self-proclaimed Christian here. I've taken a few religion courses at university, though I'm not in a seminary.
Okay, first of all, y'all never can seem to decide on which parts to take literally and which parts seriously.
Well, humans do tend to disagree on things. That's bound to happen, given that we tend to sometimes not notice some things while reading, and that we often read our pre-existing opinions into books. This isn't just a thing with the Bible: we humans are like this with laws, scientific research, historical documents, the Scrabble rulebook, and more.
As Jonathan Swift once said,note "Laws penned with the utmost care and exactness, and in the vulgar language, are often perverted to wrong meanings; then why should we wonder that the Bible is so?"
As for allegory: well, you can discern what parts are allegory and what parts are literal the same way you would any other book. Too bad we have clouded judgement with the Bible like any other book.
"I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17–18)"
Uh, hey, Jesus?
So...all the genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, etc bits in the OT, especially the likes of Exodus and Leviticus, they are still on the table...?
This delves more into theology than anything else, but notice that he says "until all is accomplished" at the end of his sentence there. In Christian belief, all was accomplished on the cross. Christians believe those laws were a temporary arrangement that would regulate Israel until Jesus fulfilled God's promises. For "after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:25
).
Of course, Jewish people would disagree with that assessment. But they also have their own theology about how those laws apply to people today, and we're talking about Christianity.
Ignoring that I don't see the need to mention US politics here, in what way does the Bible "boast about it's clarity" as you say?
I know there are passages that talk about how clear the Gospel is, but those are only talking about how clear the instructions on what to do to be saved are. Not so much everything in the entirety of the Bible.
Edited by m-95 on Apr 26th 2023 at 11:39:48 AM
JustForFun.How To Be An Anti HeroFirst of all, I'm glad someone from the Christian side is joining the discussion, as it started to become a bit one-sided.
(x2)
Fair enough. But I do know many Christians who will say that there is more than one valid reading of scripture; it's just that some readings are better than others might be.
There's also the question of what metric "validity" is even measured by. Generally it's seen as "the intents of the authors," but there's the fact that there are multiple authors all likely with different intents. There's also the fact that most Christians believe the text is divinely inspired, so there's the question of if God's intent in inspiring an author is the same as the author's intent in writing . . .
You get the point. It can be a headache.
Though one of the courses I took in university introduced me to an interesting quote from Augustine, which reads:note
Whether that's a helpful mindset for academic discussion of the Bible is another question, but I still found it interesting.
JustForFun.How To Be An Anti HeroPaul very obviously didn’t think his letters were going to mean much outside of the specific churches and people he was writing them to, because he references questions he’s answering but never bothers actually restating the questions. And because different churches were having different problems, you run into this weird issue where he tells one church that the women shouldn’t speak, but he praises another church for being run by women and there’s a few things like that. You also run into problems like his weird statement that’s taken as denouncing gay people where he just kinda drops it in there and doesn’t give any context. And the city it was written to had a temple with male prostitutes. It’s not hard to see that maybe he was talking about people adhering to a specific form of Roman worship being a problem, especially since the guy talked down marriage a bunch of times and basically said that you should only get married if the alternative is adultery.
We’re also definitely missing letters because more than once he references (without actually stating what it was) something from a “previous letter” and it’s not in any of the ones we have.
The result of this is that Christianity got very heavily shaped by the incomplete thoughts of this other guy who had a lot of very strong opinions to the point that a lot of churches actually pay more attention to Paul than Jesus.
Not to mention the fact that only ~7 of the Pauline letters are authentic letters written by the guy. Some of the other letters were written in his name but the writing style and content showed a strong likelihood they were written by someone else. They were probably written at a later date and addressing issues contemporary to that writer but wanted to use Paul's authority to promote their views.
Edited by nightwyrm_zero on Apr 26th 2023 at 12:24:06 PM
I thought Paul died but they replaced him with a lookalike to avoid disappointing his fans. :P
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NOWell, I should probably clarify that there were likely multiple Paul imitators. Titus and both Timothy were probably written by the same guy but Colossians, Ephesians and 2nd Thessalonians probably have a different author, maybe one or more followers of Paul. Like, Titus and the Tims were so different that all scholars accepts they are not Paul's while the other three are closer to Paul's originals such that there are debates around them.
I mentioned them because they sometimes are literally making laws with the only justification being morality and infallibility of the Bible. Still, I concede that it IS not the most appropriate nor on-topic for this thread so I won't be making further references to that.
As for one of the examples:
"They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." (Romans 1:19-20, New Living Translation)
Ah, yes. Very clear.
The most stupid defense of the Bible's vague nature I heard was, just because you can't see air, it doesn't disprove its existence.
Except...you know, you can actually, scientifically and with absolute certainty, prove the existence of air...? At
There's also the question of what metric "validity" is even measured by. Generally it's seen as "the intents of the authors," but there's the fact that there are multiple authors all likely with different intents. There's also the fact that most Christians believe the text is divinely inspired, so there's the question of if God's intent in inspiring an author is the same as the author's intent in writing . . .
You get the point. It can be a headache.
There you go, you are getting there.
You can say many things about the Bible, maybe some of them good. But "authentic" is not one of them.
Also as for the clarity, see, tabletop games like D&D has ridiculously long and specific lists of rules. The creators knew and observed how the players can be hilariously creative and circumvent/exploit the rules in imaginative ways.
IF the Bible is really written by God (it very obviously isn't), he kinda probably should have put more oversight in writing a rule-book for entire human existence and beyond.
Preferably with Biblical Amendments at least every century or so.
Edited by dRoy on Apr 26th 2023 at 8:45:49 PM
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing."It's...kinda insane how billions of people for over a millennium (well, it's not quite two millennia yet) treat it as if it's some kind of an unquestionable authority."
Except that's only really true for a relatively small community of Evangelical Protestants, mostly centered in the US. Everyone else understands the need to interpret it. There are even some biblical scholars
who flat out conclude that many passages in the Gospels are likely not historically authentic.
It isn't even true that most Christians believe that God wrote it. I was raised in a fairly liberal Methodist context, and I was taught that people wrote it, and so therefore each passage is someone's interpretation of what God is like. You pretty much have to pick the parts that make the most sense to you. For those Christians, it's a source of inspiration, not a rulebook.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The biggest reason (among many) that I was received into the Catholic Church is because no text can admit of only one interpretation, or establish its own authoritativeness. If the correct meaning isn't to locate itself just within every reader's hat, it has to be with something that has the God-given charism to infer it, and to teach about it authoritatively Otherwise, it's tough to establish a basis for understanding that doesn't devolve into hermeneutic Calvinball.
Edited by Jhimmibhob on May 31st 2023 at 10:11:34 AM
A mentor's students writing in their mentor's name to lend more authority to their teachings was just something people did back then. Look at the big Greek philosophers. All the things they supposedly said were written down by their students and probably some of them were the students' own philosophies.
Also, the whole idea behind the Papacy in Catholicism is supposed to be to make "amendments" when real world situations and scenarios don't have an answer in the Bible, or there's conflicting ideas.
Edited by PhiSat on Apr 27th 2023 at 1:09:34 PM
Oissu!Earlier in this thread, we were talking about how Egyptian mythology feels kind of underrated compared to Greek mythology. Having read up on it, it feels like Assyro-Babylonian mythology could use more love.
They do still have some presence at least. Gilgamesh, Ishtar, Tiamat, and other names from it have permeated media.
Marduk ironically isn't quite so famous even though he was the Top God.
Disgusted, but not surprised

Assuming Christianity is the correct religion, yes.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times