Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: Let's have a good old religious fight

  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Trouble View Post
    See thats the point Hagen. I wasn't motivated, i was forced into doing something i dont think i should have had to do. My x husband is catholic, thats fine, he wanted the kids brought up and christened catholic, thats fine, surely that should be enough. But, and here is the big but... if i did not attend church, with my x husband at the time, he would not have been able to attend the school. Why should that make a difference........... The answer by the way is it should not make a difference but this gives them the tool to force you into the fold.
    We can agree that people should not be conscripted.

    If you wanted to look and think about it yourself I would recommend this:
    http://www.enfieldevangelicalfreechurch.org.uk/ce-course.htm

    It is not that I know anything of the church but I have done the Christianity Explored course and found it excellent. I looked on-line for somewhere near Waltham Abbey which was holding it and came up with this location.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Inverness for now
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    I think this monologue on religion by Marcus Brigstocke is rather funny and sums up some of my thoughts quite well.

  3. #63
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    He clearly isn't. God has killed, it says so in the bible. Yet killing is immoral? Either god is not perfect or just completely made up. Which is it?

    What do you mean by killing and immoral? Are soldiers who kill in battle acting in an immoral way? Is the public executioner acting in an immoral way? How are you defining moral and immoral? Because it goes against your perceptions of right and wrong? People can define things by their own criteria and then we will all have our own definitions. Having a common yardstick is, I think, more fruitful.
    OK, I'll jump in again, albeit not on my usual side of the debate.

    For just one example of immoral killing in the name of God, cast your mind back to the story of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho. This story is usually used to tell children that if we obey God we will be victorious, no matter how strange the instructions may seem (marching around the city and blowing trumpets is an unusual assault tactic). The dark side: genocide. According to the biblical text, every man, woman, child and even animal inside Jericho was killed. This feat was repeated many times in other cities. Why is it that so many people who would condemn genocide or "ethnic cleansing" in the present day excuse or even condone it in its biblical context? That's the part they usually gloss over when teaching the story to kids.

    Then of course there's the slaughter of every first-born son in Egypt, even though the vast majority of them were innocent and not directly responsible for Israel's slavery. A good many of them would have been children. They were killed because of the hard-heartedness of one man. Is this just and moral?

    Or the Noah's Ark story: the entire population of the world killed, apart from one family (which proved itself to be no better than anyone else later on). A just and moral decision?

    As a Christian myself, I justify my faith despite these examples, not because of them. I don't take the Bible literally as history - yes, slaughter and genocide may well have happened at Jericho and other places in the Bronze Age, but I don't believe it was ordered or condoned by God. Rather, people back then did what people have always done, and sought to justify their actions by putting the best possible spin on it, which in those days was "They were wicked, and God told me to." (The equivalent these days might be "He was an evil dictator with chemical weapons, and George Bush told me to.") Then someone wrote the "official" account down in what became the Bible, and hey presto - instant justification for war crimes (though such behaviour was the norm in conflicts in those days, so it wouldn't have been regarded as a war crime if viewed through contemporary eyes).

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    ...stuff...
    As far as I can tell, your whole argument rests on two presumptions:
    1. God exists.
    2. The bible is the definitive word of God.

    Neither of those presumptions carry any weight with me. Therefore, the text means absolutely nothing. You'd have to prove the first one before the second one made any sense. Curiously, you tried to prove the second one first.

    What I find even more curious is that I told you it wouldn't answer the questions before you wrote it. but you went ahead and wrote it anyway (and it doesn't answer the questions I raised). Very strange. And a quite beautiful example of the worst features of religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    I should like to know why the church in medieval times restricted education.
    You already answered your question (but don't appear to realise it):
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    The difficulty with that is it often backs into issues of general social culture.
    The culture of the middle ages was distinctly misogynistic. The Church - and the Bible - in this age reflected the general culture. That demonstrates fairly clearly that the Church and the Bible are influenced by the culture in which they occur. You also see the puritanism of the Victorians (which still dominates the more conservative US churches) although most churches adopt more liberal positions and practices, mirroring the cultures in which they exist.

    Someone who doesn't presume the truth of the bible looks at this and sees the pattern very easily. The question is, once you take away the cultural impact, it's not clear what's left. Without making any presumptions about the existence of God, the most likely conclusion is, 'nothing'.

  5. #65
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    I think if we met someone who claimed to be God we would probably call for the men in white coats. I believe such people exist. One can understand that the leaders took a dim view at that time of someone who did make such a claim.
    So it was clear Jesus was not a god and you would have called for the men in white coats? I am sure I would have too with claims like that. Why restate that you believe such people exist? I think its clear you believe in Jesus

    Quote Originally Posted by DS
    Those are hardly the only options. Perhaps "history" does not give us the option of describing Jesus simply as a decent man, but that doesn't mean he wasn't or shouldn't be considered so. Historical records of Jesus are rather biased to say the least. Where's the "book of jesus" in the bible so we can get his side of the story, rather than having us rely on the disparate collections of some freelance journalists (and the images of the paparazzi painters of other centuries).
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Why not try and write a description of what ‘decent’ means. The main reasons why I would not attempt it is that it has to be a fit description that is objective and is not constrained by time and culture. Thus it is one that both an Elizabethan and New Elizabethan could identify with as well as an African tribesmen from any era, a Mesopotamian farmer from ancient times and so forth.
    Decent? What is so difficult about defining the word? Decency is simply about being proper, suitable, resonable, respectful, good etc...I see your point about time and place - woman being out in public on their own is "indecent" in some cultures today, so it certainly varies. But when looking back into the past and reading about Jesus and his teachings, I think by our own UK standards of decency, i think we can call him decent overall and take the state of his godliness on faith if we want to.


    Quote Originally Posted by DS
    as we are talking christianity, lets stick to the new testament. All written by 100ad you say? First of all, where is your evidence for this, and secondly, when that period of time covers several generations of people (what was average life expectancy then?), how can we be sure of any accuracy? Then of course this is only when you say the writing was finished? what about editing? translations? when was one coherent finished book created? where is that first book now? are are all current books a direct copy?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    I would suggest you try reading FF Bruce U]The New Testament DocumentsU] for an analysis of them.
    Well, no. I was asking you not FF Bruce. If you can't answer, fair enough.


    Quote Originally Posted by DS
    So it was heavily edited then? or do you think thats just an anomoly?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Perhaps it suggests some truthfulness by the author who was making a point: there were disciples who were clearly sceptical until they had seen with their own eyes rather than rely on witnesses. If it was fabricated it would seem strange that many of his disciples are said to have gone to very unpleasant deaths rather than say that they had made it all up.
    They may have gone to unpleasent deaths but in those times, so did lots of people, it doesn't point to the truth of their words or beliefs at all. "it would seem strange" is a nonsense statement. I thought Tom Clancys novel that had the suicide attack on the Capitol building in the US was totally unrealistic and it almost spoilt the novel for me - then a few years later some people actually did that. twice. It doesn't matter how unlikely something is, it doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't true - so perhaps they did "make it all up" but still really beieved it, is that less likely or more likely?



    Quote Originally Posted by DS
    He clearly isn't. God has killed, it says so in the bible. Yet killing is immoral? Either god is not perfect or just completely made up. Which is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    What do you mean by killing and immoral?
    Killing is when something ends something elses life on purpose. There's a commandment for that, "thou shalt not kill", I think we can take it to mean other people rather than any life at all. God ignores this commandment when it suits... Poor Job and his murdered family (and letting Satan kill them is hardly an excuse). Still it taught Job the absolute insanity of accepting this evilness, "hey its alright, god can do what he likes", so its not all bad. By any moral standard, the most obvious being "to not force your will unwanted onto others", God, as written in the bible, is often a nasty piece of work. My own standards of morality, nurtured thourgh the years, tell me so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Are soldiers who kill in battle acting in an immoral way? Is the public executioner acting in an immoral way?
    Changing the subject slightly aren't we ? equating gods choices with human conflict like that only serves to weaken your argument about the perfectness of god - wars are petty squabbles between humans, public executions are state sponsored murder. Is god then just a soldier or an executioner with a bigger gun or axe who reports to no one except himself? what is your point here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    How are you defining moral and immoral? Because it goes against your perceptions of right and wrong? People can define things by their own criteria and then we will all have our own definitions. Having a common yardstick is, I think, more fruitful.
    We do have a common "worldwide/cross religion" yardstick, and by any standards of decency in any civilization. Maybe Jesus did appear decent in the new testamant, but it is your argument, through your quote of CS Lewis, that he could not be simply "decent". It is a myth that particular religions are responsible for morality - people already had compassion and nurturing instincts and the ability to cooperate with and look out for others outwith their own group - empathy donchaknow. This is the starting point for some of the morality in many religions, not the other way round.

    Quote Originally Posted by DS
    So where "man" is used in the bible, it always included women then? What about "Corinthians 11:7" "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." which suggest only males are the image of god. Did I read that wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    You read what you want to read and appear struggle with the use of man as in mankind and man & wo-man differentiating the genders.
    That doesn't even make grammatical sense. You're not even trying now. I think theres a bit of irony in answering my question with the suggestion that "I read what I want to read" despite the fact that I ASKED if I read it wrong, expecting at least a feeble attempt at a logical explanation rather than a huffy restatement of your first point.

    Quote Originally Posted by DS
    By whose perception? We do act on instinct - all the time. We are animals. And other animals do not ALWAYS act on instinct. Monkeys use tools, watch some nature programmes. We are a lot closer to other animals, especially apes, monkeys and lawyers, then you seem to suggest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    I agree we also act on instinct. Civilisation is supposed to improve on that. Politeness is the way one acts when in the polis (town) with others.
    You agree we act on instinct? oh good, your statement that we don't act on instinct gave me the impression that you thought we didn't. But Civilisation is supposed to improve on instinct? Since when? Who told you that civilisation was the trigger that would switch off our instincts and turn people into emotionless logical thinkers? Have you been watching Star Trek re-runs?

    I'd also like to (probably mis)quote Ghandi at this point. When asked what he thought of British Civilisation, he replied "I think it would be a good idea". You're fooling yourself if you think this is the be all and end all of civilisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by DS
    No it isn't. The catholic 10 commandments don't mention that at all. And I think you meant graven rather than craven, but the idea of carving images of people cowering in fear seems apt for the old testament.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Self-correcting software or compensating errors can be droll and amusing. Do you cower in fear when you see a policeman (rabbi) and fear being hauled in front of the judge (God)? I take it in this that you are leaning towards the old canard of God as a vindictive and vicious individual. Perhaps that just demonstrates the power of negative feedback, as any manager or parent knows. I would rather ask if the real issue is are we reading just the desperate attempts of lawmakers to buttress their authority with an appeal to an omniscient powerful being who will act as a super-parent for adults and who will come some day to the nursery …….. or if it genuinely a revelation from a divine source. We all face such a dilemma which, can, of course, be applied to every religious text around the world.
    Well that really was my question - you stated a commandment as fact but now you question "if it is genuinely a revelation from a divine source" and moreover admit that it may be a simple attempt by humans to "buttress their authority" with an appeal to god - which suggests that the commandments are entirely written by humans in the first place, albeit in the hope that they will be taken on by god when the humans "come some day to the nursery". This begs the question though - what DID come from god? any of the bible at all? or are humans simply reaching for something that may not even be there?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    At the last election each party would state that the NHS was safe in their hands but you couldn’t trust the others; nothing real on policies and programmes. Totally useless in trying to define anything about the parties and who to vote for. As far as I was concerned it just confirmed how awful they all were.

    In a debate on a forum it is easy to reduce matters to something akin to such an exchange, which may help as a release mechanism for pent up emotions but does not do much to advance understanding.
    Its a bit harsh to suggest everyone on the forum debating with you are all awful. Surely we are having an honest exchange of ideas - if you think all the ideas are "useless", fair enough thats your opinion. As for emotions - i've not seen any evidence of "pent up emotions" so far. Do you have examples?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    <some bad stuff happened>...Does this mean that God does not exist?
    No, that conclusion does not follow. Why would it? Why would anyone think it would? Why even bring it up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    The Christian faith is one to be lived; it is not an intellectual exercise.
    Why not? Are Christians stupid? Do Christians not consider the world around them and the teachings of Jesus and the bible with their intellect? Did you reeaaally mean to say that ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Fundamentally a dancer will only improve through their own efforts although they can have instruction from a teacher and guidance from friends with more experience. We are all on a journey and each individual master of their fate. By what course do you steer and where will you go at journey’s end?
    I am an individual master of my fate, but the journeys end is death. If you have faith that there is something after that then great, so do others. I find that it does not matter, as evidence shows that we cannot interact with this life so it is truly death in every meaningful sense. It would be nice to think that your dead loved ones are in the "after life" waiting for you, but what would we do all day? And wouldn't you get sick of your in-laws and that annoying uncle that always seemed to look you up and down in an odd way - he may meet the godly criteria for entry into heaven, especially if he is a bishop.

    Which brings me to something else actually. Please can you state in simple terms, how to get your name on the list at the pearly gates. Entry to heaven. How is that ensured then?

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    I've just walked in the door from a guided tour of Westminster Abbey and sat down with a cuppa The reason I went, was because a friend of mine is taking his 'Blue Badge' exam next week and needed to practice.. (after today, I can highly recommend him)

    anyway.. I've come away, such mixed feelings.....

    On one hand, I was completely overwhelmed by the architecture, the beauty of the workmanship, the opulence but most of all, the truly amazing history that this place holds and for that, I'm extremely grateful to the church

    On the other hand, listening to story after story about how the church has changed/split/diversified/developed throughout the years, it basically seems to boil down to money and power struggles
    It certainly shows that people are people, from generation unto generation the same. Just like politicians really. As you imply it can be very disheartening but is not the question how we are going to react in our current time and current circumstances? Can we do better? Will we try? If God exists then surely we must. If God does not exist it is a great and tragic fraud.

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Therefore, when God promises that Christians will go to heaven and atheists will go to hell, there is no reason to believe that he will not break his promise and send Christians to hell and atheists to heaven.

    It is probably an accurate statement that we can only think we understand the motivation of God. I find it hard enough to understand the motivation and workings of the people around me. The Moslems have a view that no words can accurately describe God because any word is an insufficient description of what it attempts to describe. We can have a view of what we think decent is; the question is of what use do you want to make of it? I suggested a man who claimed to be God was, as CS Lewis said, a lunatic, liar …. or perhaps God. Do decent men by your definition claim to be God?

    What does breaking a promise mean? Monotheism is based on the concept of a ‘just’ God. Where does the concept of ‘just’ arise from. If you can detect some concept of justice and injustice is that not ‘man made in the image of God’? In that case how will you be a better judge than God? Surely the concept of justice separates right from might? If God exists and created the Universe we certainly do not have the power to do anything similar and would we have the collective wisdom to equal His thoughts. We seem to make a pretty bad mess of the one planet we have. On what basis do you want to make judgements? When Jesus came he was crucified. The Bible records the parable he told of the man who rented out his vineyard. He sent his messengers but the tenants refused them, beating some and killing others. Finally the son was sent for surely the son would be respected. He was not. It is, of course, a well known story. The messengers were the prophets and the son is Jesus. It seems a fair rendering of history and the way people have behaved.

    As you say we have restricted the debate to essentially a Christian world view but then I have only limited expertise on other religions. I looked at all the major world religions when I was at university in order to resolve my own queries but that hardly gave me any deep knowledge of them.

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    36
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Can I just say first how much I enjoyed reading through this thread and especially the good humour shown, (as is so often the case on this forum - congrats to DTS for originating it).

    Not sure whether I can join in with anything useful at this late stage but I would like to say I could identify with most of daveb9000's comments concerning religion early on in the thread.

    One small point of his I would pick up on though was when he said this: "Pretty much all of which (religions) can be summed up as: "treat others with the repect you wish to be treated with yourself"

    That reminded me of this bible quotation: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." [Matthew 7:12] - not sure whether that was what he meant to say or if he intended to insert the word "respect".

    Anyway, whatever is the case it is hard to find much wrong with that kind of statements isn't it, whether you are a believer or not (I'm not sure what I am these days BTW).

    Dismissing all religion has become very fashionable hasn't it, and their arguments which they choose to put forward seem to be a bit uninspiring somehow, right or wrong, whilst some religious thought or experience does inspire I feel (Professor Ronald Dworkins being the leading figure in all this criticism and condemnation isn't he - a lawyer with controverial ideas on human rights etc. I'm told, but why should we believe he knows so much better that everyone who is or has ever been religious?).

    However, even as an uncertain or equivocal Christian myself I would just throw in this, as a response to all the criticisms of religion - another bible quote, taken from St Luke's gospel (20:25): "And he (Jesus) said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

    Don't you think there is a message of defiance in that sentence - telling our rulers that they do not have power over all aspects of us human beings and our lives (such as our spiritual lives, is I believe the interpretation given). In the days when rulers often declared themselves to be Gods this must have been pretty revolutionary but I hope it still has some resonance today, when people/politicians try to tell you what to think or manipulate public opinion in some way.

    I want to throw in one last comment, hopefully you'll find this slightly humourous and that is, having mentioned St Luke's gospel above, I have a fairly nightmare recollection of a man reciting the whole of that section of the bible to the study group I attended. This man had been an actor apparently and when he became out of work for some reason he decided to "put to good use" his exceptional memory or ability to learn and recite lines with his religious belief. So in complete silence we endured this experience, for about an hour and a half, wishing the whole time something would happen to knock him off his stride (a fire alarm, or indeed fire breaking out would have seemed a blessing at the time!).

    Did God really wish him to do this to us? We will never know, though maybe you could say he gave us all a good lesson - even the organisors who had to sit through it too must surely have pencilled into their future programme "Don't invite him back again!"

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    36
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Apologies - should read "Richard Dawkins" not "Ronald Dworkins" above, and his interests are in "ethology" and "evolutionary biology" not the law or human rights as stated above - sure someone would have noticed my mistake so I hope this quick correction does the job of avoiding too much confusion and saves my face a little!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What happened?!! (good week, bad week mark II)
    By LMC in forum Beginners corner
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 8th-July-2005, 12:20 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •