View Single Post
  #37  
Old 15 June 2007, 11:29 AM
BlueStar's Avatar
BlueStar BlueStar is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 3,024
Default

My point is that even when the words are in the original language, there are people who have wide ranging views on what they mean (This goes for all people who adhere to a religious text) From when you decide on which translation to read (in the case of books being read in a different language to how they were originally penned) to what you consider that word to mean at the time, to if you consider them commandments from God directly, suggestions, metaphorical, or just an arcaic and no longer relevant relic of the time. Faith Freedom will obviously pick the interpritation which suits the agenda it has, just like there are sites which are keen to extract rather horrifying sections of the bible and present them at face value, only to be told they're reading them wrongly or out of context by proponents of that religion. (Which is not to say there wont be people with in that religion which take the same view of those passages as Faith Freedom or American athiest blogs).

My personal view is that people mould their religious texts around their views and not vice versa. If a man wants to beat his wife and he's religious, he'll damn well find something which allows him to do it. If a woman belives her religion is peaceful and comes across a verse which seems to advocate violence, she'll find a way around it. If a guy likes eating lobster and hates gays, he'll find backing in a text which (some feel) calls both an 'abomination' to carry on how he likes.
Reply With Quote