# Stephen Fry gives it to 'God' with both barrels.



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

The Irish guys face is a picture lol

[youtube_browser]/-suvkwNYSQo[/youtube_browser]


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I posted this on my FB.. I have to say i can see where he is coming from.*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *I posted this on my FB.. I have to say i can see where he is coming from.*


He certainly has a point lol


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

I haven't had a chance to listen to this yet but I feel I will most likely agree with him when I do.

The Bible is a total farce. It was 'written' hundreds of years after Jesus 'allegedly' walked the earth.

It has been 'sterilised' by those in power over the years - there is SO much which has been left out - and, when it was 're-written' in the 17th century, it had to get the approval of King James. He authorised what could be included in the now, widely used, King James Bible.

If the people who live their lives so religiously by this book actually saw what has been omitted, the shock would most likely kill them! 

.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

I say right on. Needs to be said more IMO. 

Its perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I say right on. Needs to be said more IMO.
> 
> Its perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.


I think this is an easy speech to make in England

Possibly trickier in Ireland?

Love to see him repeat it on fox news or al Jazeera


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Well - I'm not going to get into a theological discussion. It will take to long and be too open to misinterpretation (on both sides)., but I will say that I believe in God, and that I believe that God is wholly loving, and that we are not capable of understanding the whys and wherefores of the evil in the world - but I can see that a lot of them, including injustice and inequality, are the fault of humankind - even people as charming and personable as Stephen Fry put their own comfort before suffering children.

ALmost all of us do. That is us. Not God.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

lostbear said:


> Well - I'm not going to get into a theological discussion. It will take to long and be too open to misinterpretation (on both sides)., but I will say that I believe in God, and that I believe that God is wholly loving, and that we are not capable of understanding the whys and wherefores of the evil in the world - but I can see that a lot of them, including injustice and inequality, are the fault of humankind - even people as charming and personable as Stephen Fry put their own comfort before suffering children.
> 
> ALmost all of us do. That is us. Not God.


Ive dedicated my adult life to working with children.
If god is putting his own comfort before suffering children then I sure havent seen it, and would love for someone to explain to me exactly how that is true.

If god is indeed all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful and he still continues to allow the suffering and atrocities that happen to children and animals happen, then he is simply evil.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. 
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

A misquote attributed to Buddha but one that would serve us all well to try.

Faith is a lovely thing if you have it but it is all too often used as a weapon to beat people over the head with.. If you really have faith you shouldnt need to convince anyone else of it in order to confirm your belief..


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

Alot of the stories in the bible are very similar to greek and roman myths and legends so makes me quite skeptical.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

The interviewer is called Gaye Burne, he was a massive talk show host in ROI, on a par with Michael Parkinson in England. 

I can see how this would have been seen as offensive by an older generation in Ireland but the Catholic Church no longer has the tight grip it did beforehand in the republic and I have seen this video many times on my FB news feed posted by people who have been brought up religiously (I am in the north of Ireland which is another thread entirely) 

I was brought up with religious schooling but not at home (bar my grandmother) and was brought up to believe that god was a loving, all forgiving god who sacrificed his only son so we could all be with him in heaven. 

It was only in my late teens I cottoned on how much religion twisted people up (my wayward friends 'christian' parents who believe that because I was raised a papist I will burn in the fires of hell but she would be grand is a nice example) or that people couldn't believe my husband and I could ever work out because we weren't the same religion, even though he is an atheist and I don't practice. 

I've come to an age now where I think 'do onto others as you would have done to yourself' is enough for me now, the world is and always has been a rotten, wicked place and how that loving god I was raised with could allow it all to go so wrong is beyond me.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Brilliant, I have been saying something similar for years. God is evil, world would be better without 'him'. 

Thumps up to Stephen Fry.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

dorrit said:


> A misquote attributed to Buddha but one that would serve us all well to try.
> 
> Faith is a lovely thing if you have it but it is all too often used as a weapon to beat people over the head with.. If you really have faith you shouldnt need to convince anyone else of it in order to confirm your belief..


Very true.

I have no problem with anyone believing anything they want...as long as their belief doesn't cause harm to others.


----------



## knuckingfuts (Jan 11, 2014)

The argument that most of the evil in the world is committed by people, of their own free will is fine, if you ignore everything else. 

Exactly as Stephen Fry has said, the world is full of things (intelligently?) designed to kill us or make us die in agony.

"God", if he/she/it exists, hasn't given us paradise - he has essentially thrown us all into the Hunger Games.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

We all have free will so we can believe or not believe. If Mr Fry thinks earth should be eutopia then mankind would not be on it as mankind can never be perfect. Its easy to sit and say he would not want to join heaven on god's terms but god is about forgiveness and will no doubt welcome him in anyway. It almost seems to be trendy to take the pee out of faith in god but I doubt Mr Fry would be as tolerant of people taking the pee out of his lifestyle choices.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Didn't want to get involved in this but...anyway....

It is only some versions of christian religion that see god as forgiving. Others see god as stern and punishing.
My poor Nan hung on for months with a life-ending illness because she was so terrified of dying. Although she was 'C of E', she had been to a catholic school and taught by nuns that God will punish us for all our imperfections. My poor Nan (a very kind, caring and thoughtful woman) believed she might be going to hell because she had been 'naughty' as a child and hadn't kept up with going to church as an adult.

Why would a god/all-seeing being want to put _its own followers_ through this agony?

And to add insult to injury, that same god designed us making sure we could never achieve perfection?

That whole idea of this makes me very angry.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We all have free will so we can believe or not believe. If Mr Fry thinks earth should be eutopia then mankind would not be on it as mankind can never be perfect. Its easy to sit and say he would not want to join heaven on god's terms but god is about forgiveness and will no doubt welcome him in anyway. It almost seems to be trendy to take the pee out of faith in god but I doubt Mr Fry would be as tolerant of people taking the pee out of his lifestyle choices.


Asking why children would be afflicted with bone cancer has nothing to do with thinking earth should be utopia. 
Nor has it anything to do with free choice.

Bone cancer in children, what IS that all about? Were not even talking about man-made atrocities and tragedies, were talking about children being born to only suffer and then die. Why?

I dont think its trendy to take the pee out of god, I think its timely. Its finally allowed. God may be forgiving, but his followers sure arent....


----------



## knuckingfuts (Jan 11, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We all have free will so we can believe or not believe. If Mr Fry thinks earth should be eutopia then mankind would not be on it as mankind can never be perfect. Its easy to sit and say he would not want to join heaven on god's terms but god is about forgiveness and will no doubt welcome him in anyway. It almost seems to be trendy to take the pee out of faith in god but I doubt Mr Fry would be as tolerant of people taking the pee out of his lifestyle choices.


Where exactly is he taking the pee out of faith? He is simply explaining his belief or disbelief.

I'm assuming you are alluding to Stephen Fry being a homosexual, when referring to his "lifestyle choices"?
I cant not mention that being gay is not a choice.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

silvi said:


> Didn't want to get involved in this but...anyway....
> 
> It is only some versions of christian religion that see god as forgiving. Others see god as stern and punishing.
> *My poor Nan hung on for months with a life-ending illness because she was so terrified of dying.* Although she was 'C of E', she had been to a catholic school and taught by nuns that God will punish us for all our imperfections. My poor Nan (a very kind, caring and thoughtful woman) believed she might be going to hell because she had been 'naughty' as a child and hadn't kept up with going to church as an adult.
> ...


That is very sad - and I can totally understand why you are angry. No-one has the right to make anyone feel the way that your Nan was made to feel.

But it is humankind's (usually mankind's) interpretation of what God wants that is the problem.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

He can believe what he wants. I tend more towards agnostic but I'm fairly sure the Bible says there's a new agreement and the rules of Leviticus no longer apply, they only ever applied to the priests in the first place. It was the long exile in Babylon that changed them to apply to everyone.

I think humans love a scapegoat for human nature. Do people really think there wouldn't be any war or that we wouldn't hate each other if religion didn't exist? Just because it's the cool thing to hate religion now. It's scientists, probably atheists, that spend their time creating better weapons, some of the worst monsters of the last century were atheists. War just seems to be our natural state, nothing to do with a creator.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

lostbear said:


> That is very sad - and I can totally understand why you are angry. No-one has the right to make anyone feel the way that your Nan was made to feel.
> 
> But it is humankind's (usually mankind's) interpretation of what God wants that is the problem.


Yes I agree.

But our understanding of all religions is from texts written, or tales handed down, by those who have given the story their own interpretation.

There are a few who say they have 'talked to god', but most believers and unbelievers (and even agnostics like me) have to base our belief, or lack of belief, on teachings interpreted by others.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

these 2 quotes say it all for me

_Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac. Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him?! What kind of god would do that?_

_Yes, the world is very splendid but it also has in it insects whose whole lifecycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind, he says. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didnt exist. It is simply not acceptable."_

I don't see how a 'God' created our world - if they did they why would they do the above?


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Gay Byrne = Late late Show

David Attenborough made the same point back in 2009
Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God | World news | The Guardian

It is a very hard one to get past.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Jonescat said:


> Gay Byrne = Late late Show
> 
> David Attenborough made the same point back in 2009
> Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God | World news | The Guardian
> ...


I've seen an interview with him where he says he doesn't believe but it's incredibly arrogant to say definitively either way basically. If he had said he did believe the sad little atheists that think they're so superior, a minority of course, would have been screeching hate at him instead.


----------



## soulful dog (Nov 6, 2011)

dorrit said:


> *Faith is a lovely thing if you have it* but it is all too often used as a weapon to beat people over the head with.. If you really have faith you shouldnt need to convince anyone else of it in order to confirm your belief..


This is something that shouldn't be forgotten too. We tend to focus on the negative aspects of religious belief, and can be quick to ridicule and criticise. But it is also important to remember that, immaterial of your own beliefs, for some, faith is an important part of their life. And there are many, many people who have faith and don't feel the need to try and convince others of it.

I say this as someone who is a non-believer and a complete sceptic when it comes to religion. However, I have close family members who are church regulars and admire, and at times even envy their faith.

I am always touched when I remember the story of a 90-odd year old woman lying on her death bed in hospital. A regular church-goer throughout her life, she was visited by the deaconess of her church and lying there knowing she was about to die, one of her final questions to her was "will I definitely go to heaven?". Brings a tear to my eye every time I think of it!


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Jonescat said:


> Gay Byrne = Late late Show
> 
> David Attenborough made the same point back in 2009
> Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God | World news | The Guardian
> ...


Thank you for this - Once reading it I remembered this but had completely forgotten it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> I think humans love a scapegoat for human nature. Do people really think there wouldn't be any war or that we wouldn't hate each other if religion didn't exist?


No. Why would anyone think that?
Saying religion is the cause of so many wars and hate does not mean religion is the ONLY cause of wars and hate. It is however a huge contributing factor in pretty much all the major conflicts going on now. That in itself is pretty significant if you ask me.



Nicky10 said:


> Just because it's the cool thing to hate religion now.


Not the "cool thing". You see it now because the world has thankfully changed enough that you're not going to lose your life over voicing your opinion about religion. 
As it is though, living where I do, I stand to loose my job if I make public my feelings about religion and god. I can be a member or the strictest church where preachers encourage their parishioners to beat the "gay" out of their children, and that would be okay, but if too many people knew how I really feel, I would be run out of town. Cool huh?



Nicky10 said:


> It's scientists, probably atheists, that spend their time creating better weapons, some of the worst monsters of the last century were atheists. War just seems to be our natural state, nothing to do with a creator.


Yeah, those darned scientists and their eradication of small pox, searches for a cause and cure for AIDS, finding ways to ease the suffering of those kids with bone cancer. Evil lot those scientists...

FWIW, when you look at atrocities like every major genocide of the past century, they were all fueled at least in part by differences of religion.

If war is our "natural state" as you say, then it absolutely has to do with a creator. Whoever created us, created us to be evil and warmongering. Why would a benevolent, all-loving, all-forgiving creator do that?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> No. Why would anyone think that?
> Saying religion is the cause of so many wars and hate does not mean religion is the ONLY cause of wars and hate. It is however a huge contributing factor in pretty much all the major conflicts going on now. That in itself is pretty significant if you ask me.


Religion is a major cause of course but it's not the only cause and many people would have you believe it is.



> Yeah, those darned scientists and their eradication of small pox, searches for a cause and cure for AIDS, finding ways to ease the suffering of those kids with bone cancer. Evil lot those scientists...
> 
> FWIW, when you look at atrocities like every major genocide of the past century, they were all fueled at least in part by differences of religion.
> 
> If war is our "natural state" as you say, then it absolutely has to do with a creator. Whoever created us, created us to be evil and warmongering. Why would a benevolent, all-loving, all-forgiving creator do that?


I have nothing against science for the record. I wouldn't be studying science if I did. But the most arrogant, preachy anti-religious people are scientists and I don't see many of them calling for humanitarian works, just preaching against religion.

Stalin and Mao were atheists no? The Khmer rouge too?

I never said I believed in a creator, just that it's incredibly arrogant and to my mind against basic scientific principles to say definitively either way. I don't think religion or science are inherently evil, just the people who wield them.

That same creator made all the other species that don't regularly try to wipe each other out. Humans evolved from mid-level scavengers to top predators too fast and our ability to control ourselves is still catching up sadly.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

I'm another one who is completely envious of people who have faith. It must be a tremendous comfort. 

It's very difficult to know what's right when your whole schooling was religious (I was a convent school girl after primary) you cannot shake that off, my father thinks it's a kin to brain washing. 

A very dear friend had twin boys later in life, her and her husband have been life long Christians, taking the boys brigade, living life in a kind, quiet way. 

One of her twins battled cancer from the age of 3 and sadly died at the age of 8. 

My friend and her husband and son will never be 'right' it never leaves them, we discuss it all the time and she has said, not in so many words that she clings to her faith because she HAS to believe she will be reunited with her son again. It's the only thing that gets her through. 

What do you say to that? It gives her comfort, what good would be done saying 'what sort of god does that to a beautiful, innocent little boy?' Which is what I think inside. 

I have received that comfort too, when my nanny died (a peaceful death with all us round her) in a nursing home ran by nuns, we obviously were crying as she began to slip away and one of the nuns came in and said 'don't be sad, the angels in heaven are now rejoicing, getting ready to welcome their sister home'. 

I can all too well see where Stephen Fry is coming from, the world isn't right in any sense of the word but I think it unfair to mock what anyone believes that gives them peace just as much as feel it unfair for anyone else to shove their beliefs down anyone else's throat.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We all have free will so we can believe or not believe. If Mr Fry thinks earth should be eutopia then mankind would not be on it as mankind can never be perfect. Its easy to sit and say he would not want to join heaven on god's terms but god is about forgiveness and will no doubt welcome him in anyway. It almost seems to be trendy to take the pee out of faith in god but I doubt Mr Fry would be as tolerant of people taking the pee out of his lifestyle choices.


He wasn't taking the pee
He was making a critique

There is resonance here with the recent Charlie hebdo 
I would ask why during critiques of religion the response is often you can't make fun?
If religion is strong why would this be a concern?
If Mr fry made a critique of another belief,.eg socialism, would people reply he shouldn't take the pee?
Just putting it out there


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Stalin and Mao were atheists no? The Khmer rouge too?


Depends on what history books you read.
Mao created himself as the deity of sorts. So he wasn't exactly atheist, he just made himself the god.

Stalin was not quite as obvious about it, but he did in a way allow himself to be similarly deified as well. Not exactly atheist principles.

And even if Stalin and Mao WERE atheist, let's look at just the major genocides of the past century:

- Armenians - religious 
- Jewish holocaust - religious 
- Cambodia (already discussed)
- Bosnia - religious 
- Guatemalan Mayans - religious 
- Rwanda - religious

So I'll give you Cambodia if you want. You still have 5 other atrocities in the past century alone that we can attribute at least in part to religious differences. And I didn't even list all of them, just the more well-known ones.

Would you like me to go on? Because we can also discuss mass killings, like Waco, the Oklahoma city bombings, abortion clinic bombings, and that's just here in the US. How about 9/11? Madrid train bombings? London Underground bombings? And the subsequent wars upon wars upon wars that have sprung from all that. I'm saying religion played a starring role there.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Depends on what history books you read.
> Mao created himself as the deity of sorts. So he wasn't exactly atheist, he just made himself the god.
> 
> Stalin was not quite as obvious about it, but he did in a way allow himself to be similarly deified as well. Not exactly atheist principles.
> ...


Cult of personality isn't quite the same thing, dictators have been doing it since at least Alexander and I'm sure it's older than that. But yes, atrocities have always been carried out by those claiming to act for one god or another but humans would find a way anyway. Religion can be weaponised to do great evil or it can be used to rally humanitarian efforts or provide comfort. Science can use the same reaction to provide clean, safe energy for a city or destroy it and harm future generations. It's all down to the ethics of the humans involved.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jewish holocaust - religion or race ?
Id say latter

're Mao etc cult of personality
Quasi religious yes, but not so sure deification?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> Jewish holocaust - religion or race ?
> Id say latter
> 
> 're Mao etc cult of personality
> Quasi religious yes, but not so sure deification?


Well with Hitler it was almost deification, the Nazis and especially the SS had their pagan cult and Hitler was certainly the figurehead of it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Cult of personality isn't quite the same thing, dictators have been doing it since at least Alexander and I'm sure it's older than that. But yes, atrocities have always been carried out by those claiming to act for one god or another but humans would find a way anyway. Religion can be weaponised to do great evil or it can be used to rally humanitarian efforts or provide comfort. Science can use the same reaction to provide clean, safe energy for a city or destroy it and harm future generations. It's all down to the ethics of the humans involved.


How do religions and cults differ?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> How do religions and cults differ?


Shrugs but cult of personality is more around the glorious head of state who obviously could do no wrong and will lead his people to great victory than religion. Many ordinary people were convinced Stalin knew nothing of the purges for example.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

saw this last night, he's right on the money.

i see only 3 logical possibilities

1- there is no god
2- there is a god but he is not all powerful
3- there is a god, he is all powerful, but he is a cruel, jealous egomaniac who revels in the suffering of the innocent

none are worthy are worship.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Shrugs but cult of personality is more around the glorious head of state who obviously could do no wrong and will lead his people to great victory than religion. Many ordinary people were convinced Stalin knew nothing of the purges for example.


And how does that differ from a glorious god, who does no wrong, who will lead his people in to the promised land?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> And how does that differ from a glorious god, who does no wrong, who will lead his people in to the promised land?


That's only the Judeo-Christian God though, most of the others are far more concerned with sleeping with everything that moves and infighting.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> That's only the Judeo-Christian God though, most of the others are far more concerned with sleeping with everything that moves and infighting.


Okay, then I'll ask a different way.
How do monotheistic religions differ from a cult?

Basically what makes the thing a cult vs. a religion?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Okay, then I'll ask a different way.
> How do monotheistic religions differ from a cult?
> 
> Basically what makes the thing a cult vs. a religion?


It's a good question, I don't know. Probably something that theologians have debated for a long time. A religion is more organised, has a wider variation of views than a cult? I don't know.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Okay, then I'll ask a different way.
> How do monotheistic religions differ from a cult?
> 
> Basically what makes the thing a cult vs. a religion?


there is very little difference... religions are just cults that have been accepted and have spread far and wide.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> He can believe what he wants. I tend more towards agnostic but I'm fairly sure the Bible says there's a new agreement and the rules of Leviticus no longer apply, they only ever applied to the priests in the first place. It was the long exile in Babylon that changed them to apply to everyone.
> 
> I think humans love a scapegoat for human nature. Do people really think there wouldn't be any war or that we wouldn't hate each other if religion didn't exist? Just because it's the cool thing to hate religion now. It's scientists, probably atheists, that spend their time creating better weapons, some of the worst monsters of the last century were atheists. War just seems to be our natural state, nothing to do with a creator.


I hear this old testament doesn't count once Jesus came about argument quite a lot
Often in rationalizing gay Christianity, which does seem to be an oxymoron in Christian biblical terms
And this may be so about the old testament, so I then ask why isn't the old testament removed from the bible and thus Christianity, and why then are old testament passages still used in church etc?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> I hear this old testament doesn't count once Jesus came about argument quite a lot
> Often in rationalizing gay Christianity, which does seem to be an oxymoron in Christian biblical terms
> And this may be so about the old testament, so I then ask why isn't the old testament removed from the bible and thus Christianity, and why then are old testament passages still used in church etc?


Being gay is mentioned twice and in the context of the receiving partner is taking the female position and is therefore weak and it's shameful to do that. And Paul of course but he was an egotistical control freak.

It gives the history, well a version of it only some of which we can verify, of the Jewish people. I suppose they think we need the context.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Being gay is mentioned twice and in the context of the receiving partner is taking the female position and is therefore weak and it's shameful to do that. And Paul of course but he was an egotistical control freak.
> 
> It gives the history, well a version of it only some of which we can verify, of the Jewish people. I suppose they think we need the context.


Then if the OT doesn't count anymore in regards to various things such as homosexuality then shouldn't it be removed from bible and not used as religious teaching?
But merely an accompanying history book?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> Then if the OT doesn't count anymore in regards to various things such as homosexuality then shouldn't it be removed from bible and not used as religious teaching?
> But merely an accompanying history book?


Probably yes but that's up to the churches.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Probably yes but that's up to the churches.


To be consistent in their argument yes


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

I class myself as agnostic. 

I certainly don't believe in the book of chinese whispers or that any creator (he/she/it/them) would expect us to get on our knees to pray to them. 

Years ago (I was a teen) my mum became a catholic, and tried to get us kids involved which meant going to special classes, one on one (can't remember what these classes were called). My first priest very quickly handed me over to another priest as I was too questioning, the second priest did the same, the third priest...well he got shipped out before starting lessons for messing with a married woman and later allegations of child abuse...that was the end for me. My mum had to accept I'd remain a heathen. 

My ex MIL also found religion later in life...You know, I've never met a more hypocritical, judgemental pair of women in my life...if that's what religion does I'm glad I've not bought into it! 


My friend was bought up as a JW. When the "big bang" was supposed to happen many of them gave their homes, businesses and all possessions away...they believed it that strongly. My friend went out and had sex, unprotected, at age 15 because she didn't want to die a virgin. When it didn't happen her dad turned into a violent drunk because he realised he had been hoodwinked and he had made his family live harsh lives in preparation. (fool didn't see that he was still causing problems with his drinking) The older kids (my friend included) turned to alcohol and other substance as their "crutch" had been snatched away, heroin and alcohol became their crutches.

I went to school with a JW lad who rebelled, he turned his back on religion and had to be taken into care because his parents being devout JWs turned their back on him, their own child at 14 in the name of religion...

Yes, I'm glad I've never found religion and I agree with Fry on this although I'm not generally a fan of his


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

He also did an interview in 2009 against the catholic church. It is a long speech. Just go to youtube and type in stephen fry catholic.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I personally don't believe there is a god - for many of the reasons that Stephen Fry gives.

However, one thing that does puzzle me:

IF there is a god, whose god is the real one?

There seem to be so many.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Lurcherlad said:


> I personally don't believe there is a god - for many of the reasons that Stephen Fry gives.
> 
> However, one thing that does puzzle me:
> 
> ...


I think if they exist they are all the same one (or group) - and in fact all these religious extremists are all fighting each other for the same God be it their own interpretation of that God or Gods


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

If someone gets comfort from their religion, then I wouldn't ever ridicule or judge.

Unfortunately the majority of people who believe in a god seems to be rather bigoted and full of hate


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Can someone of faith answer one question that I can't seem to get my head round, if there is a god where did he come from??????????


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> If someone gets comfort from their religion, then I wouldn't ever ridicule or judge.
> 
> Unfortunately the majority of people who believe in a god seems to be rather bigoted and full of hate


I disagree. I think it's the minority of people who believe in a god or goddess - whatever their religion - who are bigoted and full of hate. Unfortunately, as in every other walk of life, I think the few give the many a bad name.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> I disagree. I think it's the minority of people who believe in a god or goddess - whatever their religion - who are bigoted and full of hate. Unfortunately, as in every other walk of life, I think the few give the many a bad name.


Come live in my neck of the woods...

It's not blatant here. Most do subscribe to being kind, or at least say they do. But their actions betray something else. They are not accepting of differences. At all. And children can be very cruel...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Come live in my neck of the woods...
> 
> It's not blatant here. Most do subscribe to being kind, or at least say they do. But their actions betray something else. They are not accepting of differences. At all. And children can be very cruel...


Must admit, it was because of people like the ones that you describe that made me leave the christian faith. But I still think that the majority of people I know who believe in gods and goddesess are neither bogoted nor full of hate.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> Must admit, it was because of people like the ones that you describe that made me leave the christian faith. But I still think that the majority of people I know who believe in gods and goddesess are neither bogoted nor full of hate.


Actually I think *people* are by and large inherently good. Left to our own devices, we all learn to love and care for each other fairly easily. It's the outside forces that seem to create the hate, and evil.

Or put another way. 
Most people around start out by genuinely liking me, love my kids. But as soon as they find out we don't go to church, suspicion and doubt creeps in.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Actually I think *people* are by and large inherently good. Left to our own devices, we all learn to love and care for each other fairly easily. It's the outside forces that seem to create the hate, and evil.
> 
> Or put another way.
> Most people around start out by genuinely liking me, love my kids. But as soon as they find out we don't go to church, suspicion and doubt creeps in.


I admire you actually
Its easy for us in England to say the sort of stuff Stephen fry said
Its pretty much socially accepted comment and a non issue
Its slightly a controversial interview in Ireland, but the real challenge for Stephen fry would be to hold this interview on somewhere like fox news or al Jazeera, as their constituencies are fundamentalist.
I would love it if he was as eloquent and incisive with that audience.
That would be a brave thing to do, so I can truly admire someone like yourself whom makes that stand everyday and lives the consequences


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> I admire you actually
> Its easy for us in England to say the sort of stuff Stephen fry said
> Its pretty much socially accepted comment and a non issue
> Its slightly a controversial interview in Ireland, but the real challenge for Stephen fry would be to hold this interview on somewhere like fox news or al Jazeera, as their constituencies are fundamentalist.
> ...


as if fox news would let him say that, he'd be cut off and shouted over within 30 seconds of opening his mouth.


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm an atheist. Atheism is a belief though just like believing in God. 

I trust the scientists about make up and creation universe and the intricacies of everything from microwave ovens to the goings on at the centre of our planet. They are beyond my understanding and comprehension just like God is to me. 

I like religions, I just don't believe in God that's all. You can be an atheist without being against religion. 

Even if there was no religion, human beings need a hierarchy and there are always those lower down in the hierarchy who will do whatever it takes in their quest to rise above others (as it does in nature). This is sadly where extremism is inevitable. The negative feelings toward religions are misplaced IMO.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Lunabuma said:


> I'm an atheist. Atheism is a belief though just like believing in god.
> 
> I trust the scientists about make up and creation universe and the intricacies of everything from microwave ovens to the goings on at the centre of our planet. They are beyond my understanding and comprehension just like god is to me.
> 
> ...


athiesm isnt a belief at all. It is the absence of a belief. Would you consider the absence of a fork to be a piece of cutlery? it's the same thing.

And i am the opposite to you... i dont care if people beleive in gods, but i think religion is disgusting.


----------



## bingolitle (Dec 6, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> Can someone of faith answer one question that I can't seem to get my head round, if there is a god where did he come from??????????


Think of it this way - that little spark that is life has to go somewhere when someone dies, be they human, dog, bat, wasp, whatever - we can't see it, we can't touch it, we can't measure it - but we _know_ it's there.

God - whatever that means to an individual - would be formed out of all those little sparks.

Now you can ask - where did life come from then.

Have not the foggiest idea


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

porps said:


> athiesm isnt a belief at all. It is the absence of a belief. Would you consider the absence of a fork to be a piece of cutlery? it's the same thing.


Interesting POV. I believe its a belief.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Lunabuma said:


> Interesting POV. I believe its a belief.


the other way to say it would be "athiesm is a belief in the same way that bald is a hair colour"


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

bingolitle said:


> Think of it this way - that little spark that is life has to go somewhere when someone dies, be they human, dog, bat, wasp, whatever - we can't see it, we can't touch it, we can't measure it - but we _know_ it's there.


Sorry, as much as I'd like to agree, when your dead your dead and that's it.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

bingolitle said:


> Think of it this way - that little spark that is life has to go somewhere when someone dies, be they human, dog, bat, wasp, whatever - we can't see it, we can't touch it, we can't measure it - but we _know_ it's there.


Thats a bold assertion, on what evidence do you base it?


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

porps said:


> the other way to say it would be "athiesm is a belief in the same way that bald is a hair colour"


atheism is a belief in the same way that abstinence is a sex position


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Actually I think *people* are by and large inherently good. Left to our own devices, we all learn to love and care for each other fairly easily. It's the outside forces that seem to create the hate, and evil.
> 
> Or put another way.
> Most people around start out by genuinely liking me, love my kids. But as soon as they find out we don't go to church, suspicion and doubt creeps in.


I understand what you mean. The other year I got on really well with a new starter at work. We developed a friendship that lasted until the weather turned nice and we weren't wearing jumpers any more - and then suddenly she became really stand-offish. This puzzled me until the boss called me into the office and said she had complained about the pentacle I wore around my neck, and asked me to remove it. I said I would if he would ask her to remove the crucifix she wore around hers, but he said he could not do that. I pointed out to him that there was no difference in what he was asking me to do and what he wouldn't ask her to do, and in the end he capitulated and agreed I was right.

We were both allowed to wear our symbols - but she never spoke to me again unless it was necessary to speak about work. We were the same people, but her beliefs got in her way and somehow made her unable to see that we could still be friends.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> I understand what you mean. The other year I got on really well with a new starter at work. We developed a friendship that lasted until the weather turned nice and we weren't wearing jumpers any more - and then suddenly she became really stand-offish. This puzzled me until the boss called me into the office and said she had complained about the pentacle I wore around my neck, and asked me to remove it. I said I would if he would ask her to remove the crucifix she wore around hers, but he said he could not do that. I pointed out to him that there was no difference in what he was asking me to do and what he wouldn't ask her to do, and in the end he capitulated and agreed I was right.
> 
> We were both allowed to wear our symbols - but she never spoke to me again unless it was necessary to speak about work. We were the same people, but her beliefs got in her way and somehow made her unable to see that we could still be friends.


Yes, this sort of thing exactly. Everything is fine and dandy until an -ism shows up. Then all of a sudden it all starts going cattywampus.

I try to check myself regularly, and make sure Im responding to peoples behavior, and not from my own biases.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Yes, this sort of thing exactly. Everything is fine and dandy until an -ism shows up. Then all of a sudden it all starts going cattywampus.
> 
> I try to check myself regularly, and make sure Im responding to peoples behavior, and not from my own biases.


cattywampus!

great word, im gonna steal that


----------



## bingolitle (Dec 6, 2014)

porps said:


> Thats a bold assertion, on what evidence do you base it?


Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Life is energy - of some sort anyway.

You can't make a cell live - you have to start with a living cell. Once it's dead, it's dead. Therefore "something" has gone.

I don't know what it is - only THAT it is.

And I am unanimous in that :wink5:


----------



## knuckingfuts (Jan 11, 2014)

bingolitle said:


> Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Life is energy - of some sort anyway.
> 
> You can't make a cell live - you have to start with a living cell. Once it's dead, it's dead. Therefore "something" has gone.
> 
> ...


I was going to post something about this principle, if that's the right word for it.
I have an ever changing belief system. I haven't yet decided what I belief about life after death but I feel the concept that energy cant be destroyed, it simply changes, will be the foundation of it.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

bingolitle said:


> Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Life is energy - of some sort anyway.
> 
> You can't make a cell live - you have to start with a living cell. Once it's dead, it's dead. Therefore "something" has gone.
> 
> ...


Energy cannot be created nor destroyed is correct.
our bodies are machines which convert energy from one form to another. Life is the term we give to describe when these machines are still working. Once dead, the energy contained is not lost of course- bacteria will break it down and convert it. Carrion animals may eat it and convert it. Or if we get cremated it will become heat energy. We _can_ actualy detect and measure this energy.

And if thats your definition of life after death (your energy will go back into the food chain) then i fully agree. If however you are equating consciousness with energy then i disagree. There is no evidence to suggest that the mind can exist outside of the brain.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

I haven't watched the video, but I am someone with a religious mother and grandparents and I had to go to church when I was younger. All I can say is, every time I see a photo of a child or animal abused/killed or dying in the most hellish situations (take your pick- from slaughterhouses to our very own door steps) I ask how can _anyone _be up there watching over us?

I do believe in "something" - I'm not sure what, but I would like to ask them a lot of questions if we ever meet.

Below are some of my favourite lyrics by a band I love, its by a band called Hatebreed and the song is called 'Beholder of Justice' and it sums up nicely how I feel.

In this very moment, agony exists
Unbeknownst to an unforgiving force.
Some pray, some beg, without consolation.
The pure lie beneath us while the scum walk the earth
Why can't we heal them
Why can't we see them
Can we keep hoping, no one knows for sure
Blamelessly renouncing, guilt has no bearing
I must believe that there is a better way.

Beholder of justice
Who have you abandoned
Beholder of justice
Why have you forgotten us
Why, why have you forgotten us
Why, why must the innocent die

If I could reverse this I swear I would
I would take the pain away, I swear to you.
Broken souls and misery it seems we're too far gone
Now we can only ask and wish for our complete redemption

Beholder of justice
Who have you abandoned
Beholder of justice
Why have you forgotten us
Why, does such innocence suffer
While the evil prospers
Why, beholder of justice
Why, have you forgotten us
How can I stand by your judgment​


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I'll buy that "some" things could be blamed on the sins of the people.

What about earth quakes? Tsunami's? Volcanoes? wipeing out thousands of folk, some god fearing, Innocent kids and animals?

Just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I went from believing in God to agnostic now i'm an atheist. I would love to still have faith, to believe i'll one day be reunited with my Mum & the rest of the love ones I have lost, but I don't.

Hope I don't offend anyone with this quote, but this is what I believe.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

i wonder what would have, like in the Life Of Pie, a leading political or religious figure made a big statement saying they declare themself to be a muslim and a jew and a christian at the same time. wearing emblems or clothing from all 3 religions, whilst carrying all 3 books


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Hope I don't offend anyone with this quote, but this is what I believe.


IMO, one of the more dangerous ideas of monotheistic religions with a personal god, is this idea that we humans are the chosen species, and that all this (the natural world) was created exclusively for us to use and abuse at will.

It creates this weird sense of entitlement that leads to all sorts of atrocities committed to mother nature.

Now, a belief system like the American Indians, the Maya, and other primitive peoples, where the entire natural world is considered sacred and that humans are just one tiny part of a whole, that, I could get on board with


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I went from believing in God to agnostic now i'm an atheist. I would love to still have faith, to believe i'll one day be reunited with my Mum & the rest of the love ones I have lost, but I don't.
> 
> Hope I don't offend anyone with this quote, but this is what I believe.


This is exactly how I feel about being Atheist. It's sad to think there's nothing else after death but it means we must make the very most of the lives we have :yesnod:


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

I've held back from commenting on this thus far, and forgive me for not having read back over the entire thread (it's one of THOSE weeks!). 

I always find it interesting when those who profess to have no belief in God become so angry with a being that they do not believe exists. I have no interest in golf (which clearly does exist ), but I feel no need to go about raging on the subject........... It seems to me that the majority of human beings feel a huge need for a higher being, to try to make some sense of life. In psychological terms (I'm an Anglican priest and a psychotherapist) it's connected, I believe, to each of us trying to find again that state of perfection which exists in the early stages of life, when the baby does not differentiate between itself and the mother. This is a state of bliss (with a 'good enough' mother) which, as the baby develops and realises that mother is a separate being who can, if she wishes, ignore the baby's cries, is forever lost. It is a deep wound to the psyche.

Where I feel that Stephen Fry has 'got God wrong' is that he is buying into (understandably) the myth that has been around from the early days of Christianity, that God has minute-by-minute control of everything in the universe. (It was necessary, I believe, for the early Christians to perpetuate this myth, in order to establish the Church. Trouble is, most people have never outgrown it!) The Rt Revd John Gladwin, a retired bishop, put it more eloquently than I ever could, when he wrote: 'God loved the world into being, and then let it go.' 

I could go on, but you're probably all bored to death so I'll stop!


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> i wonder what would have, like in the Life Of Pie, a leading political or religious figure made a big statement saying they declare themself to be a muslim and a jew and a christian at the same time. wearing emblems or clothing from all 3 religions, whilst carrying all 3 books


Have a read up on the Ba'hais - they are very wise on this subject .


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I've held back from commenting on this thus far, and forgive me for not having read back over the entire thread (it's one of THOSE weeks!).
> 
> I always find it interesting when those who profess to have no belief in God become so angry with a being that they do not believe exists. I have no interest in golf (which clearly does exist ), but I feel no need to go about raging on the subject........... It seems to me that the majority of human beings feel a huge need for a higher being, to try to make some sense of life. In psychological terms (I'm an Anglican priest and a psychotherapist) it's connected, I believe, to each of us trying to find again that state of perfection which exists in the early stages of life, when the baby does not differentiate between itself and the mother. This is a state of bliss (with a 'good enough' mother) which, as the baby develops and realises that mother is a separate being who can, if she wishes, ignore the baby's cries, is forever lost. It is a deep wound to the psyche.
> 
> ...


So by your own words, Christians based their "God" on myth.... a fiction if you will? Yet still we are meant to "believe" it as a truth..... ? ut:

IMO the bible is nothing more than a good novel..... fictitious novel but a good read all the same......


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

ouesi said:


> IMO, one of the more dangerous ideas of monotheistic religions with a personal god, *is this idea that we humans are the chosen species, and that all this (the natural world) was created exclusively for us to use and abuse at will.*
> 
> It creates this weird sense of entitlement that leads to all sorts of atrocities committed to mother nature.
> 
> Now, a belief system like the American Indians, the Maya, and other primitive peoples, where the entire natural world is considered sacred and that humans are just one tiny part of a whole, that, I could get on board with


Exactly. The general attitude of man is "we were put on this earth to reign, everything here is for us to use (and abuse)".

Just seen the news and they are running a piece on "abuse in the Halal slaughterhouse", they froze the screen on a sheep's face, eyes huge with fear and I'm thinking "_If there a God, why the hell do these innocent beings suffer?_" "What did they do to bring that onto themselves? What was their "sin"?"


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I've held back from commenting on this thus far, and forgive me for not having read back over the entire thread (it's one of THOSE weeks!).
> 
> I always find it interesting when those who profess to have no belief in God become so angry with a being that they do not believe exists. I have no interest in golf (which clearly does exist ), but I feel no need to go about raging on the subject........... It seems to me that the majority of human beings feel a huge need for a higher being, to try to make some sense of life. In psychological terms (I'm an Anglican priest and a psychotherapist) it's connected, I believe, to each of us trying to find again that state of perfection which exists in the early stages of life, when the baby does not differentiate between itself and the mother. This is a state of bliss (with a 'good enough' mother) which, as the baby develops and realises that mother is a separate being who can, if she wishes, ignore the baby's cries, is forever lost. It is a deep wound to the psyche.
> 
> ...


whose raging?

your highlighted sentence is interesting i think?
reading between the lines, i see this: 'the early christians found it necessary to perpetuate the myth that god has minute by minute control of everything in the universe in order to establish mind control in order to establish power of church over people. trouble is, society started questioning the authority of the church to be the word of god, then the position of the church to be the law in society, so most people outgrew the church and then christianity and religion, so the church had to adapt to society and drop some of its earlier messages that no one is fooled by anymore'

when you consider how there were several factions/sects that came about purporting to represent the words of jesus. Then emperor constantine realised he had physical control of the continent, but not mental control, so he just happened to choose the 'christian' faction that offered the most heirachal structure and mind control, which happened to be the pauline/catholic. then an alliance was formed between the two.
imagine if the gnostics had predominated, for example.
what a much better and more "spiritual" and free thinking history we would have had


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I've held back from commenting on this thus far, and forgive me for not having read back over the entire thread (it's one of THOSE weeks!).
> 
> I always find it interesting when those who profess to have no belief in God become so angry with a being that they do not believe exists. I have no interest in golf (which clearly does exist ), but I feel no need to go about raging on the subject........... It seems to me that the majority of human beings feel a huge need for a higher being, to try to make some sense of life. In psychological terms (I'm an Anglican priest and a psychotherapist) it's connected, I believe, to each of us trying to find again that state of perfection which exists in the early stages of life, when the baby does not differentiate between itself and the mother. This is a state of bliss (with a 'good enough' mother) which, as the baby develops and realises that mother is a separate being who can, if she wishes, ignore the baby's cries, is forever lost. It is a deep wound to the psyche.
> 
> ...


Youre right. It doesnt make any sense to be angry with that which you do not believe exists.

*IF* there is an all knowing, all powerful god out there who allows atrocities to happen to innocents, then that god is indeed evil. But since I dont believe there is such a thing, I dont believe in that evil and Im not angry about it.

I am angry with religious followers who will use their religion as an excuse and justification to enslave peoples, murder, rape the environment for their own gain, refuse education to women, bomb abortion clinics, refuse medical treatment to their children, tell abused spouses to work things out, force their followers to get reparative therapy for homosexuality, etc., etc. Actually its not really anger, its more incredulity and frustration.

I have no beef with anyones beliefs, up and until those beliefs start affecting innocent people and the natural world. Pray all you want, worship however you want, but when your form of worship means cutting down trees in our mutual forest, then were going to have to talk.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I've held back from commenting on this thus far, and forgive me for not having read back over the entire thread (it's one of THOSE weeks!).
> 
> I always find it interesting when those who profess to have no belief in God become so angry with a being that they do not believe exists. I have no interest in golf (which clearly does exist ), but I feel no need to go about raging on the subject........... It seems to me that the majority of human beings feel a huge need for a higher being, to try to make some sense of life. In psychological terms (I'm an Anglican priest and a psychotherapist) it's connected, I believe, to each of us trying to find again that state of perfection which exists in the early stages of life, when the baby does not differentiate between itself and the mother. This is a state of bliss (with a 'good enough' mother) which, as the baby develops and realises that mother is a separate being who can, if she wishes, ignore the baby's cries, is forever lost. It is a deep wound to the psyche.
> 
> ...


as i said earlier in the thread, i have no problem with god (how can i have a problem with something which doesnt exist?), but i have a problem with religion. People can beleive in whatever fantasies they like, but when they start indoctrinating children to beleive those fantasies are actually true, and when those fantasies are as vile and divisive as christianity, then i have a problem with it.

The god of the bible is an evil, jealous, twisted, insecure and vengeful god and i for one am glad that it is just a myth.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Given that just about every culture has believed in some sort of higher power you could argue it's the other way around .

Yes I know it's humans doing what we do best, attempting to understand and control a world that even now we've barely scratched the surface of. They had gods, we have theoretical physics.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> , when the baby does not differentiate between itself and the mother


I just noticed this

Is this true?

Can you expand?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> So by your own words, Christians based their "God" on myth.... a fiction if you will? Yet still we are meant to "believe" it as a truth..... ? ut:
> 
> IMO the bible is nothing more than a good novel..... fictitious novel but a good read all the same......


No . I'm saying that the 'all-powerful, incontrolofeveryminute-type of God' is the myth .


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> whose raging?
> 
> your highlighted sentence is interesting i think?
> reading between the lines, i see this: 'the early christians found it necessary to perpetuate the myth that god has minute by minute control of everything in the universe in order to establish mind control in order to establish power of church over people. trouble is, society started questioning the authority of the church to be the word of god, then the position of the church to be the law in society, so most people outgrew the church and then christianity and religion, so the church had to adapt to society and drop some of its earlier messages that no one is fooled by anymore'
> ...


Stephen Fry sounded pretty full of rage to me .

The thing is, Jesus tried to explain God to man, but his message was largely rejected as it suited the people to cling to the idea of God being an all-powerful warrior in charge of everything.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Youre right. It doesnt make any sense to be angry with that which you do not believe exists.
> 
> *IF* there is an all knowing, all powerful god out there who allows atrocities to happen to innocents, then that god is indeed evil. But since I dont believe there is such a thing, I dont believe in that evil and Im not angry about it.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with you.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

porps said:


> as i said earlier in the thread, i have no problem with god (how can i have a problem with something which doesnt exist?), but i have a problem with religion. People can beleive in whatever fantasies they like, but when they start indoctrinating children to beleive those fantasies are actually true, and when those fantasies are as vile and divisive as christianity, then i have a problem with it.
> 
> The god of the bible is an evil, jealous, twisted, insecure and vengeful god and i for one am glad that it is just a myth.


God/Allah/a higher power isn't the myth: the myth is that this being takes minute-by-minute control of the universe.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Youre right. It doesnt make any sense to be angry with that which you do not believe exists.
> 
> *IF* there is an all knowing, all powerful god out there who allows atrocities to happen to innocents, then that god is indeed evil. But since I dont believe there is such a thing, I dont believe in that evil and Im not angry about it.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with this, people can believe what they want but they don't have the right to force that onto other people. But you could try and not assume that the extreme American Christians are how it works everywhere . They're not quite so vocal and influential over here or most parts of the civilised world.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> I just noticed this
> 
> Is this true?
> 
> Can you expand?


Yes, it's true .

A very young baby is unaware that he and his mother are separate individuals. The baby feels hungry and food appears..... the baby has a wet nappy and suddenly finds himself in a clean, dry one . The baby is happily omnipotent in his own world. Then, as mother and baby start to settle into a routine, and mother becomes less panicked about baby's every murmur, baby discovers that he can cry and yet no milk appears (or at least, not as fast as he would like ). And that wet nappy carries on chafing his poor bottom for much longer than he is comfortable with! And baby realises (in the unconscious mind, obviously ) that mother is a separate being and that, in reality, he is all alone. And there begins the psychological pain that we spend the rest of our lives trying to fix.......... with drugs, with alcohol, with chocolate......... or, if we're wise/lucky, with therapy .


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Stephen Fry sounded pretty full of rage to me .
> 
> The thing is, Jesus tried to explain God to man, but his message was largely rejected as it suited the people to cling to the idea of God being an all-powerful warrior in charge of everything.


Yeh, but where did they get that from?
Answer, the bible
So what is the point of the bible then?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> God/Allah/a higher power isn't the myth: the myth is that this being takes minute-by-minute control of the universe.


that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Yes, it's true .
> 
> A very young baby is unaware that he and his mother are separate individuals. The baby feels hungry and food appears..... the baby has a wet nappy and suddenly finds himself in a clean, dry one . The baby is happily omnipotent in his own world. Then, as mother and baby start to settle into a routine, and mother becomes less panicked about baby's every murmur, baby discovers that he can cry and yet no milk appears (or at least, not as fast as he would like ). And that wet nappy carries on chafing his poor bottom for much longer than he is comfortable with! And baby realises (in the unconscious mind, obviously ) that mother is a separate being and that, in reality, he is all alone. And there begins the psychological pain that we spend the rest of our lives trying to fix.......... with drugs, with alcohol, with chocolate......... or, if we're wise/lucky, with therapy .


That is just describing events and actions
You haven't explained how its factually true the baby therefore doesn't think he is an individual?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> That is just describing events and actions
> You haven't explained how its factually true the baby therefore doesn't think he is an individual?


I don't think this is the time or place for me to quote from tomes on psychology, but it's easy enough to look up 

Re the existence of a higher power, I have had sufficient experiences in my own life to be convinced. My purpose here is not to try to convert anyone ; I'm simply sharing my views.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I don't think this is the time or place for me to quote from tomes on psychology, but it's easy enough to look up
> 
> Re the existence of a higher power, I have had sufficient experiences in my own life to be convinced. *My purpose here is not to try to convert anyone *; I'm simply sharing my views.


if they were all like you there wouldnt be any problem (or religion)


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I don't think this is the time or place for me to quote from tomes on psychology, but it's easy enough to look up
> 
> Re the existence of a higher power, I have had sufficient experiences in my own life to be convinced. My purpose here is not to try to convert anyone ; I'm simply sharing my views.


Would you be willing to share your experiences?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

porps said:


> if they were all like you there wouldnt be any problem (or religion)


I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not , but as I am an irritatingly optimistic little bunny, I'll just say "thank you" .


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Would you be willing to share your experiences?


It's kind of you to ask . Clearly some of these things are confidential, so I can only be vague............

I've been at the bedside of a dying child who, coming back to us after a period of semi-consciousness, described and named the brother who had died before he was born, despite having never having heard of his existence, so traumatised were the parents by his death in an accident. (Poor parents - this second child also died, from leukaemia.)

I've seen people after their death, among them my father-in-law, who followed us round from house to house and would appear during the first three months after every move .

These are just examples of many experiences.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I am the least flakey, most down-to-earth person you could ever meet .


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I don't think this is the time or place for me to quote from tomes on psychology, but it's easy enough to look up
> 
> Re the existence of a higher power, I have had sufficient experiences in my own life to be convinced. My purpose here is not to try to convert anyone ; I'm simply sharing my views.


You can give me the reference though
That's all I want

Re your second sentence, I wasn't questioning that, I was questioning the way you have interpreted it, as I don't think that is known Christian thinking on the matter, for the points I have made

You have also missed point of Stephen frys anger
He's saying if there was a god then he would be angry at him for being a cruel god for creating the things he mentioned

But as he doesn't think they were made by a god he has no need to be angry for that reason


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> *You can give me the reference though
> That's all I want*
> 
> Re your second sentence, I wasn't questioning that, I was questioning the way you have interpreted it, as I don't think that is known Christian thinking on the matter, for the points I have made
> ...


Any basic book on child psychology - it's fundamental enough stuff. Look under "Piaget"


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> i wonder what would have, like in the Life Of Pie, a leading political or religious figure made a big statement saying they declare themself to be a muslim and a jew and a christian at the same time. wearing emblems or clothing from all 3 religions, whilst carrying all 3 books


If you carry the Old Testament, you have the fundamental book for all three of these faiths.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

ouesi said:


> *IF* there is an all knowing, all powerful god out there who allows atrocities to happen to innocents, then that god is indeed evil. But since I dont believe there is such a thing, I dont believe in that evil and Im not angry about it.


This is possibly going off at a slight tangent, but I'm curious:

Going with a scenario in which there IS an omnipotent, omnescient etc. deity in charge of the universe as it stands, which approach would people prefer that deity to take?


Be in absolute charge, not allowing any deviation from set rules and parameters
Allow the knowledge of free will, but deny the ability to exercise it in any situation where the 'wrong' choice would have negative consequences (which probably rules out anything other that trivial matters, such as which colour socks to wear)
Allow full free will and individuality of choice and expression, including making choices that will have negative consequences


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> It's kind of you to ask . Clearly some of these things are confidential, so I can only be vague............
> 
> I've been at the bedside of a dying child who, coming back to us after a period of semi-consciousness, described and named the brother who had died before he was born, despite having never having heard of his existence, so traumatised were the parents by his death in an accident. (Poor parents - this second child also died, from leukaemia.)
> 
> ...


Fascinating! I love all that stuff, find it super interesting. Although not necessarily signs of a "god" IMO.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I've held back from commenting on this thus far, and forgive me for not having read back over the entire thread (it's one of THOSE weeks!).
> 
> I always find it interesting when those who profess to have no belief in God become so angry with a being that they do not believe exists. I have no interest in golf (which clearly does exist ), but I feel no need to go about raging on the subject........... It seems to me that the majority of human beings feel a huge need for a higher being, to try to make some sense of life. In psychological terms (I'm an Anglican priest and a psychotherapist) it's connected, I believe, to each of us trying to find again that state of perfection which exists in the early stages of life, when the baby does not differentiate between itself and the mother. This is a state of bliss (with a 'good enough' mother) which, as the baby develops and realises that mother is a separate being who can, if she wishes, ignore the baby's cries, is forever lost. It is a deep wound to the psyche.
> 
> ...


As every loving parent needs to do with their children.

What freedom would any of us have in our lives of God controlled our every thought and action? And how would any of us ever grow up?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Any basic book on child psychology - it's fundamental enough stuff. Look under "Piaget"


Thank you

Perfect

Its new too me, good to learn new stuff


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

porps said:


> as i said earlier in the thread, i have no problem with god (how can i have a problem with something which doesnt exist?), but i have a problem with religion. People can beleive in whatever fantasies they like, but when they start indoctrinating children to beleive those fantasies are actually true, and when those fantasies are as vile and divisive as christianity, then i have a problem with it.
> 
> The god of the bible is an evil, jealous, twisted, insecure and vengeful god and i for one am glad that it is just a myth.


So why as a fellow Atheist do you have a problem with the notion that Atheism is a belief


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Humankind was not given control of the earth and all that is in it - we were given stewardship - i.e. we were created to care for creation.

Tragically for us and for creation, people have chosen to interpret this as meaning we have power to use/abuse however we want, whilst ignoring the responsibilities that power brings, and our responsibility to the weak and the vulnerable - human and non-human.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I've been at the bedside of a dying child who, coming back to us after a period of semi-consciousness, described and named the brother who had died before he was born, despite having never having heard of his existence, so traumatised were the parents by his death in an accident. (Poor parents - this second child also died, from leukaemia.)
> .


I'm just gonna take this one example.. and i wont argue about whether what you saw was true or not, for the sake of argument i'll concede that it happened exactly as you describe. But how do you jump to a god from this event? Couldnt it be just as likely that during particular states of consciousness telepathy can be experienced, and he pulled the thoughts from his parents brains? Or that we live in a matrix and during particular states of consciousness you can tap into the code and pull up data that wouldnt usually be available? Couldnt it have been magical pre-memory-pixies, which only visit in semi-consciousness (not trying to be rude) or any of a thousand other fantastical but completely unproven explainations? It may even be something mundane, like the child overheard his parents speaking about it once and it was stuck in his subconscious memory.

What i'm saying is, you see something you cant explain and think "must be god", when all you can really say for sure is that there was something you couldnt explain. There are answers out there but we wont find them by inserting god or gods whenever we meet with mystery.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Totally agree with this, people can believe what they want but they don't have the right to force that onto other people. *But you could try and not assume that the extreme American Christians are how it works everywhere* . They're not quite so vocal and influential over here or most parts of the civilised world.


Do you have any idea how patronizing and dismissive that sounds?

a) I am making no assumptions about anything. (Though apparently the same can't be said for you making assumptions about me.)
I have lived on two continents in many different countries, and traveled to many more. I am more than a little bit aware of how religion works in the civilized and even 'uncivilized' world.

b) Even if my only experiences with religion were that of the bible belt of America, my opinions formed of those experiences would still be just as valid as anyone else's. 
For you to dismiss them just because it's not true everywhere is that same old tired arrogant argument that refuses to take responsibility for the very real dangers of religious teachings, and religious books, especially the monotheistic, scripture based ones.

If a religion and it's texts are so easily misinterpreted in to blowing up buildings, waging wars, and killing children, and this happens over and over and over again across centuries, then at some point you have to entertain the thought that perhaps there might be some fundamental flaw in the texts and teachings themselves.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

lostbear said:


> As every loving parent needs to do with their children.
> 
> What freedom would any of us have in our lives of God controlled our every thought and action? And how would any of us ever grow up?


I don't know about you, but even when my children grow up, and there is some emergency, and they need me, I will drop everything to be there at their side offering help and intervening however I humanly can.

Letting go and letting the child grow up and make their own mistakes is one thing.

Walking away never to look back no matter the death and destruction happening is not the act of a loving parent. Not in my book at least.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Lunabuma said:


> So why as a fellow Atheist do you have a problem with the notion that Atheism is a belief


i already explained this, i cant explain it better than i already did. oh ok i will try one more time..

If atheism is a belief then health is a disease.

if you want more detailed explainations type it into google.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> This is possibly going off at a slight tangent, but I'm curious:
> 
> Going with a scenario in which there IS an omnipotent, omnescient etc. deity in charge of the universe as it stands, which approach would people prefer that deity to take?
> 
> ...


Interesting question, and one i'd have to give some more thought to before answering if im honest. But the first thing that comes to mind (and i know it's avoiding the question) is that free will doesnt account for natural disasters or disease. So if you're trying to say that all bad things that happened to people are justified by the need to give us free will, i think you are mistaken.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Stephen Fry Catholic Church is Not a Force for Good. - YouTube
The link to the catholic church debate.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> God/Allah/a higher power isn't the myth: the myth is that this being takes minute-by-minute control of the universe.


More thoughts

Ok you say its a myth that Christianity says god is all controlling of everything
I say that goes against all the evidence of the religion no least most of the bible,
Yout then said thats what the early Christians said in order to build a new church
I pointed out that doesn't match history
However, assume I buy everything you say on those points, then that leaves the obvious question
Why do you need to start off telling people god controls everything every minute in order to builda church?


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

lostbear said:


> I believe in God, and that I believe that God is wholly loving, and that we are not capable of understanding the whys and wherefores of the evil in the world - but I can see that a lot of them, including injustice and inequality, are the fault of humankind - even people as charming and personable as Stephen Fry put their own comfort before suffering children.
> 
> ALmost all of us do. That is us. Not God.


Hmmm! So cancer and parasitic insects are the fault of humanity! Interesting take on things.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

porps said:


> I'm just gonna take this one example.. and i wont argue about whether what you saw was true or not, for the sake of argument i'll concede that it happened exactly as you describe. But how do you jump to a god from this event? Couldnt it be just as likely that during particular states of consciousness telepathy can be experienced, and he pulled the thoughts from his parents brains? Or that we live in a matrix and during particular states of consciousness you can tap into the code and pull up data that wouldnt usually be available? Couldnt it have been magical pre-memory-pixies, which only visit in semi-consciousness (not trying to be rude) or any of a thousand other fantastical but completely unproven explainations? It may even be something mundane, like the child overheard his parents speaking about it once and it was stuck in his subconscious memory.
> 
> What i'm saying is, you see something you cant explain and think "must be god", when all you can really say for sure is that there was something you couldnt explain. There are answers out there but we wont find them by inserting god or gods whenever we meet with mystery.


All that you describe as possibilities just lead me back to a higher power .


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> More thoughts
> 
> Ok you say its a myth that Christianity says god is all controlling of everything
> I say that goes against all the evidence of the religion no least most of the bible,
> ...


I don't, but they did then.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Sacremist said:


> Hmmm! So cancer and parasitic insects are the fault of humanity! Interesting take on things.


Actually you could argue that they are fairly easily...... cancer especially so at the rate we see it at today.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> I'm just gonna take this one example.. and i wont argue about whether what you saw was true or not, for the sake of argument *i'll concede that it happened exactly as you describe. But how do you jump to a god from this event?* Couldnt it be just as likely that during particular states of consciousness telepathy can be experienced, and he pulled the thoughts from his parents brains? Or that we live in a matrix and during particular states of consciousness you can tap into the code and pull up data that wouldnt usually be available? Couldnt it have been magical pre-memory-pixies, which only visit in semi-consciousness (not trying to be rude) or any of a thousand other fantastical but completely unproven explainations? It may even be something mundane, like the child overheard his parents speaking about it once and it was stuck in his subconscious memory.
> 
> What i'm saying is, you see something you cant explain and think "must be god", when all you can really say for sure is that there was something you couldnt explain. There are answers out there but we wont find them by inserting god or gods whenever we meet with mystery.


Trust me on this. When you have had been opened to such an encounter as this - you KNOW it is Divine. In exactly the same way that you know if you are cold or hot; you don't need anything to prove it; you feel it.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> Hmmm! So cancer and parasitic insects are the fault of humanity! Interesting take on things.


I did not say that - I said that many things are the fault of humankind. Not everything.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Trust me on this. When you have had been opened to such an encounter as this - you KNOW it is Divine. In exactly the same way that you know if you are cold or hot; you don't need anything to prove it; you feel it.


thankfully i doubt i will ever be able to discard logic, reason and evidence like that. Some of us are quite content to say "i dont know what caused this". for everyone else, there's always religion.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Trust me on this. When you have had been opened to such an encounter as this - you KNOW it is Divine. In exactly the same way that you know if you are cold or hot; you don't need anything to prove it; you feel it.


Do you..... or is it just certain humans interpretation of events that happened to them? Like being in a room where one person is to hot in a T-shirt, but another is demanding blankets and the heating to be turned up?

I categorically believe my "grandma" (she was actually my mums something or other, but i had always called her grandma Jean) was with me for a good few months after she died, (that feeling of being watched/ followed but no one is there) I even believe i saw her stood behind me in a reflection in a window (it was dark out, light inside, i was closing the curtains)..... not once did it even enter my head that this was anything at all to do with a "god".... not even for a nanosecond, and I was much younger and less jaded then.....


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> All that you describe as possibilities just lead me back to a higher power .


of course, you will see god everywhere because thats what you want to see.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

My sister is a devout Christian, whilst I am not a believer, however, I realised a long time ago that she needs her faith to help her survive this world and it is not my place to try and take her faith away from her, so now we never discuss it. She respects my lack of belief and I respect her need to believe.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

porps said:


> thankfully i doubt i will ever be able to discard logic, reason and evidence like that.


I think that, sometimes fear holds people back from allowing themselves to be open to such experiences. In many ways it's easier to believe that there ISN'T anything 'out there'.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

porps said:


> of course, you will see god everywhere because thats what you want to see.


How wrong you are!  My life would have been much simpler and more lucrative if God had left me in peace!


----------



## Barcode (Mar 7, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Trust me on this. When you have had been opened to such an encounter as this - you KNOW it is Divine. In exactly the same way that you know if you are cold or hot; you don't need anything to prove it; you feel it.


That's not a persuasive analogy. One's subjective experience of cold can be confirmed by e.g., a thermometer reading and various physiological indications; but the _only_ evidence we presently have for the "Divine" is your say-so, and since the subject's say-so does not constitute an inference to the best explanation in other areas, I'm uncertain why so-called religious phenomena is exempt.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I think that, sometimes fear holds people back from allowing themselves to be open to such experiences. In many ways it's easier to believe that there ISN'T anything 'out there'.


i think that fear is the ONLY reason to believe in a god or gods. And control is the only reason to spread that belief to others. 
It isnt about being open to experiences, it's about seeking to find an explaination to unusual experiences rather than inserting god every single time you cant explain something. And if you cant find an answer, it's about saying "i dont know". It's about investigation over assumption. It's about following the evidence rather than leading it.

I wonder how many christians visit the hospital or doctor when they are sick, and how many just sit at home trusting in gods will.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I don't, but they did then.


That's dodging the question

Firstly, they did back then because that is what christianity is.
Otherwise the whole bible is pointless
Secondly it wasn't because they needed to build a church, it was because they needed to build a control heirachy. Otherwise why not choose the Gnostics?
Thirdly, and this is the key question, why would anyone need to tell people that God controls everything all the time to build a new church/religion?
Why cant you build one just saying God doesn't control everything?
Whatd difference does the year make?


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> I admire you actually
> Its easy for us in England to say the sort of stuff Stephen fry said
> Its pretty much socially accepted comment and a non issue
> Its slightly a controversial interview in Ireland, but the real challenge for Stephen fry would be to hold this interview on somewhere like fox news or al Jazeera, as their constituencies are fundamentalist.
> ...


How do you know he wouldn't say the same thing on those channels? Has he ever been asked to do so?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> How wrong you are!  *My life would have been much simpler and more lucrative if God had left me in peace!*


Same here.

I'd be physically and financially much more comfortable.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sacremist said:


> How do you know he wouldn't say the same thing on those channels? Has he ever been asked to do so?


I don't...........


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Barcode said:


> *That's not a persuasive analogy.*
> 
> Not to you
> 
> One's subjective experience of cold can be confirmed by e.g., a thermometer reading and various physiological indications; but the _only_ evidence we presently have for the "Divine" is your say-so, and since the subject's say-so does not constitute an inference to the best explanation in other areas, I'm uncertain why so-called religious phenomena is exempt.


By the very nature of God, the Creator _cannot_ be explained. If an entity is explicable, it isn't and cannot be Divine. Anything we can understand is not God - how on earth could it be? God is the Great Mystery. Only God knows God.

Humankind can strive and strive, but we will never fully understand because we can't - any more than the woodlice in your garden could understand you. And there is a _much_ larger difference between humankind and God, than between humankind and woodlice.

It comes down to faith, which atheists also always claim is a "cop out", but it does.

We believe or we don't believe. Sometimes things happen which confirm or change our stance, but for that to happen we have to be open to being changed.

I question my faith all of the time. There are periods when I think 'What the heck am I doing? What if this is wrong? What if God is just a . . . nothing?' And it tears me apart - but then something happens - often not something tangible - and my faith is confirmed, and strengthened. I think that anyone who hasn't had doubts, who hasn't "wrestled with the angel" has a comparatively immature faith. Faith is a thing which is strengthened by testing and questioning it.

You choose to think that I and others like me are deluded because you can't measure our experiences. If you are determined to make such measurements your criteria there is nothing I, or probably anyone, can do to change your mind. But every living creature is more than just a lump of meat struggling to exist on a rock in space. It has soul, and an existence beyond anything that our limited mortal minds can comprehend. And that comes from God.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

lostbear said:


> Trust me on this. When you have had been opened to such an encounter as this - you KNOW it is Divine. In exactly the same way that you know if you are cold or hot; you don't need anything to prove it; you feel it.





BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I think that, sometimes fear holds people back from allowing themselves to be open to such experiences. In many ways it's easier to believe that there ISN'T anything 'out there'.


I wonder what is so hard about accepting that some people just don't believe for perfectly reasonable, legitimate reasons?
Not because it's easier, not because you're not open or haven't experienced something special, just because you don't.

I think in many ways it's almost like sexual preferences. People seem think that if you like the same sex there is something wrong with you, something unnatural, or you've been hurt or embittered some way. Nope. Just born with a preference for the same sex. 
In the same way, I don't see the point of a conversation where I'm telling someone of different sexual preferences why mine is the "right" sexual preference, or the more normal one, or the easier way, or that they just haven't had a moving enough sexual experience with whatever gender.

Some people are believers, others are not, some can see both possibilities. 
Again, my issue is not with what people choose to believe, it's the behavior brought on by those beliefs that causes issues.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Stephen Fry sounded pretty full of rage to me .
> 
> The thing is, Jesus tried to explain God to man, but his message was largely rejected as it suited the people to cling to the idea of God being an all-powerful warrior in charge of everything.


And what was his explanation?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I wonder what is so hard about accepting that some people just don't believe for perfectly reasonable, legitimate reasons?
> Not because it's easier, not because you're not open or haven't experienced something special, just because you don't.
> 
> I think in many ways it's almost like sexual preferences. People seem think that if you like the same sex there is something wrong with you, something unnatural, or you've been hurt or embittered some way. Nope. Just born with a preference for the same sex.
> ...


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> *I wonder what is so hard about accepting that some people just don't believe for perfectly reasonable, legitimate reasons?
> Not because it's easier, not because you're not open or haven't experienced something special, just because you don't.*
> 
> There is nothing hard about it. I can accept that other people can't accept God
> ...


Not everyone who behaves badly or aggressively has a religious faith stance. Not everyone who has a religious faith stance behaves badly or aggressively.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> And what was his explanation?


Why don't you read the New Testament? You can find out for yourself.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

StormyThai said:


>


I was finding this thread rather boring until now. 
But posting alan rickman has me sitting up and drooling.
Now he is a god!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Where I feel that Stephen Fry has 'got God wrong' is that he is buying into (understandably) the myth that has been around from the early days of Christianity, that God has minute-by-minute control of everything in the universe. (It was necessary, I believe, for the early Christians to perpetuate this myth, in order to establish the Church. Trouble is, most people have never outgrown it!) The Rt Revd John Gladwin, a retired bishop, put it more eloquently than I ever could, when he wrote: 'God loved the world into being, and then let it go.'


Very interesting - I think that many christians are under the impression that their god is omnipresent and omnicient. It's certainly what I was brought up to believe in, and something I had to reject as it obviously is not the case.
.



Nicky10 said:


> Given that just about every culture has believed in some sort of higher power you could argue it's the other way around .
> 
> Yes I know it's humans doing what we do best, attempting to understand and control a world that even now we've barely scratched the surface of. They had gods, we have theoretical physics.


^^^this^^^

How many times do we see people worshipping the lastest scientific theories without realising that they are just that - ie theories, not fact?



Tails and Trails said:


> More thoughts
> 
> Ok you say its a myth that Christianity says god is all controlling of everything
> I say that goes against all the evidence of the religion no least most of the bible,
> ...


The christian religion had to force itself upon the existing beliefs of the cultures it expanded into, and it needed something to put its own god above the other gods and goddesses that were worshipped by the indigenous populations. Saying "ah yes, you may have these gods and goddesses but our god controls everything" was a stronger sell than saying "hey, here is another god that we'd like you to worship".


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

For the record, I attend a monthly "Spiritual Enlightenment" group, completely non religious but looks at energy and discovering our "true selves". I love attending! If my mum knew (she thinks I meet with a dog trainer every month) she'd say "Thats dangerous, you shouldnt mess around with magic etc etc".

I'm very open minded in the respect that what we see on here on earth isnt the bigger picture, its when I have Christians look down there nose at me. My mum wont let my fiance share a bed with me at their house (fair enough, her rules - Dad doesnt give a hoot!) but when I start talking about my beliefs, such as Veganism, my mum says "Mmmmh...yeah...." as if to say, I hear it but I dont want to. I say "Do unto others..." which many dont. Its this "Holier than thou" attitude that grates me, Christian members at work certainly pick and choose bits of the bible to stick to and often mock my beliefs, if I say "Oh my God" then its offensive!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> IMO, one of the more dangerous ideas of monotheistic religions with a personal god, is this idea that we humans are the chosen species, and that "all this" (the natural world) was created exclusively for us to use and abuse at will.
> 
> It creates this weird sense of entitlement that leads to all sorts of atrocities committed to mother nature.
> 
> Now, a belief system like the American Indians, the Maya, and other "primitive" peoples, where the entire natural world is considered sacred and that humans are just one tiny part of a whole, that, I could get on board with


Gosh this is just the way I feel & my realisation of this was my wake up call to abandon any faith I had in God. According to the bible God granted man dominion over nature, made man in his image - basically put man on a pedestal above all else. This imo, has only served to disconnect mankind from nature with devastating consequences. The indigenous people of the Americas on the other hand engage with & live at one with nature. Native Americans worship mother earth, everything in nature has a spirit - their religion is the one for me as well.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

lostbear said:


> Not everyone who behaves badly or aggressively has a religious faith stance. Not everyone who has a religious faith stance behaves badly or aggressively.


Where did I say anything like that?

And again, I have to reiterate that that the "not everyone is like that" argument itself leaves out an important self-reflection piece.

If ANYONE of faith commits an atrocity in the name of that faith, does it not become the responsibility of that faith to answer to it, if for no other reason than to denouce the act?
To me it seems a bit of a cop-out to shrug off an abortion bombing by saying "oh well, not all catholics are like that". If the religion, it's texts are so easily misinterpreted in to violence, if the doctrine and it's followers are so easily corrupted, and if this has happened repeatedly over centuries, it seems to me that perhaps there in an issue within the religion itself no?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Gosh this is just the way I feel & my realisation of this was my wake up call to abandon any faith I had in God. According to the bible God granted man dominion over nature, made man in his image - basically put man on a pedestal above all else. This imo, has only served to disconnect mankind from nature with devastating consequences. The indigenous people of the Americas on the other hand engage with & live at one with nature. Native Americans worship mother earth, everything in nature has a spirit - their religion is the one for me as well.


i went thru the same process many years ago too.
was interested in native americans, and the moaris, as i grew up in new zealand
i wouldnt call it my religion though, i dont think thats the right word for it


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> i went thru the same process many years ago too.
> was interested in native americans, and the moaris, as i grew up in new zealand
> i wouldnt call it my religion though, i dont think thats the right word for it


Way of life is perhaps a better description then. ETA its their beliefs that I can subscribe to.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

CRL said:


> I was finding this thread rather boring until now.
> But posting alan rickman has me sitting up and drooling.
> Now he is a god!


Or possibly "Oh, GOD".


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

So if "god" sends a sign, signal, touches, 2 people, what makes one go "must have been gods calling" and the other reason it away as something else?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I wonder what is so hard about accepting that some people just don't believe for perfectly reasonable, legitimate reasons?
> Not because it's easier, not because you're not open or haven't experienced something special, just because you don't.
> 
> I think in many ways it's almost like sexual preferences. People seem think that if you like the same sex there is something wrong with you, something unnatural, or you've been hurt or embittered some way. Nope. Just born with a preference for the same sex.
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Here



ouesi said:


> Where did I say anything like that?
> 
> And again, I have to reiterate that that the "not everyone is like that" argument itself leaves out an important self-reflection piece.
> *
> ...


That's like saying "If any man is a misogynistic woman-degrading ******, and beats up a woman claiming that it is manly to do so, then it is the responsibility of all men to answer to it, if for no other reason that to denounce the act."

Discussions like this one never work on the internet - too much room for misinterpretation. Almost EVERYTHING is "easily misinterpreted" - even carefully drafted laws are often open to misinterpretation - or corruption.

You don't have religious faith. Other people do. Live with it.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

I like the simplicity of Steven fry , if you ask you get ! And I must say I'm with him.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Actually you could argue that they are fairly easily...... cancer especially so at the rate we see it at today.


It may seem more prevalent today, and perhaps it is, or maybe there are just more people in the world, so it appears to be more prevalent and yet percentage wise, it is still the same. I cannot answer that. However, just because humanity is foolish enough to expose themselves to the carcinogens that can cause cancer, does not mean humanity created the disease. If the disease did not exist, exposing ourselves to those carcinogens would not result in cancer.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

lostbear said:


> That's like saying "If any man is a misogynistic woman-degrading ******, and beats up a woman claiming that it is manly to do so, then it is the responsibility of all men to answer to it, if for no other reason that to denounce the act."


But that is exactly what men do. Men stand up and tell their sons that it is NOT manly to beat up a woman, that it is wrong, and that it is not the right way for a man to act.

And let's not forget that being born a man is not a choice, being a member of a religious faith is. So your premise is flawed from the start 



lostbear said:


> You don't have religious faith. Other people do. Live with it.


I do.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

does anyone else get bugged at radio call-in discussions programmes (such as the recent ones about charlie hebdo) and callers refer to being born a religion as the basis to their next point to be made, yet the DJ never challenges them on this!
that annoys me everything time
jeremy vine is the only person i have heard pick someone up on this, and he is a practicing anglican!


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Trust me on this. When you have had been opened to such an encounter as this - you KNOW it is Divine. In exactly the same way that you know if you are cold or hot; you don't need anything to prove it; you feel it.


I have had experiences similar to the ones described, but my experience has not convinced me that they are divine. Our perception of whether or not our experience is divine is based upon what we believe already. You believe in God, so your experience to you felt divine. I do not, so my experience does not feel divine. My interpretation of my experience is founded in what I believe already as is yours.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

lostbear said:


> I did not say that - I said that many things are the fault of humankind. Not everything.


Stephen Fry did not raise the issue about humanity's free will or the despicable things humanity does to each other, he spoke only about the cruelties that exist in this world which were not created by mankind. What you wrote did not even touch on the issue that he discussed at all, your focus was purely on the evil that exists in people.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Sacremist said:


> It may seem more prevalent today, and perhaps it is, or maybe there are just more people in the world, so it appears to be more prevalent and yet percentage wise, it is still the same. I cannot answer that. However, just because humanity is foolish enough to expose themselves to the carcinogens that can cause cancer, does not mean humanity created the disease. If the disease did not exist, exposing ourselves to those carcinogens would not result in cancer.


Er...... the disease can be solely caused by manmade environmental factors, in some cases, so there really is no one else to blame.......... one could argue that at the dawn of time cancer simply did not exist, but it has come about due to lifestyle, environment, technology, pollution etc


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> I don't...........


Exactly, so why say he would not say the same thing on those channels? We cannot know what he would or would not say.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Why don't you read the New Testament? You can find out for yourself.


I went to a Roman Catholic school and I had the Bible thoroughly rammed down my throat, so I have no need to read it again. I would like the poster I responded to, to give me their perspective on the explanation.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I've been following this thread over the past couple of days with great interest. I do believe but my god is my god and my beliefs are my personal beliefs. I don't go to church services but I do go and sit in churches whenever I can. I never fail to be moved and comforted by the experience. I don't care what religion the church belongs to I just find them very special places. Visiting Buckfast Abbey in Devon is one of the most amazing experiences just listening to the Benedictine Monks singing or the silence, I love the silence. During my nursing career I had the honour of looking after many people in the last hours of their life, for most (although obviously not all) a sense of peace could be felt and when the person died I always felt them leave and was quite certain they were going to meet god. I think he is all around us but in no way able to influence the choices we make or the actions we take but to walk with us and be there to lean on when we need him. I've never tried to make anyone else share my beliefs or make someone with different beliefs justify theirs. I don't think the religion matters but how you live your life does. Its easy to sit back and say you don't believe in god for whatever reason but I know many (my own father included) who changed that belief when his time came. Sorry if that upsets or offends anyone but thats my view of god.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Er...... the disease can be solely caused by manmade environmental factors, in some cases, so there really is no one else to blame.......... one could argue that at the dawn of time cancer simply did not exist, but it has come about due to lifestyle, environment, technology, pollution etc


Historical primary source documents suggest that people hundreds of years ago may have died from cancer, long before they experienced the kind of exposure we have today, so no it has not necessarily come about due to lifestyle, environment, technology, pollution etc., and there is no absolute proof that it is the case. Not all people who smoke die from lung cancer and not everyone who does not smoke lives cancer free. Just as not everyone who is overweight develops type II diabetes and not everyone who stays slim remains free of this disease. So, no, I am sorry, but cancer and other diseases are not solely down to mankind.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Interesting rph, as one of the things that has always annoyed me about religion is the ability of the believers to pick and choose what parts they follow, as imo either you believe in a religion hook line and sinker, or you dont. Imo, one can't claim to be of a certain religion, but then choose the rules to suit, claiming times have moved on, yadda yadda.


i actually quite like your way of looking at it as you have not aligned yourself with any one religion, just believe in something bigger, that you choose to call god.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Sacremist said:


> Historical primary source documents suggest that people hundreds of years ago may have died from cancer, long before they experienced the kind of exposure we have today, so no it has not necessarily come about due to lifestyle, environment, technology, pollution etc., and there is no absolute proof that it is the case. Not all people who smoke die from lung cancer and not everyone who does not smoke lives cancer free. Just as not everyone who is overweight develops type II diabetes and not everyone who stays slim remains free of this disease. So, no, I am sorry, but cancer and other diseases are not solely down to mankind.


"May" have died....... the increase in type, and frequency is imo solely down to lifestyle choices made over millions of years, along with man made technologies making us live a hell of a lot longer. If your going to argue with percentages involving smoking etc then i cant argue, but they are fact. It is a fact you are more likely to develop lung cancer (amoung others) if you smoke.

im not denying a human body had the ability to develop cancer at the birth of mankind (because cancer is simply rapidly dividing cells which remain unchecked by the body), but it would have been far far far less likely that you'd die of cancer.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

The problem is with both our arguments is the lack of historical evidence to support either view. We simply cannot be certain that what we see today is the result of mankind's actions or simply genetics/nature or, if you like, God.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sacremist said:


> Exactly, so why say he would not say the same thing on those channels? We cannot know what he would or would not say.


i didnt..............


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Well someone did. LOL!


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> "May" have died....... the increase in type, and frequency is imo solely down to lifestyle choices made over millions of years, along with man made technologies making us live a hell of a lot longer. If your going to argue with percentages involving smoking etc then i cant argue, but they are fact. It is a fact you are more likely to develop lung cancer (amoung others) if you smoke.
> 
> im not denying a human body had the ability to develop cancer at the birth of mankind (because cancer is simply rapidly dividing cells which remain unchecked by the body), but it would have been far far far less likely that you'd die of cancer.


"Back in the day" not many people lived long enough to die of cancer. They died from broken bones and tooth infections, things we can readily treat now.
Well that and more fun stuff like smallpox. Another thing that makes you wonder why a benevolent creator would create such a horrible thing....


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Interesting rph, as one of the things that has always annoyed me about religion is the ability of the believers to pick and choose what parts they follow, *as imo either you believe in a religion hook line and sinker, or you dont*. Imo, one can't claim to be of a certain religion, but then choose the rules to suit, claiming times have moved on, yadda yadda.
> 
> .


exactly

which is another reason why i dont buy the modern anglican spinning of god not being in charge of everything all the time, or the idea that you can be a gay christian, or in relation to these, you can now disregard the OT.
if you can disregard whole parts of the bible to suit, then, what exactly, for a christian, is the point of the bible. and therefore, why even call yourself a christian?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sacremist said:


> Well someone did. LOL!


not me
i said i would like it if he did say these things on channels like al jazeeera and fox, as their viewers tend to be fundamentalists.
its easier to say to british and irish audiences, as its socially acceptable comment
fundamentalists are far more in need of steve's intelligence


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> "Back in the day" not many people lived long enough to die of cancer. They died from broken bones and tooth infections, things we can readily treat now.
> Well that and more fun stuff like smallpox. Another thing that makes you wonder why a benevolent creator would create such a horrible thing....


Yup, like i said manmade technologies make us live a hell of a lot longer, age is a contributing factor in so so many cancers., i guess one could argue "god" gave man the ability to create vaccines/ medicines/cures..... but it does beg the question, why inflict the disease in the first place?


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> not me
> i said i would like it if he did say these things on channels like al jazeeera and fox, as their viewers tend to be fundamentalists.
> its easier to say to british and irish audiences, as its socially acceptable comment
> fundamentalists are far more in need of steve's intelligence


Sorry, I've picked up the wrong quote, it was someone further back in the discussion who said it. I've just been back to look.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sacremist said:


> Sorry, I've picked up the wrong quote, it was someone further back in the discussion who said it. I've just been back to look.


No worries. and its nice to know that sort of thing can be acknowledged by people.
respects :thumbsup:


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

ouesi said:


> "Back in the day" not many people lived long enough to die of cancer. They died from broken bones and tooth infections, things we can readily treat now.
> Well that and more fun stuff like smallpox. Another thing that makes you wonder why a benevolent creator would create such a horrible thing....


Just wanted to pick up on this. Cancer is not an old peoples disease. Proof that environmental factors, pollution and other toxins in our modern lifestyles are a major factor if not the sole cause is seen in the increasingly younger population falling ill and especially the high increase in childhood cancers.

I read an article about ancient Egypt where out of a thousand or so mummies only one has been proven to have had cancer. And not all the mummies died young either. 
Compared to our cancer rates of 1 in 3 it must have something to do with our lifestyle choices and environmental pollution.


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

I've been reading this thread with interest but refrained from sharing my own experiences, anyhow I've just logged into FB and this popped up in my newsfeed and feels very appropriate to this thread....


Davaun T Kurcz



In a mothers womb were two babies. One asked the other: Do you believe in life after delivery? The other replied, Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.
Nonsense said the first. There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?


The second said, I dont know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we cant understand now.

The first replied, That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.

The second insisted, Well I think there is something and maybe its different than it is here. Maybe we wont need this physical cord anymore.

The first replied, Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.

Well, I dont know, said the second, but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.

The first replied Mother? You actually believe in Mother? Thats laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?

The second said, She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.

Said the first: Well I dont see Her, so it is only logical that She doesnt exist.

To which the second replied, Sometimes, when youre in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above. - Útmutató a Léleknek


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> So if "god" sends a sign, signal, touches, 2 people, what makes one go "must have been gods calling" and the other reason it away as something else?


No idea.

What do you think?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've been following this thread over the past couple of days with great interest. I do believe but my god is my god and my beliefs are my personal beliefs. I don't go to church services but I do go and sit in churches whenever I can. I never fail to be moved and comforted by the experience. * I don't care what religion the church belongs to I just find them very special places. * Visiting Buckfast Abbey in Devon is one of the most amazing experiences just listening to the Benedictine Monks singing or the silence, I love the silence. During my nursing career I had the honour of looking after many people in the last hours of their life, for most (although obviously not all) a sense of peace could be felt and when the person died I always felt them leave and was quite certain they were going to meet god. I think he is all around us but in no way able to influence the choices we make or the actions we take but to walk with us and be there to lean on when we need him. * I've never tried to make anyone else share my beliefs or make someone with different beliefs justify theirs. I don't think the religion matters but how you live your life does.* Its easy to sit back and say you don't believe in god for whatever reason but I know many (my own father included) who changed that belief when his time came. Sorry if that upsets or offends anyone but thats my view of god.


There are many sacred spaces - not all of them are houses of (any) religion - some are places in nature. I know exactly what you mean. I am a practising Anglican, but I have experienced the presence of God in churches of other denominations, in a synagogue, in a buddhist temple, on beaches, in woods - in the presence of some individuals.

And yes - living our lives well is important, as is respecting the beliefs of others.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lostbear said:


> No idea.
> 
> What do you think?


I think some people need religion in their lives and some dont.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Natik said:


> Just wanted to pick up on this. Cancer is not an old peoples disease. Proof that environmental factors, pollution and other toxins in our modern lifestyles are a major factor if not the sole cause is seen in the increasingly younger population falling ill and especially the high increase in childhood cancers.
> 
> I read an article about ancient Egypt where out of a thousand or so mummies only one has been proven to have had cancer. And not all the mummies died young either.
> Compared to our cancer rates of 1 in 3 it must have something to do with our lifestyle choices and environmental pollution.


I agree with you that its not solely the disease if old people no, but age is implicated as a factor in many many cancers. You nevef see a 10 year old telling folk they have prostate cancer


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> I went to a Roman Catholic school and I had the Bible thoroughly rammed down my throat, so I have no need to read it again. I would like the poster I responded to, to give me their perspective on the explanation.


Swallowing something whole is totally different to chewing and digesting it.

You may have had the Bible "rammed down your throat", but have you READ it? Properly? - with an open mind and a preparedness to even consider the sincerity of the authors, even if you feel they are wrong?

If you do you will see what Christ's message is. You may not concede his divinity, but the message is clear.

Matthew 22:36-40

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Effectively

1) Love and respect God

2) Love your enemy (this does not mean being a doormat)

3) Protect and help the vulnerable

4) Treat other people the way you would want to be treated yourself.

TBH, if you follow the first one, the others automatically fall into place.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

IrishEyes said:


> I've been reading this thread with interest but refrained from sharing my own experiences, anyhow I've just logged into FB and this popped up in my newsfeed and feels very appropriate to this thread....
> 
> Davaun T Kurcz
> 
> ...


I'm really grateful to you for posting this . Often, when people are talking to me about trying to grasp the concept of heaven, this is exactly the analogy that I use. It's beautifully expressed in the piece above.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Swallowing something whole is totally different to chewing and digesting it.
> 
> You may have had the Bible "rammed down your throat", but have you READ it? Properly? - with an open mind and a preparedness to even consider the sincerity of the authors, even if you feel they are wrong?
> 
> ...


And, of course, these are the basic tenets of ALL religions, so why the hell do we keep fighting with each other? 

The answer, of course, is power, and human greed........ nothing to do with God whatsoever.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

lostbear said:


> Swallowing something whole is totally different to chewing and digesting it.
> 
> You may have had the Bible "rammed down your throat", but have you READ it? Properly? - with an open mind and a preparedness to even consider the sincerity of the authors, even if you feel they are wrong?
> 
> If you do you will see what Christ's message is. You may not concede his divinity, but the message is clear.


Why is it hard to believe that someone has actually read and digested the book but doesn't see this "divine" message?

I too am a convent kid...read the bible more times than I can remember...I too have had experiences...I still don't believe there is a deity to follow..

I was born into a religious family...my mind is very much open to everything...The main thing I learnt over the years is this "god" is a fickle creature


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> And, of course, these are the basic tenets of ALL religions, so why the hell do we keep fighting with each other?
> 
> The answer, of course, is power, and human greed........ nothing to do with God whatsoever.


I agree with this message

However,if you bear in mind your views that all religions are the same and lots of the bible doesn't count, which is good, then why even label yourself a Christian?
You don't appear to have the need, and you reject lots of the beliefs of the religion


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> I agree with this message
> 
> However,if you bear in mind your views that* all religions are the same and lots of the bible doesn't count, which is good*, then why even label yourself a Christian?
> *You don't appear to have the need, and you reject lots of the beliefs of the religion[*/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Tails and Trails said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with this message
> ...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> lostbear said:
> 
> 
> > . The whole thread with several posts where she god doesn't control everything all the time and here explanation how that is a myth and why the church started this myth many centuries ago despite all thr evidence regarding the history of the church, all the passages in the bible that tell you that this is what God is meant to be and how you are told this in church
> ...


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Tails and Trails said:
> 
> 
> > Quite...
> ...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Swallowing something whole is totally different to chewing and digesting it.
> 
> You may have had the Bible "rammed down your throat", but have you READ it? Properly? - with an open mind and a preparedness to even consider the sincerity of the authors, even if you feel they are wrong?


Have YOU? if you have, truly read it with an open mind, then you would surely have spotted the many inconsistences, and the hateful, divisive, bigoted, warmongering, genocidle, infanticidle, jealous, insecure and evil nature of your chosen god. But somehow, christians seem to be able to gloss over that and just cherry pick the good parts.

Any god who advocates owning other human beings as slaves is not a god i would worship.. or do you refute that? Any god who cant think of a better way to deal with his envy than killing children is not worthy of worship... or do you refute that it says that too? any god who wipes out all but 2 of every species because 2 individuals from 1 species took the bait that HE PUT OUT FOR THEM is a being much more worthy of disgust than worship.

But you keep cherry picking.... with your supposedly open mind.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

Natik said:


> Just wanted to pick up on this. Cancer is not an old peoples disease. Proof that environmental factors, pollution and other toxins in our modern lifestyles are a major factor if not the sole cause is seen in the increasingly younger population falling ill and especially the high increase in childhood cancers.
> 
> I read an article about ancient Egypt where out of a thousand or so mummies only one has been proven to have had cancer. And not all the mummies died young either.
> Compared to our cancer rates of 1 in 3 it must have something to do with our lifestyle choices and environmental pollution.


I wonder if genetic diversity or a decrease there of has anything to do with it also? I've no idea about the overall state of the human gene pool, particularly concerning the populations that migrated out of Africa, but do recall reading somewhere about how those of us descended from those groups have a founder population of a couple hundred individuals or so, not including the Neanderthal influance. Apparently those with blue eyes share a single common ancestor. You can see such effects in closed gene pool dog breeds, and isolated human populations, but I wonder if on the whole the fitness of the population is decreasing even without deliberate inbreeding. 
Just pondering.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> Have YOU? if you have, truly read it with an open mind, then you would surely have spotted the many inconsistences, and the hateful, divisive, bigoted, warmongering, genocidle, infanticidle, jealous, insecure and evil nature of your chosen god. But somehow, christians seem to be able to gloss over that and just cherry pick the good parts.
> 
> Any god who advocates owning other human beings as slaves is not a god i would worship.. or do you refute that? Any god who cant think of a better way to deal with his envy than killing children is not worthy of worship... or do you refute that it says that too? any god who wipes out all but 2 of every species because 2 individuals from 1 species took the bait that HE PUT OUT FOR THEM is a being much more worthy of disgust than worship.
> 
> But you keep cherry picking.... with your supposedly open mind.


I've read it through many, many times. I don't have all the answers to anyones questions by a long shot, but neither do I feel the need to cherry pick or gloss over the difficult parts. But you are right, it does tend to be something _both_ sides of the debate tend to do.

It is human nature that two people may interpret the same writing two vastly different ways (ever heard the one about trying to punctuate the phrase 'Woman without her man is nothing'?), and in all cases taking a short passage in isolation is invariably unhelpful - context is everything. And, of course, it doesn't help that we can't really appreciate what life was like even a few hundred years ago, as we automatically impose our current ways of thinking.

Anyway, I don't have the time for lengthy debates on a lunch break, but as a final thought: if a given deity is insecure, why would they decide to allow free will? (see my previous post, if you remember it  )


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> I've read it through many, many times. I don't have all the answers to anyones questions by a long shot, but neither do I feel the need to cherry pick or gloss over the difficult parts. But you are right, it does tend to be something _both_ sides of the debate tend to do.
> 
> It is human nature that two people may interpret the same writing two vastly different ways (ever heard the one about trying to punctuate the phrase 'Woman without her man is nothing'?), and in all cases taking a short passage in isolation is invariably unhelpful - context is everything. And, of course, it doesn't help that we can't really appreciate what life was like even a few hundred years ago, as we automatically impose our current ways of thinking.
> 
> Anyway, I don't have the time for lengthy debates on a lunch break, but as a final thought: if a given deity is insecure, why would they decide to allow free will? (see my previous post, if you remember it  )


If you can interpret this any other way than "i advocate slavery" then we dont speak the same language:



> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.


taking a short passage is helpful. especially when discussing a being that is claimed to be "wholly good" or "all loving". I dont care how nice he might seem in other parts of the book, if he thinks this is ok then he's an ******** and we should be disgusted by it, and him, if he actually existed, which of course there is still NO evidence for.

as for your question...


> if a given deity is insecure, why would they decide to allow free will? (see my previous post, if you remember it


I dont know. I dont even know that he DID allow it... even if we were to agree that he actually exists for the sake of argument, who's word would we have for that? his word? And we should trust that because...? how do we know that the devil didnt do it to annoy him and god's just taking the credit cos he's actually the real deceitful liar that he tells people the devil is.

It's like Jim jefferies said
_"As far as I know, the Devil hasn't brought out a book. We don't know his side of the argument. If you ask me, God and the Devil are having an argument and the Devil's being the bigger f**king man. God is just writing s**t about him and the Devil's going: "I'm not even gonna comment, son, if you talk about me like that."_

A counter question for you. 
If a given deity is secure, why would he have a problem with graven images, false gods, or any other god before him? and why if he was all good would he create a place in which to torture people for all eternity for not beleiving him, while at the same time ensuring that those people dont beleive in him by not revealing himself to them?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> if a given deity is insecure, why would they decide to allow free will? (see my previous post, if you remember it  )


I saw your previous mention of free will and deliberately avoided it .

The emphasis, I think is in the phrase "_decide to allow_ free will".

But I have read many different theological arguments on the subject (not least because I was perturbed about a remark made in Donnie Darko  ) and it appears to me that the concept of 'free will' is a very hot topic of debate for those wanting to 'defend' Christianity.

If we believe in the Christian God, do we really believe we have free will? 
Or do we believe that he gave us just the right amount of rope to hang ourselves with?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> I've read it through many, many times. I don't have all the answers to anyones questions by a long shot, but neither do I feel the need to cherry pick or gloss over the difficult parts. But you are right, it does tend to be something _both_ sides of the debate tend to do.
> 
> It is human nature that two people may interpret the same writing two vastly different ways (ever heard the one about trying to punctuate the phrase 'Woman without her man is nothing'?), and in all cases taking a short passage in isolation is invariably unhelpful - context is everything. And, of course, it doesn't help that we can't really appreciate what life was like even a few hundred years ago, as we automatically impose our current ways of thinking.
> 
> Anyway, I don't have the time for lengthy debates on a lunch break, but as a final thought: if a given deity is insecure, why would they decide to allow free will? (see my previous post, if you remember it  )


As a non Christian whom opposes religion yet has studied them a bit, I don't cherry pick
Unlike some religious people, I accept and acknowledge everything that is in the bible.(and Koran)
Therefore I don't make statements like ISIL aren't true Muslims, opposing homosexuality isn't Christianity, and vice versa 
Equally I know the bible is full of passages which state God is the creator of everything
Its true some passages can be read different ways, but That raises two points
1, that says the bible is an unreliable book for worship in the first place, which questions the whole point of Christianity
2, it reinforces the point Christianity can be anything for anyone so all versions are Christian

But having said that, we are talking a bout two separate issues:
Ambiguous passages and cherry picking.
Not all passages cherry picked are ambiguous


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2015)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> And, of course, these are the basic tenets of ALL religions, so why the hell do we keep fighting with each other?
> 
> The answer, of course, is power, and human greed........ nothing to do with God whatsoever.


I don't know that I agree that ALL religions share the same basic tenets.

To my mind, there is a fundamental difference in a religion that places humans in a starring role, as opposed to a religion that puts humans as a pixel in a much bigger picture.

The monotheistic religions with their emphasis on self, a personal god, and everything having been created for humans, sit on a much different foundation than a more 'primitive' animistic religion that puts humans on the same level as all other pieces of creation.

Regarding cherry picking and misreading texts, misinterpreting texts...

I'm just going to be lazy and C/P what I wrote earlier:
If a religion and it's texts are so easily misinterpreted in to blowing up buildings, waging wars, enslaving people, and killing children, and this happens over and over and over again across centuries, then at some point you have to entertain the thought that perhaps there might be some fundamental flaw in the texts and teachings themselves.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Well said ouesi

Your second point is essentially the same thing I just posted above at the same time

Your first point, brilliant observation
Then again when folk say all religions are the same I wonder if they only mean the word religion to be the monotheistic/ Abrahamic beliefs?


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Swallowing something whole is totally different to chewing and digesting it.
> 
> You may have had the Bible "rammed down your throat", but have you READ it? Properly? - with an open mind and a preparedness to even consider the sincerity of the authors, even if you feel they are wrong?
> 
> ...


Roland Barthes, a well respected literary critic, wrote that every reading of a text is a misreading. This is because we all interpret what we read according to our own individual perception of the world. Our interpretations are coloured by our own personal experiences. This idea is evident in psychological research. It is a fact that the Bible we all read has been translated from scripture by a mere human being with his own prejudice and bias. It is also known that the Bible is incomplete, therefore, what appears in the Bible has been cherry picked by this flawed, prejudiced and biased human being. Since this is known, how can anyone read the Bible and trust a single word written? You might as well read Grimm's Fairy Tales. At least they don't pretend to be anything other than a work of fiction.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sacremist said:


> Roland Barthes, a well respected literary critic, wrote that every reading of a text is a misreading. This is because we all interpret what we read according to our own individual perception of the world. Our interpretations are coloured by our own personal experiences. This idea is evident in psychological research. It is a fact that the Bible we all read has been translated from scripture by a mere human being with his own prejudice and bias. It is also known that the Bible is incomplete, therefore, what appears in the Bible has been cherry picked by this flawed, prejudiced and biased human being. Since this is known, how can anyone read the Bible and trust a single word written? You might as well read Grimm's Fairy Tales. At least they don't pretend to be anything other than a work of fiction.


Absolutely spot on!


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

porps said:


> A counter question for you.
> If a given deity is secure, why would he have a problem with graven images, false gods, or any other god before him?


Presumably for similar reasons as to why humans who create things have an issue with fakes and forgeries - they are available, but aren't worth a fraction of the real deal, and can easily come with hidden or unexpected dangers. 


porps said:


> and why if he was all good would he create a place in which to torture people for all eternity for not beleiving him, while at the same time ensuring that those people dont beleive in him by not revealing himself to them?


I'd have to say that from my POV I would hold the second part of that premise as incorrect, as I believe God does reveal Himself to all at some point, but we have the choice of how to respond to that and 'No thanks' is a valid option - free will again. I also don't believe that He ever gives up on anyone, no matter who they are _or_ what they have done (which often offends human sensibilities, as we do tend to have a 'sliding scale' when it comes to wrongdoing, as opposed to a binary polarity of perfect/imperfect), but ultimately respects their choice in the matter.

So assuming that there are those who reach the end of this life having decided against God to the end, then if we also assume the reality of an eternal afterlife, then would it not also follow that those who weren't interested in Him in life would prefer not to be around Him for that too? In which case an alternate location is required, and if you accept the classic definition of heaven as a place of being in presence of God and therefore having His stated attributes (love etc.), then it logically follows that the alternate option is a place where His presence and attributes are _not_ there.

As an aside, I personally perceive a big difference between _religion_ and _faith_. I'm not a fan of religion, either


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Presumably for similar reasons as to why humans who create things have an issue with fakes and forgeries - they are available, but aren't worth a fraction of the real deal, and can easily come with hidden or unexpected dangers.
> 
> I'd have to say that from my POV I would hold the second part of that premise as incorrect, as I believe God does reveal Himself to all at some point, but we have the choice of how to respond to that and 'No thanks' is a valid option - free will again. I also don't believe that He ever gives up on anyone, no matter who they are _or_ what they have done (which often offends human sensibilities, as we do tend to have a 'sliding scale' when it comes to wrongdoing, as opposed to a binary polarity of perfect/imperfect), but ultimately respects their choice in the matter.
> 
> ...


But God's attributes are also fire, brimstone, judgement and condemnation


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> As a non Christian whom opposes religion yet has studied them a bit, I don't cherry pick
> Unlike some religious people, I accept and acknowledge everything that is in the bible.(and Koran)
> Therefore I don't make statements like ISIL aren't true Muslims, opposing homosexuality isn't Christianity, and vice versa
> Equally I know the bible is full of passages which state God is the creator of everything
> ...


Do you speak English?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> *Roland Barthes, a well respected literary critic, wrote that every reading of a text is a misreading*. This is because we all interpret what we read according to our own individual perception of the world. Our interpretations are coloured by our own personal experiences. This idea is evident in psychological research. It is a fact that the Bible we all read has been translated from scripture by a mere human being with his own prejudice and bias. It is also known that the Bible is incomplete, therefore, what appears in the Bible has been cherry picked by this flawed, prejudiced and biased human being. Since this is known, how can anyone read the Bible and trust a single word written? You might as well read Grimm's Fairy Tales. At least they don't pretend to be anything other than a work of fiction.


The Talmud said it LONG before Barthes did: "We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are."

And as for Grimm's Fairy Tales - they are not just works of fiction. "Fairy tales" are part of a culture's mythology - and the thing about mythology is that it is a way of presenting deep and difficult truths in a simplified form.

The Bible also presents deep and difficult truths in a simplified form - most Holy Books do. And as you say, people make their own interpretations based on their own experiences - particularly as regards the written word. Many of the "rules" in the Old Testament are not really religious in origin - they are cultural; a way of maintaining purity and separateness in an age when rapine and slaughter were endemic. For example:

In those days, it was believed that you lived as long as you had children and grandchildren to your name - so to allow your (male) line to die out wasn't just unfortunate, it meant that it was as though your ancestors had never been born. So (culturally) homosexuality was anathema because homosexual men were unlikely to father children.

Men often died in war, women were taken off and became slaves and subject to sexual assault. The only way to ensure that the race continued was to follow it through the female line - that is why Jewishness is transferred via the mother even though it is a patriarchal culture. You may not be sure of a child's father, but you do know who the mother is. The OT is full of _practical _ "rules" which are cultural expressions for practical purposes. As with any man-made laws/proscriptions, many will outlive their appropriacy - as times move on, so do the requirements.

Trying to make a blanket application today of rules which worked well 2,000+ years ago is just foolish, and so is holding these "rules" up as evidence of what a rotter God is.

And can we get away from calling God, "he"? God is neither gender - or possibly both - or maybe more - or could be less: but God is not "he" as we know "he" - this is another cultural convention. We all tend to think of God in terms of masculinity, but that is because until very recently we lived in societies where women didn't get a look in.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> And can we get away from calling God, "he"? God is neither gender - or possibly both - or maybe more - or could be less: but God is not "he" as we know "he" - this is another cultural convention. We all tend to think of God in terms of masculinity, but that is because until very recently we lived in societies where women didn't get a look in.


"He" can be used without reference to gender...

or do you think
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." 
doesnt apply to women?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Do you speak English?


What do you mean?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Surely people can call "god" whatever the hell they want........... free will and all that..... that he/ she/it "gave" us


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> The Talmud said it LONG before Barthes did: "We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are."
> 
> And as for Grimm's Fairy Tales - they are not just works of fiction. "Fairy tales" are part of a culture's mythology - and the thing about mythology is that it is a way of presenting deep and difficult truths in a simplified form.
> 
> ...


yes, but no one is going around inventing a religion based around Grimm's fairy tales, nor stating Hans Christian Anderson should be worshiped as god.

And by simply pointing out the that the bible is simply a work of mythology and just another fairy tale HCA, you are actually reinforcing what the likes of myself, sacremist, porps, and ouesi are already stating. That the book is merely a good read of fiction with some great tales.
And you are reverting to the same old line that christians revert to these days to justify how they can cherry pick. That being the OT doesnt count anymore. if the OT is not a work of religion, then why leave it in the bible? How come its ok to say things like christians dont believe homosexuality is a sin anymore, because jesus said love everyone and never mentioned gays in the NT, and the OT doesnt count anymore, yet the OT can suddenly count when it comes to being using it in church for religious services for other reasons?
Which brings me back to Sacremist's point you quoted, and my point in my last post.
1. The bible, according to even people that call themselves christian is a work of myth and fairy tale - you have just said this as BlaisenHampshire said that earlier when she said the church teaching that God is the controller of everything is a myth
2. The bible is a cobbled together of unrelated books written by different blokes at different times
3. The bible has been translated several times and then changed.
4. There are even different versions of the bible today by different denominations
5. Various books have been found to be left out, others added.
6. it has several contradictory passages, whereby it can hold opposite views of the same issues as 'christian'

I know this, and i have no trouble acknowledging all this, so i can take all this evidence and therefore easily say that the bible is completely invalid as a bible to base a religion on.
However, if i were to be a christian, i would have to accept the bible is my rule book. So i either accept my rule book, or i dont, i cant have it both ways, cant have my cake and eat?
Thus all strains of christianity are correct, as the bible says so.
I cant go round saying christians that say homosexuality is an abomination and a sin, arent 'true' christians, for example.
Likewise, i cant conveniently use the bible as a dodge to avoid tricky arguments.
so when stephen fry says if there were actually a god, far from worshiping him, you would have to hate him, as such an evil nasty person s/he would be, once you consider everything s/he created. So, as a biblical christian, i couldnt dodge this with the line "ah yeh, but god didnt create everthing, s/he isnt in charge of everything all the time, thats a myth", when the bible and christian services and christian history is rife with the opposite 'truth' - that god did create everything.
And if im then gonna say im not a biblical christian, then why bother calling myself a christian at all?
Why not just say i believe in god, but not the religion of christianity, although the bible does contain some messages and moral i do agree with?

And in my early twenties, i did used to be a christian. i became a member of a born again evangelical church, then i woke up to myself and couldnt follow it anymore. however, i respect them from the POV, at least they were consistent in their beliefs, and at least the evangelicals could make a claim of being more fuller and rounded christians, because at least they did not cherry pick and change the religion around to suit contemporary agendas, a trait that is often prevalent in the C of E.
Hence why the an evangelical wing started in the C of E on the back of the 'house churches' that i was a part of.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

lostbear said:


> The Bible also presents deep and difficult truths in a simplified form - most Holy Books do. And as you say, people make their own interpretations based on their own experiences - particularly as regards the written word.


If the Bible is designed to present deep and difficult truths, then what you appear to be suggesting is that the Bible, like fairy tales, is a book of stories that teach us about morality according to the perception of those who wrote it.

Those who arranged for the Bible to be written, however, were Church and State not God. The purpose of Church and State was to control the people; to ensure people lived by the moral code that said Church and State believed to be right. Church and State were run by humans. I therefore fail to see what the Bible has to do with the existence of a real God, since it was humans controlling Church and State, with God being the fictional character they invented, so they could indoctrinate the minds of the people with the idea that they would be rewarded for good behaviour (conformity) and faith by entrance to heaven and punished for bad behaviour (non-conformity) and lack of faith through the threat of hell fire and damnation.

It was for many centuries the perfect weapon used to exert the will of the few upon the many, who might otherwise have lived a life contrary to that moral code. You have pretty much said as much yourself when you made reference to the Church's attitude towards homosexuality. A homosexual lifestyle did not conform to the ideal of the nuclear family, so anyone who engaged in same sex intercourse was condemned to hell.

Today, of course, homosexuality is acceptable and in order for Church and State to continue preaching their moral code, they have to reinterpret the Bible to change with the times. We are now told, we must not take the Bible as actual fact, but as a book similar to a fairy story with its moral tales and deep and difficult truths. Only one thing has not changed, we still have to believe in the excrement that God is real. It would be more believable if the Church did not keep moving the goal posts to suit their purpose.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Sorry I've been AWOL: work's mad busy. 

Some people believe that evangelical Christians, who are more likely to take the Bible literally, are somehow more 'real' or authentic than those of us on the liberal Catholic wing. I don't buy that - it seems to me that anyone who believes that they know the mind of God (through literal interpretation of the Bible, which was written by human beings, or from their own convictions) is on dodgy ground. God is unknowable. 

I can't do links, but I'd be grateful if someone would go on YouTube to Russell Brand's 'Trews' channel, and link to his response to Stephen Fry (which is where this started, if anyone can remember that far back!): I watched it earlier today and it is brilliant.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Sorry I've been AWOL: work's mad busy.
> 
> Some people believe that evangelical Christians, who are more likely to take the Bible literally, are somehow more 'real' or authentic than those of us on the liberal Catholic wing. I don't buy that - it seems to me that anyone who believes that they know the mind of God (through literal interpretation of the Bible, which was written by human beings, or from their own convictions) is on dodgy ground. God is unknowable.
> 
> I can't do links, but I'd be grateful if someone would go on YouTube to Russell Brand's 'Trews' channel, and link to his response to Stephen Fry (which is where this started, if anyone can remember that far back!): I watched it earlier today and it is brilliant.


ive read brand's book.
he promotes spirituality.
does believe in god
he will counter stephen fry from that POV, but he would agree with stephen fry in rejection of religion.
he too would accept the bible as just myth, but wouldnt then call himself a christian, as religions are part of the problem, and why even bother calling yourself a christian if you dont even believe in the bible?
why not be like russell, and believe in god in terms of ancient nature based paganistic type beliefs and a feeling of ones of spirituality?
concepts i can get on board with, actually.
but, yes, if we are talking christian, then you are or you arent, you cant just go round changing it all the time to suit whats popular at the time.
so yes, evangelicals are far more authentic. something i learned as a member of that movement. 
if you can reject over half the bible today (the OT), whose to say some social issue wont come along in 50 years time, and you can say, 'yeh, but, those books arent part of the gospels, so werent written by the disciples' those parts of the NT were only meant as parables', etc, etc, etc

and if you are agreeing with the rest of us that the bible is simply a work of myth, written by men, not the work of god, and that know one can ever know what god thinks and says anyway, and you saying all religions are the same god anyway, then why even bother being a christian in the first place?
it make no sense.
why not just be spiritual. why JOIN a religion? why label yourself?
why join any religion that does also have beliefs and messages and views that you find unacceptable, especially if you dont even believe in the religion or its holy book anyway?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> ive read brand's book.
> he promotes spirituality.
> does believe in god
> he will counter stephen fry from that POV, but he would agree with stephen fry in rejection of religion.
> ...


Sorry but why does it bother you?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry but why does it bother you?


why does what bother me?

or why does it bother porps, sacremist, stephen fry, ousei, lexiedb, etc, etc, etc?
why this question?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> ive read brand's book.
> he promotes spirituality.
> does believe in god
> he will counter stephen fry from that POV, but he would agree with stephen fry in rejection of religion.
> ...


Gosh! You seem to have read a lot more into my posts than I thought I was saying 

It seems to me that it is easier to connect with people, spiritually, through the vehicle of organised religion. The reason that I am a Christian is mainly cultural, although I do believe that it is a more accessible religion than many others. I disagree with much that the Church says, but it's easier to effect change from the inside.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Cant say a belief in god actually bothers me, (so long as thats all it is, not pushed on others, things done in the name of etc), i will never understand it, and i will have questions that will always go unanswered, i imagine this is the view of non believers by those who do believe.

The arguement is null and void really as both sides seem to be able to come up with unsatisfactory "answers" posed by either side, but no one can prove it either way, despite evidence, and people are generally unwavering in their chosen belief.

some folk need a religion/ belief in their lives, some dont!


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Gosh! You seem to have read a lot more into my posts than I thought I was saying
> 
> It seems to me that it is easier to connect with people, spiritually, through the vehicle of organised religion. The reason that I am a Christian is mainly cultural, although I do believe that it is a more accessible religion than many others. I disagree with much that the Church says, but it's easier to effect change from the inside.


well, no. im only going by the things you have said yourself in your posts.

this reply just reaffirms my question
if you arent even christian for any religious reasons, and dont even agree with the teachings of that religion, then why are you even a member?
and what even right do you have to become a member of a religion you dont actually agree with in order to change that religion around just to suit yourself?
even if i were a 'liberal christian', i dont think i would be happy with my local church minister saying they dont really believe in it, and only joined to change it all round anyway?
would it not be..ummmm....more 'christian' to respect your contemporaries and your worshipers by _not_ gaining yourself a position of influence just to undermine their church/religion?

aside from the right, why even the _need_?
if you have your own evolved sense of non-religious spirituality, and a calling for ministry, why not simply live that life instead?

who says Christianity is more accessible than other religions?
or by accessible, do you mean pliable?
i could see that being the case.
i cant imagine you could get away with joining islam or sikhism in order to profess to reject their core values and to say you only joined to change the religion?

however, there are plenty of those types of adaptable and flexible 'religions' around.
buddhism, for example, would seem to qualify to suit that criteria?
plus it is more of the spiritual, as opposed to the 'religious' route, you seem to favour?

and no, it just as easy to connect with anyone spiritually outside organised religion as it is inside organised religion.
russell brand seems to manage it? (one example)


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> well, no. im only going by the things you have said yourself in your posts.
> 
> this reply just reaffirms my question
> if you arent even christian for any religious reasons, and dont even agree with the teachings of that religion, then why are you even a member?
> ...


Well, as with your previous post, you're attributing a lot of views to me that I have not espoused . You seem very angry about, specifically, christianity. I come across this a lot with former evangelicals.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> why does what bother me?
> 
> or why does it bother porps, sacremist, stephen fry, ousei, lexiedb, etc, etc, etc?
> why this question?


For the record, Im not bothered. 
Especially not since I dont know what it is, cant be bothered by something that I dont know what it is


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Well, as with your previous post, you're attributing a lot of views to me that I have not espoused . You seem very angry about, specifically, christianity. I come across this a lot with former evangelicals.


well, again, i just asked questions based on the comments you just literally just made, and earlier comments

and you could, i suppose, rationalise my questions as meaning i have a particular 'anger agenda' about christianity (even though i have posted plenty of critiques about other religions before), as to do so would mean you would have no need to consider what im really meaning, and would then mean you can avoid the questions
whats "former evanglical" got to do with anything?

however, on the topic of anger, i do even think their is quite a valid cause, dont you?
i mean, say, as a minister, if one of your parishioners came up to you and told you that they had joined an organisation, many of whose whose policies or beliefs or core values they dont agree with, for the express purpose of gaining a position of influence, so then they could work against those core values and policies, to change the organisation around to suit them? then as a minister hired to impart the christian message, wouldnt you then tell advise them about honesty? advise them about respect for others? fairness? *(as in putting yourself in a position whereby worshippers come to you as their representative, but thats not what you are really are?)
i can imagine plenty of people in any sort of "group" would be annoyed about that sort of thing?

so it comes back down to my question - why the right, and why the need?
i seem to agree with you in regards to lots of aspects of Christianity, so like most people in that position, i simply dont join christianity?
i certainly wouldnt want to waste my time interfering in it for others that are authentic biblical christians/believers?
especially as there are countless other ways i can communicate with others spiritually?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> For the record, Im not bothered.
> Especially not since I dont know what it is, cant be bothered by something that I dont know what it is


Fair enough


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> For the record, Im not bothered.
> Especially not since I dont know what it is, cant be bothered by something that I dont know what it is


my point exactly


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> my point exactly


Yet you seem hugely bothered, T&T


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Yet you seem hugely bothered, T&T


Yes. You already said that
(And that was your early response to Stephen fry's arguments too)
And I already answered that is one way you can choose to interpret my meaning which means you won't need to think I have any other meaning or purpose to my questions and the points I raise?
Besides which that was a reply to a different person in context to a different type of conversattion to the one I'm having with yourself
The one I'm having is based upon comments and views you have expressed.
That's discussion forums


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> why does what bother me?
> 
> or why does it bother porps, sacremist, stephen fry, ousei, lexiedb, etc, etc, etc?
> why this question?


My question why does it bother you was aimed at you because you do seem to have a particular problem with those of us who have expressed our beliefs and in particular keep asking BlaiseinHampshire Why? Why the need? Why the right? Why the label? Why join a religion etc etc. I was just turning the question back on you and asking why it bothers you so much what someone else believes, I haven't noticed anyone trying to convert you to their beliefs so why not just accept we all have our own reasons for why and who and where and when.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> My question why does it bother you was aimed at you because you do seem to have a particular problem with those of us who have expressed our beliefs and in particular keep asking BlaiseinHampshire Why? Why the need? Why the right? Why the label? Why join a religion etc etc. I was just turning the question back on you and asking why it bothers you so much what someone else believes, I haven't noticed anyone trying to convert you to their beliefs so why not just accept we all have our own reasons for why and who and where and when.


I see

Well, the simple answer is its a discussion forum and this is the discussion 

I guess you hadn't seen the posts from others then?
Some of them had way harsher terms than mine did

The questions I asked BH only exist due to the comments she volunteered
The meanings of those specific questions you just pointed out where explained in the posts where they were asked


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Thanks I had realised it was a discussion forum and yes I had read the other posts and whilst I agree some people put things in harsher terms than you did I felt your posts and questions were particularly challenging to an individual's beliefs and therefore asked a simple question which was why does it bother you so much?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thanks I had realised it was a discussion forum and yes I had read the other posts and whilst I agree some people put things in harsher terms than you did I felt your posts and questions were particularly challenging to an individual's beliefs and therefore asked a simple question which was why does it bother you so much?


but your last sentence is still moot.
its still my last answer.

BH volunteered to add her comments to back up her position.
Those, in turn, prompted valid and logical observations and questions.
BH has not answered most of those questions or points.
To characterise or motivate my posts simply in terms of some sort of 'anger agenda, as BH did - BH said this about Stephen Fry too - can only serve to be a way of avoiding tricky questions or points.
To take the discussion down the route of why have that discussion, can only be seen to do the same thing?
The only way i could avoid not commenting upon all the stuff BH has put up in this thread to argue her case, is for BH not to put the stuff up there.
As long as my comments are honest, fair, valid, constructive, and civil, thats all that matters.
And they have been.
That is just a discussion forum. Discussion forums are challenging


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> but your last sentence is still moot.
> its still my last answer.
> 
> BH volunteered to add her comments to back up her position.
> ...


You can also simply not comment 

It is okay sometimes to have an unexpressed opinion (or so I hear - not that I would ever ascribe to such!)


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

OK - I _never _agree with T&T - _ever_!

But I do this time 

If people are posting about why they decide to believe in the bible and/or a religion, he is entitled to ask why they have have that belief, if it has not been clear in their post.

If people dont ask questions, people never learn - how can we learn or even try to understand _anything_ if we dont question things?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> You can also simply not comment
> 
> It is okay sometimes to have an unexpressed opinion (or so I hear - not that I would ever ascribe to such!)


Of Course
But BH choose to have that discussion with me so I chose to have that discussion with her
so in that situation the only way I could not comment about her particular comments is if she never made them.
Thus in this case its moot to discuss why I have discussed why I have discussed
If that is not moot then it is valid to say to me or anyone else on this forum why am I bothered by this or that if and when we express a disagreeing opinion


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

To be honest I have come across time and time again, the frustration T&T is on about. Im curious, I wanna know why, maybe understand more about belief/ religion, understand where those who believe are coming from...... but it is often met with avoidance, wishy washy answers and no real substance, so I remain none the wiser........


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

I don't have time to thoroughly read all of the questions that seem to be floating around, but I will do my best to clarify my position; apologies if I miss anything out .

All the books of the major faiths contain a mixture of material. Parts are eye-witness accounts, which will vary in their reliability. Parts are re-telling of old myths, to attempt to describe new realities, in a way that the then readership could access. Parts are inspired by God, and parts are simply the musings of the writer. It seems to me (and to most mainstream Christian theologians) that the only responsible way to read the Bible is to try to work out what it might be saying to us, in our time, here and now.

Now, to say that the Bible (along with other holy books) contains myth is hardly a radical statement! But this does not mean that I am saying that God is a myth. I have no doubt whatsoever that God, Allah/a higher power/the Divine exists. The various experiences I've had make that obvious to me. As Lostbear put it, 'you just know'. And I'm sorry if that's 'wishy-washy', but it wouldn't be called faith if one could pin it down, lock it in a box and keep it all nice and safe and neatly packaged .

As for the assaults on my integrity (and that IS how it reads, T&T, frankly), they are uncalled for: my comments about 'changing things from the inside' do not mean that I am attempting to change the church communities I work with into atheists, or even Ba'hais for that matter! Where I try to effect change is where the hierarchy of the Church of England (not God, but frail human beings) is sexist, racist, or homophobic. For instance, I support gay marriage and believe that same-gender couples should be able to show their commitment in a church ceremony, if that is their wish.

I am now off to cook and serve a lunch for 35 elderly members of our congregation, so will be doing active theology rather than pontificating about it . I hope you all have a good day.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> To be honest I have come across time and time again, the frustration T&T is on about. Im curious, I wanna know why, maybe understand more about belief/ religion, understand where those who believe are coming from...... but it is often met with avoidance, wishy washy answers and no real substance, so I remain none the wiser........


Online it is very difficult to have a discussion of this nature. Cross-posts mean that people think comments refer to something they don't; the problems of misinterpretation of meaning cause readers of posts to see things that aren't intended (10 readers can pick out 11 different interpretations!) - the Bible isn't the only thing that needs to be read within context, examined, studied and clarified). This is exacerbated when some people don't use sentences or punctuation. We can't easily ask for clarification of a point we aren't sure of.

Some people seem unable to accept the experiences of others without arguing that those experiences are just due to hallucination/indigestion/stupidity and are quite pedantic about this. Don't get me wrong - I have had experiences which I believe have been encounters with the Divine - and I think we all have, but some people have not been open to recognising them as such (This is my OPINION). If someone say "How do I know it wasn't just an "undigested potato" or whatever, the answer is - I don't. But I _believe_ it was much more. That is faith.

I am not on this forum to proselytise, or argue theology, or apologise - as far as I am concerned it is a place to offer my opinion and if people want clarification on matters, if it is something that can be addressed on the forum (e.g. Where does is say what Jesus' message was?) then it's a simple reference and I'm happy to give that if I know it. Some stuff I don't know. Can't help.

I do find it wearing though, when some individuals bang on about the same thing over and over and won't accept an answer (or that there is no answer). It's just going in circles and gets us nothing except frustration.

Stephen Fry "gave it to God" in a very simplistic way. Life, the universe and everything is much more complex than that. The more we learn about the natural world, the ore we discover that it is a very delicate balance and whether we like it or not, even the nasties have a place - we just don't know it.

In China Mao ordered the eradication of the "four pests" - sparrows, mosquitos, flies and rats. They started with the sparrows - slaughtered countless millions of them. The resulting ecological imbalance led to a massive famine and the deaths of 20,000,000 people (conservative estimate). We do not know what purpose different creatures serve - it is only when they are gone that we will learn - and by then it may be too late. Scientists even now are discovering new drugs in the Amazonian forests that we are destroying by the acre; how do we know that the hideous botfly does not contain the answer to some other plague?

In the west we are cosseted and protected by the benefits of science. This leads us to think that science has all the answers - but it hasn't, and can cause problems more dreadful than the ones it was trying to get rid of. Nothing is simple; everything has more to it than meets the eye; no easy answers.

That's my soapbox speech out of the way. I'm offski.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I see all that Lostbear, like I said answers/ responses from both sides are generally poo pood, or waved away..... but I'm asking questions to share personal experiences, surrounding being visited by "God". Like the ones Blaise gave. It fascinates me how a once non believer can suddenly truly believe they have received a message. When another can experience something similar and "God" does not ever cross their minds.

Is it in built?, were they at a time in their lives where they needed that? Was it so earth shattering it simply could not have been anything else? Simply "I believe" isnt really an explanation for me at least, and does not help me understand.

Same with the whole "moving with the times" thing/ picking and choosing which parts/rules of a religion you choose to follow ...... IMO it just undermines all that has been believed by so many for so long to be the words of "God".

Maybe Im just doomed to never be able to understand ..... ah well


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MCWillow said:


> OK - I _never _agree with T&T - _ever_!
> 
> But I do this time
> 
> ...


My question why does it bother you so much was not to suggest that anyone should not ask questions though but to ask why those particular opinions bother him so much so a question for a question.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> My question why does it bother you so much was not to suggest that anyone should not ask questions though but to ask why those particular opinions bother him so much so a question for a question.


Well I'm not T&T (obviously), but I have answered of some of the things that bothers me about Christianity and the other major monotheistic religions.

- Placing humans in a starring role in the universe. This idea that all of creation was made for us, that god is *our* god, that humans are special and 'above' other species. It seems to me that this human-centric vision of god and creation causes a whole host of problems.

Just the whole "you shall have no other gods before me" says it all doesn't it? There is a hierarchy created from the start, and god - a jealous, insecure, and selfish god, places himself at the top of that hierarchy. How can the followers of such a god not take on those same characteristics on some level? After all, we were created in his image were we not?

- The texts and teachings themselves are very corruptible if you will. The bible and the koran seem to lend themselves so easily to justifying some pretty horrific behavior. And IMO this happens way too much for us to brush it off as "oh those crazy fundamentalists are just being crazy people again."

The truth is, both books have some pretty crazy stories and lines in there that I'm not sure how one can interpret any other way. I'll even ignore the OT for a minute and talk just the NT. Jesus talks of masters and slaves/servants. Again with the hierarchy. Jesus says slaves/servants who know their master's will yet do not capitulate to it shall be beaten, punished in some way. We are given free will yet punished for using it.

I guess I just don't buy that humans are inherently evil and need some sort of god to temper that evil. I think humans are simply born human, and that humans, left to their own devices, are for the most part, just like any other sentient creature on this earth. Out to survive as best we can, and enjoying connections with others of the same species along the way.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> I see all that Lostbear, like I said answers/ responses from both sides are generally poo pood, or waved away..... but I'm asking questions to share personal experiences, surrounding being visited by "God". Like the ones Blaise gave. It fascinates me how a once non believer can suddenly truly believe they have received a message. When another can experience something similar and "God" does not ever cross their minds.
> 
> Is it in built?, were they at a time in their lives where they needed that? Was it so earth shattering it simply could not have been anything else? Simply "I believe" isnt really an explanation for me at least, and does not help me understand.
> 
> ...


For me its just a feeling like a comfort and a guide, can I explain that? can I quantify it? can I describe on a forum what it feels like to watch people die and just know that is not the end? No I can't so I can understand the frustration people might have if they don't have the same feelings or experiences and of course its possible to be in the same place at the same time as others but feel different things. I haven't always felt this way - when my Dad died aged 46 of cancer when I was 17 following a very traumatic break up from my Mum and some other personal problems I had I felt very alone, abandoned if you like but gradually when I started nursing I felt this comfort and have done since during good and bad times, its just there.

I think its OK to have questions but I do think its one of those subjects where perhaps a more sensitive approach to those questions is called for.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> To be honest I have come across time and time again, the frustration T&T is on about. Im curious, I wanna know why, maybe understand more about belief/ religion, understand where those who believe are coming from...... but it is often met with avoidance, wishy washy answers and no real substance, so I remain none the wiser........


I was known as the problem child at my convent school..
Why you ask?

Well, because I asked "Why"? 
I wouldn't take things at face value, and questioned EVERYTHING..

Did I get answers?

Nup, I still have no clue :lol:


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Well Im not T&T (obviously), but I have answered of some of the things that bothers me about Christianity and the other major monotheistic religions.
> 
> - Placing humans in a starring role in the universe. This idea that all of creation was made for us, that god is *our* god, that humans are special and above other species. It seems to me that this human-centric vision of god and creation causes a whole host of problems.
> 
> ...


Perhaps there is for some but it just doesn't have to be that way. I'm not for one minute saying people shouldn't ask questions about the bible or about Christianity - my question to T&T was why when BlaiseinHampshire had explained some of her views he kept on asking Why - why the need, why the label etc - I wondered why that bothered him so much.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I don't have time to thoroughly read all of the questions that seem to be floating around, but I will do my best to clarify my position; apologies if I miss anything out .
> 
> All the books of the major faiths contain a mixture of material. Parts are eye-witness accounts, which will vary in their reliability. Parts are re-telling of old myths, to attempt to describe new realities, in a way that the then readership could access. Parts are inspired by God, and parts are simply the musings of the writer. It seems to me (and to most mainstream Christian theologians) that the only responsible way to read the Bible is to try to work out what it might be saying to us, in our time, here and now.
> 
> ...


Please don't allow this poster to make you feel this way. Your integrity shines out from every post you have written on this thread.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Perhaps there is for some but it just doesn't have to be that way.


There is what for some? A hierarchy? 
It doesnt have to be hierarchical? But it is written exactly that way. One god, no other gods before me. How else do you interpret that?

Its not for nothing that when missionaries attempt to spread the good word, so many primitive peoples have difficulty grasping the concept of a christian god. That whole idea of one above all others doesnt make sense to a people who live in harmony with the natural world. That says a lot.

Have you ever read The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> All the books of the major faiths contain a mixture of material. Parts are eye-witness accounts, which will vary in their reliability. Parts are re-telling of old myths, to attempt to describe new realities, in a way that the then readership could access. Parts are inspired by God, and parts are simply the musings of the writer. It seems to me (and to most mainstream Christian theologians) that the only responsible way to read the Bible is to try to work out what it might be saying to us, in our time, here and now.
> 
> Even us atheists, or agnostics (as i believe in god in the russell brand/spiritual/ancient way) will say the same thing about the bible (or koran, or whatever). But the point is, it would be reasoned for us to do so, as we dont profess to be christians or muslims or whatever.
> So the key sentence is above is "parts are inspired by God"
> ...


And i can see you have an advanced sense of service and ministry. This would also account for your other job as psychotherapist. In find you to be a great person, and i would like you if i knew in real life. But with your combined qualities of spirituality, social justice, and ministry, all of which i admire actually, i would say to you why do you need to become a member of a religion you dont essentially agree with, run by a rule book you reject a great deal of, just so you can politicize?
You can minister, commune spiritually, and politically campaign in a million other ways in a million other places. Buddhism would seem to suit you, as one example?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> My question why does it bother you so much was not to suggest that anyone should not ask questions though but to ask why those particular opinions bother him so much so a question for a question.


your question is valid, just like my questions to BH are valid. equally so.
I answered your question


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I was known as the problem child at my convent school..
> Why you ask?
> 
> Well, because I asked "Why"?
> ...


This was ME!!! I loved RE at primary school learning about all the different religions etc

In primary school (church school) we had some preist/ holy chap come to talk to us about "the creation".... chappy said something about Adam and Eve's son going out and he begat a wife.......

So I at 9 said "er, where did the wife come from, if their was Adam, Eve, and their sons- one of which is killed? where did this lady spring up from?"

I got dragged out of the assembly and made to stand outside the headmasters office for forever. Have since read a whole lotta things about this and I guess you can explain it by "bible did not say these were the ONLY people on earth"..... bit wishy washy.Or later that it must have been one of his sisters- ok incest is ok, homosexuality not.... raises a whole load more questions to me

I also got banned from taking RE GCSE as "I asked way to many questions, and they would never cover the syllabus in time......" awesome


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> This was ME!!! I loved RE at primary school learning about all the different religions etc
> 
> In primary school (church school) we had some preist/ holy chap come to talk to us about "the creation".... chappy said something about Adam and Eve's son going out and he begat a wife.......
> 
> ...


I lost count of how many times I was sent to Mother Superiors office and given the task of repeating the Hail Mary prayer


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> There is what for some? A hierarchy?
> It doesnt have to be hierarchical? But it is written exactly that way. One god, no other gods before me. How else do you interpret that?
> 
> Its not for nothing that when missionaries attempt to spread the good word, so many primitive peoples have difficulty grasping the concept of a christian god. That whole idea of one above all others doesnt make sense to a people who live in harmony with the natural world. That says a lot.
> ...


Nope and I haven't read the bible either and doubt I will although never say never. Thats kinda of what I meant, I didn't think the debate was so much about the bible as about God. So I believe in God but as I said way way back in my God. I don't know nor care particularly if that is the same God that others believe in or why they do or don't and I personally don't feel the need to worship alongside others or follow a book. Its a bit like me asking why do you love your husband or wife and then picking apart or challenging every single reason (not you personally). I don't agree with mocking other religions or beliefs either, very few people can take having their children or their partners mocked or picked over by strangers and whether intentional or not that is how some of the comments on this thread are coming across.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> I see all that Lostbear, like I said answers/ responses from both sides are generally poo pood, or waved away..... but I'm asking questions to share personal experiences, surrounding being visited by "God". Like the ones Blaise gave. It fascinates me how a once non believer can suddenly truly believe they have received a message. When another can experience something similar and "God" does not ever cross their minds.
> 
> Is it in built?, were they at a time in their lives where they needed that? Was it so earth shattering it simply could not have been anything else? Simply "I believe" isnt really an explanation for me at least, and does not help me understand.
> 
> ...


Then you are in the same place as the rest of us - all we can do is test and question and hope that we get nearer to the truth each time. And I know what you mean when you say "I believe" isn't an explanation, but unfortunately there is no other answer to give sometimes. By its very nature, faith defies explanation and can't be quantified scientifically.

I don't think, though, that it is a matter of picking and choosing what we believe - I don't do that; but what it can be is developing a deeper understanding of things which changes your perception - a bit like when the concept of zero was developed in mathematics - it turned the "truth" upside-down, and there are many other instances of things in the physical world which everyone "knew" were true that turned out not to be.

All I would say is - keep an open mind, and be aware of things that happen in your own life. You may come to believe in God, or you may not - but you will open yourself up to many possibilities.

EDIT: And remember - most holy books were written millennia ago. The world that people lived in then was very different to the one we live in now. This coloured their perceptions and interpretations in the same way that our cultural experiences colour ours. Everything must be considered in context.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Amelia66 said:


> Alot of the stories in the bible are very similar to greek and roman myths and legends so makes me quite skeptical.


also, Islam/The Koran has many of the same names/places/legends....

BUT, consider they are all - basically - from the same area, Persia, Rome, The Med so it could CONFIRM the stories....


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Then you are in the same place as the rest of us - all we can do is test and question and hope that we get nearer to the truth each time. And I know what you mean when you say "I believe" isn't an explanation, but unfortunately there is no other answer to give sometimes. By its very nature, faith defies explanation and can't be quantified scientifically.
> 
> I don't think, though, that it is a matter of picking and choosing what we believe - I don't do that; but what it can be is developing a deeper understanding of things which changes your perception - a bit like when the concept of zero was developed in mathematics - it turned the "truth" upside-down, and there are many other instances of things in the physical world which everyone "knew" were true that turned out not to be.
> 
> ...


Is there never a I believe "because" tho? there has to be doesnt there?..... "I believe because i was in a room with XYZ, they died, and I saw/felt them leave etc etc" "because its what I was born into" "because without belief i have nothing" ......... I guess im too practical....

The world may well be different but surely the beliefs/morals/rules/ foundation of which these religions were built still apply......... if you are to be part of a religion? Otherwise everyone is just like RPH - believes in summat, that she calls god, but does not affiliate with any one religion and their specific teachings.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

All these sceptics, agnostics, atheists, etc ...... when they are faced with the dark days, when they or loved ones are lost or in pain or facing the end of days, i wonder who they cry out to..... being in a plane in trouble at 30,000 might have an effect on them...it would on me


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> All these sceptics, agnostics, atheists, etc ...... when they are faced with the dark days, when they or loved ones are lost or in pain or facing the end of days, i wonder who they cry out to..... being in a plane in trouble at 30,000 might have an effect on them...it would on me


Really really not...... it wouldn't provide me with any comfort at all, really it wouldn't. This is why I am so fascinated with the difference between those who believe and those who don't......


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> All these sceptics, agnostics, atheists, etc ...... when they are faced with the dark days, when they or loved ones are lost or in pain or facing the end of days, i wonder who they cry out to..... being in a plane in trouble at 30,000 might have an effect on them...it would on me


I shall be praying for Superman to come and save me.....or possibly Ironman!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Well I'm not T&T (obviously), but I have answered of some of the things that bothers me about Christianity and the other major monotheistic religions.
> 
> -* Placing humans in a starring role in the universe. This idea that all of creation was made for us, that god is *our* god, that humans are special and 'above' other species. It seems to me that this human-centric vision of god and creation causes a whole host of problems.*
> 
> ...





ouesi said:


> There is what for some? A hierarchy?
> It doesn't have to be hierarchical? But it is written exactly that way. One god, no other gods before me. How else do you interpret that?
> 
> It's not for nothing that when missionaries attempt to spread the "good word", so many 'primitive' peoples have difficulty grasping the concept of a christian god. That whole idea of one above all others doesn't make sense to a people who live in harmony with the natural world. That says a lot.
> ...


Yes - twice. It is excellent - and a demonstration of what happens when someone becomes fanatical.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Nope and I haven't read the bible either and doubt I will although never say never. Thats kinda of what I meant, I didn't think the debate was so much about the bible as about God. So I believe in God but as I said way way back in my God. I don't know nor care particularly if that is the same God that others believe in or why they do or don't and I personally don't feel the need to worship alongside others or follow a book. Its a bit like me asking why do you love your husband or wife and then picking apart or challenging every single reason (not you personally). I don't agree with mocking other religions or beliefs either, very few people can take having their children or their partners mocked or picked over by strangers and whether intentional or not that is how some of the comments on this thread are coming across.


Oh okay, then you and I are talking apples and oranges.

I said at the beginning I dont have any issue with beliefs, my issue is with behavior. 
From there I said that certain religions seem to lend themselves to very questionable behavior, which leads to questions about the teachings of those religions.

Bill Maher uses the swimming pool analogy. Even if the pool has just one turd in it, are you going to jump in?
In my mind, thats fairly apt. Id expand on it though. If the pool has some kids pee in it, meh, a little urine never hurt anyone. But if multiple people dying of cholera have explosive diarrhea in the pool, Im not getting in, and I dont think you should either. And if you tell me youll get in, but youll hold your breath, not stick your head under wanter and decontaminate yourself when you get out, Im going to ask you whats the point of getting in in the first place?

As for mocking other religions, well, if the belief-system is so delicate that a little mocking rocks the boat, then, thats more of an issue with the religion, not the mocking. 
I love my husband, but he can be very mockable, as can I. Neither of us is perfect - far from it!
I didnt birth perfect kids either, so if someone wants to point out their imperfections, have at it. Whether someones opinions of my children will matter to me depends on who that person is, not who my children are.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

catz4m8z said:


> I shall be praying for Superman to come and save me.....or possibly Ironman!


Mmmm definately iron man.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

lostbear said:


> Yes - twice. It is excellent - and a demonstration of what happens when someone becomes fanatical.


Which begs the question, why does Christianity lend itself so easily to fanaticism? (Not just Christianity, insert Islam if you wish.)

All these read it in context protestations are just more of the contaminated swimming pool to me.

"Yes, Jesus said ___ but you have to read it in the context of ___ and he also said ___ to me is just like saying when you get in the pool, make sure you dont let any of the water get in your mouth, and then make sure you wash off afterwards, and oh, here, have an anti-cholera too while youre at it. As what point do you just say the pool isnt worth getting in to?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> This was ME!!! I loved RE at primary school learning about all the different religions etc
> 
> In primary school (church school) we had some preist/ holy chap come to talk to us about "the creation".... chappy said something about Adam and Eve's son going out and he begat a wife.......
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm one of those types as well!

I always went with the logical approach to answering that one, that it was simply one of his sisters. As the laws on not-marrying-your-next-of-kin didn't come in until centuries later after the Exodus (presumeably as a guard against increasing genetic decay), there wouldn't have been an issue with it at the time. Never did understand why some people have a problem with the obvious!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Really really not...... it wouldn't provide me with any comfort at all, really it wouldn't. This is why I am so fascinated with the difference between those who believe and those who don't......


It might not now but one day it might. I've only known one person who was atheist his entire adult life and remained so throughout a terminal illness and even planned his own funeral which was a non religious cremation with no service whatsoever and just his wife present. He was a truly lovely man and I respected him greatly and I hope he found his peace.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Well Im not T&T (obviously), but I have answered of some of the things that bothers me about Christianity and the other major monotheistic religions.
> 
> - Placing humans in a starring role in the universe. This idea that all of creation was made for us, that god is *our* god, that humans are special and above other species. It seems to me that this human-centric vision of god and creation causes a whole host of problems.
> 
> ...


you may as well be me though as its uncanny how all your posts on this thread match what'sin my head and how you have reflected what I have written too
For example I cannot accept the line ISIL aren't true Muslims because thry are fundamentalist as the Koran also has passages which relate to their outlook
Ditto the bible
,


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Oh okay, then you and I are talking apples and oranges.
> 
> As for mocking other religions, well, if the belief-system is so delicate that a little mocking rocks the boat, then, thats more of an issue with the religion, not the mocking.
> I love my husband, but he can be very mockable, as can I. Neither of us is perfect - far from it!
> I didnt birth perfect kids either, so if someone wants to point out their imperfections, have at it. Whether someones opinions of my children will matter to me depends on who that person is, not who my children are.


Its not that the belief system is so delicate but that for many its a very deep and very personal thing and I might be old fashioned but I do think some things should be off limits for mocking. I hate the cartoons that mock Muhammad as I can't help but put myself in their shoes and understand how hurtful that must be. Yes I can mock my husband too and he can mock me, we all have our little in jokes I suppose but I wouldn't stand for anyone else mocking him and find it hard to believe that many parents can take having their children mocked by strangers.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It might not now but one day it might. I've only known one person who was atheist his entire adult life and remained so throughout a terminal illness and even planned his own funeral which was a non religious cremation with no service whatsoever and just his wife present. He was a truly lovely man and I respected him greatly and I hope he found his peace.


Interesting, I've known several who have never turned to god. Its always a possibility, same as its a possibility you'll turn away and not believe in the future.....


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Oh, I'm one of those types as well!
> 
> I always went with the logical approach to answering that one, that it was simply one of his sisters. As the laws on not-marrying-your-next-of-kin didn't come in until centuries later after the Exodus (presumeably as a guard against increasing genetic decay), there wouldn't have been an issue with it at the time. Never did understand why some people have a problem with the obvious!


I'd have probably excepted that...... aged 9 if anyone I asked has said this to me..... they simply didnt- because I imagine, because of the whole load more "difficult" questions that would follow.....


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> All these sceptics, agnostics, atheists, etc ...... when they are faced with the dark days, when they or loved ones are lost or in pain or facing the end of days, i wonder who they cry out to..... being in a plane in trouble at 30,000 might have an effect on them...it would on me


If I was in that plane, I'd be curled up into a good, low, brace position and trying to remember where the exit doors were. I've watched too many Air Crash Investigation programs not to react that way .

But seriously, even though pain, suffering and loss can certainly affect our reasoning, I really don't think I would be calling for a deity to help me. If I have spent all my life questioning and doubting the existence of said deity, why should suffering, pain and loss change my mind?

I guess I could call out something like "If you really exist, now would be a good time to help!" 
But I wouldn't be expecting a reply.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I am now off to cook and serve a lunch for 35 elderly members of our congregation, so will be doing active theology rather than pontificating about it . I hope you all have a good day.


Now this I have respect for. My father's faith is based around activity, and it is practical and outgoing, and he has helped a lot of people as a result, because (in his eyes) God has given him that capabilty. The evangelical branches other parts of the family are involved in seem to make them feel very good when they come out of worship, full of rapture, and some of them can knock the socks out of me in a logical argument but to me it is egotistical and unattractive. For me, the value of your ethical system depends on what you do as a result of it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Interesting, I've known several who have never turned to god. Its always a possibility, same as its a possibility you'll turn away and not believe in the future.....


Of course thats a possibility. None of us know what the future holds and how we will deal with any circumstances that come our way. I equally admired the man I was talking about for being so certain that there was nothing, absolutely nothing out there either now or after death. Final. Full stop. He didn't waver or doubt his own views. Whereas when my Dad was dying of terminal cancer he did turn to God but I do think he was carrying a lot of guilt about some of the decisions he had made and the way he had treated his family and needed to know he would be forgiven, sort of like giving him permission to die in peace. As I said I was only 17 at the time and didn't understand a lot of what was going on but remember thinking it was odd seeing the vicar coming to his house and him taking communion from his sick bed when that hadn't been part of his life before.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jonescat said:


> Now this I have respect for. My father's faith is based around activity, and it is practical and outgoing, and he has helped a lot of people as a result, because (in his eyes) God has given him that capabilty. The evangelical branches other parts of the family are involved in seem to make them feel very good when they come out of worship, full of rapture, and some of them can knock the socks out of me in a logical argument but to me it is egotistical and unattractive. For me, the value of your ethical system depends on what you do as a result of it.


Good point on the evangelicals

Apart from the style of worship though
That is probably the least ego based form of worship
It was one of those services that switched Russell brand onto higher spirituality
I tried both forms of Christian worship anda dusty old chuch listening to some person up higher than me on a pedestal with a special uniform singing uninspiring old hymns seemed lot more ego based than the communal almost shamanic group experience of my happy clappy experience

Also with the full on completely enveloping totally biblical approach of the evangelicals there is no scope to excuse Sunday Christians that you can get in trad churches


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Its not that the belief system is so delicate but that for many its a very deep and very personal thing and I might be old fashioned but I do think some things should be off limits for mocking. I hate the cartoons that mock Muhammad as I can't help but put myself in their shoes and understand how hurtful that must be. Yes I can mock my husband too and he can mock me, we all have our little in jokes I suppose but I wouldn't stand for anyone else mocking him and find it hard to believe that many parents can take having their children mocked by strangers.


Of course there is a difference between good-natured ribbing and mean-spirited mocking. I don't care for mean-spirited anything myself, but nor is it my place to tell anyone else how to act.

I will protect my children from that which needs protecting, however the opinions of others and how others choose to express those opinions is not something they need to be protected from, rather, they need guidance in how to deal with those opinions. 
Some things are hard to hear, especially when they're not presented kindly, but sometimes those things that are hard to hear need to be heard. 
I see my job as a parent not to protect my children from harsh truths, but to support them as they learn how to live with those truths. And their way may not be my way, and that's okay too. If my children decide to deal with the harsh truths of life by turning to religion, I will question them the same way I have done here, but ultimately it is their choice, not mine to make.

But I think in essence we will have to agree to disagree that some things should be off limits. And especially not religion. If religion is being ridiculous, why should it not be ridiculed? Why should religion get a pass?

Again, mean-spirited is not my thing, but I have no special gift of awareness that should make my opinion about what is acceptable more valid than someone else's.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Of course there is a difference between good-natured ribbing and mean-spirited mocking. I don't care for mean-spirited anything myself, but nor is it my place to tell anyone else how to act.
> 
> I will protect my children from that which needs protecting, however the opinions of others and how others choose to express those opinions is not something they need to be protected from, rather, they need guidance in how to deal with those opinions.
> Some things are hard to hear, especially when they're not presented kindly, but sometimes those things that are hard to hear need to be heard.
> ...


But thats exactly what a lot of the mocking of other religions is "mean spirited" again I'm not saying don't question I'm just saying there are ways and means of asking those questions so that we don't make a person or their religion feel mocked/ridiculed or as with one of the posters on this thread have their integrity questioned/doubted. I don't see the need for that.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> In primary school (church school) we had some preist/ holy chap come to talk to us about "the creation".... chappy said something about Adam and Eve's son going out and he begat a wife.......
> 
> So I at 9 said "er, where did the wife come from, if their was Adam, Eve, and their sons- one of which is killed? where did this lady spring up from?"
> 
> I got dragged out of the assembly and made to stand outside the headmasters office for forever.


I asked the same question aged 12 and the priest threw me out of the classroom.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> All these sceptics, agnostics, atheists, etc ...... when they are faced with the dark days, when they or loved ones are lost or in pain or facing the end of days, i wonder who they cry out to..... being in a plane in trouble at 30,000 might have an effect on them...it would on me


I lost my sister to cancer, I called out to no-one, because there is no-one there to call out too. Instead I clung to the rest of my family, we helped each other.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Its not that the belief system is so delicate but that for many its a very deep and very personal thing and I might be old fashioned but I do think some things should be off limits for mocking. I hate the cartoons that mock Muhammad as I can't help but put myself in their shoes and understand how hurtful that must be. Yes I can mock my husband too and he can mock me, we all have our little in jokes I suppose but I wouldn't stand for anyone else mocking him and find it hard to believe that many parents can take having their children mocked by strangers.


This thread is moving quickly and I can't keep up while I'm working!
But anyway....

In the thread about the Paris atrocities, I was one of those who questioned peoples' perceived 'right' to mock other religions, so I agree with you here.

I am not a believer, and I will have a joke about pre-conceived ideas of belief on this forum, but I would take no pleasure in _mocking_ anyone else's true beliefs. As you say, for many it is deeply personal and I can understand why some would think that to mock their faith would be like mocking them as a person or as a people.

It is all very well to say "I am agnostic but I am humanist", or "I do not believe in god, but I believe in being a moral person". All well and good.
But surely part of that humanity or morality is about being aware of the feelings and needs of others.
And if that is the case, why feel the need to mock?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sacremist said:


> I asked the same question aged 12 and the priest threw me out of the classroom.


I was exactly the same

I have always questioned everything
Never accepted anything without deep probing what anyone told me
Started when I was 10 years old.
Never just accepted the status quo, but more to the point the opposite status quo either.
Have always questioned adults, priests, you name it

And it makes you very unpopular, and peoples struggle with it.
Often their first reflex can be rude or hostile or aggressive. But hey ho.

But the other reflex is often to personalise things, it which I can never quite understand
Way I see it if this were star trek, id be the Vulcan, merely asking logical questions in a challenging and incisive way.
Then i can't understand why people, such as happens on here and even on this thread, introduce personalised elements and agendas into the discussion?
Quote simply, thinking Vulcan, they aren't relevant to the issue under examination

So when I was 10, I already had formed considered and in depth views on the issues of religions and its oddities.
That was in the 70s and 80s, when it was not socially acceptable, like it is now.

My gran and mum would tell me I was Anglican, because I was English and not a Catholic!
I would reject this and tell them it makes no sense

I would refuse Christening, and demand notes to be exempt from assembly due to prayers

I absolutely loved cubs, but quit scouts the second week, due to wasting valuable adventure and skills time having bible readings. I was very let down.

My ultimate role model is Socrates


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> you may as well be me though as its uncanny how all your posts on this thread match what'sin my head and how you have reflected what I have written too
> For example I cannot accept the line ISIL aren't true Muslims because thry are fundamentalist as the Koran also has passages which relate to their outlook
> Ditto the bible
> ,


I am not you, please let's be clear about that.

Nor do I feel our posts reflect the *same* thing. We have made similar points, yes, but please do not try to lay claim to what I have written as a reflection of your own posts, it is not. Your posts are yours, mine are mine.

I have very deliberately tried to remain impersonal and speaking of religion holistically in general terms. I don't know that I have succeeded, but that was/is my aim.

For what it's worth, the points I am making are not unique to me either. Many people far smarter than me make the same points far better than I do.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But thats exactly what a lot of the mocking of other religions is "mean spirited" again I'm not saying don't question I'm just saying there are ways and means of asking those questions so that we don't make a person or their religion feel mocked/ridiculed or as with one of the posters on this thread have their integrity questioned/doubted. I don't see the need for that.


You will get no argument from me about the need to make ad-hominem remarks.

I will say about the questioning though, that perception plays a role too. Just the last several posts about students being kicked out of class and punished for simply asking questions shows that not everyone takes a question in the spirit in which it was intended. 
I'm not saying that there aren't those who deliberately try to be hurtful, just that sometimes something might seem hurtful when it was not meant that way at all.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> And i can see you have an advanced sense of service and ministry. This would also account for your other job as psychotherapist. In find you to be a great person, and i would like you if i knew in real life. But with your combined qualities of spirituality, social justice, and ministry, all of which i admire actually, i would say to you why do you need to become a member of a religion you dont essentially agree with, run by a rule book you reject a great deal of, just so you can politicize?
> You can minister, commune spiritually, and politically campaign in a million other ways in a million other places. Buddhism would seem to suit you, as one example?


Whatever you say . And I say that, not sarcastically (and I thank you for your positive comments), but because whatever I say will not really reach you, I suspect. But it has been an interesting debate .


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Then you are in the same place as the rest of us - all we can do is test and question and hope that we get nearer to the truth each time. And I know what you mean when you say "I believe" isn't an explanation, but unfortunately there is no other answer to give sometimes. By its very nature, faith defies explanation and can't be quantified scientifically.
> 
> I don't think, though, that it is a matter of picking and choosing what we believe - I don't do that; but what it can be is developing a deeper understanding of things which changes your perception - a bit like when the concept of zero was developed in mathematics - it turned the "truth" upside-down, and there are many other instances of things in the physical world which everyone "knew" were true that turned out not to be.
> 
> ...


Exactly .


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I am not you, please let's be clear about that.
> 
> Nor do I feel our posts reflect the *same* thing. We have made similar points, yes, but please do not try to lay claim to what I have written as a reflection of your own posts, it is not. Your posts are yours, mine are mine.
> 
> ...


You weren't meant to take the first commentl literally 

You are incorrect, objectively and opinonatively some of your posts have reflected mine, as you have indeed made the same pertinent points I had already made on earlier posts
Other points you had made I had not made but I have not made but they completely identical to how I view exactly the same things
Plus both of us have discussed the same issues in the same generalised terms and both of uso object in exactly the same way to the idea we cannot discuss these issues in that way
In fact, it has been acknowledged that my posts have contained less harsh than other people that have posted the same views as me. You will not find anything in either of our posts that is is calling people names or such things
Plus you will find I have liked many of your posts and both our posts have been liked by the same pool of people, simply because they, you, and I agree on everything

For all those reasons, quite simply, and objectively speaking, your posts reflect mine and vice versa and ditto with the some others on here

As I just said on my last post, and have mentioned to you elsewhere, the personalisation you have introduced here is simply moot to the point
As, quite literally, we have the same opinions 
So this personalised issue literally has no relevance
And that is not meant as a personal comment, it is just so

And your second last sentence is actually what I'm saying here and is, by its own logic, explaining why we do agree!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Jonescat said:


> Now this I have respect for. My father's faith is based around activity, and it is practical and outgoing, and he has helped a lot of people as a result, because (in his eyes) God has given him that capabilty. The evangelical branches other parts of the family are involved in seem to make them feel very good when they come out of worship, full of rapture, and some of them can knock the socks out of me in a logical argument but to me it is egotistical and unattractive. For me, the value of your ethical system depends on what you do as a result of it.


"Preach the Gospel - use words if you must" (Francis of Assisi)


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

That's why the Salvation Army has the motto 'Heart to God. Hand to man.'


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Whatever you say . And I say that, not sarcastically (and I thank you for your positive comments), but because whatever I say will not really reach you, I suspect. But it has been an interesting debate .


Thanks for That
Yes, great debate

The way I see the C of E is thus.
It has 3 wings:- 
First your cultural Christian wing, often trad church pews and hymns.
Not literal/biblical christians
Second- literal/biblical and conservative wing, often trad pews and hymns
Literal/biblical christians
Third- evangelical wing, modern gospel happy clappy
Literal/biblical christians

Now literal biblical Christians obviously oppose women priests and homosexuality, simply because its in the bible.
Now as a Christian it is unchristian to label them homophobic or sexist.
As Jesus teaches not to judge. And the bible says hate the sin, love the sinner, so many of these people arent motivated by prejudice, but simply their own Christianity.
Although some will clearly forget all that and just be bigots
Next the church should be separate from state and vice versa
They shouldn't have any official role in the nation, and the nation shouldn't have any laws demanding churches marry homosexuals etc
Now consider the Anglican church is on the wane in the UK anyway, Catholic attendance has shot up last decade due east europeans.
Then consider the biggest growing section of Anglican church is Africa
And they are literal biblical Christians.

Take all that together and you can see that non literal/non biblical cultural Christians have no right nor mandate to be the church of the nation, nor to represent the Anglican worldwide communion
Thus people like yourself will be better off respecting the religion and splitting away to form a new cultural Christian Anglican church.
There is a 'church' in north London, started by stand up comedian.
It is a serious weekly collective commune for secularists, agnostics, spiritually minded, etc, to 'worship'. 
That sort of thing would seem like a natural home for someone like yourself?
There are times when I wish to attend my local church for the commune, peace, contemplation,etc, but I could not do so as im not a Christian. 
For obvious reasons
Even Richard Dawkins is a cultural Christian, so cultural Christianity has its place and value
I could get in behind a movement like that one with yourself as a 'minister'.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I don't think it is fair to comment on someone's faith to the point of suggesting they should not be a minister in their current church.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Jobeth said:


> I don't think it is fair to comment on someone's faith to the point of suggesting they should not be a minister in their current church.


Agreed. 
Which is one of several reasons why I really don't wish to be aligned in any way with that poster.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> Thanks for That
> Yes, great debate
> 
> The way I see the C of E is thus
> ...


:frown2::frown2: You really don't know when to stop do you?


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> You weren't meant to take the first commentl literally
> 
> You are incorrect, objectively and opinonatively some of your posts have reflected mine, as you have indeed made the same pertinent points I had already made on earlier posts
> Other points you had made I had not made but I have not made but they completely identical to how I view exactly the same things
> ...


I'm not really sure what you are trying to do here, but it has become more than a little uncomfortable, and not because of the topic of discussion either.
So this is an exchange I do not wish to continue.

Sufice it to say, no, we are not "completely identical" in our views, in our posts, or even in the points we are trying to make. TBH I don't really know what points you are trying to make.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I'm not really sure what you are trying to do here, but it has become more than a little uncomfortable, and not because of the topic of discussion either.
> So this is an exchange I do not wish to continue.
> 
> Sufice it to say, no, we are not "completely identical" in our views, in our posts, or even in the points we are trying to make. TBH I don't really know what points you are trying to make.


This is moot
Im not trying to do ought except say we had the same POV throughout the thread, along with others
You have even posted some of the same things not long after I had posted them
That's it
The second last sentence your last post
That simple
What are_ you_ trying to do?
Im grateful its an exchange you don't wish to continue, as its not one I really want either, as its not pertinent.
And like you say this is a strange conversation (over a non issue)
So thanks. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jobeth said:


> I don't think it is fair to comment on someone's faith to the point of suggesting they should not be a minister in their current church.


No no no no
I can see why that would be upsetting
You are quite right to point out if i came across that way, that wasn't my intention
My apologies

I think my enthusiasm took over
What I was trying to get across was my general views upon how I perceive the church of England based upon all those factors and criteria I listed
I am quite informed upon the subject of religion it has always fascinated me
Did You see my other post whereby I explained this from myc childhood
So I'm not saying that BH in particular is personally not good enough to be a minister in her church, I'm saying in general terms my views and ideas how I think that church should be and ALL the members with BH's outlook should all leave en masse and form a new cultural christian spiritual church. I would very much join and I would love to be a member of a congregation run by BH. I think she has fantastic qualities and spiritual views I really love and think someone like her and all others like her are better suited not being with a biblical Christians church which is heirachal, masculine, opposes homosexuality, etc. Etc


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Maybe you should look at the Salvation Army then? Women are equal as ministers/officers and it is an inclusive church.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jobeth said:


> Maybe you should look at the Salvation Army then? Women are equal as ministers/officers and it is an inclusive church.


I also have a history with the salvation army, as i spent time in one of their hostels as a child in new zealand.
and i loved the ladies at the hostel, they used to give me little books of the saints.
However, the salvation army are literal biblical traditionalist christians, and im not a christian. 
i dont agree with their religion.
in fact, it was there church, as a 10 year old, that I refused to be christened by, despite the protestations of my mother.

btw, my views upon the C of E i expressed i have held for a long time, much before i met BH on this thread.
The worthwhile discussion i had with BH just reminded me of them again.
I truly believe that non literal 'cultural christians' have no place in a literal biblical christian church.
i believe one has to respect that these religions like koranic islam and biblical christianity exist, and it is not their place to have a say on what we do (eg, cartoons, eg, bishops in the house of lords), and its not our place to say what they should do.
So we shouldnt label honestly motivated christians as homophobes, whom are merely following their heart thru their religion and will love the sinner, but not the sin, in the spirit of jesus. Or make it law they should run marriage services for people that go against their religion.
And likewise, cultural christians, whom can adapt to the modern secular world, and can have values regarding service, ministry, and social welfare, and can value a general sense of connected spirituality (as Russell brand mentions in his book and trews video), are too good for places like the C o E, which believes in the bible and all it stands for regarding women, gays, slaves, sinners, heirachy, etc, etc, etc
The C of E is basically a massive hotch potch of people that dont get on right now, its only a matter of time before they schism, especially when the mother church in England continues to diminish, and the biggest factions are the biblical Christians and the African church.

I look at my beautiful ancient village church and have a longing to commune there.
Bbut if only it broke away to become part of a vibrant cultural spiritual new church. And they have a female vicar too.
But I wish. At the moment its a dusty old half empty dreary hymn laden place full of mainly elderly people with outdated religious ideas. (that is not an anti elderly comment!)


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

The Salvation Army don't have christenings. They have dedications and at 10 you could have been asked to be a junior soldier, which is a bit different. I hope you find what it is you are looking for.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jobeth said:


> The Salvation Army don't have christenings. They have dedications and at 10 you could have been asked to be a junior soldier, which is a bit different. I hope you find what it is you are looking for.


It was called a dedication
Amounts to the same thing as a christening
I objected

I'm not lost, as such LOL

tried Buddhist and spiritualist churches before too

The greatest thinker has to be Socrates though


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

In response to the why do you care what people believe, this is an older article, but a good one IMO.
The Perimeter of Ignorance | Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil Degrasse Tyson is a scientist who for the most part stays out of the religious debate unless the debate is where religion fits in the science classroom. Unsurprisingly Degrasse Tyson doesnt think religion has any place in the science classroom. Unfortunately many lawmakers in the US disagree with him and would like things like intelligent design to be included in science curriculums.



> Another practice that isn't science is embracing ignorance. Yet it's fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don't know what this is. I don't know how it works. It's too complicated for me to figure out. It's too complicated for any human being to figure out. So it must be the product of a higher intelligence.
> 
> What do you do with that line of reasoning? Do you just cede the solving of problems to someone smarter than you, someone who's not even human? Do you tell students to pursue only questions with easy answers?
> 
> ...


Just to reiterate, this idea that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer so lets hand it to god, is IMO if not dangerous, at least damaging, and not a lesson I want to embrace or pass on to future generations.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Cheers for that info ouesi

That is interesting to me

How does that square with the idea we non Americans are told of America having this official seperation of church and State?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> Cheers for that info ouesi
> 
> That is interesting to me
> 
> How does that square with the idea we non Americans are told of America having this official seperation of church and State?


This tit ^^^ banned at last! One of the main reasons I have avoided this forum for so long....when someone is so convinced of their intellectual superiority without foundation that they can't even hear the other side of the conversation. :


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

myshkin said:


> This tit ^^^ banned at last! One of the main reasons I have avoided this forum for so long....when someone is so convinced of their intellectual superiority without foundation that they can't even hear the other side of the conversation. :


One has to wonder why such an intellect was reduced to debating on a pet forum. I had to put him on ignore eventually (first time I'd ever felt the need) as I just couldn't bear the bullshit. Overuse of the word 'whom' and a general pseudy manner wasn't convincing anyone.


----------

