pc71 wrote:

On all matters refererring to God or lack thereof I always go the complete series of father Ted. Should be shown from infants to university....

that would be an ecumenical matter

That's the thing though isn't it, not everyone is looking for truth or reality, just look at the viewing figures for Game Of Thrones

That said there's no reason to believe that the church hasn't changed or adapted it's processes and dogma based on the expectations of it's populace, in much the same way as the scientific method eventually rejected first the geocentric and later the heliocentric view of the world, not sure we should be asking Aristotle, Ptolemy and co for an apology for being wrong though nb. I notice as well that the Church also rejected geocentricity after a while, I guess bigger movements take longer to change

Vela wrote:

legaldinho wrote:

Vela wrote:

legaldinho wrote:

Good to see hair knows what the texts intended. Centuries of religious doctrine, debates and interpretation, if only they had asked a dumb fuck from Surrey, he'd have saved everyone the time and trouble.

I'm guessing they were only joking in the various texts when slavery, spoils of war and comfort women, genocide, infanticide and human sacrifice were all celebrated and demanded by petty a vengeful deities, right?  Fuck apologising for stone age dogma that has gone through the ringer of various translations including a number of hardline interpretations in the intervening millennia.  I'd trust a schmuck from Surrey all day every day before any goat herder from two millennia back.

That post positively oozes rationality. No sirree, not emotional at all.

So? 

A dude from Surrey has the collective wisdom of human civilisation at his fingertips if he chooses to value facts and evidence. A person who defers solely to texts written in a different context anywhere between 1500 and 5000 years ago has less credibility.

I don't doubt that older knowledge has its value. The entire tradition of indigenous Australians relies on oral tradition, song lines and geographic reference points which are absolutely essential to survival and that worked for tens of thousands of years. 

If you're looking for truth or reality though, we have better understanding of our place in the universe and how it works, and that leads us to more informed decisions. 

I don't know why I typed even this much though. It's probably only going to get snark in return.

Listen, you mentalist, bhd wasn't looking for "truth and reality". He used that famed Surrey penchant for "facts and evidence" to deduce that "extremists are adhering to scriptures as intended" so you can indeed define the religion, or scripture, by the actions of extremists.

Before you flew off on a frenzied folly of your own making, you might have been careful to actually read that post which I mocked. It is obvious why it should be mocked. It is complete nonsense. What you are banging on is the merit (or otherwise) of religion. Perhaps you think the dumbass from Surrey's argument was "any religious text risks wilful misinterpretation by extremists; as such, irrespective of who is right about matters of textual interpretation, religion is better avoided". But I'm afraid the dumbass from Surrey did not make that argument at all.

Good to see this thread still adheres to the very highest standards of intellectual scrutiny.

boom

Yup.

Vela wrote:

Depends on what you consider an extremist now, doesn't it? 

It's not the gun wielders or suicide bombers only. It's the faith healers, legislative "good men" (doing harm as per Bertrand Russell), and evangelist types who fleece honest believers out of their life savings. 

When bad hair day referenced this: "extremists twisting the words to suit their agenda' the fact is they are adhering to the scriptures as they were intended. Non believers are off to hell, hurry up Armageddon, I want to see heavenly paradise."  I see the following (colour coded for your convenience):

Morning TV televangelists ak Jerry Fawell and Ted Haggard
Westbro Baptist Church
Zionist Republicans
*Not* Jehova's Witnesses

I've not even attempted to define religion by the actions of extremists. I've made arguments about how little was known when they were formulated and said nothing specifically on the misappropriation of religion until you went off on an entirely predictable word rampage.

You narrowed BHD's post into a specific, singular context and that is coloured by your own bias. Hopefully the colour coding might become a regular feature to save you the effort.

I gave the post a broad, natural meaning. I interpreted as:

bad_hair_day wrote:

Regarding 'extremists twisting the words to suit their agenda' the fact is they are adhering to the scriptures as they were intended. Non believers are off to hell, hurry up Armageddon, I want to see heavenly paradise.

Luckily for us, now most read the texts through the lens of modernity.

You are the one using colours, examples, and some kind of magic whereby my post was somehow about you and your beliefs (ER, what?), And then asserted that I narrowed the post into a singular context.

So:

1) what narrow context did I restrict the post to?
2) do you agree that one gauges textual intention by looking at the most extreme possible interpretation, anytime anywhere? If not, kindly fuck off and go argue with someone who cares what you have to say. I merely pointed out the logical insanity in what bhd posted, and has historically continually posted: he doesn't care that there are moderates and extremist Xs, he will define X by the extremist. Logically X is the most extreme possible example conception of X.

There is no point arguing with people who think like that, you can only mock them.

GooberTheHat wrote:

I don't think hair's post did that though. The fact he said most read the text through the lens of modernity suggests that he thinks extremists are the minority. Saying they are adhering to the scriptures as initially intended is provocative, but then I presume that that is what extremists believe they are doing.

He doesn't say anything about numbers, nor are they relevant. His post is regarding the (argument/objection/defence that extremists are) twisting the words to suit their own agenda. Answer: they are not. It is a fact that they are adhering to the text as it was intended, not twisting its words.

If you can't see the post and what it means, I can't help you.

Literal is a difficult concept. Which text, which part? If, literally interpreted, a text means we should hurry to our death and the after world, that is interpreting many other parts of the same text teleologically: eg proscribing suicide, praising a life well led, no murder, do not harm, etc etc. Ultimately interpretation is coloured by external factors and agendas. The less cohesive a text as a whole the less helpful a literal interpretation is.

Long and short of it is that It's not for me to say, I can't tell you what the intention is, my best guess is: these texts were written by lots of people at different times who had different and differing priorities and agendas, but what cuts through them is an idea of unifying societies behind certain approaches to tackling coordination problems eg justice, family, inheritance, property, inequality, etc. We have invented better tools than those antiquated solutions imo. But even ours are only as good as those wielding them.

bad_hair_day wrote:

Don't really know why you're getting in such a tizz about it Gonz, most are moderate and as I don't have the actual percentages - it's a best guess.

Extremists/fundamentalists are characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of unambiguous religious texts such as stoning someone to death for the crimes of working on the sabbath/blasphemy/adultery/being gay etc.  Now we can all go trawling through the Quran and the Bible to find some nuggets of morality and sense but it's rather like digging through shit for sweetcorn.  There's a little there but is it really worth it?  Nope.

Wow been a long time since I read the Koran, I totes forgot is mostly about murdering folks and stuff and barely owt about morality or godliness.

(Clue: it's overwhelmingly about those things, and stories and stuff. Other clue: nowhere in the Koran is stoning a prescribed punishment for any act, let alone stoning to death)

You're correct Gonz, most of scripture is dull and irrelevant, it's only when Mo got to power god prescribed that stoning malarky. 

I wasn't singling out rad Islam, just as concerned that the incoming U.S. administration is brimming with extremist suits intent on fucking up children's ed with creationism, retracting abortion and gay rights and generally helping to bring on the rapture.

Erics are ace, Muzzers come tenth  

Thanks for the responses gonzo.

And that article is pocketed face. Cheers.

A 15th century apologetic might have said something similar? There's been capitalism for centuries, just smaller scale.

US senators or college educated suicide bombers are looking through the same 21st century lens as Stephen Hawking and Maajid Nawaz.

Fundies believing it's an infallible instruction book from god and think everyone else is delusional is the problem.

I'm up for taking a scalpel and removing all the references to creation and harming others on a live feed to Al Jazeera & Fox News. Shouldn't be a problem, as these religions are intrinsically peaceful and the violent texts are never acted upon literally.

I get extremists don't operate in a vacuum, and agree they never have.

You mentioned fundamentalism's rejection of western capitalism.

https://theconversation.com/five-rational-arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451

Its like he hasn't been paying attention.