# Religion: good, bad, ugly?



## cinnamontoast

I just watched the Amish programme whereby an Amish family converted to a more mainstream Christian religion. They were ostracised by their family. Odd that he was expecting God to provide for all his needs. 

I dismissed my religion of Catholicism, although remnants persist in my thinking and behaviour. 

It strikes me that religion is to blame for many of the world's ills and that without it, we would live more harmoniously with far less predujice and far more understanding. 

A friend of mine once said that God was the biggest fraud ever committed on the human race.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Guest

think it does more harm than good imo.
i have a sister that is a JW , strangely enough , she`s always been of the mind Jehovah will provide too not in my house he don`t  i honestly don`t like the way they operate , but each to their own i suppose


----------



## Colette

Religion is something that truly fascinates me, I did RS at A level and briefly considered studying philosophy / theology.

I don't think "religion" as a whole is either a good thing or a bad thing.... To be honest, I think it depends a lot on the exact, specific religion (down to particular types / sects within a religion) and each individuals interpretation of it. 

Certainly religion is one of the biggest casues of human suffering and death throughout history - tho that can be mostly attributed to a small few specific religions. 

I can not condone any religion that teaches or condones murder, violence or prejudice in the name of a deity; nor do I accept the idea that people face eternal damnation for "crimes" such as atheism or homosexuality or indeed gain entrance to paradise for commiting murder. 

As such, I have some fairly strong objections to the teachings of most of the larger, mainstream religions.

That said, I don't object to the followers of those religions - I'm a firm believer in religeous tolerence and freedom to practise whatever faith one chooses, as long as that doesn't stretch to crimes and atrocities being carried out in "Gods" name.

As one religion so nicely puts it - "An it harm none - do what thou wilt" 

There are plenty of religions that do teach tolerence, peace, etc. and most, if not all, religions have at least some good points. I also think there is a lot to be said for the community aspect, and having faith in something - whatever that is.

I certainly don't believe the concept of God to be fraud; if only in the sense that it can not be disproved.
But then, plenty of wars have been fought not over the question "does god exist?" but "what is gods name?" or "my gods better than your god" or "my god is real, yours isn't".


----------



## northnsouth

diablo said:


> think it does more harm than good imo.
> i have a sister that is a JW , strangely enough , she`s always been of the mind Jehovah will provide too not in my house he don`t  i honestly don`t like the way they operate , but each to their own i suppose


I was interested in the Amesh having to face the elders when being excluded from the church. I had to go through similar when I wanted to leave the JW's...


----------



## cinnamontoast

northnsouth said:


> I was interested in the Amesh having to face the elders when being excluded from the church. I had to go through similar when I wanted to leave the JW's...


Tell me more. My neighbours up north were JW. I regularly babysat their youngest who was silent for hours with merely the TV. I had no idea he didn't have one in his house.

Were you born into a JW family?


----------



## Jiskefet

Religion?
Or what the church and the men in power choose to make of it for the furthering of their own agenda?
There is nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, it is the instiitutionalised religious organisatons that cause the problems by claiming to have the one true faith....


----------



## Guest

northnsouth said:


> I was interested in the Amesh having to face the elders when being excluded from the church. I had to go through similar when I wanted to leave the JW's...



see theres lots i could go into but won`t , i don`t like the faith for several reasons , my sister lost her children [SS took them away] for their own safety one of my brothers took legal guardianship of them , she never batted an eyelid , wasn`t bothered in the slightest  as long as she had her faith and people to support her it didn`t matter that what should have been the most important things in her life were taken away from her , i actually have very little time for her and very rarely see her because just looking at her makes me fly into a fit of rage , she`s one of these people , if she tells someone all her problems , they just disappear , the problems to her just don`t exist anymore  sadly the same applied to her children which just makes me want to spew my guts up!
she`s been an elder for sometime herself now and the way she thinks and some of the idea`s she has are just unbelievable i actually have to hit myself on the head to remind myself she`s actually related to me lot of facepalm moments mothers funeral did it for me was shocking  she actually turned out looking like this , no joke!








didn`t know whether to laugh or cry!! mum probably would have seen the funny side because she knew how barmy she was all along


----------



## northnsouth

cinammontoast said:


> Tell me more. My neighbours up north were JW. I regularly babysat their youngest who was silent for hours with merely the TV. I had no idea he didn't have one in his house.
> 
> Were you born into a JW family?


Yes my brother and I were born into it. But my older sisters were not. They were about 10 when my Mother joined, followed several years later my Father.
None of us, except my brother have followed the religion. He is an elder. And Mother's favourite for it  I told my parents at about 14 I did not want to be a witness any more but I had to stick to their rules until I was 16. I did become baptised but then I choose to leave. 
Like all religions there are more extreme followers we did have a TV etc.


----------



## poohdog

Never understood JWs Other religions at least come from the distant past.JWs follow the rules invented by a Yank in the late 1800s.


----------



## Knightofalbion

Spirituality is one thing, organised religion is something else entirely.

In my opinion, organised religion is the curse of the world. A cause of division and bloodshed. 

God does not require a middle man! And without love, your soul won't be ascending very far up the spheres of light, no matter what label' you attach to yourself.


----------



## ukdave

I believe that there's a God out there but I don't believe in the church. I think the church is using God to make money.


----------



## dorrit

Ive studied several religions. My dad searched for 'the truth' for a long time and welcomed anyone who thought they could share this secret with him..

He was bought up RC, later baptised a JW but kicked out when he left mum and went against their beliefs..They did support mum even though she wasnt a JW and helped her through the first few months..

I dont have faith/ belief... I think it can help some people to deal with the awful things in their lives and I dont think its the plain belief in a higher authority thats wrong if that gives a person meaning or comfort, its the corruption by men of that belief..

Throughout history we can see how the church has twisted religion to suit their own means to enforce rulings never written in the Bible Koran or other scripture.
All thier political and 'holy' crusades go against whats written, their hate of other people and discriminaton isnt part of the belief its a man made control thats been slowly let in to poison the minds of people with a need for this supreme being, its the largest and most widespread from of brainwashing on earth.

I do think its a bit like a child never wanting to let go of their parents hand needing that crutch to assure them the big bad world isnt going to get them.
In a way I feel sorry for those who have to lean on a mythical being for the support they need in order to live thier lives..

I dont discriminate and Im not rude I talk to all of them incl the JW's ( I dont hide or think its funny to slam doors in their face) They have their comfort in their God thats fine , I dont need it and as long as they respect my lack of need thats fine too.


----------



## JANICE199

diablo said:


> see theres lots i could go into but won`t , i don`t like the faith for several reasons , my sister lost her children [SS took them away] for their own safety one of my brothers took legal guardianship of them , she never batted an eyelid , wasn`t bothered in the slightest  as long as she had her faith and people to support her it didn`t matter that what should have been the most important things in her life were taken away from her , i actually have very little time for her and very rarely see her because just looking at her makes me fly into a fit of rage , she`s one of these people , if she tells someone all her problems , they just disappear , the problems to her just don`t exist anymore  sadly the same applied to her children which just makes me want to spew my guts up!
> she`s been an elder for sometime herself now and the way she thinks and some of the idea`s she has are just unbelievable i actually have to hit myself on the head to remind myself she`s actually related to me lot of facepalm moments mothers funeral did it for me was shocking  she actually turned out looking like this , no joke!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn`t know whether to laugh or cry!! mum probably would have seen the funny side because she knew how barmy she was all along


*I spent many years with the JW's and i'm 99.9% sure only men can be elders.
As for your sister,perhaps her behaviour is just the way she is anyway,and nothing to do with her faith.
As far as any religion is concerned its not the faiths that cause wars or other problems its people..People are just not tolerant enough.*


----------



## porps

I think religion is the cause of the majorty of the world problems and that the world would be a much better place without it.
Faith however is fine. Faith is just personal beleif but religion is about indoctrinating people to beleive what you want them to, to make them easier to control.
I dont beleive in god or anything like that, but i dont think it does anyone any harm when others beleive -- at least untill they start trying to spread their beleifs to others.


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *I spent many years with the JW's and i'm 99.9% sure only men can be elders.
> As for your sister,perhaps her behaviour is just the way she is anyway,and nothing to do with her faith.
> As far as any religion is concerned its not the faiths that cause wars or other problems its people..People are just not tolerant enough.*


she`s married to an elder , her second husband who is actually a really nice bloke , put up with all her crap for the last 10 years. she wasn`t originally like that , long story , she fled from her first husband and became a witness after they called to her home. she was very vulnerable and at her lowest ebb 
i don`t see her much , usually only at family get together`s i`ve never been able to forgive her due to what she allowed to happen with her children who i love dearly. to be fair to her husband he`s tried to help her children but they were all grown ups when she married him youngest one being 19 but many a time it`s been him taking them in when she`s turned them away when they`ve gone there looking for answers.
like i`ve said to her husband many times , her children have been through a lot and it`s lovely that he tries , sometimes you can`t fix things that are so badly broken as there are some bridges that will never build
anything else i could have stood with her but not the children , it`s not how any of us were reared we were always taught `you don`t ever turn your back on your kids` which she`s done time and time again


----------



## Baileys Blind

My OH's family are JW's and he recently lost his SIL due to the fact that she refused a transfusion leaving behind 4 kids too, at the funeral the top guy was talking about all the people she left behind but he only mentioned the people in the faith so two of the kids who had left the faith weren't mentioned! Neither were they aknowledged at all as 'part of the family' IMO thats hoorrible,

He then went on to say she's not died but was sleeping the long sleep until this perfect world came to be ( can't remember the exact wording but in essence that's what he meant) just before she was cremated ! Found that quite eerie, like she was being burned alive almost hmy:

I'm not religious at all, I believe each person has a right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't do harm to another.


----------



## Javy

As a Christian I always try to avoid using the word 'religion' - it rarely has much to do with true faith and belief. Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but by me'. To me, that says it all


----------



## Starlite

Good imo., theology is fascinating.
People interperate Holy books to suit their own agenda and if they dont like what is in front of them, denounce it and change (henry the 8th springs to mind!).

Alot of atrocities have been done by men hiding behind religion which is shameful. The elders need to stop focusing on money and on their followers, ridding themselves of animals which lurk in their robes hurting children and spreading hatred when all relgions teach peace!

The worst thing is ignorance. People dont know about religions other than most misconceptions and find the fact people seek peace and worship something they cannot fathom abhorrent, I think that's alot worse. I wont close my mind to anything or anyones beliefs.


----------



## K337

I've never been religious (parents, grandparents weren't) but I have come to appreciate the merits in some religions. I went to a Methodist (Uniting Church) high school and wasn't the biggest fan of having to sit through chapel or getting in trouble in Religious Education because I didn't know enough to do the work.
I certainly developed a bad attitude towards it in my teens, and I still dislike fundamentalist religion practises.

More recently though I've seen how people can really benefit others and how religion helps drive that. It doesn't make me want to join, but it made me feel a lot more comfortable when friends convert later in life and want to talk about how good it is.

The latest oatmeal comic about religion, is pretty good - note that it may be very offensive to some.


----------



## cinnamontoast

I can spend hours on that website: the Why we should eat horses blog is inspired!


----------



## Staysee

The only religion my parents really have any thought over is JW. They were friends with some and i've had JW friends....BUT!

I wasnt even a year old and needed a major heart operation, if my parents were Jehovas, i wouldnt be here now.....they cant understand how a religion would deny a life because they wont allow a blood tranfusion and i cant believe it either.

A family member you love needs a blood transfusion to live, but your religion denies it so they have to die. Its so wrong.

I cant speak of any other religions.


----------



## ozrex

As far as I can see EVERY religion contains (or has contained) good, bad and ugly.

The good is a group of people coming together to share similar views of God and behaving as God would want them to ie helping people and being kind. The bad is judging Others Who Do Not Believe As We Do as inferior beings. The ugly is justifying killing, raping, torturing, etc in God's name; surely the ultimate blasphemy.


----------



## northnsouth

Every Holy Book contains the same message when stripped down. Honour your parents, treat other as you would be treated, respect our earth. If it was left at that we would all live in a far better world. IMVHO


----------



## Waterlily

I think the lot of them are bullshit and stem from greed and control tbh. My views have changed on this.


----------



## noushka05

I beileve most religions were invented to control the population. I use to quite religious but not anymore, the bible, for example, preaches that man has domain over the earth....basically its gave us the go ahead to trash it!! and we ultimately will pay the price for this!... it has put one species on a pedestal to the detriment of all others.....so heres another ugly side to religion.

the Native Americans who encompass the natural world within their beliefs are an example of the 'good'. 



.


----------



## skip

Each to his own as long as no one tries to convert me,i dont like it when jw knock,if i want to find out about a religion I will choose when to,i am what some would call a lapsed catholic,to be perfectly honest I really don't know what to believe anymore


----------



## JANICE199

Staysee said:


> The only religion my parents really have any thought over is JW. They were friends with some and i've had JW friends....BUT!
> 
> I wasnt even a year old and needed a major heart operation, if my parents were Jehovas, i wouldnt be here now.....they cant understand how a religion would deny a life because they wont allow a blood tranfusion and i cant believe it either.
> 
> A family member you love needs a blood transfusion to live, but your religion denies it so they have to die. Its so wrong.
> 
> I cant speak of any other religions.


*Studies have shown people that don't have blood transfusions can do better.Less complications.*


----------



## Staysee

JANICE199 said:


> *Studies have shown people that don't have blood transfusions can do better.Less complications.*


So due to studies, my parents should of let me be and see if i survived or not....i had a tranfusion and i think at 26 i've done ok from it.


----------



## lizward

Knightofalbion said:


> In my opinion, organised religion is the curse of the world. A cause of division and bloodshed.


Yes, organised atheism has done SO well, hasn't it. Look at the wonderful lives they led in communist Russia, and the joys they have now in North Korea.

Liz


----------



## lizward

JANICE199 said:


> *Studies have shown people that don't have blood transfusions can do better.Less complications.*


Hi Janice, you still here? I missed this thread before - might help it to kick off a bit now 

Liz


----------



## lizward

northnsouth said:


> Every Holy Book contains the same message when stripped down. Honour your parents, treat other as you would be treated, respect our earth.


The Bible reduced to three sentences. Ooops. there's something missing ...

Liz


----------



## lizward

JANICE199 said:


> *I spent many years with the JW's and i'm 99.9% sure only men can be elders.
> *


*

Correct.

Liz*


----------



## lizward

CatPatrol said:


> I believe that there's a God out there but I don't believe in the church. I think the church is using God to make money.


Who do you think is actually getting the money then? Try to think outside RC / CofE in your reply.

Liz


----------



## Louiseandfriends

I think religion is a beautiful thing! It actually can help troubled people become better people.  xx


----------



## Sandysmum

I was born into a Catholic family spent 12 years believing it all. Then decided it wasn't for me. About 10 years later I became a born again Christian, and fully immersed my self in it for many years.
Until something happened, that made me see the whole thing diferantly. The control over the many by the few at that particular church was disgusting. I left the church and in doing so began to question my faith, and belief in general.

I now feel that it's a persons spirituality that counts, not the name of their religion. How we act towards each other, how we treat Mother Earth, those are the things that matter. We should be free to hold what ever beliefs we choose, provided that we cause no harm, and don't inflict our beliefs on anyone who doesn't want to know about them.

I belong to no denomination of any religion, and never will again. I have forged my own path, and rightly or wrongly that's the one I'm walking down.


----------



## Knightofalbion

Down through the centuries man has killed and persecuted his fellow man because he worshipped the same God but by a different name, or even the same God by the same name but a different ideology... oblivious to the fact that love is the fulfilling of the Law.


----------



## Knightofalbion

'Let there be peace on earth - and let it begin with me'

- White Eagle


----------



## newfiesmum

Jiskefet said:


> Religion?
> Or what the church and the men in power choose to make of it for the furthering of their own agenda?
> There is nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, it is the instiitutionalised religious organisatons that cause the problems by claiming to have the one true faith....


I agree. Ambitious men have always seen religion as a source of power and nothing else. Most of the Bishops and popes of the early centuries of christianity quite obviously did not even believe in God, or they would not have carried on the way they did. They convinced the illiterate masses that they were the only ones allowed to read the Bible, because the illiterate masses couldn't read anyway, and taught them that they could buy their way into heaven with donations to the church.

They twisted the new testament to suit themselves and left out bits they did not like. Nobody read the Bible, just listened to the priests, hence the general belief still that Mary magdalene was the adultress stoned in the Bible, when she was not, she was a totally separate character. The church did not want her to be the important person she obviously was because she was a woman.



Knightofalbion said:


> Spirituality is one thing, organised religion is something else entirely.
> 
> In my opinion, organised religion is the curse of the world. A cause of division and bloodshed.
> 
> God does not require a middle man! And without love, your soul won't be ascending very far up the spheres of light, no matter what label' you attach to yourself.


That is so beautifully put - God does not need a middle man. Nice one


----------



## simplysardonic

There's 'good' & 'bad' in most religions, but organised religion isn't my cup of tea. Things can get 'ugly' if people try to push their religious views on me when I'm not interested



noushka05 said:


> I beileve most religions were invented to control the population. I use to quite religious but not anymore,* the bible, for example, preaches that man has domain over the earth....basically its gave us the go ahead to trash it*!! and we ultimately will pay the price for this!... it has put one species on a pedestal to the detriment of all others.....so heres another ugly side to religion.
> 
> the Native Americans who encompass the natural world within their beliefs are an example of the 'good'.
> 
> .


This was one of the reasons I became disillusioned with religion at an early age! 
Interestingly, we were discussing religion & peoples' attitudes towards the other species he shares the planet with in an Anthrozoology class & our teacher put forward the suggestion that much of the Bible is open to interpretation to fit into man's agenda. She suggested that 'holding dominion over all species' _could_ have been interpreted that we have a responsibility to protect it, nurture it & act as ward for it. Somewhere (possibly intentionally?? Though that could be my inner cynic!) it got lost in translation.


----------



## lizward

newfiesmum said:


> INobody read the Bible, just listened to the priests, hence the general belief still that Mary magdalene was the adultress stoned in the Bible


I've no idea where you got that from, I've never heard it.

liz


----------



## lizward

simplysardonic said:


> She suggested that 'holding dominion over all species' _could_ have been interpreted that we have a responsibility to protect it, nurture it & act as ward for it.


Indeed. You might be interested in the care the Bible shows for nature.

Liz


----------



## northnsouth

There are rules about how a beast of burden, ie a donkey should be treated for example, and it is not how they are abused now.


----------



## newfiesmum

lizward said:


> I've no idea where you got that from, I've never heard it.
> 
> liz


Have you read the passage? The woman being stoned was merely named as an adultress, Mary Magdalene came into the story later = or could have been earlier, but she was never named as the adultress nor as a prostitute that the church like to say she was.


----------



## lizward

newfiesmum said:


> Have you read the passage? The woman being stoned was merely named as an adultress, Mary Magdalene came into the story later = or could have been earlier, but she was never named as the adultress nor as a prostitute that the church like to say she was.


I have read the Bible cover to cover 18 times. What I was asking was where you had heard people claim she was the adulteress being stoned, that is not a theory I have ever heard.

Liz


----------



## DogLover1981

The problem with the bible is it has many conflicting parts and many obtuse and vague statements that can be interpreted any way the reader wishes. The bible was written thousands of years ago by people their own motives and even their own political motives.


----------



## DogLover1981

lizward said:


> Yes, organised atheism has done SO well, hasn't it. Look at the wonderful lives they led in communist Russia, and the joys they have now in North Korea.
> 
> Liz


You've almost run afoul of Godwin's law. Only this time it's Stalin and Kim Jong Il and not Hitler.


----------



## DogLover1981

The amount of wars, murder, cruelty and carnage that has been justified by religion over the thousands years of human history is ridiculous. I think of September 11th and the problems in the middle east and Israel for one example. I wish people would just follow the religion of the golden rule and live and let live.


----------



## lizward

DogLover1981 said:


> The problem with the bible is it has many conflicting parts and many obtuse and vague statements that can be interpreted any way the reader wishes.


Which ones in particular bother you?

Liz


----------



## lizward

DogLover1981 said:


> You've almost run afoul of Godwin's law. Only this time it's Stalin and Kim Jong Il and not Hitler.


Ah well perhaps that's why I didn't mention Hitler 

Liz


----------



## JANICE199

Staysee said:


> So due to studies, my parents should of let me be and see if i survived or not....i had a tranfusion and i think at 26 i've done ok from it.


*If i were in your shoes i would at least like to look at the facts.



lizward said:



Hi Janice, you still here? I missed this thread before - might help it to kick off a bit now 

Liz

Click to expand...

lol i might have taken a break but i'm back,actualy never left.*


----------



## Javy

DogLover1981 said:


> The bible was written thousands of years ago by people their own motives and even their own political motives.


Sorry, don't agree. The Bible may have been written a long time ago but the authors were divinely influenced by God - hence why it is known as 'The Word of God'. It is this that makes it unique among all other books.


----------



## goodvic2

northnsouth said:


> Yes my brother and I were born into it. But my older sisters were not. They were about 10 when my Mother joined, followed several years later my Father.
> None of us, except my brother have followed the religion. He is an elder. And Mother's favourite for it  I told my parents at about 14 I did not want to be a witness any more but I had to stick to their rules until I was 16. I did become baptised but then I choose to leave.
> Like all religions there are more extreme followers we did have a TV etc.


What is an elder?


----------



## northnsouth

goodvic2 said:


> What is an elder?


They are similar to a priest, but they are seen more as a servant and the position is seen as one of humility not importance. They are there to instruct and nuture the flock to teach by example. There is group of elders in each congregation and they share responsibilites. There he no head poncho as such. This is a tutoring from child hood memory, not my own personal opinion of the role


----------



## Staysee

JANICE199 said:


> *If i were in your shoes i would at least like to look at the facts.
> 
> *


This is something that happened when i was under a year old, i suddenly went downhill and was rushed to hospital. I dont think anyone in that situation would go "Hang on, let me check out the stats first on what you wanna do to my baby" no one would do that and no one would want to have to think about researching that 'Just in case' cos when it comes to it, you'll do it!

The religion is against it, thats the point!

I WOULD NOT be alive now were it not for a blood transfusion, are you saying because of studies i shouldnt be alive?


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Yes, organised atheism has done SO well, hasn't it. Look at the wonderful lives they led in communist Russia, and the joys they have now in North Korea.
> 
> Liz


Erm - I think you'll find that the majority of Russians are Christians (Russian Orthodox) and the majority of North Koreans are Buddhists. You cannot with any credibility hold them up as an example of organised atheism - quite the reverse, in fact.


----------



## Guest

Javy said:


> Sorry, don't agree. The Bible may have been written a long time ago but the authors were divinely influenced by God - hence why it is known as 'The Word of God'. It is this that makes it unique among all other books.


You sure they werent royally influenced by King James? 

Regarding the OP. Im in the buckle of the bible belt in the good old US of A and trust me, religion is NOT a good thing and can get very ugly.


----------



## Spellweaver

Javy said:


> Sorry, don't agree. The Bible may have been written a long time ago but the authors were divinely influenced by God - hence why it is known as 'The Word of God'. It is this that makes it unique among all other books.


Which bible is that then? There are so many different versions, so many books that are left in or left out depending upon which particuar christian sect you beling to, that even if it did start as divine dictation from a god, men have messed about with it so much that it probably wouldn't contain much of the orignal dicatation. From Constantine I onwards, men have determined what you can and what you can't read in the bible, not a god.


----------



## goodvic2

northnsouth said:


> They are similar to a priest, but they are seen more as a servant and the position is seen as one of humility not importance. They are there to instruct and nuture the flock to teach by example. There is group of elders in each congregation and they share responsibilites. There he no head poncho as such. This is a tutoring from child hood memory, not my own personal opinion of the role


Thank you


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *I spent many years with the JW's and i'm 99.9% sure only men can be elders*





lizward said:


> Correct.
> 
> Liz


it is actually incorrect , females can be elders i`ve just been informed by a reliable source the first lady to be appointed an elder at the kingdom hall my sister is involved with was some 14 years ago , apparently because of a shortage of men congregation


----------



## lizward

JANICE199 said:


> lol i might have taken a break but i'm back,actualy never left.[/B]


Sorry, I was mixing you up with someone who was on the way in to the JWs, can't remember who she was.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Erm - I think you'll find that the majority of Russians are Christians (Russian Orthodox) and the majority of North Koreans are Buddhists. You cannot with any credibility hold them up as an example of organised atheism - quite the reverse, in fact.


You need to do your reseacrch. Persecution of Christians was rife in the Soveit Union and it is the same today in North Korea. Communism is atheistic. North Korea "worships" its dictator and if you dare speak against him you die. No doubt such regimes might tolerate the silent practising of soem religion that affects nothing but they will not tolerate anyone who actually stands up for a belief other than the officially sanctioned atheism / leader worship.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> You sure they werent royally influenced by King James?


The KJV is heavily based on Tyndale, which is a translation of the Textus Receptus of Erasmus.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Which bible is that then? There are so many different versions, so many books that are left in or left out depending upon which particuar christian sect you beling to, that even if it did start as divine dictation from a god, men have messed about with it so much that it probably wouldn't contain much of the orignal dicatation. From Constantine I onwards, men have determined what you can and what you can't read in the bible, not a god.


You haven't really researched this, have you?

Liz


----------



## lizward

diablo said:


> it is actually incorrect , females can be elders i`ve just been informed by a reliable source the first lady to be appointed an elder at the kingdom hall my sister is involved with was some 14 years ago , apparently because of a shortage of men congregation


Mainstream JWs? Surely not - unless perhaps it is an all female congregation? Which Kingdom hall is it?

Liz


----------



## springerpete

Knightofalbion said:


> Spirituality is one thing, organised religion is something else entirely.
> 
> In my opinion, organised religion is the curse of the world. A cause of division and bloodshed.
> 
> God does not require a middle man! And without love, your soul won't be ascending very far up the spheres of light, no matter what label' you attach to yourself.


Is not the doctrine that you said you followed on another post an ' Organised religion' then. ???


----------



## DogLover1981

lizward said:


> Communism is atheistic.


What? A supposed economic system needs to be without religion. 

Anyway, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism are overused terms, IMO. The terms overgeneralize people's opinions, can have many different meanings, and are so often used in a childish manner.


----------



## lizward

DogLover1981 said:


> What? A supposed economic system needs to be without religion.
> 
> Anyway, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism are overused terms, IMO. The terms overgeneralize people's opinions, can have many different meanings, and are so often used in a childish manner.


I guess this is showing my age. I find it almost impossible to believe that there is anyone out there who doesn't knwo that communism as it was practiced in the former Soviet Union was atheistic through and through - violently so (shakes head in amazement) The persecution of Christians in the former Soviet Union, and formerly in China, was notorious.

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> You haven't really researched this, have you?
> 
> Liz


Yes, but not for a long time. It's memory, plus just bog standard general knowledge, plus a huge dose of common sense. And in any case, you don't have to do research to know how things are altered or "lost in translation" every time a new version is produced - have you ever played Chinese whispers?

But are you trying to intimate that different christian sects do not argue about which books of the bible are/are not the "true" word of god? What about the apochrypha? Surely if the bible is dictated from a god, it is not up to man to decide which bits of it form part of the instruction about the faith and which do not? How can man possibly know? All man can do is leave out the bits that don't fit in with how man wants man to act and behave - which is exaclty what has happened over the years (even presuming that the bible is dictated from a god, which is debateable in itself becasue all we have is man's word that it is dictated from a god  )

And anyway, talking about research - I remember last time we discussed religion that you would not accept many of the references of research I gave you.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, but not for a long time. It's memory, plus just bog standard general knowledge, plus a huge dose of common sense.


I'm afraid not. It's assumptions based on how the general public assume things must have been done, rather than on the historical facts. We are actually very sure about the accuracy of the text, because of the huge number of texts available (in comparison to other ancient documents). There are two different textual streams in the NT (KJV represents one, the overwhelming majority of modern translations follow the other) but the differences are trivial even so. You will find an extra verse here and there in the KJV, that's about the extent of it.



> And in any case, you don't have to do research to know how things are altered or "lost in translation" every time a new version is produced - have you ever played Chinese whispers?


It's clear that you really have no idea how translating is done. The translators go back to the eclectic Greek text for the NT and the Masoretic text for the OT. Where there is a query about the meaning then the Septuagint or the Syriac text is consulted, but this is only for a very small number of verses inb the OT.



> But are you trying to intimate that different christian sects do not argue about which books of the bible are/are not the "true" word of god? What about the apochrypha?


Basically, 39 books of the OT and 27 of the NT are accepted by all Christian groups. There are some books, the apocryphal / deutero-canonical books, that are accepted by Catholics (most books), and Orthodox (all books) but not by Protestants. Most of those books are historical or show Jewish thought in the time between the testaments. The doctrines affected are very minor, about the only example I can think of that is of any importance is a verse in Macabees that gives some support (so the RCs say) to the doctrine of Purgatory.



> Surely if the bible is dictated from a god


Again, you show a lack of understanding of Christian belief about the Bible. Only a few on the lunatic fringe would think in terms of dictation, that is a doctrine the Muslims have about the Koran, it is not the way Christians view the Bible at all.



> And anyway, talking about research - I remember last time we discussed religion that you would not accept many of the references of research I gave you.


Weren't you the one who insisted that King James introduced the ban on witchcraft and persisted in that view even when I showed you the facsimile of the text from Wycliffe (I think) that said exactly the same thing?

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Again, you show a lack of understanding of Christian belief about the Bible. *Only a few on the lunatic fringe would think in terms of dictation*, that is a doctrine the Muslims have about the Koran, it is not the way Christians view the Bible at all.


You havent really researched this have you? 
What do you think the word of God means to folks?


----------



## Knightofalbion

springerpete said:


> Is not the doctrine that you said you followed on another post an ' Organised religion' then. ???


No.

What did I say in my opening post here? "Spirituality is one thing, organised religion is something else entirely"


----------



## northnsouth

diablo said:


> it is actually incorrect , females can be elders i`ve just been informed by a reliable source the first lady to be appointed an elder at the kingdom hall my sister is involved with was some 14 years ago , apparently because of a shortage of men congregation


This is obviously from memory I have not associated for over 30 years. Men are appointed as elders and ministerial servants, but in the absence of spiritual men, woman can serve in the role. They are not seen as inferior beings just to fulfill different roles,
Matthew 24:14
Matthew 28:19,20
Matthew 7:13,14

These are some scriptures I have looked up trying to support this. 
Good strong and faithful woman are allowed to step in if men are not there. 
As I say though this is dredging up my childhood memories and could be different now. If I ask my Mother or Brother they will get all excited and think I am looking into it again, so forgive me any possible inaccuracies.


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> You havent really researched this have you?
> What do you think the word of God means to folks?


Again misconcepetion.
Islam believes their Holy book is the literal words of God, Christians do not.

Some of us have spent many years looking at theology and Im a practising Catholic also.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> You havent really researched this have you?
> What do you think the word of God means to folks?


I have a theology degree. Do you know any Christians who hold to the "mechanical dictation" view? They are view and far between even in the US 

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

ouesi said:


> Regarding the OP. I'm in the buckle of the bible belt in the good old US of A and trust me, religion is NOT a good thing and can get very ugly.


Do they handle snakes and drink strychnine?! Probably another religious misconception. 



Starlite said:


> Some of us have spent many years looking at theology and Im a practising Catholic also.





lizward said:


> I have a theology degree


And I raise you by a theology degree! Should I mention my great uncle who was the first person ever to have graduated with double first Theology honours from Oxford....? 

Why is this thread turning into an advert for the JW? Who, I might add, pee me right off by peddling their new found religion round doorsteps as though it were some kind of commodity. :mad5:

From what I can gather from this thread, it's yet another patriarchal institution which represses women and disallows equality. Quelle surprise!


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> It's clear that you really have no idea how translating is done. The translators go back to the eclectic Greek text for the NT and the Masoretic text for the OT. Where there is a query about the meaning then the Septuagint or the Syriac text is consulted, but this is only for a very small number of verses inb the OT.


On the contrary - after studying philosophy at degree level (and since you seem to be into peddling degrees, I raise your theology degree by a 1st class honours degree in Philosophy and English  ) I have a very good understanding of how translating is done. It is this that enables me to understand the difficulties of translating something from one language to another, especially when what is being translated are ideas. Ideas do not translate easily from one language to another. A very good example of that is _eudaimonia_ which has meaning in the greek language which is very difficult to tranlsate into English - as explained by this article in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
eudaimonia (Greek philosophy) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

As you can see, different philosophical scholars interpret it in different ways. Now, given that _eudaimonia_ forms such a central part of today's christian and catholic faith - http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Moral_Theory/Virtue_Ethics/eudaimonia_intro.php - can you not see that what is widely accepted by christians as their god's word is merely a human being's interpretation of that word, and not that word itself?



lizward said:


> Basically, 39 books of the OT and 27 of the NT are accepted by all Christian groups. There are some books, the apocryphal / deutero-canonical books, that are accepted by Catholics (most books), and Orthodox (all books) but not by Protestants. Most of those books are historical or show Jewish thought in the time between the testaments. The doctrines affected are very minor, about the only example I can think of that is of any importance is a verse in Macabees that gives some support (so the RCs say) to the doctrine of Purgatory.


It is still an example of man deciding what is and is not going to be read as god's word. Not a very good basis for any religion - in fact, the basis of the very thing that is wrong with religion.



lizward said:


> Again, you show a lack of understanding of Christian belief about the Bible. Only a few on the lunatic fringe would think in terms of dictation, that is a doctrine the Muslims have about the Koran, it is not the way Christians view the Bible at all.


:lol: You mean that it is not god's word after all? Either it is, or it is a man's idea of what a god would want. Make up your mind. 



lizward said:


> Weren't you the one who insisted that King James introduced the ban on witchcraft and persisted in that view even when I showed you the facsimile of the text from Wycliffe (I think) that said exactly the same thing?
> Liz


That's right. And you were the one who refused to believe all the evidence to the contrary to which I sent you links because they did not agree with your indoctrination that Wycliffe was the one true source.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> A very good example of that is _eudaimonia_ which has meaning in the greek language which is very difficult to tranlsate into English


To save me searching out my lexicon, can you tell me where this word appears in the NT? Thanks.



> As you can see, different philosophical scholars interpret it in different ways. Now, given that _eudaimonia_ forms such a central part of today's christian and catholic faith - http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Moral_Theory/Virtue_Ethics/eudaimonia_intro.php - can you not see that what is widely accepted by christians as their god's word is merely a human being's interpretation of that word, and not that word itself?


Well that was interesting, I suppose, but has no relevance at all to Biblical Christianity. I can't speak for Catholicism.



> :lol: You mean that it is not god's word after all? Either it is, or it is a man's idea of what a god would want. Make up your mind.


Look, please, can't you do some research on the basics here? The Bible is God's word, infallible, inerrant in the originals as long as the genre is taken into consideration. That does not equate to dictation.



> That's right. And you were the one who refused to believe all the evidence to the contrary to which I sent you links because they did not agree with your indoctrination that Wycliffe was the one true source.


Your denial of the facts remains quite spectacular. If Wycliffe's Bible (14th century) says "Thou shalt not suffer witches to live" (Exodus 22:18), and it does, on what grounds do you claim that the KJV was the first Bible to translate the Hebrew that way? You made your claim purely on the grounds of some ill-researched propaganda that happens to suit your religious beliefs. I even explained to you how the author of that website made that error (by assuming that the OT is translated from the Greek - it isn't).

I would have had some respect for you if you had checked out the facts and then mailed the author of the article you cited and said "sorry, I am on your side but you have made a factual error here and the Christians are picking up on it"

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Mainstream JWs? Surely not - unless perhaps it is an all female congregation? Which Kingdom hall is it?
> 
> Liz


one based somewhere in Shropshire , not sure where because i`m not JW. it`s not an all female congregation because her husband is also an elder at the same kingdom hall 



northnsouth said:


> This is obviously from memory I have not associated for over 30 years. Men are appointed as elders and ministerial servants, but in the absence of spiritual men, woman can serve in the role. They are not seen as inferior beings just to fulfill different roles,
> Matthew 24:14
> Matthew 28:19,20
> Matthew 7:13,14
> 
> These are some scriptures I have looked up trying to support this.
> Good strong and faithful woman are allowed to step in if men are not there.
> As I say though this is dredging up my childhood memories and could be different now. If I ask my Mother or Brother they will get all excited and think I am looking into it again, so forgive me any possible inaccuracies.


thank you  understand you not wanting to ask your mum and brother as i wouldn`t want to in your position either and that`s meant in the nicest way possible


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> Again misconcepetion.
> Islam believes their Holy book is the literal words of God, Christians do not.


Do all these Christians know you are speaking for them?
Because the vast majority of Christians in my area, educated, main-stream Christians, believe the bible is the word of God. They are selective about what they take literally, and they tend to conveniently overlook old testament rules (except the 10 commandments that they gladly post on billboards and in their front lawn), but they very much believe the bible is the word of God. In fact some of these Christians are also in our legislature passing laws based on their interpretation of the words of God.


Starlite said:


> Some of us have spent many years looking at theology and Im a practising Catholic also.


And some of us have spent years living in the bible belts and attending church and bible study with Christians. 



lizward said:


> I have a theology degree. Do you know any Christians who hold to the "mechanical dictation" view? They are view and far between even in the US
> 
> Liz


I dont know how they believe the bible came to be, but they very much do believe that that words are those of God. And they are NOT few and far between. Why do you think there is such a hoopla right now in this country over gay marriage? Its because of the bible thumpers who believe the bible is the word of God and if God says marriage is between a man and a woman then it has to be so for everyone. (I wont get in to the hypocrisy that the bible also mentions king Solomon having hundreds of wives, or raped women being forced to marry their rapists, or other lovely dictates of the bible that thumpers conveniently leave out.) 
No, there are a LOT of people in this country who truly believe there was literally a talking snake who told Eve to eat an apple. They think apple too, not even fruit.

I think your studies would benefit from watching the documentary Religilous by Bill Maher.


----------



## Jiskefet

lizward said:


> Well that was interesting, I suppose, but has no relevance at all to Biblical Christianity. I can't speak for Catholicism.
> 
> Liz


Roman cahtolics, greek catholics, and all orthodox churches are JUST as christian, and just as biblical as what you call biblical christians. Orthodox, catholic, protestant, they are all just streams, sekts if you like, of christianity, which, in tiself is a sekt of judaism. Jesus was a Jew, and so were his disciples.

So making a distinction between catholics and christians, and claiming you are a christian, not a catholic, is a very basic mistake.
The distinction is catholic, orthodox and protestant, and they are _all_ christians, and they all base themselves on the bible, so they are all biblical, too.

This mefgalomania of trying to make out one's own little variant of a belief/ faith/ religion the one true faith is the basis of 90%, maybe 99% of all war and dispute in the world.

That is what I hate about churches and religions.
Live and let live, and believe and let believe.
But never claim that because some 14th century so and so wrote or translated something in a particular way, it is therefore truth. Translation ALWAYS means interpretation, as the OP so clearly proved with the example of teh Aristotle translation. Even translating from an old version to a newer version of a language means we interpret what we think they meant.

The old testament has been handed down by word of mouth for dozens of generations before the first pen was ever put to paper, and we do not have original texts, written by the first ever person to write them down.
In all probability there were hundreds of different versions of all the old stories, and the bible is based on what copies of copies of copies of some version of the word of mouth story had survived at the time of the first 'official' bible.

The same goes for the new testament. There was nos uch thing as print, so every copy was made by hand, with variations and mistakes occurring in the process.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> To save me searching out my lexicon, can you tell me where this word appears in the NT? Thanks.
> 
> Well that was interesting, I suppose, but has no relevance at all to Biblical Christianity. I can't speak for Catholicism.


Your ignorance of anything other than what you have obviously been spoonfed in your theology course is spectacular.

First of all, the difficulties of translating _eudaimonia_ were given to you as an example of how difficult it is to translate ideas from one language to another, to help explain to you why you cannot claim that today's modern bible is an _exact_ translation from original Greek texts. No matter how well-versed the scholars who translated it; it remains a subjective translation of someone else's work - and not only that, but also a subjective translation of a written work that was passed down from mouth to mouth before ever it was written down (hence the reference to Chinese Whispers).

Secondly, the state of _eudaimonia_ was achieved through living a virtuous life. Do a bit of research for yourself - find out about the virtue ethics and how closely they resemble christian ethics. Then put your christian indoctrination to one side and try to ruminate with an open mind on the fact that these ethics were the ethics of the Greeks who wrote the original texts which were supposedly reporting the word of a god. Then ask yourself how much of their ethics formed part of their "received wisdom".

THEN you may be able to understand the relevance of eudaimonia and virtue ethics to Biblical Christianity.

Now I know it's hard. I know it's difficult to think for yourself when you have been indoctrinated into believing everything you have been spoonfed. However, if you can manage to do that, instead of merely spouting what you have been taught on your course,_ then_ I may be able to cultivate some respect for you and your ideas.


----------



## lizward

diablo said:


> one based somewhere in Shropshire , not sure where because i`m not JW. it`s not an all female congregation because her husband is also an elder at the same kingdom hall


Well there it is. You've given me something to ask next time the JWs appear at my door 

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> I dont know how they believe the bible came to be, but they very much do believe that that words are those of God.


Inspiration, not dictation. So you can see Paul's style, John's style, Luke's style, Luke openly states that he did his research, and so on. You seem to believe that we believe in mechanical dictation - God dictating the actual words. I don't know anyone who believes that and I move in very conservative Evangelical circles.



> And they are NOT few and far between. Why do you think there is such a hoopla right now in this country over gay marriage? Its because of the bible thumpers who believe the bible is the word of God and if God says marriage is between a man and a woman then it has to be so for everyone.


Yes. I don't see why you equate this to God dictating the words. Except in places where it clearly states he did it that way (the giving of the ten commandments for example where God actually wrote them)



> (I wont get in to the hypocrisy that the bible also mentions king Solomon having hundreds of wives, or raped women being forced to marry their rapists, or other lovely dictates of the bible that thumpers conveniently leave out.)


You can if you wish, I am not afraid of those issues.


> No, there are a LOT of people in this country who truly believe there was literally a talking snake who told Eve to eat an apple. They think apple too, not even fruit.


Then they are lacking in Biblical education, it does not specify an apple.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Jiskefet said:


> Roman cahtolics, greek catholics, and all orthodox churches are JUST as christian, and just as biblical as what you call biblical christians.


Let me explain. Catholicism, and Orthodox too, regard Tradition (the teachings of the church) as on the same level as scripture. In practice, Tradition interprets scripture. So that is Bible plus Tradition. JWs have the Bible plus "the faithful and discreet slave". By "Biblical Christianity" I mean Christians who do not accept any authority above that of the Bible.



> But never claim that because some 14th century so and so wrote or translated something in a particular way, it is therefore truth.
> Translation ALWAYS means interpretation, as the OP so clearly proved with the example of teh Aristotle translation.


So if you say something to me in French or German, I am free to translate it any way I want? Really?



> Even translating from an old version to a newer version of a language means we interpret what we think they meant.


That isn't how modern Bible translation is done. We don't translate from older English, we go back to the Greek, hebrew and Aramaic.



> The old testament has been handed down by word of mouth for dozens of generations before the first pen was ever put to paper, and we do not have original texts, written by the first ever person to write them down.
> In all probability there were hundreds of different versions of all the old stories, and the bible is based on what copies of copies of copies of some version of the word of mouth story had survived at the time of the first 'official' bible.


If 100 of us all copied something down from a blackboard, or from others who had copied it down, many of us would make mistakes in copying, but it would be very easy indeed to see what the original text must have been. That is a pretty good illustration of how translation works. The only argument then is between those who think that 90 copies are right and 10 are wrong, and those who think that the 10 are right if it is clear that they were copies made earlier in the process.

Liz


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> Do all these Christians know you are speaking for them?
> Because the vast majority of Christians in my area, educated, main-stream Christians, believe the bible is the word of God. They are selective about what they take literally, and they tend to conveniently overlook old testament rules (except the 10 commandments that they gladly post on billboards and in their front lawn), but they very much believe the bible is the word of God. In fact some of these Christians are also in our legislature passing laws based on their interpretation of the words of God.
> And some of us have spent years living in the bible belts and attending church and bible study with Christians.
> 
> I don't know how they believe the bible came to be, but they very much do believe that that words are those of God. And they are NOT few and far between. Why do you think there is such a hoopla right now in this country over gay marriage? Its because of the bible thumpers who believe the bible is the word of God and if God says marriage is between a man and a woman then it has to be so for everyone. (I won't get in to the hypocrisy that the bible also mentions king Solomon having hundreds of wives, or raped women being forced to marry their rapists, or other lovely dictates of the bible that thumpers conveniently leave out.)
> No, there are a LOT of people in this country who truly believe there was literally a talking snake who told Eve to eat an apple. They think apple too, not even "fruit".
> 
> I think your studies would benefit from watching the documentary "Religilous" by Bill Maher.


well I've got the world's Christians on speed dial so I'll give them a heads up 

The Bible is inspired by God, not written by Him. We know its written by men.
Christianity has many branches, the above is what is believed in Catholicism but there are so many branches of Protestantism I couldnt verify they all believed so as well. From what I gather the Bible belt is largely Protestant, if im not please correct me. Large sects of Protestantism believe homosexuality is an offence punishable by death wether acted upon or not. they picket abortion clinics, they want the Death Penalty reinstated, I could go on but Catholicism does not support murder (there are far worse things than death) or that a homosexual person is automatically going to burn in Hell, there are many differences.

There is a hoopla around gay marriage because despite having civil unions and being given the same rights as a married couple people are still pushing for it to be labelled marriage which is the union of a man and woman, and be allowed to marry in churches which I find horrid. They can marry anywhere else, why push and push when it is against that religion and its practices when few gays even want to? They would not push any other religion to do so. 
I am not sure what is going on the US in this regards as i dont live there, are they saying no term of union at all or just not in churches?
there are many things in the Bible which we all find upsetting but we believe Jesus gave his life to wash away our sins and we follow Him and his teachings.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Your ignorance of anything other than what you have obviously been spoonfed in your theology course is spectacular.


I don't claim to have studied philosophy. I could not see why you were going on about some word that you claim is the foundation of my beliefs when in fact it is not what I base my beliefs on at all.



> First of all, the difficulties of translating _eudaimonia_ were given to you as an example of how difficult it is to translate ideas from one language to another, to help explain to you why you cannot claim that today's modern bible is an _exact_ translation from original Greek texts.


If you are saying that it is always better to know the original languages, I will agree with you. This is not reality for most of us. Have you never read anything translated - All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps? Do you never use google translate? I suspect you are only making this objection because you desperately want to discredit the Bible, isn't that the case?



> Secondly, the state of _eudaimonia_ was achieved through living a virtuous life. Do a bit of research for yourself - find out about the virtue ethics and how closely they resemble christian ethics.


Why? What has it to do with me? I am not particularly interested in ethics - one course on that was enough, thank you.



> I may be able to cultivate some respect for you and your ideas.


Any chance of you admitting your error about Ex 22:18 yet?

Liz


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> There is a hoopla around gay marriage because *despite having civil unions and being given the same rights as a married couple people* are still pushing for it to be labelled marriage which is the union of a man and woman, and be allowed to marry in churches which I find horrid.


Your ignorance is glaring.
I think Ive spent enough time breaking my own rule (divinely inspired Im sure) of trying to have a rational discussion with those blinded by their faith.


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> Your ignorance is glaring.
> I think I've spent enough time breaking my own rule (divinely inspired I'm sure) of trying to have a rational discussion with those blinded by their faith.


blinded lol, ok. What is it I'm ignorant of?
Atheists say "it's only a word". It is a word that has alot of meaning to the reiligous and is a Sacrament in Catholicism. I could list many words which are "only words" to some but deeply derogatory to others, its the way language works.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> I don't claim to have studied philosophy. I could not see why you were going on about some word that you claim is the foundation of my beliefs when in fact it is not what I base my beliefs on at all.


Well, I've explained it to you twice now. I can't help it if your mind is too closed to see the correlation. You haven't even read enough of what I've written or the links I've given you to even understand that _eudaimonia_ is not merely a word, but a word that describes a belief system, a set of ethics, and is a word that has no direct translation in English. You seem to be blindly ignoring the fact that it is merely *one* example of the myriad of problems in translating ideas from one language to another, of how those problems result in subjectivism in the translation, and of how that subjectivism in turn leads to errors when basing a belief system upon such translations.



lizward said:


> If you are saying that it is always better to know the original languages, I will agree with you. This is not reality for most of us. Have you never read anything translated - All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps? Do you never use google translate? I suspect you are only making this objection because you desperately want to discredit the Bible, isn't that the case?


I have read many things that have been translated scholarly texts as well as stories and poems (don't tell me you never noticed my signature?!! ) - hence my trying to help you to understand the differences between translations and originals, which I'm not sure you have grasped (or you would not still be questioning the example of trying to translate _eudaimonia_!)

As for discrediting the bible - actually, I have no desire to discredit it. If people want to believe in the things it says, then it is their prerogative to do so. It mererly saddens me that people blindly accept that it is the word of a god when, in fact, it is the word of the men who controlled a patriarchal society.



lizward said:


> Why? What has it to do with me? I am not particularly interested in ethics - one course on that was enough, thank you.


Well, well, well - from her own mouth! A christian not particularly interested in ethics! Now THAT is interesting! As for what virtue ethics have to do with you - are you not interested in the ethics of the people who supposedly received the word of your god? Are you not ineterested in how their ethics would have impinged upon what they wrote - or even, if you actually do believe in received wisdom, how their own ethics caused them to interpret the wisdom they recieved?



lizward said:


> Any chance of you admitting your error about Ex 22:18 yet?
> Liz


Any chance of you admitting that when you put your faith in one thing, one translation, and ignore all the rest of the evidence, chances are that you are wrong?


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> blinded lol, ok. What is it I'm ignorant of?
> Atheists say "it's only a word". It is a word that has alot of meaning to the reiligous and is a Sacrament in Catholicism. I could list many words which are "only words" to some but deeply derogatory to others, its the way language works.


You are ignorant of the legal rights homosexual couples have. They most certainly do NOT have the same rights as legally married couples. Im not even talking about getting married in the eyes of any church. Im talking about secular laws. Well, supposedly secular.

In America, "1,138 federal benefits, including Social Security and family medical leave, are still denied to same-sex couples *even if theyre married* because of the Defense of Marriage Act enacted in 1996."

Sally Ride's Domestic Partner Won't Get Her Federal Benefits | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

You are also clearly ignorant of Christian beliefs outside of your own circle or what you choose to research.

It is not my place to educate you or change your beliefs. I truly do believe in the right of the individual to believe and practice whatever is meaningful to them, but I take great issue with presenting inaccuracies as fact, especially as a means to justify and rationalize religious hypocrisy.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> You are ignorant of the legal rights homosexual couples have. They most certainly do NOT have the same rights as legally married couples. Im not even talking about getting married in the eyes of any church. Im talking about secular laws. Well, supposedly secular..


Actually, they do over here.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Well, I've explained it to you twice now. I can't help it if your mind is too closed to see the correlation. You haven't even read enough of what I've written or the links I've given you to even understand that _eudaimonia_ is not merely a word, but a word that describes a belief system, a set of ethics, and is a word that has no direct translation in English. You seem to be blindly ignoring the fact that it is merely *one* example of the myriad of problems in translating ideas from one language to another, of how those problems result in subjectivism in the translation, and of how that subjectivism in turn leads to errors when basing a belief system upon such translations.


Ah! I have it now! So you think that because a certain Greek word that doesn't actually appear in the Bible is difficult to translate and would normally be translated by a phrase rather than a single word, I should be desperately concerned that those who translate the Bible might have missed the point that there are other Greek words where you cannot do a simple word for word translation. Perhaps you are under some impression that translators do not know the languages they are translating well enough to actually realise that. Since you have so far failed to give me a single example of such a word in the Bible (and yes there are some) I can reasonably assume that this is not a real issue for you but simply one of the many excuses you give for your attitdue towards the Bible. I get it that you don't like the Bible. I don't need endless re-iterations of that.



> As for discrediting the bible - actually, I have no desire to discredit it. If people want to believe in the things it says, then it is their prerogative to do so. It mererly saddens me that people blindly accept that it is the word of a god when, in fact, it is the word of the men who controlled a patriarchal society.


The fact that you don't even seem to have grasped the little detail that Christianity and Judaism are both monotheistic makes me wonder how much you actually understand.



> Well, well, well - from her own mouth! A christian not particularly interested in ethics! Now THAT is interesting!


I don't see why. The only ethics I need are those of the Bible.



> As for what virtue ethics have to do with you - are you not interested in the ethics of the people who supposedly received the word of your god? Are you not ineterested in how their ethics would have impinged upon what they wrote - or even, if you actually do believe in received wisdom, how their own ethics caused them to interpret the wisdom they recieved?


What can you tell me about the authors' ethics that I don't already know from the Bible ?



> Any chance of you admitting that when you put your faith in one thing, one translation, and ignore all the rest of the evidence, chances are that you are wrong?


No no, you first 

Liz


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> You are ignorant of the legal rights homosexual couples have. They most certainly do NOT have the same rights as legally married couples. Im not even talking about getting married in the eyes of any church. Im talking about secular laws. Well, supposedly secular.
> 
> In America, "1,138 federal benefits, including Social Security and family medical leave, are still denied to same-sex couples *even if theyre married* because of the Defense of Marriage Act enacted in 1996."
> 
> Sally Ride's Domestic Partner Won't Get Her Federal Benefits | TIME Ideas | TIME.com
> 
> You are also clearly ignorant of Christian beliefs outside of your own circle or what you choose to research.
> 
> It is not my place to educate you or change your beliefs. I truly do believe in the right of the individual to believe and practice whatever is meaningful to them, but I take great issue with presenting inaccuracies as fact, especially as a means to justify and rationalize religious hypocrisy.


Mate you are having a laugh. read my previous posts don't skim them. Im in Glasgow UK, gay couples have the same rights as straight! I stated this:

_I am not sure what is going on the US in this regards as i dont live there, are they saying no term of union at all or just not in churches?_

I am ignorant of alot of things which is why I continue to try and learn, I asked you one question about the US. If i dont ask I will never know.

I have presented NO innacuracies as fact I think you will find, if you had bothered to read properly you would see that. Some people should get off their high horses before they fall off, it's a long way down.


----------



## zingy

Isn't the camel passing through an eye of a needle considered to be a mistranslation? The most sensible explanation I've ever heard is that it should be a rope, not a camel, but the words for rope and camel in whatever language it was in are only 1 letter different and someone got it wrong. If that is true, then it proves that there are some mistranslations. If it isn't true, it proves that whoever wrote it was slightly bonkers.


----------



## Knightofalbion

This thread is becoming the epitome of all that is wrong with organised religion!


----------



## Starlite

Knightofalbion said:


> This thread is becoming the epitome of all that is wrong with organised religion!


Feel free to contribute but sweeping statements only you know the meaning of aren't constructive imo


----------



## DogLover1981

I don't see the point calling others ignorant.


----------



## poohdog

zingy said:


> Isn't the camel passing through an eye of a needle considered to be a mistranslation? The most sensible explanation I've ever heard is that it should be a rope, not a camel, but the words for rope and camel in whatever language it was in are only 1 letter different and someone got it wrong. If that is true, then it proves that there are some mistranslations. If it isn't true, it proves that whoever wrote it was slightly bonkers.


*Wish you'd told me that earlier...I've got this one through to the second hump...and in answer to your next question...WD40 and dripping...*


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Ah! I have it now! So you think that because a certain Greek word that doesn't actually appear in the Bible is difficult to translate and would normally be translated by a phrase rather than a single word, I should be desperately concerned that those who translate the Bible might have missed the point that there are other Greek words where you cannot do a simple word for word translation. Perhaps you are under some impression that translators do not know the languages they are translating well enough to actually realise that.


:lol: No, Liz, you don't get it. What you have written above is not the point at all, merely a failed attempt at ridicule.

Perhaps if I set it out differently you will understand:

Argument 1
Premise 1 - Ideas are notoriously difficult to translate from one language to another.

Premise 2 - Anyone translating ideas from one language to another does so in the light of his own beliefs and ethics

Conclusion - Any translation from one language to another is therefore going to be a subjective translation tainted by the author's beliefs and ethics, and not the exact text that the original author intended.

Argument 2
Premise 1 - Any translation from one language to another is going to be a subjective translation, tainted by the author's beliefs and ethics, and not the exact text that the original author intended.

Premise 2 - The bible is a translation

Conclusion - The bible is, therefore, a subjective translation, tainted by the author's beliefs and ethics, and not the exact text that the original author intended.

Argument 3
Premise 1 - The bible is a subjective translation, tainted by the author's beliefs and ethics, and not the exact text that the original author intended.

Conclusion - it is erroneous to try to assert that any religion based upon such a bible is based upon the truth as the original author envisaged it.



lizward said:


> I can reasonably assume that this is not a real issue for you but simply one of the many excuses you give for your attitdue towards the Bible. I get it that you don't like the Bible. I don't need endless re-iterations of that.


You can reasonably assume nothing of the sort. How very condescending of you - someone has real issues with something and instead of coming up with answers you find it easier to try to ridicule and belittle. And you wonder why people are leaving the church in droves?

This is a real issue for me - one of the many reasons I left christianity behind. Unlike you, I am unable to make facts fit where I want them to and ignore the rest. It is blindingly obvious that the people who wanted me to believe that the bible was the word of the one and only God could not prove this to me in any way because of the above series of arguments.



lizward said:


> The fact that you don't even seem to have grasped the little detail that Christianity and Judaism are both monotheistic makes me wonder how much you actually understand.


Of course I know that christianity and judaism are monotheistic religions. However, I believe that the christian god is just one god amongst many - depite the fact that he stamps his feet and isn't playing until his followers appease him by pretending he is the only god. Hence my deliberate referring to him as "a god" and not "the God" or even "God".

And I have to say Liz that with your above quote you are demonstrating with admirable ease some of the worse aspects of christianity - ie thinking you know so much more than the rest of the world, not realising that there are many views other than the christian views, and automatically assuming that people who refuse to subscribe to your views as stupid and lacking knowledge.

You are a true christian. This is not a compliment.



lizward said:


> What can you tell me about the authors' ethics that I don't already know from the Bible ?


Nothing Liz. That's the whole point. The ethics of the _people who wrote _the bible are the ethics _of_ the bible.


----------



## lizward

zingy said:


> Isn't the camel passing through an eye of a needle considered to be a mistranslation? The most sensible explanation I've ever heard is that it should be a rope, not a camel, but the words for rope and camel in whatever language it was in are only 1 letter different and someone got it wrong. If that is true, then it proves that there are some mistranslations. If it isn't true, it proves that whoever wrote it was slightly bonkers.


Camel or rope will do fine, the point is very clear. The great majority of translators go with camel. Yes it's silly, but a lot of Jesus' parables are in that vein - ludicrous, to make a point. The amount the unforgiving servant owes the king is a fine example of ludicrousness to make a point. The Bible is full of humour and don't forget Jesus had crowds following him around just to hear him speak!

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Argument 1
> Premise 1 - Ideas are notoriously difficult to translate from one language to another.
> 
> Premise 2 - Anyone translating ideas from one language to another does so in the light of his own beliefs and ethics
> 
> Conclusion - Any translation from one language to another is therefore going to be a subjective translation tainted by the author's beliefs and ethics, and not the exact text that the original author intended.


Very well, I do not accept your second premise.



> Argument 2
> Premise 1 - Any translation from one language to another is going to be a subjective translation, tainted by the author's beliefs and ethics, and not the exact text that the original author intended.
> 
> Premise 2 - The bible is a translation
> 
> Conclusion - The bible is, therefore, a subjective translation, tainted by the author's beliefs and ethics, and not the exact text that the original author intended.


I do not accept your first premise.



> You can reasonably assume nothing of the sort. How very condescending of you - someone has real issues with something and instead of coming up with answers you find it easier to try to ridicule and belittle. And you wonder why people are leaving the church in droves?


Well, why don't you try spelling out some of your "real issues"? Because somehow I doubt if you are genuinely concerned that the translation is wrong.



> Of course I know that christianity and judaism are monotheistic religions. However, I believe that the christian god is just one god amongst many - depite the fact that he stamps his feet and isn't playing until his followers appease him by pretending he is the only god. Hence my deliberate referring to him as "a god" and not "the God" or even "God".


Somehow I suspect this could be somethimg to do with why you left the church. You are not prepared to accept the Biblical teaching about Gopd because you are not willing to obey Him. It always comes down to that in the end.



> And I have to say Liz that with your above quote you are demonstrating with admirable ease some of the worse aspects of christianity - ie thinking you know so much more than the rest of the world, not realising that there are many views other than the christian views, and automatically assuming that people who refuse to subscribe to your views as stupid and lacking knowledge.


Had you ever admitted your error about Ex 22:18, I would be less inclined to view you in the way you say I view you.

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Very well, I do not accept your second premise.


Really? Please do tell me how you believe it is possible for anyone to do anything at all without it being affected by their own beliefs and ethics. Our beliefs and ethics are an intrinsic part of how we view the world and how we act in the world. Even the tiniest, most significant action we can undertake, we undertake influenced by our beliefs and ethics.

I'll give you an example. If we were standing side by side and Ceridwen manifested in front of us, I would see the goddess and you would see an evil spirit sent by satan.

You are either very naive or very stuipd if you think that anyone can translate anything without his own beliefs and ethics playing a pivotal role in that translation.



lizward said:


> Well, why don't you try spelling out some of your "real issues"? Because somehow I doubt if you are genuinely concerned that the translation is wrong.


My concern about the bible being mistranslated and its implications for the faith is a real and burning issue for me. However, if you prefer to believe me to be a liar rather than believe I am genuinely concerned about this, then there is nothing I can do to change that. How very christian of you. Again, this is not a compliment.

I will just say that we tend to judge each other on our own standards. I do not lie, hence if you told me you were concerned about something I would believe you to be telling the truth. Those are my standards. You, however, immediately assume someone is lying because their views differ from yours. What does this say about your standards? Go figure.



lizward said:


> You are not prepared to accept the Biblical teaching about Gopd because you are not willing to obey Him. It always comes down to that in the end.


Damn right. Not being a masochist, I am not prepared to obey a megalomaniac johnny-come-lately god.



lizward said:


> Had you ever admitted your error about Ex 22:18, I would be less inclined to view you in the way you say I view you.
> 
> Liz


Sigh. Why do you keep on about wanting me to agree with your view that one translation by one man is correct? Liz, we had this out to the death in the other thread. You provided one piece of evidence. I provided myriad references to show that you were wrong. You refused to accept the validity of any of those pieces of evidence in much the same way that you refuse to accept my issue with the bible translation is a genuine one - ie it's there in black and white but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit in with what you want to (need to?) believe. You prefer to think I have no issue when I have. You prefer to insist that the tranlation you referenced was the only correct translation, when it isn't. I see no point in continuing this. It is futile. Your mind is so closed you will not accept any other form of reference than your own, and I have better things to do than run with futile causes.

And now I'm off to bed because I'm up early for a dog show tomorrow. Sweet dreams and goddess bless.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Actually, they do over here.
> 
> Liz


You responded to my post where I mentioned the hoopla over gay rights in this country. And if you look under my user name it clearly states I am in the USA. To which you replied that in your country they have the same rights. So that makes it okay for the US Christians to lobby to take away rights of gay couples? Because the UK ones don't? What kind of logic is that?
edit: Ooops, seems I'm getting lizward and starlite confused, either way, the lack of reason of the argument still stands. Just because same sex couples in the UK have equal benefits does not make it okay that in the US and tons of other countries they do not. And the reason they do not is because of religious doctrine.



Starlite said:


> Some people should get off their high horses before they fall off, it's a long way down.


Wouldn't the one on the high horse be the one who believes their religion is the "right" one? Which is what you MUST believe if you are a christian, that only though Jesus will you reach the kingdom of heaven. Do you not see the arrogance of this system of belief?


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Really? Please do tell me how you believe it is possible for anyone to do anything at all without it being affected by their own beliefs and ethics. Our beliefs and ethics are an intrinsic part of how we view the world and how we act in the world. Even the tiniest, most significant action we can undertake, we undertake influenced by our beliefs and ethics.


The Bible is the inspired word of God. It is not subject to human limitations as far as ethics are concerned. Yes there are occasions in there where people suddenly express human enotions, in such cases it is very clear what is happening. and yes the surrounding culture does at times have to be taken into account, but I do not accept your premise that the Bible is merely a product of human ethics.



> I'll give you an example. If we were standing side by side and Ceridwen manifested in front of us, I would see the goddess and you would see an evil spirit sent by satan.


Undoubtedly.



> My concern about the bible being mistranslated and its implications for the faith is a real and burning issue for me.


Really? So if I could somehow convince you that it was compeltely accurate, you would give up your false gods and return in repentance to the one true God, would you?


> I will just say that we tend to judge each other on our own standards. I do not lie, hence if you told me you were concerned about something I would believe you to be telling the truth. Those are my standards. You, however, immediately assume someone is lying because their views differ from yours.


I am not saying that you are deliberately lying. it is entirely possible that you have not thought the issues through. If I could answer every one of your questions to your satisfaction, would you repent of your sin and cry out to the Lord for mercy, promising to serve him faithfully for the rest of your days, or not?



> Damn right. Not being a masochist, I am not prepared to obey a megalomaniac johnny-come-lately god.


Ah, but a few lines ago you claimed to be desperately concerned about translation errors in the Bible. In fact, what you really want is to make the Bible agree with you. isn't it? Why do you feel the need to do that?



> Sigh. Why do you keep on about wanting me to agree with your view that one translation by one man is correct?


What one man? Which translation have you in mind?



> Liz, we had this out to the death in the other thread.


yes, and you were so clearly proven to be wrong that I was, and still am, astounded that you didn't simply admit the error.



> I provided myriad references to show that you were wrong.


Wycliffe is very probably available in your nearest University library, if you will not accept the online sources. So is Tyndale who also predates the KJV. If you insist that every version online is incorrect then frankly it is up to you to prove your case. So, get to the library, ask them for a photocopy of the relevant pages, and let's take it from there.



> You prefer to insist that the tranlation you referenced was the only correct translation, when it isn't.


The Hebrew word refers to a woman who practices sorcery. If you do not agree, please produce evidence from the HEBREW - not the Greek, the OT is not translated from Greek!



> I see no point in continuing this. It is futile.


It appears so.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> You responded to my post where I mentioned the hoopla over gay rights in this country. And if you look under my user name it clearly states I am in the USA. To which you replied that in your country they have the same rights. So that makes it okay for the US Christians to lobby to take away rights of gay couples? Because the UK ones dont? What kind of logic is that?


No, you had a go at someone in the UK for being unaware that you do not have equal rights from homosexuals in the US. That was unreasonable and that is why I joined in.


> Wouldnt the one on the high horse be the one who believes their religion is the right one? Which is what you MUST believe if you are a christian, that only though Jesus will you reach the kingdom of heaven. Do you not see the arrogance of this system of belief?


You mean, like it is arrogant to insist that the Chemical formula for water is H2O?

Liz


----------



## zingy

Proclaimers : The Light - Live San Juan Capistrano 2008 - YouTube

Sums it up for me better than I can!


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> No, you had a go at someone in the UK for being unaware that you do not have equal rights from homosexuals in the US. That was unreasonable and that is why I joined in.


Do you not find it unreasonable that people in the US deny rights to other humans in the name of your religion? Does that not bother you?



lizward said:


> You mean, like it is arrogant to insist that the Chemical formula for water is H2O?


Rather than make assumptions, I ask first for you to clarify what you mean by this. 
Do you think water molecules are not made up of hydrogen and oxygen?


----------



## cinnamontoast

I'm going to be very simplistic and reiterate a lot of what Jiskefet said because it seems her posts, whilst quoted, were mostly ignored. The bible may be only inspired by god but written by men, who are not infallible and often can't spell or understand someone else's handwriting. 

1. We can all agree that the bible wasn't written until hundreds of years after the death of Christ, I hope. 

2. Oral societies pass down stories for illustrative purposes or to, for example, serve as warnings to future generations. The four gospels do not relate the same events: correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no cross over stories, are there? Odd, that. 

3. The bible in common use in the Catholic church was translated from the latin in the 16th century, having obviously been translated from the original language/s way back.

4. Monks used to hand scribe copies to distribute around the country when Henry VIII decided Mass ought to be in English. Mistakes were made, of course..

5. I ask a class of A level kids to translate a passage of French or Spanish and not one version is exactly the same. (Am currently sitting debating the use of various verbs/words with a French mate)

If you seriously believe the NT gospels to be directly as it actually happened, I feel deeply sorry for you. Interpretation has occurred. Even if the true Son of God was indeed walking this earth over 2000 years ago, no way are the words in the bible accurate or possibly true. Tosh.

*Sits back, dons tin hat*


----------



## Guest

Bill Maher at the end of the documentary Religulous.



> The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting **** dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Do you not find it unreasonable that people in the US deny rights to other humans in the name of your religion? Does that not bother you?


Depends on the rights we are talking about.



> Rather than make assumptions, I ask first for you to clarify what you mean by this.
> Do you think water molecules are not made up of hydrogen and oxygen?


What on earth makes you think that? You have perhaps decided that because I believe the Bible, I think all science is total bunkum? OF COURSE water is H2O. OF COURSE it is not remotely arrogant to state FACTS.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> 1. We can all agree that the bible wasn't written until hundreds of years after the death of Christ, I hope.


I challenge you to find any Biblical scholar anywhere who would say that. In fact the Gospels are EYE WITNESS accounts and the New testament of the mid second century was virtually the same as today's - most books were readily agreed by all the churches.


> 2. Oral societies pass down stories for illustrative purposes or to, for example, serve as warnings to future generations. The four gospels do not relate the same events: correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no cross over stories, are there? Odd, that.


Indeed you are wrong. The cross and the resurrection appear in all four Gospels, so does the feeding of the five thousand. Numerous incidents occur in all three synoptics.



> 4. Monks used to hand scribe copies to distribute around the country when Henry VIII decided Mass ought to be in English. Mistakes were made, of course.


These mansucripts are MUCH newer than the ones used by translators today!



> 5. I ask a class of A level kids to translate a passage of French or Spanish and not one version is exactly the same.


You would have a better illustration if you were considering a group of professional translators, or perhaps University professors of French or Spanish. A level is MILES below the level at which one would be accepted onto a translation committee!



> Interpretation has occurred. Even if the true Son of God was indeed walking this earth over 2000 years ago, no way are the words in the bible accurate or possibly true. Tosh.


Given your obvious lack of understanding of the process by which we got the Bible, you will forgive me if I tell you it is you who are speaking tosh.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

And given your blind faith and belief in something which was written many hundreds of years ago then reinterpreted and translated multiple times you will forgive my snigger of utter disbelief! 

I think I'm in a fine position to be talking about translation, thanks. 

If you are so up on this, do tell how the bible came about and why you choose to believe it (literally believe or take concepts from it?). My Convent upbringing was clearly sadly lacking.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> If you are so up on this, do tell how the bible came about and why you choose to believe it (literally believe or take concepts from it?). My Convent upbringing was clearly sadly lacking.


This might be a reasonable starting point, though I don't accept the traditions surrounding Joseph of Arimathea (in case you were wondering)

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> This might be a reasonable starting point, though I don't accept the traditions surrounding Joseph of Arimathea (in case you were wondering)
> 
> http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html
> 
> Liz


Was I unclear? I'm interested in how you-personally-have come your conclusions re the bible being the truth, not some generic website. I could no doubt find hundreds of websites that talk about the origins of the bible but I'd prefer to hear about your own ideas. And again, do you believe the bible in a literal fashion?

As any police officer will tell you, six witnesses will offer six very different versions of what someone did or was wearing, having just witnessed an incident.

It amazes me that someone would believe what is written in a book from hundreds and hundreds of years ago that was originally passed down orally, especially given how many transmogrifications the stories have undergone.


----------



## Guest

> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldnt the one on the high horse be the one who believes their religion is the right one? Which is what you MUST believe if you are a christian, that only though Jesus will you reach the kingdom of heaven. Do you not see the arrogance of this system of belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, like it is arrogant to insist that the Chemical formula for water is H2O?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think water molecules are not made up of hydrogen and oxygen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF COURSE water is H2O. OF COURSE it is not remotely arrogant to state FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Lets follow this train of logic shall we?
I state that it is arrogant to believe that only through Jesus will any human reach the kingdom of heaven. Which you equate to stating that water is H2O. Which you then qualify as an example of fact and that it is not arrogant to state fact.

Go back to my original statement. The only way to the kingdom of heaven is through Jesus. Are you equating this statement of religious BELIEF to the scientific FACT that water is H2O? Because it very much seems like you are.


----------



## MCWillow

Knightofalbion said:


> Spirituality is one thing, organised religion is something else entirely.
> 
> In my opinion, organised religion is the curse of the world. A cause of division and bloodshed.
> 
> God does not require a middle man! And without love, your soul won't be ascending very far up the spheres of light, no matter what label' you attach to yourself.


That is the first thing you have said that I actually agree 100% with.

In fact you have summed up what I was going to say in a nutshell - so I have repped you for it


----------



## porps

cinammontoast said:


> I'm interested in how you-personally-have come your conclusions re the bible being the truth, not some generic website.


oo, oo! i know the answer to this one!

to quote the Minchin....
_
I know the Good Book's good because the Good Book says it's good.
I know the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would._

You see! Irrefutable proof! And dont you go tryin any of that fancy logic crap with me either, it just doesnt wash.



lizward said:


> The Bible is God's word, infallible, inerrant in the originals as long as the genre is taken into consideration.


I dont know wether to laugh or cry :s
I'll just go with another verse of Minchin instead.

_If you just close your eyes and block your ears
To the accumulated knowledge of the last two thousand years
Then morally, guess what? You're off the hook
And thank Christ you only have to read one book_

Also, dont you guys think those scientists have taken their practical joke a bit far, planting all those so called dinosaur bones in the ground then "discovering them" just to undermine the word of god? Come on guys a jokes a joke- noones gonna beleive a stupid story like giant reptiles anyway!

A few things do bother me though...
I mean, we know god is all powerfull, all loving, just and omnipotent. Yet it took him ages to make the earth. Why take so long? If i was an all powerfull omnipotent being i'd make the world in an instant, not take days over it. 
Also if i was fair and just and loving i 
A- wouldnt murder all but 2 of every species on earth because a couple of people ate an apple
and
B- if i *was* going to wipe everything out i'd realise that a flood is a bad method - it isnt gonna bother the fish and other creatures of the ocean. I think i'd just blink them out of existance tbh, seems a lot easier than going to all that fuss.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Was I unclear? I'm interested in how you-personally-have come your conclusions re the bible being the truth, not some generic website.


Yes you were. You asked "do tell how the Bible came about". I was obliging you.



> I could no doubt find hundreds of websites that talk about the origins of the bible but I'd prefer to hear about your own ideas. And again, do you believe the bible in a literal fashion?


I agree with the website, obviously (with the exception of the caveat I gave earlier). Those are the facts of the matter. Whether you like it or not doesn't change the fact of how we got the Bible. Why would I want to disagree with the facts?

As to why I personally believe it, I came to faith as a small child, it is difficult to tell you how I came to believe it. It is easier to tell you why I believe it now. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection. The resurrection is a historical fact. That comes first. Once that is in place, Christ is clearly shown to be the Son of God and His word takes top priority.

Do I believe the Bible in a literal fashion? Yes.

I honestly have no idea why so many people think they are experts on Bible history when 1. they have never read the Bible and 2. they have not the first idea about how we got it. You wouldn't find people arguing about history or literature when they had never studied it but the Bible seems to be fair game. Odd, isn't it.



> As any police officer will tell you, six witnesses will offer six very different versions of what someone did or was wearing, having just witnessed an incident.


As I often tell my congregation at Easter, if all four accounts of the resurrection were identical the accusation made would be that four writers sat down together and decided on their story. Because all four accounts are slightly different, hey, it must be fiction. The fact that it would stand up in a court of law doesn't seem to matter.



> It amazes me that someone would believe what is written in a book from hundreds and hundreds of years ago that was originally passed down orally, especially given how many transmogrifications the stories have undergone.


How many transmogrifications is that, and what are they?

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Go back to my original statement. The only way to the kingdom of heaven is through Jesus. Are you equating this statement of religious BELIEF to the scientific FACT that water is H2O? Because it very much seems like you are.


Yes. Well done. Therefore stating it is not arrogant.

Liz


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> Also, dont you guys think those scientists have taken their practical joke a bit far, planting all those so called dinosaur bones in the ground then "discovering them" just to undermine the word of god? Come on guys a jokes a joke- noones gonna beleive a stupid story like giant reptiles anyway!


Which guys were those, then? I have never heard any such claim.



> A few things do bother me though...
> I mean, we know god is all powerfull, all loving, just and omnipotent. Yet it took him ages to make the earth. Why take so long? If i was an all powerfull omnipotent being i'd make the world in an instant, not take days over it.


 Why not? If you enjoyed the process of painting, why would you want to suddenly just speak the picture into being and miss the joy of painting it?



> Also if i was fair and just and loving i
> A- wouldnt murder all but 2 of every species on earth because a couple of people ate an apple
> and
> B- if i *was* going to wipe everything out i'd realise that a flood is a bad method - it isnt gonna bother the fish and other creatures of the ocean. I think i'd just blink them out of existance tbh, seems a lot easier than going to all that fuss.


Yes well, you are not God.

Liz


----------



## Guest

> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to my original statement. "The only way to the kingdom of heaven is through Jesus." Are you equating this statement of religious BELIEF to the scientific FACT that water is H2O? Because it very much seems like you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Well done. Therefore stating it is not arrogant.
> 
> Liz
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Oh dear.... 
You do realize there is a difference between facts that are based on proof and beliefs which are based on faith don't you?

Well, never mind... its pretty clear at this point that you don't.

Let me just say that I want nothing to do with your god who based on your "fact", would deny someone like Anne Frank access to his heaven because she did not accept Jesus as her savior before death.
I want nothing to do with your god who based on your "fact" would accept Jerry Sandusky in to his heaven so long as he asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as his savior. 
Yes, the guy who says innocent, kind, hopeful girl out, child molester monster in because he believes in me is no god I want anything to do with. I think listening to Beatles lyrics would offer me a better moral compass. But then, I don't need a god to tell me child molestation is wrong. Thats one that's pretty easy to figure out on my own.



lizward said:


> Yes well, you are not God.
> 
> Liz


Neither are you Liz. Yet you seem to feel that your understanding of God is more valid than other's.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Let me just say that I want nothing to do with your god who based on your fact, would deny someone like Anne Frank access to his heaven because she did not accept Jesus as her savior before death.
> I want nothing to do with your god who based on your fact would accept Jerry Sandusky in to his heaven so long as he asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as his savior.


You know, it's surprising how people seem to hold two totally contradictory views at the same time and yet seem not to even realise that they are doing so. The views are 1. God would never send anyone to hell and 2. Hell is too good for this person who committed some sin of which I happen to disapprove.

The solution is incredibly simple. NO-ONE is ANYWHERE NEAR good enough to get to heaven on their own merits. It's like trying to jump high enough to touch the moon - I wouldn't even get off the ground, some Olympic highjumper would get 7 feet off the ground, or whatever height it is they can jump. No-one would get anywhere near high enough even though the Olympic Highjumper would jump infinitely further than I could.



> Neither are you Liz. Yet you seem to feel that your understanding of God is more valid than others.


And the understanding of water as containing two molecules of Hydrogen and one of Oxygen is more valid than an understanding of it as containing two of Oxygen and one of Hydrogen. Some things are simply true.

Liz


----------



## Knightofalbion

A statement applicable to whatever faith you adhere to:

FAITH WITHOUT CHARITY IS DEAD. LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.


----------



## Knightofalbion

'All this talk of religion, but it's how you live your life that is the all-important thing.
If you set out each day to do all the goodness and kindness that you can, and to do no harm to man or beast, then you are walking the highest path.
And when your time is up, if you can leave the earth a better place than you found it, then yours will have been a life well lived.'

It is our deeds, the accumulated acts of goodness and kindness, that define us and. ultimately, are the true measure of our worth.

Service is the coin of the spirit.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> You know, it's surprising how people seem to hold two totally contradictory views at the same time and yet seem not to even realise that they are doing so. The views are 1. God would never send anyone to hell and 2. Hell is too good for this person who *committed some sin of which I happen to disapprove*.


WOW.... See, this is where I tend to lose it...
Some sin of which I happen to disapprove??????? Are you nucking futs??? What kind of psychopathic moron doesnt understand that forcibly butt raping underprivileged little boys is a monstrosity? Its not some sin, its not something you wag your finger, and tisk tisk your disapproval. It is just plain immoral and WRONG and rational, human beings with normally functioning brains dont need a religious book or religious leader to explain that to them. Moreover, if we DID need a religious book in order to understand that violently butt raping little boys is wrong, humanity would not have survived to the point it has.



lizward said:


> The solution is incredibly simple. NO-ONE is ANYWHERE NEAR good enough to get to heaven on their own merits. It's like trying to jump high enough to touch the moon - I wouldn't even get off the ground, some Olympic highjumper would get 7 feet off the ground, or whatever height it is they can jump. No-one would get anywhere near high enough even though the Olympic Highjumper would jump infinitely further than I could.
> 
> And the understanding of water as containing two molecules of Hydrogen and one of Oxygen is more valid than an understanding of it as containing two of Oxygen and one of Hydrogen. Some things are simply true.
> 
> Liz


Yes, yes, you have the golden ticket and screw all those starving children in underdeveloped countries who die from starvation and lack of potable water. If only they would accept Jesus they too could join the ranks of the privileged few. Maybe if you prayed for them, Jesus might find it in his heart to let a few of them in to your exclusive club. 
How utterly arrogant and inhumane.


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> Some things are simply true.
> 
> Liz


and some things are simply untrue. Like the existance of god for example. That which can be asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.

if there IS a god, all evidence points to the fact that its a hateful god, not a loving one.

We should consider ourselves really lucky that we were born in the right country. Born in the wrong country and u might end up beleiving the wrong religion. imagine that, stupid idiots believing in the wrong god haha. They will surely burn!

/facepalm

Hard to beleive we're in 2012 sometimes.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> WOW.... See, this is where I tend to lose it...
> Some sin of which I happen to disapprove??????? Are you nucking futs??? What kind of psychopathic moron doesnt understand that forcibly butt raping underprivileged little boys is a monstrosity?


Certainly it's a heinous sin. Shall I name you some other heinous sins that many people approve of? You see, you and I don't get to say what is sin and what is not, any more than we get to make the laws of the land we live in. GOD sets his laws, whether you like them or not is not the point. Presumably you agree with me that someone who commits rape deserves hell. Good, we agree on something. God agrees too.



> Its not some sin, its not something you wag your finger, and tisk tisk your disapproval. It is just plain immoral and WRONG and rational, human beings with normally functioning brains dont need a religious book or religious leader to explain that to them.


Quite correct, Romans 1 would agree with you. See how your views are lining up with the Bible's - twice in two paragraphs. There may be hope for you yet 



> Yes, yes, you have the golden ticket and screw all those starving children in underdeveloped countries who die from starvation and lack of potable water.


Sorry, but what has their starvation (which certainly should be addressed, let's also address the causes including man-made ones) with whether or not they sin? Are you intending to imply that suffering in this world gives you a licence to sin?

Liz


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> if there IS a god, all evidence points to the fact that its a hateful god, not a loving one.


If that were true, the human race would have been wiped out thousands of years ago.



> We should consider ourselves really lucky that we were born in the right country. Born in the wrong country and u might end up beleiving the wrong religion.


It isn't limited to what country you are born in!

Incidentally Porps, I have never ever complained about any post anyone has made. Feel free to debate me as hard as you like 

Liz


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> If that were true, the human race would have been wiped out thousands of years ago.


What makes you say that? Wouldnt a hateful god prefer to torture than just to exterminate? wouldnt wiping the human race out be depriving himself of the pleasure of watching people suffer?



lizward said:


> It isn't limited to what country you are born in!


Of course it is. if someone happens to be born in a country where they worship a different god they have no chance to get to heaven. Born in the right country? well done you'll be indoctrinated into the "right religion". born in the wrong country? unlucky! Now burn.

Were you really serious when you said you've never heard of dinosaurs?

_Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved._


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection. The resurrection is a historical *fact*. That comes first. Once that is in place, Christ is clearly shown to be the Son of God and His word takes top priority.
> 
> Do I believe the Bible in a literal fashion? Yes.
> 
> I honestly have no idea why so many people think they are experts on Bible history when 1. they have never read the Bible and 2. they have not the first idea about how we got it. You wouldn't find people arguing about history or literature when they had never studied it but the Bible seems to be fair game. Odd, isn't it.
> 
> As I often tell my congregation at Easter, if all four accounts of the resurrection were identical the accusation made would be that four writers sat down together and decided on their story. Because all four accounts are slightly different, hey, it must be fiction. The fact that it would stand up in a court of law doesn't seem to matter.
> 
> How many transmogrifications is that, and what are they?
> 
> Liz


Fact? The crucifixion, perhaps, yes.

You have no idea about my studies about the bible. I am more interested in the changes it underwent in translation and how monarchs such as Henry VIII historically changed procedures and even wording to suit personal gain/preference. You could be forgiven for saying that the biblical chain of evidence was well and truly broken over the centuries. It is not safe to rely on the spoken word which was then written but only after some hundreds of years. I dread to think what changed from your 'facts' in the written version and the original happenings. You believe in both testaments in a literal fashion? Talk about _blind faith!_ 

And of course the bible is fair game: it's a popular book, although I think Fifty Shades was _slightly_ better written.

*Your* congregation? Your profile says you sell violins and breed cats.  Have you set up some odd business combining the three?!


----------



## MontyMaude

People do you never learn, Liz is a Preacher and you will never win an argument about religion with her because her because she will never deviate from her views, you will just get wound up at the blinkeredness of her blind faith 

My views on religion are that it must be comforting to have true faith in something and if thats what floats ya boat then good on you but I am not and never will believe, I just find it so so sad that pretty much every war that has been fought has always been about religion and peoples unwillingness to just live and let live in peace and harmony.


----------



## swarthy

cinammontoast said:


> It strikes me that religion is to blame for many of the world's ills and that without it, we would live more harmoniously with far less predujice and far more understanding.


Religion isn't the cause, it's the excuse. If there was no religion, those that don't want to live in peace and harmonly would simply find another excuse


----------



## DogLover1981

swarthy said:


> Religion isn't the cause, it's the excuse. If there was no religion, those that don't want to live in peace and harmonly would simply find another excuse


The world has already become more peaceful. The power of religion and religious leaders has waned as well. The media does tend sensationalize the problems in the world however. When was the last World War?


----------



## cinnamontoast

DogLover1981 said:


> The world has already become more peaceful. The power of religion and religious leaders has waned as well. The media does tend sensationalize the problems in the world however. When was the last World War?


1939-1945 or a bit later if you're American. 

Joke! If I could be American, I would. I _adore_ the place. If I can trick some poor person to have Zak next summer, I'm off an another epic road trip


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> Do you not find it unreasonable that people in the US deny rights to other humans in the name of your religion? Does that not bother you?
> 
> Rather than make assumptions, I ask first for you to clarify what you mean by this.
> Do you think water molecules are not made up of hydrogen and oxygen?


Yes however as long as the masses continue to vote in such a manner that they do there is not much others can do. The world does not revolve around the US so many of us dont know all the ins and outs.



porps said:


> oo, oo! i know the answer to this one!
> 
> to quote the Minchin....
> _
> I know the Good Book's good because the Good Book says it's good.
> I know the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would._
> 
> You see! Irrefutable proof! And dont you go tryin any of that fancy logic crap with me either, it just doesnt wash.
> 
> I dont know wether to laugh or cry :s
> I'll just go with another verse of Minchin instead.
> 
> _If you just close your eyes and block your ears
> To the accumulated knowledge of the last two thousand years
> Then morally, guess what? You're off the hook
> And thank Christ you only have to read one book_
> 
> Also, dont you guys think those scientists have taken their practical joke a bit far, planting all those so called dinosaur bones in the ground then "discovering them" just to undermine the word of god? Come on guys a jokes a joke- noones gonna beleive a stupid story like giant reptiles anyway!
> 
> A few things do bother me though...
> I mean, we know god is all powerfull, all loving, just and omnipotent. Yet it took him ages to make the earth. Why take so long? If i was an all powerfull omnipotent being i'd make the world in an instant, not take days over it.
> Also if i was fair and just and loving i
> A- wouldnt murder all but 2 of every species on earth because a couple of people ate an apple
> and
> B- if i *was* going to wipe everything out i'd realise that a flood is a bad method - it isnt gonna bother the fish and other creatures of the ocean. I think i'd just blink them out of existance tbh, seems a lot easier than going to all that fuss.


what are you on about? More misconceptions about religion. Have a read:

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body: "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies - which was neither planned nor sought - constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

We can all say "if I were God I'd do x,y,z" but we aren't.



ouesi said:


> Oh dear....
> You do realize there is a difference between facts that are based on proof and beliefs which are based on faith dont you?
> 
> Well, never mind... its pretty clear at this point that you dont.
> 
> Let me just say that I want nothing to do with your god who based on your fact, would deny someone like Anne Frank access to his heaven because she did not accept Jesus as her savior before death.
> I want nothing to do with your god who based on your fact would accept Jerry Sandusky in to his heaven so long as he asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as his savior.
> Yes, the guy who says innocent, kind, hopeful girl out, child molester monster in because he believes in me is no god I want anything to do with. I think listening to Beatles lyrics would offer me a better moral compass. But then, I dont need a god to tell me child molestation is wrong. Thats one thats pretty easy to figure out on my own.
> 
> Neither are you Liz. Yet you seem to feel that your understanding of God is more valid than others.


God doesn't force you to have anything to do with him. 
Anne frank was jewish, they don't believe in Hell for starters.
Salvation is open to anyone, but in order to receive it one must be truly repentant (which i doubt peados are). And you must accept Christ as saviour. Should a man who commits murder in self defence not have a chance of Salvation?



Knightofalbion said:


> 'All this talk of religion, but it's how you live your life that is the all-important thing.
> If you set out each day to do all the goodness and kindness that you can, and to do no harm to man or beast, then you are walking the highest path.
> And when your time is up, if you can leave the earth a better place than you found it, then yours will have been a life well lived.'
> 
> It is our deeds, the accumulated acts of goodness and kindness, that define us and. ultimately, are the true measure of our worth.
> 
> Service is the coin of the spirit.


So the teachings of Jesus then lol?



ouesi said:


> WOW.... See, this is where I tend to lose it...
> Some sin of which I happen to disapprove??????? Are you nucking futs??? What kind of psychopathic moron doesnt understand that forcibly butt raping underprivileged little boys is a monstrosity? Its not some sin, its not something you wag your finger, and tisk tisk your disapproval. It is just plain immoral and WRONG and rational, human beings with normally functioning brains dont need a religious book or religious leader to explain that to them. Moreover, if we DID need a religious book in order to understand that violently butt raping little boys is wrong, humanity would not have survived to the point it has.
> 
> Yes, yes, you have the golden ticket and screw all those starving children in underdeveloped countries who die from starvation and lack of potable water. If only they would accept Jesus they too could join the ranks of the privileged few. Maybe if you prayed for them, Jesus might find it in his heart to let a few of them in to your exclusive club.
> How utterly arrogant and inhumane.


RE your rant on pedophilia, can you show me where in the Holy Bible it is condoned? jesus himself said:

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." -Mark 9:42
Churches give to their churches in the 3rd world, build wells and help the local community so how are they screwing them?



porps said:


> and some things are simply untrue. Like the existance of god for example. That which can be asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> if there IS a god, all evidence points to the fact that its a hateful god, not a loving one.
> 
> We should consider ourselves really lucky that we were born in the right country. Born in the wrong country and u might end up beleiving the wrong religion. imagine that, stupid idiots believing in the wrong god haha. They will surely burn!
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> Hard to beleive we're in 2012 sometimes.


you cannot disprove God, no one can.
Every country has many religions within in it and each believe something slightly different, to each their own.


----------



## northnsouth

lizward said:


> The Bible reduced to three sentences. Ooops. there's something missing ... Liz


What it that then? What do you believe that to be?


----------



## porps

Starlite said:


> what are you on about? More misconceptions about religion. Have a read:
> 
> In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body: "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies - which was neither planned nor sought - constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."


Cool, so even the pope has been forced to admit, in the face of actual scientific evidence, that the bible is essentially a pack of lies. About time really.



Starlite said:


> you cannot disprove God, no one can.


i thought that was what i said. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm completely fine with people saying "i beleive this is how it is...", but im not fine with people saying "this is how it is" - unless of course it's backed up with EVIDENCE. 
Case in point:


Starlite said:


> Salvation is open to anyone, but in order to receive it one must be truly repentant (which i doubt peados are). And you must accept Christ as saviour.


You state it as though it's a fact. It's not. It may or (more likely) may not be true but at the moment it's merely a beleif.

The burden of proof does not lie with the sceptic.

_if anyone can show me just *one example* in the history of the world of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to *prove* either logically or empirically the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife...

Ill give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife _


----------



## porps

swarthy said:


> Religion isn't the cause, it's the excuse. If there was no religion, those that don't want to live in peace and harmonly would simply find another excuse


This is true to some extent, however by mass indoctrination people who would normally be peaceful can be persuaded to support wars which they otherwise would not. 
The people who start the wars dont do it for religion, they simply use religion as a means to get the people to support them. You need the support of the people if you're going to wage an unjust war, religion is a great tool for gaining that support.


----------



## Starlite

porps said:


> Cool, so even the pope has been forced to admit, in the face of actual scientific evidence, that the bible is essentially a pack of lies. About time really.
> 
> *No, it is accepted as a theory, and like all theories it has loose ends. It was once a widely accepted theory the earth was flat, things continually change*
> 
> i thought that was what i said. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> I'm completely fine with people saying "i beleive this is how it is...", but im not fine with people saying "this is how it is" - unless of course it's backed up with EVIDENCE.
> Case in point:
> 
> You state it as though it's a fact. It's not. It may or (more likely) may not be true but at the moment it's merely a beleif.
> 
> *My apoligies for not starting every sentence with "I believe/in the Catholic faith". I assumed as I established I was a practising catholic at the start of the thread this would be a given.*
> 
> The burden of proof does not lie with the sceptic.
> 
> _if anyone can show me just *one example* in the history of the world of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to *prove* either logically or empirically the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife...
> 
> I'll give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife
> 
> *As you have already said no one can prove or disprove *_


Instead of slating every faith and belief why don't you have a look at them? You seem to know nothing more than trodden out misconceptions


----------



## Starlite

DogLover1981 said:


> The world has already become more peaceful. The power of religion and religious leaders has waned as well. The media does tend sensationalize the problems in the world however. When was the last World War?


Wars stilll rage, we are still in Iraq for example.


----------



## DogLover1981

Starlite said:


> Wars stilll rage, we are still in Iraq for example.


The Vietnam War, The Korean War, The war in Afghanistan, The Iraqi War, The Gulf War, etc. are all nothing compared to World War 2 and World War 1(especially World War 2). They generally involve only a small number of countries and are smaller in scale. That's even more so with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## click

porps said:


> Ill give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife [/I]


Please send photo of piano.


----------



## porps

Starlite said:


> Instead of slating every faith and belief why don't you have a look at them? You seem to know nothing more than trodden out misconceptions


You dont get it do you? I'm not slating your beleifs, im slating the desire to pass off your beleifs as truth and the long standing tradition of indoctrinating children into the same beleif system, even though you are constantly forced to reinterpret the bible as more and more knowledge is gained which appears to completely refute it's teachings.

once..
God made man on the 6th day of creation in his own image.. FACT!

Some years later

Ok so the 6 day thing might have been wrong, thats not supposed to be taken literally, but he definately created man in his own image. FACT!

Some years later

Ok so he didnt actual create man in his own image, he created the primordial soup and let man evolve out of it....

I cant prove god doesnt exist. and you cant prove he exists. Likewise, i cant prove that the invisible flying spaghetti monster exists and you cant prove it doesnt.

There is equal evidence to support both claims (none). As such i choose not to devote my life to either one of them.



click said:


> Please send photo of piano.


here you go
http://www.steinway.com/img/home-hero-model-d.png


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> RE your rant on pedophilia, can you show me where in the Holy Bible it is condoned?


Numbers, Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Judges for starters. I think Hosea and Ezekiel also have passages where if not pedophilia, child murder is condoned.
Heck, in some parts of the bible, God demands that children be murdered. 
But quite honestly, Im not going to waste my afternoon thumbing through to look them up. I know how these conversations go, and youll simply tell me I read the wrong translation or Im interpreting things wrong. Lucky for me, I dont need a book written by the most backward people barely out of the bronze age telling me what is right and what is wrong. Im perfectly able to figure that out on my own by simply being a compassionate, humane, ethical human being. Which believe it or not, can exist without religion. Yea compassionate, loving people exist despite religion.

BTW, Anne Frank was a CHILD, who according to your beliefs is condemned because of the family she was born in to. Which is, unsurprisingly, a recurring theme in the bible, that children must pay for the sins of their forefathers. Such a loving God that bible god...


----------



## swarthy

Starlite said:


> Wars stilll rage, we are still in Iraq for example.


Of course they do, they've never ended - just because there hasn't been a "world war" doesn't mean there are no wars. If there was another "world war" I think it's safe to say it won't be difficult to envisage where it ends 

Someone said the media embellish things - I don't watch the news and I don't read papers - embellished or not - it's just too depressing.

Nevertheless, there are parts of the world living on a knife edge - and we (as in Britain) have been instrumental in pushing some of them further towards that edge; we've removed tyrannical dictators which has to be seen as positive, consequentially, there are huge power vacuums in parts of the world where stability is beyond critical to the future of not only the region, but wider world.

Who can say we won't see new dictators emerging to fill these power vacuums, supported by western world leaders, happy to believe they can release the reigns until such time as reality hits home - then the whole darn cycle starts again


----------



## SandyR

My children are not brainwashed. Yes they have been baptised catholic and will be brought up this way but it is there choice if they wish to believe in their religion, convert to another or not believe. 

However they will not be brought up to slag other people's beliefs of and have disrespect. If they ask me a question that contradicts their religion I will be honest and let them decide if they wish to have faith or doubt due to no real proof as others say. 

Brainwashing is cults not religion.


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> What makes you say that? Wouldnt a hateful god prefer to torture than just to exterminate? wouldnt wiping the human race out be depriving himself of the pleasure of watching people suffer?


Well then by your own standards he is not a hateful God, since he did indeed once wipe out virtually the entire human race (all but 8 of them)



> Of course it is. if someone happens to be born in a country where they worship a different god they have no chance to get to heaven. Born in the right country? well done you'll be indoctrinated into the "right religion". born in the wrong country? unlucky! Now burn.


You seem to be under some strange impression that people cannot mvoe between countries. These days there are aeroplanes, you know, even radio and, gasp, the internet!!



> Were you really serious when you said you've never heard of dinosaurs?


That is not what I said!

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> You have no idea about my studies about the bible. I am more interested in the changes it underwent in translation and how monarchs such as Henry VIII historically changed procedures and even wording to suit personal gain/preference.


Ok, I'll play. Please give details of the changes that worry you.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

SandyR said:


> My children are not brainwashed. Yes they have been baptised catholic and will be brought up this way but it is there choice if they wish to believe in their religion, convert to another or not believe.
> 
> Brainwashing is cults not religion.


Not wishing to offend!

I was brought up as a Catholic and attended a very old fashioned convent school (the sexual reproduction pages were ripped out of the biology textbooks ) I was immersed and surrounded by the religion day in, day out, every major feast day was celebrated, Mass was twice weekly, often more. From an outside POV, it could have been seen as 'flooding' or 'brainwashing' or simply as a religious way of life, pretty normal to others in the same rhythm. I certainly had no choice.

I believe it was the same type of behaviour as a cult, as is any religion, surely. We worshipped the one central person (Holy Trinity), we carried out bizarre rituals (bizarre to outsiders), we believed wholeheartedly in certain concepts and ideas. We used a particular manuscript on which we based our teachings and way of life. We ate pieces of bread and drank wine and claimed it was the actual body and blood of the head of our organisation, even though it obviously wasn't flesh or bodily fluids.

Some people take this religion to extremes and deny themselves food, sex, children, depending on which route they follow. In what way do cults differ? Just because they're newer, run by people who are sometimes deluded or out only to fool others or gain profit? (Or run by Americans! )

Jesus was the original cult leader! Look how he (if he existed) was allegedly treated and how he (apparently) died, mocked as the 'King of the Jews'. Tell me how a cult differs from an established religion? To set up a new religion, you only need a couple of hundred people to agree to follow you.

I think no child should be baptised or inducted into any religion until they have experienced many and are able to decide, as an adult, what, if anything, they believe. I find it deeply unfair that that any child should be automatically led down one route by well meaning (but possibly misguided) parents. Religious beliefs should not dictate the choice of school, future partner or way of life.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> *Your* congregation? Your profile says you sell violins and breed cats.  Have you set up some odd business combining the three?!


I am a Lay Preacher, I preach nearly every week. I suppose it would have been more accurate to say "my congregations".

Liz


----------



## lizward

MontyMaude said:


> just find it so so sad that pretty much every war that has been fought has always been about religion and peoples unwillingness to just live and let live in peace and harmony.


World Wars 1 and 2 weren't. But don't let the facts spoil your blind faith.

Liz


----------



## lizward

northnsouth said:


> What it that then? What do you believe that to be?


God!

Honestly, the amount of rubbish stated as fact on this thread, by those who know little or nothing about the subject under discussion, is little short of astonishing.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

MontyMaude said:


> People do you never learn, Liz is a Preacher and you will never win an argument about religion with her because her because she will never deviate from her views, you will just get wound up at the blinkeredness of her blind faith





lizward said:


> Ok, I'll play. Please give details of the changes that worry you.
> 
> Liz


May I refer you to MontyMaude's post? I fear that anything I say will be discounted by your theology degree and the fact that clearly you know so much more than the rest of us.  

There seems little point in arguing one way or another. Clearly I will not persuade you that the Bible _may_ not be exactly truthful and despite the websites and theories which abound, I will not blindly follow a religious precept.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Numbers, Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Judges for starters. I think Hosea and Ezekiel also have passages where if not pedophilia, child murder is condoned.


Could you give the actual references please?


> Heck, in some parts of the bible, God demands that children be murdered.


Reference, please?


> BTW, Anne Frank was a CHILD, who according to your beliefs is condemned because of the family she was born in to.


She was about 14 when she died, wasn't she? And she was not condemned because of her family.


> Which is, unsurprisingly, a recurring theme in the bible, that children must pay for the sins of their forefathers.


Ezekiel 18 disagrees with you.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> May I refer you to MontyMaude's post? I fear that anything I say will be discounted by your theology degree and the fact that clearly you know so much more than the rest of us.


You made the claim, If in fact you are unable to back it up, you shoudl withdraw the claim.

Liz


----------



## SandyR

My son goes to a mixed faith school. In fact most of his friends are probably Muslim not catholic. 

Maybe I'm just not religious enough though. 

So when a six year old asks where do we go when we die I should say well it's up to you to decide your religion first and then you will know. Kids want to know these things from a young age and I would rather he believed in going to heaven to a loving God then just being buried and eaten by worms or burning and never exsisting as that although might be true as we have no proof it is not a very comforting thought. 

What wrong with giving a comforting message to a child but still alowing them freedom to grow and learn and make their own choices. 

I don't hammer the religion into my children in fact i hardly mention it unless they ask. My son actually came home from school asking me to read him the bible so his mixed school must be teaching them all the religions which I think is great. 

I'm probably not the best catholic as I don't follow all the teaching like no sex before marriage etc but I try to be a good person and by doing that I give my children hope of a happy life after death but also the freedom to learn and choose.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Religious beliefs should not dictate the choice of school, future partner or way of life.


Whyever not? Marrying someone who is committed to another religion is asking for trouble!

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> World Wars 1 and 2 weren't. But don't let the facts spoil your blind faith.
> 
> Liz


2 wars out of how many?! It's like those awful pop tune shows, the most recent always win, despite iconic groups like the Rolling Stones being madly more successful than, say, Jedward.


----------



## Guest

cinammontoast said:


> Not wishing to offend!
> 
> I was brought up as a Catholic and attended a very old fashioned convent school (the sexual reproduction pages were ripped out of the biology textbooks ) I was immersed and surrounded by the religion day in, day out, every major feast day was celebrated, Mass was twice weekly, often more. From an outside POV, it could have been seen as 'flooding' or 'brainwashing' or simply as a religious way of life, pretty normal to others in the same rhythm. I certainly had no choice.
> 
> I believe it was the same type of behaviour as a cult, as is any religion, surely. We worshipped the one central person (Holy Trinity), we carried out bizarre rituals (bizarre to outsiders), we believed wholeheartedly in certain concepts and ideas. We used a particular manuscript on which we based our teachings and way of life. We ate pieces of bread and drank wine and claimed it was the actual body and blood of the head of our organisation, even though it obviously wasn't flesh or bodily fluids.
> 
> Some people take this religion to extremes and deny themselves food, sex, children, depending on which route they follow. In what way do cults differ? Just because they're newer, run by people who are sometimes deluded or out only to fool others or gain profit? (Or run by Americans! )
> 
> Jesus was the original cult leader! Look how he (if he existed) was allegedly treated and how he (apparently) died, mocked as the 'King of the Jews'. Tell me how a cult differs from an established religion? To set up a new religion, you only need a couple of hundred people to agree to follow you.
> 
> I think no child should be baptised or inducted into any religion until they have experienced many and are able to decide, as an adult, what, if anything, they believe. I find it deeply unfair that that any child should be automatically led down one route by well meaning (but possibly misguided) parents. Religious beliefs should not dictate the choice of school, future partner or way of life.


Beautiful, worth rep but apparently I need to spread it around some


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> 2 wars out of how many?! I


I have no idea, I haven't done the research. However medieval wars were generally about who should be king, and many wars are about territory. And I do happen to think the two world wars were fairly significant.

Liz


----------



## MCWillow

ouesi said:


> Beautiful, worth rep but apparently I need to spread it around some


Totally agree - and done


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Could you give the actual references please?


So you can tell me Im reading the wrong translation and/or not interpreting the words kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who is not a virgin incorrectly? No thanks.



lizward said:


> She was about 14 when she died, wasn't she? And she was not condemned because of her family.


Oh please enlighten me. What was she condemned for then? Why will someone like Anne Frank never see the kingdom of heaven in your belief system?



lizward said:


> Ezekiel 18 disagrees with you.


And Isaiah 14 disagrees with you. I can do this all day. You do realize that non-believers are capable of owning and reading bibles right?


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> You made the claim, If in fact you are unable to back it up, you shoudl withdraw the claim.
> 
> Liz


Should I? Really? Are you seriously trying to say that a book that was written based on oral histories from hundreds of years ago has stayed the same exactly? Can you not see that this is extremely unlikely?!



lizward said:


> Whyever not? Marrying someone who is committed to another religion is asking for trouble!
> 
> Liz


But why sould this prevent a potentially perfect partnership? A friend of mine of a different religion to me would be horrified if her children were to marry 'out'. She even ensured that they went to a predominantly (her religion) university.

I find it crazy that religion dictates a way of life in that it prevents people from perhaps following their heart. I understand it: I couldn't be with someone who doesn't love dogs or someone whom is allergic to my horse! I just find it sad.

My marriage ceremony caused a lot of unnecessary tension in that my husband is not the same religion, but not very bothered about his. At the time, it mattered to me. Looking back, I wished just gone down to the registry office. In the grand scheme of things, where it took place was ultimately deeply irrelevant.


----------



## SandyR

I think some people are unfortunate with their experience of religion. 

I've had no issues. Went to a lovely catholic school and was never made to feel forced into believing it or scared with hell etc. 

I married a Methodist who does not really believe but was happy to get married in a catholic church. Non of our families minded. My children are baptised and non of my husbands family have objected even though his parents are very religious. 

It's the people around you that cause issues not religion.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> So you can tell me Im reading the wrong translation and/or not interpreting the words kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who is not a virgin incorrectly? No thanks.


No, that is perfectly clear, I merely wondered which verses you were talking about, now you have enlightened me. Thank you. Now, what about the paedophilia - that was your claim wasn't it, that the Bible condones that?



> Oh please enlighten me. What was she condemned for then? Why will someone like Anne Frank never see the kingdom of heaven in your belief system?


Assuming she did not turn to Christ before she died - she was condemned for being a sinner. 


> And Isaiah 14 disagrees with you. I can do this all day. You do realize that non-believers are capable of owning and reading bibles right?


It makes a refreshing change  Do you mean v21? That's part of the taunt Israel makes to the king of Babylon, it isn't what God decrees. However, here are a couple of points that may help. 1. ALL of us are affected by the behaviour of our parents. If we continue the behaviour of our parents (which is the scenario of Isaiah 14 but not of Ezekial 18) then of course we can expect to reap similar consequences. if you are the son of a career criminal and you decide to become a career criminal yourself, you'll be highly likely to end up in jail. 2. Since death is not the end, physical death is not the most important consideration. Of vastly more importance is the question fo where the person who has died (including being killed) will spedn eternity.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Should I? Really? Are you seriously trying to say that a book that was written based on oral histories from hundreds of years ago has stayed the same exactly? Can you not see that this is extremely unlikely?!


Don't you realise you are using a circular argument? "The Bible must have changed because I think it must have changed" If you think it has changed, you are the one who needs to provide evidence for those changes. The Muslims are unable to do so, see if you can do any better 



> But why sould this prevent a potentially perfect partnership?


It can't be a perfect partnership, it can't even be a satisfactory one. How could a committed Christian and a committed Muslim ever be happy together? How could either ever be happy with a practising orthodox jew, or a vehement atheist? It's just a non-starter and parents who help their children to see this are actually doing them a big favour.



> I find it crazy that religion dictates a way of life in that it prevents people from perhaps following their heart. I understand it: I couldn't be with someone who doesn't love dogs or someone whom is allergic to my horse! I just find it sad.


I breed cats as you know, and I would never have married anyone who didn't like cats, it would have been asking for trouble. But Christ is far more important to me than my cats!

Liz


----------



## Guest

Liz, did you know that if you take the word "faith" and rearrange the letters, you get "microwave"? Don't test it out, don't try to prove it, just trust me on this one. I know these things, you don't.

Oh, wait, that doesn't sit quite right with you?

Congratulations. Now you know how people like me feel about people like you telling us how the bible should be understood.

BTW, this right here:


lizward said:


> Assuming she did not turn to Christ before she died - she was condemned for being a sinner.


is ridiculous.


----------



## cinnamontoast

ouesi said:


> Beautiful, worth rep but apparently I need to spread it around some


Give some to Liz for sheer entertainment, hunny. She's worth it!



lizward said:


> I have no idea, I haven't done the research. However medieval wars were generally about who should be king, and many wars are about territory. And I do happen to think the two world wars were fairly significant.
> 
> Liz


Of course they were, but again, most recent wins the vote! Think Knights Templar, very epic war, very long, very all about religion. Think all wars ongoing in Islamic countries. Simple.



MCWillow said:


> Totally agree - and done


Thank you, that's incredibly sweet. 



ouesi said:


> And Isaiah 14 disagrees with you. I can do this all day. You do realize that non-believers are capable of owning and reading bibles right?


No, I don't think Liz thinks we can read. She certainly chooses to ignore my family history (good Irish Catholics, great uncle graduated double first theology from Oxford, missionary uncle in Cameroon, other uncle in seminary, many family marriages blessed by our very own Pope, my own amazing ability to read and decide something for myself.....)



SandyR said:


> I think some people are unfortunate with their experience of religion.
> 
> I've had no issues. Went to a lovely catholic school and was never made to feel forced into believing it or scared with hell etc.
> 
> I married a Methodist who does not really believe but was happy to get married in a catholic church. Non of our families minded.


I was taught all about hell and the wrath of God. Lovely.  Nice thing to do to a kid, I thought.  My dad was a Methodist (great singers!) and converted after years of *cough cough* brainwashing by attending church with mum and me.



lizward said:


> Assuming she did not turn to Christ before she died - she was condemned for being a sinner.


Yeah, she'd been out robbing and violating others. It is _*ridiculous*_ to condemn others purely due to their difference of opinion regarding religion. Bit like original sin, baptise that baby quick before it dies in sin! My aunt died aged three hours and my grandmother was in torture for fear the baby was wrapped in eternal flame due to the lack of a baptism: how completely stupid!


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> You seem to be under some strange impression that people cannot mvoe between countries. These days there are aeroplanes, you know, even radio and, gasp, the internet!!
> Liz


No, im under the impression that people are indoctrinated into the chosen beleif system of their home nation long before they can CHOOSE to leave of their own accord. I'm under the impression that many people in 3rd world will never be able to afford to leave, and i'm under the impression that the "rules" about accepting christ as your saviour were around long before aeroplanes, radio and, gasp, even the internet.



lizward said:


> Now, what about the paedophilia - that was your claim wasn't it, that the Bible condones that?


The bible may not condone it but the pope and the church have covered for kiddy fiddling priests which makes them just as bad as the kiddy fiddlers.

What comes next may be a bit offensive.. i've starred out the many f words in the hopes of not being banned- it does sum it up better than i ever could.

_I don't give a f*** what any other motherf***er
Believes about Jesus and his motherf***ing mother
I've no problem with the spiritual beliefs of other f***ers
While those beliefs don't impact on the happiness of others
But if you build your church on claims of f***ing moral authority
And with threats of hell impose it on others in society
Then you, you motherf***ers, can expect some f***ing wrath
When it turns out you've been f***ing us in our motherf***ing asses

So f*** the motherf***er, and f*** you, motherf***er
If you're still a motherf***ing papist.
If he covered for a single motherf***er who's a kiddy-f***er,
f*** him, he's as evil as the motherf***ing rapist
And if you look into your motherf***ing heart and tell me true
If this motherf***ing stupid f***ing song offended you
With it's filthy f***ing language and it's f***ing direspect
If it made you feel angry, go ahead and write a letter
But if you find me more offensive than the possibility
The Pope protected priests when they were getting f***ing fiddly
Then listen to me motherf***er - this here is a fact
You are just as morally misguided as that motherf***ing
Power-hungry, self-aggrandized bigot in the stupid f***ing hat_

I'll remove it if it's too much...


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Don't you realise you are using a circular argument? "The Bible must have changed because I think it must have changed" If you think it has changed, you are the one who needs to provide evidence for those changes. The Muslims are unable to do so, see if you can do any better
> 
> It can't be a perfect partnership, it can't even be a satisfactory one. How could a committed Christian and a committed Muslim ever be happy together? How could either ever be happy with a practising orthodox jew, or a vehement atheist? It's just a non-starter and parents who help their children to see this are actually doing them a big favour.
> 
> I breed cats as you know, and I would never have married anyone who didn't like cats, it would have been asking for trouble. But Christ is far more important to me than my cats!
> 
> Liz


Honestly, Liz, I feel sorry for someone who can't see that it cannot be as it was in the original context. We try our best to reconstruct eg Roman baths or Viking villages, but ultimately, we just don't know what they looked like. We can guess and pontificate about how we _*know*_ they were like this based on a, b and c, but we just *don't* *know*.

I find it ridiculous that religion, which no-one can fundamentally prove, should prevent a marriage or partnership. I was terrified of becoming pregnant before I got married. I would rather have found out I had AIDS, because the religion in which I was embedded ensured that I was programmed to be that way. Mental, frankly.

Parents 'helping' their kids to see that they just can't marry someone from another religion are just perpetrating the myth and brainwashing their children, a pretty horrible thing to do to someone who looks up to you.

It's true that religion causes war, not only on the wider scale but also within families. 

P.S. Muslims apparently deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. Afraid I'm not going to base anything on their beliefs!


----------



## Guest

porps said:


> No, im under the impression that people are indoctrinated into the chosen beleif system of their home nation long before they can CHOOSE to leave of their own accord. I'm under the impression that many people in 3rd world will never be able to afford to leave, and i'm under the impression that the "rules" about accepting christ as your saviour we're around long before aeroplanes, radio and, gasp, even the internet.


:thumbup:
Silly goose making all that sense in a discussion about religion. Dont you know anything?!


----------



## MCWillow

There are a lot of religions, and they all hold their own beliefs on who or what God is.

In the bible Jesus is King of the Jews - yet christianity and jewish faiths are completely seperate - why is that?

The thing I don't like about religion is that everyone fights about who has the 'right' God.

I mean, who is anyone else, to tell someone the God they worship is wrong?

In my opinion, all the fighting about whos God is best, goes directly against the teachings of _any_ of them.


----------



## DogLover1981

lizward said:


> It can't be a perfect partnership, it can't even be a satisfactory one. How could a committed Christian and a committed Muslim ever be happy together? How could either ever be happy with a practising orthodox jew, or a vehement atheist? It's just a non-starter and parents who help their children to see this are actually doing them a big favour.


Not always true. I know people who are married and they each have very different faiths and religions. Does religion even need to be discussed in a relationship? Nope, not in my opinion at least. As for me, I have a close friend who is a Southern Baptist Minister. lol :thumbup: I would be best described as an agnostic atheist, though, I don't like labels. lol


----------



## DogLover1981

To add to my earlier post, It's almost cult-like to be telling people who they should and shouldn't be dating on the basis of religion. I hear stories of parents being worried about how to deal with each other having different religions. I don't even understand why it's an issue. Let the children decide and form their own beliefs.


----------



## Guest

This Steven Weinberg quote pretty much sums it up for me:


> Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.


----------



## katie200

I think everyone had a right to believe in what they like if it makes them happy.

I don't really believe in god, and would never agan step into a church. But I have my own ideas and don't need to conform to a named religion.

My neighbours a jw and I never understand the blood thing and really dislike when jw come knocking on my door trying to convert me! 

But if religion makes you feel better and give you a sence of calm then why not hey!


----------



## swarthy

lizward said:


> It can't be a perfect partnership, it can't even be a satisfactory one. How could a committed Christian and a committed Muslim ever be happy together? How could either ever be happy with a practising orthodox jew, or a vehement atheist? It's just a non-starter and parents who help their children to see this are actually doing them a big favour.


WHY?

Chances are, marriages between devout christians and devout muslims would be few and far between - nevertheless, there will be some

They will inevitably be people who have probably had to face much prejudice from families and a wider audience - this can destroy relationships, but it can also strengthen them.

I would NEVER tell my daughter she couldn't have a partner based solely on their religion or race (or gender if that was her want).

To do so is IMHO indoctrinating un-necessary prejudice - sadly still indicative of the wider society in which we live 

People of all races and religions should be taught tolerance and acceptance - people's lives can be made so much richer through embracing such differences as opposed to excluding them.

I couldn't care less if my daughters husband was a atheist with pink hair and piercings in every orifice, or any other religion - all I would ever be concerned about is that he loved and respected her and treated her properly.

Love always has been, and will remain being about compromise - this should include religion - no-one says mixed religious marriages will always be easy, but they can and do work.

My dad was catholic, my mother methodist - they enjoyed 52 years of marriage until my dad passed away two years ago.

My daughter's partner is fillipino - he doesn't practice, but his mother is staunch catholic and he went to a catholic school. His father died some years ago but this was his second marriage, his mother is now married to an Iraqi.

I don't believe my daughter will convert to catholocism - but if that's what she wants, I will respect that choice

I know, that if they chose to get married (they currently live together) then they will do everything in their power to make it work whatever their religiious persuasions.

ETA - if all families did indoctrinate into their children that mixed religion marriages don't work - society will NEVER change and prejudices and opinions will continue to leap from one generation to the next


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> BTW, this right here is ridiculous.


Why? Is it not logically possible that there is only one true religion?

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> No, I don't think Liz thinks we can read. She certainly chooses to ignore my family history (good Irish Catholics, great uncle graduated double first theology from Oxford, missionary uncle in Cameroon, other uncle in seminary, many family marriages blessed by our very own Pope, my own amazing ability to read and decide something for myself.....)


How does that make you able to understand the Bible?


> It is _*ridiculous*_ to condemn others purely due to their difference of opinion regarding religion.


Who are you to call God ridiculous? I might expect such silly talk from the pagans on here but you ought to know better, by your own admission.

Liz


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> The bible may not condone it but the pope and the church have covered for kiddy fiddling priests which makes them just as bad as the kiddy fiddlers.


Yes well, you must ask one of the Catholics about that. It most certainly would not be covered up in my church!

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> I was terrified of becoming pregnant before I got married. I would rather have found out I had AIDS, because the religion in which I was embedded ensured that I was programmed to be that way. Mental, frankly.


IF your religion taught you that sex outside marriage was fine but pregnancy resulting from that sex was sin (I say IF because I do not believe for a minute that you were taught any such thing, whatever my disagreement with the RC church it is pretty good on morals) then your religion certainly did you a disservice. Pregnancy is never sin. The act that led to it may well be but pregnancy cannot be.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> In the bible Jesus is King of the Jews - yet christianity and jewish faiths are completely seperate - why is that?


Jews do not accept that Jesus is the Messiah.



> I mean, who is anyone else, to tell someone the God they worship is wrong?


Don't you think God might have the right to do that?

Liz


----------



## lizward

swarthy said:


> WHY?
> 
> Chances are, marriages between devout christians and devout muslims would be few and far between - nevertheless, there will be some


I am willing to be educated on this. If you know of any such marriage that has worked - please note I am talking about a COMMITTED Christian and Muslim, not nominal ones - do tell. I don't really see how it could possibly work when each partner would be constantly praying for the conversion of the other and of the children.



> My dad was catholic, my mother methodist - they enjoyed 52 years of marriage until my dad passed away two years ago.


That is a far smaller difference, isn't it. Besides, I imagine that IF they were both practising, the children had to be brought up as Catholics, isn't that true?

Liz


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> No, im under the impression that people are indoctrinated into the chosen beleif system of their home nation long before they can CHOOSE to leave of their own accord. I'm under the impression that many people in 3rd world will never be able to afford to leave, and i'm under the impression that the "rules" about accepting christ as your saviour were around long before aeroplanes, radio and, gasp, even the internet.


Well, there are actually Christians in the third world, believe it or not.

Liz


----------



## Starlite

cinammontoast said:


> Not wishing to offend!
> 
> I was brought up as a Catholic and attended a very old fashioned convent school (the sexual reproduction pages were ripped out of the biology textbooks ) I was immersed and surrounded by the religion day in, day out, every major feast day was celebrated, Mass was twice weekly, often more. From an outside POV, it could have been seen as 'flooding' or 'brainwashing' or simply as a religious way of life, pretty normal to others in the same rhythm. I certainly had no choice.
> 
> I believe it was the same type of behaviour as a cult, as is any religion, surely. We worshipped the one central person (Holy Trinity), we carried out bizarre rituals (bizarre to outsiders), we believed wholeheartedly in certain concepts and ideas. We used a particular manuscript on which we based our teachings and way of life. We ate pieces of bread and drank wine and claimed it was the actual body and blood of the head of our organisation, even though it obviously wasn't flesh or bodily fluids.
> 
> *Some people* take this religion to extremes and deny themselves food, sex, children, depending on which route they follow. In what way do cults differ? Just because they're newer, run by people who are sometimes deluded or out only to fool others or gain profit? (Or run by Americans! )
> 
> Jesus was the original cult leader! Look how he (if he existed) was allegedly treated and how he (apparently) died, mocked as the 'King of the Jews'. Tell me how a cult differs from an established religion? To set up a new religion, you only need a couple of hundred people to agree to follow you.
> 
> I think no child should be baptised or inducted into any religion until they have experienced many and are able to decide, as an adult, what, if anything, they believe. I find it deeply unfair that that any child should be automatically led down one route by well meaning (but possibly misguided) parents. Religious beliefs should not dictate the choice of school, future partner or way of life.


exactly, SOME PEOPLE. You can't tar are religious with the same brush because SOME are extremists. There are extremists in every walk of life, it in no way makes them any better or right.
I think parents should be able to choose what they think is right for their child, their child will always grow up and question it. 
Catholic schools have the best education, its simple. They are taught humility, hard work and there's no messing about so I think that is a maor factor in deciding a school. There is a Catholic school in England which has 90% Muslim children, it teaches tolerance and they get the best education, I see nothing wrong with that.



ouesi said:


> Liz, did you know that if you take the word "faith" and rearrange the letters, you get "microwave"? Don't test it out, don't try to prove it, just trust me on this one. I know these things, you don't.
> 
> Oh, wait, that doesn't sit quite right with you?
> 
> Congratulations. Now you know how people like me feel about people like you telling us how the bible should be understood.
> 
> BTW, this right here:
> 
> is ridiculous.


If things dont "sit quite right with you" why allow them to annoy you, I dont understand?
Every religion has different rules, just because you happen to not agree with them does not make them any less valid.



cinammontoast said:


> Give some to Liz for sheer entertainment, hunny. She's worth it!
> 
> Of course they were, but again, most recent wins the vote! Think Knights Templar, very epic war, very long, very all about religion. Think all wars ongoing in Islamic countries. Simple.
> 
> Thank you, that's incredibly sweet.
> 
> No, I don't think Liz thinks we can read. She certainly chooses to ignore my family history (good Irish Catholics, great uncle graduated double first theology from Oxford, missionary uncle in Cameroon, other uncle in seminary, many family marriages blessed by our very own Pope, my own amazing ability to read and decide something for myself.....)
> 
> I was taught all about hell and the wrath of God. Lovely.  Nice thing to do to a kid, I thought.  My dad was a Methodist (great singers!) and converted after years of *cough cough* brainwashing by attending church with mum and me.
> 
> Yeah, she'd been out robbing and violating others. It is _*ridiculous*_ to condemn others purely due to their difference of opinion regarding religion. Bit like original sin, baptise that baby quick before it dies in sin! My aunt died aged three hours and my grandmother was in torture for fear the baby was wrapped in eternal flame due to the lack of a baptism: how completely stupid!


So are you previously Catholic or Methodist? Im lost.
I dont think you should write of all religion because you felt you had a bad experience, it's a great comfort to millions.

My little boy was in Neonatal when he was born. If he taken a turn for the worst I would have called my Parish Priest to come in and baptize him. I dont think anyone has the right to slate something which brings comfort and peace to those in dire need of it, such as the loss of a child.



porps said:


> No, im under the impression that people are indoctrinated into the chosen beleif system of their home nation long before they can CHOOSE to leave of their own accord. I'm under the impression that many people in 3rd world will never be able to afford to leave, and i'm under the impression that the "rules" about accepting christ as your saviour were around long before aeroplanes, radio and, gasp, even the internet.
> 
> The bible may not condone it but the pope and the church have covered for kiddy fiddling priests which makes them just as bad as the kiddy fiddlers.
> 
> What comes next may be a bit offensive.. i've starred out the many f words in the hopes of not being banned- it does sum it up better than i ever could.
> 
> _I don't give a f*** what any other motherf***er
> Believes about Jesus and his motherf***ing mother
> I've no problem with the spiritual beliefs of other f***ers
> While those beliefs don't impact on the happiness of others
> But if you build your church on claims of f***ing moral authority
> And with threats of hell impose it on others in society
> Then you, you motherf***ers, can expect some f***ing wrath
> When it turns out you've been f***ing us in our motherf***ing asses
> 
> So f*** the motherf***er, and f*** you, motherf***er
> If you're still a motherf***ing papist.
> If he covered for a single motherf***er who's a kiddy-f***er,
> f*** him, he's as evil as the motherf***ing rapist
> And if you look into your motherf***ing heart and tell me true
> If this motherf***ing stupid f***ing song offended you
> With it's filthy f***ing language and it's f***ing direspect
> If it made you feel angry, go ahead and write a letter
> But if you find me more offensive than the possibility
> The Pope protected priests when they were getting f***ing fiddly
> Then listen to me motherf***er - this here is a fact
> You are just as morally misguided as that motherf***ing
> Power-hungry, self-aggrandized bigot in the stupid f***ing hat_
> 
> I'll remove it if it's too much...


People are not stuck in one faith for life, you are aware of that? I was baptised Catholic, left religion to search for answers and came back, it was MY choice to do so.

No animal should hide in robes hurting children, these people will have to answer to God and should never be sheilded, the truth will always out. I dont know anyone who condones hurting children so dont appreciate being viewed as someone who would protect a priest in the light of sexual abuse.

You have the right to your own opinions, shame you couldnt have eloquated them sensibly like an adult.



cinammontoast said:


> Honestly, Liz, I feel sorry for someone who can't see that it cannot be as it was in the original context. We try our best to reconstruct eg Roman baths or Viking villages, but ultimately, we just don't know what they looked like. We can guess and pontificate about how we _*know*_ they were like this based on a, b and c, but we just *don't* *know*.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that religion, which no-one can fundamentally prove, should prevent a marriage or partnership. I was terrified of becoming pregnant before I got married. I would rather have found out I had AIDS, because the religion in which I was embedded ensured that I was programmed to be that way. Mental, frankly.
> 
> Parents 'helping' their kids to see that they just can't marry someone from another religion are just perpetrating the myth and brainwashing their children, a pretty horrible thing to do to someone who looks up to you.
> 
> It's true that religion causes war, not only on the wider scale but also within families.
> 
> P.S. Muslims apparently deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. Afraid I'm not going to base anything on their beliefs!


I have no idea what your Parish was up to, but can safely say Ive never been terrified by my religion, sex or birth, how strange. did you not think to question it and look for answers yourself?

Where have you gotten the idea Muslims deny the Holocaust, Ive never heard of it, do you have any links?


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Why? Is it not logically possible that there is only one true religion?
> 
> Liz


I guess it is logically possible - but who says the religion you follow is the one true religion?

Why couldn't it be one of the many other religions in existence?



MCWillow said:


> In the bible Jesus is King of the Jews - yet christianity and jewish faiths are completely seperate - why is that?





lizward said:


> Jews do not accept that Jesus is the Messiah.


Who says 'the one true religion' accepts there is or was a Messiah?



MCWillow said:


> I mean, who is anyone else, to tell someone the God they worship is wrong?





lizward said:


> Don't you think God might have the right to do that?
> 
> Liz


Yes, _God_ might have the right to say that, but it isn't God saying it - its people who follow religions, trying to tell you that theirs is the right one, and everyone elses is the wrong one!


----------



## swarthy

lizward said:


> I am willing to be educated on this. If you know of any such marriage that has worked - please note I am talking about a COMMITTED Christian and Muslim, not nominal ones - do tell. I don't really see how it could possibly work when each partner would be constantly praying for the conversion of the other and of the children.


I've already given one example in my daughters potential future MIL - a devout catholic who first married a divorcee who died and is now married to an Iraqi.

We have a family friend who married a muslim doctor nearly 30 years ago now, at a time when,where we live, you simply didn't see coloured faces.

I know many devout jews who have married christians (some were orthodox jews).

I know of other devout muslims with girlfriends/partners from various faiths - they won't have arranged marriages and yes, they make it work and I am darn sure there will be many more. Where I live, people from ethnic minorities are still quite low in numbers, but there are areas of the UK where the opposite is true.

I've had boyfriends who are muslims and hindu, who again take their religious duties very seriously.

I know some will say that other religions don't have the same level of tolerance as many westernised people - but that doesn't mean we should reciprocate - change MUST start somewhere if we are to move towards a more integrated society.

People don't have to have the same belief systems in order to make a relationship work - they simply have to respect these differences.

Neither my OH or I are particularly religious - but our political views are as far apart as it is possible to be on the political spectrum and has led to some real humdinger arguments -

I appreciate it is not quite the same as religion - but does require a certain level of tolerance as neither of us are willing to budge an inch on our beliefs - we've still made it work for 19 years.



lizward said:


> That is a far smaller difference, isn't it. Besides, I imagine that IF they were both practising, the children had to be brought up as Catholics, isn't that true?


As I understand it, they should be brought up in the religion of the mother. As it happens we didn't do either - my sister and I attended a Welsh baptist chapel.

They aren't that similar, catholic and protestant teachings are VERY different in terms of beliefs and the level of commitment required.

In some parts of the world (some not that far away), catholics and protestants "rivalry" has been alive for as long as any of us can remember. Just as muslim / christian relationships won't be tolerated in some parts of the world. neither wil catholic / protestant relationships.

I have friends from seriously devout catholic mothers where the father was protestant. Once again - they made it work for 25 years plus until in one case, the father sadly developed alzheimers (he was many years older than her) - but she nursed him right to the end. One of her daughters subsequently followed in the footsteps of many of her mothers family (several priests and nuns) and became a nun.

=====================================

Aside from whether a relationship can work (or not) because or religious differences - I certainly don't believe that chidren should be indoctrinated into believing that some relationships are off limits because of religion, race or gender - this merely creates another level of discrimination which isn't of any benefit to the greater good.

People should be judged solely on how they treat others - not on their religious or cultural beliefs, colour of their skin or gender.

We can say as much as we like that race doesn't come into it - but it does; a large percentage of muslims will be of asian or african origin as will hindus - it's a very thin line to discriminate on one and not the other.

Two of my best friends at Uni - one was a devout muslim, the other devout hindu - my mother nearly fell off her chair when I told her they were close friends because of what she knows; it's not just relationships, certain friendships are "taboo" as well in some parts of the world


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> I guess it is logically possible - but who says the religion you follow is the one true religion?


The resurrection proclaims it loud and clear. Christ died for sinners and rose bodily from the grave. No other religion claims any such thing.



> Yes, _God_ might have the right to say that, but it isn't God saying it


The Bible is the word of God. The Bible declares it therefore God declares it.

Liz


----------



## lizward

swarthy said:


> I've already given one example in my daughters potential future MIL - a devout catholic who first married a divorcee who died and is now married to an Iraqi.


If she was a devout Catholic, I don't think she could have married a divorcee. I am willing to be corrected on this though if I am wrong. Is the Iraqi a _practising_ Muslim?



> We have a family friend who married a muslim doctor nearly 30 years ago now, at a time when,where we live, you simply didn't see coloured faces.


 This is not about colour, it's about religion. What was ytour family friend's religion and was s/he _practising_?



> I know many devout jews who have married christians (some were orthodox jews).


_Practising_ Christians? _Practising_ orthodox jews?



> I've had boyfriends who are muslims and hindu, who again take their religious duties very seriously.


But, presumably, you did not marry either of them.



> As I understand it, they should be brought up in the religion of the mother. As it happens we didn't do either - my sister and I attended a Welsh baptist chapel.


The Catholic church insists that children are brought up as Catholics. So, your Catholic parent was clearly not practising. Or not very well, anyway.

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Why? Is it not logically possible that there is only one true religion?
> 
> Liz


I dont think your understanding of logic is the same as mine.
Nothing about religion is logical because the foundation of religion is FAITH, and faith requires that the faithful suspend rational thought in order to believe.



lizward said:


> Who are you to call God ridiculous? I might expect such silly talk from the pagans on here but you ought to know better, by your own admission.
> 
> Liz


Silly talk???

Christianity asks that you symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of a jew raised from the dead and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master. For this will remove the evil that has been present in you since a woman formed from a mans rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat a forbidden fruit that would give her knowledge.

What was that about silly talk?



Starlite said:


> I think parents should be able to choose what they think is right for their child,* their child will always grow up and question it. *
> 
> (.....)
> 
> If things dont "sit quite right with you" why allow them to annoy you, I dont understand?
> Every religion has different rules, just because you happen to not agree with them does not make them any less valid.


But this is the thing. Religion, no matter how moderate is based on suspending rational thought and blind obedience. Its about doing as youre told in this special book no matter how much cognitive dissonance you feel. This is flat out dangerous, especially so in children.
Religion properly taught is something you simply do NOT question. Its the height of hypocrisy to say your child shall be indoctrinated in your religion of choice and its okay because the child will grow up to question it. Religion requires that you simply NOT question.

Religion teaches blind obedience and that bothers me because that is the kind of thing that leads to good people allowing bad things to continue.

I dont know who to attribute this to, but this is why I allow it to bother me:
"_Morality is about doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is about doing what you are told regardless of what is right._"



Starlite said:


> Where have you gotten the idea Muslims deny the Holocaust, Ive never heard of it, do you have any links?


This article was written in 2006 by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who wrote Infidel. Excellent book, and worth reading IMO. (See thats how non believers operate, they read more than one book and dont claim to have all the answers ) 
Why they deny the Holocaust - latimes.com


> Western leaders today who say they are shocked by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference this week denying the Holocaust need to wake up to that reality. For the majority of Muslims in the world, the Holocaust is not a major historical event that they deny. We simply do not know it ever happened because we were never informed of it.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Really? So if I could somehow convince you that it was compeltely accurate, you would give up your false gods and return in repentance to the one true God, would you?


If you could *prove* to me that there is only one god and the the bible was an accurate representation of that god's word, then I would believe in that god. Go ahead and try. Good luck.

But before you take on the challenge, I'd better point out that you will never convince me by dismissing logical arguments in the way you have done with the argument about the ethics of the translator(s). So far you have failed to prove anything at all about its accuracy.



lizward said:


> I am not saying that you are deliberately lying. it is entirely possible that you have not thought the issues through. If I could answer every one of your questions to your satisfaction, would you repent of your sin and cry out to the Lord for mercy, promising to serve him faithfully for the rest of your days, or not?


How very arrogant of you to assume that I would not have thought something through properly. Again, I think that this is yet another example of you applying your own standards to me. It has been very evident from your replies that you are unable to think anything through properly for yourself, but merely repeat your taught beliefs and ignore anything that does not fit in with them. In fact - to give you an example from another thread we are both active on - you are doing for your god and your bible exactly what Gemma is doing for the RSPCA on her thread - and you can see for yourself what sort of result that gains!

Having said all that, this is the basically the same question you asked above, couched in different words, so I'll reply with the same answer:

If you could *prove* to me that there is only one god and the the bible was an accurate represantation of that god's word, then I would believe in that god. Go ahead and try. Good luck.

But before you take on the challenge, I'd better point out that you will never convince me by dismissing logical arguments in the way you have done with the argument about the ethics of the translator(s). So far you have failed to prove anything at all about its accuracy.



lizward said:


> Ah, but a few lines ago you claimed to be desperately concerned about translation errors in the Bible. In fact, what you really want is to make the Bible agree with you. isn't it? Why do you feel the need to do that?


I don't know where you got this last bit from. I don't want the bible to agree with me???  . I am concerned that the bible - which christians would have me believe is the word of their god - is, in fact, a hybrid product of a) stories handed down from mouth to mouth b)someone else's written account of those stories at a later date and c) someone else's translation of those written stories at an even later date. I am concerned that with all those different tellings, retellings and translations, that what is in the bible is no longer the word of a god - if it ever was in the first place - and I am concerned enough for me not to base a belief system on it.



lizward said:


> The Hebrew word refers to a woman who practices sorcery. If you do not agree, please produce evidence from the HEBREW - not the Greek, the OT is not translated from Greek!
> Liz


Oh Liz - have you *still* not grasped that my example about the greek state of _eudaimonia_ was merely an example of how difficult it is to translate ideas from one language to another? It was just a coincidence that it was an example of translating from greek to english - and, unfortunately, a coincidence that has only served to confuse you because the NT is translated from the greek and you are unable and untrained to think about translation in the abstract.


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> The resurrection proclaims it loud and clear. Christ died for sinners and rose bodily from the grave. No other religion claims any such thing.
> 
> The Bible is the word of God. The Bible declares it therefore God declares it.
> 
> Liz


But how does that _prove _that that particular religion is the right one?
Another religion doesn't claim that, so how do you know the other religion isnt the right one?

The Bible is the word of God in that _particular_ religion.
The Qur'an is the word of God in Islam.
The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible.

There are many, many religious texts - all purporting to be the word of God - so how do you know that the one _you_ believe in is the right one?


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> The resurrection proclaims it loud and clear. Christ died for sinners and rose bodily from the grave. No other religion claims any such thing.


Pfft... tons of religions have gods who were raised from the dead in order to save humankind.
The Egyptian god Horus - look him up.
The Mayan god Quetzalcoatl - look him up.
Tons of virgin births out there too. Including Horus above and the Hindu god Krishna.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> I dont think your understanding of logic is the same as mine.
> Nothing about religion is logical because the foundation of religion is FAITH, and faith requires that the faithful suspend rational thought in order to believe.


So you think the only possible truth is that there can be no truth? That is the only logical possibility for you? Just checking I am understadning you correctly.


> Christianity asks that you symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of a jew raised from the dead and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master.


Not sure where you got the idea that we do it telepathically from.



> But this is the thing. Religion, no matter how moderate is based on suspending rational thought and blind obedience. Its about doing as youre told in this special book no matter how much cognitive dissonance you feel. This is flat out dangerous, especially so in children.
> Religion properly taught is something you simply do NOT question. Its the height of hypocrisy to say your child shall be indoctrinated in your religion of choice and its okay because the child will grow up to question it.


I do not have children. If I did, certainly I would be bitterly disappointed if they did not embrace Christ.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Pfft... tons of religions have gods who were raised from the dead in order to save humankind.
> The Egyptian god Horus - look him up.
> The Mayan god Quetzalcoatl - look him up.
> Tons of virgin births out there too. Including Horus above and the Hindu god Krishna.


Save me some time. Which of them also died to take the place of sinners?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> If you could *prove* to me that there is only one god and the the bible was an accurate representation of that god's word, then I would believe in that god.


Would you also repent of your sins and serve Him? Because that would be rather the opposite of what you said before.



> I don't know where you got this last bit from. I don't want the bible to agree with me???  . I am concerned that the bible - which christians would have me believe is the word of their god - is, in fact, a hybrid product of a) stories handed down from mouth to mouth b)someone else's written account of those stories at a later date and c) someone else's translation of those written stories at an even later date. I am concerned that with all those different tellings, retellings and translations, that what is in the bible is no longer the word of a god - if it ever was in the first place - and I am concerned enough for me not to base a belief system on it.


What do you mean by "concerned"? Do you mean you are genuinely worried about it? Fearful for your soul in case it happens to be true? Or what else do you mean?

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> There are many, many religious texts - all purporting to be the word of God - so how do you know that the one _you_ believe in is the right one?


Ultimately it comes down to the uniqueness of Christianity and the historical fact of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection.

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> So you think the only possible truth is that there can be no truth? That is the only logical possibility for you? Just checking I am understadning you correctly.


The only possibility is doubt - and its beautiful. 
It is beautiful because it allows me to continue to seek answers, it allows me to continue to marvel and wonder and the beauty that is this world and how it came to be. It allows for curiosity and discovery and examination and rational thought. It allows me to reject conclusions when new information presents itself and it allows me to continue to search for answers in every area I choose to look. 
Doubt opens doors and opens minds. Its is the only possibility for me, to say simply I dont know. And because I dont know, I can continue to explore and discover and learn.

You. You on the other hand say I DO know. I am 100% sure. And by saying that you mind becomes clamped shut like a vise. At the exclusion of any fellow human in your midst that does not know the same way you do.



lizward said:


> Not sure where you got the idea that we do it telepathically from.


Is prayer not communication with your mind? Youre not emailing Jesus are you? Cause if you are you may not want to send that 10% of your income to that pay pal account, just sayin....



lizward said:


> I do not have children. If I did, certainly I would be bitterly disappointed if they did not embrace Christ.


I do have children, and statements like the above are very confirming to me that I have done the right thing by not burdening them with religion.


----------



## click

*That is my God,Without it you wouldn't be here talking about your gods.*


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Save me some time. Which of them also died to take the place of sinners?
> 
> Liz


No.

Discovery and knowledge takes time and no one can do it for you. So I say to you, no. You do the work, it might do you some good.

Why dont you take some time and read up on Quetzalcoatl and Horus? Throw in some of the Greek and Hindu gods too. Its fascinating what the human mind can come up with.

Or are you afraid of what you might discover?

Speaking of time, have fun guys, Im off to enjoy a beautiful day here that I can thank the big bang for


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Ultimately it comes down to the uniqueness of Christianity and *the historical fact of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ *from the dead. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection.
> 
> Liz


Did you really mean to say that?


----------



## swarthy

lizward said:


> If she was a devout Catholic, I don't think she could have married a divorcee. I am willing to be corrected on this though if I am wrong. Is the Iraqi a _practising_ Muslim?
> 
> This is not about colour, it's about religion. What was ytour family friend's religion and was s/he _practising_?
> 
> _Practising_ Christians? _Practising_ orthodox jews?
> 
> But, presumably, you did not marry either of them.
> 
> The Catholic church insists that children are brought up as Catholics. So, your Catholic parent was clearly not practising. Or not very well, anyway.
> 
> Liz


YES - she is a practising catholic and devout - she is from the Phillipines where they were married (although now lives in the UK - my daughters OH has dual nationality). Her children were both raised as catholics and attended catholic schools.

I can't tell you about her current husband I've only got the basic information - but I admit, the particular relationship mix did surprise me.

And YES - practicing Jews and practising christians.

As for marriage, I've never been married and no intention of ever getting married - but some of them did go on to marry into different faiths.

No-one is saying it would be easy to make multi-faith marriages work - but I do believe people have the right to try if their feelings are strong enough - in some instances such relationships might call for compromise (i.e. one party changing their faith) whereas others will call for tolerance.

I think I did say my father was not particularly religious and they didn't marry in the catholic church.

Both parents however did have very tight christian values such as not believing in sex before marriage, contraception or abortion.

We lost my father a couple of years ago - but both of them mellowed with age (their rebellious daughter might have helped - ooops ).

My daughter lives with her partner - my mum is more accepting over this than his mother who believes they should be married.

==============

Reading up on mixed catholic / protestant marriages - it does appear that the church is now less strict on this, and will permit marriages where the children are not raised in the faith providing the catholic parent makes the child aware of the catholic faith.

=====================

Certain religions are far more disciplined in how children are raised than others - to the extent that many children won't even doubt their faith because it has been so deeply instilled into them -

But we live in a supposedly free society and man people will have their beliefs challenged and may even start questioning them - personally I don't feel that is a bad thing.

People should retain the right to chose their beliefs not to have them so deeply instilled into them that they are incapable of recognising and embracing the differences between faiths - not to do so leads to the sort of undesirable antagonisms we still witness daily in certain parts of the world.

If children are raised that they shouldn't consider inter-faith marriages - this is no different to telling them that people of different races are also out of bounds - the two are for many religions, inextricably linked, with many faiths having a large proportion of their fath originating from specific parts of the world.


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Ultimately it comes down to the uniqueness of Christianity and the historical fact of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection.
> 
> Liz


Where is the _proof_ that the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead actually happened?

It can't be claimed as a fact unless there is real proof that it happened.

How do you know it isnt just another story from the Bible, which forms part of your belief in that particular religion?

Like I said, there are many religious texts, and the followers of all those religions have belief in those texts, as you do in yours.

So what makes _your_ belief any more valid than someone elses?


----------



## lizward

click said:


> That is my God,Without it you wouldn't be here talking about your gods.


My God made your god.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Where is the _proof_ that the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead actually happened?


In the eye witness accounts, and in the existence of the Christian church. The tomb was empty. No-one ever claimed it wasn't. No-one ever produced the body. They couldn't, it wasn't there.



> So what makes _your_ belief any more valid than someone elses?


My answer remains the same - the death of the Son of God in the place of sinners, and his physical resurrection from the grave.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Did you really mean to say that?


Of course!

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> The only possibility is doubt - and its beautiful.


You may not say the same thing when you are facing death.


> At the exclusion of any fellow human in your midst that does not know the same way you do.


Well this is rather judgmental isn't it? What possible grounds do you have for saying that?



> Is prayer not communication with your mind? Youre not emailing Jesus are you? Cause if you are you may not want to send that 10% of your income to that pay pal account, just sayin....


:001_tongue: OK thanks for the laugh. If I have something really serious to pray, I do it out loud. When I surrendered my life to Christ, I did it out loud. That's all I meant.

Liz


----------



## rona

Starlite said:


> I dont think anyone has the right to slate something which brings comfort and peace to those in dire need of it, such as the loss of a child.


^^^ THIS

I am not religious at all and I do not believe in god but I will not ridicule others faith.

There's been some times in my life where I've envied those that believe


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Would you also repent of your sins and serve Him? Because that would be rather the opposite of what you said before


But if you can prove to me that the bible is correct and there is only one true god, and I repented and followed his teachings, then it wouldn't matter what I'd said elsewhere, would it? Shouldn't you be going ahead and trying to convince me rather than nitpicking like this? You are not helping your cause here!



lizward said:


> What do you mean by "concerned"? Do you mean you are genuinely worried about it? Fearful for your soul in case it happens to be true? Or what else do you mean?
> Liz


What part of:

_I am concerned that the bible - which christians would have me believe is the word of their god - is, in fact, a hybrid product of a) stories handed down from mouth to mouth b)someone else's written account of those stories at a later date and c) someone else's translation of those written stories at an even later date. I am concerned that with all those different tellings, retellings and translations, that what is in the bible is no longer the word of a god - if it ever was in the first place - and I am concerned enough for me not to base a belief system on it. _

did you not understand?

I say that I am concerned that the bible is so far removed from whatever the originator intended it to be that I cannot base a belief system on anything it says - and you reply asking if I am concerned because I am fearful for my soul? Hell no - I would have to believe in it for me to be worried about it. And if you can convince me otherwise so that I can repent and believe, I still have no worries because I'll be welcomed back just like the prodigal son.

And I will repent and believe, if you can prove it - although I have to say you're not doing too good a job of it so far Gemma (ooops, sorry, I mean Liz). Getting the two women spouting the unbelievable corporate spiel confused there for a moment


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Of course!
> 
> Liz


Wow. A missing body and an account written by the followers of that person (not eye-witness, btw, if my memory serves, the first _written_ account was around 70 years later, the epistles were written earlier than the gospels) does not amount to proof, in any historian's book.
You _believe_ this, as your faith demands. It's not the same as proof of fact.


----------



## lizward

swarthy said:


> YES - she is a practising catholic and devout - she is from the Phillipines where they were married (although now lives in the UK - my daughters OH has dual nationality). Her children were both raised as catholics and attended catholic schools.


Yes, that is what the Catholic church requires. Someone who is fully committed to another religion could not allow that, and that would be a major issue.



> No-one is saying it would be easy to make multi-faith marriages work - but I do believe people have the right to try if their feelings are strong enough - in some instances such relationships might call for compromise (i.e. one party changing their faith) whereas others will call for tolerance.


If you are genuinely committed to your religion, you will not change it for any person, not even your spouse.



> Reading up on mixed catholic / protestant marriages - it does appear that the church is now less strict on this, and will permit marriages where the children are not raised in the faith providing the catholic parent makes the child aware of the catholic faith.


Fair enough, I will happily take your word for that, the last thing I looked up was from 1970.


> If children are raised that they shouldn't consider inter-faith marriages - this is no different to telling them that people of different races are also out of bounds - the two are for many religions, inextricably linked, with many faiths having a large proportion of their fath originating from specific parts of the world.


Not at all. I know several Christians who have mixed race marriages.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> I say that I am concerned that the bible is so far removed from whatever the originator intended it to be that I cannot base a belief system on anything it says - and you reply asking if I am concerned because I am fearful for my soul? Hell no - I would have to believe in it for me to be worried about it. And if you can convince me otherwise so that I can repent and believe, I still have no worries because I'll be welcomed back just like the prodigal son.


However far away you are from God, it is only ever one step back to him, in repentance and faith. If you are truly thinking along those lines, I'd suggest you talk to Him about it. Seriously. Deep down, you know His word is true.

Liz


----------



## skip

Just been reading through the latest posts and thought i have been married for 31 years,we were married in a registry office and in the eyes of the catholic church we have been living in sin all this time,as i said in an earlier post i am a (very) lapsed catholic and no longer know what i believe in, but i did get to thinking a few of my cousins who did the "right " thing and got married in church are divorced now and have new husbands/wives


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> However far away you are from God, it is only ever one step back to him, in repentance and faith. If you are truly thinking along those lines, I'd suggest you talk to Him about it. Seriously. Deep down, you know His word is true.
> 
> Liz


Is this your first attempt to convince me of the truth of the bible?

Sorry, you failed. Deep down I know nothing of the sort. Seriously.


----------



## Spellweaver

skip said:


> Just been reading through the latest posts and thought i have been married for 31 years,we were married in a registry office and in the eyes of the catholic church we have been living in sin all this time,as i said in an earlier post i am a (very) lapsed catholic and no longer know what i believe in, but i did get to thinking a few of my cousins who did the "right " thing and got married in church are divorced now and have new husbands/wives


Very similar story here - my OH is a lapsed catholic and we also married in a registry office then had a hand-fasting ceremony in the garden - 39 years ago in December. (it snowed - it was sooooo beautiful!) However, his brother had the full catholic wedding and he has been divorced twice and is now on his third marriage.


----------



## cinnamontoast

Starlite said:


> exactly, SOME PEOPLE. You can't tar are religious with the same brush because _*SOME*_ are extremists.
> Catholic schools have the best education, its simple. There is a Catholic school in England which has 90% Muslim children, it teaches tolerance and they get the best education, I see nothing wrong with that.
> 
> So are you previously Catholic or Methodist?
> 
> My little boy was in Neonatal when he was born. If he taken a turn for the worst I would have called my Parish Priest to come in and baptize him. I dont think anyone has the right to slate something which brings comfort and peace
> 
> I have no idea what your Parish was up to, but can safely say Ive never been terrified by my religion, sex or birth, how strange. did you not think to question it and look for answers yourself?
> 
> Where have you gotten the idea Muslims deny the Holocaust, Ive never heard of it, do you have any links?


*Some* are extremists? Show me a decent Catholic whom ignores the fast before communion or doesn't give up a food for lent. Don't you think it's extreme to give up love and marriage, too?

Catholic schools are no longer the calm, best education, best schools in the uk and haven't been for many years. Maybe 30 years ago, yes. I've worked in two horrific Catholic schools where the children were appallingly badly behaved. At no point was I taught humility or to be well behaved during my own schooling. My parents, as is right, taught me that. It is NOT for teachers to teach that except by their own comportment.

Catholic, always will be, it's not something with ever leaves in terms of the guilt that was used when I was growing up: think you're in your twenties and the church has defo changed its ways in order to attract the younger generation.

I can slate anything I like: I think it's disgusting to say that a new born has 'original sin' and will be tortured forever more because it's not baptised. What a wonderful thing for a recently bereaved mother to have on her conscience! 

Sex outside of marriage is hugely frowned upon and having children outside of marriage is, too. That is what worried me, even tho we are told to 'go forth and multiply'.

Yes, thanks, more than aware of the other religions out there.  Don't like any of them.



lizward said:


> Save me some time. Which of them also died to take the place of sinners?
> 
> Liz


No, you originally asked which were resurrected, not who took the place of sinners.



lizward said:


> In the eye witness accounts, and in the existence of the Christian church. The tomb was empty. No-one ever claimed it wasn't. No-one ever produced the body. They couldn't, it wasn't there.
> Liz


Olden days had Burke and Hare types, probably!



rona said:


> ^^^ THIS
> 
> I am not religious at all and I do not believe in god but I will not ridicule others faith.


I do not ridicule others' faith, I will ridicule their blind adherence to outmoded ideas and their total reliance on the literal words as opposed to interpretation. For an educated person to say that what is written in any religious text is the absolute truth astonishes me.


----------



## swarthy

lizward said:


> Yes, that is what the Catholic church requires. Someone who is fully committed to another religion could not allow that, and that would be a major issue.


She still married a divorcee though; being the third largest nation of catholics in the world, I would imagine the teachings in the Phillipines are more encompassing than say the UK.



lizward said:


> If you are genuinely committed to your religion, you will not change it for any person, not even your spouse.


It depends on your strength of feeling for someone and whether you feel you can just walk away, some people simply won't be able to. If someone wants a relationship to work, then one or both partners may well have to compromise - you are saying that inter-faith marriages can't work if both partners are commited to their religion, but the simple fact is - they do exist and they do work - some with compromise, others with tolerance.



lizward said:


> Not at all. I know several Christians who have mixed race marriages.


I didn't say everyone, and who knows how devoutly they were raised or the beliefs their parents indoctrinated into them.

Like it or not, there IS an inextricable link between certain religions and colour which will inevitably be indoctrinated into some that their religion couldn't marry out to muslim, Sikhs, Hindu etc and that can, for some people will inevitably transfer to race / colour.


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Wow. A missing body and an account written by the followers of that person (not eye-witness, btw, if my memory serves, the first _written_ account was around 70 years later


Nearer 40 - Mark is generally considered to have been written, virtually at Peter's dictation, during the reign of Nero (reign ended 68AD). It has to be before Peter's death and no-one disputes that he was executed by Nero. 40 years - that would be like relating things today that you witnessed in 1972. Even 70 years (which would take us to the latest of the Gospels, John) would only be like accounts from the second world war. Are you seriously trying to say that historians would not accept such accounts from those who were there?



> the epistles were written earlier than the gospels


This is true, and what did the epistles claim? What were they preaching in the book of Acts?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Is this your first attempt to convince me of the truth of the bible?
> 
> Sorry, you failed. Deep down I know nothing of the sort. Seriously.


Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin - not my job. The Bible is very well able to speak for itself if you give it the chance.

Liz


----------



## Sandysmum

I've not had time to read all the posts yet, but as far as mistranslations are concerned, it's a fact that they do happen. In the geneva bible of 1560, for example, Adam and Eve make breeches to cover themselves with. That version had become known as the breeches bible. There is also the version known as the wicked bible printed in 1631 which left the word not out of the commandment that should have read thou shalt not commit adultary,

I'm sure there are more, but these are the two that always come to mind. It just goes to show that when they were copied, mistakes could and did happen.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> I can slate anything I like: I think it's disgusting to say that a new born has 'original sin' and will be tortured forever more because it's not baptised. What a wonderful thing for a recently bereaved mother to have on her conscience!


To be fair, the RC church does not teach this. I am not at all sure they ever did - the idea of Limbo was developed to try to get round the dilemma but was never official church doctrine and has now been discarded.


> No, you originally asked which were resurrected, not who took the place of sinners.


I did look those two up, they don't seem to have been physical resurrections, but in any case, my question now is, which of them died in the place of sinners?

liz


----------



## JANICE199

lizward said:


> Nearer 40 - Mark is generally considered to have been written, virtually at Peter's dictation, during the reign of Nero (reign ended 68AD). It has to be before Peter's death and no-one disputes that he was executed by Nero. 40 years - that would be like relating things today that you witnessed in 1972. Even 70 years (which would take us to the latest of the Gospels, John) would only be like accounts from the second world war. Are you seriously trying to say that historians would not accept such accounts from those who were there?
> 
> This is true, and what did the epistles claim? What were they preaching in the book of Acts?
> 
> Liz


*I have a problem with this way of thinking.I come from a family of 9 children and if you asked them to tell you about our childhood they would all tell you something different.*


----------



## DogLover1981

I don't even agree with marriage and personally I'm not getting married. Marriage almost goes against human nature, the divorce rates are extremely high, and I view the relationships between individuals as none of governments and churches concern. If I'm in a relationship, it will survive based on it's own merits rather than a piece of paper.

I see people debating about gay marriage. My solution would be to get rid all of government recognized marriage, ending all debate.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Nearer 40 - *Mark is generally considered to have been written, virtually at Peter's dictation*, during the reign of Nero (reign ended 68AD). It has to be before Peter's death and no-one disputes that he was executed by Nero. 40 years - that would be like relating things today that you witnessed in 1972. Even 70 years (which would take us to the latest of the Gospels, John) would only be like accounts from the second world war. Are you seriously trying to say that historians would not accept such accounts from those who were there?
> 
> This is true, and what did the epistles claim? What were they preaching in the book of Acts?
> 
> Liz


It's not though, not even by the average NT theologian. It's generally considered to be a collation of oral tradition passed down over the years (40 or 70, I'd have to dig through a few old textbooks to remember which).

"It has to be before Peter's death" - only if you believe he dictated it, which is another act of faith on your part, and isn't consistent with the evidence. _ETA: this is the basis of the argument that Mark was written around 40 years later, I think, and really hasn't been a widely-held view since the German theologians who started identifying quite distinct sources came along and blew it out of the water. _

Historians do not accept even eye-witness accounts uncritically. Human nature shapes the story to fit with the teller's (and even the listener's) beliefs.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin - not my job. The Bible is very well able to speak for itself if you give it the chance.
> Liz


Ah - so when you wrote:



lizward said:


> Really? So if I could somehow convince you that it was compeltely accurate, you would give up your false gods and return in repentance to the one true God, would you?


and



lizward said:


> If I could answer every one of your questions to your satisfaction, would you repent of your sin and cry out to the Lord for mercy, promising to serve him faithfully for the rest of your days, or not?


You didn't really mean that you wanted to do it/were able to do it? Or are you now saying that your way of proving that the bible is completely accurate is to tell me to allow it to speak for itself?

Quite apart from that being one huge cop-out on your part, I have already given the bible every chance to speak for itself, the result being I didn't believe most of it, and certainly not enough for anyone to be able to say that this si the word of a god so you should obey that god.

But your reply has caused one more thing to puzzle me Liz - as a lay-preacher, how can you claim that it it not your job to help someone to stop sinnning? I would have thought that was exactly your job. Not as comfortable as preaching to a small congregation of people who believe everything you say anyway, but surely more important?


----------



## lizward

jetsmum said:


> I've not had time to read all the posts yet, but as far as mistranslations are concerned, it's a fact that they do happen. In the geneva bible of 1560, for example, Adam and Eve make breeches to cover themselves with. That version had become known as the breeches bible.


Not sure that's a mistranslation as such, more of an interpretation of the Hebrew word. The point is very clear - they tried to cover themselves with inadequate garments.


> There is also the version known as the wicked bible printed in 1631 which left the word not out of the commandment that should have read thou shalt not commit adultary,


That's a printing error. Printing errors do tend to get noticed!

Liz


----------



## lizward

JANICE199 said:


> *I have a problem with this way of thinking.I come from a family of 9 children and if you asked them to tell you about our childhood they would all tell you something different.*


HOW different? Different to the point that they would not be able to remember whether a close friend had died or not?

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> To be fair, the RC church does not teach this. I am not at all sure they ever did
> liz


Believe me, it was taught to me in theological lessons, in Church, pretty much all the time throughout my childhood. We are allegedly born with original sin because of Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden when she ate the forbidden fruit. (BTW, why did god deliberately put temptation in her way and why make people so I'mperfect that they can't resist temptation: bit crap to make someone in your own likeness then ensure that they would mess up ASAP )

Suicides, also, were irretrievably condemned and buried at the crossroads, disbarred from hallowed ground. So basically, those with mental health problems, driven to suicide by the unbearable nature of their suffering, having undergone purgatory on earth in some cases, are also barred from heaven. A just and forgiving god? 

I am _loving_ this thread! No nastiness and some pretty fiercely defensive religious and non religious people!


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> It's not though, not even by the average NT theologian. It's generally considered to be a collation of oral tradition passed down over the years (40 or 70, I'd have to dig through a few old textbooks to remember which).


Yes - oral tradition from whom? Peter is attested to very early on.



> "It has to be before Peter's death" - only if you believe he dictated it, which is another act of faith on your part, and isn't consistent with the evidence. _ETA: this is the basis of the argument that Mark was written around 40 years later, I think, and really hasn't been a widely-held view since the German theologians who started identifying quite distinct sources came along and blew it out of the water. _


If you are referring to Q, that isn't a source for Mark. There is A LOT more evidence for Mark being early than the dates of Peter. Virtually everyone agrees that mark was the first to be written.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

Then there's the most famous mistranslation of all: Jehovah.

The hebrew texts wrote Jahweh as JHWH.....a monk (I forget which century, but before the invention of the printing press) miscribed the name as Jehovah and it stuck. Not a question of interpretation, just plain old human error.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Believe me, it was taught to me in theological lessons, in Church, pretty much all the time throughout my childhood.


Then your school / church was teaching something that was not Catholic doctrine at all. I find that rather hard to beleive, I think it is far more liekly to be your memory that is at fault.



> We are allegedly born with original sin because of Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden when she ate the forbidden fruit.


Yes, and that is the basis for the teaching that would have been prevalent in your childhood in the RC church, that unbaptised infants go to limbo (NOT hell)



> Suicides, also, we'e irretrievably condemned and buried at the crossroads, disbarred from hallowed ground. So basically, those with mental health problems, driven to suicide by the unbearable nature of their suffering, having undergone purgatory on earth in some cases, are also barred from heaven. A just and forgiving god?


You must ask the Catholics about that one.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Yes - oral tradition from whom? Peter is attested to very early on.
> 
> If you are referring to Q, that isn't a source for Mark. There is A LOT more evidence for Mark being early than the dates of Peter. Virtually everyone agrees that mark was the first to be written.
> 
> Liz


No, I'm not referring to Q. I'm referring to the distinct oral traditions that can be seen in Mark, that clearly come from different sources.

It's pretty much universally agreed that Mark was the earliest of the synoptics, yes, but the idea that it was within the lifetime of Peter and his own account hasn't held much water with the majority of scholars for quite some time.


----------



## JANICE199

lizward said:


> HOW different? Different to the point that they would not be able to remember whether a close friend had died or not?
> 
> Liz


*I'll give you a classic example.When my nan died ( i was about 3),i was there with my father.Now my sister who is 2 years younger than me,will insist she was there.110% this was not the case.
There have been others things that she will insist where part of her life,when in actual FACT she is talking about me.
*


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> You didn't really mean that you wanted to do it/were able to do it?


I said "IF" - you have so many hang-ups (or say you do), I don't claim the experitise to help you through all of those (even if I truly believed you wanted help). I think what you said about refusing to serve a megalomaniac god (or words to that effect - forgive me if I don't search for your exact words) were probably far more to the point. I do not believe that you really believe the translation issues are what you are pretending they are.



> But your reply has caused one more thing to puzzle me Liz - as a lay-preacher, how can you claim that it it not your job to help someone to stop sinnning?


If someone comes to me and asks for advice on how to stop sinning, I will happily do my best to advise (bearing in mind that I myself am a sinner!). If soemone comes with a genuine issue that is concerning them about the Bible, I will do my best to answer. If someone says "I will never worship that god of yours because he is evil" (which is the sort of thing you have been saying), I will conclude that the real problem is that the person making such a comment is unwilling to forsake his or her sin.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Then there's the most famous mistranslation of all: Jehovah.
> 
> The hebrew texts wrote Jahweh as JHWH.....a monk (I forget which century, but before the invention of the printing press) miscribed the name as Jehovah and it stuck. Not a question of interpretation, just plain old human error.


Cue any hiding JWs on this thread to jump in 

But seriously, what difference does it make whether He should be called Jehovah or Yahweh? Isn't the point that He has a name by which he can be known?

Liz


----------



## lizward

JANICE199 said:


> *I'll give you a classic example.When my nan died ( i was about 3),i was there with my father.Now my sister who is 2 years younger than me,will insist she was there.110% this was not the case.
> There have been others things that she will insist where part of her life,when in actual FACT she is talking about me.
> *


Early childhood memory is not reliable. The Gospels were accounts by ADULTS.

Lzi


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> No, I'm not referring to Q. I'm referring to the distinct oral traditions that can be seen in Mark, that clearly come from different sources.


Would you care to give some examples?



> It's pretty much universally agreed that Mark was the earliest of the synoptics, yes, but the idea that it was within the lifetime of Peter and his own account hasn't held much water with the majority of scholars for quite some time.


Really? Which scholars have you in mind?

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Cue any hiding JWs on this thread to jump in
> 
> But seriously, what difference does it make whether He should be called Jehovah or Yahweh? Isn't the point that He has a name by which he can be known?
> 
> Liz


It's an example of how human error can alter the texts. That's error, a pre-printing version of a typo, not a difference in interpretation.

What's in a name? Well that particular name was considered so sacred that even to say it was an offence, so while it means little to me, it was and is very important to those who believe in it. So if a believer can get something as important as the name of their god wrong, it doesn't really suggest an infallible, totally reliable account.


----------



## porps

one thing which gives me hope is the internet. Since information and knowledge is the enemy of faith, i dont see these religions lasting for many more generations.

Christianity Harms Society. Why I Mock Christians - YouTube


----------



## JANICE199

lizward said:


> Cue any hiding JWs on this thread to jump in
> 
> But seriously, what difference does it make whether He should be called Jehovah or Yahweh? Isn't the point that He has a name by which he can be known?
> 
> Liz


*Surely the name is very important.As far a i know he said all will know his name.*


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Would you care to give some examples?
> 
> Really? Which scholars have you in mind?
> 
> Liz


I'd need to root out books I haven't looked at since I was studying, 20 years ago....I'd rather re-read the philosophy and ethics than the biblical studies, so I won't be going that far to prove a point! 
Interesting that you ask, as you haven't provided any names yourself when you talk about the consensus of opinion though!


----------



## JANICE199

myshkin said:


> I'd need to root out books I haven't looked at since I was studying, 20 years ago....I'd rather re-read the philosophy and ethics than the biblical studies, so I won't be going that far to prove a point!
> Interesting that you ask, as you haven't provided any names yourself when you talk about the consensus of opinion though!


*I've just rooted out the JW's " reasoning from the scriptures book".*


----------



## northnsouth

JANICE199 said:


> *I've just rooted out the JW's " reasoning from the scriptures book".*


I don't have any literature now, except a bible.
so I asked my brother something, I sent a txt and he replied immediatly, he has not asked why yet??... it was about comment made by lizward on the "faithful and discreet slave"..is a forum supposed to make us think this much:hand:


----------



## myshkin

JANICE199 said:


> *I've just rooted out the JW's " reasoning from the scriptures book".*


Haha, I didn't know there was one! I've just pulled out "Reading the New Testament" written by a well-respected biblical scholar who just so-happened to be....my lecturer 
Would take some serious reading before I could argue the finer points though - it was a long time ago!


----------



## porps

logic (the theists version) :

I know terminator 2 is true because it says its true in the movie.


----------



## JANICE199

*


northnsouth said:



I don't have any literature now, except a bible.
so I asked my brother something, I sent a txt and he replied immediatly, he has not asked why yet??... it was about comment made by lizward on the "faithful and discreet slave"..is a forum supposed to make us think this much:hand:

Click to expand...

 I never get bored with this topic,so i'm ok..mind you i could do with a nice bottle of wine to ease my brain..lol



myshkin said:



Haha, I didn't know there was one! I've just pulled out "Reading the New Testament" written by a well-respected biblical scholar who just so-happened to be....my lecturer 
Would take some serious reading before I could argue the finer points though - it was a long time ago!

Click to expand...

I've had this book years, i only kept this one and the bible.
*


----------



## Jiskefet

Spellweaver said:


> You are a true christian. This is not a compliment.


Not true.
A true christian would not be preaching or claiming to hold the one true faith, a true christian would be trying to help and support other people, not judging them and threatening them with hell. Hell and retribution are old-testament (Jewish) concepts.

To claim to know god, to know who he is and what his judgement will be is blasphemy. People who judge other people on religious grounds are claiming they are better than God, because they steal God's sole right to judge his children away from him.

A true Christian would live according to the essential guidelines and warnings given to them by Jesus Christ, their messiah:

(sorry if the exact wording is incorrect, I am translating the quotes from Dutch into English, as I only know them in Dutch)

love thy neighbour like thyself

turn the other cheek

the gentle people shall inherit the earth

Do not judge so thou shalt not be judged

One does perceive the splinter in the other person's eye, but not the beam in one's own.....

Again, sorry if the translation does not exactly match the English wording you are used to, I am a professional translator, or at least used to be, but biblical texts were not my subject. This is the closest rendering of the Dutch text I can come up with.

And do not say that this is some kind of heresy, blasphemy, or worse, lack of understanding, for I said EXACTLY the same thing at the college I attended, to a class mate who was talking behaving exactly like Liz, and both the protestant christian vicar and the roman catholic priest, who were both present during the entire altercation, called me the only person in the classroom who had actually grasped the fundamantal concept of christianity.

In fact, they pronounced me a _true_ christian, knowing full well I was a firm and dedicated agnostic.......


----------



## myshkin

Jiskefet said:


> Not true.
> A true christian would not be preaching or claiming to hold the one true faith, a true christian would be trying to help and support other people, not judging them and threatening them with hell. Hell and retribution are old-testament (Jewish) concepts.
> 
> To claim to know god, to know who he is and what his judgement will be is blasphemy. People who judge other people on religious grounds are claiming they are better than God, because they steal God's sole right to judge his children away from him.
> 
> A true Christian would live according to the essential guidelines and warnings given to them by Jesus Christ, their messiah:
> 
> (sorry if the exact wording is incorrect, I am translating the quotes from Dutch into English, as I only know them in Dutch)
> 
> *love thy neighbour like thyself
> 
> turn the other cheek
> 
> the gentle people shall inherit the earth
> 
> Do not judge so thou shalt not be judged*One does perceive the splinter in the other person's eye, but not the beam in one's own.....
> 
> Again, sorry if the translation does not exactly match the English wording you are used to, I am a professional translator, or at least used to be, but biblical texts were not my subject. This is the closest rendering of the Dutch text I can come up with.
> 
> And do not say that this is some kind of heresy, blasphemy, or worse, lack of understanding, for I said EXACTLY the same thing at the college I attended, to a class mate who was talking behaving exactly like Liz, and both the protestant christian vicar and the roman catholic priest, who were both present during the entire altercation, called me the only person in the classroom who had actually grasped the fundamantal concept of christianity.
> 
> In fact, they pronounced me a _true_ christian, knowing full well I was a firm and dedicated agnostic.......


I'm an atheist, and was when I studied the NT. The Sermon on the Mount is about the most beautiful part of those texts, and if all Christians lived their life according to it, the world would be a better place. Bit of a radical leftie, was JC! 

One of my lecturers was a practising minister (I forget which denomination). He told me that he found atheists were much better students of the historical context of the text and the theology than believers, as they had a more questioning mind....


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Cue any hiding JWs on this thread to jump in
> 
> But seriously, what difference does it make whether He should be called Jehovah or Yahweh? * Isn't the point that He has a name by which he can be known?
> *
> Liz


The point is he is known by _many_ names, depending on which religion you are looking at and which religious texts you are reading.

What I am not understanding about religion, is how some people swear there is only one true religion, and it happens to be the religion they believe in.

Where is the _proof_ that one religion is the 'true religion', and the others are not?


----------



## DogLover1981

I never understood why people use the term true christian. It just seems strange to me. Lets start arguing over who is a true Wiccan, a true non-believer, or a true Jewish person. In my eyes, a Christian is anyone who calls himself/herself one.


----------



## northnsouth

Maybe a "Good Person" is a title we should be striving for.


----------



## Jiskefet

A true Christian is someone who lives by the guidelines shown by their messiah: humility, love for and acceptance of other people on their own merit, without pushing his own beliefs down their throats, forgoing pleasures and privileges to be able to help more people, doing good for others instead of claiming rights or privileges, in this world or the next, for himself.......

His true legacy is not a book of teachings by his followers, as compiled by church officials centuries post date, but the example he set with the way he lived his own life.


----------



## myshkin

Anyhoo, to answer the original question:

Armageddon Days Are Here - TheThe

So much potential for good, but too often used to justify the unjustifiable. 
I don't share the belief, but I definitely agree with the sentiments of the song.


----------



## Jiskefet

northnsouth said:


> Maybe a "Good Person" is a title we should be striving for.


I think that is what inspired christianity in the first place: a man who felt inspired by the god he believed in to be the best he could be......
Whether you call him messiah or not, he set an example, and if people talked less about rules and followed that example more, the world would be a better place.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> I said "IF" - you have so many hang-ups (or say you do), I don't claim the experitise to help you through all of those (even if I truly believed you wanted help). I think what you said about refusing to serve a megalomaniac god (or words to that effect - forgive me if I don't search for your exact words) were probably far more to the point. I do not believe that you really believe the translation issues are what you are pretending they are.


You said this before. I asked you why you thought I was telling lies. You said you did not think I was. And yet, here you are again, saying that I am pretending my issues with the translation of the bible are not true issues. In other words, you think I am lying to you.

If you want to believe I am lying, there is nothing I can do about that. However, I - and, I suspect, most people reading this thread - will see your trying to pretend I am lying as the massive cop-out it is. You would earn yourself a heck of a lot more respect if you just admitted that *you *believe the bible to be a true representation of your god's word, but that you *cannot prove it * to anyone. At least that would be a more honest response than "I can't answer your questions so I am going to pretend you are lying". You are indeed a true chrstian. And, yet again, this is not a compliment.



lizward said:


> If someone comes to me and asks for advice on how to stop sinning, I will happily do my best to advise (bearing in mind that I myself am a sinner!). If soemone comes with a genuine issue that is concerning them about the Bible, I will do my best to answer.


You mean you will accuse them of lying to get out of answering. That is what you have done on this thread.



lizward said:


> If someone says "I will never worship that god of yours because he is evil" (which is the sort of thing you have been saying), I will conclude that the real problem is that the person making such a comment is unwilling to forsake his or her sin.
> Liz


Why would you conclude that? If someone thinks your god is evil, the obvious conclusion is that they think he is evil. Full stop. Anything else is something *you *have made up for yourself because you are unwilling or unable to answer the real issue. It is far easier to answer a question that you have made up for yourself than answer the real question posed to you.

And, btw, I never said your god was evil. I said he was a "johnny-come-lately megalomaniac". He _is_ a fairly new god, when you look at all the gods and goddesses who were here before him. And only a megalomaniac would insist on total worship of himself alone - most gods and goddesses before him were perfectly content for people to worship multiple deities.


----------



## JANICE199

myshkin said:


> Anyhoo, to answer the original question:
> 
> Armageddon Days Are Here - TheThe
> 
> So much potential for good, but too often used to justify the unjustifiable.
> I don't share the belief, but I definitely agree with the sentiments of the song.


*The link won't work for me.*


----------



## myshkin

JANICE199 said:


> *The link won't work for me.*


It won't for me after I've posted it either.... Not sure what I've done wrong!

But now I've just tried it and it's fine for me - I wonder if Youtube was having a bad day?


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Then your school / church was teaching something that was not Catholic doctrine at all. I find that rather hard to beleive, I think it is far more liekly to be your memory that is at fault.
> 
> Yes, and that is the basis for the teaching that would have been prevalent in your childhood in the RC church, that unbaptised infants go to limbo (NOT hell)
> 
> You must ask the Catholics about that one.
> 
> Liz


I am Catholic! I attended church from birth to about 19, when I questioned the whole original sin idea with my parish priests and my priest in France as well as my great uncle (a very learned scholar who had to petition the Pope to allow him to retire as the church wanted to retain him so much!) as well as my mother's brother who went to but then left the seminary.



porps said:


> logic (the theists version) :
> 
> I know terminator 2 is true because it says its true in the movie.


Pmsl! And the bible should have a rider at the beginning like most films where the directors use artistic licence i.e. 'based (loosely) on a true story!


----------



## Spellweaver

Jiskefet said:


> Not true.
> A true christian would not be preaching or claiming to hold the one true faith, a true christian would be trying to help and support other people, not judging them and threatening them with hell. ...





DogLover1981 said:


> I never understood why people use the term true christian. It just seems strange to me. Lets start arguing over who is a true Wiccan, a true non-believer, or a true Jewish person. In my eyes, a Christian is anyone who calls himself/herself one.


I was being sarcastic to Liz when I called her a true christian. Calling yourself a christian and then accusing someone of lying just because you cannot/do not want to answer their questions is not a christian attitude by any interpretation of the faith.

Anyone can call himself or herself anything - it is how he or she acts that really matters.


----------



## click

Spellweaver said:


> Anyone can call himself or herself anything - it is how he or she acts that really matters.


A psychiatrist whilst carrying out his rounds of the hospital was followed by a patient, when he asked the patient who he was , the reply was "I'm Napoleon" "Who said so" said the Psychiatrist."GOD told me" said the patient.
A loud voice was heard from another ward shouting"Oh no I didn't"


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> It's an example of how human error can alter the texts. That's error, a pre-printing version of a typo, not a difference in interpretation.
> 
> What's in a name? Well that particular name was considered so sacred that even to say it was an offence, so while it means little to me, it was and is very important to those who believe in it. So if a believer can get something as important as the name of their god wrong, it doesn't really suggest an infallible, totally reliable account.


You are missing the point that it was always translated LORD. The claim for inerrancy is for the originals, no-one denies that there are copies that differ.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> I'd need to root out books I haven't looked at since I was studying, 20 years ago....


I wouldn't want to rely on my memory of what I studied 20 years ago! So, you don't know. OK.

Liz


----------



## lizward

northnsouth said:


> Iit was about comment made by lizward on the "faithful and discreet slave"..is a forum supposed to make us think this much:hand:


It's doing you good 

Liz


----------



## lizward

Jiskefet said:


> Not true.
> A true christian would not be preaching or claiming to hold the one true faith


I think you need to go and read Acts and see what the first Christians did.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> The point is he is known by _many_ names, depending on which religion you are looking at and which religious texts you are reading.


That is assuming all religions have the same God. I do not accept that premise.



> What I am not understanding about religion, is how some people swear there is only one true religion, and it happens to be the religion they believe in.


I don't understand why you find that difficult. What on earth would be the point in practising a religion if you thought it was not the true one?



> Where is the _proof_ that one religion is the 'true religion', and the others are not?


In the case of Christianity, the proof is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Jiskefet said:


> A true Christian is someone who lives by the guidelines shown by their messiah: humility, love for and acceptance of other people on their own merit, without pushing his own beliefs down their throats, forgoing pleasures and privileges to be able to help more people, doing good for others instead of claiming rights or privileges, in this world or the next, for himself.......


In other words, according to you, a true Christian does not actually have to believe in Christ at all.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> I wouldn't want to rely on my memory of what I studied 20 years ago! So, you don't know. OK.
> 
> Liz


Well thanks for your snottily voiced opinion, but I can remember a great deal of what I studied twenty and more years ago. OK.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> And, btw, I never said your god was evil.


 Sorry.



> I said he was a "johnny-come-lately megalomaniac".


Which is nonsense. How can the one who created the heavens and the earth be either a "johnny come lately" or a megalomaniac? It is such nonsense I am surprised you even say it, and you wonder why I am finding it difficult to take your objections seriously?

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> In the case of Christianity, the proof is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
> Liz


Humour me, Liz: what _proof_ do we have that Christ rose from the dead? How do we know that he (and possibly Lazarus) was not in a catatonic state brought about by shock and the wounds he sustained prior to being placed in a cave? For Thomas to be able to subsequently put his hand in Christ's side, he must surely have still been alive as opposed to a non corporeal entity?


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Well thanks for your snottily voiced opinion, but I can remember a great deal of what I studied twenty and more years ago. OK.


Well you are doing better than I do then! Still, you have made a claim which you are apparently unable to back up.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> I am Catholic!


Well then you must be mis-remembering what you were taught

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> I wouldn't want to rely on my memory of what I studied 20 years ago! So, you don't know. OK.
> 
> Liz


Gobsmacking! Yet you freely admit that the first gospel was not committed to paper until 40-70 years after the events occurred! How come myshkin's memories of something she no doubt studied in huge depth a mere 20 years ago are not valid?! Double standards, Liz,you can't allow one but not the other!



myshkin said:


> Well thanks for your snottily voiced opinion, but I can remember a great deal of what I studied twenty and more years ago. OK.


You _are_ quite snotty about this, Liz. I admire the depth of your faith, but any decent scholar should be prepared to adapt and update their ideas. Do you accept the documents which were more recently found which apparently point to Mary Magdalene being Christ's partner, possibly wife? Or that she (or another Mary) wrote a further gospel?


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> That is assuming all religions have the same God. I do not accept that premise.


Muslims call God Allah. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". The Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah.

So the name Allah is shared by different religions.

Do all religions have a different God (with the same name), or just different beliefs on what he does/did?



> I don't understand why you find that difficult. What on earth would be the point in practising a religion if you thought it was not the true one?


Thats what I find difficult about religion. There would be no point because you don't know if its the true one or not. I guess thats where your faith comes in 



> In the case of Christianity, the proof is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
> 
> Liz


I will go see if I can find anything that does actually prove, without a doubt, that the resurrection actually happened.

If you have any links for me that would be great, but this thread is certainly making me look up stuff I havent looked up before!


----------



## DogLover1981

IMO, It's debatable whether Jesus ever even existed. Though, I'm agnostic on that whole issue. I don't think we will ever know whether he really existed.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> You are missing the point that it was always translated LORD. The claim for inerrancy is for the originals, no-one denies that there are copies that differ.
> 
> Liz


The point, it seems, changes whenever someone answers your questions. The error wasn't in the hebrew originals, they knew the name was Jahweh....a christian monk made the error.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Humour me, Liz: what _proof_ do we have that Christ rose from the dead? How do we know that he (and possibly Lazarus) was not in a catatonic state brought about by shock and the wounds he sustained prior to being placed in a cave?


That old chestnut? A group of three women were concerned that they would be unable to move the stone. Christ was wrapped in bandages all round his body, along with about 75 pounds in weight of spices, and his head was warpped separately. So somehow he woudl have to come round in the tomb, free his arms and unwind his head before he suffocated, unwind his legs, get to the stone, push it away from inside, which would mean pushing it over not jsut rolling it out of the way, overpower the Roman guard (who were armed), do all this naked and after a Roman scourging that could kill on its own, and after hanging from a cross for six hours, then walk back to the disciples (presumably still naked) and soemhow after all that convince the disciples that he had risen from the dead.



> For Thomas to be able to subsequently put his hand in Christ's side, he must surely have still been alive as opposed to a non corporeal entity?


Not STILL alive - RESURRECTED. The resurrection was PHYSICAL!

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> The point, it seems, changes whenever someone answers your questions. The error wasn't in the hebrew originals, they knew the name was Jahweh....a christian monk made the error.


Exactly! We don't translate from that monk's manuscript, we translate from the Hebrew Greek and Aramaic.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Gobsmacking! Yet you freely admit that the first gospel was not committed to paper until 40-70 years after the events occurred! How come myshkin's memories of something she no doubt studied in huge depth are not valid?!


O come on. Surely you know why the two are different!



> Do you accept the documents which were more recently found which apparently point to Mary Magdalen being Christ's partner, possibly wife?


I have no idea what documents you are talking about, but we certainly have no indication that Christ ever married and it seems exceedingly unlikely, to say the very least. Are you sure you're not mistaking the Da Vinci Code for fact?

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Muslims call God Allah. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". The Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah.
> 
> So the name Allah is shared by different religions.
> 
> Do all religions have a different God (with the same name), or just different beliefs on what he does/did?


Funnily enough, when I was at Uni, there was a fellow student who was a practising Muslim. One one occasion soemone asked us both if we had the same God. I said "yes". The Muslim was horrifed and said "No! Their god has children!"

Liz


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> I don't understand why you find that difficult. What on earth would be the point in practising a religion if you thought it was not the true one?


I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen Roberts)



lizward said:


> In the case of Christianity, the proof is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.


You dont understand this proof concept do you? You need to prove that jesus rose from the dead first, before you can start using that myth as proof of other things. Opinion is not the same thing as proof. Stories arent the same thing as evidence. Beleif isnt the same as fact.


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> You dont understand this proof concept do you? You need to prove that jesus rose from the dead first, before you can start using that myth as proof of other things. Opinion is not the same thing as proof. Stories arent the same thing as evidence. Beleif isnt the same as fact.


You might as well start asking for proof that the second world war happened, to me what you are asking is just as ridiculous. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

Liz


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> You might as well start asking for proof that the second word war happened, *to me* what you are asking is just as ridiculous. The evidence is simply overwhelming.
> 
> Liz


are you trolling or do you actually beleive this? Show one single piece of EVIDENCE. I'd argue that the evidence AGAINST is overwhelming.

PS- i bolded the only part of your comment that isnt delusional.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

QI - Alan Davies and Stephen Fry on Religion - YouTube


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Well then you must be mis-remembering what you were taught
> 
> Liz


I thought religion was about faith... why would you have to learn faith ? Surely you don't need evidence for something that is faith based... you just believe it's right without question.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Exactly! We don't translate from that monk's manuscript, we translate from the Hebrew Greek and Aramaic.
> 
> Liz


Missing the point on such an epic scale it feels deliberate. The Hebrew of the OT gave the name as Jahweh/Yahweh. The use of "Lord" was verbal, as speaking the name of god was considered blasphemous.
The Jehovah error was made by a christian monk ( medieval I think ) and was nothing more than the equivalent of a typo. The texts are not error free.
How do you know which manuscript is used? Who is the "we" who translates to English? I've met a handful of people who could translate from ancient hebrew and aramaic.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

We're missing out all the really interesting religions here.... like...

*The Prince Philip Movement*
The Prince Philip Movement is a cargo cult of the Yaohnanen tribe on the southern island of Tanna in Vanuatu. The Yaohnanen believe that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the consort to Queen Elizabeth II, is a divine being, the pale-skinned son of a mountain spirit and brother of John Frum.
credit -http://listverse.com/2009/09/10/10-extremely-weird-religions/]10 Extremely Weird Religions

*Universe People*
Ivo Benda is a man from Czech Republic who has found the religion called Universe People. Believe it or not, he can telepathically communicate with extraterrestrial civilizations which constantly orbit around the Earth and look for people who are good enough to be transported to another dimension.

*Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monsters  Pastafarians*
Everything started from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In cooperation with pirates he brought the good on the Earth. They believe that todays moral crisis origins from the decreasing number of pirates, who are not evil. According to them, the most evil people on Earth are gay people who give candies to other people.


----------



## [email protected]

> That said, I don't object to the followers of those religions - I'm a firm believer in religeous tolerence and freedom to practise whatever faith one chooses, as long as that doesn't stretch to crimes and atrocities being carried out in "Gods" name.
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with the above. I dont believe in god but appreciate it helps some people to think there is something/someone out there listening. Trouble is, of the religious people that I do know, not one of them appears to be able to rely on their faith when the going gets tough which I've always considered a shame but farcical as these people tend to be the most judgmental people that I know too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Which is nonsense. How can the one who created the heavens and the earth be either a "johnny come lately" or a megalomaniac? It is such nonsense I am surprised you even say it, and you wonder why I am finding it difficult to take your objections seriously?
> 
> Liz


But he didn't create the heavens and the earth. They were around long before he was - and so were many other gods and goddesses. Do you think the heavens and the earth started with christianity? Your god wasn't even dreamt of until the earth was well established and populated, with many gods and goddesses having existed quite happily together. Just because some human beings in the last couple of thousand years have decided to call a relatively new god "the only god", it doesn't make it true.


----------



## Jiskefet

lizward said:


> In other words, according to you, a true Christian does not actually have to believe in Christ at all.
> 
> Liz


The proof of christianity is in a person's actions, whether he tries to live according to the example of Christ, not in anything he claims to be, do or believe.

Professing one's belief in him and at the same time judging, condemning and putting himself above other people, is not being a christian, it is paying lip service to the fundamentals of christianity.

You can preach all you like, but you are mouthing the words of priests, not of God, and not even of Jezus.
Live a life like Jezus showed you to, with humility and grace, and without judgement, and you will be more convincing than anything you can preach.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Well then you must be mis-remembering what you were taught
> 
> Liz


So I am a liar and Myshkin and Cinnamontoast have poor memories. I await with baited breath your arrogant and inaccurate labels for other posters who pose you conundrums you cannot answer.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> That old chestnut? A group of three women were concerned that they would be unable to move the stone. Christ was wrapped in bandages all round his body, along with about 75 pounds in weight of spices, and his head was warpped separately. So somehow he woudl have to come round in the tomb, free his arms and unwind his head before he suffocated, unwind his legs, get to the stone, push it away from inside, which would mean pushing it over not jsut rolling it out of the way, overpower the Roman guard (who were armed), do all this naked and after a Roman scourging that could kill on its own, and after hanging from a cross for six hours, then walk back to the disciples (presumably still naked) and soemhow after all that convince the disciples that he had risen from the dead.
> 
> Liz


Stranger things have happened. Fear gives you super human strength, so I hear. Someone I know of (not personal, but have three eye witness accounts ) lifted a full 100 litre fish tank over his head and threw it at someone. This was a drug induced strength, I believe.



lizward said:


> O come on. Surely you know why the two are different!
> 
> I have no idea what documents you are talking about, but we certainly have no indication that Christ ever married and it seems exceedingly unlikely, to say the very least. Are you sure you're not mistaking the Da Vinci Code for fact?
> 
> Liz


Pmsl, Liz, are you _intentionally_ funny?

Just one website, then, go on! Mary's gospel:
What is the gospel of Mary (Magdalene)?

There are an awful lot more. The Da Vinci code used some research and enough 'truths' for it to be semi convincing. This is the way stories work, with hints of truth and veiled allegories: ooh, bit like the bible, then!


----------



## Elmo the Bear

The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube


----------



## Starlite

swarthy said:


> ....
> 
> They aren't that similar, catholic and protestant teachings are VERY different in terms of beliefs and the level of commitment required.
> 
> In some parts of the world (some not that far away), catholics and protestants "rivalry" has been alive for as long as any of us can remember. Just as muslim / christian relationships won't be tolerated in some parts of the world. neither wil catholic / protestant relationships.
> 
> I have friends from seriously devout catholic mothers where the father was protestant. Once again - they made it work for 25 years plus until in one case, the father sadly developed alzheimers (he was many years older than her) - but she nursed him right to the end. One of her daughters subsequently followed in the footsteps of many of her mothers family (several priests and nuns) and became a nun.
> 
> 
> 
> I* agree with you there, the Orange Lodge marches 5000 strong on the 12th here in Glasgow. Its disturbing its allowed to continue but we see many high ranking politicians in the ranks so no wonder
> Glasgow is still a battleground against Catholic/Protestant. My gran was horrified my first serious partner was Protestant *shocker**
> 
> *My da was Catholic and mother Protestant, both practiced but we were raised Catholic and went to Mass with my gran every Sunday. They were married 28 years before my da passed away, love conquers all *
> 
> 
> 
> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think your understanding of logic is the same as mine.
> Nothing about religion is logical because the foundation of religion is FAITH, and faith requires that the faithful suspend rational thought in order to believe.
> 
> Silly talk???
> 
> Christianity asks that you symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of a jew raised from the dead and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master. For this will remove the evil that has been present in you since a woman formed from a man's rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat a forbidden fruit that would give her knowledge.
> 
> What was that about silly talk?
> 
> But this is the thing. Religion, no matter how moderate is based on suspending rational thought and blind obedience. Its about doing as you're told in this special book no matter how much cognitive dissonance you feel. This is flat out dangerous, especially so in children.
> Religion properly taught is something you simply do NOT question. Its the height of hypocrisy to say your child shall be indoctrinated in your religion of choice and its okay because the child will grow up to question it. Religion requires that you simply NOT question.
> 
> Religion teaches blind obedience and that bothers me because that is the kind of thing that leads to good people allowing bad things to continue.
> 
> I don't know who to attribute this to, but this is why I "allow" it to bother me:
> "_Morality is about doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is about doing what you are told regardless of what is right._"
> 
> This article was written in 2006 by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who wrote Infidel. Excellent book, and worth reading IMO. (See that's how non believers operate, they read more than one book and don't claim to have all the answers )
> Why they deny the Holocaust - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> religion is based on alot of things however God giving us free will allows us to question everything
> 
> thankyou for the links very interesting. But from what I can gather with a quick search (need to look properly) is that Muslims dont deny the Holocaust but wish to focus on all the others that were killed alongside them and see it as hypocritical they do the same in Palestine (not my opinion, but the gist from what i can see)
> 
> 
> 
> MCWillow said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how does that _prove _that that particular religion is the right one?
> Another religion doesn't claim that, so how do you know the other religion isnt the right one?
> 
> The Bible is the word of God in that _particular_ religion.
> The Qur'an is the word of God in Islam.
> The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> There are many, many religious texts - all purporting to be the word of God - so how do you know that the one _you_ believe in is the right one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't. I think its that simple. We seek out what calls to us and follow it in the hopes to ascend to Heaven after death. No one will ever know, that is the beauty i think
> 
> 
> 
> cinammontoast said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some* are extremists? Show me a decent Catholic whom ignores the fast before communion or doesn't give up a food for lent. Don't you think it's extreme to give up love and marriage, too?
> 
> Catholic schools are no longer the calm, best education, best schools in the uk and haven't been for many years. Maybe 30 years ago, yes. I've worked in two horrific Catholic schools where the children were appallingly badly behaved. At no point was I taught humility or to be well behaved during my own schooling. My parents, as is right, taught me that. It is NOT for teachers to teach that except by their own comportment.
> 
> Catholic, always will be, it's not something with ever leaves in terms of the guilt that was used when I was growing up: think you're in your twenties and the church has defo changed its ways in order to attract the younger generation.
> 
> I can slate anything I like: I think it's disgusting to say that a new born has 'original sin' and will be tortured forever more because it's not baptised. What a wonderful thing for a recently bereaved mother to have on her conscience!
> 
> Sex outside of marriage is hugely frowned upon and having children outside of marriage is, too. That is what worried me, even tho we are told to 'go forth and multiply'.
> 
> I do not ridicule others' faith, I will ridicule their blind adherence to outmoded ideas and their total reliance on the literal words as opposed to interpretation. For an educated person to say that what is written in any religious text is the absolute truth astonishes me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol bang on, im in my 20's  My da told me lots of stories of how the priests behaved towards the children, thank God it is no longer tolerated as it never should have been. As i have said before, no monster should hide behind religion to justify his evil, its against all that jesus taught.
> 
> There is nothing in the Bible which says infants must be baptized and will go to hell if they dont. Baptism is a tradition and has became a Sacrament which can be done at any time in a persons life. Many like myself beieve in Baptism by desire for infants unyet born but the official "Party line" is that babie's are left to the mercy of God and considering Jesus said
> 
> "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
> 
> I believe they go back to God
> 
> 
> 
> cinammontoast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, it was taught to me in theological lessons, in Church, pretty much all the time throughout my childhood. We are allegedly born with original sin because of Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden when she ate the forbidden fruit. (BTW, why did god deliberately put temptation in her way and why make people so I'mperfect that they can't resist temptation: bit crap to make someone in your own likeness then ensure that they would mess up ASAP )
> 
> Suicides, also, were irretrievably condemned and buried at the crossroads, disbarred from hallowed ground. So basically, those with mental health problems, driven to suicide by the unbearable nature of their suffering, having undergone purgatory on earth in some cases, are also barred from heaven. A just and forgiving god?
> 
> I am _loving_ this thread! No nastiness and some pretty fiercely defensive religious and non religious people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As mentally ill myself I know if I were to end my life I would most likely end up in Hell, it has actually prevented me from killing myself a few times. Religion can help the mentally ill also.
> 
> nothing like a good debate, it hasnt ended in name calling yet lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MCWillow

Starlite said:


> <snip>
> 
> We don't. I think its that simple. We seek out what calls to us and follow it in the hopes to ascend to Heaven after death. No one will ever know, that is the beauty i think
> 
> <snip>


Thank you!

Its the belief and faith you have, that makes you want to follow a particular religion.

No-one _will_ ever know if there is one true religion, and which religion that is.

IMHO, if every follower of a religion had that view, there would be a lot less conflict regarding whos God is the 'right' God.

(sorry to snip you post, I just wanted to address that small bit of it  )


----------



## Starlite

MCWillow said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Its the belief and faith you have, that makes you want to follow a particular religion.
> 
> No-one _will_ ever know if there is one true religion, and which religion that is.
> 
> IMHO, if every follower of a religion had that view, there would be a lot less conflict regarding whos God is the 'right' God.
> 
> (sorry to snip you post, I just wanted to address that small bit of it  )


the world would be a more peaceful place if everyone accepted we all all searching for answers but may find them in different places 

Al religions teach the same basics of "Love thy neighbour" etc, they all seem to get lost sadly x


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> are you trolling or do you actually beleive this? Show one single piece of EVIDENCE. I'd argue that the evidence AGAINST is overwhelming.


Perfectly serious. The evidence is the existence of the Christian church - read up its early history sometime.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> I thought religion was about faith... why would you have to learn faith ?


Because there is an awful lot of it - especially for Catholics where it is not all contained in the Bible and a lot of it actually contradicts the Bible.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> The Jehovah error was made by a christian monk ( medieval I think ) and was nothing more than the equivalent of a typo. The texts are not error free.
> How do you know which manuscript is used?


If you have ever seen a Greek New Testament, you will see that all the known variations in the text are listed. The same thing happens with the Old Testament. Texts as recent as medieval times just aren't used!



> Who is the "we" who translates to English? I've met a handful of people who could translate from ancient hebrew and aramaic.


Christians. If you prefer, I will say "translators" - I am not one.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> But he didn't create the heavens and the earth. They were around long before he was


God is the creator of all things. He was there from eternity. There has never been a time when he has not been. Surely you have heard that before?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Jiskefet said:


> Live a life like Jezus showed you to, with humility and grace, and without judgement, and you will be more convincing than anything you can preach.


Actually, Jesus told us to judge. And one day he himself will judge everyone.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> What is the gospel of Mary (Magdalene)?


A gnostic gospel then - third century. Right.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> If you have ever seen a Greek New Testament, you will see that all the known variations in the text are listed. The same thing happens with the Old Testament. Texts as recent as medieval times just aren't used!
> 
> Christians. If you prefer, I will say "translators" - I am not one.
> 
> Liz


You can't translate......but you want to tell me what's in an ancient Greek version of the NT? Yahweh, btw, is the god of the OT: in the christian scriptures he is referred to as "Father" or the "Lord" - since the narrative in the NT relates to Jesus's words about his god. I can't translate aramaic or first century greek either, but I studied under academics who can, which means I've got at least a basic idea of how the texts evolved.

It seems that you are making it up as you go along, to be honest. Believe in whatever you want, but talk of proof and attempts to claim a historian's knowledge of how the texts came to be and were translated just leave you open to ridicule, I'm afraid.


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> Perfectly serious. The evidence is the existence of the Christian church - read up its early history sometime.
> 
> Liz


in that case then, the existance of the hindu church is evidence too right? the existance of a church proves the religion now does it? Sweet. So the existance of the church of the flying spaghetti monster proves that the flying spaghetti monster is the one true god! Praise him!

Agsin, you have clearly demonstrated that you dont understand the concept of proof.


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> You can't translate......but you want to tell me what's in an ancient Greek version of the NT?


O for goodness sake, I do have several Greek NTs and I have an elementary knowledge of Greek (but no more). The footnotes, introduction, keys and so on are in English! I am talking about the Koine New Testament (Nestle-Alland is the one most people use) and that details all the variants. You can easily get hold of a Koine NT and check it out for yourself if you so wish. It's done like that because the fragments, codices etc are far too valuable just to be handed over every time a new translation is made. Some of the earliest texts you can actually see online - vaticanus was put online recently as I recall - but obviously they can't just be loaned out!

Edit: perhaps this will help http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/ApparatusGuide.pdf



> Yahweh, btw, is the god of the OT: in the christian scriptures he is referred to as "Father" or the "Lord" - since the narrative in the NT relates to Jesus's words about his god. I can't translate aramaic or first century greek either, but I studied under academics who can, which means I've got at least a basic idea of how the texts evolved.


Then I assume you are also aware of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and that Yahweh is the same God throughout the Bible. God the Son took on human flesh at the incarnation, that is the only difference.

Liz


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> in that case then, the existance of the hindu church is evidence too right? the existance of a church proves the religion now does it?


No. The existence of the Christian church is the primary evidence of the resurrection, if you want something outside of the eyewitness accounts. There is no other explanation for Christianity. That's all.

Liz


----------



## DogLover1981

There are people who want to believe in some sort of god no matter what others say and that's their right. Why should they care what others say and think? Religion fills a psychological need for some people. There are things people will never agree on.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> If you have ever seen a Greek *New Testament*, you will see that all the known variations in the text are listed. The same thing happens with the Old Testament. Texts as recent as medieval times just aren't used!
> 
> Christians. If you prefer, I will say "translators" - I am not one.
> 
> Liz





lizward said:


> O for goodness sake, I do have several Greek NTs and I have an elementary knowledge of Greek (but no more). *The footnotes, introduction, keys and so on are in English! * I am talking about the Koine New Testament (Nestle-Alland is the one most people use) and that details all the variants. You can easily get hold of a Koine NT and check it out for yourself if you so wish. It's done like that because the fragments, codices etc are far too valuable just to be handed over every time a new translation is made. Some of the earliest texts you can actually see online - vaticanus was put online recently as I recall - but obviously they can't just be loaned out!
> 
> Then I assume you are also aware of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and that Yahweh is the same God throughout the Bible. God the Son took on human flesh at the incarnation, that is the only difference.
> 
> Liz


All known variations are listed...by modern day scholars, so that includes the variations that evolved over the last 2,000 years, I'd have thought.
And yes, I'm aware it was the same god referred to, but you were talking about Yahweh in the NT - he is referred to in terms of Jesus's vocalisations about him, therefore not as Yahweh, but as lord or father.
You are tying yourself in knots over this, I don't think even you can follow your own argument.
Anyway, it's late, I can't do this all night. May your god go with you.


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> All known variations are listed...by modern day scholars, so that includes the variations that evolved over the last 2,000 years, I'd have thought.


No, because as I have already explained, translators do not use recent copies! If I can find my Greek NT I will scan some of it in for you so that you can see how it's done, OK?



> And yes, I'm aware it was the same god referred to, but you were talking about Yahweh in the NT


Was I? He is the same God anyway, though I agree he is not called Yahweh in the NT (since it is in Greek, he wouldn't be, would he.)



> You are tying yourself in knots over this


You're the one who is confused, I'm afraid. Perhaps this will help http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/ApparatusGuide.pdf

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

If the existence of a 'church' is proof.... does that mean that Tom was right after all ?


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> A gnostic gospel then - third century. Right.
> 
> Liz


Yup. Probably as truthful and authentic as any text that is today in existence that was allegedly sourced earlier.

The bit in grey near the bottom is interesting:
BBC - Religions - Christianity: Mary Magdalene

This has been verified by many scholars as an authentic text.


----------



## Jiskefet

Elmo the Bear said:


> If the existence of a 'church' is proof.... does that mean that Tom was right after all ?


  :cryin: :blink:


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> No. The existence of the Christian church is the primary evidence of the resurrection, if you want something outside of the eyewitness accounts. There is no other explanation for Christianity. That's all.
> 
> Liz


Sorry but the existence of a church simply proves that exploitation, in order to suppress the proletariat, by a bourgeois ruling class has existed for years.

Those who run the churches are no better than royalty in the way the power is controlled by fear. The church has always been the instrument of the ruling classes and that control is personified by the fact "our" queen (head of state) is also the head of the church. Even the US where religion is far more fanatical, had the sense to separate church and state.

I for one believe all are born equal; your church does not. I for one believe that all are born free; your church does not. This is not about a god and faith (if you need to study faith it is not faith, it is indoctrination) this is about organised fanatical groups trying to control others using bronze age mythology.


----------



## cinnamontoast

What type or branch of Christianity are you, Liz, and what did you start off as?


----------



## MCWillow

Starlite said:


> religion is based on alot of things however *God giving us free will* allows us to question everything
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> MCWillow said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how does that _prove _that that particular religion is the right one?
> Another religion doesn't claim that, so how do you know the other religion isnt the right one?
> 
> The Bible is the word of God in that _particular_ religion.
> The Qur'an is the word of God in Islam.
> The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> There are many, many religious texts - all purporting to be the word of God - so how do you know that the one _you_ believe in is the right one?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't. I think its that simple. We seek out what calls to us and follow it in the hopes to ascend to Heaven after death. No one will ever know, that is the beauty i think
> 
> <snip>
Click to expand...

In my opinion, Starlite has the right 'attitude' (sorry, not sure if that is the word I am looking for) to religion.

She has agreed that God gave us free will to question - and she has given me an answer, according to _her_ faith and belief.

At least she has tried to answer my questions.

I am not questioning to be awkward - I am questioning because I really am interested, and would _love_ to see some sort of proof to the resurrection. All I can find online is 'eyewitness accounts' that are written in the Bible - by the very people that are trying to make you believe in their particular religion.

I am sure if I dug further I could find eyewitness accounts to verify anything written in _any_ of the religious texts, to try and make me believe in their religion.

I don't accept that the only answers are 'because its in the Bible, so it is Gods word'.

That just tells of blind faith. I want _proof_, or at least a knowledgable argument on why I should believe something.

Thats as bad as a parent answering the childs question 'why can't I do that?' with the reply of 'because I said so'.

So at the moment, I am still agnostic


----------



## lola57

i am more pagan in my beliefs than anything else i can think of,i dont go to church i rejoice in mother nature,i can lie in the grass&take in the beauty of the sky,the birds roll over& seek comfort in the grass&all it sustains what more do i need certainly not a sermon on what i can or cant do.i love my family my friends my animals,they are my life&i really dont need religious guidance to live my life in the way i feel is right&good
oh yes i do think most religions are ugly..designed by MAN tocontrol&suppress&make sure everybody but the rich lived their life filled withguilt,do a bit of research into how popes achieved their status??money&corruption...make your own mind up,it is after all YOUR CHOICE


----------



## lola57

may i also add,has anyone bought a flat pack where the instructions have been translated from another language??how many times has the bible been translated altered?? reminds me of chinese whispers


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> No. The existence of the Christian church is the primary evidence of the resurrection, if you want something outside of the eyewitness accounts. There is no other explanation for Christianity. That's all.
> 
> Liz


It's not *evidence* though is it? It's not PROOF. You dont need a resurection to have a church.
I mean if the christian church is evidence of the resurection then what is the scientologist (thanks cinnamon) church evidence of?
I do realise that theres no point trying to debate things rationally with logic and reason with you, but yet still i'm trying.
The fact is this- you cant prove it for there is no evidence. But you're still welcome to BELEIVE it if you want.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Yup. Probably as truthful and authentic as any text that is today in existence that was allegedly sourced earlier.
> 
> The bit in grey near the bottom is interesting:
> BBC - Religions - Christianity: Mary Magdalene
> 
> This has been verified by many scholars as an authentic text.


"Authentic" meaning "third century gnostic"

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry but the existence of a church simply proves that exploitation, in order to suppress the proletariat, by a bourgeois ruling class has existed for years.


No that won't do. For the first three hundred years or so of its existence the church experienced severe persecution.



> I for one believe all are born equal; your church does not.


Doesn't it? I thought it did.

Liz


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> "Authentic" meaning "third century gnostic"
> 
> Liz


How is the Bible anymore 'authentic'?


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> What type or branch of Christianity are you, Liz, and what did you start off as?


Evangelical - started as Anglican.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> I am not questioning to be awkward - I am questioning because I really am interested, and would _love_ to see some sort of proof to the resurrection. All I can find online is 'eyewitness accounts' that are written in the Bible - by the very people that are trying to make you believe in their particular religion.


Well, you might perhaps consider this: for the first 300 years or so, Christianity was severely persecuted. Why would anyone want to hold to a religion that was likely to cost them their job, beatings, their freedom, even their life, unless they really believed it? They could have had no possible motive for inventing it, they really did believe it. Now you need to ask, why did they believe it?

Liz


----------



## lizward

lola57 said:


> may i also add,has anyone bought a flat pack where the instructions have been translated from another language??how many times has the bible been translated altered?? reminds me of chinese whispers


Nothing like Chinese whispers at all. Translation is done directly from the original languages.

Liz


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> It's not *evidence* though is it? It's not PROOF. You dont need a resurection to have a church.


Not now, no. But you need to think of the world as it was in the first century AD.


> I mean if the christian church is evidence of the resurection then what is the scientologist (thanks cinnamon) church evidence of?


That fools and their money are easily parted ... 

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> How is the Bible anymore 'authentic'?


Because it is over 100 years nearer to the actual events - the New Testament was written within a couple of generations of the events described.

Liz


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Well, you might perhaps consider this: for the first 300 years or so, Christianity was severely persecuted. Why would anyone want to hold to a religion that was likely to cost them their job, beatings, their freedom, even their life, unless they really believed it? They could have had no possible motive for inventing it, they really did believe it. Now you need to ask, why did they believe it?
> 
> Liz


They might have _believed_ it - but where is the proof that it was true?

So yes, I do need to ask.

I am sure there are millions of people that _believe_ in things - just because they believe doesnt make it _true_ - it makes it a _belief_.

Many years ago white people _believed_ there was nothing wrong with going to Africa and kidnapping black people to make them slaves.

Just because they _believed_ that at the time, doesn't make it tue, it makes it a _belief_.

Many years ago, many people_ believed_ the Earth was flat.

Just because they _believed_ that at the time, doesn't make it true, it makes it a _belief_.

Many things that are, or have been believed, are just beliefs.

Just because people believe in things, doesn't make them true.


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> They might have _believed_ it - but where is the proof that it was true?


What do you think might have happened?

Liz


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Because it is over 100 years nearer to the actual events - the New Testament was written within a couple of generations of the events described.
> 
> Liz


There is five living generations in my family.

I could ask any of my cousins to recount something we were all attending (for instance a grandparents birthday party) and I guarantee we would all have different memories of the same event.


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> What do you think might have happened?
> 
> Liz


Every time I have asked you for links, or for proof of anything you have posted you evade the question 

I don't know - that is why I am _agnostic._

I ask questions in the hope of some answers.

If you don't have an answer, cant you at least be honest enough to tell me you have no answer, but you believe this because.....

I can respect people that tell me the reasons they belive in something which doesnt amount to 'because the Bible says so' - thats not an answer on _why_ you believe - tell me _why_ you believe the Bible is so right.

Tell me _why_ you believe - give me something to work on


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> Not now, no. But you need to think of the world as it was in the first century AD.


oh i do. And in that time people had much less knowledge than we do now, which is why they may invent gods to explain things they didnt understand.

Fortunately, most of us have progressed since then. Our knowledge as a species is much greater than it was then, but still there are people who prefer to cling to old beleifs no matter how much *evidence* stacks up against them.


----------



## Sandysmum

lizward said:


> Evangelical - started as Anglican.
> 
> Liz


I understand now why you are so firm in your beliefs. 
I spent many years in an evangelical church and held so firmly to everything I was taught and took the bible as the word of God. But then something happened to make me question things. I looked for answers to those questions and didn't find them in religion. I found them them in the freedom of spirituality.
There is such a big differance between the two. Religion binds you, holds you so tight that you can't think for yourself. Spirituality frees you to explore the wonders that open up before you.

Having a belief in a higher power can be a good thing. But it's wrong to push those ideas on to others. I did it for years thinking it was right, but it's not. 
People have to choose for themselves the path they walk on, it's not up to anyone else to influence that choice.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> You may not say the same thing when you are facing death.


Ah yes, the lets scare the heathen in to accepting our faith tactic. Sorry, doesnt work. I dont need the fear of the afterlife as motivation to be a good person in this life. Being a decent human being right here, right now because I have empathy and compassion is enough motivation for me. And I can do that without fearing any consequences whatsoever. 
In fact, if the only reason you are being a good person is because you fear being separated from your god, then I question every single one of your good deeds and call them selfish instead.



lizward said:


> Well this is rather judgmental isn't it? What possible grounds do you have for saying that?


 Oh... I dunno... your own words?


lizward said:


> Actually, Jesus told us to judge. And one day he himself will judge everyone.
> 
> Liz





lizward said:


> Which is nonsense. How can the one who created the heavens and the earth be either a "johnny come lately" or a megalomaniac? It is such nonsense I am surprised you even say it, and you wonder why I am finding it difficult to take your objections seriously?
> 
> Liz


Yeah, maybe the megalomaniacs are the followers of this god who say things like:


lizward said:


> My God made your god.
> 
> Liz


Liward, you are seriously the best advertisement for atheism out there. Thank you so much for your posts on this thread. Really.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> God is the creator of all things. He was there from eternity. There has never been a time when he has not been. Surely you have heard that before?
> Liz


Oh, I've heard it. I've also heard the ones about the moon being made of green cheese, and that man never landed on the moon, and that Prince Phillip had Princess Diana killed :lol:



lizward said:


> Perfectly serious. The evidence is the existence of the Christian church - read up its early history sometime.
> Liz


Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Just because the christian religion exists, does not mean the resurrection took place. If you want to argue that as true, you would also have to argue that because witchcraft exists, then the horned god dies and is reborn again every year. (btw - that is the true origin oif the christian resurrection myth!) You would even have to argue that because the jedi religion exists then Luke Skylwalker is real.

(And the jedi religion does exist according to a census from a few years back - thousands of people took part in an internet hoax and put it down as their religion on the census form and it was duly recorded as such. Pure nonsense to say it is a real religion, of course - but by your definition above you would have to accept it as such)

JEDI Census - Are you a Star Wars Jedi Master?
Jedi Church - Jedi Religion and Jedi Faith


----------



## Jiskefet

Exactly. It only takes one zealot of this type to put me off religion for at least a decade. You do a very good job at coverting people, Liz....... To atheism that is.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> No that won't do. For the first three hundred years or so of its existence the church experienced severe persecution.
> 
> Doesn't it? I thought it did.
> 
> Liz


I'm afraid it doesn't think women are equal, it doesn't think gay men and women are equal and numerous other groups (promotes slavery for instance). The church didn't suffer persecution, those who believed the "teachings" of the church did and inter-church "punch ups" don't count as persecution (the RC gang beating up Martin Luther's gang isn't persecution, it's a power struggle).

Watch the clip I posted from the West Wing just to remind you what your church teaches


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Edit: perhaps this will help http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/ApparatusGuide.pdf
> 
> Liz


Very much so, thank you, it saves me rooting through my old books....

Your attachment explains that the NT was comprised of "bits and pieces of lots of manuscripts". It reproduces no actual single manuscript from the ancient world and surviving copies contain "many, many variations". Ancient scholars describe "conflicting manuscripts".

Some time around the 4th century AD, according to your link, a large scale revision took place which resulted in the Koine text.

Much, much later (after the printing press) more recently discovered manuscripts were *added* to the text. Work in the 20th century was done to "project a veneer of uniformity when in fact what exists is plurality".

A consistent, eye witness account? Not according to the text you are referring to.....

I await your next tangent to avoid acceptance of the reality of how the NT came about with bated breath. OK?

It's a fascinating piece of work, the NT, and as a non-believer, I'm grateful that I grew up in a culture that gave me the Sermon on the Mount and the ethics contained within the whole book. Insisting that it was written down as a whole, first hand account does it a disservice, in my opinion.


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> There is five living generations in my family.
> 
> I could ask any of my cousins to recount something we were all attending (for instance a grandparents birthday party) and I guarantee we would all have different memories of the same event.


Yes, the same is true in the Gospels - there are four accounts of the resurrection and they differ. Just as you would expect. What you WON'T have in your family, is a number of adults claiming that they have seen someone who was executed, alive again, eating, able to be touched, that they have met with him over a period of six weeks, and then so convinced of that, that they are prepared to suffer and even die horribly rather than say they were wrong.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Every time I have asked you for links, or for proof of anything you have posted you evade the question


What are you asking for? The evidence is right there in the Bible, in the existence of the Christian church, and outside the Bible in the writings of Josephus (before spellweaver or anyone else tells me, I do know there is a Christian interpolation in the relevant passage, but what was actually written is fairly clear) and Tacitus. You can read it for yourself.



> I can respect people that tell me the reasons they belive in something which doesnt amount to 'because the Bible says so' - thats not an answer on _why_ you believe - tell me _why_ you believe the Bible is so right.
> 
> Tell me _why_ you believe - give me something to work on


I have no answer beyond what I have already given - the resurrection - except for one that is terribly subjective and does not amount to proof except for me. I have met Christ, through His Holy Spirit. Yes, that is the ultimate proof for the CHristian, of course it is, but the historical fact of the resurrection is what I return to if ever I have doubts.

Liz


----------



## lizward

jetsmum said:


> I understand now why you are so firm in your beliefs.
> I spent many years in an evangelical church and held so firmly to everything I was taught and took the bible as the word of God. But then something happened to make me question things. I looked for answers to those questions and didn't find them in religion. I found them them in the freedom of spirituality.


Yes, well there are many people in churches, even Evangelical churches, who are unconverted.



> Obviously youw ere one of those a big differance between the two. Religion binds you, holds you so tight that you can't think for yourself.


But Christ sets the sinner free.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Just because the christian religion exists, does not mean the resurrection took place.


No, you are missing the point. For the first 300 or so years of its existence, the church experienced terrible persecution. There was absolutely no motivation for anyone to invent a religion based opn a crucified man - the idea of a crucified man as the founder of a religion was as offensive to the jews as a religion founded on the imprisonment of a child molester would be to us. It was totally unthinkable. Furthermore the jews, like the Muslims today, did not relate at all to the idea that God might come and live as a human being (and they still don't). Yet Christianity started from within Judaism. Unthinkable - except for the fact of the resurrection.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'm afraid it doesn't think women are equal, it doesn't think gay men and women are equal and numerous other groups (promotes slavery for instance).


Ah, that's what you are talking about. First, it does think men and women are equal - the dispute is over roles not value. Second, I am not getting into the argument here about whether or not one is born homsexual but sin is sin and ALL sex outside marriage is EQUALLY sin. O, and any sin of any type is enough to send the sinner to hell. So yes, all are equal because all have sinned. As for slavery, you should not equate the culture of the southern states over that shameful period with the teaching of the Bible.



> The church didn't suffer persecution


This is simply false, please go and do some basic reseach on the early church in the Roman emprie (which is where it was).

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Your attachment explains that the NT was comprised of "bits and pieces of lots of manuscripts". It reproduces no actual single manuscript from the ancient world and surviving copies contain "many, many variations". Ancient scholars describe "conflicting manuscripts".
> 
> Some time around the 4th century AD, according to your link, a large scale revision took place which resulted in the Koine text.
> 
> Much, much later (after the printing press) more recently discovered manuscripts were *added* to the text. Work in the 20th century was done to "project a veneer of uniformity when in fact what exists is plurality".


Did you look at the actual example given from that German book where they laid out all the variations? You seem to think the variations are large. In fact the largest variation is between the Received Text and the Eclectic text. If you want to see the extent of the variation (and this is as big as it gets), go to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and check out passages (you choose them) between the NKJV and the ESV (I have chosen those two for ease of reading and similarity of style, but you can use others of course). Tell me what differences you find. Actually they are very minor.

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> No, you are missing the point. For the first 300 or so years of its existence, the church experienced terrible persecution. There was absolutely no motivation for anyone to invent a religion based opn a crucified man - the idea of a crucified man as the founder of a religion was as offensive to the jews as a religion founded on the imprisonment of a child molester would be to us. It was totally unthinkable. Furthermore the jews, like the Muslims today, did not relate at all to the idea that God might come and live as a human being (and they still don't). Yet Christianity started from within Judaism. Unthinkable - except for the fact of the resurrection.
> 
> Liz


No, I am not missing the point. You are altering the parameters of your argument every time someone points out to you where you argument falls down.

However, if you are now insisting that because pepople were willing to face persecution and death for their belief then it must have been a true belief, what about the witches in the burning times? The same applies there. Do you also believe the witches were right? And if not, why not?


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Did you look at the actual example given from that German book where they laid out all the variations? You seem to think the variations are large. In fact the largest variation is between the Received Text and the Eclectic text. If you want to see the extent of the variation (and this is as big as it gets), go to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and check out passages (you choose them) between the NKJV and the ESV (I have chosen those two for ease of reading and similarity of style, but you can use others of course). Tell me what differences you find. Actually they are very minor.
> 
> Liz


Erhman is quoted in your original link as saying that there are more differences among the manuscripts than there are words in the NT. That's a lot of differences!

But I don't know why I'm still replying, other than that it's fun to revisit my university studies, as never a truer word was spoken than by SW here:



Spellweaver said:


> No, I am not missing the point. *You are altering the parameters of your argument every time someone points out to you where you argument falls down.*
> However, if you are now insisting that because pepople were willing to face persecution and death for their belief then it must have been a true belief, what about the witches in the burning times? The same applies there. Do you also believe the witches were right? And if not, why not?


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> That fools and their money are easily parted ...
> 
> Liz


But it's what Scientology believes and there is no proof, it's just their belief, to which they are entitled, same as you. You have belief and faith, you cannot produce actual proof, regardless of the 'physical' resurrection, which tbh, may or may not be true. To accept ancient writings that have been adapted, despite your _belief_ that any translations and changes have not affected it, is plain redoubtable.



MCWillow said:


> They might have _believed_ it - but where is the proof that it was true?
> 
> So yes, I do need to ask.
> 
> I am sure there are millions of people that _believe_ in things - just because they believe doesnt make it _true_ - it makes it a _belief_.
> 
> Many years ago white people _believed_ there was nothing wrong with going to Africa and kidnapping black people to make them slaves.
> 
> Just because they _believed_ that at the time, doesn't make it tue, it makes it a _belief_.
> 
> Many years ago, many people_ believed_ the Earth was flat.
> 
> Just because they _believed_ that at the time, doesn't make it true, it makes it a _belief_.
> 
> Many things that are, or have been believed, are just beliefs.
> 
> Just because people believe in things, doesn't make them true.


This ^^ I _believe_ one day I will win the lottery, but it's highly unlikely, isn't it?



lizward said:


> I _have_ _met_ _Christ_, through His Holy Spirit.
> Liz


Oh my god! I doubt even Pope Benedict, Mr Nazi Youth himself, would _dream_ of making such an egotistical statement! You must surely be one of the chosen! Why hasn't this been in the papers?!

Liz, come _on_! You simply cannot make a statement like that, sorry, it's above and beyond! You may feel that the Holy Spirit has touched you, but to claim that you have met Christ through it is way OTT. Anything you may have said and tried to persuade me about just falls apart at this statement. Depressing.  It's like those people we consider to be mentally unbalanced saying they were abducted and experimented on by aliens! Where's the difference?


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> However, if you are now insisting that because pepople were willing to face persecution and death for their belief then it must have been a true belief, what about the witches in the burning times? The same applies there. Do you also believe the witches were right? And if not, why not?


I will say it again. There was absolutely no motivation for anyone to invent a religion based on a crucified man. There was every motivation for the authorities to produce Jesus' body if they knew where it was. The empty tomb was a huge embarassment to them. There was every reason for the apostles to recant and say that they never actually saw Jesus risen from the dead, every motivation for them to stop spreading the Gospel, all but one of them died horribly for their beliefs.

Now as to the witches, given the way things were at the time, would they in fact have been spared if they had promised to renounce witchcraft? I doubt it somehow, don't you? The way these things seemed to work at that time was that you were tried for witchcraft on the basis of some hyped up emotional charge (such as owning a cat) and whatever you did or said after that had no effect on your sentence, you got executed regardless. That is how I understand it, I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Erhman is quoted in your original link as saying that there are more differences among the manuscripts than there are words in the NT. That's a lot of differences!


He is clearly talking about very minor differences across the whole of the manuscripts available. Look at it this way. With the amount of sheer hatred for Christianity out there, if there really was some way that people could get huge variations from the NT by using lots and lots of minor variations and oputting them all together, don't you think they would have done so by now? Any one of you is welcome to look it up, there is a huge internet out there. See what variants you can find and let's discuss them. I'm game.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> But it's what Scientology believes and there is no proof, it's just their belief, to which they are entitled, same as you.


The thing is, the man who actually invented that money making scheme didn't really believe it, did he. Look him up. The fact that so many followers have been hoodwinked into giving over vast amounts of money, or working for next to nothing for years in the sea org, is tragic indeed, and I wish more governments would simply come out and refuse to accept Scientology as a religion.



> Oh my god! I doubt even Pope Benedict, Mr Nazi Youth himself, would _dream_ of making such an egotistical statement! You must surely be one of the chosen! Why hasn't this been in the papers?!


Every Christian can say the same thing. Christianity is a relationship rather than a religion. I didn't think you'd like it which is why I prefer to concentrate on the historical facts.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> He is clearly talking about very minor differences across the whole of the manuscripts available.
> Liz


No he's not. It's only clear to you.

Windmills of your mind


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> I will say it again. There was absolutely no motivation for anyone to invent a religion based on a crucified man. There was every motivation for the authorities to produce Jesus' body if they knew where it was. The empty tomb was a huge embarassment to them. There was every reason for the apostles to recant and say that they never actually saw Jesus risen from the dead, every motivation for them to stop spreading the Gospel, all but one of them died horribly for their beliefs.
> 
> Now as to the witches, given the way things were at the time, would they in fact have been spared if they had promised to renounce witchcraft? I doubt it somehow, don't you? The way these things seemed to work at that time was that you were tried for witchcraft on the basis of some hyped up emotional charge (such as owning a cat) and whatever you did or said after that had no effect on your sentence, you got executed regardless. That is how I understand it, I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Liz


Stop wriggling Liz and answer the question. Everything you say above equates equally as well to both religions.

There was absolutely no reason for christians to spread the gospel, but they did and died horribly because of it. There was absolutely no reason for witches to continue to hold onto their beliefs, but they did and died horribly for it. The two situations are identical - so if you are arguing that the christians being persecuted yet not giving up their religion means that it proves the resurrection, then you have to admit that witches being persecuted and not giving up thier beliefs proves the birth, death and rebirth of the horned god.


----------



## alan g a

Good for those who need it, bad for those who don't believe and ugly never.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> There was absolutely no reason for christians to spread the gospel, but they did and died horribly because of it. There was absolutely no reason for witches to continue to hold onto their beliefs, but they did and died horribly for it.


I do not know enough about the persecution of witches to make any further comments. and since I am not remotely interested in researching the matter, I will leave it there.

Liz


----------



## Sandysmum

lizward said:


> Yes, well there are many people in churches, even Evangelical churches, who are unconverted.
> 
> But Christ sets the sinner free.
> 
> Liz


There wasn't one person in the church I attended that wasn't a born again Christian. Some people would have even referred to us as a cult, because we were such a tight knit community.
When I was involved with the church, my faith was 100% , rock solid. It wasn't easy to walk away, but there came a point that I knew I had to.

Christ may set the sinner free, (personally I don't believe that any more) but the church still has them bound in chains.

Until we leave this body, we can't be absolutely sure what happens next. We can only choose what we want to believe and hope for the best!


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> I do not know enough about the persecution of witches to make any further comments. and since I am not remotely interested in researching the matter, I will leave it there.
> 
> Liz


Hiow can you not be interested in researching witchcraft when your own religion is based upon it, its beliefs, and its festivals?


----------



## lizward

jetsmum said:


> There wasn't one person in the church I attended that wasn't a born again Christian.


You mean, who didn't profess to be one. You yourself clearly were not one, for a start.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Hiow can you not be interested in researching witchcraft when your own religion is based upon it, its beliefs, and its festivals?


My religion is based on no such thing.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

Spellweaver said:


> Hiow can you not be interested in researching witchcraft when your own religion is based upon it, its beliefs, and its festivals?




That's why I still celebrate Easter and Christmas - their origins are pre-Christian and all about fertility and the seasons changing, all good fun. Those Romans weren't stupid, they knew they had to merge Christianity with the existing beliefs and celebrations for it to ever take hold


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> My religion is based on no such thing.
> 
> Liz


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

This is what happens when you refuse to learn about other beliefs. You are not remotely interested in researching witches so you will never see the huge parallels between Christian and Pagan celebrations. You refuse to read up on the gods who came before Jesus so you will never know un-unique the life of your savior was considering the prevalent mythology of the time.

This is EXACTLY why religion is so dangerous. It requires blind acceptance and no further inquiry in order to exist. 
It is very much mind control, because if you USE your mind, youre going to say that this business of a rib woman eating a fruit that gives her KNOWLEDGE (hint hint) causing us all to be born with evil that needs to be removed by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a dead jew is just plain WEIRD!!

Seriously, what is the difference between relying on Jesus to remove sin from you and relying on L.Ron Hubbard to remove thetans from you?


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> My religion is based on no such thing.
> 
> Liz


The extent of your ignorance is appalling. Yes it is. Go do some research before you state something as blatantly untrue as this.

The reality is 2012 years ago, (or thereabouts) a man called Jesus was crucified and mankind invented and based a whole religion on that fact, taking on aspects of many existing religions in doing so.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> This is what happens when you refuse to learn about other beliefs. You are not remotely interested in researching witches so you will never see the huge parallels between Christian and Pagan celebrations.


I don't do Christmas. Which other celebrations had you in mind?



> You refuse to read up on the gods who came before Jesus so you will never know un-unique the life of your savior was considering the prevalent mythology of the time.


You are missing the point that Christianity arose from JUDAISM.



> It is very much mind control, because if you USE your mind, youre going to say that this business of a rib woman eating a fruit that gives her KNOWLEDGE (hint hint) causing us all to be born with evil that needs to be removed by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a dead jew is just plain WEIRD!!


That isn't how original sin is removed, I don't think you are going to find any denomination that says it is.



> Seriously, what is the difference between relying on Jesus to remove sin from you and relying on L.Ron Hubbard to remove thetans from you?


Hubbard wrote fiction and invented a religion for the purpose of making money. Christ died for sinners.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> The reality is 2012 years ago, (or thereabouts) a man called Jesus was crucified and mankind invented and based a whole religion on that fact, taking on aspects of many existing religions in doing so.


You seem to forget that I am not a Catholic.

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> You seem to forget that I am not a Catholic.
> 
> Liz


No, I know you are an evangelist. Why should my saying the following make you think I think you are a catholic?

_2012 years ago, (or thereabouts) a man called Jesus was crucified and mankind invented and based a whole religion on that fact, taking on aspects of many existing religions in doing so. _


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> I don't do Christmas. Which other celebrations had you in mind?


Oh... I dunno... the fact that SUNday is your church day in honor of the sun god Mithra?
Or that the resurrection and subsequent feast and celebration closely parallels the death and rebirth of the god of vegetation, Attis who *gasp* was born of a virgin?



lizward said:


> You are missing the point that Christianity arose from JUDAISM.


No, you are missing MY point that Christianity is a melange of many belief systems that were prevalent at the time.



lizward said:


> That isn't how original sin is removed, I don't think you are going to find any denomination that says it is.


Again, great job at deflection. So if I walk up to you and give you bread and say this is my symbolic body and give you juice/wine and say this is my symbolic blood, and tell you to eat and drink of me, youd consider that perfectly normal? Because in any other context outside of Christian indoctrination, that kind of talk is crazy-talk. So... what does that tell you about Christian indoctrination?



lizward said:


> Hubbard wrote fiction and invented a religion for the purpose of making money. Christ died for sinners.
> 
> Liz


You do know that sin is just as much of an invention as as Hubbards scientology right? Sin had to be invented in order for Christianity to exist. Without sin, we have no need of Jesus. We can just be good people because it is the right thing to do. Theres a novel concept.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> You are missing the point that Christianity arose from JUDAISM.
> 
> Liz


Which itself wasn't unique. The oldest recorded religion was in Mesopotamia (fragments of texts even older than the NT, so it must be true, it's an eye witness account!).
The Enuma Elish of Mesopotamia is very obviously a source drawn on in the formation of Judaism - Genesis being the most obvious, with the two narrative strands in Genesis including: a creation myth characterised by the number 6; mankind created on the 7th day; a day of rest; creation springing from water. 
So Christianity arose from a religion that itself was not unique, who'd have thunk it?

Ishtar, one of the Mesopotamian deities, was resurrected from the dead too. The texts from the time say so, it must be true.

(Had to google to remember Ishtar's name, try it, you might learn something).


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> I don't do Christmas. Which other celebrations had you in mind?
> 
> You are missing the point that Christianity arose from JUDAISM.
> 
> That isn't how original sin is removed, I don't think you are going to find any denomination that says it is
> Liz


Why don't you do Christmas? I know it's not the most important date, Easter of course being far more important, of course.

The majority of Christian celebrations dates are based on pagan festivals, as any vaguely educated paganist can tell you. All Hallows Eve is pure paganist.


----------



## cinnamontoast

ouesi said:


> Oh... I dunno... the fact that SUNday is your church day in honor of the sun god Mithra?
> Or that the resurrection and subsequent feast and celebration closely parallels the death and rebirth of the god of vegetation, Attis who *gasp* was born of a virgin?
> 
> No, you are missing MY point that Christianity is a melange of many belief systems that were prevalent at the time.


And lunes/lundi/Monday is named for the moon, mars/marzo/March for the god of war. I could go on, but the points that our language, customs and RELIGION are all a mish mash of old, before the NT was even written, beliefs.


----------



## Sandysmum

lizward said:


> You mean, who didn't profess to be one. You yourself clearly were not one, for a start.
> 
> Liz


How can you possibly say that. You did not know me then and you don't know me now. 
At that point in my life my faith was everything to me. I am not going into detail on a public forum about what happened to change that, but I will say it was extremely traumatic. Loosing my faith was devastating at the time and for years after.

I can hear my old self in the things you are saying and the attitude you are taking. 
Toeing the party line, it's what god wants. Spreading the word, it's what god wants, testifying at every opportunity, it's what god wants ,encouraging converts, it's what god wants.

I know that you are never going to take any notice of what anyone says, coz you have your faith and your faith is what you live your life by.

I wish you well, I really do. 
But now I'm stepping out of this debate, as there is no point my saying any more.


----------



## Spellweaver

cinammontoast said:


> And lunes/lundi/Monday is named for the moon, mars/marzo/March for the god of war. I could go on, but the points that our language, customs and RELIGION are all a mish mash of old, before the NT was even written, beliefs.


So true! Even something as modern as this year's olympic games has its roots in pagan customs:

The torch bearing - lighting torches from one flame to another so that the final torch is lit from the original light is how candles are lit on a pagan altar - the goddess' candle is lit first and all other candles lighted from that one.

Ringing bells all around the country to signal the flame's arrival at its destination - bells are commonly rung to mark important parts of pagan ceremonies

Dancing around the maypole in the opening ceremony

The final resting place of the flame - called the cauldron

I'm sure others can think of more.


----------



## LucyLastic88

Apologies I haven't read all the replies.

I often ponder why people think they need religion.


----------



## Guest

LucyLastic88 said:


> Apologies I haven't read all the replies.
> 
> I often ponder why people think they need religion.


Because that is what they are told they need. And when theyre told before the age of reason, that becomes their truth.


----------



## LucyLastic88

Then after 'the age of reason'? 

Are people too 'convinced' by it all at that point they can't rationalise?


----------



## cinnamontoast

LucyLastic88 said:


> Then after 'the age of reason'?
> 
> Are people too 'convinced' by it all at that point they can't rationalise?


Funny, isn't it? Some might say its brainwashing, like being in a cult.  For my generation of Catholics, it was built on guilt and the idea that you'd go to hell if you didn't follow the doctrine.


----------



## Guest

LucyLastic88 said:


> Then after 'the age of reason'?
> 
> Are people too 'convinced' by it all at that point they can't rationalise?


At the risk of offending the devout, I agree with the theory that most world religions operate similarly to an abusive relationship. Especially the monotheistic ones.

First you tell the person they are damaged goods. (original sin) But thankfully they know you best and they love you despite your faults. Indeed, no one can love you the way they do.
Then you tell them that only through you can they be better".
Then you threaten them with emotional or physical pain if they leave you.
Then you limit their resources and interactions with others.

You get the idea...


----------



## LucyLastic88

Superb thread, this. It's very interesting :thumbup:


----------



## LucyLastic88

ouesi said:


> Because that is what they are told they need. And when theyre told before the age of reason, that becomes their truth.


Then you have the people who join a religion later on in life, eg after a personal trauma/tragedy.


----------



## DogLover1981

It's important to discuss your opinion which in this case is how you think religion causes problems for society and we would better off without it (which in a way I agree with) without directly attacking and mocking individuals on the site, IMO. I'm noticing this in last 10 or 5 pages of this thread. *this is just a personal observation*


----------



## Guest

DogLover1981 said:


> It's important to discuss your opinion which in this case is how you think religion causes problems for society and we would better off without it (which in a way I agree with) without directly attacking and mocking individuals on the site, IMO. I'm noticing this in last 10 or 5 pages of this thread. *this is just a personal observation*


Two things.
One, many humans are perfectly capable of laughing at someones words when they are in fact illogical and ridiculous while still maintaining respect for the human being who said those words.

Two, why does religion get a free pass from ridicule? Why is it okay to say that the flying spaghetti monster is silly and goofy but when its a man made of clay and a woman made of clay-mans rib talking to a snake who tells her how to gain knowledge, we must be respectful and not laugh what is clearly laughable?


----------



## northnsouth

jetsmum said:


> I understand now why you are so firm in your beliefs. I spent many years in an evangelical church and held so firmly to everything I was taught and took the bible as the word of God. But then something happened to make me question things. I looked for answers to those questions and didn't find them in religion. I found them them in the freedom of spirituality. There is such a big differance between the two. *Religion binds you, holds you so tight that you can't think for yourself.* Spirituality frees you to explore the wonders that open up before you. Having a belief in a higher power can be a good thing. But it's wrong to push those ideas on to others. I did it for years thinking it was right, but it's not. People have to choose for themselves the path they walk on, it's not up to anyone else to influence that choice.


This is excatly how I felt about being a JW.I began questioning and then felt I could learn. Now I am good, spiritual person, because I want to be. Not because of some brainwashing and fear of being punished by an "almighty being".. Jehovah or Yahweh, it is merely translation, he is supposed to be the same, one and only God, ...


----------



## northnsouth

myshkin said:


> Which itself wasn't unique. The oldest recorded religion was in Mesopotamia (fragments of texts even older than the NT, so it must be true, it's an eye witness account!). The Enuma Elish of Mesopotamia is very obviously a source drawn on in the formation of Judaism - Genesis being the most obvious, with the two narrative strands in Genesis including: a creation myth characterised by the number 6; mankind created on the 7th day; a day of rest; creation springing from water. So Christianity arose from a religion that itself was not unique, who'd have thunk it? Ishtar, one of the Mesopotamian deities, was resurrected from the dead too. The texts from the time say so, it must be true. (Had to google to remember Ishtar's name, try it, you might learn something).


Thank you I was trying to dredge my lazy braincells for this :thumbup:


----------



## porps

this is an interesting read : Ebon Musings: Those Old Pearly Gates

Probably not for liz as it requires some understanding of logic but for most others in this thread i think you will enjoy it. It's pretty long but worth it.


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Yes, the same is true in the Gospels - there are four accounts of the resurrection and they differ. Just as you would expect. What you WON'T have in your family, is a number of adults claiming that they have seen someone who was executed, alive again, eating, able to be touched, that they have met with him over a period of six weeks, and then so convinced of that, that they are prepared to suffer and even die horribly rather than say they were wrong.
> 
> Liz


I know people that rather chew off their own hand than admit when they are wrong - my brother being a prime example 



lizward said:


> What are you asking for? The evidence is right there in the Bible, in the existence of the Christian church, and *outside the Bible in the writings of Josephus (before spellweaver or anyone else tells me, I do know there is a Christian interpolation in the relevant passage, but what was actually written is fairly clear) and Tacitus*. You can read it for yourself.
> 
> Liz


Thank you - that is what I was asking for - everything I found was on religious sites - I wanted something that wasnt on a religious site 



DogLover1981 said:


> It's important to discuss your opinion which in this case is how you think religion causes problems for society and we would better off without it (which in a way I agree with) without directly attacking and mocking individuals on the site, IMO. I'm noticing this in last 10 or 5 pages of this thread. *this is just a personal observation*


I don't think anyone is being attacked or mocked. One person is being asked a lot of questions and is happy (I hope) to be answering them according to her beliefs, so I guess it could seem she is being 'ganged up' on, but I don't think that is the intention of anyone. She just happens to be the most forthcoming person willing to debate on the side on the (seemingly) minority.

Apologies if I have got that wrong, its just my take on it 



porps said:


> this is an interesting read : Ebon Musings: Those Old Pearly Gates
> 
> Probably not for liz as it requires some understanding of logic but for most others in this thread i think you will enjoy it. It's pretty long but worth it.


Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read 



Tinder said:


> I'm sure it was.
> _*removed image*_


I removed the image, because in my opinion _that_ post was disrespectful and uncalled for.

I am enjoying this thread, and researching and learning new things.

Its posts like that manage to inflame, and end up getting threads closed, which would be a shame for this one.


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> At the risk of offending the devout, I agree with the theory that most world religions operate similarly to an abusive relationship. Especially the monotheistic ones.
> 
> First you tell the person they are damaged goods. (original sin) But thankfully they know you best and they love you despite your faults. Indeed, no one can love you the way they do.
> Then you tell them that only through you can they be better".
> Then you threaten them with emotional or physical pain if they leave you.
> Then you limit their resources and interactions with others.
> 
> You get the idea...


Hmm its an interesting reflection I'll give you that. But what about the fact it teaches you to be kind to others, forgive, look after the poor and destitute and aim to be a better person in general, to think of others rather than always yourself? I haven't seen any abusive spouses do that.



Tinder said:


> I'm sure it was.
> 
> *IMAGE REMOVED*...


37 pages we have had a constructive and civil debate and you post that.
I have never reported anything on here in my life but that is unbelievably inflammatory, your digusting image helps the thread how? Would you post such degrading things about a Muslim or Jew? I highly doubt it.

Moving on. Sorry not quoted all direct here but I think whenn we start all this "my God made your God" rubbish it is a very slippery slope. No religion has any more validity than any other imo and to proclaim so is narrow mnded and downright dangerous, but unfortunately seems like a theme.

I believe what I believe, others should be allowed the same curteousy without becoming derogatorty.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> No, I know you are an evangelist.


Evangelical. I don't claim to be an evangelist 



> Why should my saying the following make you think I think you are a catholic?
> 
> _2012 years ago, (or thereabouts) a man called Jesus was crucified and mankind invented and based a whole religion on that fact, taking on aspects of many existing religions in doing so. _


Because the Catholics are the ones who did that sort of "adaptation". Evangelicals follow the Bible, we don't attempt to adapt things from folk religion.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Oh... I dunno... the fact that SUNday is your church day in honor of the sun god Mithra?


The churches in my circle generally call it "the Lord's day", though personally I call it Sunday for the same reason as I call Monday Monday and July July and so on. It has nothign wahtsoever to do with Mithra, it is simply that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week which is the day after the Sabbath.


> Or that the resurrection and subsequent feast and celebration closely parallels the death and rebirth of the god of vegetation, Attis who *gasp* was born of a virgin?


If the parallels are as convincing as othersquoted here (Horus / Queztacostal or whatever his name was, I won't be losing too much sleep over it. I am well aware that myths of death and rebirth of the sun, connected with the seasons of the year, have abounded since prehistory. They bear no resemblance to the death and resurrection of Christ.



> No, you are missing MY point that Christianity is a melange of many belief systems that were prevalent at the time.


In Israel???



> Again, great job at deflection. So if I walk up to you and give you bread and say this is my symbolic body and give you juice/wine and say this is my symbolic blood, and tell you to eat and drink of me, youd consider that perfectly normal?


No, yoiu can choose (as has been said before) - Jesus cannot be simply a good man, he was either insane, or evil, or who he claimed to be.



> You do know that sin is just as much of an invention as as Hubbards scientology right?


Not from what I observe of the world around me, not to mention of myself! But I doubt very much if you really beleive that there is no such thing as sin. That would mean all of us could do exactly what we wanted and whatever effect it had on anyone else, that wouldn't matter because there was no objective morality. I have never met anyone who really believes that.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Why don't you do Christmas? I know it's not the most important date, Easter of course being far more important, of course.


Because it's pagan.



> The majority of Christian celebrations dates are based on pagan festivals, as any vaguely educated paganist can tell you. All Hallows Eve is pure paganist.


I don't know any Christian who celebrates Halloween!

Liz


----------



## lizward

jetsmum said:


> How can you possibly say that. You did not know me then and you don't know me now.


Well, it's a point of doctrine with me, I suppose it is possible that you are not really an agnostic now and will one day return to Christ, but you see I do not believe that any truly converted person will die outsaide of Christ. Therefore either you are going to return to Him one day (better make it sooner rather than later) or you were never his in the first place. There are some Christians who would not agree with me on this, however.


> At that point in my life my faith was everything to me. I am not going into detail on a public forum about what happened to change that, but I will say it was extremely traumatic. Loosing my faith was devastating at the time and for years after.


Why did you lose it then (actually you said "loosing - perhaps that was deliberate, in which case, why did you let it go?)[/QUOTE]

Liz


----------



## lizward

LucyLastic88 said:


> Then after 'the age of reason'?
> 
> Are people too 'convinced' by it all at that point they can't rationalise?


Ousi is conveniently ignoring the fact that many people are actually converted as adult.

Liz


----------



## lizward

DogLover1981 said:


> It's important to discuss your opinion which in this case is how you think religion causes problems for society and we would better off without it (which in a way I agree with) without directly attacking and mocking individuals on the site, IMO. I'm noticing this in last 10 or 5 pages of this thread. *this is just a personal observation*


Please don't worry on my account, it is water off a duck's back to me.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Thank you - that is what I was asking for - everything I found was on religious sites - I wanted something that wasnt on a religious site


My pleasure. Tell me what you think of it. I can provide the actual quotes if you wish.


> I don't think anyone is being attacked or mocked. One person is being asked a lot of questions and is happy (I hope) to be answering them according to her beliefs, so I guess it could seem she is being 'ganged up' on, but I don't think that is the intention of anyone. She just happens to be the most forthcoming person willing to debate on the side on the (seemingly) minority.
> 
> Apologies if I have got that wrong, its just my take on it


You are quite right.


> I removed the image, because in my opinion _that_ post was disrespectful and uncalled for.
> 
> I am enjoying this thread, and researching and learning new things.
> 
> Its posts like that manage to inflame, and end up getting threads closed, which would be a shame for this one.


Exactly. Similarly that lot of foul language a few pages ago. Unnecessary and, as you say, liable to get the mods called (not by me)

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Can somebody point out one thing, anything, that organised religion has achieved, that is actually worth achieving ?


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> Hmm its an interesting reflection I'll give you that. But what about the fact it teaches you to be kind to others, forgive, look after the poor and destitute and aim to be a better person in general, to think of others rather than always yourself? I haven't seen any abusive spouses do that.


Abusers generally dont operate by just acting evil. Total tyrants without positive qualities dont tend to last long. Abusers very often have redeeming qualities or qualities that the abused desperately clings to.
But just because the abuser is *mostly* a nice guy, the abuser or donates to charity, or donates time to help the underprivileged, doesnt make the abuse right or excusable. 
And abusers arent always spouses. Theyre often parents. Parents who are generally decent parents but occasionally lose their temper and beat the child. Does it make the beatings okay?
The thing is... kids learn right from wrong, compassion, and empathy without being abused all the time.



Starlite said:


> Moving on. Sorry not quoted all direct here but I think whenn we start all this "my God made your God" rubbish it is a very slippery slope. No religion has any more validity than any other imo and to proclaim so is narrow mnded and downright dangerous, but unfortunately seems like a theme.


Agreed agreed agreed!!! And thats the thing. Religion is all about saying THIS is the right religion. It creates a sense of other of separateness from the rest of humanity. It absolutely IS a slippery slope and it is the essence of what is so insidiously dangerous and violent about religion.


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Can somebody point out one thing, anything, that organised religion has achieved, that is actually worth achieving ?


O let's see, Christians have been involved in getting working conditions dramatically improved, abolishing slavery, prison reform, helping the poor and sick, and so on. What has atheism achieved?

Liz


----------



## rona

lizward said:


> O let's see, Christians have been involved in getting working conditions dramatically improved, abolishing slavery, prison reform, helping the poor and sick, and so on. What has atheism achieved?
> 
> Liz


I'm sure a few atheists were involved in at least some of those


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Ousi is conveniently ignoring the fact that many people are actually converted as adult.
> 
> Liz


Read my reply to Starlite 



lizward said:


> The churches in my circle generally call it "the Lord's day", though personally I call it Sunday for the same reason as I call Monday Monday and July July and so on. It has nothign wahtsoever to do with Mithra, it is simply that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week which is the day after the Sabbath.
> 
> If the parallels are as convincing as othersquoted here (Horus / Queztacostal or whatever his name was, I won't be losing too much sleep over it. I am well aware that myths of death and rebirth of the sun, connected with the seasons of the year, have abounded since prehistory. They bear no resemblance to the death and resurrection of Christ.
> 
> In Israel???
> 
> No, yoiu can choose (as has been said before) - Jesus cannot be simply a good man, he was either insane, or evil, or who he claimed to be.
> 
> Not from what I observe of the world around me, not to mention of myself! But I doubt very much if you really beleive that there is no such thing as sin. That would mean all of us could do exactly what we wanted and whatever effect it had on anyone else, that wouldn't matter because there was no objective morality. I have never met anyone who really believes that.
> 
> Liz


Deflect deflect deflect Liz. Speaking of conveniently ignoring. You still refuse to look up these other gods dont you. Or read an alternate account of what was happening during Jesus time. What are you so afraid of finding out?
Now youre adding some contemptuous disrespect too, with misspelling Quetzalcoatls name and dismissing him as whatever his name was. How respectful and inclusive of you. Did you intend to misspell my user name too?


----------



## MCWillow

Elmo the Bear said:


> Can somebody point out one thing, anything, that organised religion has achieved, that is actually worth achieving ?


It brings a lot of peace and comfort to people that believe in it.

I would say thats a good thing.

My great nan was a devout Catholic. I know she took a great deal of comfort from her beliefs, and if anything made my nan happy, it made me happy.

I am agnostic myself. But something that brings feelings of peace, comfort and love to so many people _has_ to be a great achievement, whether _you_ believe or not.


----------



## Spellweaver

DogLover1981 said:


> It's important to discuss your opinion which in this case is how you think religion causes problems for society and we would better off without it (which in a way I agree with) without directly attacking and mocking individuals on the site, IMO. I'm noticing this in last 10 or 5 pages of this thread. *this is just a personal observation*





lizward said:


> Please don't worry on my account, it is water off a duck's back to me.
> 
> Liz


Well at least no-one has called you a liar. You have called me a liar tiwce.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Ah, that's what you are talking about. First, it does think men and women are equal - the dispute is over roles not value. Second, I am not getting into the argument here about whether or not one is born homsexual but sin is sin and ALL sex outside marriage is EQUALLY sin. O, and any sin of any type is enough to send the sinner to hell. So yes, all are equal because all have sinned. As for slavery, you should not equate the culture of the southern states over that shameful period with the teaching of the Bible.
> 
> This is simply false, please go and do some basic reseach on the early church in the Roman emprie (which is where it was).
> 
> Liz


OK Basic research then... your version of the Da Vinci Code (otherwise known as the bible)

_Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, *and he shall rule over thee*.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God._

Doesn't sound too equal to me.

And if homosexuality is a sin then you should follow the book you claim is true in all respects, not just the ones you choose...

Bartlett says it better then I could.......
The West Wing: Bartlet quotes scripture. - YouTube

... so are you following all of those rules too ?

The fact that your religion oppresses free will makes it a tool of control and oppression. What did the early church gain and suffer persecution (according to you) for?... every great money making scam comes at a price... you put in the work early on to make sure you can reap the (financial and power) rewards later.

Financial Scandals: The Hidden Wealth of the Catholic Church - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Just one story... think of all the faithful that could have been fed and housed with the millions of euro / dollars / pounds controlled by the catholic church. ... _Ps. 140:12. I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor._ ... or maybe the lord will just keep it all for himself.

The only "sin" is that those that pretend to uphold the word of some disembodied being that "loves" everyone, actually use the mythology to oppress, embezzle, abuse and con those susceptible enough to believe the lie..... The saddest thing is that those people are usually already poor and dispossessed and look to the church for help... they get false promises and fairy stories.

Sorry missed the best one :
_James 2:5. Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?_

Which basically means..... _"you have nothing now (because the church and ruling classes have it all) and we're not going to give it to you.... but when you arrive in the next (imaginary) world you'll be rich.... so put up with it scumbag and get on with polishing that big gold effigy of the beardy guy !" _


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Deflect deflect deflect Liz. Speaking of conveniently ignoring. You still refuse to look up these other gods dont you.


Looked up two of them. Little resemblance to the story of Jesus.


> Or read an alternate account of what was happening during Jesus time.


Which account had you in mind?


> What are you so afraid of finding out?
> Now youre adding some contemptuous disrespect too, with misspelling Quetzalcoatls name and dismissing him as whatever his name was. How respectful and inclusive of you. Did you intend to misspell my user name too?


Why should I be bothered about the spelling of a name of some character I have only ever taken any notice of in Age of Empires - you don't worship him, do you? Couldn't be bothered to go back and look up the spelling of your handle, I'm afraid. I prefer names.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

Starlite said:


> Hmm its an interesting reflection I'll give you that. But what about the fact it teaches you to be kind to others, forgive, look after the poor and destitute and aim to be a better person in general, to think of others rather than always yourself?but I think whenn we start all this "my God made your God" rubbish it is a very slippery slope.


I don't believer religion teaches you to be kind etc. Your nature and upbringing do. One of the nicest people I know is a pagan. 

Liz made the my god mad your god comment. I admire her convictions and her utter faith, although I find it complacent that someone would be so determined that there is this way and no other. 



lizward said:


> Because it's pagan.
> 
> I don't know any Christian who celebrates Halloween!
> 
> Liz


All Hallows Eve aka All Saints Day is celebrated as a Holy Day of Obligation in the Catholic religion. It is what we know as Halloween, yet another pagan celebration that the Christian religion has adopted.

And surely Christmas is just symbolic to celebrate the birth of Christ, not that this is his actual date of birth which we can't specify.



lizward said:


> Please don't worry on my account, it is water off a duck's back to me.
> 
> Liz





lizward said:


> Exactly. Similarly that lot of foul language a few pages ago. Unnecessary and, as you say, liable to get the mods called (not by me)
> 
> Liz


Ooh, did I miss it?  Not me, I hope? Not in the habit of swearing on forums!



lizward said:


> O let's see, Christians have been involved in getting working conditions dramatically improved, abolishing slavery, rolleyesprison reform, helping the poor and sick, and so on. What has atheism achieved?
> 
> Liz


You forgot the mission to convert the 'savages' in Africa, something which still resonates nicely with the Western Christians having totally destroyed the tribal systems and thereby completing wrecking the way of life of millions forever more. Good job! Africa is just doing *so* well. This is an absolute disgrace and can only be laid at the feet of the Christian religion, much like the almost total destruction of the tribes in Central and Southern America, financed by the Catholic Church. Who, by the way, are the richest institution in the world, I believe, yet poverty still exists. Bizarre. 

Plenty of historical facts there: my area of speciality. :wink:

Edit: Elmo posted the Catholic rich v poor thing! Nice bit of reinforcement!


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> O let's see, Christians have been involved in getting working conditions dramatically improved, abolishing slavery, prison reform, helping the poor and sick, and so on. What has atheism achieved?
> 
> Liz


Sorry but in you're in my area now. Christians did nothing for working conditions (even today churches deny their staff proper employee status and the rights that go with it) and do nothing now and slavery is promoted in the bible.

Workers organising themselves improved working conditions and the formation of guilds and Trades Unions was opposed by the church and preached against as it promoted the distribution of wealth away from the ruling classes (which included the church.. remember head of church and state)

The promises of "salvation" does nothing to help the sick and just fobs them off when the y need proper care. The bible promises the poor much but the church embezzles and retains wealth away from those who are already poor.

Atheism has achieved more than the christian churches put together. It has rid the workers of the scam of false promise by the churches and "enlightened" them to see they should benefit from the fruits of their labour and not give that wealth away to churches but use it to support each other.


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> OK Basic research then... your version of the Da Vinci Code (otherwise known as the bible)
> 
> _Genesis 3:16
> Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, *and he shall rule over thee*.
> 
> Ephesians 5:22-24
> Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
> 
> 1 Peter 3:1
> Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.
> 
> Corinthians 11:3
> But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God._
> 
> Doesn't sound too equal to me.


Nor to me, but I can tell you (however difficult I find it to comprehend) that the men I have met in the churches who believe that women are permanently barred from taking any active part in church really and genuinely do love, cherish and praise their wives, and those wives really genuinely do seem to be totally happy. Obviously as a female preacher I see things a little differently but I can see how extreme complementarianism (which is what we are talking about - men and women having different roles) can work.



> And if homosexuality is a sin then you should follow the book you claim is true in all respects, not just the ones you choose...


I can;t be bothered to look up youtube. I assume it's the old stuff about eating shellfish / wearing clothing of mixed fabrics / stoning people to death, is it?



> The fact that your religion oppresses free will


It doesn't.



> makes it a tool of control and oppression. What did the early church gain and suffer persecution (according to you) for?


For the sake of Christ. For the promise of heaven.



> ... every great money making scam comes at a price... you put in the work early on to make sure you can reap the (financial and power) rewards later.


300 years later? They msut have been good salesmen. "Hey, guys, let's all get ourselves used as torches to light Nero's gardens now, then our great great great great great grandchildren might just get rich!" :lol:



> Just one story... think of all the faithful that could have been fed and housed with the millions of euro / dollars / pounds controlled by the catholic church. ... _Ps. 140:12. I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor._ ... or maybe the lord will just keep it all for himself.


You must ask the Catholics about that.



> Sorry missed the best one :
> _James 2:5. Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?_
> 
> Which basically means..... _"you have nothing now (because the church and ruling classes have it all) and we're not going to give it to you.... but when you arrive in the next (imaginary) world you'll be rich.... so put up with it scumbag and get on with polishing that big gold effigy of the beardy guy !" _


Perhaps you need to read a bit more of James. Try reading the rest of chapter 2, for a start.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> All Hallows Eve aka is Celebrated in the Catholic religion.


Fair enough. Not in my religion though.

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

> Just one story... think of all the faithful that could have been fed and housed with the millions of euro / dollars / pounds controlled by the catholic church. ... _Ps. 140:12. I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor._ ... or maybe the lord will just keep it all for himself. [/QUOYE]
> You must ask the Catholics about that.
> 
> Perhaps you need to read a bit more of James. Try reading the rest of chapter 2, for a start.
> 
> Liz


You're drifting it to simply talking nonsense now Liz... if you don't like you're own book and waht it actually says.. best pic another tale to preach.

... "for the sake of christ for the promise of heaven.... and you've won £1 million pounds in the readers digest prize draw"


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry but in you're in my area now. Christians did nothing for working conditions


Your history is at fault.



> (even today churches deny their staff proper employee status and the rights that go with it)


If so then they are operating illegally, so I rather doubt it.



> and slavery is promoted in the bible.


Slavery certainly existed in the Bible. Promoted? Hardly. A poor Israelite could sell himself into something called slavery but it only lasted for 7 years and when he went free, he was to be given enough to start his life over. It was a wonderful merciful provision for those who had nothing and, frankly, better than the lifetime of servitude to debt that people enter into today.



> Atheism has achieved more than the christian churches put together. It has rid the workers of the scam of false promise by the churches and "enlightened" them to see they should benefit from the fruits of their labour and not give that wealth away to churches but use it to support each other.


As in Communist Russia, for example?

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> I can;t be bothered to look up youtube. I assume it's the old stuff about eating shellfish / wearing clothing of mixed fabrics / stoning people to death, is it?


Which is what your bible says... it also says homosexuality is an abomination so it oppresses free will.... it really quite sick in the way it simply puts things down without reason.

I know you'd like to steer away from the bits you don't like but you have not denied it says it... you can't be bothered to look at the youtube link... you don't need to ... you know what your bible says... it says you should stone people and murder them etc etc... yet you see it something good?

odd... guess that's what blind faith does to you.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Because it's pagan.


Christmas is not pagan. Yule is the pagan festival, the rebirth of the sun, celebrated at the winter solstice on 21st/22nd December. Christmas is the festival that christians use to celebrate the birth of Christ - tagged on to Yule because they were copying the festival of light even though Christ was not born at that time of year.



lizward said:


> I don't know any Christian who celebrates Halloween!
> 
> Liz


Halloween is merely the evening before all hallows day, which many christians do celebrate. It is not a pagan festival. The pagan festival that takes place on the same day as halloween is called Samhain. It is the time when the veil beteween this world and the next is at its thinnest, so it is more easier at that time than any other to contact anyone who has passed to the next world.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Your history is at fault.
> 
> If so then they are operating illegally, so I rather doubt it.
> 
> Slavery certainly existed in the Bible. Promoted? Hardly. A poor Israelite could sell himself into something called slavery but it only lasted for 7 years and when he went free, he was to be given enough to start his life over. It was a wonderful merciful provision for those who had nothing and, frankly, better than the lifetime of servitude to debt that people enter into today.
> 
> As in Communist Russia, for example?
> 
> Liz


Doesn't promote slavery!!!! It gives you a rule book...

_Deuteronomy 15:12-15 
"If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed"_

No one mentioned Russia (state controlled capitalism), you're just making things up now (previously corrupted by the church BTW).

The christian church did nothing for employment rights... if some of those in the labour movement went to church then it was coincidence not design.

The church doesn't operate illegally it uses the little scam of "office holder" to avoid proper rights for many workers..... but you clearly know nothing about employment law (and nothing about employment rights history... my history on that subject is just fine BTW)


----------



## lymorelynn

Please keep this as a discussion of religion not a personal attack on one members beliefs.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lymorelynn said:


> Please keep this as a discussion of religion not a personal attack on one members beliefs.


Hi

If this is me I apologise but I can't allow people to actually take this nonsense in. I agree everyone is entitled to believe what they like but not when they just make things up or oppress the rights of other in terms of sex, sexual orientation... the law protects those things as it protects religious belief so the respect must be reciprocal.

ta


----------



## Starlite

sorry will adress posts tomorrow i just wanted to ask if anyone had read about the Quiverfull movement and could elaborate on it, im waiting on a book about it atm


----------



## Spellweaver

porps said:


> this is an interesting read : Ebon Musings: Those Old Pearly Gates
> 
> Probably not for liz as it requires some understanding of logic but for most others in this thread i think you will enjoy it. It's pretty long but worth it.


Very interesting, and very well-argued and logical. Thanks for posting this porps :thumbsup:

Liz - I really would be interested in your response to this.


----------



## myshkin

porps said:


> this is an interesting read : Ebon Musings: Those Old Pearly Gates
> 
> Probably not for liz as it requires some understanding of logic but for most others in this thread i think you will enjoy it. It's pretty long but worth it.


I haven't got all the way through yet (one to read in bed for me, with no distractions).

Have you read any Dostoevsky porps?
A lot in his novels relate to the whole problem of evil question. He sets up this disillusioned idealist character (widely thought to be based on D's younger self) who sets out the problem of evil for belief in god, then sets out to answer the argument with a character who is not only an idealist, but whose faith cannot be shaken......trouble is the disillusioned idealist is far more convincing and interesting, with more compelling arguments, than D's attempt to answer the question 
Bros Karamazov is the best example, a cracking read as a novel, regardless of the philosphising going on.


----------



## Tinder

lymorelynn said:


> Please keep this as a discussion of religion not a personal attack on one members beliefs.


Where did you put my zombie pic Lynn? I need it back.


----------



## lymorelynn

Tinder said:


> Where did you put my zombie pic Lynn? I need it back.


vanished somewhere in the interwebs  I don't know where these things go


----------



## Tinder

Why was it deleted? What was offensive about a joke picture?


----------



## porps

myshkin said:


> I haven't got all the way through yet (one to read in bed for me, with no distractions).
> 
> Have you read any Dostoevsky porps?
> A lot in his novels relate to the whole problem of evil question. He sets up this disillusioned idealist character (widely thought to be based on D's younger self) who sets out the problem of evil for belief in god, then sets out to answer the argument with a character who is not only an idealist, but whose faith cannot be shaken......trouble is the disillusioned idealist is far more convincing and interesting, with more compelling arguments, than D's attempt to answer the question
> Bros Karamazov is the best example, a cracking read as a novel, regardless of the philosphising going on.


No i havent read it but thanks for the recommendation. If i can remember it next time i'm in town i'll get it from the library


----------



## myshkin

porps said:


> No i havent read it but thanks for the recommendation. If i can remember it next time i'm in town i'll get it from the library


The Idiot is one of my favourites...it explains my username too , but for laugh-while-you-cringe black humour, Notes from the Underground wins


----------



## Sandysmum

lizward said:


> Well, it's a point of doctrine with me, I suppose it is possible that you are not really an agnostic now and will one day return to Christ, but you see I do not believe that any truly converted person will die outsaide of Christ. Therefore either you are going to return to Him one day (better make it sooner rather than later) or you were never his in the first place. There are some Christians who would not agree with me on this, however.
> 
> Why did you lose it then (actually you said "loosing - perhaps that was deliberate, in which case, why did you let it go?)


Liz[/QUOTE]

I wasn't going to post on here again, but seeing as you asked me a direct question, it's only polite to reply.

The reasons I lost my faith are deeply personal and would not be of any value to this debate.

When I used the word loosing, I meant that it was not planned, just like loosing anything isn't planned. It was a gradual process that lasted a very long time, and I prayed hard about it and had others pray over me. But over time I realised that my belief system has changed.

I don't understand why you called me an agnostic, I have a strong belief in a higher power.My beliefs have changed over the years, but I have never doubted that there is a higher power.

Don't you think it would be nicer and much more friendly if we could all just agree to disagree. After all, like I said before, until we leave these bodies behind, no one really knows what the truth is. We can have faith, we can hope, but we don't really know.


----------



## DogLover1981

On the subject of slavery and needing religion to be kind person, I keeping thinking about the civil war and religion. During the civil war people from both the confederate states and the union states believed god was on their side. People on each side of the war quoted the bible to justify their own beliefs regarding slavery. My point being that religion certainly isn't required to be a good person. To me, it's unethical simply because I wouldn't want to be a slave and be treated in a cruel manner. Abraham Lincoln even stated that back at the time:


> Whenever I hear anyone arguing over slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.


The bible has many parts that are conflicting and obscure. We could endlessly pick and choose what each quote from the bible means. The bible was, however, written by people who had vastly different moral standards from today.


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> You're drifting it to simply talking nonsense now Liz... if you don't like you're own book and waht it actually says.. best pic another tale to preach.


There are plenty of Evangelical women who don't think Paul's injunctions about women were for all time. I am one such.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Which is what your bible says... it also says homosexuality is an abomination so it oppresses free will.... it really quite sick in the way it simply puts things down without reason.


This is a UK forum. We do not have free speech protected in the way they do in the US. There are some things I am not willing to discuss here.



> I know you'd like to steer away from the bits you don't like but you have not denied it says it... you can't be bothered to look at the youtube link... you don't need to ... you know what your bible says... it says you should stone people and murder them etc etc... yet you see it something good?


Stoning was the way the death penalty was carried out. Murder was forbidden and was itself punishable by death. Killing in war is not murder.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Christmas is not pagan. Yule is the pagan festival, the rebirth of the sun, celebrated at the winter solstice on 21st/22nd December. Christmas is the festival that christians use to celebrate the birth of Christ - tagged on to Yule because they were copying the festival of light even though Christ was not born at that time of year.


Exactly. But the way Dec 25th is celebrated by the overwhelming majority of the population (including, sadly, many who attend church) reveals who is really being worshipped that day. I go to church at Christmas simply because I am there whenever the doors are open and because I acknowledge that we can use the opportunity for evangelism. I do not take any other part in the festival at all, except that we buy a gift for my parents.



> Halloween is merely the evening before all hallows day, which many christians do celebrate. It is not a pagan festival. The pagan festival that takes place on the same day as halloween is called Samhain.


That is no doubt technically correct, but in popular culture it's Halloweeen the trick and treaters are celebrating, isn't it.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Doesn't promote slavery!!!! It gives you a rule book...
> 
> _Deuteronomy 15:1215
> If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed"_


My apologies, I said 7 years earlier didn't I. Freed in the seventh year means it was six years service, of course. I am sure many debtors today would be delighted if they could work without pay (but with someone else providing housing, food and clothing for them) for just six years and then not only be free of debt but be given the means to start their life again. What a wonderful, merciful system it was!



> No one mentioned Russia (state controlled capitalism)


State controlled capitalism??? I wonder what the Russians might think of that! (I mentioned it, as an example of how wonderful atheistic states are)



> The christian church did nothing for employment rights...


You need to look up Shaftesbury and Wilberforce and the factory acts.



> The church doesn't operate illegally it uses the little scam of "office holder" to avoid proper rights for many workers


Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should ever hold an office in any organisation without being employed with a contract? Seriously? If you're not saying that, what are you saying?

Liz


----------



## lizward

lymorelynn said:


> Please keep this as a discussion of religion not a personal attack on one members beliefs.


Please don't worry on my account, I am quite happy.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Starlite said:


> sorry will adress posts tomorrow i just wanted to ask if anyone had read about the Quiverfull movement and could elaborate on it, im waiting on a book about it atm


Yes, it's a very conservative Christian movement that has as its core the belief that couples should do nothing at all to avoid having children. Consequently they generally have large families.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Tinder said:


> Why was it deleted? What was offensive about a joke picture?


I made no complaint about it. However, you might like to consider what would happen if you posted such a picture with the subject being Mohammed.

Liz


----------



## lizward

jetsmum said:


> Don't you think it would be nicer and much more friendly if we could all just agree to disagree.


Well that would kill the thread wouldn't it. I'm not resigning 

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Very interesting, and very well-argued and logical. Thanks for posting this porps :thumbsup:
> 
> Liz - I really would be interested in your response to this.


I only did a very very quick skim. There is no sin in heaven. Whether we have free will there or not is an interesting question, I might just sound people out on that one at church.

Liz


----------



## DogLover1981

lizward said:


> you might like to consider what would happen if you posted such a picture with the subject being Mohammed.


That's another problem in the world (and sometimes with religious people). There are people who can't respect or even understand the concept of free speech.


----------



## MCWillow

Elmo the Bear said:


> _James 2:5. Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?_
> 
> Which basically means..... _"you have nothing now (because the church and ruling classes have it all) and we're not going to give it to you.... but when you arrive in the next (imaginary) world you'll be rich.... so put up with it scumbag and get on with polishing that big gold effigy of the beardy guy !" _





lizward said:


> Perhaps you need to read a bit more of James. Try reading the rest of chapter 2, for a start.
> 
> Liz


Actually, I think Liz has a point here.

_Any_ verse of the Bible can be taken alone, and quoted to prove a point. You have to read the whole chapter (? sorry not au fait on Bible talk ) to get it in the context of which it was written.

I have just looked up and read the whole of James chapter 2 - and if you read it all, it doesn't imply that ' _"you have nothing now (because the church and ruling classes have it all) and we're not going to give it to you.... but when you arrive in the next (imaginary) world you'll be rich.... so put up with it scumbag and get on with polishing that big gold effigy of the beardy guy !" _

Still agnostic - but think we should play fair


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Actually, I think Liz has a point here.
> 
> _Any_ verse of the Bible can be taken alone, and quoted to prove a point. You have to read the whole chapter (? sorry not au fait on Bible talk ) to get it in the context of which it was written.
> 
> I have just looked up and read the whole of James chapter 2 - and if you read it all, it doesn't imply that ' _"you have nothing now (because the church and ruling classes have it all) and we're not going to give it to you.... but when you arrive in the next (imaginary) world you'll be rich.... so put up with it scumbag and get on with polishing that big gold effigy of the beardy guy !" _
> 
> Still agnostic - but think we should play fair


Thanks you - and yes, the correct term is indeed chapter.

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> I made no complaint about it. However, you might like to consider what would happen if you posted such a picture with the subject being Mohammed.
> 
> Liz


What are you trying to say?

I personally was uncomfortable with the picture, but then, I don't care for gory anything. I don't want to see anything from a mouse to a human in the process of decaying. 
However, Jesus was raised from the dead, in other cultures, those raised from the dead are termed zombies (I can't be the only one who has read "The Serpent and the Rainbow" right?) Equating Jesus to a zombie is quite apt satire.

Salman Rushdie:
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."

Again I ask, why is it okay to mock pagans, caricature witches and wizards, or dismiss and disrespect the Mayans and Tolec with their human sacrifices and bloody temples, but when the one mocked is Jesus or Mohammed, now, now a line has been crossed? Why is that?


----------



## Starlite

lizward said:


> I made no complaint about it. However, you might like to consider what would happen if you posted such a picture with the subject being Mohammed.
> 
> Liz


It was me who complained about the picture as I agree with the above. We should be showing tolerance not being inflammatory



DogLover1981 said:


> That's another problem in the world (and sometimes with religious people). There are people who can't respect or even understand the concept of free speech.


I'm all for free speech but as I said in a previous threads i think there is a MORAL line which should be respected and the pic was against forum rules in the first place



ouesi said:


> What are you trying to say?
> 
> I personally was uncomfortable with the picture, but then, I dont care for gory anything. I dont want to see anything from a mouse to a human in the process of decaying.
> However, Jesus was raised from the dead, in other cultures, those raised from the dead are termed zombies (I cant be the only one who has read The Serpent and the Rainbow right?) Equating Jesus to a zombie is quite apt satire.
> 
> Salman Rushdie:
> The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.
> 
> Again I ask, why is it okay to mock pagans, caricature witches and wizards, or dismiss and disrespect the Mayans and Tolec with their human sacrifices and bloody temples, but when the one mocked is Jesus or Mohammed, now, now a line has been crossed? Why is that?


As I have reiterated throughout this thread I mock no ones beliefs. People can be Wiccan, jewish, Protestant, whatever works for them and should be left to practice in peace provided they dont start using it to justify evil intentions and actions.
I wouldnt post a derogatory image to a religious person any more than i would post a picture of animal abuse on here claiming it was funny


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Exactly. But the way Dec 25th is celebrated by the overwhelming majority of the population (including, sadly, many who attend church) reveals who is really being worshipped that day. I go to church at Christmas simply because I am there whenever the doors are open and because I acknowledge that we can use the opportunity for evangelism. I do not take any other part in the festival at all, except that we buy a gift for my parents.


So just who are they worshipping then Liz? I agree with you that, for a christian festival, the majority of people who celebrate it are not acting in a christian way - but that happens with so many christian festivals and has nothing to do with the pagan festival of Yule. Christians behaving in a non-christian way on their festivals are not pagans!!! They are merely people who call themselves christian when they do not really practice the christian faith.

How many christians realise that a lot of what they do to celebrate christmas is in fact pagan in origin? Christmas trees - pagans always decorated trees at festivals and they started to bring them indoors away from prying eyes during the burning times. Baubles on the trees represent witches balls to catch evils spirits to prevent them rom harming anyone. Bows on the trees - witches used to tie bows on trees to remember the departed. Holly - Yule is the death of the Holly King and the rebirth of the Oak King. Mistletoe - a druid symbol of purity and rebirth. Kissing under the mistletoe - the white berries of the mistletoe were symbolic of male sperm to the druids and kissing under them conferred fertility. Candles - candles were lit at Yule to welcome the return of the sun. Yule log - an ash log was lit each year at Yule from the kindling of last year's yule log and kept burning for 12 days to bring light into the hearth at the winter solstice (Yule).

I bet if you asked most christians which is the most important festival in the christian calendar they would say christmas, because it is the birth of christ. How many would realise that Christ was actually born somehwere around April? How many would actually say the most important christian festival is easter? How many christians scoffing their easter eggs, for example, ever give thought to what they really should be celebrating is the raison d'etre for their faith - ie the resurrection?

In fact, while we are talking about easter, how many christians realise that most of what they do at this most important festival of their faith is actually pagan in origin? How many christians scoffing their easter eggs actually realise they are following a pagan custom that has nothing to do with the resurrection of Christ at all? The tradition of easter eggs comes from the goddess Eostre, who used to transform into a hare (the origin of the easter bunny!) and leave eggs for the children to eat.

Christians hijacked the pagan festival of the return of the sun (Yule) and made it into their christian festival of the birth of the son. They hijacked the pagan festival of rebirth at the spring equinox (Ostara) and made it into their rebirth/resurrection festival (Easter - which they actually named after the pagan goddes Eostre!!!). And that is why, ironically, christians all over the world celebrate their two most important festivals by using pagan customs that have nothing to do with anything in their bible, nothing to do with anything in their faith.

Think about that the next time you insist your faith was not made up from other pre-existing faiths.



lizward said:


> That is no doubt technically correct, but in popular culture it's Halloweeen the trick and treaters are celebrating, isn't it.
> 
> Liz


What is celebrated in popular culture has as much to do with paganism as it has to do with chrisitianity. Halloweeen is not a christian festival and neither is it a pagan one.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> What are you trying to say?
> 
> I personally was uncomfortable with the picture, but then, I dont care for gory anything. I dont want to see anything from a mouse to a human in the process of decaying.
> However, Jesus was raised from the dead, in other cultures, those raised from the dead are termed zombies (I cant be the only one who has read The Serpent and the Rainbow right?) Equating Jesus to a zombie is quite apt satire.


O come on. You seem to be quite an intelligent person and yet you make remarks like this?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> So just who are they worshipping then Liz?


The one who "sees you when you're sleeping ... knows when you're awake ... knows if you've been bad or good" - so oniscient - and is able to go down chimneys all round the world at once - so omnipresent. A false god.



> Christians behaving in a non-christian way on their festivals are not pagans!!! They are merely people who call themselves christian when they do not really practice the christian faith.


I didn't claim they were pagans.



> How many christians realise that a lot of what they do to celebrate christmas is in fact pagan in origin? Christmas trees - pagans always decorated trees at festivals and they started to bring them indoors away from prying eyes during the burning times. Baubles on the trees represent witches balls to catch evils spirits to prevent them rom harming anyone. Bows on the trees - witches used to tie bows on trees to remember the departed. Holly - Yule is the death of the Holly King and the rebirth of the Oak King. Mistletoe - a druid symbol of purity and rebirth. Kissing under the mistletoe - the white berries of the mistletoe were symbolic of male sperm to the druids and kissing under them conferred fertility. Candles - candles were lit at Yule to welcome the return of the sun. Yule log - an ash log was lit each year at Yule from the kindling of last year's yule log and kept burning for 12 days to bring light into the hearth at the winter solstice (Yule).


Well there we are, that makes me even more glad I don't do any of that rubbish!



> I bet if you asked most christians which is the most important festival in the christian calendar they would say christmas, because it is the birth of christ. How many would realise that Christ was actually born somehwere around April?


Some think it was October, though personally I would be more inclined to go for April. Most churchgoers are very uneducated about their own faith, blame that on the preachers 



> How many would actually say the most important christian festival is easter? How many christians scoffing their easter eggs, for example, ever give thought to what they really should be celebrating is the raison d'etre for their faith - ie the resurrection?


If you mean practising Christians then the answer is all of us, I hope!



> In fact, while we are talking about easter, how many christians realise that most of what they do at this most important festival of their faith is actually pagan in origin? How many christians scoffing their easter eggs actually realise they are following a pagan custom that has nothing to do with the resurrection of Christ at all?


Very few, probably. Most churchgoers are not educated enough in these matters.



> Think about that the next time you insist your faith was not made up from other pre-existing faiths.


None of the things you have mentioned are sanctioned by the Bible. The Catholic church adapted the local customs, they have always done that. I am not a Catholic.

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> My apologies, I said 7 years earlier didn't I. Freed in the seventh year means it was six years service, of course. I am sure many debtors today would be delighted if they could work without pay (but with someone else providing housing, food and clothing for them) for just six years and then not only be free of debt but be given the means to start their life again. What a wonderful, merciful system it was!
> 
> State controlled capitalism??? I wonder what the Russians might think of that! (I mentioned it, as an example of how wonderful atheistic states are)
> 
> You need to look up Shaftesbury and Wilberforce and the factory acts.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should ever hold an office in any organisation without being employed with a contract? Seriously? If you're not saying that, what are you saying?
> 
> Liz


Slightly boring now because you're just making things up.

So you agree with me that the bible does support slavery.I'm sure no one would be willing to work without pay for seven years without pay without a fair trial (we call this prison nowadays, but at least you get a trial first). A "merciful" system? This is why christianity in so sick and twisted... instead of saying "oh yeah, we might have got that stoning to death without trial bit wrong"... you just keep on trying to justify it. Surely deception is a "sin" 

The factory acts were introduced in parliament by The Whigs, nothing to do with any church.. Wilberforce went to church, so what, Ken Livingstone is a socialist.. are you saying that socialism was responsible for a successful Olympics bid?....I don't need to look it up, I've been dealing with employment rights and employment law for 25 years (but thanks anyway).

... "office holder" without rights to a contract is a scam to deny basic employment rights... used by a few organisation including the church... there are many (successful) tribunal cases on this subject. I'm not suggesting no one should be an office holder but that the position should not be abused (as it is by the church) to deny people basic employment rights.

Russians agreed with me... that's why they got rid of it ! Russia (the one that fell apart) was not a socialist organised population, but state controlled capitalism - socialism is where production is controlled by the workers, not by a ruling body.


----------



## Starlite

Santa is based on St Nicholas who gave protected children and his feast day is the 6th of december, it has been merged in with the birth of Christ.
The early church determined that Jesus was crucified on March 25. They believed that his life was a complete circle and that his life began on March 25. Since they believed that life began at conception, they decided He was conceived on March 25. So, His birth would have been 9 months later on December 25.
The 25th was already a celebration for pagans and it was an easy way to change it to a Holy day, easier for converts. The shepherds were lambing when Christ was born so would be spring.

ALTHOUGH, provided his birth is celebrated does the date _really _make a difference?


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> This is a UK forum. We do not have free speech protected in the way they do in the US. There are some things I am not willing to discuss here.
> 
> Stoning was the way the death penalty was carried out. Murder was forbidden and was itself punishable by death. Killing in war is not murder.
> 
> Liz


We do have free speech but we also have some great laws which stop people discriminating against certain groups without cause. As there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals (because the lifestyle they choose of their own free will is nothing to do with you or I and does not affect our ability to live our life as we choose one little bit) and to discriminate against them so is so disgusting that it is rightly against the law. Are you in favour of a country with no laws? Should those laws be made by your god (minority group) or by the elected representatives of the people? At the moment, our law making body has a few representatives from your church, it has none that were elected and none that I would recognises as belonging to any social group I inhabit... so if you don't like the laws as they are... might want to have a chat with the clergy 

"Free speech" (otherwise knowns as the protection of hate groups) in the US allows churchgoers to turn up at the funerals of brave soldiers holding signs like "thank god for IEDs" and "thank god for 9/11. if killing in war is not murder then your god should strike these people down surely?

PS - The death penalty *is* murder...


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> There are plenty of Evangelical women who don't think Paul's injunctions about women were for all time. I am one such.
> 
> Liz


I'm afraid you cannot pick and choose or put time deadlines on the bible! You say you believe it literally so you must follow the female oppression throughout. It strikes me as very uneven to follow it properly but then decide that Paul, he original mysogisnist, didn't mean us to follow his precepts forever! How unfair does that seem!


----------



## gorgeous

I have started doing some Christmas shopping, inspired by this thread!..I know Chrimbo is a way off, but getting a few bits here n there makes less stress nearer the time - more time then to get pi$$ed!:Yawn:


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> None of the things you have mentioned are sanctioned by the Bible.


I know - I told you that  Doesn't stop christians using them all as part of their religious celebrations though, does it?



lizward said:


> The Catholic church adapted the local customs, they have always done that. I am not a Catholic.
> Liz


Yeah, blame the catholics for everything to get you off the hook and save you having to face up to the fact that your faith is pagan in origin. Sorry Liz, but that won't wash. You may not be a catholic, but catholicism was the original christianity and your reliigon is merely an offshoot of that. It may now have different practices to catholicism, but it shares its origins with catholicism, ergo it shares all the stealing and adaptation of pagan customs.


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you agree with me that the bible does support slavery.I'm sure no one would be willing to work without pay for seven years without pay without a fair trial (we call this prison nowadays, but at least you get a trial first).


O for heavens sake. Why do you say things when you clearly have not looked them up - I was assuming you were not just lifting them from a website but perhaps I was wrong. The only way an Israelite became the slave of another Israelite was if he SOLD HIMSELF - because he was in DEBT.



> A "merciful" system?


YES!! And I imagine anyone who has ever had serious problems with debt would agree. OK these days you can declare bankruptcy but they don't give you money to start your life again when the bankruptcy is discharged!



> This is why christianity in so sick and twisted... instead of saying "oh yeah, we might have got that stoning to death without trial bit wrong".


Stoning to death could only be carried out on the testimony of two or more witnesses - that is, after a trrial. PLEASE look these things up before you comment.


> The factory acts were introduced in parliament by The Whigs, nothing to do with any church.


Who pressed for them?



> Wilberforce went to church, so what, Ken Livingstone is a socialist.. are you saying that socialism was responsible for a successful Olympics bid?....I don't need to look it up, I've been dealing with employment rights and employment law for 25 years (but thanks anyway).


I am suggesting you look up the history which, presumably, you do not deal with every day.



> ... "office holder" without rights to a contract is a scam to deny basic employment rights... used by a few organisation including the church... there are many (successful) tribunal cases on this subject. I'm not suggesting no one should be an office holder but that the position should not be abused (as it is by the church) to deny people basic employment rights.


HOW is it abused and by WHOM? Let's have some concrete examples. Perhaps all secretaries of dog and cat clubs should take the clubs to court because they are not being paid? For goodness sake, office holding in a church is voluntary!



> Russians agreed with me... that's why they got rid of it ! Russia (the one that fell apart) was not a socialist organised population, but state controlled capitalism - socialism is where production is controlled by the workers, not by a ruling body.


You can say this all you want but the rest of the world thinks Soviet Russia was communist. Have it your way though.

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

cinammontoast said:


> I'm afraid you cannot pick and choose or put time deadlines on the bible! You say you believe it literally so you must follow the female oppression throughout. It strikes me as very uneven to follow it properly but then decide that Paul, he original mysogisnist, didn't mean us to follow his precepts forever! How unfair does that seem!


Exactly! This picking and choosing about what you want to follow in the bible and what you don't want to follow is one of the biggest reasons, for me, why you cannot take anyone seriously when they say the bible is the word of god. Either it is, or it isn't. If it is, you have to accept that _everything_ in there is the word of god and believe _everything_ it says, including female oppression, the outlawing of homosexuals etc etc.

Once you start to say that,"Oh well, this was written by men of the time and therefore does not apply today, so I won't believe that" - where does it end? Oh, the creation was written by men of the time and doesn't apply today. Oh, the resurrection was written by men of the time and doesn't apply today.

You cannot pick and choose which parts you are going to take as god's word and which parts you are not without making a nonsense of the whole kit and caboodle.


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Are you in favour of a country with no laws?


No, what a ridiculous question.



> Should those laws be made by your god (minority group) or by the elected representatives of the people?


Democracy isn't perfect but it is the best system we have.



> At the moment, our law making body has a few representatives from your church


Really? Who?


> it has none that were elected


There are in fact Christians in parliament - on both sides.


> "Free speech" (otherwise knowns as the protection of hate groups) in the US allows churchgoers to turn up at the funerals of brave soldiers holding signs like "thank god for IEDs" and "thank god for 9/11. if killing in war is not murder then your god should strike these people down surely?


He doesn't tend to do that these days.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> I'm afraid you cannot pick and choose or put time deadlines on the bible! You say you believe it literally so you must follow the female oppression throughout. It strikes me as very uneven to follow it properly but then decide that Paul, he original mysogisnist, didn't mean us to follow his precepts forever! How unfair does that seem!


But you see, Paul was far from being a misogynist, in fact he names women as being among his fellow-workers, and that is one of the reasons why many Evangelicals think his bar on women teaching was to do with the situation at the time.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> I know - I told you that  Doesn't stop christians using them all as part of their religious celebrations though, does it?


It stops THIS Christian using them, I can't speak for the way other Christians reason it out.



> Yeah, blame the catholics for everything to get you off the hook and save you having to face up to the fact that your faith is pagan in origin. Sorry Liz, but that won't wash. You may not be a catholic, but catholicism was the original christianity and your reliigon is merely an offshoot of that.


I do not accept that premise.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

ouesi said:


> What are you trying to say?
> 
> I personally was uncomfortable with the picture, but then, I don't care for gory anything. I don't want to see anything from a mouse to a human in the process of decaying.
> However, Jesus was raised from the dead, in other cultures, those raised from the dead are termed zombies (I can't be the only one who has read "The Serpent and the Rainbow" right?) Equating Jesus to a zombie is quite apt satire.
> 
> Salman Rushdie:
> "The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
> 
> Again I ask, why is it okay to mock pagans, caricature witches and wizards, or dismiss and disrespect the Mayans and Tolec with their human sacrifices and bloody temples, but when the one mocked is Jesus or Mohammed, now, now a line has been crossed? Why is that?


I'm in general agreement with what you say here, but the context made me uncomfortable - that picture for me changed the "atmosphere" from debate to a "ganging up", if that makes any sense.

I don't feel religious beliefs are above satire - I should respect a person's right to hold their beliefs, but I don't have to respect the actual belief. Where the waters get muddy for me is that with one particular religion, there are well known incidents of satire (or far less) leading to threats of violence and actual violence. Most of us (me included) wouldn't dare satirise their prophet on a public forum - it just feels unfair to me to then mock the ones we can get away with.
It's not very well thought out, so I can't rationally defend my position very well....just explaining my viewpoint! 



cinammontoast said:


> I'm afraid you cannot pick and choose or put time deadlines on the bible! You say you believe it literally so you must follow the female oppression throughout. It strikes me as very uneven to follow it properly but then decide that Paul, he original mysogisnist, didn't mean us to follow his precepts forever! How unfair does that seem!


The interesting thing about Paul is that his earlier letters mention women elders in the early church as something unremarkable (the natural outcome in a sect based on the kind of radical who treated women fairly in those times).
Later letters make it obvious that he caved in to the social norms of the day when he started all the women covering their heads and subjection to men guff.

So not just a misogynist, but a hypocritical one too.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> It stops THIS Christian using them, I can't speak for the way other Christians reason it out.
> 
> I do not accept that premise.
> 
> Liz


Liz, you don't accept any premise that would make you actually question what you believe, irrepsective of the truth or logicality of that premise. Just saying you don't accept a logical premise does not make the premise any less true; if you are not going to accept a premise as true you have prove to why it is not true - not to me, or anyone else on this forum, but to yourself. Ignoring the truth does not make it go away. It just means it is there and you are ignoring it.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> But you see, Paul was far from being a misogynist, in fact he names women as being among his fellow-workers, and that is one of the reasons why many Evangelicals think his bar on women teaching was to do with the situation at the time.
> 
> Liz


See above post. He caved in to pressure. It makes a mockery of his "faith" if he could give in to the social norms to perform such a u-turn.


----------



## Guest

> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made no complaint about it. However, you might like to consider what would happen if you posted such a picture with the subject being Mohammed.
> 
> Liz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to say?
> 
> I personally was uncomfortable with the picture, but then, I dont care for gory anything. I dont want to see anything from a mouse to a human in the process of decaying.
> However, Jesus was raised from the dead, in other cultures, those raised from the dead are termed zombies (I cant be the only one who has read The Serpent and the Rainbow right?) Equating Jesus to a zombie is quite apt satire.
> 
> Salman Rushdie:
> The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.
> 
> Again I ask, why is it okay to mock pagans, caricature witches and wizards, or dismiss and disrespect the Mayans and Tolec with their human sacrifices and bloody temples, but when the one mocked is Jesus or Mohammed, now, now a line has been crossed? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> O come on. You seem to be quite an intelligent person and yet you make remarks like this?
> 
> Liz
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What was unintelligent about my remarks? 
And you still havent clarified what you meant by your warning. Kind of like telling me Id feel differently about Jesus when Im facing death. Do you not see the threatening nature of comments like this? You better reconsider your stance or else...

Why do we not believe humans can be good for its own sake? Why are we stuck in the idea that the way people will be good and moral because they fear consequences, or believe that will gain them access to some exclusive club? Be good and you get in to heaven. Dont be bad or youe wind up in hell. Like a parent bribing good behavior out of their child and threatening physical and emotional harm if they dont do as theyre told. How does a child learn anything but self preservation this way? Most certainly they wont learn empathy and compassion and tolerance and respect for their fellow humans!

I won't teach my own children that way. We are nice because it is the right thing to do, period. Not because something awful will happen to you if youre not. And certainly not because it makes you better than if you are.
And guess what? Even at their tender age, they get it. They understand the golden rule, and follow it, not because they fear consequences, not because theyre striving for becoming the chosen few, but because they have compassion and empathy and genuinely care about their fellow humans (and animals).


----------



## Guest

> Spellweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many christians realise that a lot of what they do to celebrate christmas is in fact pagan in origin? Christmas trees - pagans always decorated trees at festivals and they started to bring them indoors away from prying eyes during the burning times. Baubles on the trees represent witches balls to catch evils spirits to prevent them rom harming anyone. Bows on the trees - witches used to tie bows on trees to remember the departed. Holly - Yule is the death of the Holly King and the rebirth of the Oak King. Mistletoe - a druid symbol of purity and rebirth. Kissing under the mistletoe - the white berries of the mistletoe were symbolic of male sperm to the druids and kissing under them conferred fertility. Candles - candles were lit at Yule to welcome the return of the sun. Yule log - an ash log was lit each year at Yule from the kindling of last year's yule log and kept burning for 12 days to bring light into the hearth at the winter solstice (Yule).
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there we are, that makes me even more glad I don't do any of that rubbish!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... When its pagan it becomes rubbish? Thats not very tolerant and respectful of you now its it?
Click to expand...


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> But you see, Paul was far from being a misogynist, in fact he names women as being among his fellow-workers, and that is one of the reasons why many Evangelicals think his bar on women teaching was to do with the situation at the time.
> 
> Liz


Then caves later to cover their heads etc as already pointed out-what a hypocrite! And you're totally avoiding the point, Liz. He said no women, you say he didn't mean that forever, which I find to be very much at odds with your 'I believe the bible literally' stance. You cannot say he didn't mean it forever, because at no point does he intimate this and you either believe it literally or not. You say your branch of Christianity is based on the bible, so you must believe that women are not as worthy as men. Nice!



lizward said:


> It stops THIS Christian using them, I can't speak for the way other Christians reason it out.
> 
> I do not accept that premise.
> 
> Liz


It seems that you don't accept a lot of premises! Catholicism not the first type of Christianity? Seriously, you are sadly deluded if you think that Catholicism is not the trunk of the Christian tree with off shoots!


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> What was unintelligent about my remarks?


No intelligent person can compare Jesus to a zombie. Either you were being deliberately offensive (surely not?) or you simply had not thought it through. I chose to believe the latter.



> And you still havent clarified what you meant by your warning.


Ok, you are in the US, perhaps it's a bit different over there. In Europe few people would be brave enough to post something insulting about Mohammed on a public forum (or even a private one). I wouldn't even insult Mohammed in church!



> Why do we not believe humans can be good for its own sake? Why are we stuck in the idea that the way people will be good and moral because they fear consequences, or believe that will gain them access to some exclusive club? Be good and you get in to heaven. Dont be bad or youe wind up in hell.


This is a very long way from Biblical Christianity.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> The interesting thing about Paul is that his earlier letters mention women elders in the early church as something unremarkable (the natural outcome in a sect based on the kind of radical who treated women fairly in those times).
> Later letters make it obvious that he caved in to the social norms of the day when he started all the women covering their heads and subjection to men guff.
> 
> So not just a misogynist, but a hypocritical one too.


That is making quite a few assumptions. Which letters do you regard as early?

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Interesting... When its pagan it becomes rubbish? That's not very tolerant and respectful of you now its it?


It wasn't meant to be.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Then caves later to cover their heads etc as already pointed out-what a hypocrite!


Really it is comical how you all accept each other's word without question when most of you make it clear you actually have very littlke knowledge of either the Bible or church history, but you question every single point I make. Not biased at all, are you (plural you)



> And you're totally avoiding the point, Liz. He said no wome, you say he didn't mean that forever, which I find to be very much at odds with your 'I believe the bible literally' stance. You cannot say he didn't mean it forever, because at no point does he intimate this and you either believe it literally or not. You say your branch of Christianity is based on the bible, so you must believe that women are not as worthy as men. Nice!


Whole books have been written about this issue (many many whole books!) from both sides. It really is rather a large subject for a knock about debate like this. If you really want to plough through the essays I wrote on the matter for my degree, I can attach them, but surely you don't really want to? It is a secondary issue, most of my Christian friends in fact believe the bar on women teaching men is for all time, they remain my friends and the people I choose to spend my time with



> It seems that you don't accept a lot of premises! Catholicism not the first type of Christianity? Seriously, you are sadly deluded if you think that Catholicism is not the trunk of the Christian tree with off shoots!


You need to read up your church history. Catholicism developed over hundreds of years. Biblical Christianity is found in the Epistles and perhaps Acts.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> No intelligent person can compare Jesus to a zombie. Ok, you are in the US, perhaps it's a bit different over there. In Europe few people would be brave enough to post something insulting about Mohammed on a public forum (or even a private one). I wouldn't even insult Mohammed in church!
> Liz


Voodoo is a religion based on Catholicism and one of their main precepts is the rising of the dead as zombies. Wonder where they got that from! It has become populist culture that zombies are 'resurrected' from the dead in innumerable films and fiction.

Jesus was not a decaying zombie (IMO) but the populist belief is that of a shambling zombie results when people come back to life.

In Europe, plenty of people are brave enough to insult Mohammed: short memory Liz, wasn't it a Dutch cartoonist that did the image in a daily newspaper that caused so much fuss? Thing is, we daren't do that much because we fear retribution whereas other religions don't fear insulting Christianity because mostly we're not extremists.

The publicity given and the events of the few in some religions has forever tarred those religions. I doubt they will ever recover from this perception which has only made westerners become, IMO, more racist and more fearful so ever more prejudiced against certain races and religions.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> No intelligent person can compare Jesus to a zombie. Either you were being deliberately offensive (surely not?) or you simply had not thought it through. I chose to believe the latter.


Or.... your only understanding of zombies is through movies and popular culture, and you have no knowledge or understanding of vodoun culture and beliefs. Which IMO is every bit as valid and deserving of respect as European culture and beliefs.



lizward said:


> Ok, you are in the US, perhaps it's a bit different over there. In Europe few people would be brave enough to post something insulting about Mohammed on a public forum (or even a private one). I wouldn't even insult Mohammed in church!


But I see you have no problem insulting paganism. How telling.



lizward said:


> It wasn't meant to be.
> 
> Liz


Wow... You are proud of your lack of tolerance and respect for other beliefs? Again, how telling.
Well, at least you are honest about it...


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Really it is comical how you all accept each other's word without question when most of you make it clear you actually have very littlke knowledge
> 
> You need to read up your church history. Catholicism developed over hundreds of years. Biblical Christianity is found in the Epistles and perhaps Acts.
> 
> Liz


Sorry to say, Liz, I don't actually care about the bible (shock, horror!). I started this thread to get people's opinions and beliefs ask find it very interesting. I'm currently on summer holiday, so I do not want to read or research anything more taxing than Facebook, frankly. I'm relying on you guys to do that! Catholicism was the first Christian religion which developed in a direct fashion from the original Christians: how can you deny that?

My point was that you think Paul didn't mean women to be less worthy than men _forever_. You said you take the bible literally but you seem to be picking and choosing which bits to literally believe. I don't see how you can claim to know what Paul thought or how he perceived the role of women in the future.

I note also that you have almost entirely avoided the homosexual issue. Do you believe it to be a sin, as you take the bible literally?


----------



## Guest

cinammontoast said:


> Voodoo is a religion based on Catholicism


 It is my understanding that vodoun culture and religious beliefs trace their roots to Western Africa, carried over to the Caribbean islands during the slave trade.

But yes, lack of knowledge and inquiry in to other cultures absolutely is one of the main ingredients in intolerance that leads to the sense of other and separateness that in turn, allow entire peoples to be mistreated to the extent we humans can and do.


----------



## grumpy goby

cinammontoast said:


> ...I note also that you have almost entirely avoided the homosexual issue. Do you believe it to be a sin, as you take the bible literally?


Im very interested in this point, I have christian friends (and am generally interested in theology, although im not of faith, I just do alot of reading), who in their younger days would have been "anti" homesexual, but as they have grown and experianced the world, and their faith has "developed" and grown with them, they are now very liberal.

On in particular friend is best friends with a Gay Christian, he is not "out" but has confided in her and she respects his choices and still embraces him as a friend and they attend church together on a regular basis. I see this as a more "christian" attitude than her previous one; which would likely have shunned him totally.

Her church and her faith is her life - and i believe people like her are much better representatives to her faith than others who would deny another human being. (westboro baptist church being the worst possible example of a christian ethos!!)


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Voodoo is a religion based on Catholicism


It's a corruption of Catholicism and the local folk religion, isn't it? Do the Catholic church accept the existence of zombies?



> and one of their main precepts is the rising of the dead as zombies. Wonder where they got that from! It has become populist culture that zombies are 'resurrected' from the dead in innumerable films and fiction.


I thought the idea was that zombies are the undead, and that they can in fact be killed. Christ rose from the dead in the same body in which he died, and he can never die again.



> In Europe, plenty of people are brave enough to insult Mohammed: short memory Liz, wasn't it a Dutch cartoonist that did the image in a daily newspaper that caused so much fuss?


I would say that cartoonist was in rather a minority, wouldn't you?

liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Sorry to say, Liz, I don't actually care about the bible (shock, horror!). I started this thread to get people's opinions and beliefs ask find it very interesting. I'm currently on summer holiday, so I do not want to read or research anything more taxing than Facebook, frankly. I'm relying on you guys to do that! Catholicism was the first Christian religion which developed in a direct fashion from the original Christians: how can you deny that?


Many things can go wrong over a course of 300 years, and once a religion becomaes the religions of the state there is even more that can go wrong. Catholicism bears little resemblance to the church of the New Testament (and indeed does not claim to)



> My point was that you think Paul didn't mean women to be less worthy than men _forever_.


I don't think he meant women to be less worthy than men AT ALL. Different ROLES does not equal different VALUE.



> I note also that you have almost entirely avoided the homosexual issue. Do you believe it to be a sin, as you take the bible literally?


I am not prepared to get myself booted from this forum. There are some things I am not going to discuss here.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> That is making quite a few assumptions. Which letters do you regard as early?
> 
> Liz


Well that's just it, it's very much disputed amongst scholars, so it's foolish of me to claim any authority on which came first....if the foremost scholars of biblical history can't do that, then you or I certainly can't.

However: one of the premises used in trying to date the letters is that as the church became more established and hierarchical, women taking the roles they were allowed earlier on became less acceptable.

Another is that when you have a huge contradiction within a text, such as with Corinthians, then the contradictory part, that is at odds with the rest, is assumed to be a later addition. So not a later letter, I got that wrong, but almost certainly a later addition - whether by Paul himself or by others will probably never be known.

The idea that you can come to a conclusion about how we should live our lives based on texts which have been altered to avoid the scandal of women in office, and of disputed authorship is bizarre to me. That's why I "liked" your earlier post about Paul and women.....it seemed like a recognition that it shouldn't all be taken so literally. My brain is slow today, it shows.

ETA: having read my own post, it's clear to me my little brain needs a rest today....I think I'll read only till the brain fog has cleared!


----------



## ClaireandDaisy

None. It is personal. 
I am sad that intolerance is getting more and more common.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> I don't think he meant women to be less worthy than men AT ALL. Different ROLES does not equal different VALUE.
> 
> I am not prepared to get myself booted from this forum. There are some things I am not going to discuss here.
> 
> Liz


No, Liz, you said you don't think he meant for them to be the underdog forever, an interpretation as opposed to a fact.

You are entitled to express an opinion regarding gays: as you are evangelical and believe the bible literally, your opinion is obvious. Why not have the courage of your convictions?


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> It's a corruption of Catholicism and the local folk religion, isn't it? Do the Catholic church accept the existence of zombies?


In the same vein you could argue that Catholicism is a corruption of Paganism 



lizward said:


> I thought the idea was that zombies are the undead, and that they can in fact be killed. Christ rose from the dead in the same body in which he died, and he can never die again.


Wait, you make judgement calls without even taking the time to learn what a zombie is??



grumpy goby said:


> I (westboro baptist church being the worst possible example of a christian ethos!!)


Ah yes the WBC, was wondering when that would come up.

For anyone who believes religion is a harmless way to give people hope and support, I urge you to look up the WBC.


----------



## grumpy goby

ouesi said:


> ... anyone who believes religion is a harmless way to give people hope and support, I urge you to look up the WBC.


These are hate filled, intolerant individuals. I would not like to group them in with ANY other religious group, and I dont believe they should be used as an argument against religion. There will always be bad eggs, and nutters.

Honestly, I think they use their religion as an EXCUSE to spout bile.

In total contrast, an example of the good religion can spread is Desmond Tutu

_"I can't for the life of me imagine that God will say, 'I will punish you because you are black, you should have been white; I will punish you because you are a woman, you should have been a man; I will punish you because you are homosexual, you ought to have been heterosexual.' I can't for the life of me believe that is how God sees things."

"We are made for goodness. We are made for love. We are made for friendliness. We are made for togetherness. We are made for all of the beautiful things that you and I know. We are made to tell the world that there are no outsiders. All are welcome: black, white, red, yellow, rich, poor, educated, not educated, male, female, gay, straight, all, all, all. We all belong to this family, this human family, God's family."

"Do your little bit of good where you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world."

"Religion is like a knife: you can either use it to cut bread, or stick in someone's back."_


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Really it is comical how you all accept each other's word without question when most of you make it clear you actually have very littlke knowledge of either the Bible or church history, but you question every single point I make. Not biased at all, are you (plural you)


On the contrary - the people who are disagreeing with you have made it emminently clear that they know the bible and church history as intimately as you do. Just because they do not agree with your somewhat illogical interpretation of it all does not mean that they have little knowledge. It simply means they have a different opinion to you.



lizward said:


> Whole books have been written about this issue (many many whole books!) from both sides. It really is rather a large subject for a knock about debate like this. If you really want to plough through the essays I wrote on the matter for my degree, I can attach them, but surely you don't really want to? It is a secondary issue, most of my Christian friends in fact believe the bar on women teaching men is for all time, they remain my friends and the people I choose to spend my time with


You are still missing (or, rather, dodging) the larger point that picking and choosing what you decide you want to believe of god's word renders the whole bible meaningless.



lizward said:


> You need to read up your church history. Catholicism developed over hundreds of years. Biblical Christianity is found in the Epistles and perhaps Acts.
> 
> Liz


No, christianity/catholicism was the original religion that grew up over the years. All the other christian sects are offshoots of this.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> No, what a ridiculous question.
> 
> Democracy isn't perfect but it is the best system we have.
> 
> Really? Who?
> 
> There are in fact Christians in parliament - on both sides.
> 
> He doesn't tend to do that these days.
> 
> Liz


OK... I've established that you really have no idea and fill in for that by being condescending or just making things up. I can therefore congratulate you on fulfilling, what I thought was, a stereotype.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Thanks you - and yes, the correct term is indeed chapter.
> 
> Liz


So we agree that the bible is simply collection of contradictions that you can twist to make it mean anything you like?


----------



## Guest

grumpy goby said:


> These are hate filled, intolerant individuals. I would not like to group them in with ANY other religious group, and I dont believe they should be used as an argument against religion. There will always be bad eggs, and nutters.


I love that you want to see the good in people and their beliefs, and I do too!! I think it is a wonderful and important human trait.

But realistically, just look at this thread. Just look at the intolerance that Lizward is PROUD to assert. Look at the dismissiveness towards other cultures and beliefs. Throughout the thread she/he? has made it very clear that the other is not worth respect. From seemingly trivial not bothering to even attempt to spell names correctly, to outright pride in lacking respect and tolerance for paganism.

What seeds to you think this kind of attitude sows??



grumpy goby said:


> Honestly, I think they use their religion as an EXCUSE to spout bile.


YES!! WBC are blatantly hateful about it. But many, many, many others are just as hateful only less blatant. 
In North Carolina 2 preachers, 2 separate churches, 2 separate denominations of Christianity, sat in the pulpit and spewed pure hatred towards the gay community. One telling his congregation to punch their son for wearing dresses and dropping a limp wrist, the other calling for all gays and lesbians to be imprisoned behind electric fences and have food dropped in to them so that they would eventually die out because they cant reproduce.

I love the Desmond Tutu quote. That is a man speaking with reason and compassion, he didnt need any god for that wisdom.


----------



## myshkin

ouesi said:


> Ah yes the WBC, was wondering when that would come up.
> 
> For anyone who believes religion is a harmless way to give people hope and support, I urge you to look up the WBC.


When I first looked at the WBC site, I laughed, because I thought it was a dark joke, and it couldn't possibly be for real. Beyond satire, they provide their own.


----------



## Spellweaver

grumpy goby said:


> These are hate filled, intolerant individuals. I would not like to group them in with ANY other religious group, and I dont believe they should be used as an argument against religion. There will always be bad eggs, and nutters.
> 
> Honestly, I think they use their religion as an EXCUSE to spout bile.
> 
> In total contrast, an example of the good religion can spread is Desmond Tutu
> 
> _I cant for the life of me imagine that God will say, I will punish you because you are black, you should have been white; I will punish you because you are a woman, you should have been a man; I will punish you because you are homosexual, you ought to have been heterosexual. I cant for the life of me believe that is how God sees things.
> 
> We are made for goodness. We are made for love. We are made for friendliness. We are made for togetherness. We are made for all of the beautiful things that you and I know. We are made to tell the world that there are no outsiders. All are welcome: black, white, red, yellow, rich, poor, educated, not educated, male, female, gay, straight, all, all, all. We all belong to this family, this human family, God's family.
> 
> _


You see, this is the whole problem. I believe that most people, whatever their religious beliefs, would agree with the sentiments of Bishop Tutu rather than the WBC. Yet what Bishop Tutu says is not what the bible says. And unfortunately, if someone follows god's word to the letter as stated in the bible, we either end up with intolerant extremists like the WBC or with people who follow blindly because they ignore the logical implications of what they are actually following.


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> You see, this is the whole problem. I believe that most people, whatever their religious beliefs, would agree with the sentiments of Bishop Tutu rather than the WBC. Yet what Bishop Tutu says is not what the bible says. And unfortunately, if someone follows god's word to the letter as stated in the bible, we either end up with intolerant extremists like the WBC or with *people who follow blindly because they ignore the logical implications of what they are actually following*.


Love it. This is it in a nutshell.


----------



## Guest

If you can ignore the title, this clip is a really good watch 

Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real - YouTube

And it makes tremendous sense that a primitive peoples would be so obsessed with the sun and stars since their lives depended on them. Trying to find reason and order in what was likely a very scary and random world for them.


----------



## DogLover1981

Starlite said:


> I'm all for free speech but as I said in a previous threads i think there is a MORAL line which should be respected and the pic was against forum rules in the first place


I was more talking about free speech in a legal sense. I feel strongly about free speech and it's essential for a democracy to function. People shouldn't be arrested, sued, or be getting death threats for what they're saying, publishing or posting. Free speech doesn't really apply to PF. This is a privately owned site and the owner (and mods) are free to delete posts.


----------



## cinnamontoast

Wow, just looked up WBC! They are seriously mental!  I'm all for free speech, but that's insane!


----------



## DogLover1981

I read Fred Phelps was barred from entering the the UK. lol


----------



## grumpy goby

Anti WBC campaigns are brilliant.....

The 30 Best Anti-Westboro Baptist Church Protest Signs


----------



## cinnamontoast

DogLover1981 said:


> I read Fred Phelps was barred from entering the the UK. lol


Thank god! Sounds like a lunatic! I've heard of bible bashing, but he goes way too far!


----------



## grumpy goby

ouesi said:


> I love that you want to see the good in people and their beliefs, and I do too!! I think it is a wonderful and important human trait.
> 
> But realistically, just look at this thread. Just look at the intolerance that Lizward is PROUD to assert. Look at the dismissiveness towards other cultures and beliefs. Throughout the thread she/he? has made it very clear that the "other" is not worth respect. From seemingly trivial not bothering to even attempt to spell names correctly, to outright pride in lacking respect and tolerance for paganism.
> 
> What seeds to you think this kind of attitude sows??
> 
> YES!! WBC are blatantly hateful about it. But many, many, many others are just as hateful only less blatant.
> In North Carolina 2 preachers, 2 separate churches, 2 separate denominations of Christianity, sat in the pulpit and spewed pure hatred towards the gay community. One telling his congregation to punch their son for wearing dresses and dropping a limp wrist, the other calling for all gays and lesbians to be imprisoned behind electric fences and have food dropped in to them so that they would eventually die out because they can't reproduce.
> 
> I love the Desmond Tutu quote. That is a man speaking with reason and compassion, he didn't need any god for that wisdom.


Intolerance makes me very sad. Whether that is from atheists claiming to be "smarter" than those with faith, or between religions in a "holior than thou" attitude

And I would say that altho tutu does not speak the word of the bible, ihe interprets what the bible says and adapts it to todays world, rather than live word for word something that was written in a world that does not match todays civilisation; Religion traditionally has evolved and changed to meet the needs of todays society - from explaining the unknown in pagan times, to providing guidance in a more complicated society.

Individuals like Desmond Tutu understand this clearly, and are trying to bring their love of God and Faith into the context of todays society - not try to cram a square block of the past into todays round hole.

ETA i realise this makes me sound religious.....Im not. Im Agnostic. Just curious about religion and theology


----------



## cinnamontoast

grumpy goby said:


> Anti WBC campaigns are brilliant.....
> 
> The 30 Best Anti-Westboro Baptist Church Protest Signs


Ha, brilliant!


----------



## Guest

grumpy goby said:


> Anti WBC campaigns are brilliant.....
> 
> The 30 Best Anti-Westboro Baptist Church Protest Signs


I don't believe that fighting hate with more hate is productive. It simply becomes a polarization of my hate is more righteous than your hate.
In the end education, knowledge, and understanding will defeat hate.

Which is why I am so adamantly opposed to anything that limits curiosity, inquiry and the search for understanding. Which is what faith MUST do in order to survive.


----------



## DogLover1981

The courts ruled that the WBC's protesting of funerals is free speech. Fred Phelps was planning on protesting in the UK. He was than barred from entering the UK. He is just using the legal system for income, IMO. He gets attorney fees every time he wins a court case. He is able to sue anyone who tries to deny him his rights. I think the WBC won a court case when they were assaulted by someone too. People could try to make him go away by just ignoring him.


----------



## Spellweaver

ouesi said:


> If you can ignore the title, this clip is a really good watch
> 
> Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real - YouTube
> 
> And it makes tremendous sense that a primitive peoples would be so obsessed with the sun and stars since their lives depended on them. Trying to find reason and order in what was likely a very scary and random world for them.


Very interesting - and a very believable explanation of the similarities between all the different religious messiahs..

What is even more interesting is that in following this link, I've found the one below - never heard of this guy Bart Ehrman before, but I'm liking his style very much - and wha hey, what he says here about translation is what I was saying earlier!

MUST WATCH. How the bible got changed. Misquoting Jesus Speech at Stanford by Bart Ehrman. - YouTube


----------



## grumpy goby

ouesi said:


> I dont believe that fighting hate with more hate is productive. It simply becomes a polarization of my hate is more righteous than your hate.
> In the end education, knowledge, and understanding will defeat hate.
> 
> Which is why I am so adamantly opposed to anything that limits curiosity, inquiry and the search for understanding. Which is what faith MUST do in order to survive.


I guess we differ, i dont see it as hate - just a protest of their (WBC) picket line. To undermine their statements really.
I think anyone has the right to defend themselves against some pretty vile picketline statements.


----------



## grumpy goby

Spellweaver said:


> Very interesting - and a very believable explanation of the similarities between all the different religious messiahs..
> 
> What is even more interesting is that in following this link, I've found the one below - never heard of this guy Bart Ehrman before, but I'm liking his style very much - and wha hey, what he says here about translation is what I was saying earlier!
> 
> MUST WATCH. How the bible got changed. Misquoting Jesus Speech at Stanford by Bart Ehrman. - YouTube


Have you read the history of god (karen armstrong)? It is very interesting and analyses the development of monotheistic religions and the development of the Cannanites religion and split off of the god Yahwah (sp) to modern christianity - differences in "authors", etc

Very good read.


----------



## myshkin

grumpy goby said:


> Anti WBC campaigns are brilliant.....
> 
> The 30 Best Anti-Westboro Baptist Church Protest Signs


That has made me chuckle on a rubbish, poorly day, thank you 
I like "No I don't" best.


----------



## Spellweaver

grumpy goby said:


> Have you read the history of god (karen armstrong)? It is very interesting and analyses the development of monotheistic religions and the development of the Cannanites religion and split off of the god Yahwah (sp) to modern christianity - differences in "authors", etc
> 
> Very good read.


No - but it's on my reading list now. Thank you


----------



## Guest

grumpy goby said:


> I guess we differ, i dont see it as hate - just a protest of their (WBC) picket line. To undermine their statements really.
> I think anyone has the right to defend themselves against some pretty vile picketline statements.


No, most of them are funny, cute too, I like the fuzzy kittens one and "dog loves ****" especially as a animal lover 

But one sign read "drink the cool-aid already" in reference to the cyanide laced cool-aid that Jim Jones had his followers drink. Essentially telling someone to go kill themselves.

Also, repeatedly calling Fred Phelps gay is counterproductive as it is still using "gay" as a way to insult someone which implies that "gay" is something no one would want to be, that "gay" is bad. Still perpetuates hating gays.


----------



## myshkin

Spellweaver said:


> Very interesting - and a very believable explanation of the similarities between all the different religious messiahs..
> 
> What is even more interesting is that in following this link, I've found the one below - never heard of this guy Bart Ehrman before, but I'm liking his style very much - and wha hey, what he says here about translation is what I was saying earlier!
> 
> MUST WATCH. How the bible got changed. Misquoting Jesus Speech at Stanford by Bart Ehrman. - YouTube


Ehrman's the chap I quoted about there being more differences between versions of NT than there are words in the NT. There is an illustrious history of german biblical scholars - looks like he's living up to his name


----------



## grumpy goby

Spellweaver said:


> No - but it's on my reading list now. Thank you


She was a Nun, and lost her faith really through her extensive studies of scriptures - but the book is very well written and informed.


----------



## grumpy goby

ouesi said:


> No, most of them are funny, cute too, I like the fuzzy kittens one and dog loves **** especially as a animal lover
> 
> But one sign read drink the cool-aid already in reference to the cyanide laced cool-aid that Jim Jones had his followers drink. Essentially telling someone to go kill themselves.
> 
> Also, repeatedly calling Fred Phelps gay is counterproductive as it is still using gay as a way to insult someone which implies that gay is something no one would want to be, that gay is bad. Still perpetuates hating gays.


The kool-aid one i agree with you, however the "gay" ones, i think is more insinuating that he is over compensating (they say that homophobes are in fact trying to hide their own homosexuality)


----------



## Starlite

cinammontoast said:


> Sorry to say, Liz, I don't actually care about the bible (shock, horror!). I started this thread to get people's opinions and beliefs ask find it very interesting. I'm currently on summer holiday, so I do not want to read or research anything more taxing than Facebook, frankly. I'm relying on you guys to do that! Catholicism was the first Christian religion which developed in a direct fashion from the original Christians: how can you deny that?
> 
> My point was that you think Paul didn't mean women to be less worthy than men _forever_. You said you take the bible literally but you seem to be picking and choosing which bits to literally believe. I don't see how you can claim to know what Paul thought or how he perceived the role of women in the future.
> 
> I note also that you have almost entirely avoided the homosexual issue. Do you believe it to be a sin, as you take the bible literally?


I think in Protestant offshoots homosexuality wether acted upon or not is sinful and a punishable offence by seath judging by some Baptists, but if a Protestant can correct me on this feel free!



ouesi said:


> I love that you want to see the good in people and their beliefs, and I do too!! I think it is a wonderful and important human trait.
> 
> But realistically, just look at this thread. Just look at the intolerance that Lizward is PROUD to assert. Look at the dismissiveness towards other cultures and beliefs. Throughout the thread she/he? has made it very clear that the "other" is not worth respect. From seemingly trivial not bothering to even attempt to spell names correctly, to outright pride in lacking respect and tolerance for paganism.
> 
> What seeds to you think this kind of attitude sows??
> 
> YES!! WBC are blatantly hateful about it. But many, many, many others are just as hateful only less blatant.
> In North Carolina 2 preachers, 2 separate churches, 2 separate denominations of Christianity, sat in the pulpit and spewed pure hatred towards the gay community. One telling his congregation to punch their son for wearing dresses and dropping a limp wrist, the other calling for all gays and lesbians to be imprisoned behind electric fences and have food dropped in to them so that they would eventually die out because they can't reproduce.
> 
> I love the Desmond Tutu quote. That is a man speaking with reason and compassion, he didn't need any god for that wisdom.


You can't tar all religous with one brush, please dont think Liz's attitudes reflect entire religion in general.

Just looked up WBC, disgusting they hide behind God and spout such hatred  Lost for words!

I suppose I will be called sectarian but here goes!
Glasgow is divided by Catholic/Protestant (inc baptist, Calvinist etc). I have always found Protestantism to be intolerant. People hate each other and the majority have no reason. I know a family who called there eldist Eliza in memory of "Here Lies a soldier, their son William after William of Orange, the dad has a tattoo of the Pope on his big toe so he stands on him every time he gets up or walks ut: and the children arent allowed to play with Catholics. They are one among many here and it includes football/Ireland as well. Many of us are on one side and have family from Ireland etc so we are all in it.
I have been called a fenian and tarrier as far back as I remember, how anyone could do so to a child I dont know. My fiance has been told he must be a pedo if he is Catholic  The Orange Order marches every year, look them up and see what I find horrific. People cannot continue to hide behind a religion to hate, it drags the rest down.

Glasgow is a battleground and catholics do what they can to defend themselves as we are attacked on all sides. People claim we are all child abusers. there have been cases of sexual molestation in every religious sect including the Proddies! People here need to learn about religion and what they are hating for as very few even know! I pray for an end to the hatred, we worship the same God but in different ways

Ignorance breeds hatred here, not religion. People must learn to look beneath a label


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Another is that when you have a huge contradiction within a text, such as with Corinthians, then the contradictory part, that is at odds with the rest, is assumed to be a later addition. So not a later letter, I got that wrong, but almost certainly a later addition - whether by Paul himself or by others will probably never be known.


I know the issue well, it would be a very brave Evangelical who would claim that the relevant verse was a late interpolation (though as I recall there is one manuscript where the position of it is changed). Far more common is the explanation that men and women sat on separate sides, as they did in the synagogue (and indeed as they still do in churches in some countries today, such as pakistan) and that the issue was women calling across to their husbands. I remain to be convinced on that one. Another possible explanation is that Paul's repeated question and answer format, which he uses throughout the letter, is in use and the bit about women's silence is the question, to which he replies with indignation asking if the Gospel originated with them. I remain to be convinced on that one too. The explanation i most favour is that women were to be silent during the weighing of prophecies, which is the immediate context, and this would make sense at a time when most women would have been illiterate, would not have had the same synagogue education (for jews obviously) as the men, and therefore would not have had the scriptures readily in their own mind to weigh the prophecies, since they all have to be weighed against scripture. It is certainly a difficult verse.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> No, Liz, you said you don't think he meant for them to be the underdog forever, an interpretation as opposed to a fact.


You are confusing value with roles. Every Christian is of equal value. We do not all have the same roles. It's not a difficult concept.



> You are entitled to express an opinion regarding gays: as you are evangelical and believe the bible literally, your opinion is obvious. Why not have the courage of your convictions?


I do not wish to be booted from this forum, there are some issues I will not discuss here.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> On the contrary - the people who are disagreeing with you have made it emminently clear that they know the bible and church history as intimately as you do.


In your dreams 

Liz


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> You can't tar all religous with one brush, please dont think Liz's attitudes reflect entire religion in general.


Im not tarring all those who practice a religion with one brush, I am tarring the concept of FAITH with the same brush, the concept that you just accept something as truth because your higher power said so. Faith - suspending rational thought and simply accepting without questioning. Belief in a truth without inquiry or proof. That is dangerous.

Christopher Hitchens, great mind, sorely missed. Faith is indeed sinister.


> Faith is the surrender of the mind; its the surrender of reason, its the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. Its our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.


BTW Starlite, Im very glad to see you denounce some of what Lizward is presenting. I also note that you are one of the very few (the only?) religious person here doing this. 
Now, this could be because this is a UK forum and far fewer Europeans than Americans claim any religion - something else I find very interesting historically, but I digress 

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/166938_233795523373981_2116338491_n.jpg


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> The one who "sees you when you're sleeping ... knows when you're awake ... knows if you've been bad or good" - so oniscient - and is able to go down chimneys all round the world at once - so omnipresent. A false god.


A false god for whom there is just as much evidence as there is for your own. The biggest difference between santa and god is that we eventually admit to children that santa is a lie. To many athiests beleiving in god is just as ridiculous as beleiving in santa clause in adulthood.
this picture sums it up, i'm sure you will have come accross it before now...










_"It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so" _
-Ernestine Rose


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> I'm not tarring all those who practice a religion with one brush, I am tarring the concept of FAITH with the same brush, the concept that you just accept something as truth because your higher power said so. Faith - suspending rational thought and simply accepting without questioning. Belief in a truth without inquiry or proof. That is dangerous.
> 
> Christopher Hitchens, great mind, sorely missed. Faith is indeed sinister.
> 
> BTW Starlite, I'm very glad to see you denounce some of what Lizward is presenting. I also note that you are one of the very few (the only?) religious person here doing this.
> Now, this could be because this is a UK forum and far fewer Europeans than Americans claim any religion - something else I find very interesting historically, but I digress
> 
> https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/166938_233795523373981_2116338491_n.jpg


Take gravity. No idea how it works as Im not mathematically minded but I accept it, is this not faith also?

Even as a practicing Catholic I question things, I am aware of other Gospels the church has chosen to denounce and hide but I believe the truth will out, no man can stand in the way of God imo. I am aware there are pedophiles who hide in robes to hurt children, I would not hesitate to organise some street justice or excuse the individual just because they were a man of the cloth. I like to think I am open minded, just practicing what I believe 

Interesting quote in the link but there were always be a dangerous minority and I dont see why the majority should be penalised for them. Gun control and dogs in the UK spring to mind, but that is another thread


----------



## Starlite

porps said:


> A false god for whom there is just as much evidence as there is for your own. The biggest difference between santa and god is that we eventually admit to children that santa is a lie. To many athiests beleiving in god is just as ridiculous as beleiving in santa clause in adulthood.
> this picture sums it up, i'm sure you will have come accross it before now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"*It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so" *_
> -Ernestine Rose


So how did religion spring about then. those individuals must have grown to eventually believe something?

the modern idea of Santa is skewed I'll give you that but I addressed the Santa issue in full a few pages back


----------



## porps

Starlite said:


> So how did religion spring about then. those individuals must have grown to eventually believe something?
> 
> the modern idea of Santa is skewed I'll give you that but I addressed the Santa issue in full a few pages back


religion springs up when someone questions the seemingly unfathomable, comes up with a theory then preaches that theory as truth to the easily brainwashed.

Would you argue that children are born with faith? That without indoctrination they would grow up as Christians, or Hindus or Scientologists or whatever?


----------



## Starlite

porps said:


> religion springs up when someone questions the seemingly unfathomable, comes up with a theory then preaches that theory as truth to the easily brainwashed.
> 
> Would you argue that children are born with faith? That without indoctrination they would grow up as Christians, or Hindus or Scientologists or whatever?


Not Christian/Scientologists as we know them today but in some shape or form they would become religious. I believe children have questioning minds which while not as advanced as an adult (mostly) they do in turn grow and question everything further. I am curently going throught the "what's that" stage with my son, they never stop


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> Take gravity. No idea how it works as Im not mathematically minded but I accept it, is this not faith also?


No, they're not the same. Gravity can be proven using reason, and logic. It is testable and repeatable. It can withstand being questioned.

Science demands proof of its theories (beliefs) and allows for them to change as we learn more.

Religious faith requires no proof, but espouses its beliefs as truth.

Edit:
Starlite, if you are open to questioning, you might be interested in some of the writings of people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or even Thomas Jefferson


----------



## porps

Starlite said:


> Not Christian/Scientologists as we know them today but in some shape or form they would become religious. I believe children have questioning minds which while not as advanced as an adult (mostly) they do in turn grow and question everything further.


I agree with that. They would probably grow up with their own set of beleifs, not someone elses. The point being that what you beleive is not determined by what is true, but by what you are taught. We tell them santa is real and they beleive it. We tell them god is real and they beleive it. They only real difference is that eventually we admit that one is a myth (which isnt to say that a myth cant be based on truth, but that there is no evidence for it)

Children have questioning minds, but unfortunately the majority of religions teach them not to question. Do not question, simply have faith that what you have been told is the truth.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> In your dreams
> 
> Liz


:lol: No Liz, not in my dreams - here in black and white on this thread. People have shown equally as much knowledge about the bible and christianity - and about how the bible came into existence - as you have - more, in fact, becaue they have discussed things of which you obviously have no knowledge at all, judging by the way you deny their existence.


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> Take gravity. No idea how it works as Im not mathematically minded but I accept it, is this not faith also?


Just wanted to add...

If youre standing at the edge of a cliff, and someone says have faith in your god, jump and someone else says have faith in gravity, dont. Who are you going to listen to?


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> far fewer Europeans than Americans claim any religion - something else I find very interesting historically, but I digress


Certainly very interesting. My theory is that the root cause is the Great War, and if I was ever to do a doctorate (would need money and time I don't have) that would be my subject. It's only a theory of course which is unresearched at present so I can't discuss it in depth, but I think I am on the right track.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: No Liz, not in my dreams - here in black and white on this thread. People have shown equally as much knowledge about the bible and christianity - and about how the bible came into existence - as you have - more, in fact, becaue they have discussed things of which you obviously have no knowledge at all, judging by the way you deny their existence.


Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.

Liz


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> Certainly very interesting. My theory is that the root cause is the Great War, and if I was ever to do a doctorate (would need money and time I don't have) that would be my subject. It's only a theory of course which is unresearched at present so I can't discuss it in depth, but I think I am on the right track.
> 
> Liz


It is interseting. Couldnt it be that americans with the exception of native americans are still on their first dominant religion, whereas we as euopeans have seen formerly dominant beleif systems displaced by others by way of violence.
Or perhaps it's something to do with the constant "god bless america" you hear in the states even from politicians, or the "one nation, under god" part of their pledge of alliegiance.
Tis interesting for sure.



lizward said:


> Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


_A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism _
-Donald Morgan


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


Read it all, old and new testament as a child, and was constantly listening to readings at mass throughout my childhood. Then re read in depth, specifically the Pentateuch and the new testament for my theology degree. 
How many times counts as enough? Degree not sufficiently in depth for you?


----------



## DogLover1981

According to some the USA is slowly becoming less religious. Though, I question the official statistics. How are you suppose to measure such a thing? I think a lot of parts of the world (this includes the USA) becoming less religious is a natural progression from changes that have happened in the past. Humans switched from largely polytheistic religions to mainly monotheistic ones over the millennia. The changes that are happening now are people becoming largely atheistic or non-religious as more of the ways the world works is being explained by science.


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Read it all, old and new testament as a child, and was constantly listening to readings at mass throughout my childhood. Then re read in depth, specifically the Pentateuch and the new testament for my theology degree.
> How many times counts as enough? Degree not sufficiently in depth for you?


OK so you've read it twice. How about the rest of you?

Liz


----------



## Tinder

Somehow i missed this post of yours before Starlite:



Starlite said:


> 37 pages we have had a constructive and civil debate and you post that.
> I have never reported anything on here in my life but that is unbelievably inflammatory, your digusting image helps the thread how?


I wont apologise for posting a cartoon caricature of someone who may or may not have been the son of a deity who may or may not actually exist. What I will apologise for is misjudging the atmosphere here and wrongly assuming my picture would be taken in the silly, jokey way it was intended. 
I belong to another forum  Urban 75  a forum where satire and even pure mockery at times is practised without people having coronaries over it. Sometimes I just forget Im posting here and not there where people are a little less conservative and reactionary.



Starlite said:


> Would you post such degrading things about a Muslim or Jew? I highly doubt it.


Well what you class as "degrading" doesn't necessarily equal what I would class as that. But if it was a funny enough piece of satire and I felt the need to post it then yeah I probably would. Certainly wouldn't rule it out. It would depend on the context & circumstances.

Surely Christ, God, Christianity in general is a powerful enough force in the world to withstand a little bit of satire, no? Had I said to a christian on here "you are obviously mentally subnormal for believing in these moronic fairytales of yours that would be offensive and inflammatory. As it is I singled no-one out and did not personally insult anyone.

Just because you find something disgusting that I do not does not give you the right to tell me Im immoral. Morality is a very subjective thing. 
I find it disgusting that the pope is dripping in wealth and riches whilst simultaneously being proclaimed as Christs representative on earth... I _dont_ find satirical cartoons disgusting.

This statement could definitely be construed as inflammatory:


Starlite said:


> I have always found Protestantism to be intolerant. People hate each other and the majority have no reason.


Would you make a sweeping statement like that about Islam or judaism?



Starlite said:


> I know a family who called there eldist Eliza in memory of "Here Lies a soldier, their son William after William of Orange, the dad has a tattoo of the Pope on his big toe so he stands on him every time he gets up or walks ut: and the children arent allowed to play with Catholics.


..your point being what exactly? That all protestant families are like this? Or are you just using this to illustrate where your own bigotry and predjudice against protestants originated?


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> OK so you've read it twice. How about the rest of you?
> 
> Liz


For my part, i have read the bible yes. Many years ago admittedly, but i've read it. How about you? have you read the holy books of the other religions which you so easily dismiss?


----------



## grumpy goby

I have read it though don't claim to be an expert. I went to church til I was a teenager and went to a Christian school from 6 to 18, with rs throughout plus daily religious teachings, prayers and religious assemblies.

I have also read several books on religious development, evolution and papers on the main monotheistic faiths.

However I am a layperson on the matter, I have read not studied.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> OK so you've read it twice. How about the rest of you?
> 
> Liz


That's just funny! "Reading" in terms of a degree is a bit more than reading it once. Are we really having a " how many times" competition? I could teach a small child to memorise and recite Shakespeare, it wouldn't mean they understood it!


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


Again Im left scratching my head wondering what youre trying to get at.
What truth are you talking about? That Christianity is the only true religion? 
What would be too risky?

Can you explain what you mean when you make statements like this?


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


How arrogant. When I explained my feelings and worries about the validity of the bible you called me a liar. Now you are saying that I have never even read the bible. When I tell you now that I have certainly read the entire bible - some favourite parts several times - and certainly see no risk in investigating it very closely indeed, are you going to call me a liar again? It's easier to do that than to admit the truth to yourself, isn't it? You don't have to answer any awkward questions then.

You are the one in denial Liz. Pretending to yourself that you are the only person on the forum who has read and can understand the bible is a defence mechanism to prevent you having to deal with all the doubts you would otherwise have to address. Why are you so afraid to admit to yourself that others have read the bible and have legitimate and logical doubts about its validity? Are you afraid that the things you learn may make you start to question things instead of blindly accepting what has been indoctrinated into you?


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


Btw, this just sounds like you're projecting.


----------



## northnsouth

lizward said:


> Rubbish. I doubt if there is *even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible*, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, *presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you*. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


I am sorry, after all the amazing and interesting posts and discussion on this thread, you have resorted to insulting sweeping comments. You sound just like the elders and the attitude I escaped at 16. It is a real shame that you have devalued so much of what has been said up to here.


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


This is a shocking statement lol, I have many many friends of faith and not one would make a statement so arrogant. One persons truth is not another. I had alot of exposure to the bible, it's teachings and attended church for many yrs... I simply could not maintain that faith, I am a woman of science, an engineer by trade and my truth is what I can see, and prove.

Your truth is what you feel and experience internally, and that is fine, I respect that, as I respect all faiths, but do not presume to know what is true for me. I live a good life, I am tolerant, I treat others as I wish to be treated, I help others whenever needed, I have nothing to fear by discovering your "truth"... I simply cannot follow something blindly and without solid tangible evidence.


----------



## Guest

> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> northnsouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, after all the amazing and interesting posts and discussion on this thread, you have resorted to insulting sweeping comments. You sound just like the elders and the attitude I escaped at 16. It is a real shame that you have devalued so much of what has been said up to here.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I do have to wonder, Lizward, if you realize what you do for your cause, your religion when you behave this way. Your dismissiveness betrays a definite contempt for anyone who does not think like you. Do you realize how much that contempt separates you from the rest of humanity? 
Do you want to do that? Does your religion require that you do that? Because if it does, are you aware of what that ultimately leads to?


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> You are confusing value with roles. Every Christian is of equal value. We do not all have the same roles. It's not a difficult concept.
> 
> I do not wish to be booted from this forum, there are some issues I will not discuss here.
> 
> Liz


No, I'm not, Liz. Do not presume to read my mind: I do not imagine even the depth of your faith gives you that power!  You cannot convince me that Paul did not mean for women to be debased forever more. The society in which he lived and the way he behaved meant that he would in all honesty believe that women were inferior. Because of the era in which Christianity is rooted, this is an unfortunate precept of the religion with some very poor images of women portrayed and some appalling attitudes demonstrated.

A lovely quote from Paul which nicely illustrates my points:

34 let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says. 
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly. 
1 Corinthians

Very poor of you to assume that no-one but you has ever read the bible. I have, cover to cover on several occasions. It's a cracking work (of fiction!) veering from one crazy extreme to another. One minute we have a vengeful God demanding an eye for an eye then his son, more modern, calmer, more rational, requesting that his followers turn the other cheek, culminating in a devastating crucifixion then a fabulous resurrection! Brilliant!

My family is weirdly religious, I know I've mentioned the uncles, but as a child I spent rather a lot of time with Jesuits (one was uncle's best friend, one was the Chaplain of Durham prison, parents were prison visitor volunteers) and as a very sceptical and probably quite rude child, I was forever challenging them on various books of the bible. Attending a Convent Catholic school, I endured many hours of readings and debate over exact meaning as opposed to interpretation.

I do not believe the bible to be directly transcribed from original eye witnesses, nor do I believe the majority of events depicted. As a rational person in this day and age, I find it difficult to reconcile the bible with what we know and are able to prove scientifically nowadays. To claim that man sprang from Adam and Eve (with whom do their kids interact to perpetuate the generations and should we all do that as it's in the bible?! Euw! Where did the dinosaur bones originate? Was god having a laugh and just winding us up for a laugh? Terry Pratchett might say so, but then he writes fiction. :wink: I should mention that I've also read works that debate the bible, its origins etc.

I wonder in say another 500 years, will we look back and feel slightly shamefaced that we believed what we now believe? Or will we have an adaptation of Christianity as we persist in adapting it with off shoots, re-moulding and varying branches and beliefs. Will the Catholics revoke transubstantiation or the idea that women are unequal and cannot cope with saying Mass? Or will something new and wondrous occur? Will Christ make his second coming? This has always worried me because I think we'd all just look at anyone who claimed to be him and section him!


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> OK so you've read it twice. How about the rest of you?
> 
> Liz


How can reading a work of fiction give any truth? Shakespeare gives us an insight into the way of life when it was written but they are simply stories.

Studying theology can give a background to belief systems but to "study" the bible as if it were an academic work is pointless; bit like reading your horoscope and proclaiming you are an astronomer .


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> For my part, i have read the bible yes. Many years ago admittedly, but i've read it.


How many times?


> How about you? have you read the holy books of the other religions which you so easily dismiss?


No.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> That's just funny! "Reading" in terms of a degree is a bit more than reading it once.


Of course, but unless your degree was far more Bible based than mine (would be interested to know where you studied? My theology degree is from Lampeter) I very much doubt if it included anything like all the Bible. Usually it's a matter of case studies. But then your degree was longer ago than mine, in the days when degrees were worth more 

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Again Im left scratching my head wondering what youre trying to get at.
> What truth are you talking about? That Christianity is the only true religion?
> What would be too risky?


The cost! Following Jesus carries a huge cost that most are not willing to pay.

Liz


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> Just wanted to add...
> 
> If youre standing at the edge of a cliff, and someone says have faith in your god, jump and someone else says have faith in gravity, dont. Who are you going to listen to?


I'd question why I was jumping tbh lol!



lizward said:


> Rubbish. I doubt if there is even one other person on here who has read the entire Bible, even once. Most of you are simply in denial, presumably because to seriously investigate the truth would be too risky for you. I said most of you, not all of you.
> 
> Liz


Read it once, rereading is on my to do list



Tinder said:


> Somehow i missed this post of yours before Starlite:
> 
> I wont apologise for posting a cartoon caricature of someone who may or may not have been the son of a deity who may or may not actually exist. What I will apologise for is misjudging the atmosphere here and wrongly assuming my picture would be taken in the silly, jokey way it was intended.
> I belong to another forum  Urban 75  a forum where satire and even pure mockery at times is practised without people having coronaries over it. Sometimes I just forget Im posting here and not there where people are a little less conservative and reactionary.
> 
> Well what you class as "degrading" doesn't necessarily equal what I would class as that. But if it was a funny enough piece of satire and I felt the need to post it then yeah I probably would. Certainly wouldn't rule it out. It would depend on the context & circumstances.
> 
> Surely Christ, God, Christianity in general is a powerful enough force in the world to withstand a little bit of satire, no? Had I said to a christian on here "you are obviously mentally subnormal for believing in these moronic fairytales of yours that would be offensive and inflammatory. As it is I singled no-one out and did not personally insult anyone.
> 
> Just because you find something disgusting that I do not does not give you the right to tell me Im immoral. Morality is a very subjective thing.
> I find it disgusting that the pope is dripping in wealth and riches whilst simultaneously being proclaimed as Christs representative on earth... I _dont_ find satirical cartoons disgusting.
> 
> This statement could definitely be construed as inflammatory:
> 
> Would you make a sweeping statement like that about Islam or judaism?
> 
> ..your point being what exactly? That all protestant families are like this? Or are you just using this to illustrate where your own bigotry and predjudice against protestants originated?


First of all, apology accepted. Second, show me where I called you immoral.

I am aware not all Protestants are intolerant, however my experiences with those of the faith have found the majority to be so towards other religions. I dont know any Jew or Muslims personally so I how could I tell you my experiences wth them if I have none?

pmsl I'm so bigoted against Protestants my best friend is a die hard Orange woman who has a parrot named Proddy that loves to sing the Sash to me :001_tt2: My mother is a practicing Protestant and I have alot of experiences with it over the course of my life so bigoted? No. I was merely trying to paint a picture of what Glasgow is like, have you been here and experienced it at all? we draw observations from what is around us


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> How arrogant. When I explained my feelings and worries about the validity of the bible you called me a liar. Now you are saying that I have never even read the bible. When I tell you now that I have certainly read the entire bible - some favourite parts several times - and certainly see no risk in investigating it very closely indeed, are you going to call me a liar again?


No, I am going to ask how many times you have read it. Because frankly the general level of debate here is very lacking in knowledge of the content of the Bible. To be fair, when several people are saying similar things it is difficult to remember who said what 


> It's easier to do that than to admit the truth to yourself, isn't it?


When are you going to admit your error about King James and the witch?

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> No, I'm not, Liz. Do not presume to read my mind: I do not imagine even the depth of your faith gives you that power!  You cannot convince me that Paul did not mean for women to be debased forever more.


You may believe that, I do not. The issue, as I recall, was that you insisted that I must either believe that women are of lesser value than men or not believe the Bible. There are other options!


> 34 let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says.
> 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly.
> 1 Corinthians


Yes, I addressed that one a few posts back.



> Where did the dinosaur bones originate?


God created the dinosaurs. The general concensus amongst creationists is that they died out in the changed climate that folowed the flood.



> Will Christ make his second coming? This has always worried me because I think we'd all just look at anyone who claimed to be him and section him!


You really don't seem to have taken much in from your Catholic upbringing, to be honest. Mind you I seem to keep having to repeat the most basic things even in my own church so I suppose it isn't that surprising that the Catholic church has the same problem. When Christ returns, he will return in glory, there will be no mistaking who he is!

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Of course, but unless your degree was far more Bible based than mine (would be interested to know where you studied? My theology degree is from Lampeter) I very much doubt if it included anything like all the Bible. Usually it's a matter of case studies. But then your degree was longer ago than mine, in the days when degrees were worth more
> 
> Liz


Uni of Manchester, with study of biblical and pre biblical archaeology, new and old testament form criticism. When you study the texts in that way, it's not "case studies". And why the obsession with how many times? I lost count by the end of my first year, I always had a bible to hand for study purposes. It doesn't indicate anything other than reading the words.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> You may believe that, I do not. The issue, as I recall, was that you insisted that I must either believe that women are of lesser value than men or not believe the Bible. There are other options!
> 
> Yes, I addressed that one a few posts back.
> 
> God created the dinosaurs. The general concensus amongst creationists is that they died out in the changed climate that folowed the flood.
> 
> You really don't seem to have taken much in from your Catholic upbringing, to be honest. Mind you I seem to keep having to repeat the most basic things even in my own church so I suppose it isn't that surprising that the Catholic church has the same problem. When Christ returns, he will return in glory, there will be no mistaking who he is!
> 
> Liz


Woah there! I can't quote very well on my phone, but if the dinosaurs died out following the flood, then dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. That's the general consensus....are you a creationist?


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Woah there! I can't quote very well on my phone, but if the dinosaurs died out following the flood, then dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. That's the general consensus....are you a creationist?


Yes I am.

Liz


----------



## Starlite

myshkin said:


> Woah there! I can't quote very well on my phone, but if the dinosaurs died out following the flood, then dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. That's the general consensus....are you a creationist?


alot of us believe dinsosaurs were present, bit hard to deny solid bones lol!

Some believe the benomoth in the Bible is a dinosaur due to its description and a pterydactyl somewhere people think

Isaiah 30:6
The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and* fiery flying serpent*, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them.


----------



## myshkin

So.....and I think I know the answer....the fact that all of the evidence points to dinosaurs dying out long before humans existed doesn't alter your view at all?
Don't really know what to say to that.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> You really don't seem to have taken much in from your Catholic upbringing, to be honest.
> 
> When Christ returns, he will return in glory, there will be no mistaking who he is!
> 
> Liz


Believe me, Liz, I took in plenty then rejected it after study and debate. I didn't sit in Church and ignore!

Sorry, I was being facetious: thought that was pretty obvious.


----------



## porps

myshkin said:


> So.....and I think I know the answer....the fact that all of the evidence points to dinosaurs dying out long before humans existed doesn't alter your view at all?
> Don't really know what to say to that.


now now, theres no need to let evidence spoil a perfectly good myth is there.


----------



## Tinder

Starlite said:


> First of all, apology accepted. Second, show me where I called you immoral.


You didn't directly. But I did feel you were inferring it...



Starlite said:


> I'm all for free speech but as I said in a previous threads i think there is a MORAL line which should be respected and the pic was against forum rules in the first place


...by suggesting that in posting that pic I'd crossed a 'moral line' and was therefore presumably being _im_moral?

(p.s. what forum rules did i break? I looked through them and couldn't find which one related to this particular kind of picture )



Starlite said:


> I am aware not all Protestants are intolerant, however my experiences with those of the faith have found the majority to be so towards other religions. I dont know any Jew or Muslims personally so I how could I tell you my experiences wth them if I have none?


Maybe what you should have said then was "I'm aware not all protestants are intolerant but unfortunately all the ones I've met have been" instead of "I have always found protestantism to be intolerant".



Starlite said:


> pmsl I'm so bigoted against Protestants my best friend is a die hard Orange woman who has a parrot named Proddy that loves to sing the Sash to me :001_tt2: My mother is a practicing Protestant and I have alot of experiences with it over the course of my life so bigoted? No. I was merely trying to paint a picture of what Glasgow is like, have you been here and experienced it at all? we draw observations from what is around us


I've been to Glasgow years ago. I'm married to a northern Irish protestant. My brother-in-law is in the lodge. My mother & father in law usually try to come and visit us each summer to escape the madness that surrounds the 12th July. I've been over there when it's all been going on - the band parades etc. I think there's bigots on both sides. I work with a very devout catholic who is notorious for being very opinionated & blinkered and thinks every protestant is basically Ian Paisley....so yeah I agree "we draw observations from what is around us"... and my observations have taught me that while faith itself may be helpful & comforting to some, organised religion really doesn't offer anything constructive to the world!


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> <snip>
> 
> When Christ returns, he will return in glory, there will be no mistaking who he is!
> 
> Liz


So will Satan return, and will there be no mistaking who he is either?

Is there really a 'mark of the beast', that we could actually see?


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Yes I am.
> 
> Liz


I would suggest to you that you read some books other than the bible. Maybe visit a museum or two.


----------



## cinnamontoast

porps said:


> now now, theres no need to let evidence spoil a perfectly good myth is there.


Honestly, do creationists believe that the dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as people? Or that asses might have evolved, sorry, been made by god at the same time as pterodactyls? I'm asking seriously, as I've never explored this aspect of belief.



MCWillow said:


> Is there really a 'mark of the beast', that we could actually see?


Yes, of course, it's a 666 on the scalp, I believe. Although I reckon it'll be a while yet til the scientists can genetically engineer a child born of a hyena. Hyenas have very odd back ends, I note.

I perhaps ought not to post after a glass of wine


----------



## myshkin

cinammontoast said:


> Honestly, do creationists believe that the dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as people? Or that asses might have evolved, sorry, been made by god at the same time as pterodactyls? I'm asking seriously, as I've never explored this aspect of belief.
> 
> Yes, of course, it's a 666 on the scalp, I believe. Although I reckon it'll be a while yet til the scientists can genetically engineer a child born of a hyena. Hyenas have very odd back ends, I note.
> 
> I perhaps ought not to post after a glass of wine


I probably shouldn't post without wine. Might have helped me with the shock and the slight feelings of depression about our education system I'm having right now


----------



## cinnamontoast

myshkin said:


> I probably shouldn't post without wine. Might have helped me with the shock and the slight feelings of depression about our education system I'm having right now


Ooh, which bits, cariad? I'm a teacher (fortunately not of theology!)


----------



## northnsouth

lizward said:


> You may believe that, I do not. The issue, as I recall, was that you insisted that I must either believe that women are of lesser value than men or not believe the Bible. There are other options!
> 
> Yes, I addressed that one a few posts back.
> 
> God created the dinosaurs. The general concensus amongst creationists is that they died out in the changed climate that folowed the flood.
> 
> You really don't seem to have taken much in from your Catholic upbringing, to be honest. Mind you I seem to keep having to repeat the most basic things even in my own church so I suppose it isn't that surprising that the Catholic church has the same problem. *When Christ returns*, he will return in glory, *there will be no mistaking who he is!*Liz


Does Thessalonians not say that he will return as a thief in the night? That true followers need to be alert so as not to miss his coming..


----------



## Waterlily

The mark of the beast...... already invented ..

The Technology for the Mark of the Beast is Here Now - Smart Skin...


----------



## myshkin

cinammontoast said:


> Ooh, which bits, cariad? I'm a teacher (fortunately not of theology!)


The bits where they teach science and logic. Ex subject manager for an exam board, not theology for me either ( although the RS team quite often drafted me in when they were short on staff! )


----------



## cinnamontoast

Waterlily said:


> The mark of the beast...... already invented ..
> 
> The Technology for the Mark of the Beast is Here Now - Smart Skin...


I have been saying for years that we will all have barcodes on our skin in the very near future for payments, identification, everything!



myshkin said:


> The bits where they teach science and logic. Ex subject manager for an exam board, not theology for me either ( although the RS team quite often drafted me in when they were short on staff! )


Ooh, if it's AQA, tell me the secret of how to stop the demons changing the requirements every time we've just rewritten the scheme of work! (or every four years, whichever is longer!!)


----------



## northnsouth

cinammontoast said:


> *I have been saying for years that we will all have barcodes on our skin in the very near future for payments, *identification, everything! Ooh, if it's AQA, tell me the secret of how to stop the demons changing the requirements every time we've just rewritten the scheme of work! (or every four years, whichever is longer!!)


And kids will have a chip so we can track them...


----------



## myshkin

cinammontoast said:


> I have been saying for years that we will all have barcodes on our skin in the very near future for payments, identification, everything!
> 
> Ooh, if it's AQA, tell me the secret of how to stop the demons changing the requirements every time we've just rewritten the scheme of work! (or every four years, whichever is longer!!)


It was the demons, they nearly broke me, but I got out in time 
Changing the requirements though....bugged us as much as you. QCA, or whatever they are called now used to do that when they got bored/there was a media outcry .


----------



## cinnamontoast

Not a bad idea, I'm sure it would stop a lot of poor parents panicking like the ones last week. But ethically, where and when would you stop?


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> So.....and I think I know the answer....the fact that all of the evidence points to dinosaurs dying out long before humans existed doesn't alter your view at all?
> Don't really know what to say to that.


I don't accept that the evidence points to that. You might like to have a look here:

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

It will answer these questions a lot better than I can.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> So will Satan return, and will there be no mistaking who he is either?


Satan is here already!



> Is there really a 'mark of the beast', that we could actually see?


That is a big question and one on which Christians disagree. Personally, I don't know.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> I would suggest to you that you read some books other than the bible. Maybe visit a museum or two.


I have in fact studied Evolution at degree level (as part of an Open University BSc, which probably will not mean much to you but the Brits will know what it is). I found the book on the subject (can't remember what it's called but it was the standard academic work on the subject for that level) most unconvincing.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

I think we should now discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> I have in fact studied Evolution at degree level (as part of an Open University BSc, which probably will not mean much to you but the Brits will know what it is). I found the book on the subject (can't remember what it's called but it was the standard academic work on the subject for that level) most unconvincing.
> 
> Liz


Then how come we share over 98% of our DNA with apes?


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Honestly, do creationists believe that the dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as people?


Yes


> Or that asses might have evolved, sorry, been made by god at the same time as pterodactyls? I'm asking seriously, as I've never explored this aspect of belief.


No - the day after.

Liz


----------



## northnsouth

cinammontoast said:


> I think we should now discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin


I am still trying to get the camel through the eye of the needle!


----------



## lizward

northnsouth said:


> Does Thessalonians not say that he will return as a thief in the night? That true followers need to be alert so as not to miss his coming..


Christ himself says that but its about the timing, not about what will be seen. I Thess 4: 16-17 says this

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> I don't accept that the evidence points to that.


The on-line equivalent of plugging your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and saying lalalalalalalalala I cant heeeaar you!

Well done. If anyone was on the fence about your views, I think its all clarified now.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Then how come we share over 98% of our DNA with apes?


Common plan. Buckingham palace is presumably made of basically the same materials as my house, but that doesn't mean they evolved from a common ancestor, it just means they were made of suitable building materials.

This may be of interest http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna

Liz


----------



## myshkin

Well I'm working on removing that bleddy great big log from my eye so that I don't come over all Paxman about other people's splinters :laugh:


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Yes
> 
> No - the day after.
> 
> Liz


 

Are you being tounge in cheek? No, I don't think you are!


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Satan is here already!
> Liz


Well darn. You caught me...


----------



## DogLover1981

I think it's ridiculous to suggest humans and other animals don't have a common ancestor. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. For example, look at a human, look at a dog. How similar are the organs and internal structures? They're very similar. Humans even reproduce in a somewhat similar fashion to dogs. There are also body parts that serve no function and even cause problems. Wisdom teeth for example.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Common plan. Buckingham palace is presumably made of basically the same materials as my house, but that doesn't mean they evolved from a common ancestor, it just means they were made of suitable building materials.
> 
> This may be of interest Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Liz


Wow. I'm seriously gobsmacked.  Genesis can really not deny the scientific fact that we share nearly 100% of our DNA.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Are you being tounge in cheek? No, I don't think you are!


Perfectly serious. Pterodactyls flew, donkeys don't 

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Wow. I'm seriously gobsmacked.  Genesis can really not deny the scientific fact that we share nearly 100% of our DNA.


Did you read the article?

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

Yes. I don't see how over 95% means that Genesis is correct or that we don't share common ancestors.

I'd also have to ask for a peer review or ten of this study. No study is worth anything without this. And I cannot understamd how the insertion of other DNA can radically have changed the evolution of us as humans or apes as they are, if that is indeed true. An insertion as _alleged_ in the article should have changed the evolution/look of either human and/or ape much more radically than we actually are.


----------



## lizward

DogLover1981 said:


> I think it's ridiculous to suggest humans and other animals don't have a common ancestor. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. For example, look at a human, look at a dog. How similar are the organs and internal structures? They're very similar. Humans even reproduce in a somewhat similar fashion to dogs. There are also body parts that serve no function and even cause problems. Wisdom teeth for example.


Common design. You know, like in four wheeled vehicles, buildings, and numerous other things that I'm too tired to think of right now.

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> I have in fact studied Evolution at degree level (as part of an Open University BSc, which probably will not mean much to you but the Brits will know what it is). I found the book on the subject (can't remember what it's called but it was the standard academic work on the subject for that level) most unconvincing.
> 
> Liz


Sounds like you read the wrong translation 

I dont know whats more gobsmacking, the answers in genesis site or the WBC site....


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Yes. I don't see how over 95% means that Genesis is correct or that we don't share common ancestors.


I think it's completely academic whether it's 95%, which apparently the scientists are now saying, or 98%. Common design is quite sufficient to explain similarities and indeed we should expect them.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

Well, the last couple of pages save me explaining why I have always been against public funding for religious schools.


----------



## DogLover1981

It's not just evidence of the past event. We have very direct evidence. Evolving and mutating microbes making people sick on a yearly basis for one.


----------



## DogLover1981

I forgot to mention microbes developing a resistance to antibiotics too.


----------



## myshkin

DogLover1981 said:


> It's not just evidence of the past event. We have very direct evidence. Evolving and mutating microbes making people sick on a yearly basis for one.





DogLover1981 said:


> I forgot to mention microbes developing a resistance to antibiotics too.


Ah, well, see that's probably satan at work, not evolution.


----------



## lizward

DogLover1981 said:


> I forgot to mention microbes developing a resistance to antibiotics too.


Yes but none of that involves adding new genetic information does it? No creationist I have ever come across rejects natural selection.

Liz


----------



## ozrex

What's a mutation if it's not new genetic information?


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> I think it's completely academic whether it's 95%, which apparently the scientists are now saying, or 98%. Common design is quite sufficient to explain similarities and indeed we should expect them.
> 
> Liz


Yes, indeed, as we clearly have common ancestors, it's totally to be expected!

Your house and a palace may look different but be made from the same material-brick-which is made the same way regardless of its actual manufacture.


----------



## MCWillow

But there is evidence that dinosaurs died out 65 millions years ago.

Jesus died a bit less than 2000 years ago.

The Ark was built about 3000 years ago (taking about 120 years to build).

So how were dinosaurs on board the Ark, when they actually died out so many years before the Ark was built, and so saved?


----------



## ozrex

It is, I think, the little differences that divide. The ultimate truth - behind religion - is God.

If you take Christianity there are hundreds of different sects which differ only in triviality (although people will kill over those differences). It's the same in Judaism and Islam.

Oddly the thing that all religions appear to have in common are these two things:-
Christianity
Matthew 22:37-41. Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to 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.

Judaism
Exodus 20:1-3
And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, whcih have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Leviticus 19:18
Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
or
Rabbi Hillel, Talmud Shabbat 31a
"What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it.

Islam
Qur'an 2:177
True piety is this: to believe in God, and the Last Day, the angels, the Book and the Prophets, to give of one's substance, however cherished, to kinsmen, and orphans, the needy, the traveller, beggars, and to ransom the slave, to perform the prayer, to pay the Zakat.

Sikhism
Three of the essential tenets of faith are
Naam japna - remember God through prayer/meditation
Kirat karo - earn an honest living
Vand chakko - selflessly serve others, share income and resources.

Can't do any harm to follow those precepts, can it? To me they are what God wants; whatever you call Him. The devil is certainly in the detail and it's the details that cause the problems. Back to basics, I say!!

Sorry for using the King James bible, I love the language.


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Your house and a palace may look different but be made from the same material-brick-which is made the same way regardless of its actual manufacture.


Ah yes, but both were designed and built, they didn't spontaeously evolve from a mud hut.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ozrex said:


> What's a mutation if it's not new genetic information?


Often it's loss of information, sometimes it's rearranging the information that was there. For a good example of the first, breeding of pedigree animals - you get increasing homozygosity, in other words loss of genetic information. You lose traits you don't want (artificial selection of course, not natural selection, since in many cases the breeds that are produced could not survive in the wild). A good example of the second is the innumerable mutations done on drosophila - you can end up with all sorts of freak fruit flies, but nothing that actually gives it any edge in terms of survival (rather the reverse)

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> But there is evidence that dinosaurs died out 65 millions years ago.


That is only one way of interpreting the evidence. The flood is an alternative explanation for what you see. Layers of rock can be laid down extremely quickly during cataclysmic events.


> Jesus died a bit less than 2000 years ago.
> 
> The Ark was built about 3000 years ago (taking about 120 years to build).


more than 4000 - Abraham was about 2000BC and he was several generations after the flood.



> So how were dinosaurs on board the Ark, when they actually died out so many years before the Ark was built, and so saved?


They hadn't died out.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> That is only one way of interpreting the evidence. The flood is an alternative explanation for what you see. Layers of rock can be laid down extremely quickly during cataclysmic events.
> 
> Liz


 interpretation? At last we have an admission of interpretation instead of 'this is the one truth'.

So all the geologists are wrong and the carbon dating is all nonsense? Are you saying dinosaurs roamed the earth under 5000 years ago?! I think the British museum and just about every geolgist ever would beg to differ! Must discuss with my very devout catholic geologist cousin when I see him next week! I think he'd laugh me out of the room if I tell him dinosaurs were so recent.  Are you talking belief or fact?


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> interpretation? At last we have an admission of interpretation instead of 'this is the one truth'.
> 
> So all the geologists are wrong and the carbon dating is all nonsense? Are you saying dinosaurs roamed the earth under 5000 years ago?! I think the British museum and just about every geolgist ever would beg to differ! Must discuss with my very devout catholic geologist cousin when I see him next week! I think he'd laugh me out of the room if I tell him dinosaurs were so recent.  Are you talking belief or fact?


Seriously, this is not a core issue to me (though it is to many creationists). I would far rather discuss the resurrection, what you think actually happened to turn the disciples from a group of men who were hiding in fear of their lives to those who would and did give their lives for their belief that Christ had risen bodily from the grave.

However, since evolution is taught as fact in schools and universities, other possible explanations for the evidence is not usually considered by most people. Dating makes certain assumptions about everything having always been the same. Facts that don't fit the theory are ignored, and so on.

Liz


----------



## poohdog

And ancient swamps changed to coal and some got buried a mile underground in a few thousand years...you're nuts.

This is as good an explanation as anything the bible bashers come out with...


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> Facts that don't fit the theory are ignored, and so on.


you dont half make me laugh. I hope the irony of such a statement is not lost on you.

Religion summed up in one sentence:
"i reject your reality and substitute it with my own"


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Common plan. Buckingham palace is presumably made of basically the same materials as my house, but that doesn't mean they evolved from a common ancestor, it just means they were made of suitable building materials.
> 
> This may be of interest Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Liz


This site is a perfect example of your "logic" throughout the thread. Pages of theorising for which the only "evidence" is "the bible says so". So everything, regardless of the real evidence is to be moulded to fit what the bible says.

There is archaeological evidence of localised flooding in the fertile crescent region, by the way. Evidence that show that the region was prone to devastating flooding around the time the bible originated, which would explain the flood stories in several cultures - not just Judaism, ones that pre-dated the OT.
I'd have to go a-googling to remember precisely which ones...why not try? Anyone can do it.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Facts that don't fit the theory are ignored, and so on.
> 
> Liz


Wow. As already mentioned, the irony! You're quite good at diverting the attention away from a point you can't really answer, aren't you? Theory, now, is it? Interpretation, now theory. Thought you were basing this all on facts?

And I'd rather not only discuss the resurrection. There are other occurrences, you know!


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Wow. As already mentioned, the irony! You're quite good at diverting the attention away from a point you can't really answer, aren't you? Theory, now, isn't? Interpretation, now theory. Thought you were basing this all on facts?


I'm just not really an expert on creation, that's all.

liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> I'm just not really an expert on creation, that's all.
> 
> liz


But reading the bible is all the evidence you need, surely? And as you've read it so many times it should tell you all you need to know?


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> But reading the bible is all the evidence you need, surely? And as you've read it so many times it should tell you all you need to know?


It doesn't give me the knowledge I need to debate creation / evolution. Neither does my Biology degree (though that does help me understand the arguments). I attend creationist conferences from time to time but it just isn't my area of expertise, that's all, I am not a scientist.

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> However, since evolution is taught as fact in schools and universities, other possible explanations for the evidence is not usually considered by most people. Dating makes certain assumptions about everything having always been the same. Facts that don't fit the theory are ignored, and so on.
> 
> Liz


Liz, did you know they also teach gravity as fact in schools and universities even though the flat earth society disputes it? its and outrage I say!

Sigh....


----------



## Spellweaver

Sorry - I know the debate has moved on a bit but I've been at Bakewell show all day and am just catching up!



northnsouth said:


> Does Thessalonians not say that he will return as a thief in the night? That true followers need to be alert so as not to miss his coming..


Ooooh - perhaps Liz hasn't really read all of her bible 



cinammontoast said:


> I think we should now discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin


Do pins exist or were they all destroyed in the flood? Which day were they created on?



northnsouth said:


> I am still trying to get the camel through the eye of the needle!


Oooh, oooh - I know the answer to this one - according to the bible you have to send me all your money ............ 



lizward said:


> Did you read the article?
> Liz


Yes. I refuse to accept its premise 



lizward said:


> Ah yes, but both were designed and built, they didn't spontaeously evolve from a mud hut.
> Liz


Ah, but they were designed and built by *different creators* 

Ok, I know I'm a bit giddy (after effects of the dog show) - I'll behave now, I promise!


----------



## Guest

ozrex said:


> It is, I think, the little differences that divide. The ultimate truth - behind religion - is God.
> 
> If you take Christianity there are hundreds of different sects which differ only in triviality (although people will kill over those differences). It's the same in Judaism and Islam.
> 
> Oddly the thing that all religions appear to have in common are these two things:-
> Christianity
> Matthew 22:37-41. Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to 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.
> 
> Judaism
> Exodus 20:1-3
> And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, whcih have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> Leviticus 19:18
> Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
> or
> Rabbi Hillel, Talmud Shabbat 31a
> "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it.
> 
> Islam
> Qur'an 2:177
> True piety is this: to believe in God, and the Last Day, the angels, the Book and the Prophets, to give of one's substance, however cherished, to kinsmen, and orphans, the needy, the traveller, beggars, and to ransom the slave, to perform the prayer, to pay the Zakat.
> 
> Sikhism
> Three of the essential tenets of faith are
> Naam japna - remember God through prayer/meditation
> Kirat karo - earn an honest living
> Vand chakko - selflessly serve others, share income and resources.
> 
> *Can't do any harm to follow those precepts, can it? *To me they are what God wants; whatever you call Him. The devil is certainly in the detail and it's the details that cause the problems. Back to basics, I say!!
> 
> Sorry for using the King James bible, I love the language.


But the very first of those precepts is the one that does harm. The I am the one true god and you will have no other gods before me precept. The one people will kill each other over. The one that gives false righteousness, the false knowledge that MY god is the RIGHT god and the rest of you be damned (literally). That separation of oneself from the non believers. How can I truly love my neighbors when I believe in my heart that I am better than because I have chose the right god? How is that love?

On the flip side, why do I need to believe and accept a god in order to love my neighbor? Why cant I just ... love my neighbor as a fellow member of the human race?


----------



## cinnamontoast

ouesi said:


> On the flip side, why do I need to believe and accept a god in order to love my neighbor? Why cant I just ... love my neighbor as a fellow member of the human race?


I think that pretty much sums up how we should behave.  I don't believe religion makes you behave in a decent manner so I don't believe we need it.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Ooooh - perhaps Liz hasn't really read all of her bible


Perhaps spellweaver hasn't read the rest of the thread.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Why cant I just ... love my neighbor as a fellow member of the human race?


Why should you? What evolutionary advantage is there to you in doing so? After all, you're only a product of evolution aren't you? How does loving your neighbour improve your fitness in evolutionary terms?

Liz


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Why should you? What evolutionary advantage is there to you in doing so? After all, you're only a product of evolution aren't you? How does loving your neighbour improve your fitness in evolutionary terms?
> 
> Liz


Did you seriously just ask what the is evolutionary advantage of banding together and working together cooperatively?

Do you seriously think that without religion people cant be good, kind, compassionate, loving, caring?

For crying out loud, most dogs I know are far kinder to each other than most humans I know. And I KNOW my dogs arent religious. Unless theyre sneaking out to church when Im not looking.

And... and and and.... What motivation is there for me to BE good when I can sin my entire life, murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat and then in my twilight years decide to accept Jesus in to my heart and all will be forgiven??

Morality can and indeed does exist without religion.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Perhaps spellweaver hasn't read the rest of the thread.
> 
> Liz


It was a joke Liz ........  you've already told us that you've read it cover to cover about a million times


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Why should you? What evolutionary advantage is there to you in doing so? After all, you're only a product of evolution aren't you? How does loving your neighbour improve your fitness in evolutionary terms?
> 
> Liz


Why shouldn't I .. free will. The expansion of an acceptance of free will makes us stronger in evolutionary terms and it shows we have the intelligence to accept how others wish to live their lives. Those who wish to curtail free will, will see their power to persuade others that their view is right ever diminished (how is the expansion of the christian church going BTW ?)


----------



## DogLover1981

There are other animals that live together cooperatively as groups. Dogs are pack animals. It's possible morality has some evolutionary advantages. Humans would soon go extinct if they all started murdering one another. lol


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> This may be of interest Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Liz


Love Ken Hom... those stir fry noodles are fantastic


----------



## Guest

Human solidarity is innate in us.

Hitchens on morality - YouTube

I also find his comments on sociopaths and psychopaths rather interesting too. There are truly evil people. Are they too made in the image of god?

Edit:
Had to add this, same question more detailed answer:


----------



## cinnamontoast

All men are made in god's image but I think he forgot some bits on some people.  Sociopaths have a difference in their temporal lobe, I believe (ventromedial frontal lobe damage or congenital malformation).


----------



## SpringerLex

I think it does more harm than good. I was made to go to Church when I was a kid and then made to be an alter girl...that was up until I was walking down the stairs of the alter carrying the big cross...the priest...who was a bit of a meanie pushed me to make me go quicker. At which point I turn round, in front of the entire congregation and say "Will you stop f*****g pushing me". The one thing I remember about that was my grans gasp. Then I continued toddling down the aisle.


----------



## myshkin

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry - I know the debate has moved on a bit but I've been at Bakewell show all day and am just catching up!
> 
> Ok, I know I'm a bit giddy (after effects of the dog show) - I'll behave now, I promise!


Love Bakewell, we used to go there a lot at weekends when we lived in Manchester. Some beautiful walks, a lovely town and a great monthly farmers market. Way off topic, I know 



lizward said:


> Why should you? What evolutionary advantage is there to you in doing so? After all, you're only a product of evolution aren't you? How does loving your neighbour improve your fitness in evolutionary terms?
> 
> Liz


I was going to answer, but ouesi and DogLover have said all I would want to say.



Elmo the Bear said:


> Love Ken Hom... those stir fry noodles are fantastic


Ken Hom. Now there is a god.



SpringerLex said:


> I think it does more harm than good. I was made to go to Church when I was a kid and then made to be an alter girl...that was up until I was walking down the stairs of the alter carrying the big cross...the priest...who was a bit of a meanie pushed me to make me go quicker. At which point I turn round, in front of the entire congregation and say "Will you stop f*****g pushing me". The one thing I remember about that was my grans gasp. Then I continued toddling down the aisle.


:laugh:
Good on you. The priests I knew as a child were kinder, more genuine in their beliefs than to treat a child like that. I think they would have also laughed at your reaction


----------



## northnsouth

ouesi said:


> *But the very first of those precepts is the one that does harm. The "I am the one true god and you will have no other gods before me" precept. *The one people will kill each other over. The one that gives false righteousness, the false "knowledge" that MY god is the RIGHT god and the rest of you be damned (literally). That separation of oneself from the non believers. How can I truly love my neighbors when I believe in my heart that I am "better" than because I have chose the "right" god? How is that love? On the flip side, why do I need to believe and accept a god in order to love my neighbor? Why can't I just ... love my neighbor as a fellow member of the human race?


I believe that this is the one Liz says I was missing in my summary of Holy Books. But I agree that is the part, and man's interpretation of which, that is the root of many terrible acts in this world.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Did you seriously just ask what the is evolutionary advantage of banding together and working together cooperatively?


I can see the evolutionary advatnage of that, but human kindness often goes a lot further (yes even with atheists) - giving to people we don't know, helping the elderly or disabled who cannot give us anything we need in return, and so on.


> And... and and and.... What motivation is there for me to BE good when I can sin my entire life, murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat and then in my twilight years decide to "accept Jesus in to my heart" and all will be forgiven??


For a Christian the motivation is, quite simply, to be like Jesus.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Why shouldn't I .. free will. The expansion of an acceptance of free will makes us stronger in evolutionary terms


Does it? How?

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> I also find his comments on sociopaths and psychopaths rather interesting too. There are truly evil people. Are they too made in the image of god?


You are forgetting about sin.

Liz


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> I can see the evolutionary advatnage of that, but human kindness often goes a lot further (yes even with atheists) - giving to people we don't know, helping the elderly or disabled who cannot give us anything we need in return, and so on.
> 
> For a Christian the motivation is, quite simply, to be like Jesus.
> 
> Liz


So what is the motivation for people that _aren't_ religious?

I guess you will say you dont know because you _are_ religious - but I _would_ be interested to know.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> I can see the evolutionary advatnage of that, but human kindness often goes a lot further (yes even with atheists) - giving to people we don't know, helping the elderly or disabled who cannot give us anything we need in return, and so on.
> 
> Liz


Because we have the capacity to reason, and think, and concepts like ethics and philosophy to enrich our lives. And we don't need a god to be afraid of to tell us that being kind to other beings (whether human or not) makes everyone happier, including ourselves.

Animal kindness can go further too. If you'd ever seen my dog with an orphaned baby bird, or an abandoned kitten, you'd know that you don't need a god to be kind to those who can never repay you.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> For a Christian the motivation is, quite simply, to be like Jesus.
> 
> Liz


Liz, I have to say, there is something profoundly disturbing about this kind of statement. It implies that without Jesus you would not be motivated to be a good person for one (disturbing in and of itself). Could you not figure out on your own that murder and rape and pillage and theft are wrong? Did you really need divine intervention to figure that one out?

Secondly it betrays a tremendous fear of self. Are you that afraid of who you really are that you think you might start eating babies or something if you reject Jesus? Because I can assure you, the odds of that happening are really slim. (Unless youre in to overdosing on hallucinogens or something.) I mean, people all over the world routinely reject Jesus and religion and dont go on to become demented psychopaths. They wake up the exact same person only now they take just that one step more of responsibility for themselves and how they behave.

Not to mention that it just doesnt jive with the bible. Is Jesus not God? So if you become like Jesus, does that not make you God? Or at least god-like? Does that not strike you as just a tad bit arrogant? Because now were back to the Im better than attitude that leads to all the problems with religion.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> You are forgetting about sin.
> 
> Liz


Being biologically different to so called 'normal' people is not being sinful. The homosexual people I know, for example (cos I fortunately don't know any sociopaths to my knowledge!) say they were born that way. Scientists have proven time after time that sociopaths (_not_ sinners!) are biologically different to those with consciences.



ouesi said:


> Is Jesus not God? So if you become like Jesus, does that not make you God? Or at least god-like?


Worrying. The OT has God as a strike thee mightily, eye for an eye type. I don't want to be like that! I don't want to be God like! God inflicts plagues, floods, allows his only son to be crucified, demands that a dedicated follower sacrifice his son, not a guy I wish to emulate!


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> For a Christian the motivation is, quite simply, to be like Jesus.
> 
> Liz


Sorry to quote the same post twice, but have been thinking more on it 

I was in a queue to buy a sandwich for lunch and a guy came in and pushed right to the front (doesnt make me happy when I only get a 30 min lunch break and theres a long queue!).

He dumped two sandwiches on the counter then said very loudly' Sorry to jump in, but I have just been caught shoplifting, and am now banned from this shop shop for life. I havent eaten for two days.' He was scruffy, smelly, and obviously homeless.

I told him to wait fo me outside - I bought his sandwiches for him and gave them to him.

I was late for work one day, and a homeless guy stopped me in the subway under the station (which I have to go through every day) and asked if he could buy a *** off me (yes I smoke). I really didnt have time to stop. I said no. 'But you can _have_ a ***'. I gave him two, and he thanked me for not judging him.

I don't give beggars money, but I will always go and buy them a sandwich or a coffee.

I do these things because instinct kicks in for me. I don't do it because I want to be like Jesus.

I guess the only ulterior motive is to feel good that you have helped someone else.

So that begs the question - is helping others actually a selfish act?


----------



## myshkin

Second attempt at post thanks to highly reactive laptop.

If you were like Jesus you would be strongly against organised religion and against basing your life on the the things you read in the bible.

If you've done a theology degree, liz, you must be familiar with the concept of "sitz im leben". Looking at the texts in the light of what we understand about the culture and social concepts of the time.
Jesus in the NT never claimed to be god. Calling yourself the "son of god" wasn't unusual at the time. It was similar in meaning to those Christians who call their God "Father" nowadays, in no way did it imply that he was literally god incarnate.

For me, the big shame is that someone who was so against organised religion and what it does to humanity, who was so much on the side of the underdog, so very feminist in the context of his time, should be used to do so much harm. The fact that he was human, not a magical being, makes him more remarkable to me. He'd be spinning in his grave if he could have seen what was done in his name, I'm sure.

Decided to go for the wine option over the highly sedative painkillers today...much better, think Jesus would have approved :laugh:


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Does it? How?
> 
> Liz


For exactly the reasons I explained.... no matter how many times you post simple gainsay the truth doesn't get further away... just your ability to accept it.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> I can see the evolutionary advatnage of that, but human kindness often goes a lot further (yes even with atheists) - giving to people we don't know, helping the elderly or disabled who cannot give us anything we need in return, and so on.
> 
> For a Christian the motivation is, quite simply, to be like Jesus.
> 
> Liz


I'm absolutely gobsmacked at this statement on so many levels. First of all, there's an unhealthy feeling about it of being purposefully being kind to people who can't be kind back - it intimates at some kind of, oooh, look at me, I've helped three people today who aren't going to do a thing for me, aren't I so good? Won't Jesus love me?!

But secondly - and even more gobsmacking - is how your words betray your thoughts and attitudes to your fellow human beings. Do you* really* believe that because someone is either elderly or disabled that they can do nothing for you? Honestly? Truthfully? 



lizward said:


> You are forgetting about sin.
> Liz


Ah - so if your god designs a human that malfunctions, it's not because he's a crap designer, it's because that human sinned and caused his own malfunction. What a cop-out.



MCWillow said:


> So what is the motivation for people that _aren't_ religious?


Genuine compassion and kindness and caring for others is an innate part of humanity and has nothing to do with any religion. From Liz' replies, the religion part makes you only care for people who can do nothing for you so that you can score points and become more like Jesus.


----------



## grumpy goby

There is a sad assumption that either:
1: you cannot be a truely good person without god in your life
_or_
2: Being good, without god in your life is against the theory of evolution because it doesnt go with "survival of the fitest" and therefore evidence of creationist theory....

Both counts being baffling, because we are conscious, social, beings with free choice, empathy and moral values and a complex society - not simply subject to survival instinct and nothing else.

Id be sad if the only reason anyone were good was through religious "bribery" to do good and be rewarded in another realm.


----------



## alan g a

My friend was born into 'the society of friends' ( which I believe is the more modern name for Amish ' She cried her eyes out the day she was married. She had never met the groom before that day. It was a forced marriage which is normal for people of that religion. She was married for only weeks. She abonded her husband and her religion, so is this right? I leave that for you to decide.


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> So what is the motivation for people that _aren't_ religious?
> 
> I guess you will say you dont know because you _are_ religious - but I _would_ be interested to know.


Well that's my point really, if there is no evolutiuonary advantage, why should the atheist think of anyone but him/herself? The fact that there ARE good atheists (maybe even some on this thread  ) says to me that we are not merely products of evolution. In fact there aren't many atheists when someone close dies, for that matter. We even have this polite fiction of the "rainbow bridge" for departed pets!

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Liz, I have to say, there is something profoundly disturbing about this kind of statement. It implies that without Jesus you would not be motivated to be a good person for one (disturbing in and of itself). Could you not figure out on your own that murder and rape and pillage and theft are wrong? Did you really need divine intervention to figure that one out?


The question was, why would I want to live a good life if I get forgiven at the end anyway.

liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Scientists have proven time after time that sociopaths (_not_ sinners!) are biologically different to those with consciences.


Have they? I haven't looked into it.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> If you've done a theology degree, liz, you must be familiar with the concept of "sitz im leben". Looking at the texts in the light of what we understand about the culture and social concepts of the time.
> Jesus in the NT never claimed to be god. Calling yourself the "son of god" wasn't unusual at the time.


Pardon? The Jews didn't think so, they had him executed for blasphemy! God as father in the OT is only ever used in the context of the nation of Israel, never in relation to individuals.

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> Have they? I haven't looked into it.
> 
> Liz


Its worth looking into. Also, they say phychopaths are not "curable" as its not an illness but a difference in mind - incapable of empathy and emotion; whilst they can emulate and mirror emotive gestures they cannot understand them (one phychopathic murderer, when shown faces demonstrating terror, stated he had no idea what emotion they were showing - its just the face they pull when he was about to kill them...)


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> Well that's my point really, if there is no evolutiuonary advantage, why shoudl the atheist think of anyone but him/herself?


For the same reasons monkeys stay in close knit family groups and work together. The same reason wolves operate in packs, and lions live in prides. 
In evoilutionary terms i suppose you could simplify it to be safety in numbers. Empathy and compassion help to build trust in the social group. You need trust if you're going to rely on other members of your group for safety. You see when the monkey picks fleas off its brother it's not a selfless or unrewarded act - the reward is the trust of their brother. And if not for trust, how can you possibly rely on your lookouts (for example)?
For social animals empathy IS an evolutionary advantage.


----------



## lizward

alan g a said:


> My friend was born into 'the society of friends' ( which I believe is the more modern name for Amish '


No, it's the Quakers, these days they are very liberal indeed and I cannot imagine they would do arranged marriages in a million years. Perhaps you have misremembered the name of the group?

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Pardon? The Jews didn't think so, they had him executed for blasphemy! God as father in the OT is only ever used in the context of the nation of Israel, never in relation to individuals.
> 
> Liz


I'm talking about the concept in the NT though, not the old. The reasons for his execution although muddled in the NT accounts, point towards the claims about him being a messiah and "The King of the Jews" being what led to his arrest. Talk of the kingdom of god on earth, and saying god's name aloud were blasphemous.

In first century Judaism, a messiah was not a god, he was an "anointed one". Talk of the king of the Jews under Roman occupation was dangerous - it referred to a messiah of the Davidic line who would lead the Jews to overthrow their Roman oppressors....throw in some outspoken criticism of religious authorities, in the Temple itself, and it becomes politically expedient that this man is silenced, to maintain their own power, but also to avoid making their Roman rulers angry.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Well that's my point really, if there is no evolutiuonary advantage, why shoudl the atheist think of anyone but him/herself? The fact that there ARE good atheists (maybe even some on this thread  ) says to me that we are not merely products of evolution. *In fact there aren't many atheists when someone close dies, for that matter. *We even have this polite fiction of the "rainbow bridge" for departed pets!
> 
> Liz


Can I just say, in as mild mannered a fashion as I can muster, that I find this kind of insulting not only to my intelligence, but to the intelligence of others I know. 
One of whom, my uncle, spent his last days telling the priest my dad sent in to try to extract a deathbed conversion from him to go away and leave him alone. And the only reason I can forgive my dad for that is because my uncle told me he forgave him and I shouldn't hold it against him.


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> If you were like Jesus you would be strongly against organised religion and against basing your life on the the things you read in the bible.


Sorry but that is simply wrong. For a start, Jesus went to the synagogue every week, secondly you have only to read the Gospels to find that Jesus was constantly quoting scripture!

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> I'm absolutely gobsmacked at this statement on so many levels. First of all, there's an unhealthy feeling about it of being purposefully being kind to people who can't be kind back - it intimates at some kind of, oooh, look at me, I've helped three people today who aren't going to do a thing for me, aren't I so good? Won't Jesus love me?!


No no no, it isn't like that AT ALL. Jesus loves me even when I am the most wretched of sinners.


> But secondly - and even more gobsmacking - is how your words betray your thoughts and attitudes to your fellow human beings. Do you* really* believe that because someone is either elderly or disabled that they can do nothing for you? Honestly? Truthfully?


_In evolutionary terms_, which was the context of the discussion, what could they do? I speak as a disabled person myself (and getting elderly!) _In evolutionary terms_, wouldn't you do better just to kill off all the non-productive people? But we don't do that, on the contrary we think it's terrible even to suggest it, and that is because deep down none of us actually believe that our own survival to reproduce is the most important thing.

In short, God doesn't believe in atheists.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> I guess the only ulterior motive is to feel good that you have helped someone else.
> 
> So that begs the question - is helping others actually a selfish act?


In evolutionary terms, how does feeling good help?

Now in fact there is another explanation and it's in the Bible. Christ himself said "it is more blessed to give than to receive". Every time you give to others and feel good about doing so, you are proving his words true. Christianity explains altruism, evolution does not.

Liz


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> _In evolutionary terms_, which was the context of the discussion, what could they do? I speak as a disabled person myself (and getting elderly!)
> 
> Liz


Impart knowledge
Also you say "why help the old if they cant repay you" but couldnt you also say that helping the old is you repaying them for things they did for you when you were too young to repay them?
Or that by helping them you set an example which ensures you in turn will be looked after when you're old? (thus you do get something back, not fromt he person you helped, but from the people learning from you)

In the words of ricky gervais:
"Thank god for making me an athiest"


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Ah - so if your god designs a human that malfunctions, it's not because he's a crap designer, it's because that human sinned and caused his own malfunction. What a cop-out.


No. You are one of those who claims to have read the Bible - remember the man born blind. In fact all death and sickness in the world results from Adam's sin.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Sorry but that is simply wrong. For a start, Jesus went to the synagogue every week, secondly you have only to read the Gospels to find that Jesus was constantly quoting scripture!
> 
> Liz


I'm not the only person on this thread who dislikes organised religion, but has spent quite some time quoting and discussing the bible.


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> No. You are one of those who claims to have read the Bible - remember the man born blind. In fact all death and sickness in the world results from Adam's sin.
> 
> Liz


Thats incorrect though. All death and sickness is a result of adams sin, which is a result of gods plan, therefore all death and sickness is a result of gods plan.


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> I'm talking about the concept in the NT though, not the old.


You have read the Bible. Where in the NT is the term "Son of God" - referring to an individual, and to a begotten son rather than an adopted son - used of anyone but Jesus?



> The reasons for his execution although muddled in the NT accounts, point towards the claims about him being a messiah and "The King of the Jews" being what led to his arrest. Talk of the kingdom of god on earth, and saying god's name aloud were blasphemous.


So what would they think of his claim to be the Son of God?

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Can I just say, in as mild mannered a fashion as I can muster, that I find this kind of insulting not only to my intelligence, but to the intelligence of others I know.


Fine, but I don't come across many people who, when someone's loved one has died, say "O well, we all die, I'm sorry for your loss" without making some comment about "being in a better place now". But perhaps you know different.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> You have read the Bible. Where in the NT is the term "Son of God" - referring to an individual, and to a begotten son rather than an adopted son - used of anyone but Jesus?
> 
> So what would they think of his claim to be the Son of God?
> 
> Liz


Jesus calls his followers "sons of god" and Paul refers to christians as sons of god.

John is the only gospel to refer to Jesus as the "only son of god", which as a later gospel fits in with the development of the christian theology that Jesus was divine.



lizward said:


> Fine, but I don't come across many people who, when someone's loved one has died, say "O well, we all die, I'm sorry for your loss" without making some comment about "being in a better place now". But perhaps you know different.
> 
> Liz


I do.


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> Impart knowledge


Possibly. Doesn't explain why we might be nice to those with a mental handicap though.


> lso you say "why help the old if they cant repay you" but couldnt you also say that helping the old is you repaying them for things they did for you when you were too young to repay them?


But how is that an evolutionary advantage to you? Why not just take what you can and never give anything back unless there is something in it for you?


> Or that by helping them you set an example which ensures you in turn will be looked after when you're old? (thus you do get something back, not fromt he person you helped, but from the people learning from you)


Perhaps. I am not convinced.

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> So what would they think of his claim to be the Son of God?
> 
> Liz


You can read it as often as you want, but you will never begin to understand it until you read it in the light of the situation of those who wrote it. I've already explained the meaning of s of g.


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> Fine, but I don't come across many people who, when someone's loved one has died, say "O well, we all die, I'm sorry for your loss" without making some comment about "being in a better place now". But perhaps you know different.
> 
> Liz


I know plenty...Maybe your group of friends arent diverse enough!

Iv never once uttered the words "better place", normally settling for "no longer in pain" or some such. In fact i cant think of a time I have heard it said; not when Iv lost people, not when my OH lost people, we are not religious people so maybe its that people adapt their response according to what we want to hear..


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Jesus calls his followers "sons of god"


Where are you thinking of?



> and Paul refers to christians as sons of god.


By adoption, not in the same way as Jesus.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> You can read it as often as you want, but you will never begin to understand it until you read it in the light of the situation of those who wrote it. I've already explained the meaning of s of g.


No you haven't.

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

myshkin said:


> You can read it as often as you want, but you will never begin to understand it until you read it in the light of the situation of those who wrote it. I've already explained the meaning of s of g.


Its been some time since i read "History of god" but am i right in saying that other scriptures from the era, and OT scriptures refer to Son of god throughout, not referring to one which is "holy" as such..

I seem to also recall that the early "christians" also did not believe jesus was an embodiment of god himself but a prophet, like abraham for example - and the idea that he was"part" of God came later?

(excuse my crude terminology, im at work, and my minds in 5 places at once)


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Where are you thinking of?
> 
> By adoption, not in the same way as Jesus.
> 
> Liz


A couple, from a quick google. There are more, in the epistles, in John, as I'm sure you know.

Matthew 5:9

9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Luke 20:36

36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> But how is that an evolutionary advantage to you? Why not just take what you can and never give anything back unless there is something in it for you?
> Perhaps. I am not convinced.


Evolutionary advantage isnt the same thing as personal advantage. NOTHING i do now will give ME an evolutionary advantage. Thats not how evolution works. Even if i take what i can and do nothing for anyone else i wont evolve beyond what i am already.
But when we learned to use spears for hunting we no longer needed great strength, or hard bones or sharp teeth or whatever. If we pass that knoowledge down through many many generations we may evolve better depth perception to make landing a spear easier, better language to facilitate the hunting of large prey in "packs", more dexterity (which leads to better tools which leads to being "top dog" of your species), more brain power since our evolution no longer demands that we keep up with the evolutionary arms race, and less dense skulls enabling our brains to be larger.


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> Its been some time since i read "History of god" but am i right in saying that other scriptures from the era, and OT scriptures refer to Son of god throughout, not referring to one which is "holy" as such..


No. The term is only ever used in the OT of the nation of Israel, never of an individual.


> I seem to also recall that the early "christians" also did not believe jesus was an embodiment of god himself but a prophet, like abraham for example - and the idea that he was"part" of God came later?


The theology of Acts is probably the place to start here. The term "Son of God" appears in Acts 9:20, also in the epistles and the Gospels. The concept of the Trinity certainly came later as the church worked it through.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> A couple, from a quick google. There are more, in the epistles, in John, as I'm sure you know.
> 
> Matthew 5:9
> 
> 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
> 
> Luke 20:36
> 
> 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.


Thank you. Those are in the plural, the term is used in quite a different way of Jesus (monogenes is the key). The epistles distinquish between Christ who is the Son of God and Christians who are adopted as sons, they are not "natural born" sons, Christ is.

Liz


----------



## lizward

porps said:


> Evolutionary advantage isnt the same thing as personal advantage. NOTHING i do now will give ME an evolutionary advantage. Thats not how evolution works. Even if i take what i can and do nothing for anyone else i wont evolve beyond what i am already.


But in evolutionary terms your reason for existence is to pass your genes on. That is what I am talking about. Giving YOU (or, if you are too old to reproduce, your offsrping) the best advantage in terms of surviving and passing their genes on. I don't think i need to spell out how this could be done.

Liz


----------



## porps

lizward said:


> But in evolutionary terms your reason for existence is to pass your genes on. That is what I am talking about. Giving YOU (or, if you are too old to reproduce, your offsrping) the best advantage in terms of surviving and passing their genes on. I don't think i need to spell out how this could be done.
> 
> Liz


If kindness is a desirable trait in your species then being kind would increase the chances of passing your genes on to the next generation.


----------



## Guest

Im terribly saddened how hard it is for some people to understand and accept that goodness, kindness and love can and indeed do exist for their own sake.

There is an evolutionary advantage to feeling love, yes. For example, mothers secrete hormones during lactation that ensure that she will find it pleasurable and will repeat the process as necessary, thus ensuring the survival of offspring. But it goes beyond that.

There is no evolutionary need for literature, yet we write it and read it and enjoy it. There is no evolutionary need for artwork, yet we create it for the enjoyment of others. There is plenty that humans do that serves absolutely no evolutionary purpose. And before you go saying that god had a hand in beautiful art and literature, know also that masturbation is another evolutionary non-necessity that all humans (yes ALL at some point or another) take part in  

But back to my point. I find it sad and frankly a dangerous proposition when people dont believe that goodness can exist for its own sake. Because that says to me that person believes in their heart that all humans are innately evil, not good. I believe the absolute opposite. I believe that humans are by and large innately good. That we innately care about each other and feel solidarity for each other. 

If on the other hand, I believed that everyone is evil EXCEPT those who have bought in to the same superstition I have, how easy now it becomes to simply dismiss the others. 
This sort of separation is what leads to people enslaving others, to wars, to people looking on and doing nothing in the face of genocides. Because after all, theyre just others. Its easy to rationalize this sort of thing with an attitude of "They dont have the same goodness in them that we do, us chosen ones.

But now, if I view all humans as fellow brothers and sisters of the human race, as equals, as all made of the same materials of the earth and stars (which we are), then I cant look on while my fellow human is enslaved and rationalize. I cant but do something, because that is my fellow brother/sister being mistreated. It could be me, my children, my parents. I SEE the mistreatment for what it is because those people are my people. 

Ill quote again. "Without religion good people would still do good deeds, and evil people would still do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Thank you. Those are in the plural, the term is used in quite a different way of Jesus (monogenes is the key). The epistles distinquish between Christ who is the Son of God and Christians who are adopted as sons, they are not "natural born" sons, Christ is.
> 
> Liz


Monogenes...only begotten. It appears in John, which I mentioned earlier:

"John is the only gospel to refer to Jesus as the "only son of god", which as a later gospel fits in with the development of the christian theology that Jesus was divine."

We are going round those circles of your mind again.

The gospel of John, generally dated at around the end of the 1st Century AD was a more theologically developed work than the synoptics. By this point the belief in Jesus as a deity, promoted by Paul (in contrast with Peter and James, who were, y'know eye witnesses) had taken root. John is written in the light of this, which would explain why his is the only one to talk of Jesus as god's "only begotten son".

The uses of son of god in the synoptics in no way suggest a claim to being divine, any more than a christian today who calls god their father is claiming divinity.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> *No. The term is only ever used in the OT of the nation of Israel, never of an individual.*
> 
> The theology of Acts is probably the place to start here. The term "Son of God" appears in Acts 9:20, also in the epistles and the Gospels. The concept of the Trinity certainly came later as the church worked it through.
> 
> Liz


Give over. You must know that's not true.

The term son of god is used about kings, leaders, judges as a way of showing that their authority came from god. 
There is even a passage where god himself refers to one of the prophets as his son (I'll google for it if you insist, but as you know the bible so much better than anyone else, I'm sure you know the reference). So was this prophet god too? All the kings etc. who are called son of god?


----------



## grumpy goby

myshkin said:


> Give over. You must know that's not true.
> 
> The term son of god is used about kings, leaders, judges as a way of showing that their authority came from god.
> There is even a passage where god himself refers to one of the prophets as his son (I'll google for it if you insist, but as you know the bible so much better than anyone else, I'm sure you know the reference). So was this prophet god too? All the kings etc. who are called son of god?


With reference to my post, (that liz replies to here), can you clarify for me pls? My knowledge is from a book I have not read for along time and is not currently in my posession!

I understand the reference to son of god being used, in jewish faith rather than OT, as well as other scriptures found (if im correct?)
Were the earliest christians of the idea that he was a man/prophet rather than more literal son of god?? - I just want to check my own understandings


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> No. You are one of those who claims to have read the Bible - remember the man born blind. In fact all death and sickness in the world results from Adam's sin.
> 
> Liz


How many more times are you going to call me a liar Liz? How many more spiteful vituperations are you going to show yourself up with before you accept that you are not the only person on here to have read the bible?

Of course I remember the man born blind - but despite your having read the bible a zillion times, I don't think you've picked a pertinent story from the bible to illustrate your answer to my post.

I spoke about god being a crap designer for designing disabled people, and then copping out by blaming the disabled person himself for his disability.

You reply with a verse from the bible in which Jesus tells his disciples that it is not the man's fault he was born blind, nor his parents' fault - Jesus explains that he was, in fact, born blind so that Jesus could heal him as proof that god worked through him.

So this verse is, in fact, admitting that this supposedly benevolent god deliberately designed a man to be blind until adulthood so that he could be miraculously healed. Putting to one side for a moment the fact that a god who plays these kinds if games is not a very benevolent god, are you really trying to argue that this is the only disability caused by god, and that for every other person born blind, or born with some other disability, is their own fault?

The verse does not even fit in with the other nonsense that you are trying to argue - ie that because Adam gained knowledge a god didn't want him to, this somehow means that random people will be born with a disability, or that random babies somewhere will be born into starvation and die a dreadful, lingering death.

Liz, can you not see that even if this nonsense were true, and God is punishing the descendants of Adam for what Adam learned - then this means he is not a very nice god and certainly not one worth worshipping? In fact, if a person alive today were to go around killing people because their ancestors had done something he didn't like, he would be looked upon as a psychopath and locked away forever. This is the kind of god you feel is worthy of worship?


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Monogenes...only begotten. It appears in John, which I mentioned earlier:
> 
> "John is the only gospel to refer to Jesus as the "only son of god", which as a later gospel fits in with the development of the christian theology that Jesus was divine."


Are you denying that Jesus himself actually made the claim?



> The gospel of John, generally dated at around the end of the 1st Century AD was a more theologically developed work than the synoptics. By this point the belief in Jesus as a deity, promoted by Paul (in contrast with Peter and James, who were, y'know eye witnesses) had taken root. John is written in the light of this, which would explain why his is the only one to talk of Jesus as god's "only begotten son".


Have you missed the point that John is also an eye witness account?



> The uses of son of god in the synoptics in no way suggest a claim to being divine, any more than a christian today who calls god their father is claiming divinity.


You don't think the claim to be the Son of Man (cf. Daniel 7) and that as such he would come again in power as judge (Matthew 24-25, Mark 14 etc) was a claim to divinity?

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> The term son of god is used about kings, leaders, judges as a way of showing that their authority came from god.


Where? I did search before I posted just to be sure but I can;t find the term in the OT.



> There is even a passage where god himself refers to one of the prophets as his son (I'll google for it if you insist, but as you know the bible so much better than anyone else, I'm sure you know the reference). So was this prophet god too? All the kings etc. who are called son of god?


I can't find the verse you are referring to - what is it?

Liz


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> Were the earliest christians of the idea that he was a man/prophet rather than more literal son of god?? - I just want to check my own understandings


Read Acts - it won't take you long and is a good read. You'll see the earliest Christian theology there.

liz


----------



## myshkin

grumpy goby said:


> With reference to my post, (that liz replies to here), can you clarify for me pls? My knowledge is from a book I have not read for along time and is not currently in my posession!
> 
> I understand the reference to son of god being used, in jewish faith rather than OT, as well as other scriptures found (if im correct?)
> *Were the earliest christians of the idea that he was a man/prophet rather than more literal son of god?? - I just want to check my own understandings*


Like most history, it's very much theorising, of course. But some theories carry the weight of academic investigation. Most of my ramblings on here are based on studying under Chris Tuckett (now at Oxford, I've just discovered, strangely pleased for someone I haven't seen in nearly 20 years, and who would be unlikely to remember me!), who is pretty well respected in new testament studies.

A more or less accepted view in scholarly circles is that the early christians, being jewish, fully understood the metaphorical nature of the term "son of god". As jews, they were looking for a messiah, not a deity (as they already had one, and in fact to call a man literally god would have been quite blasphemous).

Then came Paul. He had a real drive to convert gentiles too, and if I remember rightly there is evidence of conflict between Paul and the original leaders such as Peter and James on this. The metaphorical use of the term was very much a semite trait (as you mention, other pre-Judaic texts use this term too) so the gentiles, being unused to the idiom, took it literally.

That's generally accepted as the reason why John's gospel (which is very much a work that describes the theology of the author, in contrast with the other three, which aim to give an historical account) is the only one to use the term in a way that indicates that Jesus was literally the son of god. It was written later, after this belief had begun to develop.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> I spoke about god being a crap designer for designing disabled people, and then copping out by blaming the disabled person himself for his disability.


Alright, I'll help you

John 9:1-3 "As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Now, how is this God blaming the person for having a disability? Because that was the claim you made.



> Putting to one side for a moment the fact that a god who plays these kinds if games is not a very benevolent god, are you really trying to argue that this is the only disability caused by god, and that for every other person born blind, or born with some other disability, is their own fault?


You really are very good at putting words into my mouth, aren;t you. Once again (YOU should KNOW this even if you don't believe it any more) ALL death and sickness in the world results from Adam's sin. Not the sin of the individual.



> Liz, can you not see that even if this nonsense were true, and God is punishing the descendants of Adam for what Adam learned - then this means he is not a very nice god and certainly not one worth worshipping? In fact, if a person alive today were to go around killing people because their ancestors had done something he didn't like, he would be looked upon as a psychopath and locked away forever. This is the kind of god you feel is worthy of worship?


GOD has the RIGHT to make his own rules. Whether you like them or not is totally beside the point.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> That's generally accepted as the reason why John's gospel (which is very much a work that describes the theology of the author, in contrast with the other three, which aim to give an historical account) is the only one to use the term in a way that indicates that Jesus was literally the son of god. It was written later, after this belief had begun to develop.


By an author who, oops, happened to be Jewish, as Paul was.

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

myshkin said:


> Like most history, it's very much theorising, of course. But some theories carry the weight of academic investigation. Most of my ramblings on here are based on studying under Chris Tuckett (now at Oxford, I've just discovered, strangely pleased for someone I haven't seen in nearly 20 years, and who would be unlikely to remember me!), who is pretty well respected in new testament studies.
> 
> A more or less accepted view in scholarly circles is that the early christians, being jewish, fully understood the metaphorical nature of the term "son of god". As jews, they were looking for a messiah, not a deity (as they already had one, and in fact to call a man literally god would have been quite blasphemous).
> 
> Then came Paul. He had a real drive to convert gentiles too, and if I remember rightly there is evidence of conflict between Paul and the original leaders such as Peter and James on this. The metaphorical use of the term was very much a semite trait (as you mention, other pre-Judaic texts use this term too) so the gentiles, being unused to the idiom, took it literally.
> 
> That's generally accepted as the reason why John's gospel (which is very much a work that describes the theology of the author, in contrast with the other three, which aim to give an historical account) is the only one to use the term in a way that indicates that Jesus was literally the son of god. It was written later, after this belief had begun to develop.


Thanks for this. I was at one time looking at doing an OU course in theology and sociology - but money got in the way... instead i have to settle for boring engineering courses i can get funding for :frown:


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> By an author who, oops, happened to be Jewish, as Paul was.
> 
> Liz


I dont even own a bible anymore! but im sure my mum has one i can pinch to look at


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Where? I did search before I posted just to be sure but I can;t find the term in the OT.
> 
> I can't find the verse you are referring to - what is it?
> 
> Liz


DAVID:
I will declare thee a decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. PSALMS 2.7

2 Sam. 7.14
I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever. 17In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

Wisdom 2
12: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13: He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14: He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15: the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16: We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17: Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18: for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.

Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him. JEREMIAH 31.20

He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father. I CHRONICLES 22.10

And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. 1 CHRONICLES 28.6

That's the last time I go googling to provide references for someone who has has made such a point about having superior knowledge of the bible because they've read it so many times!


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> By an author who, oops, happened to be Jewish, as Paul was.
> 
> Liz


If a couple of centuries worth of biblical scholars can't come to any conclusions on who "John" was, I doubt we can...if he was even a single person, which is very much in dispute.


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> Thanks for this. I was at one time looking at doing an OU course in theology and sociology - but money got in the way... instead i have to settle for boring engineering courses i can get funding for :frown:


OU are horribly expensive now - I have two degrees from them (not my theology degree though). Couldn't afford to study with them now 

Liz


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> I dont even own a bible anymore! but im sure my mum has one i can pinch to look at


There are lots online, you might try

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> DAVID:
> I will declare thee a decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. PSALMS 2.7


Hebrews 1:5 - Christians regard this as a prophecy of Christ.



> 2 Sam. 7.14
> I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me


I would see this as speaking in terms of adoption, wouldn't you? Anyway clearly you have not found the phrase "Son of God" in the OT.



> Wisdom 2
> 12: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13: He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14: He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15: the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16: We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17: Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18: for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.


Ah, thank you for that one. As you know, it is not a book accepted by Protestants but I will agree that it gives an insight into Jewish thoguht between the Testmaments. Still, this is a claim in a completely different league to the claim of Jesus to be THE Son of God, isn't it?



> Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him. JEREMIAH 31.20


That's the nation!



> That's the last time I go googling to provide references for someone who has has made such a point about having superior knowledge of the bible because they've read it so many times!


Your claim was that the phrase "Son of God" appeared in the OT. Do you agree now that it doesn't?

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> *The term son of god* is used about kings, leaders, judges as a way of showing that their authority came from god.
> There is even a passage where god himself refers to one of the prophets as his son (I'll google for it if you insist, but as you know the bible so much better than anyone else, I'm sure you know the reference). So was this prophet god too? All the kings etc. who are called son of god?


This was your exact claim. Emphasis mine. You were wrong. O, and who was that prophet? You never did answer that one. You found two kings, not a prophet.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> If a couple of centuries worth of biblical scholars can't come to any conclusions on who "John" was, I doubt we can...if he was even a single person, which is very much in dispute.


But he claims to be an eyewitness, whoever he was.

Liz


----------



## DogLover1981

To add to my post from yesterday, there are huge survival advantages to some humans traits. Not many animals can have a complex language with which to communicate. Ancient humans living in the savanna in Africa could tell each other where food is, what is safe to eat, have complex hunting strategies and even teach their children the strategies. Humans could also cooperate and hunt in groups. Living in groups gives you some degree of protection from lions and other dangerous animals. Living in a group also helps if a member of the group is injured in a hunt or any other way. If he is seriously injured he can be fed by other members. I was reading a while back there have been bones found of different human species with injuries that would have probably made them unable to get their own food and living long after the injuries occurred. If your living in a group, it's helpful and better for the survival of the species to be able to think about the needs of your group, the people in the group and not just think of your own survival.


----------



## Guest

Liz, I have a question for you.

How does your belief in Jesus as your savior make you a more humane person? 
What can you, as a believer, do to benefit your fellow humans that I, as a non-believer can not?


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Alright, I'll help you
> 
> John 9:1-3 "As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
> 
> Now, how is this God blaming the person for having a disability? Because that was the claim you made.


I made no such claim. I said:



Spellweaver said:


> Jesus explains that he was, in fact, born blind so that Jesus could heal him as proof that god worked through him.


That's the part of the verse outlined in green - that's what it means, Liz  - and then I went on to explain



Spellweaver said:


> So this verse is, in fact, admitting that this supposedly benevolent god deliberately designed a man to be blind until adulthood so that he could be miraculously healed.


In other words, god caused the man to grow up with a disability all his life just so Jesus could heal him when he was an adult.

See, Liz - I didn't need any help. I knew the scripture, knew what it meant. Now you, however, don't seem to understand what it means at all if you think that this is proof of original sin. So instead of pretending you know everythinhg, any time you need my help to understand the bible, just ask.



Spellweaver said:


> You really are very good at putting words into my mouth, aren;t you. Once again (YOU should KNOW this even if you don't believe it any more) ALL death and sickness in the world results from Adam's sin. Not the sin of the individual.


That is not true. That is merely what you believe, and what you cited the passage about the blind man to try to prove. And as I have shown, it does not prove it at all because it is talking about something entirely different from original sin.



Spellweaver said:


> GOD has the RIGHT to make his own rules. Liz


I do not accept your premise.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Are you denying that Jesus himself actually made the claim?
> 
> I denied that quite clearly a few pages back.
> 
> Have you missed the point that John is also an eye witness account?
> 
> If, and it's a big if, it was, it was at least 60 years after the events, and quite likely to contain more than one author.
> 
> You don't think the claim to be the Son of Man (cf. Daniel 7) and that as such he would come again in power as judge (Matthew 24-25, Mark 14 etc) was a claim to divinity?
> 
> The term "son of man" poses something of a problem in discerning a consistent meaning for it...it does appear to relate to prophecy, but there is no pre-Christian evidence for that idea. An idea concieved after the events can only be used in the kind of circular argument you specialise in.
> Liz





lizward said:


> Hebrews 1:5 - Christians regard this as a prophecy of Christ.
> 
> Well, that's nice for them, but I think the hebrews who wrote it may have something to say about that. Another circular argument, these tend to happen when your premise is what you believe it means - you fit everything in with that, whether it makes sense or not.
> 
> I would see this as speaking in terms of adoption, wouldn't you? Anyway clearly you have not found the phrase "Son of God" in the OT.
> 
> Ah, thank you for that one. As you know, it is not a book accepted by Protestants but I will agree that it gives an insight into Jewish thoguht between the Testmaments. Still, this is a claim in a completely different league to the claim of Jesus to be THE Son of God, isn't it?
> 
> Nope, didn't know that, and I'm not sure what protestantism has to do with the cultural norms of the OT and the first century AD? God's son/son of god...hebrew idiom didn't see a difference, any more than any of the biblical scholars have.
> 
> That's the nation!
> 
> Yes, and being prophecy, it's highly metaphorical in its language. But I'm pretty sure you don't accept metaphor...
> 
> Your claim was that the phrase "Son of God" appeared in the OT. Do you agree now that it doesn't?
> 
> Liz


Just to be clear...generations of biblical scholars don't think that there are differences in meaning when the phrase is expressed in different ways, but you think it clinches the argument?

I've done enough googling for one day, it's your turn to do some homework: find me an academic reference that supports your view that son of god was not a well known phrase in the idiom of first century judaism.
And if it's from a source that is creationist/fundamentalist/evangelical, well then I'm afraid I just will not accept whatever premise it argues from.


----------



## DogLover1981

> There is an evolutionary advantage to feeling love, yes. For example, mothers secrete hormones during lactation that ensure that she will find it pleasurable and will repeat the process as necessary, thus ensuring the survival of offspring. But it goes beyond that.


I read an article about dogs with a part about how oxytocin levels increase when a person is petting and interacting with their dog and oxytocin levels increase in the dog as well.



> There is no evolutionary need for literature, yet we write it and read it and enjoy it. There is no evolutionary need for artwork, yet we create it for the enjoyment of others. There is plenty that humans do that serves absolutely no evolutionary purpose. And before you go saying that god had a hand in beautiful art and literature, know also that masturbation is another evolutionary non-necessity that all humans (yes ALL at some point or another) take part in


I think many traits of humans have more to do with modern society and culture than any particular evolutionary trait. I was reading a while back that there is evidence that masturbation has health benefits and may increase fertility. lol


----------



## myshkin

grumpy goby said:


> Thanks for this. I was at one time looking at doing an OU course in theology and sociology - but money got in the way... instead i have to settle for boring engineering courses i can get funding for :frown:


That is a shame. I think mine may have been the last generation which didn't have to pay tuition fees, which meant we had the luxury of choosing study for it's own sake. It's a shame to think of how the "non essential" subjects will lose enquiring minds who are forced to study with a specific job in mind


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> In evolutionary terms, how does feeling good help?
> 
> Now in fact there is another explanation and it's in the Bible. Christ himself said "it is more blessed to give than to receive". Every time you give to others and feel good about doing so, you are proving his words true. Christianity explains altruism, evolution does not.
> 
> Liz





lizward said:


> Fine, but I don't come across many people who, when someone's loved one has died, say "O well, we all die, I'm sorry for your loss" without making some comment about "being in a better place now". But perhaps you know different.
> 
> Liz


Evolution has encouraged us to live and work in packs because it was safer and of benefit to theindividual. We continue to live and work together because we like company. We are born with one fear, that of falling. All other fears are possibly retained memory (fear of the dark may be linked to living in caves with a fire at the entrance to ward off wild animals, dunno) or engendered by parents with their choice of bedtime stories.

I don't need religion to tell me I prefer to live with someone as opposed to alone. It is evolutionary advantageous for multiple reasons.



lizward said:


> Possibly. Doesn't explain why we might be nice to those with a mental handicap though.
> Liz


OMG, Liz! What an appalling statement to make! I'm nice to my mentally impaired family member and to the kids in the special unit at work because I _like_ them, shock, horror! I love my family members, quite naturally I am nice to them, regardless of mental or physical ability. again, no need of religion to ensure this! I'm pretty sure that prehistoric man did not protect and care for his tribe because the big man in the sky told him that's he ought to behave.

As for saying someone's in a better place when they die, how patronising! If I came out with such condescending crap at a funeral, I think the bereaved would floor me! Such a dreadful cliché!


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> I made no such claim.


This is what you said "I spoke about god being a crap designer for designing disabled people, and then copping out by blaming the disabled person himself for his disability."



> That is not true. That is merely what you believe, and what you cited the passage about the blind man to try to prove.


I used that passage to prove that God does not blame the disabled person for his disability, not to prove the doctrine of original sin - to do that, I would go to Romans. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear there.



> I do not accept your premise.


Well that is rather a ridiculous scenario isn't it, that the creator of the universe does not have the right to make the rules?

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Liz, I have a question for you.
> 
> How does your belief in Jesus as your savior make you a more humane person?


Yes


> What can you, as a believer, do to benefit your fellow humans that I, as a non-believer can not?


Nothing - well, nothing you would accept as valid. It is, however, logical for me to do good to others whereas it is not logical for you to do so.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> I denied that quite clearly a few pages back.


Which other claims aboit himself you you deny he made - the one about retuning with the clouds? Being the Messiah? Which ones?



> H
> If, and it's a big if, it was, it was at least 60 years after the events, and quite likely to contain more than one author.


We are now 70 years after the second world war. As for more than one author, are you referring to the last chapter being apparently a post-script?



> The term "son of man" poses something of a problem in discerning a consistent meaning for it...it does appear to relate to prophecy, but there is no pre-Christian evidence for that idea.


Do you believe Jesus used the term or not? If so, what do you think he meant by it in Matthew 24 and 25 and in Mark 14?



> Well, that's nice for them, but I think the hebrews who wrote it may have something to say about that.


You think Hebrews was written by multiple authors???



> Just to be clear...generations of biblical scholars don't think that there are differences in meaning when the phrase is expressed in different ways, but you think it clinches the argument?


The phrase "son of God" does not appear in the OT. You were wrong.

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Well that is rather a ridiculous scenario isn't it, that the creator of the universe does not have the right to make the rules?
> 
> Liz


Your premise is that there is a "creator" ; she does not accept your premise. It's not ridiculous at all; your god does not exist therefore using something that does not exist as proof is not a premise anyone using rational thought would accept.


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> The phrase "son of God" does not appear in the OT. You were wrong.
> 
> Liz


Maybe that actual phrase doesnt appear - but God calling someone his son does - if God himself is calling someone his son, does that not make him the son of God?

_A clear example of the term "Son of God" being used in Jewish scripture is that Prophet Solomon (peace be with him) is called "Son of God" in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and is even quoted by God as saying he is His Son, in the book 1 Chronicles. _

I thought the whole article was too long to post here, but here is the link if you are interested 

Son of God in the Bible


----------



## Elmo the Bear

MCWillow said:


> Maybe that actual phrase doesnt appear - but God calling someone his son does - if God himself is calling someone his son, does that not make him the son of God?
> 
> _A clear example of the term "Son of God" being used in Jewish scripture is that Prophet Solomon (peace be with him) is called "Son of God" in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and is even quoted by God as saying he is His Son, in the book 1 Chronicles. _
> 
> I thought the whole article was too long to post here, but here is the link if you are interested
> 
> Son of God in the Bible


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Son of God


----------



## Guest

ouesi said:


> Liz, I have a question for you.
> 
> How does your belief in Jesus as your savior make you a more humane person?





lizward said:


> Yes


Erm... That wasnt a yes or no question. Note the How at the beginning.



ouesi said:


> What can you, as a believer, do to benefit your fellow humans that I, as a non-believer can not?





lizward said:


> Nothing - well, nothing you would accept as valid. It is, however, logical for me to do good to others whereas it is not logical for you to do so.


Right, nothing.
Now why would you say it is not logical for me to do good?

Do you truly believe good cannot exist without your god?

Are you familiar with the Doctors Without Borders program? It is completely without religious affiliation of any kind. Do you know how many humanitarian organizations like that are out there? People doing good simply because they WANT to. Not because theyre trying to procure a spot in heaven or avoid hell. Just because they want to do good. Because they feel compelled to help their fellow humans. Period.

How is it that this sort of thing happens all the time worldwide? Good deeds done by good people.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Which other claims aboit himself you you deny he made - the one about retuning with the clouds? Being the Messiah? Which ones?
> 
> The messiah in jewish culture was not, and is not, god.
> 
> We are now 70 years after the second world war. As for more than one author, are you referring to the last chapter being apparently a post-script?
> 
> The second world war has records on film, readily accessible documents etc. And in case you are wondering, ask any policeman how reliable eye witness accounts are, after even as short a period of a year. I'm not referring to the last chapter, mainly because I now know exactly what you'll say about a few hundred years of scholarly debate, and it's getting a bit depressing now.
> 
> Do you believe Jesus used the term or not? If so, what do you think he meant by it in Matthew 24 and 25 and in Mark 14?
> 
> I don't believe anything, I interpret the texts in the light of what we know about the time, and of literary criticism. We don't know anything about the term "son of man" other than what christian theology has to say. To extract conclusions from that would be to indulge in the kind of circular argument beloved of the closed mind.
> 
> You think Hebrews was written by multiple authors???
> 
> Most of the bible was. Only fundamentalists believe otherwise.
> 
> The phrase "son of God" does not appear in the OT. You were wrong.
> 
> Liz


Too tediously predictable to answer. I admit when I've been wrong. You still haven't shown me that academic reference that backs up your circular arguments. Because you ignore what you can't answer. I await with baited breath. Actually, that's just me being sarcastic, you will never open your mind, and I'm starting to feel cruel about continuing this.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

myshkin said:


> Too tediously predictable to answer. I admit when I've been wrong. .


You weren't wrong

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Son of God


----------



## myshkin

Elmo the Bear said:


> You weren't wrong
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Son of God


Ach, I know I wasn't, but thanks anyways  I'm just getting all head hurting from bashing against a brick wall now.....time for bed!


----------



## swarthy

Wow - this thread has gone way OT and seems to read more like a scripture lesson now with everyone putting forward their interpretation of the bible - being a minister / vicar / priest / lay preacher doesn't place someone on a higher plain in terms of their interpretation being correct - the magic word being "interpretation" which will always include some level of subjectivity or brainwashing to believe what you are told.



lizward said:


> GOD has the RIGHT to make his own rules. Whether you like them or not is totally beside the point.


I am watching "Soham: a Parents tale" - if god has the right to make his own rules - then he's got a pretty warped sense of right and wrong when heinous crimes like this are allowed to happen; or when my daughter lost two schoolmates in the case of a few weeks, one murdered (by children), one dropped dead playing football. (just 17 and 16 years old).

The amount of overlooked atrocities going on in the world should be enough for anyone to question their faith - because I'm afraid I can't think of one single justification for rules that say it's OK to murder anyone, even moreso murdering defenceless, innocent children 

I've no doubt someone will have a theory that these happenings have nothing to do with there being a god and I'm sure will be attributed towards evil forces counteracting gods work - to believe this, you have to also be a believer of satanism or whatever evil force makes all these bad things happen


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Out of interest I googled "Why does god allow children to be murdered"... there are various BS answers ranging from the "excuse" to the complete whack job...

This one -
_"When people choose to rape and hurt and murder, there are consequences to those decisions. You can't protect people from rape while at the same time allow people to choose to rape. We are not made for this world, we are made for Heaven. This world is imperfect and full of hurt and pain. God wants us to turn to Him for comfort, not turn to the world. If the world was perfect, then there'd be no reason to turn to God._"

So god likes it when people are raped and murdered and positively encourages it, in order that we'll turn to him for comfort!

_"Part of it is that God gave us free will, and it does make him incredibly sad to see these people hurt, but he did give us a promise of free will. He can help us, give us strength, wisdom, bravery, he might even use the method of guilt to try and stop people, but he can't control anyone"_

Apparently it's because he gave us freewill but then likes to punish us for exercising that freewill. Bit sadistic really - you can do what you like but I'll punish you..... bit of an odd chap/woman/ethereal being this god.

_"God the creator's plan does not involve people being raped or murdered etc. But the other god, the god of this world has control over this world at the moment and his plan does include these things. Now, everyone that is born into this world is subject to the god of this world unless they accept the gift of holy spirit by accepting Jesus as Lord. If they do that they are free from the god of this world who then has no more hold over them. They can then be free of his works and can claim the right to command him to leave them alone. And they can claim God's protection. I have done this a few times now and my life has been protected and saved many times."_

Oh I see... it's not _that_ god, it's another god (whack job)


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Maybe that actual phrase doesnt appear - but God calling someone his son does - if God himself is calling someone his son, does that not make him the son of God? I thought the whole article was too long to post here, but here is the link if you are interested
> 
> Son of God in the Bible


I see that author doesn't know the meaning of searching for a phrase either. Son of God is a title (as well as a reality), the title does not appear in the OT. The idea of the king being God's adopted son certainly does appear but since the actual parentage of the kings concerned is made very clear (no claim is made that David or Solomon were born of virgins!) there is no implication at al that this is referring to anything supernatural. In the case of Jesus, the claim is made that he was born of a virgin and besides, he was not an earthly king.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Son of God


Thank you for that (they are using the plural term again - no-one is disputing that the plural term occurs several times in the OT). Did you notice the last paragraph?

"St. Paul in the Epistles, which were written much earlier than most of our Gospels, clearly teaches the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He was the true Son of God; and it is important to remember that his enemies the Judaizers never dared to attack this teaching, *a fact which proves that they could not find the smallest semblance of a discrepancy between his doctrines on this point and that of the other Apostles.*" (emphasis mine)

I had not thought of that before and it will be helpful to me so thank you for the link.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Erm... That wasnt a yes or no question. Note the How at the beginning.


O, sorry. I am a better person because I am a Christian. There are things I will not do because I am a Christian that would harm other people. There are things I do because I am a Christian that help other people. That does not mean I am as good as you, it just means I am better than I would be if I were not a Christian.



> Now why would you say it is not logical for me to do good?


Explained many times. I understand that you do not agree.



> Do you truly believe good cannot exist without your god?


Yes. However if you mean without _belief_ in God then of course the answer is no.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Too tediously predictable to answer. I admit when I've been wrong. You still haven't shown me that academic reference that backs up your circular arguments. Because you ignore what you can't answer. I await with baited breath. Actually, that's just me being sarcastic, you will never open your mind, and I'm starting to feel cruel about continuing this.


I see you are dodging the question. What do you think Jesus meant when he used the term "Son of man" about himself in Matthew 24 and 25, and in Mark 14? I will make it easy for any who might be reading:

Matthew 24: 30-31 "Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Matthew 25: 31-32 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."

Mark 14: 61-62 "Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. "

Now, what did Jesus mean by calling himself "Son of Man" in these passages? What did he mean by agreeing "I am" when asked if he was the Son of the Blessed? (bear in mind that he was on trial for his life at the time)

Liz


----------



## lizward

swarthy said:


> I am watching "Soham: a Parents tale" - if god has the right to make his own rules - then he's got a pretty warped sense of right and wrong when heinous crimes like this are allowed to happen; or when my daughter lost two schoolmates in the case of a few weeks, one murdered (by children), one dropped dead playing football. (just 17 and 16 years old).


OK, what do you think God should have done to stop it?

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> This is what you said "I spoke about god being a crap designer for designing disabled people, and then copping out by blaming the disabled person himself for his disability."
> 
> I used that passage to prove that God does not blame the disabled person for his disability, not to prove the doctrine of original sin - to do that, I would go to Romans. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear there.


No, you did try to use that passage to prove the doctrine of original sin. This is how the conversation went:



ouesi said:


> I also find his comments on sociopaths and psychopaths rather interesting too. There are truly evil people. Are they too made in the image of god?





lizward said:


> You are forgetting about sin.
> Liz





Spellweaver said:


> Ah - so if your god designs a human that malfunctions, it's not because he's a crap designer, it's because that human sinned and caused his own malfunction. What a cop-out.





lizward said:


> No. You are one of those who claims to have read the Bible - remember the man born blind. In fact all death and sickness in the world results from Adam's sin.
> Liz


And Liz, even if your back-pedalling were true and you did intend to use that passage to prove that god does not blame a disabled person for his disability, then you have STILL chosen the wrong passage. This passage is about something god *deliberately did* to one person so that in his adult life he could be healed by the son of god to prove god's works. It does not prove that god doesn't blame the ordinary disabled person for his sin.

Oh, and btw - even if you _had_ quoted Romans (I presume you mean Romans 5: 12-21) there is nothing in there about disability - it merely speaks about the consequence of Adam's original sin being death in this world. Nothing there about disability or illness at all. (Are you sure you don't want my help in reading the bible? )



lizward said:


> Well that is rather a ridiculous scenario isn't it, that the creator of the universe does not have the right to make the rules?
> 
> Liz


But I don't accept your premise that your god is the creator of the universe. The universe existed - gods, goddesses as well - long before your johnny-come-lately god arrived on the scene and decided he would try to take credit for it all.

And as for making ridiculous statements - I'm way behind you in that category! You are the shining star of making ridiculous statements on this thread! I cannot hope to compete with "dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood", or "you can't get anything from old or disabled people", or "how can you like the mentally ill" - and that's before we get onto all the childish nonsense of "my god created your god".

I know Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belonged to such as children, but surely he meant those who had the innocence and purity of children, and not those who acted in the childish way of "my god's better than your god ner ner ner."


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, and btw - even if you _had_ quoted Romans (I presume you mean Romans 5: 12-21) there is nothing in there about disability - it merely speaks about the consequence of Adam's original sin being death in this world. Nothing there about disability or illness at all. (Are you sure you don't want my help in reading the bible? )


O for goodness sake. You claim to know such a lot about Christianity. If you really did understand what you were taught then you must be aware that Christian teaching is that all death, sickness, evil etc in the world result from the fall of Adam. Were you not taught that?



> But I don't accept your premise that your god is the creator of the universe. The universe existed - gods, goddesses as well - long before your johnny-come-lately god arrived on the scene.


Once again, the creator of the universe was there first. Obviously. If you don't think God created the universe, who did. Or did your gods and goddesses just evolve?

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> O for goodness sake. You claim to know such a lot about Christianity. If you really did understand what you were taught then you must be aware that Christian teaching is that all death, sickness, evil etc in the world result from the fall of Adam. Were you not taught that?


No, I was taught that Adam's original sin meant that we would die in this world instead of having eternal life in the garden of eden.

Stop ducking and diving Liz. You - who supposedly have read the bible zillions of times - quoted something that did not prove what you wanted it to prove and you have done it twice now. First of all you used the passage about the blind man to prove that god does not blame a person for his disability - which it does not. And secondly, despite your saying that the passage in Romans says that all sickness stems from Adam's original sin, *it does not actually say that*.

So lets have less of the snide little remarks of my "claiming" to have read the bible or "claiming" to know about christianity - because as things stand I'm quickly proving I know a hell of a lot more than you.



lizward said:


> Once again, the creator of the universe was there first. Obviously.


Only if you believe in the creation. If you don't, then the above statement is nonsense.



lizward said:


> If you don't think God created the universe, who did. Or did your gods and goddesses just evolve?
> Liz


Yes.


----------



## Starlite

Elmo the Bear said:


> Out of interest I googled "Why does god allow children to be murdered"... there are various BS answers ranging from the "excuse" to the complete whack job...
> 
> This one -
> _"When people choose to rape and hurt and murder, there are consequences to those decisions. You can't protect people from rape while at the same time allow people to choose to rape. We are not made for this world, we are made for Heaven. This world is imperfect and full of hurt and pain. God wants us to turn to Him for comfort, not turn to the world. If the world was perfect, then there'd be no reason to turn to God._"
> 
> So god likes it when people are raped and murdered and positively encourages it, in order that we'll turn to him for comfort!
> 
> _"Part of it is that God gave us free will, and it does make him incredibly sad to see these people hurt, but he did give us a promise of free will. He can help us, give us strength, wisdom, bravery, he might even use the method of guilt to try and stop people, but he can't control anyone"_
> 
> Apparently it's because he gave us freewill but then likes to punish us for exercising that freewill. Bit sadistic really - you can do what you like but I'll punish you..... bit of an odd chap/woman/ethereal being this god.
> 
> _"God the creator's plan does not involve people being raped or murdered etc. But the other god, the god of this world has control over this world at the moment and his plan does include these things. Now, everyone that is born into this world is subject to the god of this world unless they accept the gift of holy spirit by accepting Jesus as Lord. If they do that they are free from the god of this world who then has no more hold over them. They can then be free of his works and can claim the right to command him to leave them alone. And they can claim God's protection. I have done this a few times now and my life has been protected and saved many times."_
> 
> Oh I see... it's not _that_ god, it's another god (whack job)


I think you are looking at it in a skewed way.
For example, my parents gave me rules and if I diobeyed them I would be punished, I can safely say my parents were not sadistic but knew they could not control everything I did so made sure I knew there were consequences to my actions, in a similar way God does with our Free Will.

If more people accepted the BASIC principles of 99% of religions (love thy neighbour, honour thy mother and father, thou shalt not steal etc) the world would be a far better place.

You can argue about what you perceive every single sentence in the Bible means but that is each individuals interpretation on it whcih will always be slightly different to everyone else's.
When you start arguing about such pointless issues you lose the original meaning of it all.


----------



## poohdog

Why would some sort of super power that created a never ending universe be interested in some mammals on an insignificant speck of dust, or what they do to each other that turns them into worm fodder?

The never ending universe is incomprehensible to some of these so called intelligent apes.And not being satisfied to accept they'll never know or understand the why or the how, they invent a convenient little answer.

Humans have GOT to have an answer,they can't just get on with what nature tells them to do.Which is avoid death as long as possible and add their genes to the pool of life by reproducing,no different from every slug and bug on the planet.

Sit and look at the stars in awe...and then get on with your life...because there is no answer to your questions.The atoms in our puny bodies come from the stars and one day will return to them...that's just the way it is,not some magnificent plan.

I'm off to worry about the gas bill...to hell with the universe.


----------



## Bisbow

poohdog said:


> Why would some sort of super power that created a never ending universe be interested in some mammals on an insignificant speck of dust, or what they do to each other that turns them into worm fodder?
> 
> The never ending universe is incomprehensible to some of these so called intelligent apes.And not being satisfied to accept they'll never know or understand the why or the how, they invent a convenient little answer.
> 
> Humans have GOT to have an answer,they can't just get on with what nature tells them to do.Which is avoid death as long as possible and add their genes to the pool of life by reproducing,no different from every slug and bug on the planet.
> 
> Sit and look at the stars in awe...and then get on with your life...because there is no answer to your questions.The atoms in our puny bodies come from the stars and one day will return to them...that's just the way it is,not some magnificent plan.
> 
> I'm off to worry about the gas bill...to hell with the universe.


I have not entered this topic for fear of saying things I will regret BUT
It is nice to read a post that is sensible and down to earth. Very well put, better than I could have said it


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Starlite said:


> You can argue about what you perceive every single sentence in the Bible means but that is each individuals interpretation on it whcih will always be slightly different to everyone else's.
> When you start arguing about such pointless issues you lose the original meaning of it all.


You don't lose the meaning at all as it has no meaning. If it has different meanings to different people then it fulfils its purpose as a novel, but has no meaning as a research work as it's simply some stories put together which, as you say, anyone can interpret in different ways.

I can't (even I can't) lose an argument that uses, as it's only source, a fictional text.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> If you don't think God created the universe, who did. ?
> 
> Liz


We're back to existing premise again; who says that _someone_ has to have created the universe?

You're argument seems to be "it must have been god because no one can think if anyone else"


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> If more people accepted the BASIC principles of 99% of religions (love thy neighbour, honour thy mother and father, thou shalt not steal etc) the world would be a far better place.


Just an aside, but as someone who has worked with abused children, I find the honor thy mother and father a particularly disturbing and dangerous commandment. Children internalize this stuff. Think of the abused child whos home is a living hell, who turns to the church and the bible for comfort. And what is one of the FIRST things we teach them in Sunday school? The commandments. Honor thy father and thy mother. Then we teach them that all bad things are Gods will. We teach them that the abuse is their fault. These children not only have their parents abusing them, now they have the church continuing the abuse psychically. Its a horrible, horrible thing to do to a child.



Elmo the Bear said:


> You're argument seems to be "it must have been god because no one can think if anyone else"


Argument from ignorance. Basically saying I dont know how this could happen, so since I dont know it MUST have been god. In itself an very illogical argument. If you dont know, you dont know. You cant conclude anything from NOT knowing. Its like saying, I have a headache, I dont know whats causing it, therefore it MUST be a malignant brain tumor slowly destroying my brain. Its a ridiculous (but very common) argument. We humans are *very* uncomfortable with the idea of I dont know."

If you think on it, this explains a lot about the churchs freak outs over scientific progress. From Galileo to Newton to Darwin and on. Because if we say what we dont understand equals god, then with every new scientific discovery, god becomes an ever smaller piece of scientific ignorance.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> No, I was taught that Adam's original sin meant that we would die in this world instead of having eternal life in the garden of eden.


O well you've missed some basic teaching then, because this is a very fundamental concept in Evangelicalism which I think is where you said you were.


> Stop ducking and diving Liz. You - who supposedly have read the bible zillions of times - quoted something that did not prove what you wanted it to prove and you have done it twice now. First of all you used the passage about the blind man to prove that god does not blame a person for his disability - which it does not. And secondly, despite your saying that the passage in Romans says that all sickness stems from Adam's original sin, *it does not actually say that*.


Nevertheless that is Christian teaching.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Yes.


How does a god or goddess evolve?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> We're back to existing premise again; who says that _someone_ has to have created the universe?
> 
> You're argument seems to be "it must have been god because no one can think if anyone else"


My argument is that you _know_, deep down, that there is a God. I understand that you will deny that.

Liz


----------



## lizward

poohdog said:


> Why would some sort of super power that created a never ending universe be interested in some mammals on an insignificant speck of dust, or what they do to each other that turns them into worm fodder?


Exactly, that is the wonder of it!

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Just an aside, but as someone who has worked with abused children, I find the honor thy mother and father a particularly disturbing and dangerous commandment. Children internalize this stuff. Think of the abused child whos home is a living hell, who turns to the church and the bible for comfort. And what is one of the FIRST things we teach them in Sunday school? The commandments. Honor thy father and thy mother. Then we teach them that all bad things are Gods will. We teach them that the abuse is their fault. These children not only have their parents abusing them, now they have the church continuing the abuse psychically. Its a horrible, horrible thing to do to a child.


What is it that the church has done to you, that you feel the need to attack in such an over the top manner all the time? I have NEVER heard of a church telling an abused child that it is the child's fault!

Liz


----------



## Starlite

Elmo the Bear said:


> You don't lose the meaning at all as it has no meaning. If it has different meanings to different people then it fulfils its purpose as a novel, but has no meaning as a research work as it's simply some stories put together which, as you say, anyone can interpret in different ways.
> 
> I can't (even I can't) lose an argument that uses, as it's only source, a fictional text.


Can you prove it s fictonal?
My point s you lose the meaning behind the stories and teachings (which is basically try and be a good person) when you start sitting down and going right, this sentence here should be picked apart for a few hundred years to see what we can make of it.



ouesi said:


> Just an aside, but as someone who has worked with abused children, I find the "honor thy mother and father" a particularly disturbing and dangerous commandment. Children internalize this stuff. Think of the abused child who's home is a living hell, who turns to the church and the bible for comfort. And what is one of the FIRST things we teach them in Sunday school? The commandments. "Honor thy father and thy mother." Then we teach them that all bad things are God's will. We teach them that the abuse is their fault. These children not only have their parents abusing them, now they have the church continuing the abuse psychically. Its a horrible, horrible thing to do to a child.
> 
> Argument from ignorance. Basically saying "I don't know how this could happen, so since I don't know it MUST have been god." In itself an very illogical argument. If you don't know, you don't know. You can't conclude anything from NOT knowing. Its like saying, I have a headache, I don't know what's causing it, therefore it MUST be a malignant brain tumor slowly destroying my brain. Its a ridiculous (but very common) argument. We humans are *very* uncomfortable with the idea of "I don't know."
> 
> If you think on it, this explains a lot about the church's freak outs over scientific progress. From Galileo to Newton to Darwin and on. Because if we say what we don't understand equals god, then with every new scientific discovery, "god" becomes an ever smaller piece of scientific ignorance.


whoa hold on a mnute, no one condones a child being abused in any shape or form that I know and anyone who has hidden this type of practice should face chemial castration and a hefty prison sentence. Not every child who is abused turns to the church do they? And people's levels of abuse vary, some children feel they are neglected or abused if they dont get the latest Iphone  Honour thy Mother and father does not translate as let them abuse you and I dont know any church who teaches that.



lizward said:


> What is it that the church has done to you, that you feel the need to attack in such an over the top manner all the time? I have NEVER heard of a church telling an abused child that it is the child's fault!
> 
> Liz


I have to agree on this one.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> My argument is that you _know_, deep down, that there is a God. I understand that you will deny that.
> 
> Liz





lizward said:


> What is it that the church has done to you, that you feel the need to attack in such an over the top manner all the time? I have NEVER heard of a church telling an abused child that it is the child's fault!
> 
> Liz


I am not attacking the church Liz. I am pointing out truths about the church that seem to be very uncomfortable for you. If youre going to tell me that deep down I KNOW there is a god (I know no such thing, and you dont know what I know either), then I can tell you the deep down you KNOW the church is wrong and destructive. Maybe thats why you get so flustered with my comments?

But back to the church telling children abuse is their fault. Okay, lets see if I can articulate it.
We teach children that they are born with original sin yes? In childs terms that translates roughly in to you are born bad.

Then we teach them all about punishment. Punishment is what happens to those who are bad. God punishes the bad people. In fact, give the child a bible to read, theyre going to read all sorts of things about god the FATHER, punishing his children in all sorts of pretty graphic ways.

Then, we tell them that parents are infallible. Why else would you be commanded to honor them?

Now, the child is abused by the parents, child has internalized that a) they are born bad, b) punishment happens to those who are bad. And since the child is being punished by people who they are supposed to honor, the only logical conclusion is that they are bad, deserve the punishment, and most likely brought it on themselves.

And just to be clear, this is not only MY take on things as someone who has spent years working with abused children. There is a lot of agreement among professionals that our Judeo Christian culture is not child friendly and can indeed perpetuate abuse.


----------



## Bisbow

I have been reading this with great interest and it has proved one thing to me.

It is often said religion causes more arguments in the world than anything else.

This thread has certainly proved it to me though just reading it back.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> O well you've missed some basic teaching then, because this is a very fundamental concept in Evangelicalism which I think is where you said you were.
> 
> Nevertheless that is Christian teaching.
> 
> Liz


But if it's not written in the bible, then why is it taught as part of Christianity? This supports the argument that interpretation has occurred, that religion has adapted the 'truth' to suit its own purposes. What else is taught that is not in the bible (the illness being due to Adam's sin is clanging huge bells with me). And I thought you believed the bible literally? So if smetngs not n the bible, why do you teach it? Surely you are perpetuating an untruth or a made up piece of nonsense?

As an aside, check out the number of likes on this thread! I'm being slack today, the show jumping is on and I cried for Peter Charles when his horse bombed through a jump


----------



## Bisbow

As an aside, check out the number of likes on this thread! I'm being slack today, the show jumping is on and I cried for Peter Charles when his horse bombed through a jump [/QUOTE]

Me too, such a shame, was doing well till then. Fingers crossed for the rest of the competition


----------



## cinnamontoast

Bisbow said:


> Me too, such a shame, was doing well till then. Fingers crossed for the rest of the competition


That German guy deserves a smack for thumping his horse when he was at fault.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> My argument is that you _know_, deep down, that there is a God. I understand that you will deny that.
> 
> Liz


And you know, deep down that there isn't. I understand you will deny that.

... hey, this arguing without having the need for any proof or logical argument could catch on you know... I seem to be getting the hang of it.


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> My argument is that you _know_, deep down, that there is a God. I understand that you will deny that.
> 
> Liz


That is a ridiculous argument... seriously we all know you can do better than that.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Then, we tell them that parents are infallible. Why else would you be commanded to honor them?


We do not tell them their parents are infallible! That is simply false. We tell them that EVERYONE has sinnned which obviously INCLUDES their parents!


> There is a lot of agreement among professionals that our Judeo Christian culture is not child friendly and can indeed perpetuate abuse.


Really? Well, I too work with young people (these days as a volunteer but previously as a teacher for years) and I can think of no worse abuse to them than the present culture which tells them all about their rights with nothing about their responsibilities, and makes everyone into a success, with the end results that 1. many who are completely unsuited to University get there and then drop out because they shouldn't have gone in the first place, having nothing to show for it but a lot of debt 2. Most of those who do not aspire to University end up spending two or three years on college courses that only delay the inevitable which is that they are unemployable because they have no idea how to work 3. there is an ever growing criminal underclass where several generations in a row lead a life of petty crime (at first) and eventually, spend their lives going in and out of prison. But hey, we told them they were good kids didn't we, so that must be alright.

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> But if it's not written in the bible, then why is it taught as part of Christianity?


I didn't say it wasn't taught in the Bible, but you do have to read behind the text. Creation was perfect - then Adam fell. If creation was perfect to start with (and it was) then clearly it was Adam's fall that brought about all evil; in the world. Since we are specifically told that the fall brought about death, that is hardly surprising. Otherwise you would have a situation where before the fall you could have all sorts of sickness but no-one ever died, that is not a perfect creation.



> So if smetngs not n the bible, why do you teach it? Surely you are perpetuating an untruth or a made up piece of nonsense?


The technical term, as I recall, is "necessary inference".

Liz


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> O well you've missed some basic teaching then, because this is a very fundamental concept in Evangelicalism which I think is where you said you were.


No - point to me where I said that. I think you are mixing me up with someone else.



lizward said:


> Nevertheless that is Christian teaching.
> 
> Liz


Really? So now christians are not only teaching that the bible is god's word, they are teaching that what isn't in the bible (but what fits their sense of what seems right) is god's word?

You can't have it both ways Liz. Either christians follow god's word, which is basically what is written in the bible, or they invent bits to add onto the bible as and when it suits them - in which case they are not following god's word.

And if you as a lay preacher are telling your congregation that in Romans it says that all the sickness in the world is because of Adam's original sin, then you are not telling them what god said about it - ie what is written in his bible - but what man has taken upon himself to decide it means.

And you wonder why people accuse the religion of being man-made and turn away from such hypocrisy?


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> How does a god or goddess evolve?
> 
> Liz


No idea. Where did your god come from?


----------



## Guest

Bisbow said:


> I have been reading this with great interest and it has proved one thing to me.
> 
> It is often said religion causes more arguments in the world than anything else.
> 
> This thread has certainly proved it to me though just reading it back.


Another quote that I'm going to butcher and don't know who to attribute, but anyway...
"The aim or any discussion or argument should not be establishing right or wrong, but progress."

I seriously don't have any intention of swaying anyone to "my" way of thinking. But simply to question not only those I'm interacting with, but my OWN beliefs. Can they stand up to scrutiny? If they can't then I need to re-evaluate, re-examine.

So far, no one has been able to tell me what would make a believer a better person as far as contributing to humanity, than a non-believer. 
I am always looking to improve as a human, and if my beliefs make me less humane, then I am all about changing them. But I just don't buy that believing in a higher power will make me a better person. At best it will simply make me superstitious and satisfied with not knowing, with not seeking out ways of understanding; and at worst, it will make me intolerant and biased towards anyone who doesn't share the same belief system.

As is, I can look at someone who thinks differently than me non-jugementally. I don't have to make a single judgement call about that person. I can say maybe they're right, maybe I'm right, maybe we're both wrong, and nothing is lost.
However, were I a believer, I would have to look at that person as "wrong" so that I can continue to believe that my god is "right". That doesn't strike me as very humane.


----------



## DogLover1981

lizward said:


> My argument is that you _know_, deep down, that there is a God. I understand that you will deny that.
> 
> Liz


What a silly argument. I could throw the same argument right back at you and say you really know there is no god and like to pretend there is one. The truth is you can't tell what a person's beliefs are just by looking at them. I could easily be an avowed churchgoing christian having a little fun pretending to be an atheist and you'd be none the wiser. lol  The reverse could also be true of you. lol


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Really? Well, I too work with young people (these days as a volunteer but previously as a teacher for years) and I can think of no worse abuse to them than the present culture which tells them all about their rights with nothing about their responsibilities, and makes everyone into a success, with the end results that *1. many who are completely unsuited to University get there and then drop out because they shouldn't have gone in the first place, having nothign to show for it but a lot of debt * 2. *Most of those do nto aspire to University end up spending two or three years on college courses that only delay the inevitable which is that they are unemployable because they have no idea how to work * 3. there is an ever growing criminal underclass where several generations in a row lead a life of petty crime (at first) and eventually, spend their lives going in and out of prison. But hey, we told them they were good kids didn't we, so that must be alright.
> 
> Liz


Wow!

So many of the kids that _aspired_ to go to Uni, shouldn't have bothered because they drop out.

But in the next breath most of them _don't_ aspire to go to Uni.

Am I the only one cofused here?

What has Uni got to do with anything anyway? Why are the ones that don't want to go to Uni 'unemployable'?

What about the kids that leave school and go straight to work?
What about the kids that start an apprenticeship, so they work, _and_ go to college?


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> I didn't say it wasn't taught in the Bible, but you do have to read behind the text. Creation was perfect - then Adam fell. If creation was perfect to start with (and it was) then clearly it was Adam's fall that brought about all evil; in the world. Since we are specifically told that the fall brought about death, that is hardly surprising. Otherwise you would have a situation where before the fall you could have all sorts of sickness but no-one ever died, that is not a perfect creation.
> 
> The technical term, as I recall, is "necessary inference".
> 
> Liz


Any "reading behind the text" or "necessary inference" is someone's *interpretation *of what is written,* not* what is written. I repeat, if you teach man's interpretation of what is written in the bible, you are not teaching god's word but you are teaching man's interpretation of god's word instead.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> We do not tell them their parents are infallible! That is simply false. We tell them that EVERYONE has sinnned which obviously INCLUDES their parents!


If you tell a child God the Father and then tell them honor thy father and then there is this guy they live with who is also a father they are going to see them all as the same.
Please, please tell me youre not trying to say that a 4 year old should be able to recognize abuse for what it is and not blame themselves.



lizward said:


> Really? Well, I too work with young people (these days as a volunteer but previously as a teacher for years)


Then you have even less of an excuse for clearly not understanding a thing about child development and how they learn.



lizward said:


> and I can think of no worse abuse to them than the present culture which tells them all about their rights with nothing about their responsibilities, and makes everyone into a success, with the end results that 1. many who are completely unsuited to University get there and then drop out because they shouldn't have gone in the first place, having nothign to show for it but a lot of debt 2. Most of those do nto aspire to University end up spending two or three years on college courses that only delay the inevitable which is that they are unemployable because they have no idea how to work 3. there is an ever growing criminal underclass where several generations in a row lead a life of petty crime (at first) and eventually, spend their lives going in and out of prison. But hey, we told them they were good kids didn't we, so that must be alright.
> 
> Liz


So wait, you think the only two choices in child rearing is either tell them they are born bad or tell them they are wonderful? And you spent how long working with kids?
Liz, there is a third, fourth, fifth and umpteen other ways you can raise a child to be a productive, caring member of society that doesnt involve saddling them with guilt from the start.

I just shake my head at comments like this. I really urge you to study other cultures outside of your own. I have lived in many different cultures and I can tell you that plenty of peoples treat children like the treasures they are, and those children do not grow up rotten. They become loving, caring, nurturing, compassionate children who dont turn to violence to solve arguments because that is exactly how they were raised.


----------



## grumpy goby

MCWillow said:


> Wow!
> 
> So many of the kids that _aspired_ to go to Uni, shouldn't have bothered because they drop out.
> 
> But in the next breath most of them _don't_ aspire to go to Uni.
> 
> Am I the only one cofused here?
> 
> What has Uni got to do with anything anyway? Why are the ones that don't want to go to Uni 'unemployable'?
> 
> What about the kids that leave school and go straight to work?
> *What about the kids that start an apprenticeship, so they work, and go to college?*


Or like me... left school, got an apprenticeship, worked and went to college but aspired to go to university, and also did that through work  lol 

Im of an age where we were encouraged to go to uni, but at the end of the day we arent forced, and we can make our own minds up - I certainly did, despite my A-level teachers advice.

We are in a recession, so if kids do delay unemployment with college, whats the problem?? It just keeps them out of the dole queue that they'd be in if they wernt at college because unemployment rates are so high... unemployment rates arent high BECAUSE they go to FE, Like you i dont really understand the link being made


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> I didn't say it wasn't taught in the Bible, but you do have to read behind the text
> 
> The technical term, as I recall, is "necessary inference".
> 
> Liz


Which equals interpretation.

No, Liz, not 'necessary inference' (which could be very subjective). The term I think 99% of people would use having read any other great work of fiction is 'made up'. You told me you believed the bible literally. You cannot now back pedal frantically and tell me that you make inferences about what is written. You could infer whatever you liked, pretty much!



Spellweaver said:


> Any "reading behind the text" or "necessary inference" is someone's *interpretation *of what is written,* not* what is written. I repeat, if you teach man's interpretation of what is written in the bible, you are not teaching god's word but you are teaching man's interpretation of god's word instead.


Exactly. :thumbup:



grumpy goby said:


> We are in a recession, so if kids do delay unemployment with college, whats the problem?? It just keeps them out of the dole queue that they'd be in if they wernt at college because unemployment rates are so high... unemployment rates arent high BECAUSE they go to FE, Like you i dont really understand the link being made


The govt has now decided all kids will be staying on in education or employment or apprenticeships until the age of 19. Interesting.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> *I can think of no worse abuse* to them than the present culture which tells them all about their rights with nothing about their responsibilities,
> 
> Liz


Really?....I can think of far worse abuse . . . .

STOP CHURCH CHILD ABUSE


----------



## chichi

cinammontoast said:


> Which equals interpretation.
> 
> No, Liz, not 'necessary inference' (which could be very subjective). The term I think 99% of people would use having read any other great work of fiction is 'made up'. You told me you believed the bible literally. You cannot now back pedal frantically and tell me that you make inferences about what is written. You could infer whatever you liked, pretty much!
> 
> Exactly. :thumbup:
> 
> The govt has now decided all kids will be staying on in education or employment or apprenticeships until the age of 19. Interesting.


Dont know how that will work for the kids having kids....I think many choose the option of becoming single parents at the age of 16 to 17.......


----------



## Guest

> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of no worse abuse to them than the present culture which tells them all about their rights with nothing about their responsibilities,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elmo the Bear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....I can think of far worse abuse . . . .
> 
> STOP CHURCH CHILD ABUSE
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Not to mention, what exactly does religion teach us about our responsibilities to our fellow humans? 
From what I can tell, it seems that our only true responsibility is to the god of that religion (back to the "you will have no other gods before me" idea). 
IOW, so long as I do it with the blessing of my (imaginary) god, its okay for me to enslave other peoples, attack other peoples, and look away when others do that too. Because after all, it is gods will...


----------



## Spellweaver

ouesi said:


> IOW, so long as I do it with the blessing of my (imaginary) god, its okay for me to enslave other peoples, attack other peoples, and look away when others do that too. Because after all, it is gods will...


And when you add to that the fact that - as Liz has said - man is allowed to "interpret" god's will (ie in other words man can say anything and say it is god's will; it doesn't even have to be written in the bible any more) then it all becomes very scary indeed.

This is exactly what is wrong with organised religion.


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> No - point to me where I said that. I think you are mixing me up with someone else.


O perhaps I am then? I thought you were brought up in a church and took it all very seriously but then left? Wasn't that you? It gets confusing after a long thread.


> Really? So now christians are not only teaching that the bible is god's word, they are teaching that what isn't in the bible (but what fits their sense of what seems right) is god's word?


We teach necessary inference, yes - the Trinity is the prime example.



> You can't have it both ways Liz. Either christians follow god's word, which is basically what is written in the bible, or they invent bits to add onto the bible as and when it suits them - in which case they are not following god's word.


No it isn't like that. The bible is not a handbook of theology, the epistles for example were all written to particular people in particular situations, the Psalms were written for worship rather than for teaching theology, the history books are history books, and so on. Not everything is spelled out in the way we might wish it was.



> And if you as a lay preacher are telling your congregation that in Romans it says that all the sickness in the world is because of Adam's original sin, then you are not telling them what god said about it - ie what is written in his bible - but what man has taken upon himself to decide it means.


Actually I've never preached from Romans but yes I do teach that all sickness, sin, death, evil, natural disaster etc result from Adam's sin. This is absolutely standard Christian teaching.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> No idea. Where did your god come from?


He always was. I must say I was surprised to hear that you worship something that simply evolved, I hadn't realised that - I assumed you would believe in some sort of special creation of your gods and goddesses. So you have no idea how they came into being but you are sure they weren't always there. Yet still you worship them. Seems odd to me. In fact a prime example of Romans 1:25

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> As is, I can look at someone who thinks differently than me non-jugementally.


I don't find you looking at me that way.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Wow!
> 
> So many of the kids that _aspired_ to go to Uni, shouldn't have bothered because they drop out.
> 
> But in the next breath most of them _don't_ aspire to go to Uni.


Sorry! Should have read "those WHO do not aspire to go to university.



> What has Uni got to do with anything anyway? Why are the ones that don't want to go to Uni 'unemployable'?


In theory they shouldn't be. I am speaking from experience though in saying that many of them are. This could be another thread somewhere because it is not a religious subject but it is an interesting one. Shall we take it to a new thread on general?

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> If you tell a child God the Father and then tell them honor thy father and then there is this guy they live with who is also a father they are going to see them all as the same.


I have certainly come across young people and adults who find the idea of God as father difficult. I felt the same way myself for many years.


> Please, please tell me youre not trying to say that a 4 year old should be able to recognize abuse for what it is and not blame themselves.


I can't speak for the US but over here anyone working with children who has any reason to suspect child abuse has someone they can report it to, it's all set up in the way we do children's work. This applies in churches voluntary organisations, schools, everywhere. No-one over here would dare attempt children's work without having gone through all the rigmarole first. So in fact a 4 year old in Sunday school who is being abused may very well be spotted as an abusee whilst in Sunday school.



> So wait, you think the only two choices in child rearing is either tell them they are born bad or tell them they are wonderful?


I don't think those are the only options. I was comparing two contrasting options, that's all.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Not to mention, what exactly does religion teach us about our responsibilities to our fellow humans?
> From what I can tell, it seems that our only true responsibility is to the god of that religion (back to the "you will have no other gods before me" idea).
> IOW, so long as I do it with the blessing of my (imaginary) god, its okay for me to enslave other peoples, attack other peoples, and look away when others do that too. Because after all, it is gods will...


Perhaps you should look at Christ's summary of the law:

Matthew 22: 35-40 one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.

Liz


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> And when you add to that the fact that - as Liz has said - man is allowed to "interpret" god's will (ie in other words man can say anything and say it is god's will; it doesn't even have to be written in the bible any more) then *it all becomes very scary indeed*.
> 
> This is exactly what is wrong with organised religion.


Well, right... 
It becomes the WBC.

It becomes Hitler quoting scripture in his speeches and truly believing he was doing gods will.

It becomes Jerry Falwell claiming the 911 attacks were gods punishment to Americans for secularizing the nation.

It becomes Michael Pearl writing a book (that has sold 100s of thousands of copies) that tells parents to train children by whipping them with quarter inch plumbing line. Where he quotes bible passages to help convince gullible parents that this is not only acceptable behavior, but its is gods will that even infants be treated this way.

It becomes the parents who put an electronic collar on their daughter and locked her in a chicken coop claiming that they were following biblical teachings.

It becomes the mother who drowned her boys in a bathtub because god told her to. And before you get all judge-y and say well clearly she was insane, that the biblical god commanded Abraham to do EXACTLY that - kill his son Isaac. And this is the man that we are told to look up to as an example to emulate!!

Yes, it becomes very scary indeed. And certainly not the kind of moral teachings I would want to share with my own children.


----------



## MMMTDF

I'm Christian and I do realize that it causes warfare- but that doesn't mean everyone is like that.

I have friends who are athiest, muslim, agnostic, buddhist, and Wiccan. I obviously don't judge, which is why I don't like it when people lump religions together.

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle you must fear or hate them. The second is that in order to love someone you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to give up your convictions to be compassionate " -Rick Warren


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> I don't find you looking at me that way.
> 
> Liz


Again, you claim to know my mind and my heart. How could you possibly know how I look at you? You are not god eh? 



lizward said:


> I have certainly come across young people and adults who find the idea of God as father difficult. I felt the same way myself for many years.


Then you just proved my point. Telling a child to honor their parents when those parents are abusive is a rather cruel thing to do isnt it?



lizward said:


> I can't speak for the US but over here anyone working with children who has any reason to suspect child abuse has someone they can report it to, it's all set up in the way we do children's work. This applies in churches voluntary organisations, schools, everywhere. No-one over here would dare attempt children's work without having gone through all the rigmarole first. So in fact a 4 year old in Sunday school who is being abused may very well be spotted as an abusee whilst in Sunday school.


And may very well not be spotted. 
Tell me, how do you spot abuse? How exactly would you know if a 4 year old was being tormented? What education and knowledge do you have with kids who have suffered abuse? 
Lets say for example, said 4 year old was made to sleep with a dead bird in their bed as punishment. Or put in a cold, dark basement as punishment. Repeatedly told they were worthless and unloveable. Now, tell me, how would this child look any different than any other child in your Sunday school class?
Not all abuse leaves visible marks. In fact the vast majority of abuse is very easily concealed. As a church historian you should be well aware of that.



lizward said:


> Perhaps you should look at Christ's summary of the law:
> 
> Matthew 22: 35-40 one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.
> 
> Liz


How does loving the lord with all my heart help me love my neighbor? Why is that first part necessary?

And who exactly IS my neighbor? Does that mean if they are far enough away from me I dont have to love them?


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> I can't speak for the US but over here anyone *working* with children who has any reason to suspect child abuse has someone they can report it to, it's all set up in the way we do children's work. This applies in churches voluntary organisations, schools, everywhere. No-one over here would dare attempt children's work without having gone through all the rigmarole first. So in fact a 4 year old in Sunday school who is being abused may very well be spotted as an abusee whilst in Sunday school.
> 
> Liz


And we're back to the church's abuse of employment law and rights (quite the contrary to your baseless view that religion had in some way advanced employment rights).

CRB checks are only mandatory to those carrying out regulated activity - this is defined as "working" with children. As may church 'people' are "office holders" and not employees or "workers" (within the European definition) in order that the church can avoid giving them basic employment rights); they also avoid the need to CRB check many of those doing 'work' for the church as office holders are not deemed to be carrying out regulated activity..... bit of a scam really... sorry, a lot of a scam.


----------



## cinnamontoast

chichi said:


> Dont know how that will work for the kids having kids....I think many choose the option of becoming single parents at the age of 16 to 17.......


Hopefully it'll stop them!



lizward said:


> Not everything is spelled out in the way we might wish it was.
> 
> Actually I've never preached from Romans but yes I do teach that all sickness, sin, death, evil, natural disaster etc result from Adam's sin. This is absolutely standard Christian teaching.
> 
> Liz


So we can infer what we like from it? Interesting. Natural disasters are ALS attributed to Adam?! That man has a lot to answer for!



lizward said:


> Sorry! Should have read "those WHO do not aspire to go to university.
> In theory they shouldn't be. I am speaking from experience though in saying that many of them are. This could be another thread somewhere because it is not a religious subject but it is an interesting one. Shall we take it to a new thread on general?
> 
> Liz


Woah there! You're saying that of those who don't aspire to go to uni, many are unemployable?! Not every job needs a degree! My little cousin (also godson, ooh, the irony!) left school at 16, earns twice what I do, owns three houses, is half my age. Need I go on? As an apparently ex teacher, you ought to retract that statement.


----------



## cinnamontoast

Elmo the Bear said:


> CRB checks are only mandatory to those carrying out regulated activity - this is defined as "working" with children. As may church 'people' are "office holders" and not employees or "workers" (within the European definition) in order that the church can avoid giving them basic employment rights); they also avoid the need to CRB check many of those doing 'work' for the church as office holders are not deemed to be carrying out regulated activity..... bit of a scam really... sorry, a lot of a scam.


Are priests CRB checked? They work directly with eg altar boys.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> .
> 
> We teach necessary inference, yes - the Trinity is the prime example.


The trinity is a prime example of the christian church needing to find something to mimic the triple aspect of the goddess when it took over the festivals and trappings of the old religion.



lizward said:


> .No it isn't like that. The bible is not a handbook of theology, the epistles for example were all written to particular people in particular situations, the Psalms were written for worship rather than for teaching theology, the history books are history books, and so on. Not everything is spelled out in the way we might wish it was.


Hang on a sec - you were the one who said:



lizward said:


> .The Bible is God's word, infallible, inerrant


Now, either it is or it isn't. You can't change your mind to suit different arguments. And if god's word - ie the bible - is infallible and inerrant, why does mankind presume to add to it as and when he sees fit - such as adding in the bit about sickness and disability being as a result of the fall, when the bible only mentions death? Not all sickness and disability leads to death. If the bible is infallible and inerrant, shouldn't you be sticking to what it says instead of presuming to know more than your god?



lizward said:


> .Actually I've never preached from Romans but yes I do teach that all sickness, sin, death, evil, natural disaster etc result from Adam's sin. This is absolutely standard Christian teaching.
> Liz


Bit of a vengeful god, isn't he? Just because one person does something wrong ( a person who he set up to do wrong in the first place), he causes all the above. Not a nice person, and definitely not someone worthy of worship.



lizward said:


> So you have no idea how they came into being but you are sure they weren't always there. Yet still you worship them. Seems odd to me. In fact a prime example of Romans 1:25
> Liz


And yet you don't find it odd to worship a johnny-come-lately god who didn't arrive on the scene until around 6000 years ago (which is when biblical scholars have somehow decided the creation took place) after humans - and various different gods and goddesses - had been on the earth around 200,000 years.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

cinammontoast said:


> Are priests CRB checked? They work directly with eg altar boys.


Priests are office holders so they do not "work"and are not workers. Because of this they are not required to undertake the full "barred list" CRB check.


----------



## Starlite

ouesi said:


> Again, you claim to know my mind and my heart. How could you possibly know how I look at you? You are not god eh?
> 
> Then you just proved my point. Telling a child to honor their parents when those parents are abusive is a rather cruel thing to do isnt it?
> 
> And may very well not be spotted.
> Tell me, how do you spot abuse? How exactly would you know if a 4 year old was being tormented? What education and knowledge do you have with kids who have suffered abuse?
> Lets say for example, said 4 year old was made to sleep with a dead bird in their bed as punishment. Or put in a cold, dark basement as punishment. Repeatedly told they were worthless and unloveable. Now, tell me, how would this child look any different than any other child in your Sunday school class?
> Not all abuse leaves visible marks. In fact the vast majority of abuse is very easily concealed. As a church historian you should be well aware of that.
> 
> How does loving the lord with all my heart help me love my neighbor? Why is that first part necessary?
> 
> And who exactly IS my neighbor? Does that mean if they are far enough away from me I dont have to love them?


so every religous parent is abusive? As a mum myself i can tell you that is utter rubbish.
I will teach my son to try and do his best in all aspects of life and to think of others, in no way will I tell him or imply he is worthless.

Are you implying abuse only goes on in religious households or by religous clergy, seriously?
Your neighbours are the people round you, what does distance have to do with it, would you think any less of a person from the UK because they were 2000 miles away? I dont understand.


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> so every religous parent is abusive? As a mum myself i can tell you that is utter rubbish.
> I will teach my son to try and do his best in all aspects of life and to think of others, in no way will I tell him or imply he is worthless.
> 
> Are you implying abuse only goes on in religious households or by religous clergy, seriously?


Im not sure where you got any of that from my post at all?? 
For a person to commit abuse, they have to be in a position of power to do so, so yes, abuse is done by those in a position of power, be they parents, members of the clergy, secular teachers, coaches, those caring for the elderly etc. Of course abuse is not limited to those who are religious.

Were back to without religion good people will still do good things and evil people will still do bad things, but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Additionally it cant be left unsaid that an entire religion requires infant genital mutilation. Abuse in the eyes of many. 
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim texts all present rather gory punishments. 
All three suggest (and according to some demand) that children be taught to FEAR a god who also supposedly loves them. "God-fearing" is a compliment, a desirable trait. Now... in any other context if someone were to tell me they love someone that they also fear I would tell them theyre nuts. That is not love. You do not fear the one who claims to love you. Love should NEVER feel frightening.



Starlite said:


> Your neighbours are the people round you, what does distance have to do with it, would you think any less of a person from the UK because they were 2000 miles away? I dont understand.


My question was facetious. 
I keep hearing this love thy neighbor stuff from the same god who commanded his people to genocide (deut 20:17). This same god who gave rules for enslaving people. Note there is no commandment against slavery or genocide. Not very neighborly IMO.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> He always was. I must say I was surprised to hear that you worship something that simply evolved, I hadn't realised that - I assumed you would believe in some sort of special creation of your gods and goddesses. So you have no idea how they came into being but you are sure they weren't always there. Yet still you worship them. Seems odd to me. In fact a prime example of Romans 1:25
> 
> Liz


You don't even realise the irony.

:laugh:

I'll spell it out.....yours evolved too.


----------



## cinnamontoast

Elmo the Bear said:


> Priests are office holders so they do not "work"and are not workers. Because of this they are not required to undertake the full "barred list" CRB check.


Don't you think that's pretty outrageous?


----------



## MCWillow

Although, to be fair, the CRB check only shows if you actually have a criminal record.

Ian Huntley passed a CRB check.


----------



## blitzens mum

religion is what you make it to be, personally to me it was invented for power and control


----------



## Knightofalbion

'All this talk of religion, but it's how you live your life that is the all-important thing.
If you set out each day to do all the goodness and kindness that you can, and to do no harm to man or beast, then you are walking the highest path.
And when your time is up, if you can leave the earth a better place than you found it, then yours will have been a life well lived.'


----------



## Elmo the Bear

cinammontoast said:


> Don't you think that's pretty outrageous?


There are worse employer who twist the rules to extremes but, for an organisation that is supposed to be "good", I find it very dishonest.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

MCWillow said:


> Although, to be fair, the CRB check only shows if you actually have a criminal record.
> 
> Ian Huntley passed a CRB check.


The current check (with the barred list) shows a considerable amount of information and (even if it is restricted) why would you not simply have it done instead of trying to arrange to use loopholes to avoid it?


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Again, you claim to know my mind and my heart. How could you possibly know how I look at you? You are not god eh?


You come across here as very hostile to me personally. Perhaps you don't mean to but you do.


> Then you just proved my point. Telling a child to honor their parents when those parents are abusive is a rather cruel thing to do isnt it?


No. In fact the really strange thing (as you will know) is that children can have the most useless mother ever (and Dad unknown or absent) but if anyone starts to criticise that mother, the child takes it as the worst possible insult. You see, we all instinctively _do_ honour our parents.



> And may very well not be spotted.
> Tell me, how do you spot abuse? How exactly would you know if a 4 year old was being tormented? What education and knowledge do you have with kids who have suffered abuse?


That's not the age group I work with. Never have.



> How does loving the lord with all my heart help me love my neighbor? Why is that first part necessary?


Because God is far above ANY other and demands and deserves the highest honour.



> And who exactly IS my neighbor?


Jesus answered that very question in Luke 10:25-37

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> And we're back to the church's abuse of employment law and rights (quite the contrary to your baseless view that religion had in some way advanced employment rights).
> 
> CRB checks are only mandatory to those carrying out regulated activity - this is defined as "working" with children. As may church 'people' are "office holders" and not employees or "workers" (within the European definition) in order that the church can avoid giving them basic employment rights); they also avoid the need to CRB check many of those doing 'work' for the church as office holders are not deemed to be carrying out regulated activity..... bit of a scam really... sorry, a lot of a scam.


I challenge you to find me any church in the UK that does not insist that its childrens and youth workers go through the enhanced CRB check!

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> H
> Woah there! You're saying that of those who don't aspire to go to uni, many are unemployable?!


Certainly. That is my experience. I said many, not all! It isn't because of their qualifications, it's because of their lack of work ethic.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> if god's word - ie the bible - is infallible and inerrant, why does mankind presume to add to it as and when he sees fit - such as adding in the bit about sickness and disability being as a result of the fall, when the bible only mentions death? Not all sickness and disability leads to death. If the bible is infallible and inerrant, shouldn't you be sticking to what it says instead of presuming to know more than your god?


Once again, the term is necessary inference. In the same way, if you wish to be crude, we can infer that Jesus had bodily functions the same as the rest of us. It isn't spelled out in scripture "and Jesus went for a pee" but it is perfectly clear that as a human being he must have done so. Not everything is spelled out in the way you seem to want it to be.



> Bit of a vengeful god, isn't he? Just because one person does something wrong ( a person who he set up to do wrong in the first place), he causes all the above. Not a nice person, and definitely not someone worthy of worship.


You don't get to decide who is worthy of worship, you only get to decide whom you will worship.



> And yet you don't find it odd to worship a johnny-come-lately god who didn't arrive on the scene until around 6000 years ago (which is when biblical scholars have somehow decided the creation took place) after humans - and various different gods and goddesses - had been on the earth around 200,000 years.


There you go again. God always was. There has never been a time when he has not been.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> I'll spell it out.....yours evolved too.


No he didn't.

liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> Don't you think that's pretty outrageous?


I doubt if it's even true! Certainly in the Baptist Union it is not possible to be given charge of a church, or even to be ordained, unless you pass the enhanced crb check. Churches are quite paranoid about this and it applies even if your congregation has no young people or even people of reproductive age.

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Certainly. That is my experience. I said many, not all! It isn't because of their qualifications, it's because of their lack of work ethic.
> 
> Liz


I think, working as a secondary teacher, that you have made a quite ridiculous statement there. Just because a child doesn't want to do A levels does not mean he or she lacks a work ethic. I give you my cousin (again) who just didn't like school but is madly successful. I see a child from school at the stables: he is awful at school, but works his socks off at the stables, nothing's a bother. One of my cleverest students left school at 16 to go and be a beauty therapist, training on the job. A levels simply aren't required for some routes.



lizward said:


> I doubt if it's even true! Certainly in the Baptist Union it is not possible to be given charge of a church, or even to be ordained, unless you pass the enhanced crb check. Churches are quite paranoid about this and it applies even if your congregation has no young people or even people of reproductive age.
> 
> Liz


How many priests have an enhanced CRB? They appear to be protected by the Catholic church, shielded, some might say.


----------



## rona

lizward said:


> Certainly. That is my experience. I said many, not all! It isn't because of their qualifications, it's because of their lack of work ethic.
> 
> Liz


I am gobsmacked 

How very insulting 

I don't know where you live or in what bubble but you really need to get out into the real world occassionally :mad2:


----------



## MissShelley

Lizward said:


> Certainly. That is my experience. I said many, not all! It isn't because of their qualifications, it's because of their lack of work ethic.
> 
> Liz


That is utter rubbish!!!! My son is struggling to find work, nowhere is taking on and companies havent got the money to employ. He wants to be a Policeman eventually and is waiting for a date for his fitness test

He applied for a job at McDonalds and was rejected, wasn't even offered an interview. The reason they gave? He was over qualified, because of his A Levels apparently 

It's not like he wanted to make a career out of flipping burgers!! He only wanted something part time to earn a bit of cash until he got into the Police.

So thanks to McDonalds, he is made to feel if his two years slogging away at College has been worth the effort.


----------



## grumpy goby

Some would say those that left at 16 have a greater work ethic than those who stayed sheltered by education it mid twenties. The hardest workers I know have minimum quals... Business owners, tradesmen etc and are very successful


Obv this is a large generalisation... I work hard and have more bits of paper than I'd need to decorate my living room... But quals and work ethic are not so heavily linked, is my point....


----------



## grumpy goby

Can someone explain to me how it got onto unemployment and work ethic from a discussion on religion :-o 

I'm half asleep and don't see the link


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> No he didn't.
> 
> liz


Oh, ok, that settles it then.


----------



## myshkin

grumpy goby said:


> Can someone explain to me how it got onto unemployment and work ethic from a discussion on religion :-o
> 
> I'm half asleep and don't see the link


Erm, if they were proper christians then they'd have a work ethic or something....bit confused myself.

Full of a raging cold and temperature, beginning to think I'm delerious!


----------



## grumpy goby

Interesting idea from a very eloquent humanist about Religion, and the importance of disbelief in an afterlife.....Mr Fry On my to meet bucket list

The Importance of Unbelief | Stephen Fry | Big Think


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> I think, working as a secondary teacher, that you have made a quite ridiculous statement there. Just because a child doesn't want to do A levels does not mean he or she lacks a work ethic.


Why is it that when someone says "many", the response is often "that can't be true because I know someone who doesn't fit what you just said"? "Many" means what it says "Many". It doesn't mean "all" or even "most". It simply means "more than a few".



> How many priests have an enhanced CRB? They appear to be protected by the Catholic church, shielded, some might say.


I don't know, ask the Catholics.

Liz


----------



## lizward

rona said:


> I am gobsmacked
> 
> How very insulting
> 
> I don't know where you live or in what bubble but you really need to get out into the real world occassionally :mad2:


I am in the real world, alas, with recent experience of employing three young people who are by no means at the bottom of the pile, all have either been to college or are about to go there. All three are all but unemployable. One of them turned up precisely five times in five weeks - and on one day he did turn up he was two hours late. The other two spent most of their time standing around looking at the work rather than actually doing it, seemed incapable of listening to instructions and just had to do things a second time - when they were being paid by the hour not by the numnber of items produced. I am involved in a youth group where there are many more the same. They take Sunday work but won't turn up because they are hung over from Saturday night. They take jobs in a food outlet and then turn up wearing dirty clothes. Listen to the employers, they will tell you. Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this any more on this thread, will happily comment on it on another thread if anyone wants to take it there.

Liz


----------



## Waterlily

lizward said:


> Certainly. That is my experience. I said many, not all! It isn't because of their qualifications, it's because of their lack of work ethic.
> 
> Liz


hahaha what a load of ****. That is all.


----------



## Waterlily

lizward said:


> I am in the real world, alas, with recent experience of employing *three* young people who are by no means at the bottom of the pile, all have either been to college or are about to go there. All three are all but unemployable. One of them turned up precisely five times in five weeks - and on one day he did turn up he was two hours late. The other two spent most of their time standing around looking at the work rather than actually doing it, seemed incapable of listening to instructions and just had to things a second time - when they were being paid by the hour not by the numnber of items produced. I am involved in a youth group where there are many more the same. They take Sunday work but won't turn up because they are hung over from Saturday night. They take jobs in a food outlet and then turn up wearing dirty clothes. Listen to the employers, they will tell you. Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this any more on this thread, will happily comment on it on another thread if anyone wants to take it there.
> 
> Liz


Omg yes, that is some real world experience there


----------



## MCWillow

Elmo the Bear said:


> The current check (with the barred list) shows a considerable amount of information and (even if it is restricted) why would you not simply have it done instead of trying to arrange to use loopholes to avoid it?


I agree with you. 

I was just pointing out, in case people didn't know, that it only shows if you have been _convicted_ of anything.

To actively look for loopholes to avoid the CRB check, does seem suspicious.


----------



## Knightofalbion

Spirituality is one thing, organised religion is something else.

The comments in this thread only reinforce my initial opinion that organised religion is divisive, and a source of discord and violence in the world.

There are people, criminals and tearaways for example, who have found religion, turned their llives around and become valued members of the community. So it isn't all bad.

But whatever faith you follow, if it makes you a better person and serves to add to the greater good of Creation, then it's right...for you.


----------



## rona

lizward said:


> I am in the real world, alas, with recent experience of employing three young people who are by no means at the bottom of the pile, all have either been to college or are about to go there. All three are all but unemployable. One of them turned up precisely five times in five weeks - and on one day he did turn up he was two hours late. The other two spent most of their time standing around looking at the work rather than actually doing it, seemed incapable of listening to instructions and just had to things a second time - when they were being paid by the hour not by the numnber of items produced. I am involved in a youth group where there are many more the same. They take Sunday work but won't turn up because they are hung over from Saturday night. They take jobs in a food outlet and then turn up wearing dirty clothes. Listen to the employers, they will tell you. Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this any more on this thread, will happily comment on it on another thread if anyone wants to take it there.
> 
> Liz


No point in discussing with someone so sure of themselves, it wouldn't be a discussion now would it?

All I'll say is my experiences have been different.

I cannot understand why others are bothering.


----------



## grumpy goby

rona said:


> No point in discussing with someone so sure of themselves, it wouldn't be a discussion now would it?
> 
> All I'll say is my experiences have been different.
> 
> I cannot understand why others are bothering.


Mine have also been different... Iv dealth with probably 15 or so apprentices recently, all school leavers, none with any more than average gcse's. All except maybe 2 are hard workers and have good prospects. They are punctual, keen and with the right leadership and direction will be excellent assets to any team. (recently being the last 3 or so yrs)

Alongside friends who are successful business owners, stock market traders, directors of companies who were not that academic at school but thrived in the workplace,


----------



## Guest

grumpy goby said:


> Interesting idea from a very eloquent humanist about Religion, and the importance of disbelief in an afterlife.....Mr Fry On my to meet bucket list
> 
> The Importance of Unbelief | Stephen Fry | Big Think


Very nice thank you for sharing that!

My favorite part:


> You know if we empower ourselves with responsibility over our actions, responsibility over our destinies and responsibility for directing and maintaining and creating our own ethical and moral frameworks, which is the most important thing really isnt it because perhaps the greatest insult to humanism is this idea that mankind needs a god in order to have a moral framework.


Thats what it is for me, without a god *I* have to take full responsibility for my choices, for who I am, who I want to become, and whatever legacy I leave. 
I cant dismiss wrongdoing with original sin, and ask a pretend being for forgiveness. The responsibility becomes fully mine to make it right in this world, in this reality.

As for morals, I really dont think the bible is the best place to pick up morality from. There is no commandment against rape, slavery, genocide, honoring and protecting children, being kind to animals... Has anyone really read the 10 commandments seriously? 
The first 4 have absolutely nothing to do with being a good person. How does having only one god make me a good person? How does not taking the lords name in vain help humanity? How does remembering the sabbath make me a better person? It doesnt. 
Then we get some decent ones, though the thou shall not murder seems rather obvious. Not to mention incredibly hypocritical seeing how many murders and genocides this same god orders his people to do.
And then the last one puts women and servants in the same category as oxen and donkeys and possessions.

No thanks. I think Ill look outside of the bible to figure out my morals.


----------



## myshkin

grumpy goby said:


> Interesting idea from a very eloquent humanist about Religion, and the importance of disbelief in an afterlife.....Mr Fry On my to meet bucket list
> 
> The Importance of Unbelief | Stephen Fry | Big Think


I haven't read that far down yet, but already in agreement about Kant and the simplicity of his philosophy....always had a fondness for Kant.


----------



## grumpy goby

myshkin said:


> I haven't read that far down yet, but already in agreement about Kant and the simplicity of his philosophy....always had a fondness for Kant.


I watched the video instead... Sunday laziness


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> No. In fact the really strange thing (as you will know) is that children can have the most useless mother ever (and Dad unknown or absent) but if anyone starts to criticise that mother, the child takes it as the worst possible insult. You see, we all instinctively _do_ honour our parents.


You are again betraying a profound lack of understanding and dare I say it empathy for those who have suffered terrible abuse.

I really dont want to get personal, but for the sake of maybe helping you understand...
When you are holding a sobbing child whos mom kicked her out of the house... Why was she kicked out of the house? Well, see, her mothers latest boyfriend raped her. She went to her mom, and mom accused the daughter of trying to steal her boyfriend, and kicked her out of the house. This child is sobbing, trying to figure out how to make mom see that she wasnt trying to steal her boyfriend. Never mind that she had been raped, she wanted to make things right with her mom.

If someone like you dares say to this child that she needs to pray, read the bible, and that god loves her, I would tell you to shut up. 
This child does not know what love is, what a mother (or father is) and she doesnt need the likes of you gaslighting her any further. 
Dont tell her that god loves her because people who love you do NOT allow such terrible things to happen to you, they protect you and they defend you and they intervene. 
Dont tell her to honor thy mother and thy father. You dont honor people who wrong you so profoundly.

Now rinse and repeat this scenario enough times and you come to realize that there is no god watching out for these children. And is there IS, he is one sadistic jerk.
Im with rona, you need to get out of your comfort zone, get out of your bubble and come join the real world. It might be enlightening to you.



lizward said:


> That's not the age group I work with. Never have.


So you have no responsibility to these kids? You work with people as an educator do you not? Do you not feel any responsibility for helping ALL people?



lizward said:


> Because God is far above ANY other and demands and deserves the highest honour.


 Yes, and at the expense of your fellow brother and sister humans. I see that now.



lizward said:


> I don't know, ask the Catholics.


See? This is another example out of many of how you have completely shut yourself off from anyone who doesnt buy in to the same belief system you do? Catholics, like it or not, ARE Christian. You identify yourself as a Christian, yet feel no solidarity with Catholics. None. I cant even imagine the lack of solidarity you must feel with people who arent even Christian...


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Once again, the term is necessary inference. In the same way, if you wish to be crude, we can infer that Jesus had bodily functions the same as the rest of us. It isn't spelled out in scripture "and Jesus went for a pee" but it is perfectly clear that as a human being he must have done so. Not everything is spelled out in the way you seem to want it to be.


I do know what the phrase means  I just don't agree with you that, because god says people will die in this world instead of living in paradise, you can necessarily infer that disability, natural disasters, sickness, mental illness etc etc are all a part of that. It is perfectly possible to die without any of that happening - eg of old age. And given that your god left such detailed instructions about loving your neighbour, not worshipping any other god etc etc you would think that he would leave detailed instructions about this too. Just admit it Liz - your god didn't mean that at all. It is mankind who has put that interpretation on it by inferring something that does not actually follow from what is written.



lizward said:


> You don't get to decide who is worthy of worship, you only get to decide whom you will worship.


Rubbish. If you get to decide who you worship, you have to base your decosion on something. Being unworthy of worship is THE main reason for not chosing to worship someone.



lizward said:


> There you go again. God always was. There has never been a time when he has not been.
> 
> Liz


So why was there no mention of him until around 6000 years ago? Plenty of mention of other gods and goddesses during the previous 194,000 years humans have lived on the earth, but none of him.


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> All I'll say is my experiences have been different.





grumpy goby said:


> Mine have also been different... ,


And mine. We have just finished advertising for an apprentice technician - we had to close the advert after one week (we had already received over 170 applications). Having to shortlist all those excellent and well-thought out applications into an interviewable number was heartbreaking enough, but do the actual interviews, to see the eagerness, readiness and ability to work and work well, and to know that we could only appoint one person, was truly soul-destroying. And these were ALL youngsters who had left school with no prospects of going to uni.

As others have said Liz - come and join us in the real world of real people.


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> Why is it that when someone says "many", the response is often "that can't be true because I know someone who doesn't fit what you just said"? "Many" means what it says "Many". It doesn't mean "all" or even "most". It simply means "more than a few".
> 
> I don't know, ask the Catholics.
> 
> Liz


Semantics. Many is more than 'more than a few'. How many kids over 16 have you dealt with? I've lost count because it's been a lot. In all my time teaching, I've come across a handful who actively want to go on the dole and not work. A levels are completely irrelevant in regards to work ethic.


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> When you are holding a sobbing child who's mom kicked her out of the house... Why was she kicked out of the house? Well, see, her mother's latest boyfriend raped her.


Mum is a regular churchgoer, is she? So I can speak to her in a pastoral capacity, can I?



> If someone like you dares say to this child that she needs to pray, read the bible, and that god loves her, I would tell you to shut up.


Child is a regular Sunday School attender, is she? If she isn't. how do you imagine I am likely to come across her or, if I do, how do you imagine I am going to be in a position to advise her on spiritual matters?



> Don't tell her that god loves her because people who love you do NOT allow such terrible things to happen to you, they protect you and they defend you and they intervene.


I wouldn't tell her that.


> Don't tell her to honor thy mother and thy father. You don't honor people who wrong you so profoundly.


In the UK, BY LAW, if I heard of such a scenario from the child herself I would have to call social services or the police (not sure which, I would have to check the safeguarding document which is held by a particular person in each organisation, not by me)



> You work with people as an educator do you not?


No I don't.



> See? This is another example out of many of how you have completely shut yourself off from anyone who doesn't buy in to the same belief system you do? Catholics, like it or not, ARE Christian. You identify yourself as a Christian, yet feel no solidarity with Catholics.


Do you SERIOUSLY expect me to be able to answer questions about crb checks on employees' office holders in a denomination I do not belong to? Do you expect me to be able to answer questions about crb checks in the local cinema or supermarket too?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> I do know what the phrase means  I just don't agree with you that, because god says people will die in this world instead of living in paradise, you can necessarily infer that disability, natural disasters, sickness, mental illness etc etc are all a part of that. It is perfectly possible to die without any of that happening - eg of old age.


People don't just die of old age, some part of their body ceases to function. I doubt if you will ever find "old age" on a death certificate.



> So why was there no mention of him until around 6000 years ago?


Perhaps because there was no-one there to mention him? (though actually I think we can go a bit longer than 6000 years, not every generation is mentioned) 


> Plenty of mention of other gods and goddesses during the previous 194,000 years humans have lived on the earth, but none of him.


Really? You have access to literature going back 200,000 years?

Liz


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Really? You have access to literature going back 200,000 years?
> 
> Liz


_The Sumerian is the first written religion consisting of about 3000 tablets and pieces that were found dating back to 1250 BC, making it the oldest known religion._

The Goddess Complex Part II


----------



## Bisbow

lizward said:


> People don't just die of old age, some part of their body ceases to function. I doubt if you will ever find "old age" on a death certificat
> 
> Wrong ,
> My grandmother died at the age of 101.
> Reason for death "OLD AGE"


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> People don't just die of old age, some part of their body ceases to function. I doubt if you will ever find "old age" on a death certificate.





Bisbow said:


> Wrong ,
> My grandmother died at the age of 101.
> Reason for death "OLD AGE"


I rest my case.



lizward said:


> Perhaps because there was no-one there to mention him?


What about all the human beings who were around in the 194,000 years before he was heard of? Don't you think they might hav mentioned him?



lizward said:


> Really? You have access to literature going back 200,000 years?
> Liz


Don't be silly Liz. If you are trying to say that we should only go back as far as written literature, then we would have to date your god from about 1400 BC, when the first part of the OT was first written down.


----------



## DogLover1981

MCWillow said:


> _The Sumerian is the first written religion consisting of about 3000 tablets and pieces that were found dating back to 1250 BC, making it the oldest known religion._
> 
> The Goddess Complex Part II


Your forgetting the religion of the ancient Egyptians. It's even older.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion


----------



## Spellweaver

MCWillow said:


> _The Sumerian is the first written religion consisting of about 3000 tablets and pieces that were found dating back to 1250 BC, making it the oldest known religion._
> 
> The Goddess Complex Part II





DogLover1981 said:


> Your forgetting the religion of the ancient Egyptians. It's even older.
> Ancient Egyptian religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


See Liz? Plenty of Gods and Goddesses mentioned in both pantheons - but not a Yahweh amongst them, not even in a very minor apprentice godlet sense.


----------



## northnsouth

lizward said:


> Certainly. That is my experience. I said many, not all! It isn't because of their qualifications, it's because of their lack of work ethic.
> 
> Liz


There are a huge number of children whose families need them to be out earning a living to help support the family. They are not work shy, they live in the real modern world and are denied the luxury..


----------



## noushka05

lizward said:


> Certainly. That is my experience. I said many, not all! It isn't because of their qualifications, it's because of their lack of work ethic.
> 
> Liz


wow that is an offensive thing to say, my eldest worked damned hard at uni and graduated last year with a 2.1 in economics, since then hes applied for lots of jobs, got through to the last few for several interview... out of sometimes hundreds of applicants, hes got another interview on tuesday for an Accountancy and Business advisory firm and hes been researching and studying for the interview since he found out...he couldnt possibly be trying any harder to get a job...hes desperate!...& when he does get a job i know he'll put his heart and soul into it!


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> I don't know, ask the Catholics.
> 
> Liz


Avoidance of CRB by the misuse of "office holder" (when the person is really an employee) is the same in every sect of the christian church. Catholics are christian just like you.. or are you playing the "people's front of Judea" card


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> I challenge you to find me any church in the UK that does not insist that its childrens and youth workers go through the enhanced CRB check!
> 
> Liz


It is not up to the church to "insist", anyone working with children has to have the check; the operative phrase is working- office holder do not work so avoid the check (and any employment rights) so the church pulls off a doulble whammy... no employment rights and no need for a full CRB check.

officer holder = vicars/priests/whatever title you give them? "Youthworkers" should have nothing to do with religion; forcing a belief system on those not old enough to be able to have access to all systems to be able to choose for themselves is called indoctrination.

... and who mentioned youthworkers anyway... the topic of discussion was "office holders".


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> _The Sumerian is the first written religion consisting of about 3000 tablets and pieces that were found dating back to 1250 BC, making it the oldest known religion._


Abraham - and hence Judaism - goes back to 2000BC

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> It is not up to the church to "insist", anyone working with children has to have the check; the operative phrase is working- office holder do not work so avoid the check (and any employment rights) so the church pulls off a doulble whammy... no employment rights and no need for a full CRB check.


Once again, please find me ANY UK church which does not require enhanced crb checks of its youth and children's workers. You can't, can you? Are you seriously suggesting that the organist or the church secretary or the church treasurer also need crb checks?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Bisbow said:


> My grandmother died at the age of 101.
> Reason for death "OLD AGE"


That is given as the _primary_ cause of death on the death certificate?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Don't be silly Liz. If you are trying to say that we should only go back as far as written literature, then we would have to date your god from about 1400 BC, when the first part of the OT was first written down.


So how do you know your goddesses were around 200,000 years ago? Who told you?

liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Avoidance of CRB by the misuse of "office holder" (when the person is really an employee) is the same in every sect of the christian church.


Prove it. I have no idea why you have this bee in your bonnet but you are talking nonsense.

Liz


----------



## MCWillow

You said:



lizward said:


> ed)
> 
> Really? You have access to *literature* going back 200,000 years?
> 
> Liz


I replied:



MCWillow said:


> _*The Sumerian is the first written religion* consisting of about 3000 tablets and pieces that were found dating back to 1250 BC, making it the oldest known religion._
> 
> The Goddess Complex Part II


So in the context of your first post, and my reply, this reply is irrelevant:



lizward said:


> Abraham - and hence Judaism - goes back to 2000BC
> 
> Liz


I am fully aware there was religion before the Sumerian, you asked about _literature_.



Elmo the Bear said:


> It is not up to the church to "insist", anyone working with children has to have the check; *the operative phrase is working- office holder do not work so avoid the check *(and any employment rights) so the church pulls off a doulble whammy... no employment rights and no need for a full CRB check.
> 
> *officer holder = vicars/priests/whatever title you give them*? *"Youthworkers" should have nothing to do with religion*; forcing a belief system on those not old enough to be able to have access to all systems to be able to choose for themselves is called indoctrination.
> 
> ... and who mentioned youthworkers anyway... the topic of discussion was "office holders".





lizward said:


> Once again, please find me ANY UK church which does not require *enhanced crb checks of its youth and children's workers. * You can't, can you? Are you seriously suggesting that the organist or the church secretary or the church treasurer also need crb checks?
> 
> Liz


I can't see which part of Elmos question is confusing you to be honest.

IMO, if anyone within the church has any contact, however fleeting, with children, then yes they should have an enhanced CRB check.

I have an enhanced CRB check, and I don't _work_ with the children that come into my work, but I do have to be in the same room as them, if they wait in the waiting room for 10 minutes or whatever.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Abraham - and hence Judaism - goes back to 2000BC
> 
> Liz


What makes you say that?


----------



## Bisbow

lizward said:


> That is given as the _primary_ cause of death on the death certificate?
> 
> Liz


She died, she had OLD AGE on the certificate. Why, when someone proves you wrong you have to find some excuse to be right.

Primary cause of death, Ha. What else do you want. You said OLD AGE won't be found on a death certificate, you are wrong. It is on my grandmothers certificate., or are you saying I can't read


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> *Abraham* - and hence Judaism - goes back to 2000BC
> 
> Liz


_
Archaeological evidence proves that the Goddess religion existed and flourished in the Near and Middle East for *thousands of years before the arrival of the patriarchal Abraham*, first prophet of the male deity Yahweh._

Ancient Goddess MAMA


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> So how do you know your goddesses were around 200,000 years ago? Who told you?
> 
> liz


See McWillow's link above.

btw - they are not _my_ goddesses - they are just goddesses. 

Who told you your god was around from the beginning?


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Once again, please find me ANY UK church which does not require enhanced crb checks of its youth and children's workers. You can't, can you? Are you seriously suggesting that the organist or the church secretary or the church treasurer also need crb checks?
> 
> Liz


What about the vicar or priest or whatever you call them . . .you keep avoiding the issue, quite clearly deliberately.

Youth "workers" have full CRB checks - what does this have to do with the church? They are required by law. The only person who mentioned youthworkers was you.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

MCWillow said:


> I can't see which part of Elmos question is confusing you to be honest.


I think what is confusing her is the requirement to admit she's wrong.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Prove it. I have no idea why you have this bee in your bonnet but you are talking nonsense.
> 
> Liz


"Prove it" ? It's a matter of fact in law. Office holders are exempt under sections of the ROA and are not required to have full CRB checks

Case references you could use, inter alia, in particular relating to contract status are:
PRESIDENT OF THE METHODIST CONFERENCE v PARFITT
PERCY v CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BOARD OF NATIONAL MISSION
DAVIES v PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WALES
NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v STEWART
President of the Methodist Conference v Preston

They show the extent to which various churches will go to get out of granting employment status and rights.

but the law is baed on facts so you may struggle  I guess you would call fact, nonsense


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think what is confusing her is the requirement to admit she's wrong.


http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1161891/safeguarding4.pdf
Now, can we have an end to this nonsense of yours?

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> What makes you say that?


Fact.

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1161891/safeguarding4.pdf
> Now, can we have an end to this nonsense of yours?
> 
> Liz


You clearly didn't read/understand my last post.

That's about "recruitment". The bit you are deliberating avoiding is that vicars/priests etc are not employees, therefore not recruited, therefore not required to be checked.

You can continue to be dismissive, ignorant and obtuse but facts (a subject you seem to struggle with) are facts.... the nonsense in this thread mostly has your name at the top. You are an extremely good example as to why your religion has a bad name.

BTW - The first para of the document you linked to abrogates responsibility straight away... so your church even produces documents to get out of doings things properly... now that's what I call efficient deceit, they must be professional at it by now.


----------



## lizward

Bisbow said:


> She died, she had OLD AGE on the certificate. Why, when someone proves you wrong you have to find some excuse to be right.
> 
> Primary cause of death, Ha. What else do you want. You said OLD AGE won't be found on a death certificate, you are wrong. It is on my grandmothers certificate., or are you saying I can't read


Fine, I was wrong.

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> _
> Archaeological evidence proves that the Goddess religion existed and flourished in the Near and Middle East for *thousands of years before the arrival of the patriarchal Abraham*, first prophet of the male deity Yahweh._


Yes, there were pagan religions before Abraham, I am not denying that of course, the Bible makes it very clear! I did ask for the evidence from spellweaver that her religion is 200,000 years old!

Liz


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Fact.
> 
> Liz


Which fact?


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> See McWillow's link above.
> 
> btw - they are not _my_ goddesses - they are just goddesses.


That quotes 25,000 years.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> The bit you are deliberating avoiding is that vicars/priests etc are not employees, therefore not recruited, therefore not required to be checked.


READ THE LINK! Whether they are legally REQUIRED to be checked or not is academic, they ARE checked - more than once - before ever they get ordained!

Honestly I don't know what is more frightening, your blatant refusal to acknowledge a fact you do not like, or the fact that so many others are cheering you on. If you hate the church, fine, I get that, but why do you feel the need to tell blatant untruths?

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> READ THE LINK! Whether they are legally REQUIRED to be checked or not is academic, they ARE checked - more than once - before ever they get ordained!
> 
> Honestly I don't know what is more frightening, your blatant refusal to acknowledge a fact you do not like, or the fact that so many others are cheering you on. If you hate the church, fine, I get that, but why do you feel the need to tell blatant untruths?
> 
> Liz


Look, I really didn't want to be insulting but you really are a bit thick. Your link only applies to "employees"... of the church... *vicars etc are not employees* so do not have the check or the employment rights... it's really very simple.

I do "law" for a living. I work with it every day and get paid on the basis of what I know..... I don't hate the church... I hate the fact that people like you are so blinded by the "spell" that you will hear nothing against it and therefore change nothing about your organisation..... you were right when you send your doesn't evolve, he's still stuck in the dark ages with some his followers 

... no one here cheers me on I can assure you. I'm not bothered about being cheered on ... I'm bothered by your ignorance.


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> Look, I really didn't want to be insulting but you really are a bit thick. Your link only applies to "employees"... of the church... *vicars etc are not employees*


Really? Is that why they don't get salaries ("stipends") or pensions?  And as for the link, do you actually understand what ordination is? Or was it too much trouble to read that far? It is in the index so you shouldn't have too much difficulty finding it.

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Really? Is that why they don't get salaries ("stipends") or pensions?  And as for the link, do you actually understand what ordination is? Or was it too much trouble to read that far? It is in the index so you shouldn't have too much difficulty finding it.
> 
> Liz


They don't get salaries because they are not employees... do you understand what constitutes an employee?? I don't care what ordination is as it has no status in employment law. Office holder are not required by law to have a full (restricted list) CRB check .... whether you agree/disagree... think that's good or not, it is a fact in law.


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> They don't get salaries because they are not employees... do you understand what constitutes an employee?? I don't care what ordination is as it has no status in employment law. Office holder are not required by law to have a full (restricted list) CRB check .... whether you agree/disagree... think that's good or not, it is a fact in law.


You might like to look up "common tenure".

My point is, REGARDLESS of their status they in fact ARE CRB checked, that was what you were griping about wasn't it?

Liz


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> You might like to look up "common tenure".
> 
> My point is, REGARDLESS of their status they in fact ARE CRB checked, that was what you were griping about wasn't it?
> 
> Liz


I don't care if they are or not... as far as I'm concerned the church should not exist and organised religions shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children., The point is academic - you tried to say the church has done work for employment rights. The case law I posted shows quite the opposite and has avoided employment rights for people by making them office holders not workers.

You say "clergy" are CRB checked; there is no requirement in law and the bit in your book does not specify the type of check.

The standard CRB check (and as your book does not mention anything else) is fairly low key; the proper check (enhanced) is the one that people working with children (regulated activity) should have but (as I've stated time and time and time again) is not required by English and Welsh law for office holders.

Employment status is a complex area of law which the church seem to be using to their advantage to deny people rights. The CRB check may be a side issue (and the case law I've listed just scratches the surface) but it is an important one..... there is no reason for churches to have "youth workers" and these should work of behalf of the state, not on behalf of a 'sect' whether that be the church of England or the moonies !!


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Yes, there were pagan religions before Abraham, I am not denying that of course, the Bible makes it very clear! I did ask for the evidence from spellweaver that her religion is 200,000 years old!
> 
> Liz


No you didn't. You have never spoken to me about my religion. You have no idea what my religion is - you do not even know whether or not I follow a religion. I even corrected you when you said they were "my" goddesses.

What you *did* ask was if I had proof in literature that humankind worshipped gods and goddesses from 200,000 years ago and I told you that you were being silly because "literature" as such didn't exist 200,000 years ago.

Just to refresh your memory and set the record straight - because you're good at twisting things - what I actually said was that humankind had been on the earth for over 200,000 years and your god wasn't even heard of until 194,000 of those years had passed, whilst other gods and goddesses had come and gone. Here's what I actually wrote:



Spellweaver said:


> So why was there no mention of him until around 6000 years ago? Plenty of mention of other gods and goddesses during the previous 194,000 years humans have lived on the earth, but none of him.


That's quite a bit different from saying that the gods and goddesses of my religion were aroound 200,000 years ago, which is what you are now trying to pretend I said. 

Now, on the other hand, you have been given proof by McWillow that gods and goddesses were worshipped long before your god was even heard of - and you are trying to evade addressing the issue by pretending you asked me about my religion.

I did ask you about what proof you have that your god has been there from the beginning of time, but so far you have ignored the question - I'm guessing because you can't offer any such proof.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> You might like to look up "common tenure".
> 
> Liz


Many times... refer to the case law as to how it's used by the cofe to get out of contractual terms. The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 SI 2009/2 108 do not deem priests on common tenure to be employees - in fact, they do not apply in respect of offices held in pursuance of a contract of employment - Reg 2(3) - they provide a package of terms which in many ways replicate employment rights but actually deny those right and instead replace them with obligations that can be removed at the will of the church... they are not contractual.

PS - Common tenure only applied to some office holders after Jan 2011


----------



## myshkin

Still waiting to see the facts which show that Judaism goes back to 2000 years BC...


----------



## MCWillow

lizward said:


> Yes, there were pagan religions before Abraham, I am not denying that of course, the Bible makes it very clear! I did ask for the evidence from spellweaver that her religion is 200,000 years old!
> 
> Liz


So if there were other religions, what makes you think your particular god is the main man? Why would the main man make other religions and other gods?



lizward said:


> My God made your god.
> 
> Liz


Where is the proof of this?



lizward said:


> Ultimately it comes down to the uniqueness of Christianity and the historical fact of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection.
> 
> Liz


[youtube_browser]-CnNRZbPE0I[/youtube_browser]

So now where is your proof of this?



lizward said:


> Evangelical. I don't claim to be an evangelist
> 
> Because the Catholics are the ones who did that sort of "adaptation". Evangelicals follow the Bible, we don't attempt to adapt things from folk religion.
> 
> Liz





lizward said:


> Actually, Jesus told us to judge. And one day he himself will judge everyone.
> 
> Liz


Matthew 7
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged"

Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -

Seems to be a bit of adapting going on there. You are saying Jesus told us to judge - or is Matthew just making it up, and ignoring what Jesus was teaching?


----------



## myshkin

Great link, McWillow, I knew the mythology wasn't new or unique to Jesus, but hadn't realised just how many parallels were out there.


----------



## MCWillow

myshkin said:


> *Great link*, McWillow, I knew the mythology wasn't new or unique to Jesus, but hadn't realised just how many parallels were out there.


Someone posted it earlier somewhere, but I couldnt find it in the thread - I was amazed I actually put the right search parameters into YouTube to find it again


----------



## Guest

Ah... the joys of different time zones. Im late to the party and Ive missed all the fun 



MCWillow said:


> [youtube_browser]-CnNRZbPE0I[/youtube_browser]
> 
> So now where is your proof of this?


Love it  I thought someone had posted this in the thread already, and yet again, I see Liz is simply ignoring it. 
But yes, very clear that nothing about Jesus was unique.



lizward said:


> Mum is a regular churchgoer, is she? So I can speak to her in a pastoral capacity, can I?
> 
> Child is a regular Sunday School attender, is she? If she isn't. how do you imagine I am likely to come across her or, if I do, how do you imagine I am going to be in a position to advise her on spiritual matters?


Do you realize how callous and uncaring your reply sounds? Not a member of your church, oh well, let them rot?

I would expect that you would care about her as a human being. I would expect that you do whatever you possibly could to help her, regardless of whether or not her mum attends church. 
See those of us not constrained by a religion or belief system, are free to help and care about ALL children, regardless of who their parents are.

I could have sworn you mentioned being an educator/teacher at some point in this thread, but Im too lazy to slog through 80+ pages to look it up. Doesnt matter anyway. All humans should feel a responsibility to each other.

Liz, I have to ask. Do you feel you have a different responsibility to those who attend your church than those who dont? I think I already know the answer. And it proves exactly what Ive been trying to get across about how religion divides, isolates, and separates humanity rather than uniting it. How INhumane IMO.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Do you SERIOUSLY expect me to be able to answer questions about crb checks on employees' office holders in a denomination I do not belong to? Do you expect me to be able to answer questions about crb checks in the local cinema or supermarket too?
> 
> Liz


Oh and this doesnt address my statement about how it seems that you feel no solidarity with your fellow Christians who also happen to be Catholic. Do you?
What about fellow humans who happen to be Jewish? Muslim? Hindu? Non-believers? What solidarity do you feel with them, if any?


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't care if they are or not... as far as I'm concerned the church should not exist


now why does it not surprise me that that is your real gripe?



> You say "clergy" are CRB checked; there is no requirement in law and the bit in your book does not specify the type of check.


Well write to the C of E and ask them then. For heavens sake. I don't think I've ever before come across such bizarre arguments on any religion thread. Congratulations to you and spellweaver and ouesi, you are going to find yourselves as illustrations in my sermon next time I talk about how the world hates Christians ("the world" by the way is used here as a technical Christian term to mean that which is opposed to God). You will of course be unnamed (even by your handles, I don't know your real names)



> there is no reason for churches to have "youth workers" !


Children whose other alternative is to sit through a whole service might disagree with you!

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> now why does it not surprise me that that is your real gripe?
> 
> Well write to the C of E and ask them then. For heavens sake. I don't think I've ever before come across such bizarre arguments on any religion thread. Congratulations to you and spellweaver and ouesi, you are going to find yourselves as illustrations in my sermon next time I talk about how the world hates Christians ("the world" by the way is used here as a technical Christian term to mean that which is opposed to God). You will of course be unnamed (even by your handles, I don't know your real names)
> 
> Children whose other alternative is to sit through a whole service might disagree with you!
> 
> Liz


Why preach about the world "hating" christians, I dont understand why you would want to make your fellow churchgoers feel (more) isolated and alienated by the general populus.

One explaination could be by encouraging them to feel isolated, they are more likely to feel "embraced" by their faith, as its the only place they could feel accepted. One theory, of course, im sure you have valid reasons..


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> No you didn't. You have never spoken to me about my religion. You have no idea what my religion is - you do not even know whether or not I follow a religion. I even corrected you when you said they were "my" goddesses.


Wasn't it you who made a comment about the different ways you and I would react if some goddess or other materialised in front of us? Not to mention the fatc that a handle like "spellweaver" does suggest certain things - as does the fact that you acknowledge gods and goddesses which evolved. I would be interested to know what church you belonged to since you first said you were born again and now say it was not an evangelical church (small e)?



> Just to refresh your memory and set the record straight - because you're good at twisting things - what I actually said was that humankind had been on the earth for over 200,000 years and your god wasn't even heard of until 194,000 of those years had passed, whilst other gods and goddesses had come and gone. Here's what I actually wrote:


Ah, so you didn't actually mean that other gods and goddesses had been around for 200,000 years, you just meant that pagan religions were older than Judaism. Well then we agree. Doesn't change the fact that God created the heavens and the earth (and all your gods and goddesses, using "your" to mean "pagans in general")



> I did ask you about what proof you have that your god has been there from the beginning of time, but so far you have ignored the question - I'm guessing because you can't offer any such proof.


How do you expect me to prove that? God, by definition, always has been and always will be. That's it.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Still waiting to see the facts which show that Judaism goes back to 2000 years BC...


Genesis 12. Well OK, if you want to be really accurate, since Jews are descended from Abraham Isaac and Jacob, perhaps it would be more accurate to say a couple of generatiosn after Abraham, but Jews always claim Abraham as the start. I am not talking about first temple judaism, second temple judaism or rabbinic judaism, I am talking about where it started.

Next?

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> So if there were other religions, what makes you think your particular god is the main man? Why would the main man make other religions


He didn't


> and other gods?


Those other gods are created beings who should not be worshipped.


> Where is the proof of this?


In the Bible, obviously.


> Matthew 7
> "Do not judge, or you too will be judged"
> 
> Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -
> 
> Seems to be a bit of adapting going on there. You are saying Jesus told us to judge - or is Matthew just making it up, and ignoring what Jesus was teaching?


You need to look at the context always. Elsewhere, Christians are specifically told to judge those in the churches. Christ himself told us to judge with right judgement (John 7:24)

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Do you realize how callous and uncaring your reply sounds? Not a member of your church, oh well, let them rot?


Not at all. There are a couple of points if the answer is in fact no. 1. Most child abuse is in fact done by someone the child knows who is not actually the child's father - mother's boyfriend being a prime example. But on this thread at least one person is griping on and on and on and on about how all churches abuse children and seek to find excuses for not having their office holders CRB checked (the fact that this is false seems not to have actually registered with her) 2. If Mum was not in my congregation I would be most unlikely to be in a position to offer any pastoral advice 3. If child was not in Sunday school, how would I be likely to come across the abuse? But the argument was that this child would be told by me that everything was her own fault because of sin. In secular youth work in the UK that would simply not be permitted, youth workers would be sacked for saying it. So the whole scenario of me saying any such thing to such a child is impossible.



> I could have sworn you mentioned being an educator/teacher at some point in this thread, but Im too lazy to slog through 80+ pages to look it up.


I was, but it is 13 years since I have been in a classroom. I am engaged in voluntary youth work with "young people at risk of social exclusion" (I think that's the term we use), in a project set up by the local churches but employing a secular youth worker whose salary is funded by the local authority. Many of us from the churches volunteer but it is a secular project that just happens to have total support from the churches in the area.



> Liz, I have to ask. Do you feel you have a different responsibility to those who attend your church than those who dont?


Yes of course I do. I don't go visiting random people in hospital and I'm sure they wouldn't want me to. I don't go visiting bereaved people at random and I am sure they wouldn't want me to. Do you do those things?

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Oh and this doesnt address my statement about how it seems that you feel no solidarity with your fellow Christians who also happen to be Catholic. Do you?
> What about fellow humans who happen to be Jewish? Muslim? Hindu? Non-believers? What solidarity do you feel with them, if any?


What do you mean by solidarity?

Liz


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> Why preach about the world "hating" christians, I dont understand why you would want to make your fellow churchgoers feel (more) isolated and alienated by the general populus.


That isn't the reason, though in fact Jesus told us to expect to be hated, persecuted and have lies told about us (so this thread is not really a surprise to me!). The reason is this. Over recent years in many denominations including my own, there has been an unfortunate tendency for churches to take the line that since it is so difficult to get people to come to church, the way forward is to make church more and more easily accessible, by which they don't mean changing the time of worship (which just might work!) but by dumbing down the message or the hymns or both, and by putting on "spirituality" classes that it is hoped wiccans might relate to, praying with pebbles, salt dough modelling, putting objects in the middle of a circle as a focus for worship and so on. One church I know very well, with the best motivations in the world, held a whole course on spirituality which was geared up to be attractive to new-agers. In fact only one person came from otuside the church and she was from a neighbouring church. The end result is that the most committed Christians in these churches get more and more alienated and leave for more traditional churches, and no-one new comes in anyway. I tell churches that there is no point in trying to compromise with the world out there that hates us.

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> That isn't the reason, though in fact Jesus told us to expect to be hated, persecuted and have lies told about us (so this thread is not really a surprise to me!). The reason is this. Over recent years in many denominations including my own, there has been an unfortunate tendency for churches to take the line that since it is so difficult to get people to come to church, the way forward is to make church more and more easily accessible, by which they don't mean changing the time of worship (which just might work!) but by dumbing down the message or the hymns or both, and by putting on "spirituality" classes that it is hoped wiccans might relate to, praying with pebbles, salt dough modelling, putting objects in the middle of a circle as a focus for worship and so on. One church I know very well, with the best motivations in the world, held a whole course on spirituality which was geared up to be attractive to new-agers. In fact only one person came from otuside the church and she was from a neighbouring church. The end result is that the most committed Christians in these churches get more and more alienated and leave for more traditional churches, and no-one new comes in anyway. I tell churches that there is no point in trying to compromise with the world out there that hates us.
> 
> Liz


I see.

I understand the logic, i am just unsure that i agree with the wording.

I am not of faith, I wouldnt attend a church no matter what "methods" were employed. However i do not "hate" christians, in fact I have many religious friends of whom I never argue with regarding faith or ethics. I just do not think that it is for me...

I think that this would be true for many people, sadly we are often bombarded by folk who almost try to "enforce" their faith on us, which causes a more aggressive defence in many. 
JW's and christians at the door of my house, being approached by people promoting their ideas in town, just last week I was handed a leaflet from a group which was frankly 10 pages of rambling, incoherant preaching about youth, describing women as "the harlot" "the unfaithful person" "decietful and clamourous, unmanagable with impudent face" - it really does organised religion no favours. Its all being crammed down our throat, without our consent or invitation.

Maybe instead of spreading word that we "hate" you, as christians, maybe preach that we in fact are ignorant to your world beneath the surface that we are often beaten with, that we do not fully understand your hearts and intentions. It is not hate in most parts, mearly misunderstanding.

People "hate" organised religion more as a whole i believe, if that is the term you wish to use, rather than individuals as a faith.


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> just last week I was handed a leaflet from a group which was frankly 10 pages of rambling, incoherant preaching about youth, describing women as "the harlot" "the unfaithful person" "decietful and clamourous, unmanagable with impudent face" - it really does organised religion no favours.


I agree - sounds a very strange way to try to win people for Christ. Don't suppose you've still got the leaflet?



> Maybe instead of spreading word that we "hate" you, as christians, maybe preach that we in fact are ignorant to your world beneath the surface that we are often beaten with, that we do not fully understand your hearts and intentions. It is not hate in most parts, mearly misunderstanding.


If you mean that the average person knows virtually nothing about Christianity, I agree, and I do make this clear. The tragedy is that churches too are full of people who know very little about the Bible.

Liz


----------



## Knightofalbion

Life is a continuum.

When your 'time' comes all those you have loved and have loved you (who have passed over), irrespective of what faith they did or did not follow, will be there to greet you.
Even your dog will be there! 

The purpose of a spiritual faith is to guide and inspire, transforming the follower into a kinder, more loving, more noble individual. 

There is a wonderful poem, 'Invictus', which famously ends:
'You are the master of your fate;
You are the captain of your soul'

Following this or that religion is all well and good, but it's really just a label.
It is our deeds, the accumulated acts of goodness and kindness, that define us and ultimately are the true measure of our worth.
Service is the coin of the spirit.


----------



## Waterlily

Christianity is the last of our issues though, muslims are the worst. Can label it predjudiced all you like, but the fact is we will be muslim nations within fifty or hundred yrs, the mathematical proof is there, kid ratio to western births, and then voting age ..= muslim voters voting muslim gov.. Some say who gives a rats, if its muslim, or not and you so racist.....well. Cover ya ankles now women, cos thats what it will mean.


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> I agree - sounds a very strange way to try to win people for Christ. Don't suppose you've still go the leaflet?
> 
> If you mean that the average person knows virtually nothing about Christianity, I agree, and I do make this clear. The tragedy is that churches too are full of people who know very little about the Bible.
> 
> Liz


I do, it was titled "To the young - where are you going?" published byChristian Doctrince and Gospel Publishing.

I can only assume it is not authored by a native speaker, as it is vey difficult to read; incoherant ramblings in all honesty. Most christians that I have spoken to, and those devout in other faith, have always been eloquent speakers and I find this one very strange.

Sadly it has only a name on the back, and mobile number, I do not intend to call them, but I am interested which denomination they represent.

It opens:
""The simple desire at this time is to seek help to make some impression on the young men that are here, and that would iclude young women. Its not that this is a gospel exactly for young persons, but they are primarily in mind"


----------



## cinnamontoast

Hate Christians? We are not in Roman times with Christians being thrown to the lions! I don't see hate on this thread: I see disbelief and scepticism, primarily regarding how fervent some are in their religion and against others. 

I see more hate against non Christian religions, with charming throwaway phrases e.g. 'whatever his name is' and 'my god made your god'. Please! We are, I presume, mostly adults, but some of the comments are downright ill thought out, IMO. There's some very naive thinking and plain obdurate statements. 

You cannot expect people to accept 'just because thats the way it is' type statements. Says who? Where's the history of this god before the dates given? I know a leap of faith is required, but some of the beliefs portrayed on here are jaw dropping!


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Genesis 12. Well OK, if you want to be really accurate, since Jews are descended from Abraham Isaac and Jacob, perhaps it would be more accurate to say a couple of generatiosn after Abraham, but Jews always claim Abraham as the start. I am not talking about first temple judaism, second temple judaism or rabbinic judaism, I am talking about where it started.
> 
> Next?
> 
> Liz


Next.....let's find out what makes you say that because the OT says that Abraham was born 2 thousand years before Jesus, you insist that it's fact.
Insist on believing it all you like, you have every right to believe in stories.

But you can't call it fact when despite a wealth of archaeological evidence in the region, no evidence whatsoever has been found to validate the OT's claims to date to 2000 years BC.
The most optimistic of tradionalist scholars put the OT's formation at around 900 BC.....more realistic estimations are at 600-300 BC.

Let's be clear....when I talk of scholars, I'm talking of archaologists, literary critics, historians. Your faith based belief does not merit the title of scholarly opinion.


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> I do, it was titled "To the young - where are you going?" published byChristian Doctrince and Gospel Publishing.
> 
> I can only assume it is not authored by a native speaker, as it is vey difficult to read; incoherant ramblings in all honesty. Most christians that I have spoken to, and those devout in other faith, have always been eloquent speakers and I find this one very strange.
> 
> Sadly it has only a name on the back, and mobile number, I do not intend to call them, but I am interested which denomination they represent.
> 
> It opens:
> ""The simple desire at this time is to seek help to make some impression on the young men that are here, and that would iclude young women. Its not that this is a gospel exactly for young persons, but they are primarily in mind"


Most intriguing - thank you. The names in the catalogue are those of the Exclusive Brethren which is rather interesting. My husband was in the Open brethren for many years and knows all those names. They are a rather strange lot - especially the Taylorites who were virtually a cult (and still are, if they are still around). Would you be willing to PM me the name on the back? Is there no author named in the tract?

Liz


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> I see more hate against non Christian religions, with charming throwaway phrases e.g. 'whatever his name is' and 'my god made your god'.


You think that is hate, but falsely accusing churches of deliberately covering up child abuse isn't?

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> Next.....let's find out what makes you say that because the OT says that Abraham was born 2 thousand years before Jesus, you insist that it's fact.


O for goodness sake, the OT does not specify the amount of time, it is worked out from reading up the histories in there - King David is 1000BC and you work back from that. If you know of any evidence that Abraham was not somewhere around 2000BC (and why on earth it should matter to you, I don't know) then let's hear it. It is generally accepted and I have never heard anyone claim any other date for Abraham.



> But you can't call it fact when despite a wealth of archaeological evidence in the region, no evidence whatsoever has been found to validate the OT's claims to date to 2000 years BC.


No-one is claiming it was written then!

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> Most intriguing - thank you. The names in the catalogue are those of the Exclusive Brethren which is rather interesting. My husband was in the Open brethren for many years and knows all those names. They are a rather strange lot - especially the Taylorites who were virtually a cult (and still are, if they are still around). Would you be willing to PM me the name on the back? Is there no author named in the tract?
> 
> Liz


I will PM you; Author is J.S. Hales from what I can see. Have just had a re-read and it seems it may be a transcript of a preaching in "Gospel Hall" (I have no idea what/where this refers to), and refers to Zechariah 2:1-5 and Proverbs 7: 6-10,27. 
I assume that it is because it is direct transcript of the sermon (if thats what one would call it) is why it is a difficult and incoherant read - on paper some things do not flow equally as well as from the tongue.

Googled JS Hales and Exclusive breathren was first result.... well done lol http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/documents/whither.pdf I think it may be an adaptation from this, written by the same gentlemen...


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> I will PM you; Author is J.S. Hales from what I can see. Have just had a re-read and it seems it may be a transcript of a preaching in "Gospel Hall" (I have no idea what/where this refers to), and refers to Zechariah 2:1-5 and Proverbs 7: 6-10,27.


My husband knew that name and described it as "bottom of the barrel". "Gospel Hall" is the name all branches of the Plymouth Brethren give to their buildings. As for the wisdom of handing something like this out on the streets, well, words fail me.

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

My main confusion was its in the middle of Parliament Square at lunchtime, so 75% tourists and 35% Civil Servents - Everyone in my office got handed one (or was attempted to) and Im the youngest at 27 by about 15 years - Why even bother handing out leaflets aimed at youth to middle aged gent's in the middle of a tourist attraction!


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Congratulations to you and spellweaver and ouesi, you are going to find yourselves as illustrations in my sermon next time I talk about how the world hates Christians ("the world" by the way is used here as a technical Christian term to mean that which is opposed to God).


Preaching about hate? How very kind and compassionate of you... 
I have not posted anything in hate just FYI. I have posted in frustration yes, confusion yes, but no hate. 
Yet when you are questioned, legitimately, hate is what you see. What does that tell you about your beliefs?
That you would use hate as a lesson in your sermon to further divide people, isolate, and distance your followers, what does that tell you about your beliefs?



lizward said:


> Not at all. There are a couple of points if the answer is in fact no. 1. Most child abuse is in fact done by someone the child knows who is not actually the child's father - mother's boyfriend being a prime example.


 Fathers commit plenty of abuse, so your statement is inaccurate. But more importantly, the MOTHER is also committing abuse by blaming the child for the rape and kicking her out of the house!! 


lizward said:


> But on this thread at least one person is griping on and on and on and on about how all churches abuse children and seek to find excuses for not having their office holders CRB checked (the fact that this is false seems not to have actually registered with her)


This has absolutely nothing to do with the example I gave.


lizward said:


> 2. If Mum was not in my congregation I would be most unlikely to be in a position to offer any pastoral advice


 Is that the only way you can help people, in a pastoral role? Rather limiting wouldnt you say? 


lizward said:


> 3. If child was not in Sunday school, how would I be likely to come across the abuse?


Do you not interact with people in any capacity other than a religious capacity? Again, pretty limiting.


lizward said:


> But the argument was that this child would be told by me that everything was her own fault because of sin. In secular youth work in the UK that would simply not be permitted, youth workers would be sacked for saying it. So the whole scenario of me saying any such thing to such a child is impossible.


How would you a child like this then? What comfort would you be able to offer a child like this??



lizward said:


> I was, but it is 13 years since I have been in a classroom. I am engaged in voluntary youth work with "young people at risk of social exclusion" (I think that's the term we use), in a project set up by the local churches but employing a secular youth worker whose salary is funded by the local authority. Many of us from the churches volunteer but it is a secular project that just happens to have total support from the churches in the area.


Same question as above. How would you comfort a child as a volunteer in this secular capacity?



lizward said:


> Yes of course I do. I don't go visiting random people in hospital and I'm sure they wouldn't want me to. I don't go visiting bereaved people at random and I am sure they wouldn't want me to. Do you do those things?


Yes, in fact I do. I volunteer in many areas, including therapy dog work that puts me in a situation to visit the sick, elderly, children in hospitals, etc. They are not random people to me, they are fellow human beings just as deserving of love and compassion and empathy as anyone. 
What was that you were saying about hate? Rather interesting isnt it, that I would visit the children of your church if they were in the hospital, yet you would not visit mine.



lizward said:


> What do you mean by solidarity?


I think my sentence above explains it fairly clearly.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> now why does it not surprise me that that is your real gripe?
> 
> Well write to the C of E and ask them then. For heavens sake. * I don't think I've ever before come across such bizarre arguments on any religion thread. * Congratulations to you and spellweaver and ouesi, you are going to find yourselves as illustrations in my sermon next time I talk about *how the world hates Christians* ("the world" by the way is used here as a technical Christian term to mean that which is opposed to God). You will of course be unnamed (even by your handles, I don't know your real names)
> 
> *Children whose other alternative is to sit through a whole service might disagree with you! *
> 
> Liz


I can see how fact can come across as bizarre to you.

Don't forget to mention the "why" (as a reaction to oddballs posting nonsense on pet forums) when you talk about "how" (which not "hating" christians but just objecting to the baseless arguments of sects to try and explain their own existence instead of trying to explain the existence of their god).

The children are forced to sit through services or go to a church backed youthworker????? how sad for the children to have that rubbish forced on them at a young age... no wonder some of you end up so bitter


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> You think that is hate, but falsely accusing churches of deliberately covering up child abuse isn't?
> 
> Liz


It is unfortunate but true that the Catholic church (yes, I know you're not Catholic, but they're Christian, through and through) has been obliged to admit to abuse, both of children and of young unmarried mothers, the latter notably in Ireland. There are many books on the subject, I'm sure google will throw up plenty of info. I don't think that can be denied. No false accusations, just plenty of proof.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> You think that is hate, but falsely accusing churches of deliberately covering up child abuse isn't?
> 
> Liz


You think that's a false accusation? And before you blame everything on the Catholics again, you think they are the only Christian church to have been involved in the abuse of children?



lizward said:


> *O for goodness sake, the OT does not specify the amount of time, it is worked out from reading up the histories in there - King David is 1000BC and you work back from that. * If you know of any evidence that Abraham was not somewhere around 2000BC (and why on earth it should matter to you, I don't know) then let's hear it. It is generally accepted and I have never heard anyone claim any other date for Abraham.
> 
> No-one is claiming it was written then!
> 
> Liz


By providing the histories, it's specifying the amount of time - after all that's how you came up with the "fact" of Abraham's date.

Evidence that he wasn't around - that's more circular argument. There is no evidence for his existence *whatsoever*, despite an abundance of archaeological evidence in the region, dating back to pre-biblical times.

It is generally accepted *in your circles *- those circles accept the "history" in the OT without question, but you can't lay any sensible claim to any facts to back this up.

No-one said that you claimed it was written then, but it's perplexing to me that when the only evidence you have is an account written more than a thousand years after the events it claims to document, you should accept that despite a total lack of evidence to support it....especially after your insistence on the NT being eye-witness accounts, as if that point of argument proved beyond all doubt that they were reliable historical documents.

More wriggling.


----------



## lemmsy

I was brought up a Catholic. 
I believe there is a God. 
I am very moderate in my beliefs. I just try to be a good person, treat others how I would like to be treated, do the best I can for my family and dogs etc...

I don't believe in much of the radical/fundamentalist stuff. Leads to alot of problems IMO. I've had several rather infuriating conversations with fundamentalists hell-bent on trying to convert me to their extreme brand/way of doing things. Their respect for others individuality and plain old common sense frequently goes out of the window! One lady I know is very pro-life and posts about it constantly and rather inappropriately on facebook. It drives me mad. Not because I'm not pro-life exactly (actually I'm probably somewhere in between the two- who am I to judge someone anyway whatever route they choose) but because what she does is anti-social, obsessive and very very insensitive. 

Nobody can deny that historically organized religion has caused problems, bloodshed etc which should never be forgotten. 
By the same merit, let's not forget that many religious charities are responsible for great pro-humanitarian and pro-environmental acts that do make the world a better place. 
Nothing is black or white. 
There is usual a bit of truth in every argument. 
I don't agree with preaching to anyone, knocking on peoples doors, trying to persuade people they are wrong. People are entitled to their own beliefs whether they believe or not in a God, follow a religion, don't follow a religion. When it comes to spirituality/faith or there lack of, nobody should be told they are wrong because rationally we cannot prove that either is the case. 

I think the majority of people have 'spirituality'; that is to say, they have values, morals and try to be good people etc and that is great. 

Religion or no religion, spirituality or no spirituality, how people view their life; however different these may be, I reckon it's like looking at a massive mountain from a different angle. 
Everyone has their own way of doing things and that's fine. 

I've never really understood why it has to be such massive conflict.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Not to mention the fatc that a handle like "spellweaver" does suggest certain things - as does the fact that you acknowledge gods and goddesses which evolved.


:lol: :lol: :lol: - just very quickly because I'm at work until 10 pm and am not supposed to be on here. What a good example that necessary inference does not work! I show dogs and Spellweaver is my affix, chosen because we had bergamascos who have a woven coat and cast a spell over you with their loyalty and love! :lol: :lol: :lol:



lizward said:


> I would be interested to know what church you belonged to since you first said you were born again and now say it was not an evangelical church (small e)?


I have never said I was born again. I belonged to a normal church of england church.



lizward said:


> Ah, so you didn't actually mean that other gods and goddesses had been around for 200,000 years, you just meant that pagan religions were older than Judaism.


No, I meant exactly what I said - ie that despite the fact that human beings have been around for 200,000 years, with other gods and goddesses, your god did not put in a appearance until 6,000 years ago. Anything else is words you are trying to put into my mouth.



lizward said:


> How do you expect me to prove that? God, by definition, always has been and always will be. That's it.


By the same definintion, how did you expect me to prove that other gods and goddesses existed 200,000 years ago? You must stop this one rule for you and one rule for the rest of us business.

btw, for the record - I don't hate christians. I think the christian faith is a load of tosh, but that doesn't make me hate the people who believe in it. You are judging me by your standards again. I'm not like you - I don't hate someone just because they believe in something different to me.


----------



## Guest

> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fatc that a handle like "spellweaver" does suggest certain things - as does the fact that you acknowledge gods and goddesses which evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spellweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: - just very quickly because I'm at work until 10 pm and am not supposed to be on here. What a good example that necessary inference does not work! I show dogs and Spellweaver is my affix, chosen because we had bergamascos who have a woven coat and cast a spell over you with their loyalty and love! :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hilarious! Absolutely hilarious and very, very apt. Love it


----------



## grumpy goby

Im actually pretty impressed this has gone 87 pages without degrading into a slagging match and borderline bullying on a highly emotive and personal subject... I have seen much less serious threads go downhill so quickly :thumbup:


----------



## Rottsmum

_"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed with us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use" - Galileo Galilei_

Well that just about sums up my feelings on the subject  I have no objection to any religion - what i do object to is blind faith and closed mindedness.

I believe that someone called Jesus existed. I believe that this man styled himself "King of the Jews" and "Messiah" and lets face it, he wasn't the only one 

I don't believe that he was the son of God. I don't believe in the resurrection - I think the disappearance of his body HAD to happen because otherwise there would have been a MASSIVE case of egg on the face for all the disciples. As has been stated - there isn't one shred of physical or archealogical evidence to support it.

The bible wasn't written by God - the books contained within it were written by men. The books chose to go into it were chosen by men. The chosen accounts are not contemporaneous.

If all the books that were disregarded were to be compiled i'm sure that a very different picture would emerge 

Am I religious? NO. Am I spiritual? YES. Do I need to be preached at by people who have seemingly no interest in established fact ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!


----------



## grumpy goby

Daneandrottiemum said:


> I believe that someone called Jesus existed. I believe that this man styled himself "King of the Jews" and "Messiah" and lets face it, he wasn't the only one


I thought that was David Icke 

Although he did change his mind on that and now I think he believes all the world leaders are giant reptiles. (thats not a metaphor, he genuinly means big lizard people....)


----------



## cinnamontoast

There is a god! We just won gold for team show jumping! My god is Peter Charles!


----------



## poohdog

Daneandrottiemum said:


> _"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed with us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use" - Galileo Galilei_
> 
> Well that just about sums up my feelings on the subject  I have no objection to any religion - what i do object to is blind faith and closed mindedness.
> 
> I believe that someone called Jesus existed. I believe that this man styled himself "King of the Jews" and "Messiah" and lets face it, he wasn't the only one
> 
> I don't believe that he was the son of God. I don't believe in the resurrection - I think the disappearance of his body HAD to happen because otherwise there would have been a MASSIVE case of egg on the face for all the disciples. As has been stated - there isn't one shred of physical or archealogical evidence to support it.
> 
> The bible wasn't written by God - the books contained within it were written by men. The books chose to go into it were chosen by men. The chosen accounts are not contemporaneous.
> 
> If all the books that were disregarded were to be compiled i'm sure that a very different picture would emerge
> 
> Am I religious? NO. Am I spiritual? YES. Do I need to be preached at by people who have seemingly no interest in established fact ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!


*Can't stand people that muck about...now do you believe or not? *


----------



## MCWillow

MCWillow said:


> So if there were other religions, what makes you think your particular god is the main man? Why would the main man make other religions and other gods?
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't
> 
> Those other gods are created beings who should not be worshipped.
Click to expand...

Created by who? If your god created the universe and everything in it, doesnt it stand to reason that he created those other god and goddesses?

If he didn't create them, then he can't have created the universe and everything in it. Unless they too, have always been, and will always be.



MCWillow said:


> [youtube_browser]-CnNRZbPE0I[/youtube_browser]


I would really appreciate if you could explain this video to me. It shows lots of gods, and the parallels to your god are uncanny. Some of them were around before your god - how do you explain that?



MCWillow said:


> Where is the proof of this?
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Bible, obviously.
Click to expand...

But your god wrote the bible, so that isnt actually proof, thats his _opinion._

Its like me wanting a new mobile phone and going into a Vodaphone shop to ask which provider they would recommend! They are not going to give me an unbiased opinion or all the options - they are only going to give me the options _they_ want to sell.



MCWillow said:


> Matthew 7
> "Do not judge, or you too will be judged"
> 
> Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -
> 
> Seems to be a bit of adapting going on there. You are saying Jesus told us to judge - or is Matthew just making it up, and ignoring what Jesus was teaching?
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to look at the context always. Elsewhere, Christians are specifically told to judge those in the churches. Christ himself told us to judge with right judgement (John 7:24)
> 
> Liz
Click to expand...

So in actual fact, the bible does contradict itself. In one breath it tells you _not_ to judge, and in the next it tells you that you _should_ judge.

This is why I find religion so confusing, and why, IMO, the bible, and the stories in it, shouldn't be taken literally.


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> My main confusion was its in the middle of Parliament Square at lunchtime, so 75% tourists and 35% Civil Servents - Everyone in my office got handed one (or was attempted to) and Im the youngest at 27 by about 15 years - Why even bother handing out leaflets aimed at youth to middle aged gent's in the middle of a tourist attraction!


Goodness knows :confused1:


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Preaching about hate? How very kind and compassionate of you...


Whyever not? Christ told us to expect to be hated, and in many parts of the world even today Christians pay for being Christians with their lives. If Christ warned us to expect it, who am I to refuse to pass the message on?



> I have not posted anything in hate just FYI. I have posted in frustration yes, confusion yes, but no hate.
> Yet when you are questioned, legitimately, hate is what you see.


Hate is how it comes across - from you and a couple of others.

[QUOTE[] Fathers commit plenty of abuse, so your statement is inaccurate.[/QUOTE]
But most abuse in families (talking about abuse more generally) is committed by stepfathers, and those having that role in unmarried relationships.



> But more importantly, the MOTHER is also committing abuse by blaming the child for the rape and kicking her out of the house!!


Certainly.



> This has absolutely nothing to do with the example I gave.
> Is that the only way you can help people, in a pastoral role? Rather limiting wouldnt you say?


No doubt. I am disabled, there is not a lot I can do in practical terms.



> Do you not interact with people in any capacity other than a religious capacity?


Certainly. I run a business, I interact with other cat breeders, and I am involved in voluntary youth work.



> Again, pretty limiting.
> How would you a child like this then? What comfort would you be able to offer a child like this??


How about calling the police?



> Same question as above. How would you comfort a child as a volunteer in this secular capacity?


I told you, I would be legally obliged to call in the responsible person and they would call in the police or social services. That's how it works over here. 


> Rather interesting isnt it, that I would visit the children of your church if they were in the hospital, yet you would not visit mine.


Perhaps you are unaware that in the UK a minister of religion is not allowed to visit a patient in hospital unless that visit is specifically requested. I suppose I could turn up on the ward and say I have just come to see if any children want to be visited, that would go down well I'm sure. Send me a card when they put me in prison for it, won't you?

Liz


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> Created by who? If your god created the universe and everything in it, doesnt it stand to reason that he created those other god and goddesses?


Yes indeed he created them. They are not to be worshipped.


> I would really appreciate if you could explain this video to me.


I can't hear it, sorry. Did try earlier, my husband has somehow managed to unplug my speakers and I can't reach to plug them in again, it will have to wait until he comes home to do the job.



> It shows lots of gods, and the parallels to your god are uncanny. Some of them were around before your god - how do you explain that?


By definition, nothing can have been there before the creator. Do you mean they predate Christianity?


> But your god wrote the bible, so that isnt actually proof, thats his _opinion._


Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, his opinion is the one that matters.



> So in actual fact, the bible does contradict itself. In one breath it tells you _not_ to judge, and in the next it tells you that you _should_ judge.


You have to look at the context! Matthew 7:1 has as its context the use of hypocritical judgment eg. if I told you that you were terrible because you hadn't gone back to a shop that had accidentally undercharged you and given them the rest, while I myself was actually shoplifting on a regular basis, that would be gross hypocrisy.

Liz


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> Although he did change his mind on that and now I think he believes all the world leaders are giant reptiles. (thats not a metaphor, he genuinly means big lizard people....)


Well he's not so far off then, is he?


----------



## lizward

Elmo the Bear said:


> The children are forced to sit through services or go to a church backed youthworker????? how sad for the children to have that rubbish forced on them at a young age... no wonder some of you end up so bitter


Yes well we don't tend to leave them alone at home ....


----------



## lizward

cinammontoast said:


> It is unfortunate but true that the Catholic church (yes, I know you're not Catholic, but they're Christian, through and through) has been obliged to admit to abuse, both of children and of young unmarried mothers, the latter notably in Ireland. There are many books on the subject, I'm sure google will throw up plenty of info. I don't think that can be denied. No false accusations, just plenty of proof.


I am aware that the Catholic church has a shameful history in this. I hope they have now solved that one. I am talking about how things are now.

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> You think that's a false accusation?


Yes. And the evidence has been presented.



> There is no evidence for his existence *whatsoever*, despite an abundance of archaeological evidence in the region, dating back to pre-biblical times.


Why would you expect there to be such evidence when he was a nomad?



> It is generally accepted *in your circles *- those circles accept the "history" in the OT without question, but you can't lay any sensible claim to any facts to back this up.


The more liberal commentaries I have read talk in terms of "myth gradually turning into history" at about the time of Abraham. If there are people who are so liberal that they don't even think Abraham existed, I haven't come across them. Do you know such people? Is that what you were taught?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: - just very quickly because I'm at work until 10 pm and am not supposed to be on here. What a good example that necessary inference does not work! I show dogs and Spellweaver is my affix, chosen because we had bergamascos who have a woven coat and cast a spell over you with their loyalty and love! :lol: :lol: :lol:


But it was you who started talking about some goddess or other materialising, wasn't it?



> I have never said I was born again. I belonged to a normal church of england church.


Alright, I must be getting very confused here. Who was it who claimed that she had been in some sort of emotionally abusive situation in a church and that she had been totally committed to it?

Liz


----------



## cinnamontoast

lizward said:


> I am aware that the Catholic church has a shameful history in this. I hope they have now solved that one. I am talking about how things are now.
> 
> Liz


It's not only the Catholic church, tho, is it? It has been seen as present in many branches of Christianity. It just so happens that it's been more publicised in the Catholic church because of the whole celibacy thing and the sick irony. I do not believe that the tragic sadness of child abuse will ever be eradicated completely, not while man has free will


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> Yes. And the evidence has been presented.
> 
> Why would you expect there to be such evidence when he was a nomad?
> 
> The more liberal commentaries I have read talk in terms of "myth gradually turning into history" at about the time of Abraham. If there are people who are so liberal that they don't even think Abraham existed, I haven't come across them. Do you know such people? Is that what you were taught?
> 
> Liz


There ought to be evidence of: leaving Egypt; Moses; Solomon and David's great kingdoms; taking the promised land etc. Even if only secondary evidence. There is none whatsoever for these events and many others in the nationalist propoganda that is the OT.

There will be no evidence to show things which didn't exist, anymore than than there will be a piece of evidence to show fairies don't exist.

I was taught by academics, many of them christian, some ministers of their church. But then I was there to study, not to be indoctrinated.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Whyever not? Christ told us to expect to be hated, and in many parts of the world even today Christians pay for being Christians with their lives. If Christ warned us to expect it, who am I to refuse to pass the message on?


How is this remotely helpful to improving the human condition?



lizward said:


> Hate is how it comes across - from you and a couple of others.


Dont you think that someone telling you to expect to be hated might have something to do with skewing your perception of things just a tad?

Eh... I just deleted the rest of my point by point reply, I think I can simply sum it up in one question.
Liz, for you, which is the higher calling, helping your fellow humans in whatever capacity you can or worshiping your god?


----------



## Elmo the Bear

lizward said:


> Yes well we don't tend to leave them alone at home ....


There is such a thing as non religious child care facilities. Most people go to places where children shouldn't be but they don't feel the need to leave them somewhere inappropriate... I go shooting but wouldn't leave children in the 12 Gauge Worshippers Creche


----------



## Elmo the Bear

grumpy goby said:


> I thought that was David Icke


I think he was just King of the Isle of Wight... gotta start small


----------



## cinnamontoast

Ok, gonna throw a curve ball (yeah, I know it's the NFL football season starting, wrong sport, my bad, first game is.....wait for the irony of this!! The SAINTS! Omg, just happens to be our team, black and gold, all the way! So pleased Drew Brees finally signed ). Anyway, I'd like to get away from the sniping. 

Admittedly, because I'm very disenchanted with religion despite trying to enrol my mother on the Alpha course to reignite the faith that she made me follow then discarded herself, I am guilty of being harsh about those who believe implicitly in one particular faith. I do not accept the hate thing, though. I reiterate that I see no hate here, just frustration at trying to get answers which aren't always available.

So, can we have a show of hands for what we do actually believe? 

I think that there is a higher power. This may be the remnants of my Catholic upbringing . I don't believe the bible is true, but occasionally I send thoughts up to this higher power  You?


----------



## Beth17

I'd like to think there is and almost hope there is although whether this is because the unknown scares me I don't know, however my logical mind just can't fully believe in a higher power.

That being said I do try and believe there is a reason for everything because without that for me sometimes i'd probably just feel like giving up whereas the possibility of there being a reason keeps me plodding on


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Liz, for you, which is the higher calling, helping your fellow humans in whatever capacity you can or worshiping your god?


Worshipping God, obviously.

Liz


----------



## Guest

> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liz, for you, which is the higher calling, helping your fellow humans in whatever capacity you can or worshiping your god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worshipping God, obviously.
> 
> Liz
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I suspected as much, hence the question. But it still makes me sad that you would put it in black & white like this, and still see nothing amiss in such an assertion.

How can the world progress, become a better place, when we put more effort in to a creation of our own minds than in to seeking solidarity with of our fellow humans?


----------



## myshkin

I was raised by very strict Catholics (nine siblings!) and seen a lot of strife within my family when my parents have tried to lay down the law with their adult children....double standards for daughters have caused particular conflict for my two sisters and me.
They aren't bad people (well, my dad's not, anyway), but it has always been clear that they will put their religion before their loved ones, even their family. Quite sad really. My dad has mellowed in his old age, not in his beliefs, but in enforcing them on his family.

I don't believe there is anything, I can't after some of my philosophy studies which clarified what I already felt (some of which has been touched on here: it is a paradox to believe in a loving, all powerful god who allows suffering of the magnitude humanity is capable of inflicting). 
And I don't need an all powerful being waiting to punish me for me to take responsibility for my ethics and behaviour. For me it wasn't frightening to let go of the idea that there was a plan and a purpose that had been indoctrinated into me, it was actually quite liberating to come to the realisation that I had to pull on my big girl pants because I was alone in the universe!

But I'm still sort of "catholic", just an atheist one...I like certain notions and metaphors, and don't have to believe in a god to recognise that they are part of who I am.


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle

cinammontoast said:


> So, can we have a show of hands for what we do actually believe?
> 
> I think that there is a higher power. This may be the remnants of my Catholic upbringing . I don't believe the bible is true, but occasionally I send thoughts up to this higher power  You?


I came to religion after being quite a bad lad, always a bit too handy with the fists. It may sound stupid but when times were really bad I used to kind of say "why me" and there can't be a god coz of this and that.

I am now who I am and believe that I make my way in life, to me religion or faith or God has made me a better person. 
It is about having a purpose, a drive, a love in life. 
I can't say it is good for everyone and I would never judge your belief on how many times you have read your 'good book' (whatever book applies to your religion) I did read mine and didn't take it word for word, but the idea of it seems to fit for me.

The thought of nothing after this is very sad, however, if I am wrong about this but have tried all my life to be a good person where's the harm.

I don't think you hate me (well I hope not anyway). I have found that as soon as I tell people 'I believe' I get the odd comments about being a bible basher or happy hand clapper or didn't have you down as a religous nut etc etc...


----------



## MCWillow

I don't believe in organised religion.

I don't believe the bible is a factual account. I think it is more a book of stories to try to teach us. A bit like Aesops Fables - there is moral of the story, and the stories are told in way that is maybe easier to understand?

I think that my beliefs are personal to me whatever they may be. Which is why I object to people knocking on my door trying to tell me how I should worship or hold my beliefs.

Even if I was a devout Catholic (I am actually christened CoE), I am still the sort of person that would rather go to the least attended services,_ if_ I felt the need to be in church.

I believe there is something other than us here on earth. I just don't know what that is.

That is why I question so much - mostly to Liz, as she is the one that is answering the most on the Christian 'side'.

So Liz, I _ really_ hope you havent taken any of my posts personally - they werent meant to be, but you are the one that was answering in defence of your faith - and thats why I repped you 

So if agnostic means 'sitting on the fence', I am still agnostic. I am not an atheist.

But to be honest, I don't know what I am.


----------



## Guest

cinammontoast said:


> So, can we have a show of hands for what we do actually believe?


I think the most I can say about what I believe is that I dont know, and Im comfortable with not knowing because that allows me to be open to pretty much anything 

I have lived in not only different countries, but different continents and have been exposed to a lot of different cultures. They all have wisdom to offer.

In the end I think its more important to be understanding and kind in this life than to spend too much time worrying about what might or might not be in an afterlife.


----------



## RetroLemons

lizward said:


> Worshipping God, obviously.
> 
> Liz


I find that rather depressing.

I thank my parents for not baptising me and leaving me to decide on what I wanted, right now I remain agnostic.


----------



## Bisbow

RetroLemons said:


> I find that rather depressing.
> 
> I'm afraid I do to
> 
> What kind of god would rather have you kneeling at his feet than helping someone in distress. It sounds selfish to me.


----------



## delca1

My parents and Grandparents are regular church goers, they always have been. My parents always attend church, have been choir members all their lives and do believe in God. As children me and my siblings were encouraged (not forced) to do the same. In a way I almost envy my parents belief, it gives them comfort and a channel for their thoughts. 
I am certain that the religion in my childhood helped me be who I am, it teaches good ethics and that is not a bad thing. I am not happy withe extreme types of religion we hear so much about these days.

Do I believe in God? I really don't know. But it's intriguing how many automatically 'pray to God' when disaster strikes....


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Maybe because of my work or maybe because of my experience of those I've had contact with in organised religion, I don't believe it should exist. All I've ever seen it do is cause war, hatred, discrimination, fear, blind and unquestioning acceptance and a dilution of the on thing that separates from other species; an enquiring mind and the ability to discern right from wrong. 

The starting point of nearly all religion is specious and even in the instant case ,chuch of England, was only started to serve an individual and the most bourgeois individual you can think of!

I believe people have the right to free will but not to try an impose that will on others, particularly by threat (believe in and worship my god or you'll go to hell/be struck down/won't get into heaven etc etc). 

I'm not a scientist but know too many of them to believe anything other than the very straightforward and infinitely provable explanation to the beginning of the world/universe.


----------



## grumpy goby

cinammontoast said:


> So, can we have a show of hands for what we do actually believe?


I dont believe there is a god, I believe that this is the only life we get and so we should make it the most enjoyable life possible, for myself and those around me. Everyone should be free to hold their own beliefs, however I do not feel anyone has the right to infringe on another persons freedom or lifechoice - have your faith and be proud of it, but if you expect respect for it, respect others in return.

I will help those who need it, or ask for it. I will be there for those who need counsel. I am as generous as life will allow me to be. I accept people for what they are and try not to judge them. I do not believe i need a "god" in order to be a good person, and have faith in the human race to be able to act towards each other in a kind and compassionate way through our humanity not our spirituality.

Obviously there is bad in the world, and bad people, but I will still endevour to make "my" world as best a world as I can possibly make, because our time here is too short.

I think energy spent on hatred, and bitterness, and anger, and resentment, is wasted energy - Obviously sometimes we all feel these things but I try to channel it into something positive as soon as I am able.

I will not pretend that it results in a fluffy lovey dovey world where everything is wonderful, I have been mistreated and wronged, and the world is a cruel place, but I can at least do my bit to make it more manageable for myself and those I encounter!

These are my beliefs and they way I live my life.


----------



## lizward

MCWillow said:


> So Liz, I _ really_ hope you havent taken any of my posts personally - they werent meant to be, but you are the one that was answering in defence of your faith - and thats why I repped you


Not at all. I am actually happy doing this. You see, with my disability I can't go out on the streets in the way that my church will be doing enxt month (I felt quite left out last year), and because I am self-employed I don't have an opportunity ever to share my faith at work, and if I'm honest I sometimes miss my days in the sixth form at school where sometimes I used to go and walk round the less refined parts of the school (where the 4th and 5th form hung out!) and find myself standing there on my own defending my faith. And thanks for the rep.

Liz


----------



## lizward

Bisbow said:


> What kind of god would rather have you kneeling at his feet than helping someone in distress. It sounds selfish to me.


I'm not sure why you think the one excludes the other? It doesn't. It is made clear in the New Testament that a need of a fellow human being or even of an animal takes precedence over keeping the Sabbath (which was one of God's commandments for the Jews). The Old Testament is full of our responsibilities to other people and both Testaments have an awful lot to say about helping the poor, for example. Think of the parable of the Good Samaritan - the two who pass by on the other side are a priest and a levite, who could well be on their way to perform religious duties. They don't stop. It is clear that they should have stopped. Here are the words of Jesus

Matthew 22: 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? 37 And he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.

Liz


----------



## Bisbow

lizward said:


> Worshipping God, obviously.
> 
> Liz[/QUOT
> 
> You said, worshiping god was your first priority, therefore, that puts distressed people 2nd.
> 
> Surely, a loving god would put the suffering before himself


----------



## DogLover1981

You would need to be an extremely egocentric god to want to be worshiped constantly and before all else.


----------



## Guest

Bisbow said:


> You said, worshiping god was your first priority, therefore, that puts distressed people 2nd.
> 
> Surely, a loving god would put the suffering before himself





DogLover1981 said:


> You would need to be an extremely egocentric god to want to be worshiped constantly and before all else.


Yep...

I cant get on board with a belief system that teaches such a distorted view of what love is/should be.

Abraham *loved* god so much he was willing to sacrifice his only son.
God *loved* the world so much he did sacrifice his son.

Why does love have to be tied up with human sacrifice?

It also ties fear up in to love in a distortion of love. Its really freaky when you look at it objectively.

If I had a friend who told me they had met someone who told them things like, you dont need anyone but me. Youre a bad person, but I can make you good. If you leave me you will have something terrible happen to you. etc. etc., I would tell that friend to get out!


----------



## DogLover1981

I thought I would quote what I wrote in a different thread. I don't really hate religion but religious people knocking on my door can be annoying. I just think religion exists because of the psychology of humans.



DogLover1981 said:


> Over the years of being around people, I've come to the conclusion that religion exists almost solely because of human psychology. There are no gods, demons, devils, angels, spirits, ghosts, and such. Neither is there any sort of afterlife. Humans have a desire to be around other people who think like themselves, to fit in with the social norms of society (and family), to socialize with others, and to believe that death isn't the end. These are some of the reasons we have religion and churches. There have been so many gods and religions that have existed throughout human history.


To add to this, I've noticed some churches have a tendency to demonize the world outside of church. It quickly becomes an us vs them mentality.


----------



## DogLover1981

I'm thinking about religion from an evolutionary standpoint now. I think of people 100,000 or more years ago in Africa with lions, hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, diseases with no cure, women dying regularly during childbirth, children dying young. Humans form strong emotional attachments to one another. Would these people survive with better mental health if they believed that their loved ones went to a better place instead of ceasing to exist? Would the people be in better mental health if they believed that someday they would see their loved ones in the afterlife? Would all this help their survival? My thought is that it may help some.


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> But it was you who started talking about some goddess or other materialising, wasn't it?


Yes. And your point is .....?



lizward said:


> Alright, I must be getting very confused here. Who was it who claimed that she had been in some sort of emotionally abusive situation in a church and that she had been totally committed to it?
> Liz


Not me.


----------



## Starlite

Waterlily said:


> Christianity is the last of our issues though, muslims are the worst. Can label it predjudiced all you like, but the fact is we will be muslim nations within fifty or hundred yrs, the mathematical proof is there, kid ratio to western births, and then voting age ..= muslim voters voting muslim gov.. Some say who gives a rats, if its muslim, or not and you so racist.....well. Cover ya ankles now women, cos thats what it will mean.


Islam is 1000yrs behind Christianity, maybe that's why they staill want laws we did away with hundreds of years ago?



lizward said:


> You think that is hate, but falsely accusing churches of deliberately covering up child abuse isn't?
> 
> Liz


Churches HAVE covered up abuse.



lizward said:


> I am aware that the Catholic church has a shameful history in this. I hope they have now solved that one. I am talking about how things are now.
> 
> Liz


Its not just Catholic priests who are quilty of horrid abuse. Muslims, jews and other branches of Christianity have also had issues with this. They hide behind God to get access to children in the same way teachers etc have, its not the job they are interested in.
Im not saying all teachers are pedos btw, sying they go into jobs with access to kids


----------



## cinnamontoast

Starlite said:


> Im not saying all teachers are pedos btw, sying they go into jobs with access to kids


 I hope not!

Bit of a crossover from that other thread, but the paedos tend to groom the adults and the one I unfortunately came across had an awful lot of people fooled. There is an ex friend of mine who is very sympathetic towards him. I just cannot deal with that, hence the ex bit.


----------



## northnsouth

cinammontoast said:


> So, can we have a show of hands for what we do actually believe?


I do believe in a higher being, who or what form that being takes I am not sure of, again maybe my years of a religious up bringing causing confusion, I do not feel the need for a religion now, from all my days being "taught" from the bible I try to remember just this part of scripture. 1 Corithians Chapter 13 v 4 -7..http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=NIV if I carry this with me in this life and into what ever one may follow I think I am doing ok. If this unknown higher being, or my fellow man, is to judge me then let it be by this..


----------



## Spellweaver

cinammontoast said:


> So, can we have a show of hands for what we do actually believe?
> 
> I think that there is a higher power. This may be the remnants of my Catholic upbringing . I don't believe the bible is true, but occasionally I send thoughts up to this higher power  You?


I think that any organised religion is man made rather than god-made, and I can't see the sense in following something some man from a long-ago patriarchal society thought sounded good.

Having said that - and despite what Liz thinks - I don't hate christians or any followers of any religion because I believe each person has their own path to follow, and it is obvious from some posts on this thread that most followers of even organised religions find comfort in and help from their faith. Some people have posted in a very moving way about what their faith means to them, and I can't see anything wrong with that.

However, I have also been very disturbed by the extremism shown in some posts of Liz' on this thread. When people start putting their god before everything else, when they obey their religious texts without question and do whatever the human being(s) who has interpreted/translated their religious text tells them they should do, that is when organised religion becomes dangerous.

I think my own feelings can be summed up by something my gran used to say: "You are the world and the world is you. When you see the world as part of yourself you will take care of it. When you see yourself as part of the world, you will be taken care of".

I do believe in a higher power, but not an old gent with a long white beard sitting on a cloud holding a harp. I think the power is neutral, and can be "logged into" (for want of a better expression) by anyone who learns how to do it. I also think people tend to anthropormorphise this power into a semblance of something that it is easier for their minds to accept - for christians, it is a rather megalomaniac male character, for me personally, it is easier to think of a goddess when I feel the need to communicate with this higher power.


----------



## northnsouth

Spellweaver said:


> I think my own feelings can be summed up by something *my gran *used to say: "You are the world and the world is you. When you see the world as part of yourself you will take care of it. When you see yourself as part of the world, you will be taken care of". .


What a very wise Lady.... you take after her?? .


----------



## Spellweaver

northnsouth said:


> What a very wise Lady.... you take after her?? .


Heh heh - I would like to think so, but I'm nowhere near as wise as she was. She has taught me all I know


----------



## Bisbow

I think there is a higher power, or energy and when I started reading this thread I was open to, maybe, being, for the want of a better word, converted. However, from the way Liz has replied to so many posts with a distainful way to people there is no way I want to be like that. I could not put a god above all else, never mind how others were suffering. I din't want a closed mind so I can't see beyond the end of my nose.
I am willing to help when I am able, people can believe what they like, it.s thier life to lead as they like.
I try not to hurt anyone in any way if I can help it, I try to lead a good a life as I can and as I have lived longer than time I have left I don't think I can do much more.

Anyway, those are my feelings and now it is time for bed


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Bisbow said:


> However, from the way Liz has replied to so many posts with a distainful way to people there is no way I want to be like that.


The church of england aren't all bad

[youtube_browser]rZVjKlBCvhg[/youtube_browser]


----------



## myshkin

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'm not a scientist but know too many of them to believe anything other than the very straightforward and infinitely provable explanation to the beginning of the world/universe.


This. Me too. I know just enough about science and research to know I don't know enough, but enough to know it's the only rational explanation. And what I do know is philosophy and biblical studies, which back up the scientific consensus...



ouesi said:


> Yep...
> 
> I cant get on board with a belief system that teaches such a distorted view of what love is/should be.
> 
> Abraham *loved* god so much he was willing to sacrifice his only son.
> God *loved* the world so much he did sacrifice his son.
> 
> Why does love have to be tied up with human sacrifice?
> 
> It also ties fear up in to love in a distortion of love. Its really freaky when you look at it objectively.
> 
> If I had a friend who told me they had met someone who told them things like, you dont need anyone but me. Youre a bad person, but I can make you good. If you leave me you will have something terrible happen to you. etc. etc., I would tell that friend to get out!


This site gives a very good overview of the origins of the OT god...yes he is that jealous abusive type you are thinking of!

OT background


----------



## lizward

Bisbow said:


> You said, worshiping god was your first priority, therefore, that puts distressed people 2nd.
> 
> Surely, a loving god would put the suffering before himself


I don't think you realise how high second can be, when God is first.

Liz


----------



## lizward

ouesi said:


> Abraham *loved* god so much he was willing to sacrifice his only son.
> God *loved* the world so much he did sacrifice his son.
> 
> Why does love have to be tied up with human sacrifice?


Are you asking why God sacrificed his Son?

Liz


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Yes. And your point is .....?


Well, I kind of got the impression that you worshipped that goddess, that's all. Are you now saying you believe in her but don't worship her?

Liz


----------



## lizward

northnsouth said:


> I do not feel the need for a religion now, from all my days being "taught" from the bible I try to remember just this part of scripture. 1 Corithians Chapter 13 v 4 -7..1 Corinthians 13 NIV - If I speak in the tongues of men or of - Bible Gateway if I carry this with me in this life and into what ever one may follow I think I am doing ok. If this unknown higher being, or my fellow man, is to judge me then let it be by this..


But why would you want to base your life on that passage if in fact you don't believe it was written by anyone with any sort of spiritual authority? I mean, isn't a bit inconsistent to accept those words of Paul as the rule for your life but dismiss everything else he wrote?

Liz


----------



## myshkin

Spellweaver said:


> I think that any organised religion is man made rather than god-made, and I can't see the sense in following something some man from a long-ago patriarchal society thought sounded good.
> 
> However, I have also been very disturbed by the extremism shown in some posts of Liz' on this thread. When people start putting their god before everything else, when they obey their religious texts without question and do whatever the human being(s) who has interpreted/translated their religious text tells them they should do, that is when organised religion becomes dangerous.
> 
> I do believe in a higher power, but not an old gent with a long white beard sitting on a cloud holding a harp. I think the power is neutral, and can be "logged into" (for want of a better expression) by anyone who learns how to do it. I also think people tend to anthropormorphise this power into a semblance of something that it is easier for their minds to accept - for christians, it is a rather megalomaniac male character, for me personally, it is easier to think of a goddess when I feel the need to communicate with this higher power.


Sorry to chop your post up, it's just that some things stood out 

Monotheism (in my view, and I'm definitely not alone, nor am I a crazy "liberal" wing theologian, whatever you say liz ) leads to dualism. So you get the starting point of good -bad because there is only one god, therefore everything else is bad....leads to god-devil, then naturally, because monotheism only originates in societies where women are little more than property:

man-woman (guess who's bad! );
human-nature;
dark-light;
flesh-spirit;
hmmm...could think of some more, but don't want to shut down the thread, I'm sure everyone can.

Monotheistic religions in my view tend to bring out the worst in humanity. They originated in a fear that should be obsolete in the modern world, but they perpetuate that fear. Life is more complicated than a dualistic "I am right and you are wrong" view for every situation.


----------



## MCWillow

Well a lot of people don't accept _everything _someone says, without doubt.

An abuser will tell you they are it doing it for your own good, because they love you.

You may choose to believe they love you, but you may also choose to believe that their action arent for the good of you.

Even if you believe they love you (and you love them), it doesnt mean you believe their actions are right and correct.

So yes, IMO, you can take on board, and try to live your life by things you that you have heard and believe are right, but can also choose to _not_ believe in every single word that person has said.


----------



## Guest

lizward said:


> Are you asking why God sacrificed his Son?
> 
> Liz


No, Im not.


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> *Well, I kind of got the impression that you worshipped that goddess, that's all*. Are you now saying you believe in her but don't worship her?
> 
> Liz


How, in dog's name did you get that impression?


----------



## Starlite

cinammontoast said:


> I hope not!
> 
> Bit of a crossover from that other thread, but the paedos tend to groom the adults and the one I unfortunately came across had an awful lot of people fooled. There is an ex friend of mine who is very sympathetic towards him. I just cannot deal with that, hence the ex bit.


These monsters are not men of God. They dont use the Bible to justify their actions they only want access to kids, they couldnt care less about anything else. They can manipulate anyone and tned to take people in very easily, its their lifes work getting people to trust them after all. I couldnt be friends with a sympathiser either!


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> How, in dog's name did you get that impression?


No, that was to spellweaver, not to you.

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> But why would you want to base your life on that passage if in fact you don't believe it was written by anyone with any sort of spiritual authority? I mean, isn't a bit inconsistent to accept those words of Paul as the rule for your life but dismiss everything else he wrote?
> 
> Liz


It is possible to take on board the wise words of a man without needing it to be linked to a higher being.

I draw inspiration from many people, normal human beings, who speak wise words - doesnt mean I worship them or accept them as the voice of a deity. Also, it doesnt mean you have to agree with or accept every single word they say.

I think some good can be drawn from the bible, it has some good ethics, morals and ideas, thats not to say I agree with all of it or see it as any more important to my life as any other book from which inspiration can be drawn


----------



## myshkin

lizward said:


> No, that was to spellweaver, not to you.
> 
> Liz


I know. And the question still stands.


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> It is possible to take on board the wise words of a man without needing it to be linked to a higher being.


Of course, but what I don't understand is why anyone who thinks that the claims of either Christ or Paul are false, should consider anythign else they said to be true. Christ claimed to be the Son of God. If he was not the Son of God he was either insane or evil so why listen to him? Paul is claimed by many liberals to have changed Christianity and sent it in a direction it should not have taken, so why listen to Paul? You can't have earthly wisdom from someone who is an insane megalomaniac, surely?

Liz


----------



## lizward

myshkin said:


> I know. And the question still stands.


Well perhaps because I can't see why on earth anyone should go on and on about gods and goddesses when they don't actually worship them.

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> Of course, but what I don't understand is why anyone who thinks that the claims of either Christ or Paul are false, should consider anythign else they said to be true. Christ claimed to be the Son of God. If he was not the Son of God he was either* insane or evil *so why listen to him? Paul is claimed by many liberals to have changed Christianity and sent it in a direction it should not have taken, so why listen to Paul? You can't have earthly wisdom from someone who is an insane megalomaniac, surely?
> 
> Liz


...or misinterpretted, misquoted or even just misunderstood.

I think you are possibly over analysing why one would take heed to a certain statement made, idea or moral code without needing to see them as something more than a man. You dont have to agree with everything a man says, to agree with some things.


----------



## lizward

grumpy goby said:


> ...or misinterpretted, misquoted or even just misunderstood.
> 
> I think you are possibly over analysing why one would take heed to a certain statement made, idea or moral code without needing to see them as something more than a man. You dont have to agree with everything a man says, to agree with some things.


if you don't think his words are accurately recorded, what makes you think the part you like just happens to be one of the things he actually said?

Liz


----------



## grumpy goby

lizward said:


> if you don't think his words are accurately recorded, what makes you think the part you like just happens to be one of the things he actually said?
> 
> Liz


Its the words that im concerned about rather than whether they were his words or anyone elses, if I read something that inspires me, its inspirational regardless of who said it, or anything surrounding it - be it his wisdom or the wisdom of whoever recorded it  Its a technicality that doesnt concern me when I think the message of what is written is important


----------



## Guest

> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I kind of got the impression that you worshipped that goddess, that's all. Are you now saying you believe in her but don't worship her?
> 
> Liz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well perhaps because I can't see why on earth anyone should go on and on about gods and goddesses when they don't actually worship them.
> 
> Liz
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I say we burn spellweaver at the stake. Clearly she knows about godesses and thats incriminating enough. Never mind that shes also making sense. Thats just outright dangerous. Burn her!!

Oh, and Spellweaver, I apologize if youre a man, it just seemed to lose effect to say burn him/her!


----------



## grumpy goby

ouesi said:


> I say we burn spellweaver at the stake. Clearly she knows about godesses and thats incriminating enough. Never mind that shes also making sense. Thats just outright dangerous. Burn her!!
> 
> Oh, and Spellweaver, I apologize if youre a man, it just seemed to lose effect to say burn him/her!


I bet she is made of wood, and is of equal weight to a duck...


----------



## Guest

BTW, throughout this thread Ive been thinking of this clip, just found it 

Even Stevphen Islam vs Christianity - YouTube


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Well, I kind of got the impression that you worshipped that goddess, that's all. Are you now saying you believe in her but don't worship her?
> Liz





lizward said:


> Well perhaps because I can't see why on earth anyone should go on and on about gods and goddesses when they don't actually worship them.
> Liz


Now Liz, what have I said to you already about not relying on necessary inference? Just because I talk about gods and goddesses should not automatically make you think I worship them. I talk about lots of things that I don't worship - dogs, cars, houses, clothes, books, music, the olympics .................. etc etc ad infinitum.

The reason I speak to you about gods and goddesses is to try to help you to realise that your god is merely one of many. (The futility of trying to help someone with such a closed mind to understand that is another subject entirely  ) And I've spoken about your god just as much as I have about any other god or goddess on this thread - why haven't you jumped to the conclusion that that means I worship him too?



lizward said:


> Christ claimed to be the Son of God. If he was not the Son of God he was either insane or evil so why listen to him?
> Liz


Do you always see things in such black and white terms? There can be lots of degrees between being the son of god and being insane/evil. He could just be a sort of misguided chap who believed he was the messiah - a bit like a latter-day David Icke.



ouesi said:


> I say we burn spellweaver at the stake. Clearly she knows about godesses and that's incriminating enough. Never mind that she's also making sense. That's just outright dangerous. Burn her!!
> 
> Oh, and Spellweaver, I apologize if you're a man, it just seemed to lose effect to say "burn him/her!"


No, I'm female! As for burning me at the stake - Liz has probably had the firelighters ready for a good while now 



grumpy goby said:


> I bet she is made of wood, and is of equal weight to a duck...


:lol:


----------



## lizward

Spellweaver said:


> Do you always see things in such black and white terms? There can be lots of degrees between being the son of god and being insane/evil. He could just be a sort of misguided chap who believed he was the messiah - a bit like a latter-day David Icke.


Who managed to misguide all his followers too, to the extent that they continued to believe it all after his death. That's a bit more than misguided, isn't it?

Liz


----------



## Guest

Trust you lot to kick this off while I languished with a broken dongle... and I KNOW I should read ALL 94 pages, and would find it very revealing, and maybe surprising... As to the last comment, everyone who follows a religion over 100 years old, is following someone's invention and explanation of the world, after the initiator's death. Therefore, by that definition, all sorts of loony beliefs can claim credibility, let alone loony religions. If you claim that beliefs are better, purer, the older they are, then you go along with child brides, wife beating, votes only for the male wealthy, forced marriages, stonings, honour killings... 

I guess I don't need to add that I am a relaxed and confident atheist, and while I can't prove God doesn't exist, to the point of scientific certainty, to insist there is a god to me, is like standing in front of a Toyota van, and trying to convince me it's a tree.


----------



## Horse and Hound

I'm not necessarily religious, but I do find the idea of there being something after I'm gone rather comforting. And I know my nanna and grandad felt the same, so as long as I can believe that they are there, together, I get some comfort in the fact they are no longer with us. 

The same with my friend who committed suicide, he obviously believes it was better once he'd gone. I hope he found his peace wherever he is.


----------



## Bisbow

Energy cannot be destroyed, can it. So after someone dies the energy from the body has to go somewhere.
Some call it Heaven, some Hell and there are lots of names. Some say it just goes into space and keeps the universe going.
I don't Know, and Liz has not proved to me that worshiping an all powerful god is the answer. Is her god the energy of all the dead people or a figment of someones very fertile imagination ? 
I can already visualise her answer, being so blinkered the is only one.

I am off out now for the rest of the day, have fun one and all


----------



## grumpy goby

Bisbow said:


> Energy cannot be destroyed, can it. So after someone dies the energy from the body has to go somewhere.
> Some call it Heaven, some Hell and there are lots of names. Some say it just goes into space and keeps the universe going.
> I don't Know, and Liz has not proved to me that worshiping an all powerful god is the answer. Is her god the energy of all the dead people or a figment of someones very fertile imagination ?
> I can already visualise her answer, being so blinkered the is only one.
> 
> I am off out now for the rest of the day, have fun one and all


My energy is going to feed into the soil and help the worms thrive and grass grow


----------



## myshkin

ouesi said:


> BTW, throughout this thread Ive been thinking of this clip, just found it
> 
> Even Stevphen Islam vs Christianity - YouTube


This is great!

"We're not so different after all!" 
:laugh:


----------



## Spellweaver

lizward said:


> Who managed to misguide all his followers too, to the extent that they continued to believe it all after his death. That's a bit more than misguided, isn't it?
> 
> Liz


Stop taking things out of context Liz. I was not saying I thought Jesus was misguided. My saying he might have been misguided was an attempt to show you that there is a huge gap between your two suggestions - ie that Jesus was either the son of god or insane/evil. It was just one possibility of everything he could have been inbetween those two poles. I am sure there are many more examples.


----------



## cinnamontoast

Speaking to my very Christian cousins yesterday, one half jokingly said Paul was gay. An interesting alternative to the mysogonist theory.


----------



## Starlite

myshkin said:


> This is great!
> 
> "We're not so different after all!"
> :laugh:


that was hilarious!
this is better tho  *CONTAINS SWEARING*

Mrs. Brown and The Mormons - Mrs. Brown's Boys Episode 6, preview - BBC One - YouTube

Liz what is it evanglisits believe that sets them apart?


----------



## myshkin

Starlite said:


> that was hilarious!
> this is better tho  *CONTAINS SWEARING*
> 
> Mrs. Brown and The Mormons - Mrs. Brown's Boys Episode 6, preview - BBC One - YouTube
> 
> Liz what is it evanglisits believe that sets them apart?


:laugh:

"On a f*ckin boat?" 
Marvellous. It looks a bit like Father Ted - all the funnier if you are or were Catholic!


----------



## Spellweaver

Starlite said:


> that was hilarious!
> this is better tho  *CONTAINS SWEARING*
> 
> Mrs. Brown and The Mormons - Mrs. Brown's Boys Episode 6, preview - BBC One - YouTube


Oh I love this - I was in stitches when I saw it on TV  :thumbup:


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> that was hilarious!
> this is better tho  *CONTAINS SWEARING*
> 
> Mrs. Brown and The Mormons - Mrs. Brown's Boys Episode 6, preview - BBC One - YouTube
> 
> Liz what is it evanglisits believe that sets them apart?


:thumbup::thumbup: Hilarious!!

As for what sets evangelists apart, I dont know about in the UK, but here, evangelists invoke an image of the TV sermons, raking in the bucks, led by a pastor who will eventually be outed by a mistress, gay prostitute, the IRS, or all of the above. 

Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker are fun ones to look up.


----------



## lizward

Starlite said:


> Liz what is it evanglisits believe that sets them apart?


An Evangelist is someone who preaches the Gospel (historically, it refers to the authors of the four Gospels, hence "St John the Evangelist", also Philip in Acts is called the Evangelist). I wonder if you meant Evangelical?

Liz


----------



## DogLover1981

Thinking about evolution, I was reading recently that some humans are still born with the muscles on their face that are needed for whiskers.


----------



## Guest

As I become more and more like a raddled old bag lady, I've found some of those whiskers.


----------



## RockRomantic

househens said:


> As I become more and more like a raddled old bag lady, I've found some of those whiskers.


LMAO!

I'm atheist, I also have a godson, so maybe i'm a hypocrite?

I'm not to sure what i think about the bible and religions, i see it as if i can't see it, can't smell it, can't feel it then how can it exist?

But everyone can have something to believe in and I don't think anything less of people who are religious, my nan was highly religious. I don't think religion causes (i'm struggling with words today) 'badness' but some people take it so extreme and use it as an excuse to go a bit crazy tbh.


----------



## Starlite

lizward said:


> An Evangelist is someone who preaches the Gospel (historically, it refers to the authors of the four Gospels, hence "St John the Evangelist", also Philip in Acts is called the Evangelist). I wonder if you meant Evangelical?
> 
> Liz


is there a difference between the 2? I was given a pamflet in town by someone who said they were an evangelist so im unsure!

I was given "The Watchtower" and "Awake" by some very nice JWs this morning, shall make an interesting read


----------



## cinnamontoast

The JWs, much like the Scientologists, just amaze me with their persistence and conviction.


----------



## porps

Do any of you watch Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman? It's always interesting but there have been a few episodes this series that seem particuarly pertinent to this discussion-

Episode 7 was called 'Can We Eliminate Evil?' and discusses a lot about how psychopaths brains are actually wired differently and things like that, and the most recent episode 9 is called "Did We Invent God?" and discusses our pre disposition to beleive in the supernatural amongst other things.

It's all highly recomended veiwing if you can find it.

Plus its narrated by morgan freeman which cant be a bad thing

Oh 1 more thing.. i dont think it would be right to let a thread such as this get to 100 pages without someone posting this:

[youtube_browser]6axdZAxyt2g&feature=related[/youtube_browser]


----------



## lizward

Starlite said:


> is there a difference between the 2? I was given a pamflet in town by someone who said they were an evangelist so im unsure!


Yes indeed. An Evangelical is a Christian who works from the starting point that the Bible is true (though this does not always include the early chapters of Genesis as literal truth). There are also Evangelical churches which would be more conservative than mainstream denominations and, for example, would insist on the literal truth of Genesis 1 and 2 (though some accept Old Earth creation with a gap theory). An Evangelist is someone who specifically sets out to proclaim the Gospel to the unsaved - very few Evangelicals are Evangelists but virtually all Evangelists (in the UK) are Evangelicals (in the US the "tele-evangelist" syndrome means there are prosperity gospel types acting as Evangelists.

Liz


----------

