BS: Qu: Regarding Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:22 AM

Hadn't it? Occupation of Singapore with no previous declaration of war, followed by Sook Ching massacre? River Kwai? POW starvation camps?..........

Och-me a "hadn't happened yet"!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:15 AM

"Can't help yourself eh Shaw.....Sieg Heil!"
THere you go again Brucie - you can't stop denigrating the Jewish People by blaming them for Israel's war crimes and atrocities.
Go read the definition and stop painting targets on innocent people - there's too much antisemitism in the world as it is..
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 09:55 AM

I still wouldn't mind knowing whether there's a bit in the Bible that advises us how to decide which of two evils is the lesser. I suppose someone decided that incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was less evil than an evil that hadn't even happened yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 09:30 AM

Can't help yourself eh Shaw.....Sieg Heil!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:59 AM

"and the distinction could easily be clarified."
It is always an act of evil to take a life that you cannot replace and no child should ever be taught otherwise.
There are circumstances when taking lives is unavoidable but it is never ever morally acceptable and the idea that you should teach children that is is is equally unacceptable.
I take it you are not going to explain your justification of profiting on the taking of lives by selling instruments of killing to whoever will buy them
What does the Bible say about trying to serve God and Mammon?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:42 AM

Illuminating children with white phosphorus flares then blowing them to kingdom come, or killing teenagers with remote control sniper fire, or killing over 300 children in a few weeks, are the lesser evils of what, I wonder.

Oh yes, I forgot. Ramshackle rockets that killed 30-odd people in fifteen years...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:06 AM

"A young child would not be very aware of the difference between murder and killing, nor would they need to be."

You know sod all about what I was taught. I was still going to church in my teens and know full well what I heard. Over the years we went to CoE, Methodist and finally an evangelical free church (which i quite liked) and at no point was the interpretation of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ever questioned. Or in school. Ever.

Obviously for some people the fact you can't blow children and other innocents to bits is problematic when you support such action, and you'll lie to yourself to justify your own bloodlust. Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Sedayne D'Voidoffolk
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 06:36 AM

And I would infinitely prefer it if no-one opted to move their bowels in my general direction thank you very much.

Abrahamic orthodoxy shits on us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

It all goes back to what I and many others were taught as children, even you Keith. We were taught "Thou shalt not kill"

Now unless you went to a very progressive school you were taught the same. For centuries we have understood "thou shalt not kill"

Until this discussion I, for one, had never heard of "Thou shalt not murder" I suspect few others had either.

I have sent an email to my mate the vicar to ask her what she now teaches. I will ask my mate the Bishop later, if I see him.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:06 AM

The original commandment, as it was known to Jesus, was to do no murder.
That is a fact. Unequivocal. Indisputable.

A young child would not be very aware of the difference between murder and killing, nor would they need to be.
A questioning child would say, "But what about...." and the distinction could easily be clarified.

Never at any time has it been held that taking a life can never be justified as a lesser of evils.

Jim, give any example of killing for profit in modern times, and I will condemn it.
I also condemn indiscriminate arms trading with nasty regimes, but every nation needs to equip its armed forces and that requires trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,LynnH
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:21 AM

"Thou shalt not kill" vs. "Thou shalt not murder".....does this mean that manslaughter is ok?

All religions/ideologies suffer from being misused and perverted by those with power-orientated agendas. Texts are selectively read, what doesn't suit the agenda is either swept under the carpet, openly denied or twisted to suit according to the principle, "I know what Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Karl Marx really wanted to say." The perpetrators have no qualms about setting themselves on a par with said prophets or even God, and possibly even above them. Cue Phil Collins "Jesus he knows me- and he knows I'm right......."

Of course there's the attitude of many Europeans who claim to be christians regarding the refugees, be they christian, moslem or whatever, fleeing civil war and IS in Syria and Iraq - "Love thy neighbour, etc."?, The parable of the good samaritan'? Never heard of
them...............And that's without pointing out that all the east european states participated in the Iraq war - Poland was one of the invaders -and are therefore share responsibility for the rise of IS and the iraqi part of the resulting refugee problem along with the UK and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:16 AM

Joe, Guest at 03.35 was I

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:11 AM

I'll say one thing for this and the Zika threads, they've confirmed any doubts I had about Christianity as a religion. It's wide open to interpretation (even the nature of the bible is disputed in this thread - a compendium of stories and poems or a literalist manifesto), the nature of organised Christianity is oppressive in nature and worst of all, it's OK to kill people sometimes.

Regardless of what Keith says, this wasn't what I was taught when I was in church as a boy and I resent being lied to, although not as much as I resent people telling me it's OK to kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:49 AM

Yeah, so explicit that some idiots on here are trying to find loop holes in them. The best being that apparently it doesn't say "thou shalt not kill" after all.

It isn't the hypocrisy that makes me laugh, it's the wriggling and squirming when hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:35 AM

"But the Bible was never meant to be an incontrovertible document, and I can't think of any part of the Bible that is written in legal language - or even in theological language"

What on earth are the 10 commandments if not explicit directions?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:11 AM

Interestingly, we were at her relatives for lunch on Sunday. As he is to be ordained this summer, the conversation led as ever to the only subject he knows, religion. (I've tried football, guitars, beer, knit one bloody purl one, you name it but he can't help trying to get his sister and I into his hobby cum profession.)

I can't recall the context as I frankly wasn't that interested but because of this thread my ears picked up when he said the college approach had been that you will always find two conflicts in especially the Old Testament, and reading the Ancient Greek scripts will only exacerbate this. "But between two conflicting statements lies the truth."

I chirped in with pointing out that in my thesis on a completely different subject, the truth may not be derived from either of two publications you may wish to cite.

Then I looked down and carried on eating my pork.

Oh, the carnivore sub topic? It's alright, my dentist says we can eat meat. Either we evolved that way or the little baby Jesus made us that way, whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Joe at the W#omen's Center
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:22 PM

Raggytash says: It would seem to me that if Christians cannot agree on how to translate the original texts of the bible or transpose their own particular nuances into the original text they don't actually know what they think they believe.

It would be silly to insist on one and only one translation of the Bible. Translating just doesn't work that way, because words in one language don't translate directly into another. To do a scholarly study of a translation, one needs two or three reputable translations to get a fairly clear understanding of the original. Better yet, the scholar should know the original language of the document.

There is only one accepted edition of the Quran, and that's in Arabic. There's good reason for that - a translation can only be an approximation of the meaning of the original document.

But the Bible was never meant to be an incontrovertible document, and I can't think of any part of the Bible that is written in legal language - or even in theological language. It's a collection of stories, exhortations and sermons, poetry, and other literary forms - all scrambled together. It's meant to tell the story of a faith, not to be a doctrinal statement. It's meant top inspire, not primarily to be a legal directive to be followed exactly.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:15 PM

You're not a hypocrite if you eat animals. Lions, cheetahs and bird-eating spiders are not hypocrites. Eat animals that have been reared in a way that chimes with your good conscience. If your conscience won't allow you to eat meat, that is very respectable, though my view is that you may be misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:58 PM

My children hopefully got the same as I did. The ability of how to think, not what to think. It appears my granddaughter has similar.

Read that script from christenings that Keith shared. Just read it and fucking weep...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 12:16 PM

Bill D has suggested that choosing religion from a n array of religions is subjective. Most people are not given a choice.

I was raised with total freedom regarding religion. Some might say that decision by my parents in itself was subjective.

I believe my experience was authentic when it came to exploring the subject and it's home turfs. I became a follower of 6 different religions to compare and contrast over 8 years of discovery.

I did not end up where I began.

At first, prior to surgery, I had to claim a religion for the wristband. I wrote Humanistic Humanitarian.

Today I would write pan consciousness humanitarian.

Am I a hypocrite? Yep. I eat animals but am cutting down.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 11:55 AM

"Exactly - so why has this thread been all about Christianity?"

a) It's the dominant religion in the societies of the folk discussing religion here, most of us were raised as christians so no surprise it dominates the discussion.

b) It's the world's largest religion.

c) As one of the three Abrahamic religions, it shares many texts, characters and values with Judaism and Islam.


Simple, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 11:29 AM

"Of course I do not support "killing for profit!"
Then condemn the examples you have been given from the Crusades to modern day oil wars
"There is nothing wrong with a responsible arms trade."
According to your Christian doctrine - which specifies killing for defence, it does
Where is there a let-out clause that allows profiting from weapons of death?
"Where does Ireland get its weapons?"
What the **** has this got to do with anything?
"Every nation is entitled to arm itself against attack."
I'm not referring to weapons for defence - I am talking about selling weapons to the countries Britain does without discriminating - Assad's Chemicals or armoured cars or sniper ammunition - or to Qdaffi, or Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain -
if you support selling them to such people - have the balls to say so; if you think it is responsible to sell to them, have the balls to say so - if on the other hand, you agree with that nice Mr Cable, who admits Britain sells weapons to states with bad reputations as human rights abusers - condemn such sales - or remain the hypocrite you are.
You have studiously avoided doing so so far
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:45 AM

"We Christians have known about it for a very long time."

We UK citizens who did RE at school know it says "thou shalt not kill."

Christians say "thou shalt not kill." They used to put it on placards in the 1950s and stand outside prisons when people were being hanged, back in the days before civilising influences lifted us above barbaric practices.

When I pop up into the church ringing chamber from time to time to update the ringing educational software (abel) I walk past a poster with the commandments on. Guess what? It says "thou shalt not kill."

You do talk bollocks Keith.

"We Christians.." 😹😹😹😹

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:27 AM

"Cue the shrieks of "Islamophobe"."

Cue the opportunistic shrieking of our anonymous coward.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:20 AM

I should have also pointed out Terri that the opening post from my good self did, in fact, refer to ALL religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:19 AM

Taking those statements then transpose Islam for Christianity and they are equally true.

Cue the shrieks of "Islamophobe".

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:18 AM

Surprisingly for once I am in full agreement with you. When we get someone who follows Islam we will see what they have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:14 AM

Musket, the commandment was specifically against murder.
I am sorry the KJ's mistake has caused you so much confusion, but we Christians have known about it for a very long time.

Jim,
Where does your support for the arms trade or for killing for profit come into this.?

Of course I do not support "killing for profit!"

There is nothing wrong with a responsible arms trade.
Every nation is entitled to arm itself against attack.
Few can manufacture everything they need.
Where does Ireland get its weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:14 AM

"If you mean that they are true for both religions, I agree.
All religions are open to abuse.
Jim Carroll"

Exactly - so why has this thread been all about Christianity?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:07 AM

"Taking those statements then transpose Islam for Christianity and they are equally true."
If you mean that they are true for both religions, I agree.
All religions are open to abuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:42 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 07 Mar 16 - 08:00 AM

"It would seem to me that if Christians cannot agree on how to translate the original texts of the bible or transpose their own particular nuances into the original text they don't actually know what they think they believe. It is therefore little wonder that they often appear so odds with themselves."

Jim Carroll - 07 Mar 16 - 08:56 AM

"It isn't really Christianity that raises major problems, just those who claim to be Christians but deliberately choose to misuse it."

Taking those statements then transpose Islam for Christianity and they are equally true.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:37 AM

Call the fucker what you like, all the ones here say thou shalt not kill.

Sheesh.

Keith says otherwise. That's the issue here. Does the bible used by the few hundred thousand Christians in The UK say anything different?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:56 AM

It seems to me as an atheist that 'to James or not to James' is fairly irrelevant to this argument.
While not in any way accepting the mythological side to religion, a philosophy which preaches brotherly love, tolerance (to a degree), anti-violence, fairness to all and opposition to acquisition and greed.... is a fairly reasonable way to conduct ones life.
It is when politicos take and distort that message to justify the opposite, that I begin to doubt its value.
Arguments such as some of those put up here and the stubborn silences on what I believe the key points of Christian philosophy cause me to ha'e ma doots.
It isn't really Christianity that raises major problems, just those who claim to be Christians but deliberately choose to misuse it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:52 AM

I hope you are not suggesting ambiguity like this is confined to religion, Raggytash. What would half of the lawyers do if written law was clear?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:31 AM

The KJV only movement.


A more balanced viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:00 AM

It would seem to me that if Christians cannot agree on how to translate the original texts of the bible or transpose their own particular nuances into the original text they don't actually know what they think they believe. It is therefore little wonder that they often appear so odds with themselves.

With the exception of Pete. (of the seven stars variety) His belief in a literal translation is frankly balmy but does have the appeal of being consistent.

The remainder seem to want to have their cake and to eat it They also seem to want keep it for themselves, share it with others, bake another one just in case or put different fillings in as the filling they do have doesn't match with their expectations of what they though was in it in the first place.

No wonder the poor buggers often seem so confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 06:20 AM

And I would infinitely prefer it if no-one opted to move their bowels in my general direction thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 06:14 AM

Blimey, all this squabbling about a little sentence. Bodes ill for getting any agreement on all the rest of the Good Book. All these versions too. I have some ancient Bibles handed down and a Gideons jobbie that my Catholic school gave to me (was that allowed?). I need them in order to prove that stuff gets quoted to me out of context and to show these Christians when they're breaking their own rules. All this confusion though. As the Bible is the word of the Almighty, you'd have thought that by now he'd have popped down for a minute to clear it all up...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stanron
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 05:32 AM

Did anyone see the documentary on William Tyndale? I don't remember the actual figure but the conclusion was that the KJV was 80 or 90 per cent Tyndale. Perhaps all the poetry and inspiration started there.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Sedayne D'Voidoffolk
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

I don't think they would claim the translators were inspired in the same way as the writers

Poppycock. Even old irreligious atheists (like me) might reference their cherished family copies of the KJV for the poetry / folklore / tradition / continuity of the thing, although (and call me an old purist if you must) when it comes to the Psalms I'm a BCP man every time - Purcell's transcendent setting of the first verse of Psalm 102 being a case in point, likewise the first two verses of Job 14 (from the Funeral Sentences), neither of which have quite the same intimacy in their later KJV counterparts.   

And talking of intimacy, the joys of anal sex as so deliciously described in the KJV Song of Solomon (5:4) excites more of Bowlder than bowel on the part of modern translators unable to cope with this so manifestly unXtian procedure.

The KJV remains, in this day, as inspired as it is inspiring.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 04:29 AM

I think there are some churches in uk that only use the kjv , like the strict baptists, but I don't think they would claim the translators were inspired in the same way as the writers .

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 03:40 AM

Keith:

"No. No churches or schools would use the KJ version with children. "

In a UK context this is probably true, but I know that in Australia, and I suspect also in
the USA, there are churches which will not allow any other version, believing the translators as well as the writers to have been divinely inspired.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 03:04 AM

So Keith reckons school children in The UK weren't taught the commandment as "thou shalt not kill."

You couldn't make it up.

Although he seems to have done so.

(Nice to see Michael has a word processor. I assume there is a risk assessment in place?)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 06:14 PM

S'right, gits - Just Say No.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,gits
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:51 PM

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be..

No further correspondence will be entered into.

_______________

Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement. Ronald Reagan

_______________

R.I.P. Mrs. Ronald Reagan

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 11:55 AM

What the Church of England says about the versions of the scriptures that are suitable for use during worship.





https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/the-calendar/lect/scriptver.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 11:22 AM

"Killing is evil but can be legitimate in self defence or to prevent killing."
Where does your support for the arms trade or for killing for profit come into this.?
Please don't claim that you don't support either - your continued refusal to commit yourself indicates that you do, even if you won't actually commit yourself to it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 10:38 AM

Killing is evil but can be legitimate in self defence or to prevent killing.

Musket,
Like I said. Thou shalt not kill. It isn't difficult and it's what schoolchildren "the length and breadth of the land" had drilled into their heads in RE classes,

No. No churches or schools would use the KJ version with children.

what every vicar and priest in the country says to their parishioners, being apparently the word of God.

No. Few use the KJ version and they still call it the word of the Lord.
Ask your vicar relation.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 10:18 AM

"I recognize the basic concepts as pretty universal"

This is an interesting point Bill makes. The values in the Ten Commandments are shared across cultures and civilisations widely distributed both geographically and temporally. It seems that as a species our moral codes are dictated by a set of values that are very deeply embedded in virtually all human societies.

Why might this be? It's possible that these values confer an evolutionary advantage on us as a species; the survival of the species within a society of very social animals such as Homo sapiens requires some controls and these could be encoded in our DNA. Unlike our close relatives, we have developed ways of communication that allow us to record and transmit these values over many generations so we have records of them from millennia past.

What's even more interesting is it remains to be seen if this is an effective evolutionary strategy for ensuring long-term survival of the human lineage. Quite possibly it isn't, as we cannot control our numbers, preserve our resources, stop killing each other in the name of superstition or greed, trashing the planet to the point we're altering the entire climate and having the wit to develop sustainable and non-polluting forms of energy capture.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:51 AM

Joe Offer says: "Well, Bill, that doesn't apply to the Ten Commandments. "

But Joe, the point was about one of the commandments which suffers from mistranslation. If 'kill' used to mean 'murder', then indeed *many* Christians would properly accept the admonition as basic guidance, and "use their heads" about when to apply it.

Even I, as a non-religious sort, see the list of 'commandments' as generally good ideas that, as historical text, have a place in Western culture.¹ I personally find better expressions of them in other formats, but when I do so, I recognize the basic concepts as pretty universal.


1. (Kant's "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals" for example)