Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by apexcone, Jan 2, 2019.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Calm down, Wil.
    Tell me ... bearing in mind there are books full of adultery, sex, rape, offering of daughters, murder mahem that are not the Bible ... how many of your biblical folk are burning them?

    I'm just pointing out this kind of comment puts you in the same camp as fundamentalists everywhere. It's not the truth, it's the agenda that counts. The venting of the of outrage. For you its biblical folk, for others its people of colour, people of differing sexual orientations ... the principle is the same, spread enough false data and negative stereotypes and it takes hold. It's what Trump does. It's what the Brexiteers did.
  2. The Artis Magistra

    The Artis Magistra Member

    Feb 23, 2019
    Likes Received:
    Hello! I have nothing much to contribute to this discussion except that I thought it might be about a religion based on the Flintstones and then maybe about viewing the Ancient World as similar to the Flintstones, which I think could be beneficial as well.

    I then read a bit and it seems to have to do with issues regarding the Bible and the things mentioned in it.

    So for me, these are the stages:

    Is the stuff written in the Bible wholly true and accurate and carried down to this day accurately as reflecting some useful truth or meaning or not.

    If one answers yes they proceed, if they answer no it leads to the next question for them, which is:

    Since the Bible does not in your opinion represent accurate or verifiable data, what use can be made of it?

    Which is for them to discover and turn it to some good use if they wish.

    For the first group of people who said the Bible is true, either factually or in its message or symbolism or both, they divide into two groups:

    The Bible is entirely and precisely scientifically and historically true as it exists today.

    The Bible may not be accurate if interpreted Historically or Scientifically but Metaphorically and Symbolically is the Truth.

    There are sub sections of these each:

    "As from Man"

    "As from God"

    Now we get to choose our faction. My faction is probably among the strangest of all though.

    Now the one group that can sort of weasle their way out of the most conflict is probably the ones who say "Symbolically True" so as not to be caught in historical or scientific debates.

    Figuring out which faction we belong to or what we really think can then help clarify what we intend to do about it and how we might conduct ourselves in dialogue or debates related to the Bible.

    Some Muslims might consider the stories of the Bible to be slanderous inventions by people, such as talk about major sins committed by people they consider to be pious Prophets who were morally upright and far from common sins and so much further from the major deviant crimes mentioned in the Bible related to important figures like Solomon, David, and others.

    Many probably aren't very familiar with such stories so they may say things before they know which are more supportive of the Bible in hope of smoothing relations.

    One can ask these same questions in relation to any text. Do you think its wholly true or reflective of reality in some way or mixed with falsehood? Can any good use be made of it? Is it from God ultimately or did God have no overarching part of its production?

    My own stance is weird or unusual today because I can not accept anything whatsoever, however vile it may be, not to be the ultimate act and direct production of God who is responsible, in my view, for everything, good and bad, poisonous things and helping things.

    So even if I consider any book a text full of lies or vileness, it is still God's work, even if I know also the author is a human fiction writer who produced it as mere fiction. Even such may also have some benefit which may be extracted by various means of careful analysis, and by making things mean better things, one may turn even some bad things into some kind of good potentially or interpret or develop symbolic meanings which make it better, and even consciously producing this ourselves, I think should be credited to God who does it, and if it helps us or harms us, that too to God's power ruling over and generating all experience.

    I don't expect such a view could ever become acceptable or popular though, since it usually gets stuck with most people at "if God does it then its Good only". For me, God is the producer of everything, and not everything is good for us or healthy or in our favor.

    So now if two people find they are in the same faction, yet are disputing, what exactly can the dispute be about? Perhaps about varying interpretations of something they both consider true in the way they interpret it.

    Much of religious talk ends up in debate about what seems to me to be petty, arbitrary, and unknowable things and speculation over matters which often also provide no clear benefit in accepting or denying one way or another. Yet if people didn't argue incessantly about every petty thing, we would have a pretty quiet and possibly boring world of agreement and conformity. A world of souless and extinguished followers obeying one dogma and creed, one law and understanding. That is the world we tend to work towards while trying to make others submit to our view, I do it too, and even might wish for that colorless and silent world, since I dislike arguing and fighting (not saying anyone here is arguing anything, I've barely read the thread and just basically like the Flintstones).
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  3. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens

    Nov 26, 2016
    Likes Received:
    Too true.

    The person who started the thread seems to be using the terms 'Flintstonism' to mean antiquitated, stone-age mental attitudes to 21st Century issues, in particular marital monogamy?

Share This Page