Religious tolerance

Same here Luckygirl- many of my best friends and family are religious, from so many Christian denominations, and from other religions, including Islam and other religions around the world. And we do have great respect for each other, and amazing discussions.

Very few have mixed backgrounds, and have grown up in one denomination, and married into the same, and continued with the same- and are therefore not always aware of the huge differences of what is accepted, believed and differently interpreted, from the Bible.

But the question remains- how do you (one) pick and choose. Confronted with so many contradictions coming from so many sides- there was only one logical and honest way for me, and it was 'out'. I am totally sincere and honest and even simple things I could not say 'like believing in the Trinity' for instance, as it made no sense to me. Many atheists (I'd call myself a humanist actually, but not the place for nitpicking about names here) - do not become so for no reason- but because those contradictions made them think deeply about it- and they never found the answer.

I will switch off the computer after this post till tomorrow, but here is my last post of the night:

'why do so many Christians feel it is ok to quote the Koran out of context and literally' and not the Bible? What is the difference?

John Rutter a very prolific writer of music for religious use is an agnostic. He writes many Christmas Carols. He sees no problem with this position.

I find it is quite possible to respect someones religious views without sharing them.

An interpretive view of the Gospels was always taught when I did RE at school.

Besides if as a member of a choral society, I would miss so much wonderful music if I took an extreme view that I have to believe it to sing it. I don't see that as hypocracy.
Should I?

I dont want to get too deep into this thread. I am trying, honest!

I think, for people like you Granjura, it is easiest to find a translation of the Bible that you cant find many holes to pick, if that makes sense.

A lot of translations are not that much different from each other, not ones used in the UK anyway
[some are, but a christian bookshop would be able to help you]

It is definitely not hypocrisy Nelliemoser.

I was listening to a choir today, and it was very moving.

I'm with you Nellie. The church has nicked most of the good music!

John Rutter is intriguing. He was a boy chorister and writes mainly religious music songs and carols. When asked about this contradiction he said that when he is writing, he is a believer, and when it is finished he returns to his agnosticism. He once said that he felt a bit bad about making a living out of something he did not believe in!

But it is no different for a composer of an opera - you have to believe in the story while you are composing, however fanciful it might be.

soon - I am against fundamentalist christianity, and if the churches where I play were of that ilk, I would not be there. I think the brand of christianity practiced in the local village churches is entirely benign, and I am happy to help with the music in their services.

I cannot answer your question about why non-believers start these discussion Tricia, but as I said those who do not share the state religion sometimes feel equally "got at" by the encroachment of religion in secular life!

Any translation of the bible that leaves few or no 'holes to pick' would not be a good translation. This is probably true of most, possibly even of all, books.

why do so many Christians feel it is ok to quote the Koran out of context and literally' and not the Bible? What is the difference?

I am not at all sure that I agree one bit with this premiss.
How many people actually do quote from the Koran, whether out of context or in?
Can you cite examples - on Gransnet, for instance, or in the media?
As for quoting from the Bible, for many people the language and phrases of everyday speech often have their origins in the Bible, in the well-known hymns of our childhood ( or of course in Shakespeare).
So I wonder why you should pose a question, without giving examples of your question's foundation.

Tricia what kind of 'quote' are you talking about?

To me the message in this 'letter' is very clear, even though written in a jokey style.

I don't think it is meant to be "funny" in the laugh-out-loud sense. It is surely meant to be a wry comment on the absurdity of trying to base one's moral code and conduct on a book which was written at a time when it was normal practice to, for instance, sell a daughter into slavery.

I suppose people who still feel homosexuality is a sin are uncomfortable when it is demonstrated that the biblical texts which inform that view also, in their time, were the basis for very many irrational and primitive practices and prohibitions that are totally unacceptable now.

In my view it is a sign of the strength of a religion if it feels able to examine and question itself and to allow others to believe (and behave)differently according to their own moral code. It is, I feel, those who are uncertain of their ability to defend their beliefs - other than by falling back on historical texts - who tend to express outrage in order to avoid further examination of those texts.

Schlessinger was non-religious until she and her son began practicing Conservative Judaism in 1996.[2] In 1998, Schlessinger, Bishop, and their son converted to Orthodox Judaism,[58] and began instruction under Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka of Ottawa, Canada. During this time, Schlessinger sometimes used Jewish law and examples to advise her callers about their moral dilemmas. She occasionally clarified ethical and moral issues with her local Orthodox Rabbi Moshe D. Bryski, before mentioning them on the air. She was embraced by many in the politically conservative segment of Orthodox Judaism for bringing more awareness of Orthodoxy to her radio show. Some of her expressed views were explicitly religious and are referenced her 1999 book The Ten Commandments: The Significance of God's Laws in Everyday Life. Although her other books have stressed the importance of morality, they are more secular in nature.[citation needed]

From Wiki

So what's this got to do with Christianity?

So it is about orthodox fundamentalist Juadaism but with the emphasis on fundamentalist and on orthodox.
As such it transfers easily to any fundamentalist interpretation (is that an oxymoron?) of the Bible which is an argument we have had already on GN re fundamentalist Christianity and literal interpretations of the Scriptures.

It made me smile anyway!

Not dure where the Koran comes into it, but perhaps granjura can explain her reference to it?

"Not SURE"

My point was, why is it wrong/unfair/distorting- to pick quotes from a religious book to either mock, discredit or look for signs of extremism or contradiction- and not from another. In the last few years I've seen parts of the Koran used to do just that and confirm it is a violent and mysoginist religion. Why is it OK to do that for the Koran, but not for the Bible- not sure if I express myself well.

Soon, your comment 'for people like you jura' - just don't know how to take it. What do you mean for 'like me'?

As a professional translator all my life, and the daughter of the Secretary for the Swiss Bible Society- I'm perhaps more aware than most of the vast disparency and even distortion, translation can make. Chinese whispers come to mind. There are 100s of versions- and huge differences- and some Christian groups insist on one being used and not another- to suit.

I mentioned previously a conference I attended a few years back- given by a senior jesuit Priest who is one of the most famous expert in Hebrew and translation. He explained very clearly how the story of Adam and Eve was totally changed, deliberately it seems, by early translators. In the original Hebrew, several words are used for 'man' and 'mankind', neither of them representing male or female. Therefore the who story of a woman, and women in general, being responsible for the original sin is a pure distortion or even lie- to confirm the inferiority of women in the Church.

Someone recently sent me a pm (don't worry I will not divulge who) saying I am anti religion and Church. As I explained to her, I am not- at all. But the contradictions in the Bible, and between the many Christian groups both our families belonged to- made us think hard and compare, study- and we both came to the conclusion it didn't make sense to us. We are on ver good terms with all of them, and with our local Churches, both Catholic and Protestant- who use parts of our house all the time and we work together on local social projects, with great common respect. It is possible to be non religious and not 'anti' religion. As said before, many of our family abroad are Muslims- we respect them to, and vice-versa.

Perhaps this might be interesting to some. Do skip if it is too long, or do more Google and other research on Bible translations. For me, it is hugely interesting:

Since most of us are unable to read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, we are dependent on language scholars to translate the Word of God for us. Knowing this, we are privileged to have a number of different English translations available as they make it possible for us to have more direct access to God’s Word than most Christians in earlier centuries possessed.

However, if Bible translation is just a matter of converting ancient languages into English, why are there so many different versions available? After all, the Canadian government regularly translates documents from French into English and vice versa without much difficulty. Why should translating the Bible be any different? The answer is that, unlike modern-day languages such as French, Spanish, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, are fundamentally different from the English language. As a result, there is more to Bible translation than simply converting individual words from the original language into our language.

For example, a literal word-for-word translation from Greek into English of John 3:16 reads: “For thus loved God the world, so as the Son the only begotten he gave, that everyone believing in him may not perish but may have life eternal.” As we can see, a simple word-for-word translation is virtually unreadable to most people. In order to achieve a functional translation, the grammatical structure needs substantial modification.

Types of Translations

At the risk of oversimplification, there are three main categories of Bible translations.

1-Essentially literal: These translations retain much of the form and structure of the original language and provide a word-for-word translation to the greatest degree possible. Translations in this category include King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), and the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

2-Dynamic equivalence: These translations employ a “thought-for-thought” approach that conveys the essential meaning of the original authors. Concepts and metaphors less widely known to modern-day readers are frequently rephrased. Translations in this category include New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), New International Reader’s Version (NIrV), New Living Translation (NLT), New Century Version (NCV), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).

3-Free paraphrase: Paraphrases take great liberty with the biblical text and seek to convey the meaning of the author using contemporary phrases and metaphors. The best-known paraphrases are The Clear Word (Clear Word), The Living Bible (TLB), and The Message (Message).

Within each of these categories, there is significant variation. For example, the NIV is generally more literal than other dynamic equivalent translations, while The Message makes bigger departures from the original text than The Living Bible or The Clear Word. Nevertheless, these categories are a useful way for the average Bible reader to differentiate from the plethora of translations available.

Illustrating the different translation approaches when translated strictly word for word, Romans 8:8 reads as follows: “And the [ones] in the flesh being God to please cannot.” Here is how it reads using representative translations from each of the three categories:

Essentially literal:

“Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (ESV).
“So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (KJV). Dynamic equivalence “Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God” (NIV).
“That’s why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God” (NLT).

Free paraphrase:

“Anyone completely absorbed in self ignores God, ends up thinking more about self than God. That person ignores who God is and what he is doing. And God isn’t pleased at being ignored” (Message).

[I dont know who sent you the pm. But if it was nasty, I think that you should report it to gransnet. They will take it seriously.]

By people like you, I meant those who have had many different cultural and religious influences.

Anyone who reads that Bible a lot, begins to get a bit of an overall grasp of a big picture.

You can query the original sin and women. But throught the Bible, and that includes the New Testament as well as the old, there is a recurring theme of men being the boss.
I dont think you need to me to list all of it.

Between some translations that are regularly used in this country, the variations are minimal. And in no way take away from the overall picture and meaning.
It is quite easy to fret about small discrepancies, and miss the huge picture. The good news.

No Soon, the pm was not nasty at all, so would not report it. It just stated the person felt I was 'anti' religion, and I am not.

Totally agree about the big picture- but anyone, Christian or not, who denies the many clear contradictions in the Bible, needs to try and understand it a bit better.

The Methodist Church does recommend the use of a specific Bible, translatation, but does encourage open study and comparison, which is good.

I once read that the word 'virgin' is the same as the word for 'unmarried woman' in the original text of the bible, which means that the whole virgin birth could just be a mistranslation!! Mind you, lasses in our youth who 'got into trouble' would have loved to get a story believed, about how an angel did it.

I would imagine translating ancient texts is a dreadful task, full of questions and problems about what words really meant back then. The translators' personal beliefs could very well slip into the work, perhaps without the translator realising it.

But one thing I know for certain: the bible was written by men, many different men over many many years, and they would all have had their own axes to grind.

My point was, why is it wrong/unfair/distorting- to pick quotes from a religious book to either mock, discredit or look for signs of extremism or contradiction- and not from another. In the last few years I've seen parts of the Koran used to do just that and confirm it is a violent and mysoginist religion. Why is it OK to do that for the Koran, but not for the Bible- not sure if I express myself well
While I agree with all that you say in your first 2 1/2 lines, I still don't agree that it is commonplace to quote the Koran. However when I have heard Muslims talking about the tenets of their faith,and many have spoken out very bravely in the media in the aftermath of some of the IS atrocities, what I hear is the exact opposite -their Islam as based on the Koran is not a violent and aggressive religion in practice but the antithesis. That it is (Mia) represented by groups with a political agenda is hardly down to the Prophet Mohammed. Yes, it seems misogynistic by our Western standards, and there are appalling abuses of human rights, but the Koran is no more to blame than the Old Testament, or even the teachings of St Paul, it is the fundamentalist application of such basic teachings.

Oh lor' iPads, " (mis)represented -fat finger syndrome?

Thank you for your interesting posts granjura. I have no doubt that the bible currently used in churches is heaving with mistranslations that are frankly dangerous. The extolling of virginity and women seen as being unclean (which is present in several religions) has dogged society for thousands of years - and all because of a mistranslation. It highlights the danger of taking these and other religious texts literally.

I am prepared to be tolerant of all religions, provided that:

- their adherents approach their religious texts with their brain switched on, as well as with the sense of reverence and wonder that is inherent in religion, and which the non-religious share.
- no children (of either sex) have their genitals mutilated
- they do not expect to become the state religion and for their beliefs to interfere with secular life and laws.
- they are not evangelical and leave others to their own beliefs, or indeed respect those beliefs.
- they do not persecute minorities
- they do not demonstrate male dominance, and women are treated as equals.

Well - that should do I think. Here is a challenge: please find me a religion that fulfills all those conditions.

It'll be a one-off if there is one, Lucky, a bit like granjura.

A lot of parts of the Bible, at least the main themes, are repeated often throughout.
So any minor mistranslations become rather moot.