NJS 3986 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 The author of the Book of Revelation had to suffering some form of mental illness. Probably brought about by spending too long alone in a cave in Patmos. Particular strain of magic mushrooms according to something I saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Blame it on the drugs eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 It is correct like that our current church isnt so much in decline, but is being replaced. Well, not replaced but the Evangelical types (largely African) are growing in popularity and spreading through Europe. On the comment, I'd agree its better they say nothing However, I don't mind sticking my neck out and saying those that think the Church is generally old hat and needs to be binned are totally in the wrong. Society, generally, is fucked. If more people took heed of the teachings in the Bible we might stand half a chance. I'm not saying they should even believe in a God etc but at least take note of the overall messages. The main being imo a total lack of respect for other people at the moment, the one thing the church in large promotes (love/respect for others etc). The Church (any) is ran by people who by their very nature of fucking stupid at times That implies society was in some way better when the influence of the church was greater in the UK. I think that's almost as big a fallacy as central tenets of Christian faith. Hmm, tricky one. There are a few problems, go backl to the crusades and religion was used to expand the empire. That wasn't the religions fault but that of the people up top. More recent times I would say society has been better but far far from perfect. Never has or will be. What I am saying is that society os fucked now. I am saying more people would do well to at least try to live a moral life as echoed by the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 It is correct like that our current church isnt so much in decline, but is being replaced. Well, not replaced but the Evangelical types (largely African) are growing in popularity and spreading through Europe. On the comment, I'd agree its better they say nothing However, I don't mind sticking my neck out and saying those that think the Church is generally old hat and needs to be binned are totally in the wrong. Society, generally, is fucked. If more people took heed of the teachings in the Bible we might stand half a chance. I'm not saying they should even believe in a God etc but at least take note of the overall messages. The main being imo a total lack of respect for other people at the moment, the one thing the church in large promotes (love/respect for others etc). The Church (any) is ran by people who by their very nature of fucking stupid at times Point me to the persentage of the bible which advocates anything decent which isn't contradicted totally elsewhere Traditional "christian" values are just the condensation of the pervading morality of any civilised society imo. Agreed. But we have a prevailing immoral society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Agreed. But we have a prevailing immoral society. It depends - the nostalgia for eras like the 50s forget the homophobia, racism and sexual hypocrisy which were rife - in those areas I think today's society is a lot more moral. You could also argue for the increase in volunteer work and other charitable giving as modern life gives more free time/disposable income. I've also seen figures that show more murders and violent crimes a hundred years ago than now - maybe the statistic collection is suspect but the idea of some utopia at some point in the past is an exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Agreed. But we have a prevailing immoral society. It depends - the nostalgia for eras like the 50s forget the homophobia, racism and sexual hypocrisy which were rife - in those areas I think today's society is a lot more moral. You could also argue for the increase in volunteer work and other charitable giving as modern life gives more free time/disposable income. I've also seen figures that show more murders and violent crimes a hundred years ago than now - maybe the statistic collection is suspect but the idea of some utopia at some point in the past is an exaggeration. Never been a utopian society like. 50's wern't great at all, in fact I think you could go as far as to say every decade has the same number of problems, just different kinds. I'd say there was more stabbing and shooting now, or is it that I just read about more due to the media? Id say there was more adultry and divorces now, or is it that more women will now stand up for themselves rather than turning a blind eye? Whatever, this is derailing the OP and it a neverending discussion. I do though think in general, the majority of people are pretty selfish rather than selfless and have a lack of respect for most others. Religion aside completely. I also agree that the Pope (current) does more harm than good and seems very ill advised. I do think that the church has its place though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 As Paul Merton once said, the Pope has a killer's eyes. Therefore you shouldn't trust a single thing he says, it's not motivated by goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It is correct like that our current church isnt so much in decline, but is being replaced. Well, not replaced but the Evangelical types (largely African) are growing in popularity and spreading through Europe. On the comment, I'd agree its better they say nothing However, I don't mind sticking my neck out and saying those that think the Church is generally old hat and needs to be binned are totally in the wrong. Society, generally, is fucked. If more people took heed of the teachings in the Bible we might stand half a chance. I'm not saying they should even believe in a God etc but at least take note of the overall messages. The main being imo a total lack of respect for other people at the moment, the one thing the church in large promotes (love/respect for others etc). The Church (any) is ran by people who by their very nature of fucking stupid at times That implies society was in some way better when the influence of the church was greater in the UK. I think that's almost as big a fallacy as central tenets of Christian faith. Hmm, tricky one. There are a few problems, go backl to the crusades and religion was used to expand the empire. That wasn't the religions fault but that of the people up top. More recent times I would say society has been better but far far from perfect. Never has or will be. What I am saying is that society os fucked now. I am saying more people would do well to at least try to live a moral life as echoed by the bible. I know what you're saying, I just don't agree with it at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Hmm, tricky one. There are a few problems, go backl to the crusades and religion was used to expand the empire. That wasn't the religions fault but that of the people up top. More recent times I would say society has been better but far far from perfect. Never has or will be. What I am saying is that society os fucked now. I am saying more people would do well to at least try to live a moral life as echoed by the bible. The crusades were all about religion - Europe didn't care what the Muslims were doing (see invasion of Spain) until they invaded the "Holy land" - it then became a christian duty based on Papal edict to save it from infidels. Again I'd question "echoed by the bible" - certainy the OT is an awful document morally and while JC did preach some good stuff he also preached a lot of nastiness - particulary the bits about abandoning family to follow him and how the only way to heaven was through him - probably the most offensive notion to me (ie that being good is useless without worship). I'd also point out the correlation between intensity of faith and crime rates based on states in the US - it actually has more to do with poverty but it does show that religion doesn't stop people from being sinful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I also dislike the way it's often a get-out clause, i.e. "he did x, y and z but he's found God now". That's ok then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26561 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Again I'd question "echoed by the bible" - certainy the OT is an awful document morally and while JC did preach some good stuff he also preached a lot of nastiness - particulary the bits about abandoning family to follow him and how the only way to heaven was through him - probably the most offensive notion to me (ie that being good is useless without worship). Egomaniac tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17871 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Again I'd question "echoed by the bible" - certainy the OT is an awful document morally and while JC did preach some good stuff he also preached a lot of nastiness - particulary the bits about abandoning family to follow him and how the only way to heaven was through him - probably the most offensive notion to me (ie that being good is useless without worship). Egomaniac tbh. Charasmatic nutter who got lucky, in a nutshell. There was, and always will be, plenty of them around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Again I'd question "echoed by the bible" - certainy the OT is an awful document morally and while JC did preach some good stuff he also preached a lot of nastiness - particulary the bits about abandoning family to follow him and how the only way to heaven was through him - probably the most offensive notion to me (ie that being good is useless without worship). Egomaniac tbh. Charasmatic nutter who got lucky, in a nutshell. There was, and always will be, plenty of them around. I know what you're getting at but it wasn't even that in all honesty. I.e. he didn't get lucky. His legacy in all probability has virtually nothing to do with his life. Those who took up 'his' cause afterwards were the lucky ones in the way in which they created a myth that became a world-wide phenomenom. Which is probably the most ridiculous thing of the lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 You can't beat the timing of being adopted by the Roman empire who ruled the most infuential part of the world at the time - its all accidents of history. I suppose you could argue that it was a cunning plan on God's part but for other accidents affecting other parts of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The pope is gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Hmm, tricky one. There are a few problems, go backl to the crusades and religion was used to expand the empire. That wasn't the religions fault but that of the people up top. More recent times I would say society has been better but far far from perfect. Never has or will be. What I am saying is that society os fucked now. I am saying more people would do well to at least try to live a moral life as echoed by the bible. The crusades were all about religion - Europe didn't care what the Muslims were doing (see invasion of Spain) until they invaded the "Holy land" - it then became a christian duty based on Papal edict to save it from infidels. Again I'd question "echoed by the bible" - certainy the OT is an awful document morally and while JC did preach some good stuff he also preached a lot of nastiness - particulary the bits about abandoning family to follow him and how the only way to heaven was through him - probably the most offensive notion to me (ie that being good is useless without worship). I'd also point out the correlation between intensity of faith and crime rates based on states in the US - it actually has more to do with poverty but it does show that religion doesn't stop people from being sinful. Discussion aside, I just chuckled at the fact you refer to him as JC The bible is far far from perfect (or even a good read!), it was written by men (not a God) unlike the Koran (iirc). The old testament does my head in, its not of course meant to be taken literally. I'd say more metophorically. Then again, much of it is. On saying its ok to do wrong so long as you say sorry to God, forgiveness is meant to actually be in line with reconciliation. Not just with God, but with the other person involved. Is that always a bad thing? (not always a good thing either like). fuck me I'm trying to play devils advocate and its not that easy. I'd have just as much problem trying to support the full theory of Darwin as well. I find nature as whole mind blowingly amazing and simply cannot believe we have a true understanding of any of it (we once thought the world was flat, who knows what will change our views tomorrow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) That's where a problem occurs for me. Who decides what is allegory / metaphor and what parts are meant to be taken literally? (rhetorical question as there are obviously no hard and fast rules on that). Also there are parts of the OT that are definitely meant to be taken literally, as in the laws laid down in Leviticus and so on). Re: the Koran / Qu'ran - Muhammad received visions directly from God / Allah via the angel Gabriel (Jebril) in the hills above Mecca than related what he heard in Mecca itself and it was copied down by scribes (Muhammad being, like most people then, illiterate). Therefore it's meant to be the direct word of God. Or so the story goes Edit: "JC" reminded me of 'Meet the Parents' as well Edited March 19, 2009 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14111 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The pope is gay. Barebacker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Discussion aside, I just chuckled at the fact you refer to him as JC The bible is far far from perfect (or even a good read!), it was written by men (not a God) unlike the Koran (iirc). The old testament does my head in, its not of course meant to be taken literally. I'd say more metophorically. Then again, much of it is. On saying its ok to do wrong so long as you say sorry to God, forgiveness is meant to actually be in line with reconciliation. Not just with God, but with the other person involved. Is that always a bad thing? (not always a good thing either like). Expanding on what Alex said in reply I'd say the cherry picking of biblical morality which is based on the general morality of the society I referred to above is what makes religion and/or God unneccesary. I fully accept that some people exist that are so convinced by religion that they reject this idea entirely and go as far as to say that without God they'd murder etc but I think they are the very people who should be "rescued". I think if more people were taught how man is a social animal and how all societies have had the same general morality without rference to their particular brand then we'd have more chance of the decent society you and I both want. Forgiveness is a very human emotion and of course I think its good - I just think reconciliation with other humans is infinitely more important that with a God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The pope is gay. Barebacker? Doesn't bear thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I see cardinal Murphy O Spud wrote to the Times saying it was out of order to portray the Pope in a cartoon............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26561 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Pope Benedict condones condom use in some cases - book Pope Benedict XVI has said the use of condoms is acceptable "in certain cases", according to a new book. He said condoms could reduce the risk of infection with HIV, such as for a prostitute, in a series of interviews he gave to a German journalist. The Vatican newspaper ran excerpts on Saturday. The comments appear to soften the Roman Catholic Church's hardline stance, which until now had banned the use of any form of contraception. When asked whether the Catholic Church is "fundamentally against the use of condoms", the Pope is said to have replied, in the book entitled Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times: "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. "In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," he said. The Pope gives the example of the use of condoms by prostitutes as "a first step towards moralisation", even though condoms are "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection". The pope says that the "sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalisation of sexuality" where sexuality is no longer an expression of love, "but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves". Aids crisis The Church's hardline stance over contraception has led the Vatican to being heavily criticised for its position in the context of the Aids crisis. On a visit to Cameroon last year, the Pope said the use of condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids, rather than help to contain the virus. This drew criticism from several EU states. Campaigners say condoms are one of the few methods proven to stop the spread of HIV. The book is due to be published on Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Just saw this: Pope Benedict ventured where no pope has gone before on Friday when he answered questions on an Italian television programme – and was stumped by the first. A Japanese girl asked the pope, who, she said, "speaks with God", why she was having to suffer so much as a result of the earthquake and tsunami that had struck her country. "I am very frightened because the house where I felt safe really shook a lot and many children my age have died. I cannot go to play in the park. I want to know: why do I have to be so afraid? Why do children have to be so sad?" said seven-year-old Elena. Benedict admitted: "I also have the same questions: why is it this way? Why do you have to suffer so much while others live in ease? "And we do not have the answers, but we know that Jesus suffered as you do, an innocent, and that the true God who is revealed in Jesus is by your side." Whether Elena was satisfied with that answer was unclear. But the studio audience gave the pope a hearty round of applause. We do not have the answers? Why not? You wrinkly old fascist. You're meant to be able to speak to god. It's not like it's all bullshit or anything, is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 It's always struck me that they can't claim JC suffered when he would have known his mission ended in resurrection and ascension. He also wasn't as innocent as implied - in today's world he'd be classed as an insurgent/terrorist - not saying that's right but its another view. (this assumes any truth in the gospels of course). Ratzinger should have been more honest and just said it served the Japanese right for not being Catholic which is the non-PR "correct" answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 (edited) Christianity has been to fish sales on a Friday what Orange is for cinema going on a Wednesday. Them 12 "disciples" should be on the wall of EVERY advertising agency in the world. Edited April 23, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now