hodgy0_2

A cop out used by Tony "God will be my ultimate judge" blair, and the Islamic suicide bombers Who are told the same and in addition they will receive a 100 virgins

Totally anti humanity

SRSport

Im not sure why. It seems that most people will read what they like to read. It happens every time a religious thread comes along. I have spent a lot of time in the past answering questions, explaining where people who make comments like yours have misinterpreted and every time sound explanation is offered it is ignored, the subject is changed or a certain few resort to irrelevant, immature mocking about tooth fairies. Sometime we will just get another pointless quote which then starts the process off all over again. There are many verses that when singled out seem contradictory, you could go on for ages but people dont seem to understand the point I make. Im not offering explanations for individual cases, Im highlighting the flaws in the way that they are trying to discredit the Bible.

Following on from the toothfairy stage the thread will develop and attract slightly more intelligent people who will then mock the tooth fairy and Father Christmas spouters (who then disappear quickly) while remaining anti God in an attempt to regain credibility to the no believers. We're not at that stage yet but it happens every time. This time however I really cant be bothered, sorry.

JTaylor

Evening, SRS. What's your take on the Jefferson Bible?

SRSport

Here we go... lol. Im not doing it.

JTaylor

Don't jump to the wrong conclusion, it's sincere inquiry.

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

@SRSport

Many thanks for taking time to fill me in on your difficult posting experience in the past. You have my honest sympathies, as you sound a little world-weary from your past posting experiences and it’s not my aim to spread depression of any kind however mild.

If you’re still bothered a bit here’s where I’m coming from:

Practise any legal religion you like, live good and be happy. Genuinely, that’s not meant to patronise.

However, the minute you touch my life with, promote, espouse or propagate or attempt to enshrine a view that discriminates, seeks to adversely control or delude, I will vigorously oppose and argue against you.

A ban on Women Bishops has just enshrined discrimination in the Upper House of our UK Parliament. This cannot pass without my clear and vocal opposition.

As this misdeed has been done on the grounds that this is “the guidance of the Word of God” then I must fight that premise too.

Why would any all-knowing, all-powerful being deliver his/her essential message to save mankind to a bunch of nomadic dessert peasants (yes, I’m speaking to Islam, Judaism too as well) when satellite TV is available a few thousand years later? And as half of the entire human race that ever lived is alive today, TV would be a better, more just way of any caring God to get this vital message across.

So I am forced to fight the premise (and I will) that yours or any other ‘holy’ book has any special relevance over any other book of guidance on neighbourly living and developing a healthy society.

I believe that wherever we go from here (between now and the time our planet get hit by the next big meteorite) it’ll be down to our clever, inventive human race.

And in any case, you and Mary_mag came on Scoobynet to defend this misdeed when I was on. And I like to argue, like the guy in Monty Python who goes into the shop for a 50p argument.

Guess that makes me a militant atheist humanist.

And that’s not going to change!

SRSport

Admittedly I dont know a great deal about his works but from what I do know I think he is playing a dangerous game. I can understand his motivation and in theory it sounds like a good idea but the Bible is so intricate and offers so much depth that I wouldnt want to mess with it. I think it is one of the best examples of differentiation specifically in terms of offering something to people in all stages of their Christian walk from the very inexperienced to the highly knowledgable that I fear would be lost. There are infinite deeper meanings and messages within texts that at first you would take at face value and completely miss as well as some impressive mathematical patterns. Its almost as if to say, change anything around and it wont add up.

I think there is a very good reason why it says not to add or take away from what is said/commanded in the Bible.


Mary Mag came on here as a wind up. We all know who he was. I came on here due to something that he said that intrigued me at the time and before realising what was going on. I didnt come on here to discuss women Bishops.

There are many people who object very strongly to having their lives influenced with what they believe to be "adverse"religious propganda yet we are all surrounded by far more damaging and aggressive tactics attempting to influence us daily that no one bats an eye lid to - ads on TV for example. We are constantly told how to be, how to look, how to act, how to get something we want. We are subjected to brainwashing that teaches us to be selfish, looking after no. 1 and rarely giving a stuff about anyone else.

I am very aware that the more you preach to someone the more they resist which is why I try never to actually tell anyone what they should do and generally post providing opportunity to read something from another point of view, often evening up a bias with which they can make up their own mind.

With regards to your TV question, how many people have lived and died in the world over the last 2000 years? Many people think that the Bible is a guidance book for neighbourly living and healthy societies. It isnt. First and foremost it is about God and how we can spend an eternity with him. It talks a lot about what pleases him and within that how to live a life that will honour him.

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

@SRSport

You shouldn't encorage me.

I can understand the concept that like a Nexus-6 you want to meet your Maker and have him adjust your short and finite lifespan. But I’m aghast that you’d want to spend your newfound eternal life with him.

In the book that ‘first and foremost about God’ this all seeing, all knowing, all powerful, all present being turns out to be (out of context reference warning alert!):
- flawed (designs imperfect mankind),
- vindictive (punishes him with pain, suffering and death for eating from the wrong tree even he put the tree there in the first place)
- cruel (encourages child sacrifice)
- bad tempered (50+ references to his wrath)
- jealous (says so himself)
- insecure (requires continual worship and honour; one a week, or 5 times a day)
- barbaric (wipes out virtually the whole population of the planet with a flood)
- murderous (my earlier Midianite reference refers)
- colluding (backs a line of weak, corrupt and devious Kings to lead his Chosen People)
- simply unkind (won’t do anything to help unless he’s begged, beseeched and implored, and then he might not)
- devious (always has a plan but you don’t know about it and it’s not yours to question)
- negligent (worse of all, stands by and watches innocent children die in pain).

It’s very clear what pleases him. In fact his image is so bad that, according to this book, he had to send his son to do a PR job on him and re-introduce himself to us.

So gives his son as a sacrifice to save mankind!

You have children, so you’ll understand when I say that even though my son can be bit of a plonker sometimes there is no way I’d put him forward to be killed. Ever. I’d rather die myself.

But I guess he’s not that type of being.

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

God being good, human being bad?

We're clearly never going to agree.

Sorry but I think better of my fellow countrymen (and human beings) than you do.

There are many selfish people but today the highest earning 1% pay 27% of the income tax bill, the lowest 10% pay none. There’s an NHS if you fall ill and benefit safety nets to help you out. We mostly believe in equality and pass these values on to our children who are in general appalled by racial, gender, disability or sexual discrimination. Many people give money/time to charities and look out for their neighbours.

It isn’t perfect but we’re a damn sight better society than 100 or 200 years ago despite the fact that people were far more religious back then.

SRSport

No need to alert, its pretty transparent...

JTaylor

Thanks for the response, Nick. You and I have previously and briefly discussed the gematria within the complete Bible and I absolutely understand that this is lost in the Jefferson Bible, but I don't think that matters; they can sit side by side on a book shelf. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson describes it thus:

I suspect a lot of cultural Christians, if only they knew what amphibologisms meant, would feel like Jefferson did.

GlesgaKiss

When you read the bible, do you feel you are reading what you want to read, reading what the author originally intended, or interpreting something outwardly more simple in all its glory with the aid of some kind of universal 'divinity'? Or perhaps a combination of all three?

It seems to me that the idea is of a general, all-encompassing message being conveyed, but perhaps by someone who didn't even realise they were conveying it. Is that what you see when you read the bible, or am I a mile off?

SRSport

As mentioned I dont know enough about what the Jefferson Bible contains and to be honest I am very wary of voicing an opinion on this subject.

GlasgaKiss I saw someone offer insight into how the Bible was written, its contents and who the authors were. He referred to the levels of intricacy and wisdom that often seemed disproportionate to the abilities of those writing it. He summed it up very well by saying, "Its as though the writers had help."
Why else do you think the Bible is referred to as the 'word of God'?

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

True.

Jefferson’s extract feels like progress. On the surface it:
- removes a lot of the negative nasty, fearsome, vengeful God image.
- bins the miracles and wonders previously considered essential to convince the easily led
- removes the qualifiers, justifiers and commentators spin.

If fails for me (unsurprisingly you can argue) as it still promotes:
- a supreme being that you need to worship and fear and give priority to above all else.
- ancient agents of the supernatural realm (the devil and angels)
- bribery: do it my way and get a reward in the next life. (What @SRSport dismisses as Tooth Fairy stage but doesn’t always wash in a world of individually minded adults).
- an exclusive sales channel (Only through me)
- blackmail (Hell fire & eternal damnation await the non God fearing)

So for me it still bogs down the core and simple message of loving your neighbour and caring for your planet.


But where I can see it would fail for many beleivers (and I'd accept a slap for daring to opine for them) is that it omits the resurrection: an essential tenet in the Christian faith.

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

Would you really like an answer to that?

Shaid

See, a well reasoned and logical anti god argument.

Nice one Sam

banny sti

iTrader: (68)

Gives a whole new meaning to bash the bishop

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

I'm just surprised that this thread has got to three pages, before a "bash the bishop" reference or pun!

JTaylor

You seem to have difficulty understanding Jefferson's theology, Sam, although I'm sure he'd be absolutely bowled over that you've deigned to recognise his words as "progress". Before any further critique, perhaps you should read (and comprehend) some Joseph Priestley, this will save you parroting inappropriately the narrow polemics of fundamentalist anti-theism.

Can you distinguish between the conceptual and the literal? Are you familiar with the notion of a spirituality that in no way diminishes material, objective truth, but which nourishes the soul and allows for the subjective? How do you define the soul? What's your position regarding Hegel's omniscient narrator or kierkegaard's assertion that faith is the highest virtue? How do you define faith?

I'm tired of people who've read The God Delusion and think that that somehow qualifies them to, in the words of Francis Thompson, swing the earth a trinket at their wrist.

Leslie

It seems pretty apparent that the non believers are more manic and behave in a more fundamental manner than the strongest believers in God or a religion. They also seem incapable in accepting that we are all entitled to our own ideas about all that and that it is always better to let others follow their own personal way of life since there is little point in shouting about it.

One almost gets the impression that those who make a big fuss and shout down those who are believers are actually a bit uncertain about their own feelings and are trying to bolster themselves up to convince themselves that they have not turned out to be wrong themselves!

Les

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

@JTaylor
That’s twice in a week I’ve been wrongly accused of repeating the plot/views of books I haven’t read. Am I not allowed to express my own view?

Also, you’ve played the ‘Dismissal by Reading List” attacking gambit so beloved of the likes of @pslewis et al to pronounce views contrary to theirs as irrelevant. It only makes its user look like an arrogant, pompous windbag. I had thought better of you.

And in any case, why point me to commentators when we can use the sources? I have access to well thumbed KJV and NEB versions, though my Jefferson’s only on Kindle.

Re your questions: No; No; I don’t and I’m not aware that I need to; I don’t hold one. I do have a view on faith, though.

It is the destroyer, roadblock and dead-end wall of all logical, scientific argument and hard sought evidence and the search for truth. Because as you know: with faith all things are possible!

If the Bible “first and foremost tells us about God” then, having had a good look at the evidence, I thought I was free to draw my own conclusions and express my opinion of the image it paints of the being described.

It’s my own work so I’m happy to provide chapter and verse reference on any adjective I’ve used in my posts above. The one exception is ‘negligent’ but I don’t need to back that up as you can just turn on the news on any day and see for yourself.

My views on Jefferson’s mergings and extracts of the Gospels (he never called it a Bible) are based on the one hand on what he took out (all but those parts specific to the life and teachings, though not all of the works, of Jesus) and, on the other, my reading of the image of God drawn from what he left in.

If he’s aiming for an ultimate guide to conduct for mankind, Jefferson doesn’t go far enough. The same briber / blackmailer / punisher being still remains, though somewhat throttled back. As example, Jefferson removes the graphical details of the being’s vengeful plan to purge the earth by fire in Revelations whilst retaining the posit that he even cares for 10-a-penny sparrows. Shame he doesn’t care for dying children.

Selecting just the Gospels further underlines the unjust exclusivity of access to paradise - my way or highway (to hell) - that discriminates against those who haven’t heard the message or who hold other faiths.

I have to question how it is that in his search for “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man” Jefferson leaves remaining the stark immoralities of partiality, threats and inducements.

But Jefferson himself gives an inkling of what he thought of what he’s left out when he likens the bits belonging to Jesus that he’s left in as “easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill”. You can see why he might not have wanted to publish during his lifetime.

And since when did posters need a qualification to contribute to a Scoobynet thread?

If I’ve made a point with which you disagree then argue the contrary with evidence please.

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

Hello, Les

I’m sorry but I have to ignore the irony of your attempt to vilify different views to your own by pointing out that we’re all entitled to our own ideas.

As a non believer I’m up to my neck in organising inquisitions, religious ethnic cleansing, attacks on other sects, witch-burnings, jihadist holy war and a backlog of crusades and I don’t have time (or further inclination) to answer.

I know you can dish it, Les. But I also know you can’t take it.

TelBoy

Leslie

Hello Sam, nice to meet you,

Why on earth are you inferring that I don't believe that we are all entitled to our own ideas. I have been saying just that on SN since I first joined. You might at least get your statements right.

I must congratulate you however on all those jolly things that you have found yourself to do! How can you possibly find time to go to chapel as well?

Les

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

No it isn’t and it isn’t going to be.
I’m not sure why you’re pretending we haven’t met on here before.


It’s called multi-tasking, Les.
I’m able to act and think at the same time - broad, deep and, above all, independent thought.

I realise that to a mind as narrow and shallow as yours that must seem quite astonishing.

JTaylor

Sam, I just want to check my understanding of your answers, please:

Q. Can you distinguish between the conceptual and the literal?
A. No

Q. Are you familiar with the notion of a spirituality that in no way diminishes material, objective truth, but which nourishes the soul and allows for the subjective?
A. No

Q. How do you define the soul?
A. I don’t and I’m not aware that I need to.

Q. What's your position regarding Hegel's omniscient narrator or kierkegaard's assertion that faith is the highest virtue?
A. I don’t hold one.

Q. How do you define faith?
A. Not given.

Do I have this right, Sam?

TelBoy

JT


But to counter, i'd ask whether a deep philosophical understanding of all those points is absolutely necessary to form an opinion as to whether a God does, or doesn't exist? Do you not then just enter into a theoretical spiral that eventually makes the point almost meaningless? Do we need to analyse it that fully? Are Sam's answers any less valid for not having done so?

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

@JTaylor

Q. Can you distinguish between the conceptual and the literal?
A. No, Not in the religious sense. If God, or the Biblical description of his nature and his works are concepts how can that align to (for example) the belief in the power of prayer? Can a conceptual being / ideaset quite literally deliver?

Q. Are you familiar with the notion of a spirituality that in no way diminishes material, objective truth, but which nourishes the soul and allows for the subjective?
A. No, I am aware of my body and my mind. I haven’t found my soul so it’s not an area I can go to or opine on.

Q. How do you define the soul?
A. I don’t and I’m not aware that I need to.

Q.What's your position regarding Hegel's omniscient narrator or kierkegaard's assertion that faith is the highest virtue?
A. I don’t hold one. I have not read Hegel or Kierkegaard. But my aversion to 18th Christian philosophers is that they propounded, exposed and examined their ideas inside the impregnable perimeter fence of cast iron certainty of the existence of God that pertained at the time. As an atheist that’s an enclosure I wouldn’t venture to step inside.

Q. How do you define faith?
A. Not given. I wouldn’t dare. It’s personal to each and every believer. Though I’d tiptoe across this minefield by saying I agree with the first part in St Paul’s definition: “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Though I’d dispute the second part as it’s not evidence at all (that why it’s faith), it’s (just?) belief. Though as I’ve said, I have a view on its effects though.

Don’t know if that helps but thanks for checking anyway.

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for that point, Telboy.

Just to clarify: my central argument is not on the existence of God or not. I can't prove a negative.

It's that; given the belief that a supreme being exists, and the Bible, his untamperable holy Word shows us his true nature, then would we really want spend eternity with him?

SRSport

Like this?

John 3.16
Ephesians 2. 4-5
1 Peter 5.6-7
Jeremiah 29.11

Why would you prefer the alternative?