Should Religion...

[Brosiris]

It's really hard for me to explain when the Bible should be taken literally and when it shouldn't. More often than not the Bible should be taken metaphorically, however there are times to take it literally; Thou shalt not kill, is a prime example. Love they enemy, is another. Treat people the way you would like to be treated.

 

[MC]

Thou shalt not kill

However, that statements poses a problem - what is it that you shouldn't kill?

"Thou shalt not kill" is an ambiguous statement and doesn't specify what it is you shouldn't kill. And because of it's ambiguity, you're left to interpret it as meaning that you shouldn't kill - period.

But, we kill all the time, sometimes without being aware of it. Whether it's crushing ants while walking to school, or ejaculating into a toilet, you are more or less, killing, are you not?

However, there is another variation of that statement which makes it less ambiguous and that is, "Thou shalt not murder". Unfortunately, while this statement is less ambiguous as the first, there's still a number of issues, such as where does killing end and murdering begin?

Love they enemy

What is "Love thy enemy"? "Love" is brought into existence by self. "Thy" is self. "Enemy" is that which stands in opposition of self. However, if there is no self then there is no there is no love to be brought into existence. If there is no self, thus no love, then there is no enemy to stand in opposition. Thus, there is emptiness.

Why "love thy enemy" when it would be better not to give them something to stand in opposition to? Rather than trying to get the last word, how about just walking away? Rather than insulting someone behind their back, how about not saying anything about them at all?

Treat people the way you would like to be treated.

What if by treating someone kindly, they in return they treat you badly? Or what if by treating someone badly, they treat you kindly? Or better yet, what if you wanted to be treated kindly, but treat someone badly who in return treats you kindly? Likewise, what if you wanted to be treated badly, but treat someone kindly who in return treats you badly? Further, what if you wanted to be treated kindly, but treat someone badly who in return treats you badly? Or if you wanted to be treated badly, but treat someone kindly who in return treats you kindly? What if you wanted to be treated either kindly or badly and treat someone accordingly, but in return don't treat you either kindly or badly? What if you wanted to be treated either kindly or badly and treat someone accordingly, but in return treat you the opposite of the way you wish to be treated, which causes you to start treating them as they're treating you?

Not to mention, by treating someone the way you wish to be treated and expecting to be treated the same in return is rather selfish, don't you think? It gives the notion that you're doing it just so you can be treated the way you want to be treated.

But that begs the question, would it be better to treat others as they wish to be treated, rather than to treat them as you wish to be treated?

Thus, the problem of literal interpretation - ambiguity.

 

[Killface]

It's really hard for me to explain when the Bible should be taken literally and when it shouldn't. More often than not the Bible should be taken metaphorically, however there are times to take it literally; Thou shalt not kill, is a prime example. Love they enemy, is another. Treat people the way you would like to be treated.

Alright, well how about with the Book of Revelations? A lot of the stuff depicted in there can be applied to today's technology and diplomatic stances with other countries.

I cant find the verse at the moment, so I'll post it later. But basically it says something along the lines of "a blinding flash followed by a great fire will burn the tongues out of people's mouths and melt their eyes within their sockets." Which could easily be linked to nuclear weapons.

I don't remember the exact thing, like i said. But it was something along the lines of that.

 

[The Deco]

OK, just to answer the part where you guys said that commandment like "not to murder", as well as all the others.

I know in Judaism but I don't know about other religions:

In Judaism we got something called Pikuach nefesh

In free translation it will mean "Soul Supervision". Anyhow it means that if something like the commandment "not to murder" but you have to murder in order of self defense or some army invades your country, you can kill.

What it actually means generally that if you are risking your life by following a Religious law in Judaism you can not obey to this law in order not to risk yourself.

Another example will be is that we have a day in the year that we fast(not to eat or drink) and as we all know some people aren't allowed to fast because they need to take medications or they, for some reason must eat and drink when they need to, this is where Pikuach Nefesh comes into place and they are allowed to break this law.

Simple.

Here is the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

Oh almost forgot, there are actually 613 commandments

 

[Almighty_Gir]

God is NOT the cause of natural disasters you fool, and he considers our lives to be little more than a stage of existence likened to a crysalis. It's our souls that matter.

And I refuse to believe that God believes anything of the sort that condones slavery or treats and men to be inequal from another. If that's what is in the Bible, then all that proves to me is that the Bible has been tainted and vandalized through the years in order to serve the purposes of the few literate people who could copy it, or at least copy what they wanted, and then omit or change other things.

Because I now understand that it's not through a book that we can find God. It's pointless. God is in my heart, and it's my heart that I'll follow toward knowing what is TRULY right and wrong. That's all there is to it.

but he DOES condone, that men and women, are not born equal.

just to illustrate a point: Hitler believed he was doing gods work too.

 

[Brosiris]

MC - you're looking into it far too deeply and taking every little thing for what it's there for. You know what "thou shalt not kill" means, you also know what "love thy enemy" means, and you know what "treat others the way you want to be treated means". So I have no reason to explain myself.

 

[Nuttzy]

i think it takes a "certain" kind of person to even BE ABLE to take the bible literally,


that is all.

 

[Grega]

Relligion should never be taken seriously.

I mean god damn that was tried in the past and look what happened.

The crusades and the dark ages >.<

If you want a more modern example. Try suicide bombings.

 

[sub]

I'll be quite honest with you, it's not that I think its wrong to do so, but I think its immensely arrogant to think you're right in the first place, it makes you no different from them. They believe what they believe, and you believe what you believe. It's no different, if you go on the attack no matter how much you justify it with reason or evidence, they'll justify it with their own reasoning and evidence. It's the age old stalemate that's caused conflict for thousands of years.

Religious people aren't usually the most wavering in terms of opinions or beliefs unless they're at the point of questioning things themselves. If you want them to take you seriously you have to level the ground between the two of you and see eye to eye. Relate to each other and discuss the issues themselves rather than discredit their idea's and beliefs. It's preachy and patronising to try to sway opinion by making examples of what they believe in. I find the lines atheists use tend to be no different to the ones you get from jehova's witness's at your doorstep. Most people are happy with what they believe in unless life isn't going to well, and you'll usually find they'll find what suits them rather than conform to what suits you.

It's immensely arrogant to think I'm right? I'm an agnostic, I'm undecided myself. How can I be arrogant on the subject matter if I myself am undecided? I'm not going out of my way to confront people who are religious, but if the conversation does come up, like it is now, I will attempt to persuade them to question their views. If at the end of the day they decide that their views are right and I should leave them alone, fine, but there are a lot of people who will never question there views and that's dangerous quite frankly. Most religious people haven't even read the bible. I have a feeling that they would feel differently about religion if they decided to.

Btw, I think the notion that getting people to question their beliefs is just as bad as the people who picket funerals of gay people is a pretty unfair statement.

 

[Dokutayuu]

Personally, I believe what I want, know why I do and know that I can't force other people to do the same.

I know Atheists and Agnostics who despite not believing any Holy Book believe the morals and lessons can benefit society. Religion serves multiple purposes.

 

[MC]

MC - you're looking into it far too deeply and taking every little thing for what it's there for. You know what "thou shalt not kill" means, you also know what "love thy enemy" means, and you know what "treat others the way you want to be treated means". So I have no reason to explain myself.

Yes, I know what those statements mean. However, the point I was trying to make with my rambling is that the problem of literal interpretation is ambiguity. I find that the statements those take literally are more than often, ambiguous. And that could be exactly why people choose to interpret ambiguous statements literally. Simply because they are able to interpret those statements in any way they want.

But, should those three statements be interpreted literally? Well, I doubt you could interpret them any other way. Seeing as how "Thou shalt not kill/murder" is a commandment and the other two are more or less, guidelines.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I personally believe it requires wisdom built over years of study and experience to decide what should and should not be taken literally. For instance, I've stated before that I don't have issues with gays marrying. Why? I'm very religeous and god hates gays right? To take literal qeues from the 613 laws (not commandments, Deco!) means some fairly odd behavior. One thing I love about disturbing "bible thumpers" who insist that gay marriage is wrong, is pointing out that eating shellfish is condemned in the same specific language (it is an abomination against god). So I ask them if they've eaten any shrimp, lobster or crab lately.

Christianity should use the old testament as a guide, but as it's been pointed out, the rules have changed, and the bible does contradict itself many times. I try to follow the golden rule above all else, and try to live my life as christlike as my life will let me. That is my struggle, and I take it seriously. I will not, however, take it literally.

Commenting on your point MC, "treat others as you would be treated" is the golden rule, and it carries more weight than the commandments in christianity. This ties in neatly with my interpretation of the golden rule. If you look at things this way, it would be very wrong for me to condemn anyone else on their choice of lovers, as I would not appreciate someone telling me that god doesn't like my wife.

 

[The Deco]

Bah, I knew it wasn't commandments, I just could not find the right word in English.

It doesn't say Law in Hebrew but doesn't say commandments either, now that I see the translation of Law in Hebrew it gives that word.

Sorry for off topic

Edit: Wait, no, im reading about it: It is both laws and commandments.


Since when Christianity have the 613 laws?

 

[DiebytheSword]

Our old testament which has the torah in it. Therefore, we have the same laws in the old testament as you have in your current religeon.

We just don't follow them

 

[Skiwan]

It's immensely arrogant to think I'm right? I'm an agnostic, I'm undecided myself. How can I be arrogant on the subject matter if I myself am undecided? I'm not going out of my way to confront people who are religious, but if the conversation does come up, like it is now, I will attempt to persuade them to question their views. If at the end of the day they decide that their views are right and I should leave them alone, fine, but there are a lot of people who will never question there views and that's dangerous quite frankly. Most religious people haven't even read the bible. I have a feeling that they would feel differently about religion if they decided to.

Btw, I think the notion that getting people to question their beliefs is just as bad as the people who picket funerals of gay people is a pretty unfair statement.

There's an enormous difference between questioning somebody's views and trying to prove somebody wrong. I'm all for questioning, I think questioning and review are essential in everything, otherwise we'd never improve. However I'm not for telling them that they're wrong, which is what I was responding to.

The line that sparked your response: "I'm not going to try and prove that anyone is right or wrong for believing what they believe though.It makes you as bad as those people picketing peoples funerals. "

And your response;

"If I see someone that believes something that I perceive is silly or wrong"

That statement about the picketers come from the understanding I reached after watching that documentary, you learn how happy and nice they are all to each other, and what they do is due to the fact they believe it is the right way of loving their neighbour because they think anyone who doesn't follow them is doomed. In a sense they think they are saving you by trying to tell you that god hates ***s etc. It's a valid comparison.

 

[Synth]

It's quite obvious that hating gays, premarital sex, etc. is just another way for these "community leaders" to focus their followers away from the money they've put into their church. It's like distracting people from a rip-off by handing them t-shirts.

But, isn't all of this obvious to most of us?

The only question remaining is whether one verse means more than another verse, or is the bible simply someone taking notes, and we've found their journal.

 

[Skiwan]

That church is made up of mostly a single family. Many of the elders of the family are successful lawyers. They're indoctrinated into following it, not distracted by it, it's how they've been brought up by their parents, and their parents before that.

 

[Synth]

I was referring to these kind of religious leaders as a whole.

They want to compound the interest and the capitol of their followers, through ambigious hatred.
-

Anyways, as far as making another point I believe people should consider. After being called a troll a couple times, I recalled this verse.

And the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God. Revelation. 20:4

http://www.biblemeanings.info/Bible/revelation.html

Signifies that they were rejected by those who are in falsities from their own intelligence, because they worshiped the Lord, and lived according to the truths of His Word. By "the souls of them that were beheaded (smitten with the axe), for the testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God" are meant men after death, who are then called spirits, or men clothed with a spiritual body, who were concealed by the Lord in the lower earth, until the evil were removed by the Last Judgment. They are said "to be beheaded," because they were rejected by those who were in falsities from their own intelligence, all of whom are in evils and thence in falsities, or in falsities and by them in evils, and yet in externals are in Divine worship.

This obviously hits up on the constant war between faith and logic. At what point do we argue towards faith or logic? When you see someone else's opinion as a threat to your own opinion, is it your faith or logic that's being tested? Most people would say it's one or the other, and most of these people are afraid to say it's both. Why is religion based on fear tactics? I'm all for the opposite... 'tis all.

 

[The Deco]

Our old testament which has the torah in it. Therefore, we have the same laws in the old testament as you have in your current religeon.

We just don't follow them

Why do you have it and don't follow it?

 

[DiebytheSword]

Because most of the laws were invalidated by the new testament. Christains believe that a new covenant has been made with God through Jesus Christ. Jewish faith believes that the savior has not yet been born. That's why we have different rules and beliefs from Judaism.