Mocking people's beliefs.

[NJS 3954]

Do you think they wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for religion? Granted people have acted appallingly in the past to homosexuals and "witches", but Leviticus was written at a time when "witchcraft" and homosexual behaviour was commonplace and many were disgusted by it. In any case what Jesus said is more relevant than what we find in Leviticus.

 

I can accept that 3000 years ago writing tribal laws was very much in context - ie the banning of pork was supposedly due to a nasty bacteria at the time - but I don't understand why people should try and apply it now. You make a good point that the Gospels don't mention homosexuality - this annoys a lot of christians but they can take comfort in the bigotry and mysoginism of Paul.

 

 

I think/ homophobia and quoting a religion is in a way a feed back loop - people have a bigotry which they look for justification for which makes them more bigoted etc etc.

 

As I referred to above the thing that concerns me is that religions ir (in the organised sense) evolve too slowly (if at all). I think most people in general accept that modern morality recognises things like homosexuality and slavery as okay/wrong. That change has come about imo via a natural progression of morality which has little to do with religion which in some cases has not moved at all.

[sniffer 0]

I wouldn't say that acceptance of homosexuals is a progression of morality. More like a regression of moral values.

[Rob W 0]

"moral values" = I'm coming round to oppress you because I don't like your life style...............

[Renton 17535]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

[TheInspiration 1]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

[Renton 17535]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

[TheInspiration 1]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.

[manc-mag 1]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

 

He didnt cure original sin did he? I thought we were all born with original sin?

 

I'm sure that's the point of the baptism tbh. Hence if you haven't been baptised (like me say) you remain a bastard sinner...and if you're say Adolf Hitler, you're sorted.

Edited September 5, 2007 by manc-mag

[Renton 17535]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.

 

If most people were introduced many of the beliefs of christianity as informed adults rather than naive children I'm pretty sure they would think of it every bit as absurd as sacrificing goats to fix a plane. Try and be objective and think about it, it makes almost no sense at all. The bits that have been utterly proven to be false have now have been conveniently passed off as metaphor, as you have just done there with Adam and Eve. Mind you, Jesus didn't regard it as a metaphor according to the gospels iirc, how can this be with an omniscient God?

[Renton 17535]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

 

He didnt cure original sin did he? I thought we were all born with original sin?

 

I'm sure that's the point of the baptism tbh. Hence if you haven't been baptised (like me say) you remain a bastard sinner...and if you're say Adolf Hitler, you're sorted.

 

What did he die for then? 16 years of a catholic education, an 'A' in RE, and I still don't know.

 

Regarding the baptism thing, iirc earlier this year the pope decided that purgatory was no more. How long before the concept of Hell disappears?

[manc-mag 1]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

 

He didnt cure original sin did he? I thought we were all born with original sin?

 

I'm sure that's the point of the baptism tbh. Hence if you haven't been baptised (like me say) you remain a bastard sinner...and if you're say Adolf Hitler, you're sorted.

 

What did he die for then? 16 years of a catholic education, an 'A' in RE, and I still don't know.

 

Regarding the baptism thing, iirc earlier this year the pope decided that purgatory was no more. How long before the concept of Hell disappears?

 

He died for our sins.....but I don't think that includes original sin. I think Catholics believe if you've not been christened then you've still got original sin. They say that when babies cry during the service theyre howling out the devil.

 

I could be completely wrong and Lennon will no doubt correct me, in which case I'll stick to sacrificing goats.

[TheInspiration 1]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.

 

If most people were introduced many of the beliefs of christianity as informed adults rather than naive children I'm pretty sure they would think of it every bit as absurd as sacrificing goats to fix a plane. Try and be objective and think about it, it makes almost no sense at all. The bits that have been utterly proven to be false have now have been conveniently passed off as metaphor, as you have just done there with Adam and Eve. Mind you, Jesus didn't regard it as a metaphor according to the gospels iirc, how can this be with an omniscient God?

I'd like to know what parts have been "utterly proven" to be false.

 

I can't change your opinions on something being absurd, but most of the great Christian theologians/apologists like C.S. Lewis, McGrath etc were atheists who got converted. Got to be some reason why - maybe there's far more reason in Christianity than you attempt to make out.

[Renton 17535]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

 

He didnt cure original sin did he? I thought we were all born with original sin?

 

I'm sure that's the point of the baptism tbh. Hence if you haven't been baptised (like me say) you remain a bastard sinner...and if you're say Adolf Hitler, you're sorted.

 

What did he die for then? 16 years of a catholic education, an 'A' in RE, and I still don't know.

 

Regarding the baptism thing, iirc earlier this year the pope decided that purgatory was no more. How long before the concept of Hell disappears?

 

He died for our sins.....but I don't think that includes original sin. I think Catholics believe if you've not been christened then you've still got original sin. They say that when babies cry during the service theyre howling out the devil.

 

I could be completely wrong and Lennon will no doubt correct me, in which case I'll stick to sacrificing goats.

 

When you said Lennon there I thought you were referring to "Imagine there's no heaven" for a minute.

 

Appropriately enough though I see Cath's namesake bar on Newgate street has been renamed 'Sinners'.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Renton

[Renton 17535]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.

 

If most people were introduced many of the beliefs of christianity as informed adults rather than naive children I'm pretty sure they would think of it every bit as absurd as sacrificing goats to fix a plane. Try and be objective and think about it, it makes almost no sense at all. The bits that have been utterly proven to be false have now have been conveniently passed off as metaphor, as you have just done there with Adam and Eve. Mind you, Jesus didn't regard it as a metaphor according to the gospels iirc, how can this be with an omniscient God?

I'd like to know what parts have been "utterly proven" to be false.

 

I can't change your opinions on something being absurd, but most of the great Christian theologians/apologists like C.S. Lewis, McGrath etc were atheists who got converted. Got to be some reason why - maybe there's far more reason in Christianity than you attempt to make out.

 

If Lewis, and especially McGrath, are examples of great christian theologians then frankly that's not adding any weight to your argument.

 

And if you don't accept the Adam and Eve story has been shown to be utterly false then what else can I say?

[TheInspiration 1]

The absurdity of religious belief exemplified here.

That should be the absurdity of a religious belief, not all religious beliefs. It annoys me that it's always religion in general that's absurd - as if they're all as bad and as false as each other.

 

The Bible is equally absurd to me though. Even the new bit, about God giving his only son (who's also himself and born of a virgin) to knowingly die on a cross to cure original sin, caused by a ficticious man and his nasty ficticious girl friend some 4000 years previously. That makes as much sense to me as, well, slaughtering goats to fix a plane.

Well it's not to me and plenty of other people, many very intelligent. I know it's not realistic but I don't think an omnipotent God would have intended it to be. For the record Jesus died because of the sins of all humans, ao we are all forgiven. That explains why many see the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.

 

If most people were introduced many of the beliefs of christianity as informed adults rather than naive children I'm pretty sure they would think of it every bit as absurd as sacrificing goats to fix a plane. Try and be objective and think about it, it makes almost no sense at all. The bits that have been utterly proven to be false have now have been conveniently passed off as metaphor, as you have just done there with Adam and Eve. Mind you, Jesus didn't regard it as a metaphor according to the gospels iirc, how can this be with an omniscient God?

I'd like to know what parts have been "utterly proven" to be false.

 

I can't change your opinions on something being absurd, but most of the great Christian theologians/apologists like C.S. Lewis, McGrath etc were atheists who got converted. Got to be some reason why - maybe there's far more reason in Christianity than you attempt to make out.

 

If Lewis, and especially McGrath, are examples of great christian theologians then frankly that's not adding any weight to your argument.

 

And if you don't accept the Adam and Eve story has been shown to be utterly false then what else can I say?

Of course it hasn't been proven to be utterly false. Here's the deal - science has suggested the world is far older than 6000 years old which is fair enough even though the actual age is debatable. This does not mean the whole story is completely false at all - we don't really have solid grounds for beliving it was only 4004 BC or whenever.

 

Anyway like I've already stated, the creation story looks metaphorical, explaining why many think it is so, and aren't just saying that as a cop-out. The New Testament is clearly supposed to be about actual events, on the other hand. If you look at the language used in Genesis you'll see it all appears poetic and mythical and the message presented through using sin and the Garden of Eden is clear.

 

As for theology/apologetics, have you read much? I must admit I've only been reading a lot of in the past few months, but I don't see why such people's work isn't worth reading?

[NJS 3954]

Anyway like I've already stated, the creation story looks metaphorical, explaining why many think it is so, and aren't just saying that as a cop-out. The New Testament is clearly supposed to be about actual events, on the other hand. If you look at the language used in Genesis you'll see it all appears poetic and mythical and the message presented through using sin and the Garden of Eden is clear.

 

As for theology/apologetics, have you read much? I must admit I've only been reading a lot of in the past few months, but I don't see why such people's work isn't worth reading?

 

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place.

 

Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities.

 

CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men.

[Rob W 0]

SCIENCE ATTACK!!!!

 

 

Burn him! Burn him!!! Burn Him!!!!!

 

:pray: :pray: :hunter: :jihad: :jihad:

[TheInspiration 1]

Anyway like I've already stated, the creation story looks metaphorical, explaining why many think it is so, and aren't just saying that as a cop-out. The New Testament is clearly supposed to be about actual events, on the other hand. If you look at the language used in Genesis you'll see it all appears poetic and mythical and the message presented through using sin and the Garden of Eden is clear.

 

As for theology/apologetics, have you read much? I must admit I've only been reading a lot of in the past few months, but I don't see why such people's work isn't worth reading?

 

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place.

 

Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities.

 

CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men.

Yet the untouchable Dawkins refused to attend a debate with him. Because he's scared or because he's too arrogant? Either way he hasn't presented himself well.

 

Also on the subject of religion being the "root of all evil", I find it funny people like Dawkins, Russell and many others, like to go round telling people about people acting imorrally as if they're moral people themselves. Russell had countless affairs and Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man who shows zero respect for anyone with an alternative opinion he disagrees with. I personally prefer respectful, intelligent people who are also decent human beings to those who haven't contributed anything new in years and just want to write pretentious books about how deluded people are, mainly for the prupose of earning shedloads more money.

[Rob W 0]

"Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man "

 

unfortunately for you he is also right................

 

 

I mean come on - write it down and look at it - all fairy tales

Edited September 5, 2007 by Rob W

[NJS 3954]

Anyway like I've already stated, the creation story looks metaphorical, explaining why many think it is so, and aren't just saying that as a cop-out. The New Testament is clearly supposed to be about actual events, on the other hand. If you look at the language used in Genesis you'll see it all appears poetic and mythical and the message presented through using sin and the Garden of Eden is clear.

 

As for theology/apologetics, have you read much? I must admit I've only been reading a lot of in the past few months, but I don't see why such people's work isn't worth reading?

 

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place.

 

Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities.

 

CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men.

Yet the untouchable Dawkins refused to attend a debate with him. Because he's scared or because he's too arrogant? Either way he hasn't presented himself well.

 

Also on the subject of religion being the "root of all evil", I find it funny people like Dawkins, Russell and many others, like to go round telling people about people acting imorrally as if they're moral people themselves. Russell had countless affairs and Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man who shows zero respect for anyone with an alternative opinion he disagrees with. I personally prefer respectful, intelligent people who are also decent human beings to those who haven't contributed anything new in years and just want to write pretentious books about how deluded people are, mainly for the prupose of earning shedloads more money.

 

 

Dawkins has a policy of not entering debates - I don't think he's scared he just thinks its an environment that doesn't work for him personally. As an example theres a US creationist called Kent Hovind (now jailed) who always "won" his debates by scatter gun facts that couldn't be disproved in the time available

 

Also he certainly doesn't need the money.

 

Considering the people he interviewed on either of his C4 tv shows I think those remarks cound't be more wrong - if someone told you "all your women dress like whores" would you answer respectfully with "they dress how THEY want to" or would you tell the bloke he was a fuckwit?

[TheInspiration 1]

"Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man "

 

unfortunately for you he is also right................

 

 

I mean come on - write it down and look at it - all fairy tales

I don't think I'll even bother replying to your "fairy tale" comment.

 

As for Dawkins, he's just a scientist who is a little bitter maybe because he had a prayer not answered as a kid. His attempts at being a philosopher are terrible and I don't think I've seen him say anything groundbreaking with regards to his points about there being almost certainly no God.

 

So no, he is not "right".

[TheInspiration 1]

Anyway like I've already stated, the creation story looks metaphorical, explaining why many think it is so, and aren't just saying that as a cop-out. The New Testament is clearly supposed to be about actual events, on the other hand. If you look at the language used in Genesis you'll see it all appears poetic and mythical and the message presented through using sin and the Garden of Eden is clear.

 

As for theology/apologetics, have you read much? I must admit I've only been reading a lot of in the past few months, but I don't see why such people's work isn't worth reading?

 

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place.

 

Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities.

 

CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men.

Yet the untouchable Dawkins refused to attend a debate with him. Because he's scared or because he's too arrogant? Either way he hasn't presented himself well.

 

Also on the subject of religion being the "root of all evil", I find it funny people like Dawkins, Russell and many others, like to go round telling people about people acting imorrally as if they're moral people themselves. Russell had countless affairs and Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man who shows zero respect for anyone with an alternative opinion he disagrees with. I personally prefer respectful, intelligent people who are also decent human beings to those who haven't contributed anything new in years and just want to write pretentious books about how deluded people are, mainly for the prupose of earning shedloads more money.

 

 

Dawkins has a policy of not entering debates - I don't think he's scared he just thinks its an environment that doesn't work for him personally. As an example theres a US creationist called Kent Hovind (now jailed) who always "won" his debates by scatter gun facts that couldn't be disproved in the time available

 

Also he certainly doesn't need the money.

 

Considering the people he interviewed on either of his C4 tv shows I think those remarks cound't be more wrong - if someone told you "all your women dress like whores" would you answer respectfully with "they dress how THEY want to" or would you tell the bloke he was a fuckwit?

Did anyone say anything akin to the statement about women dressing like whores?

 

My point was countless times I've seen him bang on about how stupid or comical it is someone makes a point, even when it's nothing to do with him and certainly not to him.

 

He should go have a bit more fun in life than rewrite books. Any more intelligent Christian just looks down on his book and laughs at his ridiculous obsession, yet there is a view from the atheist camp that they're all frightened of reading his books as if he's some superhuman who will make them atheist just by writing a book.

 

Also with regards to debates, for another theologian he refused to attend a debate because "it might like good on his CV but not mine". Tough in cheek maybe, but obviously arrogance and dare I say, delusion.

[RlCO 0]

Anyway like I've already stated, the creation story looks metaphorical, explaining why many think it is so, and aren't just saying that as a cop-out. The New Testament is clearly supposed to be about actual events, on the other hand. If you look at the language used in Genesis you'll see it all appears poetic and mythical and the message presented through using sin and the Garden of Eden is clear.

 

As for theology/apologetics, have you read much? I must admit I've only been reading a lot of in the past few months, but I don't see why such people's work isn't worth reading?

 

Genetics prove that Homo Sapiens were not descended from one couple who lived in the same time at the same place.

 

Also the fact that Cain and Abel would have had to breed with their mother is overlooked with all it would have meant for deformities.

 

CS Lewis as far as I know is a "nice" CofE type christian - fuzzy minded aruments from awe. McGrath completely failed to answer any of the points Dawkins raised with him when filming The Root fo all evil his only reply was "You raise a good question there". He then scuttled off to write a pamplet full of straw men.

 

The human genome has been traced back to 'as few as 1000 breeding pairs'

 

a.k.a. Bible Camp

[NJS 3954]

Did anyone say anything akin to the statement about women dressing like whores?

 

My point was countless times I've seen him bang on about how stupid or comical it is someone makes a point, even when it's nothing to do with him and certainly not to him.

 

He should go have a bit more fun in life than rewrite books. Any more intelligent Christian just looks down on his book and laughs at his ridiculous obsession, yet there is a view from the atheist camp that they're all frightened of reading his books as if he's some superhuman who will make them atheist just by writing a book.

 

Also with regards to debates, for another theologian he refused to attend a debate because "it might like good on his CV but not mine". Tough in cheek maybe, but obviously arrogance and dare I say, delusion.

 

The Muslim (who used to be a jew) accused of him of not being able to talk about morality as british women all dressed like whores. He replied "I don't tell them how to dress" - "You should, that is your failing" was the reply.

 

I have read dozens of reviews and replies to TGD - most don't read it and reply to what they think he said and those that do cannot answer any of his points without the usual goal post shifting (that's not my god he's talking about" etc, etc. That applies to "geniuses" like McGrath especially as they think they are clever enough to be able to move the goalposts and "win" - they aren't.

 

 

 

 

 

He didn't aim the book at staunch believers - he aimed it at people who are only "weddings and funerals" christians who have an open mind.

[Park Life 70]

"Dawkins is just a bitter, sarcastic, angry, arrogant man "

 

unfortunately for you he is also right................

 

 

I mean come on - write it down and look at it - all fairy tales

I don't think I'll even bother replying to your "fairy tale" comment.

 

As for Dawkins, he's just a scientist who is a little bitter maybe because he had a prayer not answered as a kid. His attempts at being a philosopher are terrible and I don't think I've seen him say anything groundbreaking with regards to his points about there being almost certainly no God.

 

So no, he is not "right".

 

 

Dawkins is highly irritating tbh. The way he seems to sneer at others beliefs isn't becoming of an educated man.