Non Believers: I'm What's Called a Pessimist

[Rorshach]

8 minutes ago, Seli said:

As a basic first approach this a nonsensical discussion anyway. The bible (in all its textual flux) is not the only basis of christianity, tradition is just as important.

That is something which differentiates denominations. Catholics - yes. Orthodox - I’ll leave that to Scott.

As for Lutherans, evangelicals etc .. no, not really. Tradidion not grounded in scripture isn’t considered important in a doctrinal way. And, since (I persume) those are the ones Dr. Pepper refers to, it actually isn’t all that nonsensical. 

 

[Seli]

1 hour ago, Rorshach said:

That is something which differentiates denominations. Catholics - yes. Orthodox - I’ll leave that to Scott.

As for Lutherans, evangelicals etc .. no, not really. Tradidion not grounded in scripture isn’t considered important in a doctrinal way. And, since (I persume) those are the ones Dr. Pepper refers to, it actually isn’t all that nonsensical. 

 

Lutherans still have bishops as far as I am aware, so still build on tradition. Same with the Orthodox, same with the Anglicans.

And of course everyone who interprets texts does so from their own culture, their own expectations, their own traditions. And the texts they read have lost their original context, the knowledge that the original audiences brought to them.

And of course words change, meanings change. Obvious famously in Ecclesiastes 1 where the traditional translation 'vanity' has gained so much other meaning that modern translations don't use it anymore. But still plenty of groups adhere to those obsolete translations, because tradition dictates that for example only the King James version is proper.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

6 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Your claim stated that the text could be used to defend a «fuck everyone else»policy. It is therefore not stupid at all to ask for a text translated as to be able to defend that. 

Also, please do rephrase people better in the future. Having people speaking derogatory about you on the basis of them not understanding you is bad manners. 

It's starting to feel like I'm bullying the small child on the playground.  This is something extraordinarily simple.

Ok, so the text we are discussing is the bible.  This is the major text in most (I'm not familiar with ALL) sects of christianity.  It's translated in hundreds of languages and in some of those languages there are multiple translations.  Churches and denominations use this text as their doctrine.  They can interpret it differently based on region, language, and other general culture.  It's how you might get one person who reads this book and will decide that living by it's tenets means walking past a hungry homeless child while another who reads the books will decide that living by it's rules means to feed that child.  

You see this is other religions as well.  For example, some Muslims believe that their text commands them to kill nonbelievers and/or their allies while other Muslims believe their text commands peace.  This difference in interpretation issue is quite common, even outside religion.  Sometimes it might happen in a game, like Telephone where I'll hear you say something and will tell the next person but something in the meaning has been changed by perhaps a simple word.  

[MercenaryChef]

i am an adamant atheist. when i was younger i was quite combative regarding my lack of beliefs and when pressed by people would get very aggressive. i have mellowed a good deal on it, but still have no place in my world for the hyper religious. 

i cringe when i am told that people pray for me. when i hear things like 'god works in mysterious ways' i want to throw up. i totally get it. i understand that there are a lot of people who get great solace 'knowing' that there is this fantastic afterlife for them and god is looking out for them or whatnot. but, to me it is a weakness. the sheer hypocrisy that so many who are proponents of the teachings of christ piss me off. 

however, i have met some pretty cool folks who are religious. they keep it to themselves. it is the pushy types, it is the people who excuse mass shootings and other bullshit as tests of god, the religious followers who use their religion to excuse bigotry, the people who can't fucking grasp science, they can all fuck off. and goodness knows at least the united states is littered with them. 

 

[mankytoes]

Anyone who literally followed the Bible would be seen as crazy or evil, have you guys read Leviticus?

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, mankytoes said:

Anyone who literally followed the Bible would be seen as crazy or evil, have you guys read Leviticus?

Something something gays bad something something enslave your daughter something.  That one?

It's just so weird how some people read that and interpret it one way (such as fuck everyone in that group) and some read it and interpret it as "hey, we can ignore this section".  Right?  Right?  Ahem, @Rorshach

[Martell Spy]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Something something gays bad something something enslave your daughter something.  That one?

It's just so weird how some people read that and interpret it one way (such as fuck everyone in that group) and some read it and interpret it as "hey, we can ignore this section".  Right?  Right?  Ahem, @Rorshach

Something else, not every Christian reads every passage of the Bible, or remembers every part with perfect memory. I certainly have never read the entire Bible. I've made some attempts, but it's quite the slog. The average member might read some passages, but they are often told where to go by leaders. Or they'll hear some sermon or talk about a certain passage, often making some kind of point.

In the Witnesses, we had various books that basically boiled down what was in the Bible and presented it in a more pleasing and easy to read format, often with colored illustrations. There was a kid's version as well. I don't think they purposely changed what was in the Bible or deceived people, but if they wanted to I would not have been enough of a Bible reader to catch it.

Also, of course there is both the Old Testament and the New Testament. And some church leaders long ago decided what books were included.

And yes, Leviticus is notorious. Yet someone thought it was a good idea to include it.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Something else, not every Christian reads every passage of the Bible, or remembers every part with perfect memory. I certainly have never read the entire Bible. I've made some attempts, but it's quite the slog. The average member might read some passages, but they are often told where to go by leaders. Or they'll hear some sermon or talk about a certain passage, often making some kind of point.

And the leaders of each church have tons of influence over what they want their flock to get out of the bible.  If you have a pastor/priest/reverend and other leadership boards very interested in X or Y, then all those sermons are going to focus heavily on X and Y, and presented in a way that leader wants their sheep to hear.  

If anyone wants to go down a rabbit hole, go check out sermons from various mega churches, even the 'small' mega churches.  These churches tend to be non denominational and built around a single pastor so there can be a sort of cult of personality to it.  It's something....well, it's something.  

[LongRider]

30 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Something else, not every Christian reads every passage of the Bible, or remembers every part with perfect memory. I certainly have never read the entire Bible. I've made some attempts, but it's quite the slog. The average member might read some passages, but they are often told where to go by leaders. Or they'll hear some sermon or talk about a certain passage, often making some kind of point.

 

This sounds very much like my experience with Catholicism  The authority came from the clergy, not the bible.  Yea, the book had it's place, bible quotes were always good for sermons on Sunday.  It was the hierarchy set the rules; from the Pope on down to the parish priest with the nuns at the bottom.  Kids in school we had catechism and constant surveillance by the nuns.  Didn't want to be sinnin' ya know.  I came away from that with plenty of guilt and fear.  Hella way to run an outfit, keeps folks in line tho. 

[Martell Spy]

14 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

This sounds very much like my experience with Catholicism  The authority came from the clergy, not the bible.  Yea, the book had it's place, bible quotes were always good for sermons on Sunday.  It was the hierarchy set the rules; from the Pope on down to the parish priest with the nuns at the bottom.  Kids in school we had catechism and constant surveillance by the nuns.  Didn't want to be sinnin' ya know.  I came away from that with plenty of guilt and fear.  Hella way to run an outfit, keeps folks in line tho. 

Yeah, the Witnesses kind of pretend they don't have clergy. It's kind of weird. But they certainly do have leaders. And sorry ladies, but it's strictly a patriarchy. The guys called Elders are running everything and there's these guys called ministerial servants, who are a bit like deacons or something. I was never quite clear what they all did, but they were some sort of leader, yet ranked below the Elders. 

But actually, a lot of the talks aren't done by the leaders, although that happens sometimes. A lot of the regular followers did talks. And like the leadership, men only were allowed to give the talks.

And there's some organization in New York running it all. And districts are overseen by Circuit Overseers, kind of a strange name.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Yeah, the Witnesses kind of pretend they don't have clergy. It's kind of weird. But they certainly do have leaders. And sorry ladies, but it's strictly a patriarchy. The guys called Elders are running everything and there's these guys called ministerial servants, who are a bit like deacons or something. I was never quite clear what they all did, but they were some sort of leader, yet ranked below the Elders. 

But actually, a lot of the talks aren't done by the leaders, although that happens sometimes. A lot of the regular followers did talks. And like the leadership, men only were allowed to give the talks.

And there's some organization in New York running it all. And districts are overseen by Circuit Overseers, kind of a strange name.

I hope you don't me saying this, but the descriptions of the JW's you've put in your posts make them see quite weird to me.  A different culture from the Catholic's of course.  I throw away their literature whenever I find it as I'm the bane of laundromats.  

[Rorshach]

5 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's starting to feel like I'm bullying the small child on the playground.  This is something extraordinarily simple.

Ok, so the text we are discussing is the bible.  This is the major text in most (I'm not familiar with ALL) sects of christianity.  It's translated in hundreds of languages and in some of those languages there are multiple translations.  Churches and denominations use this text as their doctrine.  They can interpret it differently based on region, language, and other general culture.  It's how you might get one person who reads this book and will decide that living by it's tenets means walking past a hungry homeless child while another who reads the books will decide that living by it's rules means to feed that child.  

You see this is other religions as well.  For example, some Muslims believe that their text commands them to kill nonbelievers and/or their allies while other Muslims believe their text commands peace.  This difference in interpretation issue is quite common, even outside religion.  Sometimes it might happen in a game, like Telephone where I'll hear you say something and will tell the next person but something in the meaning has been changed by perhaps a simple word.  

I’m not going to pursue this discussion. You have been told repeatedly that you do not get my point - and instead of asking for clarification, making sure you know what I mean and so on, you go on and on about what amounts to meaningless generaities about something not related to my point at all. 

All the while basking in your superiority. 

If we are to continue - if there is any value to be found - I’ll have you recapture my argument in a form that is recognizable. Otherwise, we end up here - you pontificating over a point that you haven’t grasped at all. 

[Rorshach]

7 hours ago, Seli said:

Lutherans still have bishops as far as I am aware, so still build on tradition. Same with the Orthodox, same with the Anglicans.

And of course everyone who interprets texts does so from their own culture, their own expectations, their own traditions. And the texts they read have lost their original context, the knowledge that the original audiences brought to them.

And of course words change, meanings change. Obvious famously in Ecclesiastes 1 where the traditional translation 'vanity' has gained so much other meaning that modern translations don't use it anymore. But still plenty of groups adhere to those obsolete translations, because tradition dictates that for example only the King James version is proper.

 

You are venturing far outside what the original discussion was about. 

I’ll recap that later, when I have the time. 

[Rorshach]

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Something something gays bad something something enslave your daughter something.  That one?

It's just so weird how some people read that and interpret it one way (such as fuck everyone in that group) and some read it and interpret it as "hey, we can ignore this section".  Right?  Right?  Ahem, @Rorshach

While you are again moving far outside the original discussion - which you didn’t understand - the answer to this in ingrained in every Christian belief ever.

Basically, and this is not me trying to be mean, if you do not know why Leviticus and Numbers are disregarded, you do not know doctrine. At all. 

Check up with anyone knowledgeable and return. But - seriously - this is taught in school to 12-13-year-olds, and we expect them to know it. Adults not knowing ... haven’t paid attention.

[Rorshach]

8 hours ago, Seli said:

 

OK. I have a little time - I’ll try to recap the original discussion with Dr. Pepper. If I misrepresent her points, I’ll expect she tells me.

In the Christian thread, Lany asked a question about whether Christians «should live their lives like Jesus did» - and if this was a core tenent of Christianity. Which was answered in the affirmative - with Ormond adding the important qualification «try». 

Dr. Pepper challenged this, sort of, by making a point that the Telephone game could explain the differences - that some Christians worked with helping the poor, and others went for «fuck everyone else». 

I challenged that in that I know of no Christian text that can be used to defend a «fuck everyone else», not current nor previous. And that the problem isn’t the texts and interpretations as such, but how some can disregard such a central tenent. 

From this she has spiralled out into different directions, all the while failing to adress this point. I have no idea why.

[Stubby]

6 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

I challenged that in that I know of no Christian text that can be used to defend a «fuck everyone else», not current nor previous. And that the problem isn’t the texts and interpretations as such, but how some can disregard such a central tenent. 

From this she has spiralled out into different directions, all the while failing to adress this point. I have no idea why.

But surely you concede that there are people out there that have a "fuck everybody else" mentality in the name of Christianity, right?

[Rorshach]

1 minute ago, Stubby said:

But surely you concede that there are people out there that have a "fuck everybody else" mentality in the name of Christianity, right?

That doesn’t relate to my point, though, does it? People do all sorts of things in the name of whatever they fancy. It doesn’t follow that it is a useful, correct, logical, sane or whateverthefuck application of said name. 

I even stated in the original that this wasn’t a defense of the American right (the biggest proponent of this that I’m aware of). But given that a religion is built on some sort of foundation, I think they should be able to defend their actions with reference to the foundation.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Rorshach said:

That doesn’t relate to my point, though, does it? People do all sorts of things in the name of whatever they fancy. It doesn’t follow that it is a useful, correct, logical, sane or whateverthefuck application of said name. 

I even stated in the original that this wasn’t a defense of the American right (the biggest proponent of this that I’m aware of). But given that a religion is built on some sort of foundation, I think they should be able to defend their actions with reference to the foundation.

I agree.

My personal opinion is that the book is so obscure that it is open to any interpretation.  Even theologians have trouble agreeing on what specific bits mean.  I can illustrate this by reference to the religious campaign to oppose marriage equality in Australia.

We have just come off a nationwide survey (run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics) which asked a (yes/no) question about marriage equality.  There were Christian organisations that campaigned very loudly on the 'no' side.  There were notable christian organisations that campaigned on the 'yes' side.  There was clear disagreement.

But this wasn't just fringe Christian groups that were making the argument for 'no'.  It was mainstream denominations, like the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, which donated $1M to the 'no' campaign.  The Australian Christian Lobby (a powerful conservative group that opposes just about every social change on the basis of their beliefs, was the headquarters of the "Australian Marriage Alliance" which included many more mainstream Christian organisations.  Examples of groups in that coalition include the Australian Baptists, the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Australia, the Life Ministry Centre, and dozens of other others.

All of these groups argued that homosexuality was wrong, based on biblical interpretations.  They all argued that 'we' (in the collective national sense) cannot permit such sin.  Essentially, all of these religions agreed that homosexual humans are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexual humans.  Theologians were quoted.  Such as Loader (2017), Windsor (2017), and Davies (Archbishop of Sydney) (2013).

Davies, in particular, wrote:

"While Australians wrestle with the implications of redefining marriage to include a union of two persons of the same sex, it would be a much more enlightened debate if proponents of this novel redefinition did not misuse the Bible in mounting their arguments. It would be more honest to declare their disagreement with biblical teaching, rather than pretend by shallow, ill-informed exegesis that they are following the Bible's primary theme of love. Here again, Jesus's words are instructive: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15)." (my emphasis)

This is an Anglican archbishop declaring that supporting marriage equality, by reference to text, goes against Christ.  He is literally saying "fuck you" to homosexual humans. And he is saying it based on a central tenet, viz; "If you love me, keep my commandments".

[mankytoes]

8 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Something something gays bad something something enslave your daughter something.  That one?

Yeah, but it gets even weirder. You should be put to death for wearing polyester. Some kids call a guy baldy and God sends bears to eat 42 of them.

3 hours ago, Rorshach said:

While you are again moving far outside the original discussion - which you didn’t understand - the answer to this in ingrained in every Christian belief ever.

Basically, and this is not me trying to be mean, if you do not know why Leviticus and Numbers are disregarded, you do not know doctrine. At all. 

Check up with anyone knowledgeable and return. But - seriously - this is taught in school to 12-13-year-olds, and we expect them to know it. Adults not knowing ... haven’t paid attention.

I think pretty much all religious people ignore some part of their holy books, the part that isn't convenient to them, or offends their morals (but aren't religious people's morals based on religion in the first place?). You can always come up with some justification, but the truth is, you could justify ignoring any of it. If you truly believe it's Gods word, you should follow it. If you don't, it's all questionable, every word of it.

It's a good criticism of organised religion, but one I'm always careful about using, because the ones who actually do try to follow the books exactly are often some of the scariest...

[Rorshach]

13 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I think pretty much all religious people ignore some part of their holy books, the part that isn't convenient to them, or offends their morals (but aren't religious people's morals based on religion in the first place?). You can always come up with some justification, but the truth is, you could justify ignoring any of it. If you truly believe it's Gods word, you should follow it. If you don't, it's all questionable, every word of it.

It's a good criticism of organised religion, but one I'm always careful about using, because the ones who actually do try to follow the books exactly are often some of the scariest...

This is a good critisism of those claiming the Bible is inspired in every aspect, and that every part of it should be read, followed and understood literaly.

That is a very recent phenomenon. Also, it does not really relate to the part that was spesifically mentioned here. If you really want to discuss Numbers and Leviticus, Jews would be your target audience.