BS: Qu: Regarding Religion

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:20 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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
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 - 03:49 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: 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,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:16 AM

Joe, Guest at 03.35 was I

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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 09:30 AM

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

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: 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:36 AM

Jim,
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

I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them."
Discrimination is required.

Others, unless you are a pacifist, then you must accept that resisting evil with lethal force is sometimes necessary. Consider the gunman on a school shooting spree.

Targeting children is never justified, and I do not know why you accuse me of thinking it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:51 AM

Steve,

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.

I do not believe that the opinion of any church was sought on that decision.
It was a political decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:57 AM

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

I suppose I was, but I always knew that it did not forbid my parents and relations fighting Nazism in WW2, so that must have been discussed and explained.
Any kid would question that lethal force could never be used to prevent greater evils.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:03 PM

"I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them.""
Then we agree that the British policy on selling arms to whoever will buy them is evil - do I have that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:46 PM

British policy is NOT "selling arms to whoever will buy them."

It is the most restricted of any nation.
Here are lists of the very many countries that Britain refuses to supply.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/current-arms-embargoes-and-other-restrictions

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:57 PM

Suppose you know a social psychopathic disgraced ex policeman who murdered unarmed black kids and sold hard ball ammunition to African nations. Naturally he is a veteran.

What would you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 01:48 PM

Ignore the idiotic troll, Jim. Have asked the mods not to invoke Godwin's Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:04 PM

Keith:

"I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them."
Discrimination is required."

Well if the discrimination of a particular country is such that it involves selling them to
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, then its pretty useless discrimination in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:07 PM

"It is the most restricted of any nation."

Apart from the majority of nations in the world, who don't sell arms to anyone at all, because they don't even manufacture them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM

I've had a response from my mate the Vicar, I've known her for over 40 years. She, and her husband are people, I deeply respect, admire and love.

(she's a beautiful singer and her husband is pretty mean on a guitar by the way)

She has replied that she doesn't believe there is such a thing as a justified killing. She says God gives life(she is a vicar)and only God has the right to take it away.

She did go on to say that she believes people get their just reward, in this life or the next, which leads me to ponder whether that some people on this forum may be in for a bit of s shock.

It gives the lie to the likes of some on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:38 PM

It gives the lie to the likes of some on this forum.

It does not.
Would your vicar stand by and watch someone stabbing her children, or stop them.
Either way, it is her personal position and does not make it a lie to hold a different one.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:00 PM

"It is the most restricted of any nation."
It sells to terrorist States and Human rights abusers
Didn't think for one minute that you were going to fess up
You are a Hypocrite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:20 PM

"<<>>

I do not believe that the opinion of any church was sought on that decision.
It was a political decision."

So it's ok to vaporise thousands of people in a few seconds as long as you didn't ask the God Squad first. This is getting quite amusing, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:38 PM

Steve, why raise purely political issues in a discussion about religion and the commandments?
That decision does not reflect on any faith or church, so why raise it?

Jim, read what Amnesty says about the "Big Six" arms trading nations and then explain why you always and only single out Britain.

"Generally supportive of strict criteria for arms transfers, the UK has nonetheless supplied arms to countries where there is a substantial risk that they could be used to commit serious violations of human rights."

"In 2005, the UK became the first major arms trading power to support an Arms Trade Treaty covering human rights. With France it helped establish the EU code that has now become the EU Common Position on Arms Exports, the starting point for UK policy positions on the ATT. It also co-authored various UN General Assembly resolutions between 2006 and 2009 leading to the current negotiations. The UK has generally supported the Golden Rule and has progressive positions on the treaty's scope and implementation mechanisms (for example backing robust transparency measures). "
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2012/06/big-six-arms-exporters/

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:23 PM

Raggytash says: I've had a response from my mate the Vicar...She has replied that she doesn't believe there is such a thing as a justified killing. She says God gives life(she is a vicar)and only God has the right to take it away.

Hi, Raggytash. I'd generally agree with that, but then I wonder about situations where a person is called upon to defend himself, his family, or another innocent person. Is it never justifiable for a police officer to kill a person who is in the act of shooting others?

According to the system of moral theology I was taught in seminary, I would call killing "objectively evil" - in all circumstances, a life is lost. But there are circumstances where killing is necessary to prevent greater harm, where killing is the "lesser of two evils."


What about situations like that?

-Joe-