The Good News Only - thread...

[Mugshot]

I haven't got a wireless.

 

[matticus]

I try not to offend with religion....but take the Stone Roses in vain and the gloves are off !

Should be the Godwin's Law of NACA.

 

[All uphill]

I didn't realise he was still alive.

My wireless only receives the Third Programme.

 

[Unkraut]

Even the texts which exist, were written hundreds of years after the events to which they pertain. So, in addition to problems of language translation, there is added the possible variation in the story, with the passage of time

I don't think anybody seriously thinks these days the NT wasn't written in the first century, the manuscript evidence for a substantial portion of the text goes back 150 AD or a tad later.

I have acquired a son-in-law who is originally of East German atheist stock, and can read the OT in Hebrew, the NT in Greek, also the Latin translations, is conversant with ancient Babylonian probably the world's oldest extant language, and can read the Egyptian on the Rosetta Stone ("actually it's quite easy"). He is interesting to ask when attempts are made to revise the translation of the text to fit modern 'values', where the original won't allow that.

If you're a Christian you would surely give more weight to the words of Jesus, than to a passage on what you can and eat from Leviticus.

It would have been really helpful if the early Church had extracted the words and teaching of Jesus from the texts and just said, 'You know what, let's just stick with all the good stuff... we can junk the rest'.

The whole volume has the same origin, though not all of it applies to today. More to the point, who gets to say what the 'good' stuff is? Only that which fits modern values? Where do they come from? It's obvious biblical sex ethics at loggerheads with current morals, but take something like Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. The modern Conservative Party has no problem with greed or covetousness, and does think your life consists in your acquired wealth. Should warnings about the dangers of greed by dropped to ease the consciences of wealthy Brits?!

 

[Ian H]

I don't think anybody seriously thinks these days the NT wasn't written in the first century, the manuscript evidence for a substantial portion of the text goes back 150 AD or a tad later.

Or, as Wikipedia states, There is no scholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament texts. There are plenty of references within the article.

 

[newfhouse]

Should warnings about the dangers of greed by dropped to ease the consciences of wealthy Brits?!

No, but nobody needs your book to tell them that.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The whole volume has the same origin, though not all of it applies to today. More to the point, who gets to say what the 'good' stuff is? Only that which fits modern values? Where do they come from?

Who gets to decide what applies to today? If that's the case, why don't we give the same status to the 'Only eat animals with a cloven hoof' from Leviticus as we do to the 'Forgive those who sin against us..' from the Gospels?

We don't (if we are Christian) because the understanding surely is that the teaching of Jesus supercedes Old Testament teaching. When the teaching of Jesus conflicts with OT teaching (eg An eye for an eye v Turn the other cheek), you go with the Jesus stuff surely?

If it all had the same origin, it wouldn't contradict itself. Which is why it's better to look at what Jesus actually said rather than what other contributors to the Bible chipped in. I agree with you about the dating of the New Testament though. I just think it's perfectly possible to apply your brain and reason to any religious text and discern what a loving God would want you to do. Otherwise how can we address issues that weren't in the Bible (like the environment) from a religious perspective?

 

[newfhouse]

I just think it's perfectly possible to apply your brain and reason to any religious text and discern what a loving God would want you to do.

As a woman I don't think you're qualified to do that

 

[AuroraSaab]

Is Steve Wright really so terrible now? I used to listen to him a lot on the drive home years ago. Must admit I didn't recognise him in the photo. I'm always a bit surprised people when think a radio show or an acting part is a job for life. He'll join Blackburn and Partridge on Norfolk FM or something I expect.

At least Mayo and Kermode have been binned off or flounced too. Couldn't stand those two.

 

[qigong chimp]

I just think it's perfectly possible to apply your brain and reason to any religious text and discern what a loving God would want you to do.

That's a bit thin. What about the scriptures of those religions that don't posit any sort of God, loving or otherwise? And if brain and reason are the only faculties/tools we've got then everything begins to look like sudoku.

Set on the soul's acropolis the reason stands
A virgin, arm'd, commercing with celestial light,
And he who sins against her has defiled his own
Virginity: no cleansing makes his garment white;
So clear is reason. But how dark, imagining,
Warm, dark, obscure and infinite, daughter of Night:
Dark is her brow, the beauty of her eyes with sleep
Is loaded and her pains are long, and her delight.
Tempt not Athene. Wound not in her fertile pains
Demeter, nor rebel against her mother-right.
Oh who will reconcile in me both maid and mother,
Who make in me a concord of the depth and height?
Who make imagination's dim exploring touch
Ever report the same as intellectual sight?
Then could I truly say, and not deceive,
Then wholly say, that I B E L I E V E.

C.S. Lewis

 

[newfhouse]

That's a bit thin. What about the scriptures of those religions that don't posit any sort of God, loving or otherwise? And if brain and reason are the only faculties/tools we've got then everything begins to look like sudoku.

Set on the soul's acropolis the reason stands
A virgin, arm'd, commercing with celestial light,
And he who sins against her has defiled his own
Virginity: no cleansing makes his garment white;
So clear is reason. But how dark, imagining,
Warm, dark, obscure and infinite, daughter of Night:
Dark is her brow, the beauty of her eyes with sleep
Is loaded and her pains are long, and her delight.
Tempt not Athene. Wound not in her fertile pains
Demeter, nor rebel against her mother-right.
Oh who will reconcile in me both maid and mother,
Who make in me a concord of the depth and height?
Who make imagination's dim exploring touch
Ever report the same as intellectual sight?
Then could I truly say, and not deceive,
Then wholly say, that I B E L I E V E.

C.S. Lewis

Tosh, innit?

 

[winjim]

As an atheist I don't consider it appropriate for me to tell a religious person how to interpret their scripture any more than I consider it appropriate for them to attempt to apply that scripture to me and my behaviour. I do think it's worth asking religious people how they interpret scripture and practise their religion, and attempting to accommodate those beliefs and practices as far as possible within secular society, also acknowledging the influence that religion has had on shaping society and culture.

It's all very interesting, thinking about the origin and history of scripture, particularly the Christian bible since that's the traditional religion of this country which many of us grew up in or around and therefore have experience of. But I do think it's an altogether more subtle affair than simply picking specific verses here and there to support or refute one's argument.

 

[newfhouse]

As an atheist I don't consider it appropriate for me to tell a religious person how to interpret their scripture any more than I consider it appropriate for them to attempt to apply that scripture to me and my behaviour. I do think it's worth asking religious people how they interpret scripture and practise their religion, and attempting to accommodate those beliefs and practices as far as possible within secular society, also acknowledging the influence that religion has had on shaping society and culture.

It's all very interesting, thinking about the origin and history of scripture, particularly the Christian bible since that's the traditional religion of this country which many of us grew up in or around and therefore have experience of. But I do think it's an altogether more subtle affair than simply picking specific verses here and there to support or refute one's argument.

Killjoy.

 

[winjim]

Killjoy.

Sorry, for some reason the YouTube algorithm has been making me watch lectures on New Testament scholarship and I think it's sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole.

 

[Unkraut]

If that's the case, why don't we give the same status to the 'Only eat animals with a cloven hoof' from Leviticus as we do to the 'Forgive those who sin against us..' from the Gospels?

The text itself tells us we are not under the law of Moses. I doubt, however I will ever live long enough not to see the shellfish and mixed fibres objections being made!

I just think it's perfectly possible to apply your brain and reason to any religious text and discern what a loving God would want you to do.

That would mean that we are God. If you have had anything to do with New Age mysticism, there are plenty of people who do think they are realising their own divinity.

I do, however, completely agree with you that using your brain and thinking is entirely appropriate. The shellfish etc. unfortunately usually means not quite enough thinking has been indulged in.