New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[Tamas]

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death. 

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other. 

[garbon]

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death. 

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other. 

I think most of them were written in the 8th and 9th centuries, so that's about comparable to the gospel suggested dating. Also, I think Islam recognizes that it is difficult to tell which are genuine.

Actually wiki notes that as a whole field of study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

Not sure why funny, makes sense that such would happen. Sort of like various traditions that have built up overtime in Christianity.

[Tamas]

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death. 

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other. 

I think most of them were written in the 8th and 9th centuries, so that's about comparable to the gospel suggested dating. Also, I think Islam recognizes that it is difficult to tell which are genuine.

Actually wiki notes that as a whole field of study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

Not sure why funny, makes sense that such would happen. Sort of like various traditions that have built up overtime in Christianity.

Funny in the way that while they don`t have the faintest idea about which one of those is made up BS (probably nearly all of them, considering their dates of origin), they have played a key role in the religion.

[garbon]

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death. 

Hadith

Right that's the one. Those are hilarious. There was like thousands of them by the 1300s or something, and a lot of them directly contradicted each other. 

I think most of them were written in the 8th and 9th centuries, so that's about comparable to the gospel suggested dating. Also, I think Islam recognizes that it is difficult to tell which are genuine.

Actually wiki notes that as a whole field of study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_hadith

Not sure why funny, makes sense that such would happen. Sort of like various traditions that have built up overtime in Christianity.

Funny in the way that while they don`t have the faintest idea about which one of those is made up BS (probably nearly all of them, considering their dates of origin), they have played a key role in the religion.

Does it really matter if they are made up if people choose to follow them? After 1200 years, it seems like what was originally said/intended should be of less value outside of historiography.

Also, it isn't as though Christianity does better in that regard.

[Tamas]

It does matter, and yes Christianity is only marginally better.

That`s a common argument from the more "enlightened" religious folks: "what matters is the message!" that is wrong on several levels.
Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances. Like Christians on stuff like the Earth going around the Sun and stuff.

Also, the "take it literally" and "go for the message" stances are freely switched around depending on the individual and the agenda. I mean, I should take XY from the Bible as metaphoric, but I should take for granted that Jesus lived, died for our sins, than resurrected? That`s quite a power in some humans hand to tell me which part is literally true, which is there for the general feelgood message.

This applies a thousand times more for Islam where the Quran is told to be basically told-to-pen by God to Muhammad, and the Hadiths told to be direct quotes from the Prophet. (my favourite ones are the ones which contradict the Quran itself)
It is ridiculously irrational to be good with told all that, and then be ok with an insane number of hadiths being knowingly fake.

And correct me if I am wrong but there are still laws and judgements handed out based on hadiths.

[crazy canuck]

Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances.

No, metaphorical analysis of Biblical text has always been a strong tradition within all three religions of the book.  It also has strong traditions within other religions as well but you are focusing on these.

[merithyn]

It does matter, and yes Christianity is only marginally better.

That`s a common argument from the more "enlightened" religious folks: "what matters is the message!" that is wrong on several levels.
Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances. Like Christians on stuff like the Earth going around the Sun and stuff.

Also, the "take it literally" and "go for the message" stances are freely switched around depending on the individual and the agenda. I mean, I should take XY from the Bible as metaphoric, but I should take for granted that Jesus lived, died for our sins, than resurrected? That`s quite a power in some humans hand to tell me which part is literally true, which is there for the general feelgood message.

This applies a thousand times more for Islam where the Quran is told to be basically told-to-pen by God to Muhammad, and the Hadiths told to be direct quotes from the Prophet. (my favourite ones are the ones which contradict the Quran itself)
It is ridiculously irrational to be good with told all that, and then be ok with an insane number of hadiths being knowingly fake.

And correct me if I am wrong but there are still laws and judgements handed out based on hadiths.

I'm trying to understand why religion seems to insult so many people. Religion isn't the problem. The application of religion in a way that harms others is.

[Ed Anger]

Tamas will be smote by the Holy Beet of Antioch.

[grumbler]

I am sorry man, I just found it hilarious that when I declared the Bible`s general content as unproven, you tried to argue that by pointing out that it contains some proper historical stuff.

You really are thick, aren't you?    You equated the historical evidence for The Bible with that of The Hobbit, and then conceded that many things in the Bible truly existed, which means that many things in the Hobbit must have, as well.  A blunder of Martiesque proportions.  And you can't even see how stupid you sound.

I hope you keep it up.  It is hilarious.

[Tamas]

Religion isn't the problem. The application of religion in a way that harms others is.

I agree with you on that, but the boundary is blurry at best.
Sad truth is, if somebody is harming somebody else out of religious beliefs, he is no less religious than you who would never think to do such a thing. Why? Because he is reading/being told the same "oh lets not take it literally" texts, either taking them literally or not (doesn`t matter) and reaching conclusions that what he/she is doing is A OK.

[merithyn]

I agree with you on that, but the boundary is blurry at best.
Sad truth is, if somebody is harming somebody else out of religious beliefs, he is no less religious than you who would never think to do such a thing. Why? Because he is reading/being told the same "oh lets not take it literally" texts, either taking them literally or not (doesn`t matter) and reaching conclusions that what he/she is doing is A OK.

John Hinkley Jr thought that what he was doing was A-OK because he was sure that Jodie Foster would approve of it.

[Sheilbh]

That's why you need organised religion and a Church

[Barrister]

Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances.

No, metaphorical analysis of Biblical text has always been a strong tradition within all three religions of the book.  It also has strong traditions within other religions as well but you are focusing on these.

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

[Sheilbh]

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

[crazy canuck]

Most notably on the level that generally speaking, retreat from the "it is literal, yield or die!" stance to "well it is metaphoric and should be looked at for the message inside" stance happens under extreme pressure of circumstances.

No, metaphorical analysis of Biblical text has always been a strong tradition within all three religions of the book.  It also has strong traditions within other religions as well but you are focusing on these.

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.

Yeah, I'm not sure when it started.  I agree it is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Whenever it started, it has created a strawman for Tamas to attack.