How to get depressed and then have a laugh and get depressed again

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Knowledge, understanding and wisdom might solve the problems of the world.

Amen (I love the irony)

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Andrew,

Your wrote:

"9/10 when Christianity is taught at schools they probably fail to say why it is the truth - and I can go into that at some other stage."

Why wait for later for this?

I would love to read an explanation this evening if you have the time to explain why it's the truth.

No Christian has ever bothered to explain this to me yet. They just asked me to accept what they said was true, and not to try to hard to apply logic to it. At that point I felt I was being asked to accept something which if one applied Occam'a Razor to it would soon be shown as not the simplest solution. Bertrand Russell explained the Universe should be accepted as a brute fact, and so far I have found no simpler explanation, which the evidence at least does not disprove.

Please do explain it if you have the time and inclination. I would be delighted if you do for all that, as I think it is a fairly tall order I am asking. I would guess that I would be a lot easier to convince than Russell!

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Hi Fredrik,

Sorry to say, but I am a little short on time at the moment. Much of the material covers areas on "did Jesus exist?", "did Jesus die and be resurrected?", "how can I believe that the Bible is true?"

These kinds of issues are covered in the Alpha Course (btw, free).

If I may briefly cover a few of these areas, and hope that it satisfies for the timebeing (and let me know if it doesn't).

These include:
- Jesus' death and the claims of resurrection are mentioned in several pieces of secular literature.
- Jesus was put to death by a professional Roman death squad (putting paid to the 'fainting' theory)
- Romans could kill have killed the religion anyway by producing the body, if it was there...
- A large Roman encampment guarding the tomb (with their life!)
- 11/12 Apostles were put to death for their beliefs - why would they stand by their beliefs if it was a lie? One even preaching from his crucifixion to passers-by.
- Paul stating that he can call on 500 people who can vouch for Christ being alive after his death.
- Luke being accepted by historians as a historian (as well as a witness) - not covered in the Alpha Course though.
- How the heck do you write a book with 4 separate authors that consistently satisfies 1,093 prophecies in one story that at the same time also turns original Jewish expectations on its head?
- Consistent textual geneology of the Bible in 10,000s of ancient copies in several different languages in different countries.

There's probably more, but I can't remember off-the-top-of-my-head at the moment.

Cheers,

Andrew

quote:

Hey, we're all in the same pea-soup of cr*p and light together. On our own, you're no more/less "worthy" than me - particularly in the eyes of our creator (God). Everyone has slipped-up and fallen short in God's eyes at sometime or other - whether it is our words, actions or even our thoughts. We're all the the same boat and need a lifeline.

Andrew, I think that is the point exactly as I was trying to make it. The only difference being that YOU choose to see this from a position of Faith. I do not.I have indeed slipped up more than once (but in most instances this was failure by me aknowledged by me. Faith gives you a subject/object to rationalise failings against, and a moral compass to judge these against. I just prefer to see my failings against the moral compass of a just caring society. When it goes wrong it is individually (or collectively) wrong and not by the auspices of some grand plan layed down in a book supposedly written 2000 years ago and the most current volume of the teaching written 80 years after the teachers death.

quote:

The big question is - how do we get accepted? How can we live in perfect harmony in the after-life? That's where forgiveness comes in. A) We have to forgive EVERYONE, or spending eternity with a grudge is going to be Hell (pun not intended). B) We're going to have to be of perfect spirit (e.g. be trusted by our creator not to slip up) - that's where Christ's death comes in, and how we are truely sorry that God had to make a point in this way by sacrificing the ONE (and only one) who "made the grade".

Back to faith again Andrew. I personally feel that I have no right to denigrade anyones religious belief,and I hope would not. BUT it really sticks in my craw that NO Religion will allow me to stew in my agnosticism. O.K. let me qualify this point. If you as a Christian (I assume)tell me that I am wrong, will the Hindu tell you that your wrong ? Muslim tell Hindu tell Jew tell Shintoist....? (does any have a false God?) Lets just say I will live by MY moral compass and all the rest by their's and if collectively we can all get along under the secular laws of the land then life would be tickety boo. That just will not happen. Why because people of faith tell Me and others of differing faith that they're wrong.

quote:
The merit they appear to have is that they pedal this myth that their position is God given and from the first day of school (for many before that)we are continually told this as truth. O.K. so believe me, you don't want to hear the rest of my diatribe on religion.


9/10 when Christianity is taught at schools they probably fail to say why it is the truth - and I can go into that at some other stage.


quote:


I don't think you're really talking about this thread here, but talking in general. Like the guy on the street (e.g. "Winners & Sinners" guy in London) doing his shouting. That can really make many of us Christians cringe for a number of reasons, including:

a) it's really abrupt and can be anti-social
b) many of them don't really get it. It's not about condemning people (as some of them do), it's about showing that God really does love us

God Bless you too,

Andrew,please believe me when i say that I find any attempt to indoctrinate me anti social. Furnish me with the facts and I will make up my own mind (as I said it's my ass on the line)PLEASE ALLOW YOUR GOD TO LOVE YOU BY ALL MEANS. I for my part will take my chances.

I hope my use of quotations have not completely skewered the points I try to make here
regards
Charlie

quote:

Knowledge, understanding and wisdom might solve the problems of the world.

Knowledge, understanding and wisdom is good. Can we ALWAYS be knowledgable, understanding or wise?... Are our actions ALWAYS led by someone who is ALWAYS knowledgable, understanding or wise?

I guess we are never infallible, and the answer is "no" to both those cases.

Problems will always exist. We can never enforce a perfect and unified world, even the act of enforcement would be a problem in itself.

Even so, Christianity is about preparing each other for the possibility of entering perfection - and not clinging to the imperfect material.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I don't struggle with the existence of Christ as a man [though I do with the virgin birth], or the fact of Judaism, or even the related religion of Islam. I struggle with the actual teachings of these Churches, and the way that these have been variously hijqcked over the centuries, with the apparent aquienscence of the leaders of these churches on times. That is where I come unstuck.

I have long accepted that Jesus almost certainly lived, but I simply struggle with such ideas as the one that he was born of a virgin and was the son of God. I don't doubt the fact that the Old Testamant is brought to us as the history of the Jews before Christ, who was born Jewish. The Bible tells us he was of the House of David...

Some of it seems more like a myth than actual history just like in English history, for example King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table, which is probably more mythical that actually very likely as a true history of completely real events. Noah's Ark as a tale is full of inconsistencies. Also humans; was man God-made rather than subject to evolution, and so on? I am not anti any religion, but mystified how it can be literally true, and if it is not then what is the truth of it? This is what I mean when I say no one has ever explained it. Some of the history of the time seems to fit the Biblical account [of the life of Jesus etc], but what if Jesus was one of many sect leading radicals, whose sect had got out of hand? Hense the Martyredoms managed by the Roman rulers of Israel.

What also troubles me is a great deal of the dogma of the Church. For one example unbaptised babies either going to Hell or simply to be cast into erternal limbo depending on the Theological ruling in force at the time fo the baby's death.

There are as many inconsistencies. Are Roman Catholics the real Christians, with the Eastern Orhtodox, or are the cherry pickers of which bits of the old orthodoxies the real Christians, by this I mean all the post-Reformation Churches from the Anglicans to the Lutherans, Calvinists and so on? I know no Roman Catholic who regards any none RC as being even a Christian of the faintest sort, but a sort of semi-heathen. Are they right? I am tempted by the RC Church as being the closest historical link to the events as they took place, but not any of the post-Reformation sects however noble may have been men like Luther. So I remain to be convinced of the validity of the Church's teaching.

There are far too many inconsistencies for me to have been convinced that this amounts to more than a powerful political body partly at least used for two millenia to justify some pretty terrible acts, cow whole peoples into accepting their lot, with the promise of Heaven later if they behaved [acoording to Church doctrine] in their lives till death brought about Judgement, based on their frail human lives, and failure to be perfect epartly assuaged by for the guilt of it and praying for forgiveness. In reality no Church can dispense forgiveness on behalf of God!

I wish I could see how there is evidence that it is not some huge construct. Perhaps the Jews were right not to recognise Jesus as the Messiah? It all seems very strange to me.

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

quote:

Originally posted by David Legge:
What is God?

Serious question. Anyone?

/dl

The "thing" that this universe originated from.

The Bible also says that "God is love" (1 John 4:8).

Andrew

Interesting. Any more suggestions?

/dl

Hi

quote:

Originally posted by Howlinhounddog:

quote:

Hey, we're all in the same pea-soup of cr*p and light together. On our own, you're no more/less "worthy" than me - particularly in the eyes of our creator (God). Everyone has slipped-up and fallen short in God's eyes at sometime or other - whether it is our words, actions or even our thoughts. We're all the the same boat and need a lifeline.

Andrew, I think that is the point exactly as I was trying to make it. The only difference being that YOU choose to see this from a position of Faith. I do not.I have indeed slipped up more than once (but in most instances this was failure by me aknowledged by me. Faith gives you a subject/object to rationalise failings against, and a moral compass to judge these against. I just prefer to see my failings against the moral compass of a just caring society.

Sadly there's no such thing as a totally just and caring society

quote:

When it goes wrong it is individually (or collectively) wrong and not by the auspices of some grand plan layed down in a book supposedly written 2000 years ago and the most current volume of the teaching written 80 years after the teachers death.

Sorry to correct you here. The oldest Gospel (Mark) was written 35-40 years after Jesus' ascension. Interestingly a Beatles biography from Paul MacCartney 35-40 years after the event would also be held in high regard for its authenticity.

quote:

quote:

The big question is - how do we get accepted? How can we live in perfect harmony in the after-life? That's where forgiveness comes in. A) We have to forgive EVERYONE, or spending eternity with a grudge is going to be Hell (pun not intended). B) We're going to have to be of perfect spirit (e.g. be trusted by our creator not to slip up) - that's where Christ's death comes in, and how we are truely sorry that God had to make a point in this way by sacrificing the ONE (and only one) who "made the grade".

Back to faith again Andrew. I personally feel that I have no right to denigrade anyones religious belief,and I hope would not. BUT it really sticks in my craw that NO Religion will allow me to stew in my agnosticism. O.K. let me qualify this point. If you as a Christian (I assume)tell me that I am wrong, will the Hindu tell you that your wrong ? Muslim tell Hindu tell Jew tell Shintoist....? (does any have a false God?) Lets just say I will live by MY moral compass and all the rest by their's and if collectively we can all get along under the secular laws of the land then life would be tickety boo. That just will not happen. Why because people of faith tell Me and others of differing faith that they're wrong.

No, that's not the problem. Even if we have one moral compass (and most people know what is intrinsically right and wrong i.e. do unto others as you wish them do to you), people will still stray from that - human nature. Hence why Christianity says that God gave us a way in which we can express our heart-felt sorrow in these failures (i.e. sorry that Jesus had to die instead of us) and experience God's delight instead of judgement.

quote:

Andrew,please believe me when i say that I find any attempt to indoctrinate me anti social. Furnish me with the facts and I will make up my own mind (as I said it's my ass on the line)PLEASE ALLOW YOUR GOD TO LOVE YOU BY ALL MEANS. I for my part will take my chances.

That I completely understand. It is my intention to offer the facts about Christianity, and hope that is what I am doing here. When I see false/loaded comments (elsewhere) targeting it, I hope you understand that it is my duty to respond and clarify. However I get the feeling that the act of clarification could be viewed as an attempt to forcefully indoctrinate - it ain't. The facts I give for Christianity are offered for the purpose of clarification, reading it is the choice of the reader.

Words are a powerful thing though. If the population hear that "black is white" enough times, then they start to believe it - be careful with that one (and TV is a current good example of this phenomenon). All I can say with that one is "look to God" and let his spirit guide you, question everything (and the Bible even encourages its readers to do just that... and we do before we make up our own minds).

Best regards to you Charlie,

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by bad boy dan:
Right im piseed yourr mi best mate you r Fred and all of what you lot is in this CRAzEE cosmos,that Carl Sagan i had a drink with im once hic zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Me too..now lissen...err bab boy..i been finkin bout this an i've com up wiv a ferory like...
r'member that the uneeverse is lozenge shaped, right? and the uneeverse is full..FULL..ov DARK MATTER. Right? Now..get this..the uneeverse also 'as no boundary - so it must be in fackt, a rabbit dropping! The uneeverse is a rabbit dropping from the GReat Purple Bunny who created it. See?! It all makes sense when u fink abaht it.
burp..

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:

It is my intention to offer the facts about Christianity, and hope that is what I am doing here.

That is called evangelism.

quote:

When I see false/loaded comments (elsewhere) targeting it, I hope you understand that it is my duty to respond and clarify.

Still evangelism. Your use of the word "duty" in that context is a dead giveaway.

quote:

However I get the feeling that the act of clarification could be viewed as an attempt to forcefully indoctrinate - it ain't. The facts I give for Christianity are offered for the purpose of clarification, reading it is the choice of the reader.

Evangelism.

quote:

Words are a powerful thing though. If the population hear that "black is white" enough times, then they start to believe it - be careful with that one (and TV is a current good example of this phenomenon). All I can say with that one is "look to God" and let his spirit guide you, question everything (and the Bible even encourages its readers to do just that... and we do before we make up our own minds).

If that's not evangelism then I'm a sausage.

SAUSAGE!! Yezz....it cood be a sausage..
An if you're the Sausage Deane...then you must be....

The dogmatism of many religious believers bothers me, but I also dislike the crassness of strident atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens. I believe that there is something essential at the core of the great religions, but that all too many believers become entangled in the superficial aspects of their chosen faith.

Rather than attempt a summary of my views from scratch, here's one I prepared earlier for a couple of friends, who had just read Dawkins' book. It's a little abstract, informed, as it is, by the sum total of my philosophical influences, but I hope that it will be of some use to those forum members who haven't already made their minds up.

quote:

My thoughts so far...

All the interesting stuff (from my PoV) is out of the way by the end of the
first chapter, in which Dawkins contrasts Einsteinian "religion"
(E-religion) with the supernatural variety (S-religion).

He will focus on the latter for the rest of the book - fair enough, as this
is what most people see as religion, or adhere to, if they're believers. I
accept that S-religion is untenable, and expect to agree with much of what
he says. There are no supernatural facts.

However, I expect his tone will grate because:
a. he's a rather obnoxious fellow anyway; and
b. arguably, E-religious experiences are the root of S-religion

b. is one of the lines of thought explored by William James in "Varieties of
Religious Experience". Founders of religious sects often have dramatic
E-religious experiences: overwhelming feelings of awe and wonder at the
compexity and scale of the natural order; an inchoate sense of gratitude
that we are here at all to witness it. Often these are culturely mediated
(e.g. visions of the Second Coming); but not always. I think that James
views these as the living root of religion, and I'm inclined to agree. This
is why I have some residual sympathy for S-religion, even though many of its
fruits have fallen a long way from these roots. I certainly admire some of
its more moderate proponents.

The important thing about these experiences, which Dawkins doesn't take into
account is that they are, by their nature, mystical - i.e. they cannot be
adequately described in language, or otherwise conceptualised. I think that
this fact alone (if accepted) ought to make them anomalous in Dawkin's quite
hardcore positivist worldview - I'm sure he would dispute the idea that
there are any such ineffable experiences.

This ties in with Buddhism, which boiled down (i.e. stripping out the
S-religious stuff about reincarnation, etc.) amounts to:

a. It is possible to experience the world as it is in itself, unmediated by
conceptual baggage
b. It is desirable to do so, as it frees us from suffering (caused,
ultimately, by our perception of ourselves as isolated egos)

I'm not claiming to be enlightened - that really would be too much! - but my
experience of meditation (outside of any Buddhist community or organisation,
or any other religious context) supports the above claims.

In sum, religion/faith, stripped to its barest essentials, is the claim that
there is such a thing as ineffable experience, and that it is valuable. I
think this is probably true; I suspect that Dawkins doesn't. There is a
historical link between such experience, and organised religion, but this
gets more tenuous as the level of organisation increases, and the religion
is dumbed down to compete in the meme marketplace.

I doubt that I'll have much of interest to say about the rest of the book,
as this is the critical point, at which Dawkins and I diverge.

Hope that's understandable - and not entirely crazy! It's a fascinating
topic that I've thought hard about, and I'd be interested in some rational
critique!

Hi Fredrik,

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Andrew,

I don't struggle with the existence of Christ as a man [though I do with the virgin birth], or the fact of Judaism, or even the related religion of Islam. I struggle with the actual teachings of these Churches, and the way that these have been variously hijqcked over the centuries, with the apparent aquienscence of the leaders of these churches on times. That is where I come unstuck.

Me too. But the guidance should not be in man (leaders), but whether it is Biblical - that is the standard that some Churches forget or try to unnecessarily augment... The good Churches simple follow God through the Bible, and nothing else.

quote:

I have long accepted that Jesus almost certainly lived, but I simply struggle with such ideas as the one that he was born of a virgin and was the son of God. I don't doubt the fact that the Old Testamant is brought to us as the history of the Jews before Christ, who was born Jewish. The Bible tells us he was of the House of David...

Yep, but the way I see the Virgin birth is that it is a *tiny* miracle when compared with the conception of the universe. Also if Jesus was to be entered as God (in human form), then that's we way it had to be.

quote:

Some of it seems more like a myth than actual history just like in English history, for example King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table, which is probably more mythical that actually very likely as a true history of completely real events. Noah's Ark as a tale is full of inconsistencies. Also humans; was man God-made rather than subject to evolution, and so on?

Man is God-made because evolution is God-made. The Jewish tribes didn't want an explanation on Darwinian theory from God, just the basics that they could understand at the time.

quote:

I am not anti any religion, but mystified how it can be literally true, and if it is not then what is the truth of it? This is what I mean when I say no one has ever explained it.

This Bible is a mix of literal and illustrative (like a parable). The words in Genesis 1 are illustrative, but are also infused with some relativity (e.g. the 6 of God's days).

quote:

Some of the history of the time seems to fit the Biblical account [of the life of Jesus etc], but what if Jesus was one of many sect leading radicals, whose sect had got out of hand? Hense the Martyredoms managed by the Roman rulers of Israel.

If you mean the martyrdoms of the Apostles, they were done in various countries and governments. Including as far-afield as India (Thomas). So that shows that it wasn't a quick mopping-up action by the Romans.

quote:

What also troubles me is a great deal of the dogma of the Church. For one example unbaptised babies either going to Hell or simply to be cast into erternal limbo depending on the Theological ruling in force at the time fo the baby's death.

Ah, those Catholics again - wanting their own "brand" of Christianity. Again ask "is it Biblical?". Limbo is not mentioned in the Bible, and Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." In the end we are judge by what is in our hearts. Children will tend to be sorry if they've done any wrong and from a Christian perspective will see God's Grace when they see Jesus. See, Christianity is not as bad as the Catholic Church makes it out to be

quote:

There are as many inconsistencies. Are Roman Catholics the real Christians, with the Eastern Orhtodox, or are the cherry pickers of which bits of the old orthodoxies the real Christians, by this I mean all the post-Reformation Churches from the Anglicans to the Lutherans, Calvinists and so on? I know no Roman Catholic who regards any none RC as being even a Christian of the faintest sort, but a sort of semi-heathen. Are they right? I am tempted by the RC Church as being the closest historical link to the events as they took place, but not any of the post-Reformation sects however noble may have been men like Luther. So I remain to be convinced of the validity of the Church's teaching.

There are no definitive Churches, because they are made up of humans - who can try and alter the direction of the Church to their own agendas. [Fredrik you need to be aware of this next bit] But the ones that tend to be most authentic are those that try the hardest to be led by the Bible and Holy Spirit. I've heard it been said that some Churches wouldn't know the difference if the Holy Spirit (God's motivating force) packed up and left them. [For you Fredrik again] Historical links are not the guideline, as Churches can change from better-to-worse or worse-to-better over time. The best historical link is whether the Church is acting Biblically.

quote:

There are far too many inconsistencies for me to have been convinced that this amounts to more than a powerful political body partly at least used for two millenia to justify some pretty terrible acts, cow whole peoples into accepting their lot, with the promise of Heaven later if they behaved [acoording to Church doctrine] in their lives till death brought about Judgement, based on their frail human lives, and failure to be perfect epartly assuaged by for the guilt of it and praying for forgiveness. In reality no Church can dispense forgiveness on behalf of God!

Proper Christianity is unique among religions in that it does not say that you enter Heaven through good deeds, but through God's grace to your response to Jesus. When you say "In reality no Church can dispense forgiveness on behalf of God!" you are SPOT ON! Ther Church is there for fellowship, share our love of God, build communities of friends and act as a way to "touch base".

quote:

I wish I could see how there is evidence that it is not some huge construct. Perhaps the Jews were right not to recognise Jesus as the Messiah? It all seems very strange to me.

Well I hope I helped out. Also, like to mention here that the ability to resurrect people is a pretty good indication of a Messiah that can offer eternal life
If you're ever interested in finding a "good" Church or interested in joining an Alpha Course, then send me an email to: randle underscore andrew at hotmail dot com. IIRC you are in Hereford, so I can run a quick search for you if needed.

All the best,

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
Shit, he is not only religious, he is a new found religious type. Kind of like an x smoker in reverse.

I am out of this thread.

LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
...
That is called evangelism.
...
Still evangelism. Your use of the word "duty" in that context is a dead giveaway.
...
Evangelism.
...
If that's not evangelism then I'm a sausage.

LOL! Well all I can say is, there are different types of Evangelism. I hope I'm not the 'ram it down the throat' type we all (aherm) "love".

Let's just say that Evangelism is a side-effect of trying to clarify and explain stuff (even in the case of Technology Evangelists).

Time for bed!

Andrew

quote:

Proper Christianity is unique among religions in that it does not say that you enter Heaven through good deeds

I can't let this go unchallenged. I know for a fact that Zen Buddhism insists there's no recipe - a checklist of good deeds, say - for attaining Nirvana. Enlightenment, when it comes is emphatically *not* through the efforts of the individual concerned, but is more like an act of grace. I suspect that many other religions would be found to have equivalent concepts to Christianity's "grace of God" if we could be bothered to attempt to understand them properly, rather than accepting superficial charicatures of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Sorry to correct you here. The oldest Gospel (Mark) was written 35-40 years after Jesus' ascension. Interestingly a Beatles biography from Paul MacCartney 35-40 years after the event would also be held in high regard for its authenticity.

I had read that the bible was put together some 200-300 years later. Is that still the accepted understanding? No doubt it will have gone through many revisions, adjustments, etc. In fact isn't the new testament composed of a selection of books in which many more were vying for inclusion?

Regardless, you can't really compare a document written in an "information age" to a document assembled some 1800 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Words are a powerful thing though. If the population hear that "black is white" enough times, then they start to believe it - be careful with that one (and TV is a current good example of this phenomenon).

I think you're alluding to a form of indoctrination and I believe that religion has been holding the pole position on that one for quite some time. TV's not the only thing we should be careful of...

Andrew, FWIW, I very much respect your attitude here. Very commendable.

Religion is for those who dont have their own opinions, and choose to live by a black and white book.

I know of a few lesbians that go to the local church down my way. What do you make of that Andrew? Would you welcome them into yours?? Could Adam and Steve come along as well?

. . .God will forgive anyone? . . . . oh and love thy neighbour an all that? - hmm yeh right!

Its the biggest cause of wars . . . The world WOULD be a better place.


RW

quote:

Originally posted by Right Wing:
Its [religion] the biggest cause of wars . . . The world WOULD be a better place.

Bollox. I'm not picking on you individually, Right Wing, but you are simply the latest one to parade this crap.

The biggest cause of war is empire seeking and - in the 20th century especially - secular idealism (Fascism, Communism, etc).

And in those cases when religion has been involved in wars, it is not the religion per se that has caused the war, but human inadequecy, misinterpretation or plain wilfulness.

Does anyone seriously believe that its bastardisation by terrorists, politicians or individuals is the authentic expression of a faith?!

So-called Catholics and Protestants (when was the last time they were actually in church? one wondered all through the '70s and '80s) blowing each other up in N Ireland, or the football terraces of Glasgow; or Sunnis and Shias in the Middle East ... etc.

Does anyone with a brain seriously believe these despicable things are the authentic expression of any faith?!!

To believe that 'No religion = No wars' is both grossly naive and in fact dangerous. Saint Dawkins himself says as much with his "selfish gene" idea. If, ultimately, there is no (let us call it) 'higher meaning/purpose' then (1) what is basis for any morality? and (2) there is no need or basis for altruism - reductio ad absurdam - ultimately, it's Dog Eat Dog and F*ck the Rest. WAR, WAR, WAR. We already see that on our own streets.

One of the major problems I have with religion (and Christianity is by no means the only culprit) lies in the rather ugly methods necessary to perpetuate itself. I think it's fair to say that it survives through indoctrination, coercion and various forms of induced fear, and I suspect that without these it would have died out long ago.

I also don't see what it has to contribute. I think the most you can expect of people is to be exactly who and what they are. Most people act in accordance with their own decent impulses most of the time, irrespective of whether or not they believe very unlikely things.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Sir Crispin Cupcake:
...the rather ugly methods necessary to perpetuate itself. I think it's fair to say that it survives through indoctrination, coercion and various forms of induced fear...

Don't know what these are. Amplify.

quote:

Most people act in accordance with their own decent impulses most of the time

But where do those 'decent impulses' come from?? In our nice liberal democracy in UK, you cannot escape the fact that our social and moral norms ('decent impulses') have been formed, historically, by Christianity.

Whether they've ever been near a Church or not (and those who have 'not' have usually got very strong opinions about the Church(es) of which they actually know very little), whether they recognise it or not, the reality is that most [British] people have had their moral horizon and norms formed by the Christian faith. Those moral norms did not just drop out of the sky...

Ok. Indoctrination I suppose is initially parental. People's religious beliefs are generally determined I suspect by their parents' beliefs and to some extent by where in the world they live. Indoctrination continues if they find themselves in religious schools. These days there is less coercion in the UK, but a hundred years ago the poor were threatened with eviction from alms house for non-attendance in church, for example. Go back further and any kind of heretical position was extremely dangerous. This is still the case in many countries today. Induced fear is very evident in Christianity i.e. you had better believe it or you will be tormented in hell forever etc, but as I say it is by no means exclusive to Christianity.

I very much doubt that Christianity alone can claim the credit for creating moral norms. Broadly similar moral norms exist in countries where Christianity is not the dominant religion and it wouldn't surprise me if they existed before Christianity existed.

Rich

Andrew,
You only have to read your rantings on Hifi to know where your head is at,your views are not your own.
You are a scared child in a scary world and you can't think for yourself,in this world today there are things that we can know and things that we can't,it is for science to show us the things that we can know.

Man invented God and now man has shown that God(as religion invisions him/her/it)does not exist,some of us can't face up to it.

Every where science looks it sees a form of creation that is awe inspiring to a degree that makes your(6 days and one for rest man with a beard,pull out a rib merchant)look like a todler with lego.

God exists for me,when i look a the pictuers of the billions of galaxies taken by Hubble,the periodic table of elements.

When i die i feel sure that will be the end,there will be no Heaven where i can rejoin my old friends or Hell,and i can live with that.

What you are involved in which is "Born again Christianity" is nothing more than a business run by Assholes imported in from the US,i have spent time amongst them,there view of the Cosmos is akin to a seven year olds,they run as registered charities to avoid tax they are up to every trick in the book,the people at the top do not believe in God.

The other day i tuned in to a program on the religion channel called "Potters House" Potter is a 25 stone African/American who wears ridiculous suits,now Potter is a damn good preacher,he spoke about Tithing,should you give a percentage of your income to him based on Gross or Net,guess the answer.

Have a good weekend BB

quote:

Originally posted by Right Wing:
Religion is for those who dont have their own opinions, and choose to live by a black and white book.

I guess there is the danger of a certain amount of pride and egotism - as I know too well. The Bible is an account of experiences of God by people.

quote:

I know of a few lesbians that go to the local church down my way. What do you make of that Andrew? Would you welcome them into yours?? Could Adam and Steve come along as well?

I'm pretty sure we have some Gay & Lesbian members. They are welcome to attend and receive mutual respect.

quote:

. . .God will forgive anyone? . . . . oh and love thy neighbour an all that? - hmm yeh right!

God has the capacity to forgive anyone who approaches him when truely sorry for committing wrongdoing and driving a wedge between them and God. Being sorry that it led to the crucifixion of Jesus will guarantee acceptance.

quote:

Its the biggest cause of wars . . . The world WOULD be a better place.

Nope, sin is the biggest cause of wars.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Sorry to correct you here. The oldest Gospel (Mark) was written 35-40 years after Jesus' ascension. Interestingly a Beatles biography from Paul MacCartney 35-40 years after the event would also be held in high regard for its authenticity.

I had read that the bible was put together some 200-300 years later. Is that still the accepted understanding?

No doubt it will have gone through many revisions, adjustments, etc. In fact isn't the new testament composed of a selection of books in which many more were vying for inclusion?

That's probably the Council of Nicaea in AD325 - brought about by the Emperor Constantine where 1800 representatives from different Churches (1000 in the East and 800 in the West) met and decided on a number of things. At this great conference I believe they used a verse-by-verse points system in order to decide whether a Gospel/Letter is of Divine inspiration or dubious origin.

If the Bible was altered at any way during this point, then there would have been a noticable split among the 1800 different Churches - each taking away their own version. That of course did not happen - particular as the geneological evidence of old scriptures indicate consistencies before and after that date.

quote:

Regardless, you can't really compare a document written in an "information age" to a document assembled some 1800 years ago.

Don't underestimate the people at that time. Several of the Gospels were written by and with eye witnesses, and there was a strong tradition of verbal reinforcement of past events. We also see cross corroborated material by four different writers, one of whom is a renowned historian.

Andrew