Page 1 of 4
#1
Long post. This has been perplexing me recently.

I've noticed a trend in organised religion whereby the book of choice (here the bible) is stated to be the word of god, to be an account of events in time that reflect an objective moral system (so a moral system independent of human minds - prescribed by god in this case) and doctrine, message, etc from this god. This is normal, and pretty much the history of theistic forms of organised religion.


The problem is that many modern Christians do not follow this book exactingly, or as closely as is humanly possible. The old testament seems to have been dismissed for the fact that it paints their god in a negative light, but also because it is no longer comfortable or acceptable in modern society. Which is all very well, but that entails cherry picking - if the word of god is absolute, then the feelings of a human about that word are irrelevant - it is absolute, and if they truly believe in his word, it should stand that they follow it exactingly. If they do not, they surely cannot believe in the veracity of his word, do not trust him, or otherwise have some element of doubt towards his plans.

to give an example, there are users on this forum who will quote scripture - usually new testament - to support their ends, but they do not in the same system of belief condemn homosexuality, which is mentioned and criticised in the new testament several times. This is inconsistent, and doing this undermines their own account of the veracity of scripture and/or the word of god. If you follow the word of god and believe him to be the things that the religion and scripture advertise him to be, then you necessarily must condemn homosexuality regardless of whether you think that it is right or wrong to do so. If you do not, you necessarily undermine - in your mind - the idea that this god is what he claims or is touted to be, or you show an irreverence for said god that is condemned in the bible.

How is that not just using an authoritative source to justify one's own beliefs in the spur of the moment? Is it much different to when Nietzsche's sister changed his work up to make him a nazi philosopher? people who do that surely cannot truly believe or have faith in the word of god because they refuse to acknowledge some of those words in favour of their own moral system. In this God - for these people - seems to be less of an actual deity, and instead a character adapted into fan-fiction from the bible, used to suit the ideological needs of the person -- rather than the literal god the word of whom is held to be without question.


So would it be better to call these nonadherents "spiritualists", "christian atheists" (that's a thing apparently), "moralists" or something of the sort? Are all these sects that water down the source text not insulting the deity they claim to adore by diminishing his word and script?


(I'm careful not to do the "no-true-scotsman" thing, but the problem with that is that a NTS doesn't come into play if the person being questioned is categorically not what they claim to be - in this case, how can you be a follower of god, jesus, their words and having a belief in them, if you do not follow them in accord with the idea that they are infallible, objectively and totally right and loving and powerful and so on - if you don't follow a god like a god, then you're more like a "fan" in the boy-band kind of way, no?)


So

what are your thoughts?
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Feb 17, 2017,
#2
This is just my observation,

I think people now are becoming more discerning when it comes to religious choices. The dearth of information available allows people to essentially "cherry pick" the attributes of their chosen religion that they most strongly identify with.

It's been pointed out many times of the hypocrisy of christianity and its teachings (think Josiah Bartlett in the West Wing), it doesn't make a person non-Christian, maybe just a more refined (for better or worse) version of it.
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#3
i_lovemetallica
But by cherry picking they necessarily ignore something touted to be absolute. They categorically do not follow the word of the god they claim to revere in doing this.

Like I said, the Bible at that point (for the person in question) becomes a combination of God Fanfiction and Quote-to-support-my-independent-moral-beliefs Bingo.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#4
Quote by Banjocal
i_lovemetallica
But by cherry picking they necessarily ignore something touted to be absolute. They categorically do not follow the word of the god they claim to revere in doing this.

Like I said, the Bible at that point becomes a combination of God Fanfiction and Quote-to-support-my-independent-moral-beliefs Bingo

They don't follow the entire word of God, but that doesn't give any less impact to the other teachings espoused by the Bible (or any other religious text)

I mean, at the end of the day, what is lost by people making active choices to (supposedly) better their lives? Should a person be punished and ridiculed for not following every teaching in the Bible, no matter how impractical it is?

Common sense applies to religion also
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#5
Normally I avoid this, but I guess I can offer my 2 cents.

I was raised with the belief that there's probably a lot of truth in the Bible, but that it was written so long ago that a lot of it was lost in translation, so now there's no certainty that every word of it is accurate. That would just be impossible. So instead, we just take the general morality that claims it's good to be good and bad to be bad. And if there are mistakes in our ways, then they're ours and ours alone and we'll face them when that time comes and hope for the best. My mom has read it all before and believes this as well.

I can acknowledge that my idea of God is probably one that just satisfies what I want to believe in (not like I can deny it without making a preaching fool of myself anyways), so it's not my place to judge anyone who says otherwise. That's why I always just keep it to myself, like literally every religion that has ever been ever should.

Will Lane can probably weigh in more on this. I recall having a particularly interesting discussion with him about this.
There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
Last edited by Joshua Garcia at Feb 17, 2017,
#6
if i used facebook anymore i'd copypasta this just to see the butthurt
#7
Quote by Dregen
if i used facebook anymore i'd copypasta this just to see the butthurt

Because it's edgy as hell or because you know a lot of angry religious people I honestly am curious. If someone can give me a logical solution to the dilemma I'll be satisfied

Quote by i_lovemetallica
They don't follow the entire word of God, but that doesn't give any less impact to the other teachings espoused by the Bible (or any other religious text)
I mean, at the end of the day, what is lost by people making active choices to (supposedly) better their lives? Should a person be punished and ridiculed for not following every teaching in the Bible, no matter how impractical it is?
Common sense applies to religion also
Thing is, to me, what I just said is common sense. I'm building it on a logical argument to weed out the irrational parts (whether I'm any good at it is another matter but i digress)

I never said ridicule, I'm simply setting up an argument for that it does not resemble faith in god. I don't understand how you (not you personally ofc) can claim to believe in the teachings of Christ or the father and not follow them per the idea that these teachings are infallible, absolute. While I'm not religious, thinking of things from a religious perspective I fail to see how such behaviour can be admitted as faith - it doesn't resemble faith in god.

Would it not be better to segregate these people into a different category - "spiritualists", "christian atheists", "moralists" etc? Treating scripture this way seems antithetical, and reduces it to little more than what may as well be a philosophical treatise or a really good novel. I was under the impression that the whole point is that it is no such thing.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with those suggested categories - to be honest I find the idea of christian atheism quite admirable. But at the same time I don't understand how you can honestly tell me you have faith in this objective, omniscient god and not really follow his teachings

Quote by Joshua Garcia
So instead, we just take the general morality that claims it's good to be good and bad to be bad.

I can acknowledge that my idea of God is probably one that just satisfies what I want to believe in .
The problem here is that the general morality does not change simply because the event has been obscured - to a "true" christian homosexuality absolutely is wrong. There is no debating that. It's in the book. Written in conceptual terms rather than like a story). So if you believe in the teachings of the bible and its veracity, its source being divine and all knowing, you necessarily must believe that.

and that's fine, if a little logically fuzzy. But are you really a Christian then? Really? It sounds like such a deity is not adherent to any scripture or formal system save for whatever values you have been instilled with through experience. I don't poopoo that idea of god, but I do the idea that you can tie that down to another system of belief.


I've gotta go to "work" so I'll get ready and give y'all a chance to actually type
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Feb 17, 2017,
#8
Quote by Banjocal
Because it's edgy as hell

This is already edge as hell.

It literally comes down to the fact that you can't paint all {group} with one brush. Each person has their own interpretation of {thing} and trying to point out supposed hypocrisy in the group as a whole fails to realise that it is a disparate entity.

There are also hundreds of sects of Christianity, which are also constantly changing. It's not that hard.

It's also ridiculous calling it 'cherry-picking'. Do you want people to be like "Oh well I'm a Christian and I don't really have anything against homosexuals, but the man over there said I was being a hypocrite so now I have to stone them"
Quote by Mr E Meat
this is your brain

this is your brain on RT

Quote by Standard_A440
Given that you reside in the shade of the natural light of reason, I will defer doing your homework to you.
Last edited by Gatecrasher53 at Feb 17, 2017,
#9
You're trying to solve a logic problem when there is none.

EDIT: damn disappearing posts
Quote by Mr E Meat
this is your brain

this is your brain on RT

Quote by Standard_A440
Given that you reside in the shade of the natural light of reason, I will defer doing your homework to you.
#10
Quote by Banjocal
The problem here is that the general morality does not change simply because the event has been obscured - to a "true" christian homosexuality absolutely is wrong. There is no debating that. It's in the book. Written in conceptual terms rather than like a story). So if you believe in the teachings of the bible and its veracity, its source being divine and all knowing, you necessarily must believe that.

and that's fine, if a little logically fuzzy. But are you really a Christian then? Really? It sounds like such a deity is not adherent to any scripture or formal system save for whatever values you have been instilled with through experience. I don't poopoo that idea of god, but I do the idea that you can tie that down to another system of belief.


I've gotta go to "work" so I'll get ready and give y'all a chance to actually type
I'm basically saying I don't think we should believe in the teachings of the Bible because previous post. At least not all of it to the point that everything in it is an absolute truth. I haven't read it, so I can't speak from my perspective, but I've heard there's findings and stories that directly contradict the "absolute truth" that homosexuality is wrong cba to find that. I'm not denying it myself (because again, I never read it, and doubt you have either), but I think it proves that there's a lot in it that people can't agree on, and it's probably because, once again, a lot of it was lost in translation.

And because of that, defining a Christian in itself is a little fuzzy. Nowadays, in its very basic form, a Christian is defined by many simply as someone who believes in God and Jesus and accepts them in their heart. But that doesn't sit well with a lot of other Christian's (Like Will Lane) who believe everything in the Bible is right and we should live accordingly. But it would be pointless to create a new religion just to satisfy the two, and since Christianity is an umbrella term in itself, it's the easiest way to define oneself. Though personally, you can define me however you'd like, so long as your satisfied.
There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
#11
Quote by Gatecrasher53
This is already edge as hell.

It literally comes down to the fact that you can't paint all {group} with one brush. Each person has their own interpretation of {thing} and trying to point out supposed hypocrisy in the group as a whole fails to realise that it is a disparate entity.

There are also hundreds of sects of Christianity, which are also constantly changing. It's not that hard.

It's also ridiculous calling it 'cherry-picking'. Do you want people to be like "Oh well I'm a Christian and I don't really have anything against homosexuals, but the man over there said I was being a hypocrite so now I have to stone them"
Okay.

First of all, I don't see how it's edgy. I find this phenomenon genuinely confusing and do not understand how it logically occurs.

I at no point mentioned interpretation - that there are multiple interpretations and sects may derive as such is not relevant. It's so obvious and besides the point.

I am specifically talking about the paradox in there being the idea of

A: a divine, all knowing all powerful god the word of whom is absolute and objective, and
B: people who claim to follow this word according to the veracity of such per A, but only follow it in part, or avoid following certain elements of it for reasons that directly contradict this faith in A.

Interpetation is a different matter, and a total non sequitur in this context.

I specifically mentioned homosexuality - the bible is not ambiguous about it in either testament.

to give an example, there are users on this forum who will quote scripture - usually new testament - to support their ends, but they do not in the same system of belief condemn homosexuality, which is mentioned and criticised in the new testament several times. This is inconsistent, and doing this undermines their own account of the veracity of scripture and/or the word of god. If you follow the word of god and believe him to be the things that the religion and scripture advertise him to be, then you necessarily must condemn homosexuality regardless of whether you think that it is right or wrong to do so. If you do not, you necessarily undermine - in your mind - the idea that this god is what he claims or is touted to be, or you show an irreverence for said god that is condemned in the bible.

f the word of god is absolute, then the feelings of a human about that word are irrelevant - it is absolute, and if they truly believe in his word, it should stand that they follow it exactingly. If they do not, they surely cannot believe in the veracity of his word, do not trust him, or otherwise have some element of doubt towards his plans.


If you choose to obey the word of god per A, but per B do not follow through on things like homosexuality, you by necessity call this divinity, objectivity, absolutism into very serious question - either that or you do not believe in the word of god as more than advice. That is cherry picking. Also, belief is not action.

Garcia makes an interesting point below that I'll admit I didn't fully account for

Quote by Joshua Garcia

And because of that, defining a Christian in itself is a little fuzzy. Nowadays, in its very basic form, a Christian is defined by many simply as someone who believes in God and Jesus and accepts them in their heart. But that doesn't sit well with a lot of other Christian's (Like Will Lane) who believe everything in the Bible is right and we should live accordingly. But it would be pointless to create a new religion just to satisfy the two, and since Christianity is an umbrella term in itself, it's the easiest way to define oneself. Though personally, you can define me however you'd like, so long as your satisfied.
Lost in translation is fair - I'm referring to things like the gay because the bible is quite unambiguous about it.

Per bolded, then Will should absolutely condemn homosexuality. And this is the kind of adherence I'm confused by, as a lot of people who follow that belief do not seem to follow through on things like that.

I have to ask: why not?

Quote by Gatecrasher53
You're trying to solve a logic problem when there is none.

EDIT: damn disappearing posts
See above. It is a quite present problem that I have been presented with on multiple occasions. It reflects an inconsistency in attitude towards the power of the word of god, and I genuinely do not understand this inconsistency.

Sorry about the delete - was on my phone and can't type well at all with it.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Feb 17, 2017,
#12
Quote by Banjocal
Okay.

First of all, I don't see how it's edgy. I find this phenomenon genuinely confusing and do not understand how it logically occurs.


I at no point mentioned interpretation. I am specifically talking about the paradox in there being the idea of

A: a divine, all knowing all powerful god the word of whom is absolute and objective, and
B: people who claim to follow this word according to the veracity of such per A, but only follow it in part, or avoid following certain elements of it for reasons that directly contradict this faith in A.

Interpetation is a different matter, and a total non sequitur in this context.

I specifically mentioned homosexuality - the bible is not ambiguous about it in either testament.

It 100% is about interpretation because not all Christians consider the Bible to be infallible, some don't even consider it the direct word of their God, (the books that make up the New Testament were written by various historic figures all with different experiences, opinions and teachings bundled together into one volume). The Bible as it is known has changed throughout history, It is not constant, nor absolute, and most people don't treat it as such. I'm not even a Christian, but I was raised as one and this is some dumb edgy shit.
Quote by Mr E Meat
this is your brain

this is your brain on RT

Quote by Standard_A440
Given that you reside in the shade of the natural light of reason, I will defer doing your homework to you.
#13
Quote by Gatecrasher53
It 100% is about interpretation because not all Christians consider the Bible to be infallible, some don't even consider it the direct word of their God, (the books that make up the New Testament were written by various historic figures all with different experiences, opinions and teachings bundled together into one volume). The Bible as it is known has changed throughout history, It is not constant, nor absolute, and most people don't treat it as such. I'm not even a Christian, but I was raised as one and this is some dumb edgy shit.
Just gounna quote myself again here
Per bolded, then Will should absolutely condemn homosexuality. And this is the kind of adherence I'm confused by, as a lot of people who follow that belief do not seem to follow through on things like that.


It isn't. I have already set up the conditions that I am speaking about those who do regard it as authoritative, an absolute directive - even before I laid it out as A and B it was apparent that I was doing so. Again, talk about interpretation is besides the point - one may interpret the bible differently to another, but if both people regard it as absolute then there is no issue with the interpretation so much as there is with following through on that interpretation.

Again, I don't see how it's edgy. If it makes you feel better to use that word by all means go ahead, though.

EDIT:As an aside I'd be interested in whether it's become a matter of things going from objective religion to subjective religion over the course of history, if that makes sense. A subject-focused form of belief as opposed to the older more collective-driven, more authority-driven forms of doctrine is an interesting change to religion and arguably one that makes the sort of beliefs I'm talking about here quite old hat.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Feb 17, 2017,
#14
Quote by Banjocal
Are all these sects that water down the source text not insulting the deity they claim to adore by diminishing his word and script?


Pretty much
#15
Lord give me strength
Quote by Mr E Meat
this is your brain

this is your brain on RT

Quote by Standard_A440
Given that you reside in the shade of the natural light of reason, I will defer doing your homework to you.
#16
Quote by Gatecrasher53
Lord give me strength
That is not an argument

I have established the conditions I am speaking under: precisely A and B - I'm not talking about people who don't regard the bible as authoritative.

Please. Make relevant arguments if you are to at all.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#17
As far as the 'old testament' thing goes, it's not like a Christian should just throw it out and pretend it didn't happen. It provides the historical context for the new testament and ties in pretty closely. According to Jesus he fulfilled the law of the Jews and a new religious institution was started after his death, which did away with many of the laws. Eg... death penalties, sacrifices. The whole 'love god and neighbor' thing now became the 'law' of christianity however there were a number of things directly commanded and condemned, like Banjocal noted. It didn't diminish the importance of the mosaic law as an histotrical basis for christianity but it was now obsolete.

Just my 2 cents
#18
Quote by Banjocal
That is not an argument

I have established the conditions I am speaking under: precisely A and B - I'm not talking about people who don't regard the bible as authoritative.

Please. Make relevant arguments if you are to at all.

You're right, it was a joke.
Quote by Mr E Meat
this is your brain

this is your brain on RT

Quote by Standard_A440
Given that you reside in the shade of the natural light of reason, I will defer doing your homework to you.
#19
They have received the updated 2.0 version of the Bible straight into their brains, it's very modern to tell the truth. No longer does God work in mysterious ways.
WHAT A
HORRIBLE
NIGHT TO
HAVE A
CURSE.
#21
Quote by Rebel Scum
The bible is a great piece of non-fiction fiction.
I mean to be fair I think that it's perfectly possible for some of it to have happened, and some of it is decidedly lacking in ambiguity (this is why I'm chummy with the homosexual scripture - you would have to reach so fucking far to say "oh it's just a metaphor" or that it isn't a condemnation). Some parts are highly interpretive or metaphorical (well, unless god really is floating about in which case) but I don't think it's the total pisstake that reddit seems to want it to be.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Feb 17, 2017,
#22
Banjocal

Good luck getting serious responses to this thread btw... or at least sifting through them. I've found it's best to have discussions about history, religion, and philosophy away from the internet. Lol this is the pit though i probably don't need to state that
#23
mind_meld
Nah I've had some great discussions on here, and I am being a mix of hard-headed and really really specific (and the thread title is really reductionist) so people's criticisms of what I'm saying aren't baseless.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#24
Quote by Banjocal
It isn't. I have already set up the conditions that I am speaking about those who do regard it as authoritative, an absolute directive - even before I laid it out as A and B it was apparent that I was doing so. Again, talk about interpretation is besides the point - one may interpret the bible differently to another, but if both people regard it as absolute then there is no issue with the interpretation so much as there is with following through on that interpretation.

Imo you weren't clear at all in your first post. You jumped straight into Chistians believe absolutely in the Bible, and then went to "but not all of them follow all it's teachings". And then you framed lack of blind belief as a bad thing, which was honestly the most egregrious part of the OP.

Also, all online discussion of religion (and especially the bible) is edgy, no exceptions. Dont worry, we're all edging in here.
Quote by Mr E Meat
this is your brain

this is your brain on RT

Quote by Standard_A440
Given that you reside in the shade of the natural light of reason, I will defer doing your homework to you.
#25
Banjocal

Yeah true the specifics are are good thing though, ideally it narrows down the argument and the reasoning. The question of truth aside, there's practically no church practising Christianity as prescribed in the bible, so people are left to work out which one is the best of a basically 'bad' bunch. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, just that traditions creep in and unpopular ideas get ignored
Last edited by mind_meld at Feb 17, 2017,
#26
Gatecrasher53
That's fair - In retrospect I should have given the post a bit more time and some proper editing. My fault on that

The blind belief thing is more conditional on the sort of god described in Anselm's argument (that which is greater than all things yaddayadda) - I'm not convinced you can really believe in such a thing and be selective with what is basically a second-hand handbook of his/their directives (even if it is one that is extremely epistemically questionable in places). Imo if you believe in a god that knows all there is to know, and you have any sort of "access" to his word, you'd do best to stick to him like sweets on a summer day
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#27
I think religious scripture can best be compared with an Excel planning.
In the beginning it was set up by a bright IT guy who had heard the word of God (which is to say management told him the paper "planning" at reception really was a no-go, and please figure something out).
He created some nice pivot tables and whatnot, and all the ladies at reception had to do was fill in the necessary data and use the filters if they had to look something up.

Then the IT guy was fired, because "Hey, we have the planning now, we don't need you anymore". Before long, one of the new interns at reception sorted where he should have filtered, made some changes to the planning, then realised he sorted when he should have filtered and re-sorted the whole thing hoping to get everything fixed again. (He did not get offered a job btw)

A week later, one of the more experienced ladies at reception noticed that some of the data was in the wrong place and thought, "Hm, I should probably just copy this sheet, hide the original and start over", not taking into account that she was now messing up some of the references for a pivot table that her manager used for her progress reports. Her solution for getting the cells referencing the correct data again was "You know what, I'll just type it in myself, that way I know it won't go wrong."

After a long time of this, what was once a neat planning, complete with a main data entry sheet, some neat pivot tables, an overview sheet and colour-coded tabs, is now the spreadsheet equivalent of the elephant man stabbing a pigeon and overdosing on 17 different drugs at the Holi spring festival.

Now of course, the divine idea for the planning still exists somewhere in the ether of good intent and company objectives, and out there somewhere is a cranky, still unemployed IT guy who could tell you that this isn't how you're supposed to use the damn Excel planning you twats, but all anyone interested in management's ideas can see is that they probably wanted a planning of some sort, and perhaps some of the data can still be salvaged if we copy the good bits into notepad.

In short: If you're going to trust the bloody intern with a shared document, make sure to create a back-up.
#28
I believe in Jesus, but I don't believe in the Bible. I believe in parts of the Bible, but I think it has been translated so many times & manipulated by so many crooked people over the years that I refuse to accept everything written in it at face value.
#29
If someone identifies as a Christian, you're.... I don't know, some kind of bigot or other, if you try and tell them otherwise.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#30
Quote by slapsymcdougal
If someone identifies as a Christian, you're.... I don't know, some kind of bigot or other, if you try and tell them otherwise.


#31
Quote by Banjocal
Lost in translation is fair - I'm referring to things like the gay because the bible is quite unambiguous about it.

Per bolded, then Will should absolutely condemn homosexuality. And this is the kind of adherence I'm confused by, as a lot of people who follow that belief do not seem to follow through on things like that.

I have to ask: why not?
But it goes deeper than that.

To begin with, I don't think there is no one specific religion for following everything the Bible says. It's all just based on what you choose to devote yourself to from it. There's also the big factor that the Old Testament has different sets of rules than the New Testament does, so there is no perfect example. Instead, we have specific religions for that that will lay out what set of rules to believe in from it.

Will isn't just a Christian. He's an Evangelical Christian, which is a very specific type of religion, but still falls under the umbrella term of Christianity. He probably is following everything he's been told to follow according to his religion. I don't actually know anything about it lmao.

I don't know how every religion works and I won't pretend to, but I think that, for every action not followed through according to the Bible while still being devoted to many others, there's a specific religion for it that falls under Christianity. The main difference (and probably why there's disagreement in defining a Christian to begin with) is devotion. They may devote themselves to things other Christians/religions won't for the sake of appealing to their idea of God, but the fact that they're devoting themselves to the same God in the Bible is what makes them a Christian. Whereas, in a sense, you could say a Christian like me is a blank slate, taking from both and forming an idea of my own.
There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
Last edited by Joshua Garcia at Feb 17, 2017,
#32
Apparently a lot of self-proclaimed followers of Christianity barely even read the Bible, let alone follow/disregard what it actually says.

I read a study once that thousands of people all over the world participated in and found that the average atheist in their study was able to accurately cite more bible quotations than the average devout Christian could.

That would explain a hell of a lot if its true.
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
#33
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
A lot of so-called followers of Christianity barely even read the Bible, let alone follow what it says.

I read a study once that thousands of people all over the world participated in and found that the average atheist in their study was able to accurately cite more bible quotations than the average devout Christian could.

Implying that if those Christians actually read the book they said they believed in, they might reconsider if being a Christian is such a good idea.
It's kind of one of those things; at the time when the scriptures of most major religions were first taking form, literacy was generally the preserve of the priesthood, and the scriptures - and the decisions of what would be canon and what would not - and their commentaries would become political tools as well.
I mean, as things stand, there are more versions of the Bible than there are editions of Star Wars.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#34
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Apparently a lot of self-proclaimed followers of Christianity barely even read the Bible, let alone follow/disregard what it actually says.

I read a study once that thousands of people all over the world participated in and found that the average atheist in their study was able to accurately cite more bible quotations than the average devout Christian could.

That would explain a hell of a lot if its true.

Probably lending some credence to the quote "Religion is the opium of the masses"

Anyway, if they haven't read the Bible, even though they identify as Christian, does that mean they are not?

I play guitar, but I've never learned theory, does that mean I can't be a musician?
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#35
Quote by i_lovemetallica
I play guitar, but I've never learned theory, does that mean I can't be a musician?
You know, I actually remember Crazysam and some other dude agreed that no, you're not. As much as I like the dude, I couldn't even begin to understand his reasoning with that.
There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
#36
Quote by Joshua Garcia
You know, I actually remember Crazysam and some other dude agreed that no, you're not. As much as I like the dude, I couldn't even begin to understand his reasoning with that.

Proudly brought to you by the creator of wahriff.mp3
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#37
Quote by i_lovemetallica
Probably lending some credence to the quote "Religion is the opium of the masses"

Anyway, if they haven't read the Bible, even though they identify as Christian, does that mean they are not?

I play guitar, but I've never learned theory, does that mean I can't be a musician?
I'm now "at work" so I can't chip in as much but

I guess the distinction for me is that when you play guitar without theory, you don't make moral, epistemological, historical and teleological claims through the notes you play. You can justify your preference for a chord sequence through simple taste and maybe "I like the resolve". This is unlike the espousal of a religious belief that, when uttered, might be challenged - if one makes a truth claim about God's power or knowledge, for example, I'm inclined to think "okay, and how do you know this?"

I don't take the bible as an authoritative source or even a book of philosophical argumentation (for the most part) but I respect a Christian that has the devotion to say "look, this is my source, this is the context, it is from this that I derive and justify my beliefs". If they can't do that, my problem is that they may as well use any book or any random quote to justify their held beleifs - when there is no text, no authoritative source for your belief, but you assert it, you're basically using the veil of a religion to justify your feelings
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#38
Quote by i_lovemetallica
Proudly brought to you by the creator of wahriff.mp3
Tbf I left out the word "basic". That apparently makes all the difference.

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1600387&page=2#70
There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
#39
Quote by slapsymcdougal
I mean, as things stand, there are more versions of the Bible than there are editions of Star Wars.

Not for long
Quote by Mr E Meat
this is your brain

this is your brain on RT

Quote by Standard_A440
Given that you reside in the shade of the natural light of reason, I will defer doing your homework to you.
#40
Quote by Gatecrasher53
Not for long
I'm pretty sure Christianity has just as much stuff that's non-canon.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
Page 1 of 4