Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[Castiel]

Of course I know what a proverb is, why that has an effect on what I said before, I don't know. I take the passage literally, in that I interpret it as I believe it was intended. Why would the word 'rod' be used, if in the next sentence, the word discipline was used?

Because it is a metaphorical expression of disciplinary behaviour. This is why it is important to determine such things objectively and using scientific methods, not simply taking a literal word for word value from it, as that completely misses both the intention and the meaning of the proverb itself. 'Must not cry over spilt milk' doesn't literally mean don't cry over spilt milk.....

Well, if it was just referring 'discipline', why mention the word 'rod' at all? For confusion? For aesthetic value? For the lulz? Or maybe, when 'Whoever spares the rod hates his son', is actually trying to convey that physical abuse is necessary?

I'm not going to argue over your determination to ascribe literal intent where there is none, to me it is plain as to both the nature and expression of the proverb, and it is not that you should beat your children. It simply means that if you do not discipline your child, it will not learn right from wrong, obedience and so on.....another form of the expression is Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child.

You asked for my measured opinion, that is it. It's not something that bares a huge amount of debate.

 

[Castiel]

Lol... I would love for you to show me where I have done that.

Bearing in mind that barely hours ago, I posted something pretty much showing that I think the exact opposite of what you have just insinuated.

You are doing it with the proverb, not that they are the word of God that was only in reference to Christians who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Bible, but the explicit nature of the words themselves....

Just to clarify.

 

[Naffa]

You asked for my measured opinion, that is it. It's not something that bares a huge amount of debate.

If there's nothing hat bares out much debate, we can leave it there. I have said why I disagree with you, and why it's a problem (as so many people do read the Bible as being divinely inspired).

You are doing it with the proverb, not that they are the word of God that was only in reference to Christians who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Bible, but the explicit nature of the words themselves....

Just to clarify.

Right... Well, I don't need to be a linguist to read that you were insinuating that I read the Bible as literally the word of god.

 

[m4rk84]

Don't put words into my mouth. Please.

How was that putting words in your mouth?

By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight. It is the gift of God you are saved, through grace not works, so that no one may boast. He who believes in the son is not condemned, but he who does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the one and only begotten son of God.

Remember Jesus said no one comes to God but by him. People who teach that you can go to heaven through works alone are preaching in opposition to the words of Jesus.

This appears to me to be a very literal view of the words of the bible. You have shown your literal belief in the words of the bible several times throughout the thread.

Unless I am mistaken and you wish to make clear your position as Castiel has requested several times now?

 

[Castiel]

People smack their children with belts - do you agree that is immoral too, then?

Pretty much...as discipline needs to be measured, instructional and most of all consistent. While I understand the historical importance of corporal punishment within the cultures and environments that practiced it, today in liberal and stable societies it is not a necessity to use it, in fact it reinforces the belief that violence is acceptable, violence begets violence so to speak.....so is counter productive and instils the wrong set of values that we should be promoting.

I am against all kinds of physical chastisement of children, I admit being in an abusive childhood biases me greatly, but even so I feel it is simply not necessary as there are a myriad of other options open to a family in our society.

 

[Castiel]

If there's nothing that bares out much debate, we can leave it there. I have said why I disagree with you, and why it's a problem (as so many people do read the Bible as being divinely inspired).

I'm not really sure why you think proverbs are literal, but I understand the problem of biblical literalism in a liberal society...I rail against it all the time. It is one of my pet hates, as you are no doubt aware.

Right... Well, I don't need to be a linguist to read that you were insinuating that I read the Bible as literally the word of god.

It was uncharacteristically p) poor wording on my part...I was referring to the explicit literal nature of your interpretation of that particular proverb, (words themselves) and the literal expression of the wider bible in regards to what I was saying to M4rk84. (Literal word of God).....Hence the clarification, trying to say too much in too short a sentence. Forgive me.

 

[Naffa]

I'm not really sure why you think proverbs are literal, but I understand the problem of biblical literalism in a liberal society...I rail against it all the time. It is one of my pet hates, as you are no doubt aware.

I'm against reading it as anything more than a collection of stories, many of them being pathetic pieces of garbage (the creation story comes to mind). I have to reiterate, I don't read the entirety of the Bible literally, however, this does not rule out the possibility that there are certain verses that mean what they say (literally), and can't be read in any other way.

 

[m4rk84]

I'm not really sure why you think proverbs are literal, but I understand the problem of biblical literalism in a liberal society...I rail against it all the time. It is one of my pet hates, as you are no doubt aware.

Biblical literalism seems very common to me in America specifically, and even to some extent here in the UK. It seems far more common then you imply. Although the more educated Christians definitely seem to see the problems with it.

 

[hurfdurf]

It's absolutely disgusting behaviour. Do you beat your wife, too? Or is it only permissible to hit defenseless children? (That wasn't specifically aimed at you, I don't know how you feel about it).

http://apsa.org/About_APsaA/Position_Statements/Physical_Punishment.aspx

Brilliant post.

 

[Castiel]

I'm against reading it as anything more than a collection of stories, many of them being pathetic pieces of garbage (the creation story comes to mind). I have to reiterate, I don't read the entirety of the Bible literally, however, this does not rule out the possibility that there are certain verses that mean what they say (literally), and can't be read in any other way.

I wasn't referring to you reading the Bible, only the way you were interpreting the example you chose from Proverbs.

There are parts of the Bible that are quite literal, using Proverbs to illustrate this is ill-conceived though in my opinion.

 

[Castiel]

Biblical literalism seems very common to me in America specifically, and even to some extent here in the UK. It seems far more common then you imply. Although the more educated Christians definitely seem to see the problems with it.

It is not common at all in Academia or mainstream Liberal Christianity , and Conservative Literalism is more common in the US because of the Conservative and Charismatic Evangelism movements, which are being (as many things are) shipped over here, and the way that anyone can call themselves a pastor and run with it.....however, even there it is estimated about 30% of confirmed Christians are literalists, and this is growing, partially in response to cultural and political events over the last couple of decades such as the rise of Islamism and the push in Conservative America for a stricter adherence to Christian fundamentals....which seems entirely a counter productive way of going about it.

I think the problem is one of media, we hear about the loonies because they are interesting, the liberal Anglican minding their own business isn't very newsworthy, the pretend pastor burning Qu'rans is....this skews our views of what is the actual reality.

 

[Castiel]

Unless I am mistaken and you wish to make clear your position as Castiel has requested several times now?

He won't.

 

[hurfdurf]

No, because they are simply biblical quotation, or paraphrases of them, it takes no account of the critical interpretation or translation of the texts themselves, how they relate both contextually, historically and grammatically. For a very simple and common example, the penultimate reference to Matthew 10:34 is not necessarily referring to physical violence, (in fact according to one school of Hermeneutics there is a mis-translation as evidenced in The Book of Kells that suggests it is not mentioning violence at all) but to division of ideology and is in fact referencing conflict of belief and the challenges the disciples faced rather than advocating physical violence.

Easy to quote a bible passage, a little more challenging to interpret it correctly and rationally however, as I am sure you appreciate, if not now, then in time.

While this is fascinating and what not, and shows you have an amazing grasp on the bible for which I applaud you, it doesn't answer the bigger question.

What kind of idiot God comes down and announces him self before decent note taking is established? If he was going to do it why not wait and do it now so we have video evidence instead of doing it when the only thing people could do was write things down, still had slaves and hadn't even discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun let alone electricity?

Oh yea, the kind of God that doesn't exist, that people believe in to make themselves feel better.

 

[Castiel]

Perhaps its is more akin to intervening in a child's development hurfdurf....you wouldn't just let a child run wild until adulthood before trying to teach them the skills they need to develop into better people would you?

 

[Jason2]

While this is fascinating and what not, and shows you have an amazing grasp on the bible for which I applaud you, it doesn't answer the bigger question.

What kind of idiot God comes down and announces him self before decent note taking is established? If he was going to do it why not wait and do it now so we have video evidence instead of doing it when the only thing people could do was write things down, still had slaves and hadn't even discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun let alone electricity?

Oh yea, the kind of God that doesn't exist, that people believe in to make themselves feel better.

How dumb! Christ came at just the right time. All scholars agree on that. Soon after Christ the population literally exploded. If the messiah was ever going come then when Jesus appeared was the right time.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jno5b0tQ5Ck

Key: The messiah would come and rise from the dead BEFORE the second temple was destroyed.

 

[Jason2]

He won't.

I don't belong to any denomination. Why do I need to belong to a denomination?

 

[hurfdurf]

Perhaps its is more akin to intervening in a child's development hurfdurf....you wouldn't just let a child run wild until adulthood before trying to teach them the skills they need to develop into better people would you?

So this God intervenes at some point, but now billions are suffering, its up to us because he told a tiny segment of people with no real way to accurately communicate about himself centuries ago? What a stupid God, if he is real, I want nothing to do with him and will align myself with Satan upon my death to dethrone him.

 

[hurfdurf]

How dumb! Christ came at just the right time. All scholars agree on that. Soon after Christ the population literally exploded. If the messiah was ever going come then when Jesus appeared was the right time.

What does a population explosion have to do with anything, and no, I am not watching anything you link after some of the clear disprovable dross you have linked in the past, if you can get taken in by the guy who claimed the banana was an "atheists nightmare" then its no wonder you have fallen hook line and sinker for the weird cult you follow.

 

[Castiel]

I don't belong to any denomination. Why do I need to belong to a denomination?

So you don't belong to any particular church or doctrine? No particular movement or theology?

 

[Castiel]

So this God intervenes at some point, but now billions are suffering, its up to us because he told a tiny segment of people with no real way to accurately communicate about himself centuries ago? What a stupid God, if he is real, I want nothing to do with him and will align myself with Satan upon my death to dethrone him.

I think that you will believe whatever you want regardless of any explanation from me as to how religion is not the same as a belief in God or any further discussion on possible explanations for the questions you are asking....I understand your point of view and I'm fine with that, each to their own point of view and all that.

For me, while we can all point to things in religious doctrine or actions of the church etc and say that's an example of prejudice or hate and that example may well be true, but it isn't THE truth. Most organised religious institutions are a reflection of man, rather than a reflection of God (if there is one that is) and I'm more comfortable criticising the actions of a church in respect of their stated beliefs than simply attacking them because they believe something different than I do.