Nyheder
For alle nyheder, hvad end de måtte omhandle.
Regler
1. Brug artiklens titel
Titlen på indlæg skal være titlen på nyhedsartiklen der linkes til. Du må dog gerne oversætte titlen hvis den ikke er på dansk, så længe oversættelsen er retvisende. En alternativ titel (fx i tilfælde af clickbait) eller vigtig supplerende information kan angives i kantede parenteser. Fx: "Clickbait titel [Beskrivende titel]". Dette sikrer at titlen på artiklen ikke er misvisende.
2. Brug ikke tekstfeltet ("body")
Link udelukkende til artiklen og brug ikke tekstfeltet ("body" på engelsk). Hvis du vil tilføje noget, så skriv en kommentar. Dette sikrer at debatten foregår fra et neutralt synspunkt der tager udgangspunkt i artiklen, og ikke en bestemt vinkling skrevet i tekstfeltet. Undtagelse: Det er tilladt at dele et referat af en artikel bag betalingsvæg i tekstfeltet.
3. Kun nye artikler
Artikler skal være mindre end en uge gamle. Dette sikrer at artikler faktisk er nyheder.
4. Debat-indlæg og andet skal markeres
Det er tilladt i et begrænset omfang at indlægge artikler der ikke som sådan er nyhedsartikler og ikke er skrevet af avisens ansatte (fx debat-indlæg eller læserbreve), men sådanne artikler skal markeres med [Debat] el. lign. mærkat i titlen af indlægget inden titlen på artiklen. Dette sikrer at brugere er klar over den potentielle højere bias der kommer fra debat-indlæg og sikrer at debat-indlæg ikke bruges til at skubbe en agenda.
Husk også at følge Feddit.dks generelle regler.
view the rest of the comments
One would think so, but there is always a counter scripture. and Christians are actually hypocrites. For instance the "no true Scotsman" applies. Throwing Bible verses around is futile. The way forward is reason and logic and understanding that the Bible does not promote justice or empathy or love or anything else it claims. It is actually contrary to it.
Bible literally means book. But yes I am aware it contains scripture from different sources spanning across bronze to iron age. But the Bible is a specific collection acknowledged by the Catholic church at the time it was created.
I don't think Morten Dahlin is a Lutheran, he is a protestant but Lutheran is just a branch of that.
I don't understand how anyone can be Lutheran though, Martin Luther started out as a compassionate humanitarian, but ended out as an insane bigot.
So which part of the two is it Lutherans believe?
I am sorry if I am a bit harsh, you sound like an honestly good person, but as I see it, religion is actively harmful, and you are enabling it.
I answered that later in my message.
No. Bible means books.
Of course there's no writing in the bronze age, and it goes to farther than iron age, the most recent books are from the beginning of the 2nd century of the common era, 7 centuries after the end of the iron age.
I don't know him enough, but I thought he was a member of the Church of Denmark, which is a Lutheran church. If he's not, the first paragraph still applies, and the second probably too but with other names, as the precedence of Christ's teaching is quite widely recognized, the only notable exception being American evangelicalism.
You're entitled to your opinion, but from what I saw in your message your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is quite superficial. Sorry if I'm harsh too, but you should read more before being that much definitive in your opinions. You may be right, but you should recognise that you may be wrong too.
Lol I didn't know that. I just thought it was just Protestant. But I checked it out and you are right.
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkekirken
I don't think so, I investigated the matter thoroughly before deciding I was an Atheist. After that it has become ever more crystal clear to me that the Bible is false in every extraordinary claim it makes. And even a lot of the not so extraordinary are curiously false too.
I was told many times to read the Bible, so finally 30 years ago I decided to do it.
Which I guess many who recommend it actually haven't. Reading the Bible may be the best cure against Christianity there is.
If it's a cure against biblical literalism, it's just the proof that you're intelligent. But reading the Bible alone doesn't give you a lot of clues about Christianity, which is not reducible to the Bible.
Funny because it's gods word, so one would think everything came from the bible. What other source trump what the alleged prophets wrote?
I also thought the whole point of Luther translating the bible, was to give people access to the word of god.
That's what I said when I spoke about superficial knowing. In most of Christian denominations, the Bible is not the Word of God in the strict sense: when we call the Bible the Word of God, it's a metonymy (with, again, the notable exception of the American evangelicals and those, in other traditions, which are unfortunately inspired by them). The Word of God is Jesus-Christ (John 1:1), and the Bible is the only certain way (but not the only way) to hear it. That's why Luther translated the Bible: the Word of God is heard when someone read the Bible accompanied by their community, in prayer. Then, God speaks through the words of the Bible. But God's free, he can speak outside of it.
So not even the so called prophets are reliable. And John is a 3rd hand account, neither he nor his sources are known.
So what exactly is the source for the belief?
Where did I say that they are not reliable? I just say that, even if you believe that the Bible is a sacred text, you should read it critically. Our work, as Christians, is to search in the human words of these texts the message of life that God wants us to read. And he gave us tools to do that, our reason is one of them.
I thought it was supposed to have been written by prophets that were inspired by god. Obviously it's not the literal word of god.
My bank account is not the Word of God, but it's a quite reliable document.
But you never answered that since The Bible is not, what then is the source for the belief?
Also you contradict yourself, because earlier you stated that a Lutheran must follow scripture.
And later you write:
So I ask again, if the Bible isn't the source to learn about Christianity, then what is?
Read a book about Christianity if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity. To read the Bible directly without being accompanied by someone knowledgeable (or a good book) is like reading Plato without having any idea of what philosophy is. You'll misunderstand, not because you're not smart, but because you have to have keys that you can't discover by yourself.
(heck, what am I doing here! Jeg er faret vild) The thing is, while I agree with your comment, it really sounds strange if you’re coming from an atheist perspective. It seems to imply that the truth has to be dictated to you, and not discovered by your own experience.
As an Italian author said, we have to rid ourselves of the false images of God we created ourselves, otherwise we cannot follow Him and we’re just following an idol that we, or our society, created ( the god-justice, the god-will-do-things-instead-of-me, …). Sadly, the book is available only in Italian.
It’s also really warming to read people discussing about faith on the net.
At the end of the day, however, I don't think you have to have the same beliefs as me to be a good person. There’s a reason why people choose to be religious (and which one) or not.
I'll just conclude you can't answer that simple but fundamental question.
I have investigated the Bible also with guidance, even from multiple people who were pretty knowledgeable, and I have read the Bible. I know some of the keys you talk about, and some of them are really really extremely convoluted. But that's not surprising, Christians have spent a 1000+ years trying to explain away the flaws of the Bible, and I admit some are very very good at it. But it never stands up to critical scrutiny.
You have an apparently very complicated answer to a simple question, but Occam's razor suggests the simpler answer is more probable.
The reason there are so many flaws in the Bible is that it was never inspired by a deity, and the existence of god is extremely unlikely.
In fact everything in the Bible is exactly as ignorant as you'd expect for something written at the respective times. And nothing you have stated here shows otherwise.
I let that pass earlier, but No you didn't, that's what atheists call pick and choose.
You claim some parts are more reliable than others, but they could also all be unreliable, that would perfectly explain why it is so inconsistent.
I don't really see any other explanation that truly makes sense, that justifies accepting the Bible as holy scripture.
But thanks anyway for an honest but cordial exchange, I don't understand your reasons to believe, but I suspect you understand why I don't.
Because my proposition is by far the simpler and more logical one.
I mean, if you're reading any religious text from the premise of critical scrutiny and reason, you're obviously not going to find any revelation. I suspect @zloubida@lemmy.world has a very different way of reading scriptures than you.
Not saying either of you are wrong, but you're talking about so different things without really meeting in the middle that the whole debate is kind of moot.
Back when I read the Bible it was not with critical scrutiny in mind, I was actually seeking to understand it, But I can't just shut off my brain, and if you don't there are very clear problems, the four guides I had access to were unable to explain. Like why it is legal for a slave owner to kill his slaves, as long as they don't die within a day.
My point is there is no rational reason to believe any of the fantastic claims of the bible. And doing so is demonstrably harmful, just like holding other forms of false beliefs without reason are in general.
I am now of the strong conviction that we shouldn't have a state religion, and religion shouldn't have special privilegies.
The fact that the Danish folkekirke was allowed to discriminate against women until recently is abhorrent, WHY was that allowed when we had clear regulation that forbade it?
They are AFAIK still allowed to discriminate against people based on sexuality, and there are stories about priests denying marriage based on sexuality or because they have been divorced. Since it's a state church, their services are public services, but as an institution it does not abide by basic rules against discrimination.
Other churches are AFAIK also allowed to discriminate based on sexuality or gender, despite it's clearly illegal, why?
I don't think the other commenter ever claimed that or even thinks that. I think most religious people know perfectly well that religion is not a rational thing, but rationality is not the purpose of religion.
I agree with you that organized religion can be very harmful and we should work for a secular society, but dismissing religion because of facts and logic is like disproving mathematics via the word of God - its simply entirely different domains and perspectives.
Wow really? Superstition is equal to facts and reason based on evidence now?
Goddam and it's the 21st century!
That's exactly the mindset that makes religion harmful.
I never claimed people can't have faith, what I claim is the illegal practices should not be legal, and it shouldn't have special privileges.
I never said such a thing and I don't think you understood what I wrote. Try reading it again, and I'll rephrase:
Dismissing religion from an atheistic point of view based on facts and logic doesn't make sense, because religion is not about facts and logic.
Disproving mathematics from a religious point of view via the word of God is equally absurd, because mathematics does not deal with faith.
You're trying to apply facts and logic to religion which is obviously a perspective that will not work (not saying you have to try to make it work or that religion makes sense, but just that criticising the Bible from this perspective doesn't make sense).
Again they can believe what they want, but where religion and "secular world" intersect, we cannot bend to religion when it's contrary to more modern standards that are based on way better knowledge than primitive iron age standards.
Only to show where it does harm to others isn't validated.
Any religious person that removes such practices can have my blessing.
But for instance the belief in a life after death, which there is absolutely no reason to believe is true, can be very harmful for the individual believers themselves.