Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[mastahcheese]

*Checks Thread*

*Sees non-flaming discussion of bacon, black people, and blood*

Keep up the awesomesauce, Bay12.

[anzki4]

So bible is sort of build-your-own-religion-kit where you can choose which parts to include and which to ignore based on personal preference and bias?

Of course it is. That is the crux with all "holy texts". Not only the picking and choosing, but interpretation. Every text needs to be interpreted to be understood. It's quite likely that people will disagree over interpretations of the simplest things (and that does not even take into account problems with translation). Thus it is basically impossible to have something like a "correct" interpretation of a religious text.

I'm not talking about interpretation, I'm talking about wilfully ignoring parts of it. I have never heard any christian going "oh that part about not eating pork or chopping peoples arms off for various criminal offences is really an allegory of X, not to be taken literally", which if rather silly, is to me more reasonable than, "that part is just a product of times it was written and can nowdays be ignored, oh but the book is still holy and the word of god".

In a similiar vein, I find it mind boggling when someone believes the bible is the word of god and yet hasn't read it. I mean you have a book by the being who created you and made up all the laws and rules that decide your destiny, but you can't just be bothered to read it? What if the book contains some rule that you never heard about and you don't get to heaven because of that? Are you stupid or don't you just care about what happens to you?

[XXSockXX]

I'm not talking about interpretation, I'm talking about wilfully ignoring parts of it. I have never heard any christian going "oh that part about not eating pork or chopping peoples arms off for various criminal offences is really an allegory of X, not to be taken literally", which if rather silly, is to me more reasonable than, "that part is just a product of times it was written and can nowdays be ignored, oh but the book is still holy and the word of god".

But that is part of interpretation (of the larger text instead of a single sentence or passage). The process of deciding that, say, A is important, B is not and C is optional, is interpretation.

[penguinofhonor]

On the food thing, there's Acts 10:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

I think interpreting it as letting people eat whatever is a little too literal. In Catholic school they said this was a metaphor for accepting all people into the church, but that the literal interpretation is also true.

[XXSockXX]

On the food thing, there's Acts 10:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

I think interpreting it as letting people eat whatever is a little too literal. In Catholic school they said this was a metaphor for accepting all people into the church, but that the literal interpretation is also true.

My point about interpretation exactly. It could also mean, if you're hungry, god will sent you some prey to feed on.

Besides the interpretation you can also apply textual criticism:
What if "something like a large sheet" is an aramaic -> greek -> latin -> english mistranslation of the word for "tablecloth" or "napkin".
What if a 3th century scribe inserted the sentence "“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”", thereby removing the original phrase meaning "do you want fries with that"? (Ok, now I'm kidding around a bit).

[TD1]

*Checks Thread*

*Sees non-flaming discussion of bacon, black people, and blood*

Keep up the awesomesauce, Bay12.

Do you want some bacon with that awesomesauce?

[Frumple]

Hey, omnipresence has some wonderful implications. Just as God is all things, so too is God all things bacon, past, present, and future. To sup of God is to experience omnibaconcy. and a lot of other things, too, but focus on the bacon

[Baffler]

*Checks Thread*

*Sees non-flaming discussion of bacon, black people, and blood*

Keep up the awesomesauce, Bay12.

No, they don't think it's a sin to be gay, just a sin to do gay acts, or so I understand. There is a difference, albeit sometimes hard to discern.

OK I don't think it's a sin to be black but I think it's a sin to act black. #notracist

I'm honestly amazed that people actually think there's a meaningful distinction.

So by analogy, it's not a sin to be black, but it's a sin if you use your sinful black skin to ward off the UV?

I dunno... I certainly see a lot of tinder, just nobody's struck a match yet.

[Il Palazzo]

I know, right. In my day and age we had proper crusading militiant Christians, not these wishy-washy pusillanimous ecumenical inclusivists.

edit: going where no man has gone before with spelling mistakes

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

It is the interpretation to have curtain things take importance over others and during parts Jesus basicaly said, this this and that dont need to be followed anymore

[TD1]

That's always confused me.

The word of God is sacred law, all of it. Then this geezer comes along and some of the law is more sacred than the rest....it's like the communism of religion.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

That's always confused me.

The word of God is sacred law, all of it. Then this geezer comes along and some of the law is more sacred than the rest....it's like the communism of religion.

I you referring Jesus as the geezer?

If so christianity happened specificaly because Gods kid walked in and said some stuff that he felt needed to be changed

(also in my faith God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all the same person just in different forms. So Jesus is the same as God is the same as the Holy Ghost is the same as Jesus)

[Il Palazzo]

I think the Jesus' rulebook update was a splendid thing. If only there was one every century or so. And I don't mean the grimdark, Dark Knight-esque treatment Mohammad served us.

That's what I find alright about Catholicism - they do try to get with the times. The not alright thing is that they still lag behind on many issues.


Here's another fun thinglet I was taught during religion classes: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time. I never got to the level of maths where this curious operation would be made sense of. Perhaps that's what you go to study theology for.

[Orange Wizard]

Is there any particular question you guys are discussing right now, or is it all just passive-aggressive silliness?

Here's another fun thinglet I was taught during religion classes: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time. I never got to the level of maths where this curious operation would be made sense of. Perhaps that's what you go to study theology for.

Wikipedia explains the concept. I'm afraid it doesn't actually follow the rules of mathematics, so I can't help you in that regard.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I think the Jesus' rulebook update was a splendid thing. If only there was one every century or so. And I don't mean the grimdark, Dark Knight-esque treatment Mohammad served us.

That's what I find alright about Catholicism - they do try to get with the times. The not alright thing is that they still lag behind on many issues.


Here's another fun thinglet I was taught during religion classes: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time. I never got to the level of maths where this curious operation would be made sense of. Perhaps that's what you go to study theology for.

I was basicaly taught that he was god in a mans body so he was god but lived life as a man with gods powers