Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69

Thread: Let's have a good old religious fight

  1. #41
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    People need to think for themselves a bit more, but this is especially hard when the society you are in stamps on any sort of freethought.
    Exactly, I couldn't agree more!

    I don't know if any watched the programme last night "The Tsunami, five years on"? Well, I think it was a clear demonstration of 'why' its hard...

    One of the worst effected villages lost nearly all its children, a large percentage of the women and nearly all its shelter.

    Days after the tsunami, a Muslim charity arrived and offered these desperate people, much needed food and shelter..

    Apart from the helping with the physical devastation, they were also offering spiritual help for the emotional devastation.

    these people were in shock, grieving and bewildered, and they wanted answers...

    Why had this happened? Where had their loved ones gone? What should they do now?

    And the Muslim leader offered answers.

    A clip showed the Muslim leader shouting at the people, telling them that this was an act of Allah, that they'd brought on themselves, for living sinful lives and not according to the word of the Koran.

    So what real choice did these people have? When the very people who are helping them, were also indoctrinating them.

    Five years on and the village has been rebuilt. Roads, schools, hospitals, homes and a Mosque have all been provided.

    And now the entire village is ruled by a very strict Muslim regime, where caning is the norm and they're considering bringing back 'STONING' for adultery!
    The girls, aren't allowed to wear tight trousers and have to be separate from the boys and this is 'strictly' enforced!

    And so now, we have a village of strict Muslims!

    BUT, IMO, if a Christian charity had offered help.. we'd have a village of Christians..

    And if, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, Hindu's or Sikhs.. etc etc..

    Its not who's right, its who's in the right place at the right time!
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  2. #42
    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 Lory View Post

    And if, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, Hindu's or Sikhs.. etc etc..
    possibly not Buddhists. On that same programme, a woman asked a Buddhist monk why her daughter had been killed and he understood with "every parent loves their children" but that basically she should move on or she would continue to suffer herself. No platitudes, or "god judged you" or anything like that - just acceptance of her feelings with a bit of harsh reality. Seems very civilized if you ask me.

  3. #43
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    possibly not Buddhists.
    Yes, IMO out of all the religions, Buddhism seems to be the most at harmony with acceptance, piece of mind and freewill

    I still think the people in that situation, would have clung to anything/one, that offered them help and comfort
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by dave the scaffolder View Post
    Religion, IMHO, a load of old nonsense.

    Now I believe Jesus existed and he was a decent chap, but son of God, please!

    I mean the Bible was written some 200 years after he lived, feel free to correct me here pips. Faith is the ability to believe in something without proof, show me the proof of God and his son. Now I know religion gives loads of people comfort, but it is only a belief. Where is the proof?

    Now I lead a fairly decent life, never been convicted of any major crimes etc etc, however I am unconvinced about any Gods, we have more chance of meeting an immortal vampire.

    Feel free to agree/disagree with me.

    Ps no offence intended to any of you believers intended, I am interested how you come by your beliefs.

    DTS XXX XXX
    I think we may have a difference in terminology here. Religion can refer to a wide range of belief and practices. There are also those who follow the Way of Salvation and are commonly known as Christians.

    Religion, IMHO, a load of old nonsense.
    I agree. It is sometimes said that Jesus was the most irreligious man who ever lived.

    Now I believe Jesus existed and he was a decent chap, but son of God, please!
    I suggest that he was more than a decent chap; what kind of decent chap gets his society to execute him? The religious leaders had him executed so he must have been doing something with a big impact to get them to have done this. I agree that the issue of “Son of God” is rather pivotal but interestingly his favourite reference to himself is recorded as “Son of Man”.

    I mean the Bible was written some 200 years after he lived, feel free to correct me here pips. Faith is the ability to believe in something without proof, show me the proof of God and his son. Now I know religion gives loads of people comfort, but it is only a belief. Where is the proof?
    The Bible was written over a wide period of time. The New Testament describing the life of Jesus and the start of the church was written by those alive at that time. You may be thinking of the period from which our earliest copies of the documents are taken.

    Now I lead a fairly decent life, never been convicted of any major crimes etc etc, however I am unconvinced about any Gods, we have more chance of meeting an immortal vampire.
    You live a fairly decent life by your definition; most of us consider we do. If God exists then it is by His definition we must measure our performance.

    I do not know what you seek but I would think you would be better off reading useful books. I would suggest Basic Christianity by John Stott.
    http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Christianity-Classics-John-Stott/dp/0830834036/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
    http://www.amazon.com/John-R.-W.-Stott/e/B000APHNUA/ref=ntt_aut_sim_3_1

    If you are interested in the reliability of the Bible the work I use is FF Bruce New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable
    http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/dp/0802822193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264772456&sr=1-1

    There is always the classic Who Moved The Stone, an analysis of the death and resurrection story dealing with the death and divinity of Christ:
    http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/1850786747/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264772558&sr=1-1

  5. #45
    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 suggest that he was more than a decent chap; what kind of decent chap gets his society to execute him? The religious leaders had him executed so he must have been doing something with a big impact to get them to have done this.
    Are you thinking more than petty theft then ?

    The Bible was written over a wide period of time.
    Who by? How wide? mroe than one generation?

    The New Testament describing the life of Jesus and the start of the church was written by those alive at that time.
    The dead not being known for their literary input.

    You may be thinking of the period from which our earliest copies of the documents are taken.
    Or put together into one "new" book even. And how many bits were left out? Was it never edited? Where are Thomas's chapters?

    You live a fairly decent life by your definition; most of us consider we do. If God exists then it is by His definition we must measure our performance.
    Why? If he does exist why can't "decent" still be defined by us?

    And I assume you refer to god as a "he" due to the "creation of man in his own image" thing, but why would god need a willy?

  6. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    why would god need a willy?
    Well, after making us all he had a few bits of skin and hair left over and wasn't sure what to do with them. That was the best he could come up with at short notice.

  7. #47
    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 Double Trouble View Post
    Well, after making us all he had a few bits of skin and hair left over and wasn't sure what to do with them. That was the best he could come up with at short notice.
    wrong order, if he created man in his own image - he already had a willy. Unless its some kind of mad badly squint "modern art" interpretation, a la picasso, or he's really not very artistic

  8. #48
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    The dead not being known for their literary input.


    You crack me up sometimes
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  9. #49
    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 Bubble View Post
    Is there such a thing as an atheist extremist?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    Yes, have you met Barry Shnickov?
    Nah, he's more a rottweiler than an extremist. He may grip on tenaciously and not let the point go, but as far as I know he's never blown anyone's house up because they believe in God.

    I think extremism is a human, rather than a religious, trait. People can be extremists for their religion, but equally they can be extremists for their political beliefs, their racist beliefs, their tribal identity, or whatever; and yes, some extremists are atheists, but it's not a consequence of their atheism. Religion, or the lack thereof, is by no means the cause of extremism, even if in some cases it can be fertile ground for those who are so inclined.

    As for the existence or non-existence of God, I've got myself bogged down in debates on that topic on this forum before, and they tend to generate much more heat than light. These days I'm much more inclined to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I am a Christian but I don't push my beliefs on anyone else, and I ask for the same consideration in return.

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Waltham abbey
    Posts
    4,610
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    The best school in our area is Catholic. It has better results than the two very expensive private schools a stones throw away and is much sought after by parents.

    when my eldest son was born, i became a catholic, went to all the classes and was re-baptised as a catholic to enable my son to get into that school. This meant 10 years of church, every week.

    The rules to gain entry to that school were simple. Both parents must be catholic, the child must be christened and gone through communion to attend that school and you must attend church every week as the priest for that church signs off a letter confirming you are a regular church goer and therefore able to send your son to the school.

    1. did i change my mind about christinanity. NO, i still find it hypicritical, bullish and total bullshit.
    2. Did i get any comfort from it whilst i was attending church - NO, i found it clicky and everybody knew everybodys business.
    3. Did the church show us the way - NO, the church showed us how to feel guilty about not putting money into the tin when it was handed around and also forced us to put a direct debit in place as a monthly sum otherwise if we didn't pay the church would be shut down.
    4. Did the money help - NO the church was sold. The priest was found guilty of spending the money in other areas

    Both my sons are catholic, the first one hated it and does not practice anymore (nearly 18), the youngest one is now going through the lessons for his upcoming communion and quite likes the church (which is now an old hall with a cross on the walls). I dont go anymore as im divorced and his dad (who is a believer in the catholic faith) goes with him.

    So, my point finally is, i was bullied into doing the things above so that i could get a good school for them. They know it and thats what makes me so not beleive any of the faiths as im sure examples of this or similar can be seen in any religion.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Are you thinking more than petty theft then ?
    Jesus said he was God: blasphemy in the eyes of the priests, which is a viewpoint with which one can have some sympathy. As CS Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, Jesus was a lunatic, liar ….. or who he said he was. He did not give us the option of describing him as a decent man.

    Who by? How wide? more than one generation?
    The early sections of the Old Testament have normally thought it to be written around 1400BC; although some more recent scholarship puts it at around 600BC. The last sections of the Bible in the New Testament were written by 100AD. Thus the Bible is a series of individual works by about fifty different authors over a period of 1,000 years.

    The dead not being known for their literary input.
    Actually I think the dead are better known for their literary output: Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dickens, Trollope…..the list of accredited writers who are dead is enormous. After all, most people are dead. In fact it is the living who struggle to get into print and to become well known.

    Or put together into one "new" book even. And how many bits were left out? Was it never edited? Where are Thomas's chapters?
    Thomas is a favourite character of mine; made one might say in my own image as his character, and initial scepticism, mirrors my own. The early church did the compilation; at this remove I doubt we can do better. I am sure that if you are really interested in the Gospel of Thomas Wiki will provide an answer.

    Why? If he does exist why can't "decent" still be defined by us?
    Because any definition we use will be flawed in some way for we are all flawed. God alone is perfect.

    And I assume you refer to god as a "he" due to the "creation of man in his own image" thing, but why would god need a willy?
    Man is the normal form for mankind. Image relates to the moral choice as distinct from animal choice. Animals act from instinct. It is the general perception that Homo Sapiens is differentiated from the rest of animal life by this. You appear to be thinking of craven image, which is explicitly prohibited in the ten commandments.

    As I do not come frequently to the site there is likely to be a delay in any response. I have no idea what a religious fight might be and doubt I would be interested: heat without illumination. However, friendly exchanges of ideas are always welcome and time allows the reader to consider their eternal fate.

  12. #52
    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
    Jesus said he was God: blasphemy in the eyes of the priests, which is a viewpoint with which one can have some sympathy.
    Which viewpoint can we have sympathy for? Claiming you are god, or allegations of blasphemy? thats not clear, and I am not sure I would have much sympathy for either if I witnessed them.

    As CS Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, Jesus was a lunatic, liar ….. or who he said he was. He did not give us the option of describing him as a decent man.
    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).

    The early sections of the Old Testament have normally thought it to be written around 1400BC; although some more recent scholarship puts it at around 600BC. The last sections of the Bible in the New Testament were written by 100AD. Thus the Bible is a series of individual works by about fifty different authors over a period of 1,000 years.
    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?

    Actually I think the dead are better known for their literary output: Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dickens, Trollope…
    All of those people wrote their works while they were still alive. I'm pretty sure.

    Thomas is a favourite character of mine; made one might say in my own image as his character, and initial scepticism, mirrors my own. The early church did the compilation; at this remove I doubt we can do better.
    So it was heavily edited then? or do you think thats just an anomoly?

    Because any definition we use will be flawed in some way for we are all flawed. God alone is perfect.
    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?

    Also, you argued that IF god existed then it "is by his definition we must measure our performance", this does not necessarily follow - if everyone in the world found compelling evidence for God and were 100% sure of his existence, millions would STILL define "decent" by their own criteria. And why would they not, even if creation is also proven beyond doubt, a reliable source of moral standards is simply another step that also must be proven.

    Man is the normal form for mankind.
    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?

    Image relates to the moral choice as distinct from animal choice. Animals act from instinct. It is the general perception that Homo Sapiens is differentiated from the rest of animal life by this.
    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.

    You appear to be thinking of craven image, which is explicitly prohibited in the ten commandments.
    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.

    However, friendly exchanges of ideas are always welcome and time allows the reader to consider their eternal fate.
    It has been considered, thank you for your energy saving illumination.

  13. #53
    Registered User Chicklet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,555
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Thomas is a favourite character of mine; .
    Mine too, and if Annie or Clarabel ever retire, I'm going to apply for a position.

  14. #54
    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
    The early sections of the Old Testament have normally thought it to be written around 1400BC; although some more recent scholarship puts it at around 600BC. The last sections of the Bible in the New Testament were written by 100AD. Thus the Bible is a series of individual works by about fifty different authors over a period of 1,000 years.
    As I understood it, the OT is based on four major traditions - some of which stretch back thousands of years. The oral tradition, in particular, was basically campfire stories passed down over a number of generations. To try and specify the number of authors is a huge stretch of the known facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Because any definition we use will be flawed in some way for we are all flawed. God alone is perfect.
    Not every one believes god exists. Among those who do, there is very little consensus on what god actually is. These are two rather significant (and very human) flaws in your claim for a definition of decency - and, for that matter, the claim to god's perfection. How do we know that what you call god is correct? And you can't tell us that, "I don't know; it's God who knows" or "I know because the bible tells me so". It's not god making that claim here - it's you - and if I doubt the very existence of god, then you can be assured that I doubt the truth of the bible even more. Passing the buck off to the bible is a weak argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    Man is the normal form for mankind.
    Does that mean that woman are abnormal? Obviously, for the last 2000 years, all the major religions have treated them as such, but I'm wondering if many people still actually believe that.

  15. #55
    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
    The best school in our area is Catholic. It has better results than the two very expensive private schools a stones throw away and is much sought after by parents.

    when my eldest son was born, i became a catholic, went to all the classes and was re-baptised as a catholic to enable my son to get into that school. This meant 10 years of church, every week.

    The rules to gain entry to that school were simple. Both parents must be catholic, the child must be christened and gone through communion to attend that school and you must attend church every week as the priest for that church signs off a letter confirming you are a regular church goer and therefore able to send your son to the school.

    1. did i change my mind about christinanity. NO, i still find it hypicritical, bullish and total bullshit.
    2. Did i get any comfort from it whilst i was attending church - NO, i found it clicky and everybody knew everybodys business.
    3. Did the church show us the way - NO, the church showed us how to feel guilty about not putting money into the tin when it was handed around and also forced us to put a direct debit in place as a monthly sum otherwise if we didn't pay the church would be shut down.
    4. Did the money help - NO the church was sold. The priest was found guilty of spending the money in other areas

    Both my sons are catholic, the first one hated it and does not practice anymore (nearly 18), the youngest one is now going through the lessons for his upcoming communion and quite likes the church (which is now an old hall with a cross on the walls). I dont go anymore as im divorced and his dad (who is a believer in the catholic faith) goes with him.

    So, my point finally is, i was bullied into doing the things above so that i could get a good school for them. They know it and thats what makes me so not beleive any of the faiths as im sure examples of this or similar can be seen in any religion.
    As I am not Roman Catholic and take a rather negative view of it, considering it only tangentially related to the Way of Salvation known as Christianity, it is rather hard for me to comment. Of course all organisations are open to criticism; some people like to complain about CEROC but I should think that whatever its shortcomings its achievements in promoting dance are much greater. Have you never heard complaints made about dance venues that the people there are in cliques? Given the circumstances you outline one suspects that many of the people there where concerned about the educational opportunities and not the core church activity.

    I am sorry that you have had a negative experience but to be fair to that church one must observe that you appeared to have been principally motivated by the interest of your children, as any mother would be. As such one might suggest your religious observance was purely ritualistic without actual faith. To what extent do you think others might critique you in similar fashion?

  16. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Waltham abbey
    Posts
    4,610
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagen View Post
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I am sorry that you have had a negative experience but to be fair to that church one must observe that you appeared to have been principally motivated by the interest of your children, as any mother would be. As such one might suggest your religious observance was purely ritualistic without actual faith. To what extent do you think others might critique you in similar fashion?
    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.

  17. #57
    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

    Further to the subject of a "perfect god" (and a christian one we seem to be sticking to). It seems Hagans opinion that the decision on what is "decent" is not up to us. But if god is perfect and unjudgeable then no one can question his decisions, never mind understand his motiviation, we can only think we do. I came across this book quote

    "No Christian can afford to claim that we cannot judge God. If God creates the rules by which behavior must be judged and if the rules do not bind their Creator, then there is nothing that is improper for God. 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."

    In other words, we cannot assume god is going to be nice to us, as that's entirely up to him, not us. An arguement of "but god is..." doesn't cut it, we have already established god CANNOT be judged by the likes of us so any preconceptions or opinions we may have are irrelevant.

  18. #58
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    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
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Which viewpoint can we have sympathy for? ..................... has been considered, thank you for your energy saving illumination.
    Which viewpoint can we have sympathy for? Claiming you are god, or allegations of blasphemy? thats not clear, and I am not sure I would have much sympathy for either if I witnessed them.
    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.
    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).
    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.
    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?
    I would suggest you try reading FF Bruce The New Testament Documents for an analysis of them.
    All of those people wrote their works while they were still alive. I'm pretty sure.
    When I worked in publishing the best sellers were the ones whose authors were dead. One only knows the authors with real longevity for their work well after their death. Perhaps with the modern world it is all a matter of fifteen minutes of fame.
    So it was heavily edited then? or do you think thats just an anomoly?
    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.
    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?

    Also, you argued that IF god existed then it "is by his definition we must measure our performance", this does not necessarily follow - if everyone in the world found compelling evidence for God and were 100% sure of his existence, millions would STILL define "decent" by their own criteria. And why would they not, even if creation is also proven beyond doubt, a reliable source of moral standards is simply another step that also must be proven.
    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.
    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?
    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. I cannot help with the original Hebrew and Greek.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    It has been considered, thank you for your energy saving illumination.

    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. If you have had bad experiences I have had worse. I have had many bitter experiences with people in the church. I have had to investigate serious fraud by a church treasurer. A colleague had to sit through a trial where a church youth leader was shown to have been a long-term paedophile. The worst interview I ever had was within the church where one of the interviewers, to the evident distress of his colleague, screamed and shouted at me across the table: he disagreed with me. Does this mean that God does not exist? I think it just means the interviewer needs better training and more self-control and that people in the church are not perfect just as those who are outside it are not.

    The Christian faith is one to be lived; it is not an intellectual exercise. 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?

  20. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Let's have a good old religious fight

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    As I understood it, the OT is based on four major traditions ...........have treated them as such, but I'm wondering if many people still actually believe that.
    As I understood it, the OT is based on four major traditions - some of which stretch back thousands of years. The oral tradition, in particular, was basically campfire stories passed down over a number of generations. To try and specify the number of authors is a huge stretch of the known facts.

    I agree it is a huge stretch. Scholars debate the issues. I’ll settle for about fifty. For an in-depth discussion I doubt a dance forum is the right venue! With regard to four traditions this is a reference to, I take it, the J, D, E, P prime sources or something similar. I am afraid my Theological Diploma merely paddled with this issue but as far as I am aware (a) this applies to the New Testament (b) It is a scholastic debate which has passed on – très passé – but what would I know? Real specialist stuff that. As an informed man would you care to give more detail on the reason why you suggest it is based on four traditions?

    Not every one believes god exists. Among those who do, there is very little consensus on what god actually is. These are two rather significant (and very human) flaws in your claim for a definition of decency - and, for that matter, the claim to god's perfection. How do we know that what you call god is correct? And you can't tell us that, "I don't know; it's God who knows" or "I know because the bible tells me so". It's not god making that claim here - it's you - and if I doubt the very existence of god, then you can be assured that I doubt the truth of the bible even more. Passing the buck off to the bible is a weak argument.

    I agree that if you deny the existence of God the other matters follow. The original statement was based on the assumption that God exists. If God exists then He will be perfect unless you think that he is some super-being like the Olympic gods who truly are gods made in the image of man, with all their in-built flaws all too evident. I would not want to make an argument about a non-Christian god.

    However, your attempt to bypass the Bible will not work. This reduces matters to one opinion against another; they both have validity. The whole essence of Christianity is meeting Jesus and the basis of that is the Bible. If you have a problem with the Bible as a source I suggest that nothing further will be gained without addressing that.

    Sites which might be of value as the first covers some of your concerns quite well.

    http://bethinking.org/culture-worldview/introductory/the-end-of-faith-by-sam-harris-a-review.htm

    http://www.answertheskeptic.com/

    http://johnlennox.org/

    Does that mean that woman are abnormal? Obviously, for the last 2000 years, all the major religions have treated them as such, but I'm wondering if many people still actually believe that.



    I think there are two distinct issues here.
    • English as with many languages uses the male singular in a generic sense.
    • The role of women in religion. The difficulty with that is it often backs into issues of general social culture.
    On the first I can make no comment. On the second I think it is important to remember that traditionally women would be pregnant from their mid-teens until their mid-forties, assuming they were not one of the one-third who are estimated to have died from childbirth. Our modern world is very different to those of the past because of better health care. Women are in a very different lifestyle to the past. That in the past societies did not take the possibility that life might change can hardly be counted against them. It is very significant that there are strong correlations between, education, numbers of children and economic activity of women. We should not take the past completely off the hook. I should like to know why the church in medieval times restricted education. The Jews of ancient times were well known as being a literate race; they needed to be to read the scriptures. So why was the medieval church unable to do the same?

    En passant one might mention that equality under the law is a legal fiction. In practice we are all different as individuals: some are taller, some are stronger, some more intelligent, others better looking.

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
  •