₦airaland Forum

DavidDylan:
those so-called "societies without God" were actually societies built on the foundations of Christianity.

True to a large extend, particularly in the West, a la Scandinavia. Japan is a case that bucks the rule.

JJYOU:
what happens to the suicide rate of japan and south korea?

Yes, I wonder. What happen?

The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth


"This is a long-overdue book about a pressing subject by a brilliant writer qualified not only by his professional expertise but by his own life experiences. The question of why otherwise thoughtful people accept irrational religious fundamentalism is a difficult one to address in our age of oversensitivity about challenging deeply held religious beliefs. But Schimmel confronts the challenge head- on -- respectfully, intelligently, and with the insights that have long characterized his work. This is a must-read for all thinking people who respect religious diversity." --Alan Dershowitz


"Very few books face honestly the social and cultural persistence of what Professor Schimmel here labels the 'tenacity of unreasonable beliefs.' Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- sometimes called collectively the 'religions of the book' -- have developed very different approaches to the Abrahamic tradition. In these approaches, interpretation, belief, and action come together in subtle and often irrational ways. This is a profoundly insightful and illuminating work which asks the reader to consider the correspondence between irrational belief and human behavior in a thoughtful, precise, and eloquent way. It is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in the nature of religiously based violence." --R. Joseph Hoffmann, Chair, The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion

"The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs addresses questions about the psychology of religious fundamentalism in a most penetrating and enlightening manner, from perspectives that are neglected in most of the literature on the subject -- including anthropology, evolutionary and social psychology, and philosophy. Schimmel provides us with a sophisticated understanding of the mentality of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptural fundamentalists, and of why and how they tenaciously cling to beliefs that have failed the tests of experience, scholarship and reason -- and the dangers of their doing so. The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs is an essential read for anyone concerned about defending Western democracy in its ideological struggle against the values, vices, and violence of radical Islam. --Ibn Warraq, author of Why I Am Not a Muslim and Defending the West

Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth. Based on a year's worth of research conducted while living in Scandinavia, SOCIETY WITHOUT GOD by Phil Zuckerman explores life in a largely secular culture, delving into the unique worldviews of secular men and women who live in a largely irreligious society, and explaining the reasons why some nations are less religious than others, and why religious faith doesn't seem to be the secret to national success that so many claim it to be.

"Most Americans are convinced that faith in God is the foundation of civil society. Society Without God reveals this to be nothing more than a well-subscribed, and strangely American, delusion. Even atheists living in the United States will be astonished to discover how unencumbered by religion most Danes and Swedes currently are. This glimpse of an alternate, secular reality is at once humbling and profoundly inspiring--and it comes not a moment too soon."

-Sam Harris, a Co-Founder of the Reason Project and author of the New York Times best sellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation

The Abrahamic antipathy towards sex and all things feminine goes back to traditions Jewish customs as given in the old testament. For a start, the OT treats women essentially as second-class citizens first by considering their natural biological functionings as dirty and filthy:

1) A woman is considered unclean during her periods. Everything she comes into contact with while she is "unclean" also becomes unclean

2) Birth of a female child requires nearly twice as much a period of cleansing as for a male child

3) Women are rarely the beneficiary of the family inheritance.

4) It is very soft on the sexual abuse of females. In some cases requiring the female victim to become married to the rapist


Christianity was only a marginal improvement on the lot of the female sex. It is no surprise given that it is founded on the partriachal Judaic system. Although Jesus would have had female friends, none of his apostles were women. Thus women are not seen as having a pivotal role to play in the early Jesus movement.

In fact, the apostle Paul goes as far as banishing women from speaking in church. 1 Cor 11 is a prepared recipe for discrimination to the female sex. Thanfully, this is largely ignore by most Christians.

However, in the mid to late first century some more influential women became to appear in the movement, but the rise of women was again suppress by Catholicism and the establishment of more formal church structures with the adoption of Christianity as the main religion of the Roman Empire.

With women having been marginalised and downtrodden yet again, it was time they started to be treated yet again as property and worse still sexual property. This attitude pervades most Christian communities today, albeit not quite as bad as in the days of yore.


Young women and men are told it is sinful to have sexual thoughts and lust. In this atmosphere most are unable to learn about the mechanics, subtleties and soft sides of sex. Sex, like any other human activity does not come naturally - it most be practiced and learned to get better at it and enjoy it. Some people have been damage irreparably from their early indoctrination that it is a dirty and sinful thing (Granted this is not all due to religion). In fact, I know of some Christian women who cannot even bring themselve to say a word like masturbate because it evoke feelings of quilt and sin.

The sexual problems amongst evengelicals in American is no better than the ordinary public. In fact, it appears to be worse. Christian evengelical don't watch any less porn, don't masturbate any less, are no more faithful to their partners, etc.

In fact the rate of divorce amongst Christians is worse than amonsgt declared atheists, according to the Barna Group, a leading Christians researching organisation. (Admittedly other Christians have challenge this research).

JJYOU:
you really like attention

Well - Yes and No. Is there a problem asking questions?

What is righteousness?  And how does one become righteous?   Is it a desirable quality for salvation?

Can one be righteous without having faith and grace?

Does one need to be 100% right with god? What if one was just 99% right?

Okija_juju:
All these are just the begining part of the things I'll do.

Would you also cook a baby goat in its mother's milk?

Gamine:
LOL

How can a Tithe be more than 10%

Does it really matter what percentage the tithes are?

If I remember correctly, there is a parable in the NT in which Jesus depicts a picture of a flashy and flamboyant giver as oppose to a poor humble and meek giver whose offerings to god appear to have been better received by god.

Raises another question - Would god refund offering that were not made with the purest of hearts?

Yet another - Supposing you are a billionaire (in dollars, say).  Would you truely give 10% of your wealth as a tithe in your local church?

pilgrim.1:
If the pagan cults of the Roman empire seems to be your worry, you could easily focus on them. To leave them and be constantly disturbed about Christianity is a testimony already that you just don't know where to draw the line.

How are you anyway?

Hello my dear. Am fine. And thanks for asking. How about you? Passed all ya exams, I expect.

Am not worried one bit by the pagan cults. I just enjoy reading up history and the origins of Christianity. Very fascinating. If you haven't yet, take a look at the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It will amaze you just how similar that religion is with Judeo-Christianity.

Na the ting wey you gih we Papa,
Na yin tis we dey bring am so,

Papa yeeeeeeh,

Yeeeeep, Papa owh,
Make you take am wit all ya heart.  

Are there any core Christian tenets that were not plagiarised from the pagan cults of the Roman empire at the time? If there are, I would like to know.

Chrisbenogor:
Lol lol lol lol
Olodo lol
I give them all the marks abeg lol
Una no go kill me.

Na wah oh. Wetin you mean? na wrong I dey do by asking them tis questions?

Jesus said he was going to come back in the lifetime of his listening audience, as in


Mark 9: 1,
And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

Mark 13: 30,
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

John 21:
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?



Luke 21:32
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place."

Matt 10: 23
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

As if these failed prophecies were not bad enough,  Paul also gets into the act of making predictions about Jesus's coming, as in;


1 Thessalonians 4

15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


It has been nearly 2000 years since these prediction were made.  Has any of it come true?

darefestus:
@Poster

How will you say a thing like that!

And what do you know about Apostle Paul?

For ages now, rabbis and jewish scholars have been researching the bible

And none has found anything incriminating about Apostle paul

please, don't try to mislead people on NL

Because Apostle paul is a man respected by all standards.

One more question - When did you begin your findings on the City of Damascus.?

My goodness. Have you ever read you bible? Have you ever take a look at a map of the region. Damascus has been a city of Syria for more than 2000 years.

Well, just go read you bible and I bet, if you put any attention into it, you will soon come across the deceptions and manipulations of Paul.

If Paul told such a horrible lie about the Road-to-Damascus experience, what else could he have lied about? Can we really trust him in any of his pronouncements?

The Apostle Paul was the first to pen down most of the New Testament arguably the central figure in the founding of the religion that has come to be know as Christianity.  This is a guy who claims to have been directly instructed by Jesus to further his ministry.  If Paul had not written his letters and epistles, the new testament would clearly not be the work we know it today.

So it better be true that Paul was actually inspired and instructed by Jesus.  But was Jesus ministry cut short by his unceremonious crucifixion?  What we know about Christianity was essentially propounded by the mind of Paul.  Why would Jesus have left his unfinished ministry in the hands of someone not in his immediate chosen 12.

The first Christian documents to be penned were probably written in the 50s by Paul, a good two decades after the death of Jesus. The earliest gospel, Mark, was written after the year 70, more than 40 years after the events they describe.  The gospels bear the names of some apostles, but it is unlikely that these books were written by any of Jesus's apostle.

So if the gospels are so distantly removed from the events the described, making them less reliable, it is thus important that the works of Paul contain more true and reliable information.  But can we trust Paul to be truthful and honest?  I submit that a great deal of his accounts sounds doubtful, to say the least.  Here are my premises:

1)   He claims to have been working for the Jewish temple authorities, assign to persecute followers of Jesus.  Did this happen in Jesus's sojourn on earth or was it after he had departed?  Is there any evidence that early Christians were persecuted by the Jewish authorities?   I think this claim is spurious.

2)  He claims he was sent to Damascus to persecute and arrest Christians in this city.  This is a very implausible account.  Damascus was and still is a city in Syria.  The Jewish temple authorities would have had no jurisdiction over events in Damascus, let alone despatch a gang of brigand to execute an arrest there.  This would have been frown upon by the overseeing Roman authorities.  This account is unlikely to be true.

3)  The accounts of the conversion incidents, given in Acts and Galatians, are at variance with each other.

4)  After his conversion, how long was it before he meets the other apostles?  Pauls accounts are again at variance.

5)   He himself is aware of the bad reputation he was causing amongst apostles and is surmoned to Jerusalem for a meeting.  He is at pains to say "I  tell no lie", inferring that he was being charge with lying and inventions.

6) Informs his audience that they will see the coming of Jesus in their lifetime.

That a religion that has come to dominate the planet has relied on the manupulative mind of this impostor from Tarsus is an indictment to the state in intellectual thoughts at the inceptions of the movement.

Did I miss it or what? How long was he dead? A month? A year? 10 years?

I would rail against all form of irrationalism, not just Christainity. But Christianity is one of the most pervasive and the most insiduous. I have more experience with Christianity, having been one and living amongst them. I know little about the details of other religions so when it come to these other religions, I am less specific. Notwithstanding, I have made some critical post on the Muslim section. Unfortunately, their moderator are a more ruthless at stifling critical posts.

tpia:
I wish you could go and preach your anti religion message to these people:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Africa-Young-Albino-Girl-Killed-And-Mutilated-To-Give-Body-Parts-To-Witch-Doctors-In-Tanzania/Article/200810315125431?f=rss

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-186063.0.html

unless of course you're a devotee of said religion?

I bet you don't know that when religion cleric held sway in Europe, they were busy killing "witches", pursuing inquisitions, organising witchhunts.  They killed people like Servetus, Bruno, etc.   Man, ignorance is the domain of people like you.  Go bury you head in the sand.

People who believe in witchcraft, the religious, and the persecutors all belong to the same domain of irrationalism.  Where scientific rationalism prevails witchcraft (and belief thereof) religions and irrationalism beat a retreat.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Lol, were you banging your head on your keyboard or what? I don't remember where I said "you not not take this in isolation" - was that how you demonstrate your incohenrence? Okay, just teasing ya!

There was a typo there.  I meant to say  "you are to take this in isolation . . . ."

pilgrim.1:
Anyway, you still seem bent on going round in circles at this matter; and I'll just humour you a little more. No offence, but huxley, take it slowly and then see the point.

Let's say your analogy of lean meat comes in from the doc. The point is: would the doc's prescription be standing alone or in relation to something? Eating lean mean is by no means the big picture - because that does not apply to everybody, does it? That is precisely the point you raised and what you have been arguing so far in consequence is the direct opposite of your own summisings!

The eating of lean meat is not the more preferred for others who do not need that recommendation! It does not apply to every person who eats meat! If someone is better off eating lean meat, it does not mean therefore that eating lean meat is the better choice for everyone!

It appears we are in debate about two issues here:

1)   The direct meaning of the phrase and
2)   The audience to who it was addressed.

It was in regard to the direct meaning of the phrases that I proposed  the vegetarian/lean meant analogy.

Now, are we agreeing that sentences constructed in this fashion implicitly define a hierarchy of options.

It is good to be a vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, eat only lean meat.
It is good to be teetotal.  But if you enjoy a drink, have only low alcoholic drinks
It is good to the unmarried. But if you cannot resist sexual temptation, get married.

I submit that all three propositions above define a certain hierarchy of options,  as follows;

[table][tr][td]1 Vegetarian [/td][td]1 Teetotal[/td][td]1 Unmarried[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2 Lean meat [/td][td] 2 Low Alcohol only[/td][td]2 Married[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Now, there is no getting away from the fact that these statements, in so far as they are constructed in that way, define such a hierarchy.   Do you agree?

I agree that some context is required to give it is full meaning.  And this is where the issue of the audience comes in.

How can we augment the meaning by adding context and audience?  In the vegetegian and drinking analogy, if your medical condition is such that you would benefit from these recommendation, then these ranking would be even more appropriate.  

Now, this brings me to Verse 35, which you keep refering to.  Here is it in its fully glory;

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Does this define a specific  audience for Paul's injunction?   Is the audience defines elsewhere in the chapter?  In my earlier post,  I asked whether the audience were Pastors, Ministers,  Deacons,  Bishops, etc.   But as usual, you evaded that and gave no answer

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,
This was why I have again and again referred to verse 35 when reading verse 38 - surely that is not hard to see, is it? It becomes hard for you to see it when you ignore the preceding verse and treat verse 38 as a stand-alone verse! Which is not my worry. . . I'm just amused that you who spoke of "syntax" are the first to break that same rule!

If you had read my post with some attention you would have seen that I was not considering 38 in isolation (stand-alone).  This is what I really said;

Verse 38.  This is like a synopsis to the foregoing verses.  It starts with the conclusive conjunction expression "So then . . .".  It basically summaries and ties together the preceeding verses in the following way -  to get married is good, BUT to remain unmarried is EVEN BETTER.

Does the above suggest that I have failed to take into account the preceeding verses?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,
What does verse 35 point to any differently from what I have highlighted earlier? If you have a problem with that, I am sorry it is not my worry - people naturally have a problem with what they like to ignore; and this is no different. But I had hoped you would help yourself and not be ignoring that verse.

Am afraid, you have not shown who the audience to these injunction was although you keep harping on about verse 35, and how adding the "mystery" audience into the mix modifies the meaning of the text.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,
Ignore the preceding verses again, not so? Dear huxley, all Christians are called to serve the Lord; but not all Christians are called to serve Him in the same capacity. To make this point clear to you, please read 1 Corinthians 12:29-30. As for those addressed in ch. 7:37, it does distinguishes the people there instead of applying that references to all Christians, does it not?

If I grant you that, then who are the Christians whose capacity and commitment devotions requires commitment to celibacy?   I do not see them in most evangelical movements.

I asked the following:

BY the way,   who are people intending to server God as the primary focus of their lives?   Does this not describe every  Christian?   Does a Christian have anything else besides serving God as their main concern?

Was these meant to be Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops,  Saints,  the laity, the ordinary man/woman?  Who really is Paul addressing here.

And your response was;

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,
Read verse 37.

Now, this is Verse 37;

37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.

Does it define who such persons are?     What is the proportions of Christian evangelical celibates whose devotion to serving God is such that they have foregone the union of marriage?  Is it 90%,  70%,  50%,  10%,  2%,  1%, or 0%?

In fact, what we have failed to take in account is the general audience Paul was addressing and why he was addressing them in this fashion.

Remember, when Paul was writing, there was no such thing as the Bible.  The Christians at the time relied on oral tradition and very little of written text thy may have had.   The earliest reader of Pauls letters and epistles would never had read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,  Acts, and many of the other New Testament books.  Pauls writings were some of the first NT documents to be composed.

Further,  the books of Corinthians was sent out as a letter to the Christians of Corinth, a city in the Greek state. The citizens of Pauls own hometown would not have had access to the book of Corinthians until much later.

So while the Christians of Corinthian may have been busy organising their lives according to Pauls injunctions, we have little evidence that the citizens of other cities of the Roman empire at the time benefited from the book of Corinthians. The Christians of other cities had letters addressed to them, dealing with issues pertinent to their locale.   For instance, the citizens of Galatia had some letters addressed to them.  For the most part of the 300 years prior to the compilation of the bible,  the Galatians who have had no idea what Paul would have told the Corinthians (I admit, this is a very broad analysis, cause there are occasions where Paul mentions in passing what he told other cities.  But the main content of this letter to other cities would not become widely available until much later, following the compilations and the financial wherewithal provided by the Roman Church to produce and translate these books).

So if Pauls message was so important, it would have gone unnoticed by the vast majority of Christian at the time, mainly due to logistical constraints.  A Thessolonian or Galatian who was in doubt about whether to marry would not have had the book of Corinthian.    A romanised Jewish Christian who may be in  a quandary about  the dietary laws would not have had the letters of Paul dealing with this subject.

Now, the key question is this - Would such difficiency in one's knowledge about the right doctrine an obstacle to one's salvation?  What if you had been a Jamesian Christian who favour Works and Law, unlike the Paulines who favour Faith and Grace.  Would this lack of knowledge of the correct doctrinal position jeopardise your salvation?

About time too. We are sick and tired of the religiosos ramming religions on bill boards, in hotel rooms, in school, in courthouses, etc. It is about time we get a hearing too.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Even when you used another analogy, you have still failed to grasped the gist of that passage. You're isolating verses to help the idea that celibacy was (in Paul's mind) far superior to marriage - which if we take care to examine, is as far from the real case as can possibly be.

Why so? Because in the first instance, you don't seem to be able to grasp that 1 Corinthians 7:38 is not a stand-alone verse - rather, it pertains to those who have their hearts set on service in the Christian ministry. This is why I referred you to verse 35 inclusive so you get the simple picture there -

[38]And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you,
but for that which is comely,
and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

[36]But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,
if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will,
he sinneth not: let them marry.

[37]Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity,
but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will
keep his virgin, doeth well.

[38]So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well;
but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

The point should be clear even to a casual reader. You don't draw a conclusion by taking a "syntax" in isolation - I hope you know that already? In which case, when you look acrefully at verse 38 which begins with "so then", it throws your mind back to the previous verses, not so?

Now, what are the previous verses saying - that celibacy overall is more preferred to marriage? Nope - because that would mean that the one who interpretes them that way just wants to deliberately ignore certain verses, especially v. 37. Reading from verse 35, it is clear that Paul enters into the matter of Christian service ("that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction". He does not arrive suddenly at verse 38 while largely ignoring the previous statements. I hope you get the matter sorted now?

But, of course, you may not - and that would be understandable on the premise that you would largely ignoring verses 35 and 37 and arriving at an inference drawn in isolation on verse 38. Not only so, you would ignore also such references as Hebrews 13:4. In this latter case, does he present celibacy as superior to marriage?

The simple thing here is that people often take verse 38 of 1 Cor. 7 in isolation and then promote the idea that such and that is superior to the other - whereas that is not the overall picture. There was a reason for 38, and it is not a stand-alone verse.

Pardon me, these are just ad hoc, incoherent  and incomprehensible comments.  You make comments like "  . . you not not take this in isolation . . . "   But you do not show how one relates to the other.  I am sure you can do better.

Let look at one of your comments from above relating to verse 38;

But what about verse 38 of 1 Corinthians 7? Does it say that it is "better" that a person remains unmarried? Here - "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."  So many people read this verse in isolation and then come to the simplistic idea that marriage is inferior to being unmarried. Nope - Paul made that statement in reference to those who were thinking of serving the Lord as the main focus of their lives (read it from verse 35). If others did not have such deep occupations in their hearts and still want to attend upon ministry, it would be a hard life for them. This is the kind of warning the Bible gives for those who allow themselves to become celibate by religious others - because when they cannot contain themselves, they would fall into a sad situation of sexual abuse.

Now, this is verse 35:

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Who is Paul addressing here?   How do you know it is for "those who were thinking of serving the Lord as the main focus of their lives"  ?

BY the way,   who are people intending to server God as the primary focus of their lives?   Does this not describe every  Christian?   Does a Christian have anything else besides serving God as their main concern?

Was these meant to be Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops,  Saints,  the laity, the ordinary man/woman?  Who really is Paul addressing here.


Here is the main part of the text


[b]32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord.
33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—
34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.[/b]


This is simply plain language.  How can there be any other meaning than the plain meaning that oozes out from it?

Verses 32 & 33 say ,  an unmarried man is concerned about how he can please the Lord  BUT a married man is concerned about the affairs of the world - about pleasing his wife.

Verse 34, exactly the same, but this time the subject is about unmarried woman (virgin).

Verse 35 - explains why they need to remain unmarried,  so that their undivided attention may be focused to the Lord.

Verse 36,  But those who cannot control themselves should get married

Verse 37,  Those who can control themselves and have made up their mind to NOT marry are doing the RIGHT thing.

Verse 38.  This is like a synopsis to the foregoing verses.  It starts with the conclusive conjunction expression "So then . . .".  It basically summaries and ties together the preceeding verses in the following way -  to get married is good, BUT to remain unmarried is EVEN BETTER.


Is this not simple plain English?   Why are you ambiguating the meaning with some tawdry and tortuous bending of the text

Taken from here

It is the afternoon of September 25, 2000, and Jonathan Edwards is making his way to the triple jump final at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney. In his kitbag are some shirts, spikes, towels – and a tin of sardines.

Why the sardines? They have been chosen by Edwards to symbolise the fish that Jesus used in the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. They are, if you like, the physical manifestation of his faith in God.

As he enters the stadium, he offers a silent prayer: “I place my destiny in Your hands. Do with me as You will.” A few hours later he has captured the gold medal, securing his status as one of Britain’s greatest athletes.

Related Links
Devonish earns his golden moment
Green light for blade runner
Multimedia
Faith Central: Libby Purves
“I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

— Matthew xvii, 20

Edwards’s faith was never an optional add-on. It has been fundamental to his identity – something that has permeated every fibre of his being – since his trips to Sunday school in the company of his devout parents; since he went to a Christian youth camp in North Devon and devoted his life to Jesus, tears streaming down his cheeks and his face glowing with divine revelation. Since he decided to risk everything to follow God’s revealed path, moving to Newcastle in 1987 to become a full-time athlete in the belief that his preordained success would enable him to evangelise to an unbelieving world; since he withdrew from the World Championships in Tokyo in 1991 because his event was scheduled for the Sabbath.

By the time Edwards retired from athletics in 2003, he had established himself as one of Britain’s most prominent born-again Christians. He soon landed the job of fronting a landmark documentary on the life of St Paul and also secured the presenting role on the BBC’s flagship religious programme, Songs of Praise. He looked to have made the transition to life after sport with a sureness of touch that eludes so many professional athletes. Perhaps this was another advantage of his bedrock faith in God.

But even as he toured the nation’s churches with his BBC crew, Edwards was confronting an apocalyptic realisation: that it was all a grand mistake; that his epiphany was nothing more than self-delusion; that his inner sense of God’s presence was fictitious; that the decisions he had taken in life were based on a false premise; that the Bible is not literal truth but literal falsehood; that life is not something imbued with meaning from on high but, possibly, a purposeless accident in an unfeeling universe.

Having left his sport as a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical, Edwards is now, to all intents and purposes, an atheist. But why? It is a question that has reverberated around the Christian community since the rumours began to circulate when Edwards resigned from Songs of Praise in February. Edwards a backslider? Impossible.

I am sitting opposite Edwards, 41, in the garden of his large home in Gosforth on the outskirts of Newcastle, but he does not resemble a man whose world has been turned upside down. His boyish face, cropped with sparkling, silver-grey strands, is alert and alive. One gets the impression that he is looking forward to the ordeal of a lengthy interview. Perhaps he regards it as a kind of confessional, an opportunity to bare all and be done.

“I never doubted my belief in God for a single moment until I retired from sport,” he says. “Faith was the reason that I decided to become a professional athlete, in the same way that it was fundamental to every decision I made. It was the foundation of my existence, the thing that made everything else make sense. It was not a sacrifice to refuse to compete on Sundays during my early career because that would imply that athletics was important in and of itself. It was not. It was always a means to an end: glorifying God.

“But when I retired, something happened that took me by complete surprise. I quickly realised that athletics was more important to my identity than I believed possible. I was the best in the world at what I did and suddenly that was not true any more. With one facet of my identity stripped away, I began to question the others and, from there, there was no stopping. The foundations of my world were slowly crumbling.”

Edwards retains the earnest intensity that was his hallmark when he gave talks and sermons at churches up and down the country. He is a serious person who regards life as a serious business, even if he is now unsure of its deeper meaning. But why did someone with such a penetrating intellect leave it so long to question the beliefs upon which he had constructed his life? “It was as if during my 20-plus-year career in athletics, I had been suspended in time,” he says.

“I was so preoccupied with training and competing that I did not have the time or emotional inclination to question my beliefs. Sport is simple, with simple goals and a simple lifestyle. I was quite happy in a world populated by my family and close friends, people who shared my belief system. Leaving that world to get involved with television and other projects gave me the freedom to question everything.”

“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

— 1 Corinthians i, 20

“Once you start asking yourself questions like, ‘How do I really know there is a God?’ you are already on the path to unbelief,” Edwards says. “During my documentary on St Paul, some experts raised the possibility that his spectacular conversion on the road to Damascus might have been caused by an epileptic fit. It made me realise that I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis. When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.”

Would Edwards have been as successful a sportsman had he been assailed by such doubts? It is a question that the world record-holder confronts with bracing candour. “Looking back now, I can see that my faith was not only pivotal to my decision to take up sport but also my success,” he says. “I was always dismissive of sports psychology when I was competing, but I now realise that my belief in God was sports psychology in all but name.”

Muhammad Ali once asked: “How can I lose when I have Allah on my side?” Edwards understands the potency of such beliefs, even as he questions their philosophical legitimacy.

“Believing in something beyond the self can have a hugely beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is fallacious,” he says. “It provided a profound sense of reassurance for me because I took the view that the result was in God’s hands. He would love me, win, lose or draw. The tin of sardines I took to the Olympic final in Sydney was a tangible reminder of that.”

The upheaval of recent months has not left Edwards emotionally scarred, at least not visibly. “I am not unhappy about the fact that there might not be a God,” he says. “I don’t feel that my life has a big, gaping hole in it. In some ways I feel more human than I ever have. There is more reality in my existence than when I was full-on as a believer. It is a completely different world to the one I inhabited for 37 years, so there are feelings of unfamiliarity.

“There have also been issues to address in terms of my relationships with family and friends, many of whom are Christians. But I feel internally happier than at any time of my life, more content within my own skin. Maybe it is because I am not viewing the world through a specific set of spectacles.”

“If I should cast off this tattered coat, And go free into the mighty sky; If I should find nothing there, But a vast blue, Echoless, ignorant – What then?

— Stephen Crane, The Black Riders and Other Lines

“The only inner problem that I face now is a philosophical one,” Edwards says. “If there is no God, does that mean that life has no purpose? Does it mean that personal existence ends at death? They are thoughts that do my head in. One thing that I can say, however, is that even if I am unable to discover some fundamental purpose to life, this will not give me a reason to return to Christianity. Just because something is unpalatable does not mean that it is not true.”

His crisis of faith offers a metaphysical dimension to the inner turmoil that afflicts so many sportsmen on their retirement. Some will say he has journeyed from light into darkness, others that he has journeyed from darkness into light – but none could doubt the honesty with which he has travelled. The Eric Liddell of his generation has sacrificed his religious beliefs on the altar of intellectual honesty, a martyr of a kind.

World of his own

— A committed Christian, Edwards refused to compete on a Sunday until 1993, most notably missing the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo. “It is an outward sign that God comes first in my life,” he said at the time.

— Contested the World Championships for the first time in 1993, the first of five successive appearances, winning a medal at each one, including gold in 1995 and 2001.

— There was little hint of his 12 months to come in 1995 when, the previous year, he finished sixth at the European Championships, second at the Commonwealth Games and was ranked No 9 in the world.

— Edwards’s life changed in 1995, when he set three world and seven British records, achieving the unprecedented feat of two world records in his first two jumps of the final of the World Championships in Gothenburg. His 18.29 metres that day remains the world record. His wind-assisted 18.43, to win the European Cup in Lille, is the longest triple jump on record.

— A run of 22 consecutive victories ended when he finished second to Kenny Harrison, of the United States, at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. Edwards had finished 23rd and 35th in his two previous Olympics and finished second and third at the World Championships between Atlanta and the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, where he took gold.

Words by David Powell

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

That analogy does not fit into this matter about sex and marriage - what is the correlation? How do you delineate sexual matters along the lines of a doctor's reco to eat lean meat?

I am sure we are agreed that the meaning of documents, text, etc, come from the words within it.  The words used by Paul, if they follow the rules of the grammar and syntax of language, should convey a certain meaning.   I used the analogy because, if words are important, they should convey exactly the same meaning.

In the case of my analogy,  I have simply replace the context of marriage with a context of food, leaving the sentence structure essentially intact.   I am not comparing the concept of marriage and food.  I am looking at meaning in language.


Here they are again:

It is good for you to be vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, then you should eat only lean meat.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.  But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Where does it suggest that I am comparing the context of marriage and the context of food?  


Ok let us look at the rest of the chapter, starting at verse 32;

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord.
33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—
34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.




An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord .   .    .  BUT   a married man is concerned about his wife .   .    .

What meaning can you draw from the above sentence?


38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

But those who do NOT marry do EVEN BETTER.  Correct?   If language is to mean anything, then from the foregoing the unmarried do EVEN BETTER than the married.  Correct?

Gamine:
LOL.

This matter again.

its serious o,

i have a friend who WILL NOT marry a non-virgin

whether she is a christian or not.

He says Fornication comes with baggages he cannot afford to carry

So his wife must be Tear Rubber!

Interesting!

But who really is a virgin?

Is a woman who has had viginal penetration either through masturbatory devices or through medical intervention, but without penile penetration, still considered a virgin?

Is a man who has experience orgasmic ejections but without vaginal (or anal) penetration still a virgin?

Ok, let us analyse these verses

Let me take a similar example:


It is good for you to be vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, then you should eat only lean meat.

If your doctor were to say that to you, what impression would that leave in your mind? Would the doctor be defining a hierarchy of options? Does it suggest that the two options are on a par? From the above statement, which is the preferred state? I submit that it is:

1) Vegetarian
2) Only lean meat

Do you agree with this assessment? If not, why?


Now, let us look at the verse from the bible;

1 Cor 7:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Why did Paul use the word "But" in these verses? If Paul had meant marriage to be a superior state, how could he have said this:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is better (or best) for them to get married, unlike me.

But he did not say that. He clearly puts celibacy in a higher place than marriage. But if you cannot control yourself, you should consider marriage.




Take a look at this phrase, which I think you misinterpreted;

for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

What is Paul comparing in the above phrase? I submit, it is marriage and passion (or to put is simply, sexual desire) resulting from celibacy. He is clearly NOT comparing marriage and celibacy. He is comparing marriage and uncontrollable sexual desire.

So for those who have no problems with controlling their sexual desire, celibacy is a preferred state. How could Paul have said this, if this phrase was meant to compare marriage and celibacy?

for it is better to marry than to be celibate (or remain unmarried).

But if he had said this, in the context of verse 8, it would had rendered the entire verses (8 and 9) non-sensical, as in;

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be celibate.

Taken from here

Jonathan Edwards, the Olympic champion who once refused to compete on a Sunday, has quit as presenter of the BBC's long- running religious programme Songs Of Praise because he is no longer convinced of the existence of God.
He will make his penultimate appearance tonight as a man deeply troubled by the collapse of his Christian faith, the driving force of his life since his childhood in Devon, where his father was vicar of a parish in Ilfracombe.
A close friend explained: "Jonathan felt he had to leave Songs Of Praise as he felt profoundly uncomfortable doing the programme with the way he now feels."
Edwards's family has been devastated by his crisis of faith, especially his wife Alison, the daughter of an evangelist from the Hebrides.
"Jonathan has not hidden any of his feelings from those closest to him, but it has not been easy for Alison to come to terms with it,' added the friend.
Yet the family has had time to absorb the impact of Edwards's extraordinary change of heart.
His faith, I can reveal, has been under threat ever since he retired in 2003, still holding the world triple jump record.
A family friend said: "Jonathan's identity was tied up with him being an athlete much more than he imagined. He was world record holder and Olympic champion - and it wasn't until he retired he realised how much he depended on that. Not long afterwards, he started to have doubts and uncertainties about his faith. Those doubts have grown louder - and who knows where it will end."
Edwards's torment has been exacerbated by rumours that his 16-year marriage is under threat from the spiritual upheaval and changing circumstances of his life.
While Alison brings up their two sons, Sam, 13, and Nathan, 10, at their six-bedroom home in Gosforth, near Newcastle, Edwards spends some time each month on business in London, where he is a member of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, representing the athletes.
Until last year, he was also a member of Ofcom, the independent regulator for the UK communications industry.
For convenience - and as a financial investment - Edwards has bought a flat near Westminster. Last week the flat and his home in Gosforth were besieged by journalists seeking to confirm rumours that his loss of Christian conviction had led him into the path of temptation.
Another friend of Edwards insisted: "Jonathan is adamant that their marriage is fine and he has nothing to hide."
Edwards has never considered himself famous. Yet the reality is that he was placed on a pedestal as a champion of the Christian cause from the moment he found unexpected stardom at the World Athletic Championships in Gothenburg in 1995. The world triple jump record he set there of 18.29 metres - making him the first man to jump over 60 feet - remains unbroken.
Edwards had already gained major attention four years earlier when he declined to compete at the 1991 World Championships as his event was scheduled for a Sunday and he refused to participate on a day he reserved exclusively for worship.
Later, he rescinded that decision. And his world was turned upside down after his triumph in Gothenburg when 1,000 people awaited his return at Newcastle Airport. Five months later, he won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year .
By the time he climaxed his career with a gold at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, at the age of 34, he was assured of millionaire status. But humbly, he never ceased to remind his audience that his talent was a gift of God.
His charm and intellect - he graduated in physics from Durham University - brought him swift recognition from broadcasting companies. His future looked golden, with clear indications that he would be fast-tracked into broadcasting both sports programmes and religious ones, too.
Six years ago, he was made a Commander of the British Empire and last year he received honorary doctorates from Exeter and Ulster universities.
As Edwards's biographer, I have seen a fragility to his character that he is competent at disguising in public. He lived to honour God, no question.
He has a deep, theological comprehension of the Bible, making his spiritual meltdown even more unlikely. Even so, in the midst of his crisis of faith, Edwards will be accompanying Alison and their sons to their local church this morning. "They still go to church as a family,' explained a friend.
But throughout his medal-winning days as an athlete, Edwards always confessed to one abiding fear. "I always believed success would be the biggest challenge of my faith,' he said.
And so it has proved. Last night Edwards, determined to protect his family, politely rebuffed all enquiries.
"I am going through a difficult period, and one

What is more enigmatic about the religious view of sex is the hierarchical attitudes most religion advocate, though the rarely encourage this extremes.

Firstly, they claim that the purest form of existence is a sexless existence. Paul so much as says that it is better for people not to marry and prefers celibacy to marriage. But if you cannot deal with the temptations of the flesh, then go ahead and get married [and have as much sex as you want].

Second, it tries to define what forms of sex are acceptable, define the missionary sex between man and woman as the only acceptable form, and eschewing sex between consenting adults of the same sex.

Thirdly, some religions see sex as only meant for procreation, frowning on sex for pleasure.


In a Pauline hierarchy of sexual virtue, this is how people would be ranged, top to bottom, with top being the best and ideal;

1) Virgin
2) Virgin and celibate
3) Virgin and Married
4) Married and not virgin

The majority of adult Christians are in category (4), the bottom of the ladder. Any other form of sexual union would be classed as aberrant and sinful

Bastage:
This is the biggest question of them all.

The answer is: Belief.


A lot of people let their Church do their believing for them. That Church defines what is literal and what is metaphorical. But the problem here is that their doctrines are often set in stone, are centuries old and are rarely adaptable to new knowledge.
Others are not so rigid. They study the Bible and apply the metaphors and literalism where they think it is appropriate on a personal basis. When new knowledge comes to light, they can adapt it to their belief system.

The criterion for definition of what is literal and what is metaphorical is belief. But it's up to you wether you define it or let someone else do it for you.

This sounds like circular reasoning to me.   Are you saying that there is no objective reality defined in the religious narrative.   OK, lets apply your criterion to the virgin birth narrative.

Should the virgin birth be taken as literal or metaphoric?    You are saying that, if you believe it is literal then it is literal.  If you believe it is metaphoric, then it is metaphoric.

But how do you come to believe one way or the other?  Would you just accept it on tradition or authority?  Would you seek for evidence?

Incidentally,  the word "believe" is so much misused in general parlance, I have become very cautious as to how I use it.  Examples;

1)   2+3=5.  Would you say "I believe 2 plus 3 is 5"?  That 2 plus 3 is 5 is so a certainty that believe is inappropriate in this case.

2)  Would you say "I believe the earth goes round the sun"


"Believe" should be used in case where there is room for doubt and there is not enough evidence to make a proposition absolutely certain.

JJYOU:
"Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. [/i]. . . "

"The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.[i] Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22:10-12, 15-18, NIV)

do you notice abraham's heart? a heart that does not with hold anything from God.

If god is omniscient, how come he did not know that Abraham was faithful to him, but had to put him and Isaac through this ordeal