Religion

[RasputinDude]

I don't disbelieve it, I just interpret is differently to you.

Public speakers and teachers frequently use hyperbole to make a point and that is how I interpret it.


Revelation != the teaching of Jesus.

[MyUserName]

I don't disbelieve it, I just interpret is differently to you.

Public speakers and teachers frequently use hyperbole to make a point and that is how I interpret it.


Revelation != the teaching of Jesus.

Why do you interpret it differently to the actual meaning of the consistently repeated text? If it does not mean what it says how do you know what it does mean? Are all interpretations equally valid?

[tractor]

.....

Why do you interpret it differently to the actual meaning of the consistently repeated text? If it does not mean what it says how do you know what it does mean? Are all interpretations equally valid?

No.

Most religious texts are purposely sufficiently vague as to allow any (mis)interpretation the reader wishes to inflect. This is the biggest problem with the koran.

[meridian]

You'd think that a book written by a god would be more unambiguous, precisely to avoid these types of man-made misinterpretations.

[tractor]

.....

You'd think that a book written by a god would be more unambiguous, precisely to avoid these types of man-made misinterpretations.

For the believers, any departure from what God/Jesus/The Apostles actually meant when they were writing their works must then be perversions of the original meaning so which of those are what god actually meant?

[RasputinDude]

Why do you interpret it differently to the actual meaning of the consistently repeated text?

I don't interpret it literally in the same way that I don't interpret Genesis literally.

If it does not mean what it says how do you know what it does mean?

That's a very good question - generally we work out the meaning of something by looking at context, other information cross-referenced sources etc. If I said "I died of shame", that would - on the surface of it mean that I had died. But clearly I haven't died so there must be another meaning to my statement.

Are all interpretations equally valid?

Not in my opinion, no. I give very little time to interpretation of the teaching of Jesus that are used to oppress or justify violence. Ultra-right-wing American Christians tend to piss me off, Christians who rail about fire and brimstone annoy me, Christians who persecute homosexuals anger me.

I prefer to focus more on the teaching of supporting the poor, weak and sick, removing the mite from own eye before removing the plank from my brother's (hyperbole there again), letting him who is without sin cast the first stone, loving my neighbour, loving my enemy etc.

I don't really feel the need to justify why I focus on these teachings rather than any other. If you think that makes me not a 'Christian' or some other such, then fine; I'm happy with my creed.

[tractor]

.....

I don't interpret it literally in the same way that I don't interpret Genesis literally.


That's a very good question - generally we work out the meaning of something by looking at context, other information cross-referenced sources etc. If I said "I died of shame", that would - on the surface of it mean that I had died. But clearly I haven't died so there must be another meaning to my statement.


Not in my opinion, no. I give very little time to interpretation of the teaching of Jesus that are used to oppress or justify violence. Ultra-right-wing American Christians tend to piss me off, Christians who rail about fire and brimstone annoy me, Christians who persecute homosexuals anger me.

I prefer to focus more on the teaching of supporting the poor, weak and sick, removing the mite from own eye before removing the plank from my brother's (hyperbole there again), letting him who is without sin cast the first stone, loving my neighbour, loving my enemy etc.

I don't really feel the need to justify why I focus on these teachings rather than any other. If you think that makes me not a 'Christian' or some other such, then fine; I'm happy with my creed.

Each to his own and fair play but....

This is one of the big problems with any religion. It is acceptable to choose which parts they believe in or abide by. Given that there is sufficient latitude and conflict between teachings within each religion let alone across religions, anyone can use their faith to justify any action; good or evil.

And they do.

[RasputinDude]

Each to his own and fair play but....

This is one of the big problems with any religion. It is acceptable to choose which parts they believe in or abide by. Given that there is sufficient latitude and conflict between teachings within each religion let alone across religions, anyone can use their faith to justify any action; good or evil.

And they do.

I agree. The bible can be used to justify pretty much anything if you want it to.

[MyUserName]

I don't interpret it literally in the same way that I don't interpret Genesis literally.

Because it has been scientifically disproved and shown to be riddled with errors?

Not in my opinion, no. I give very little time to interpretation of the teaching of Jesus that are used to oppress or justify violence. Ultra-right-wing American Christians tend to piss me off, Christians who rail about fire and brimstone annoy me, Christians who persecute homosexuals anger me.

Why? How do you know your interpretation is correct and theirs is wrong?

I prefer to focus more on the teaching of supporting the poor, weak and sick, removing the mite from own eye before removing the plank from my brother's (hyperbole there again), letting him who is without sin cast the first stone, loving my neighbour, loving my enemy etc.

Why do you need Jesus's teachings for these values? If you are going to pick and choose which bits of the bible you follow then why use any of it? You can determine your own values without this book.

[DannyF1966]

You'd think that a book written by a god would be more unambiguous, precisely to avoid these types of man-made misinterpretations.

You'd also think he'd issue regular updates to cope with changes in language, lifestyle, technology etc to make sure that his word is still unambiguous and being followed. Strange, that there's been no New New Testament, isn't it?