Difference between revisions of "VillageIRC religion discussions"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→2007-01-27 21:16:05 EST: more) |
(→2007-01-27 21:16:05 EST: quoting the Bible out of context: more counter-responses) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
'''Response''' was essentially "you can't just rewrite the Bible". | '''Response''' was essentially "you can't just rewrite the Bible". | ||
| − | + | '''Counter-responses''' include (only the first one was brought up at the time): | |
| + | * the existence of the [[Jefferson Bible]] | ||
| + | * the fact that there are thousands of different versions of the Bible, not to mention annotations presenting interpretations and historical background for all or part of it | ||
| + | * the fact that we certainly ''interpret'' the "word of God" the way we see fit; why not rewrite it to be more in line with the [[best]] ways in which people actually ''understand'' it? (If "best ways" is too vague or open to argument, then we could either apply criteria such as "doing the least harm", which would lead to rules such as "no stoning anyone for any reason even though the Bible states that stoning is required punishment for particular transgressions", or it could represent the particular views of specific sects of Christianity – something which would be useful to have regardless) | ||
| − | Subsequent conversation clarified some points, but did not resolve the original questions. | + | Subsequent conversation clarified some points, but did not resolve the original questions nor address these follow-up points. |
Revision as of 21:31, 10 February 2007
Overview
This page is for summarizing some of the more interesting discussions in the irc://darkness.villageirc.net/#religion chatroom on VillageIRC. Specific chatters will not be identified (by nickname or real name) without their permission.
Threads
2007-01-27 21:16:05 EST: quoting the Bible out of context
(Woozle said) Here are some questions which came to me as I was watching the Richard Dawkins video:
- If the Bible is being "quoted out of context" by those who attack religion (e.g. Dawkins), then why is there not more of a faith-based initiative (especially within the more moderate areas of Christianity) to publish a clearer, better-written version of the Bible which is harder to misunderstand?
- Why is there not more horror expressed by moderate Christians regarding the abuses of these "out of context" passages by those who *do* take them literally, such as those who believe adultery and homosexuality should be capital offenses?
- Where is the list of parts of the Bible which no civilized, reasonable person would take seriously?
Response was essentially "you can't just rewrite the Bible".
Counter-responses include (only the first one was brought up at the time):
- the existence of the Jefferson Bible
- the fact that there are thousands of different versions of the Bible, not to mention annotations presenting interpretations and historical background for all or part of it
- the fact that we certainly interpret the "word of God" the way we see fit; why not rewrite it to be more in line with the best ways in which people actually understand it? (If "best ways" is too vague or open to argument, then we could either apply criteria such as "doing the least harm", which would lead to rules such as "no stoning anyone for any reason even though the Bible states that stoning is required punishment for particular transgressions", or it could represent the particular views of specific sects of Christianity – something which would be useful to have regardless)
Subsequent conversation clarified some points, but did not resolve the original questions nor address these follow-up points.