[Closed] Archbishop Rowan Williams

Nun of the above.

Nun of the above.

boom tish 😀

Gary Streeter was just on Radio 4 (my local my, woooh!) with his 'Christian MP's committee' hat on, slinging mud back at the Archbishop. Weak party political response clearly directed by Cameron IMO.

find it funny that he's complaining about things that weren't voted for even if he does make some valid points. I look forward to him giving up the church's seats in the lords.

Heard Tony bLiar talking about this on radio 4, and his attitude seemed quite sensible insofar as, 'why is this news? the church has always had opinions which they have voiced, which is their right the same as any other organisation/individual in a democracy'

It disgusts me that there is such a thing as a Christian MP Committee.

Troublesome priest. That is very polite.

That man is a competent dickhead.

Why is he given so much airtime?

He might have some valid views on occasion but much of what he spouts is nuts. In any case, his voice should carry the same weight as anyone else's.

We need a written doctrine of separation of church and state. Other religions and cults don't have anywhere near as much of a voice in the mainstream media.

Who voted for you Rowan? This guy believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Every time I hear an otherwise intelligent individual like Tony Blair declare religious belief I just honestly can't believe it.

Think he has a point dave does seem to think he has a mandate for all he does when in reality he does not and the LIB dems enable it. I always say a minority Tory govt could not be this right wing and all for a failed non PR reform vote.
TBH I blame Clegg much more than Dave who is morally bankrupt and a really rubbish politician to boot. Dave is a Tory we shoould have expected this.

clubber - Member
find it funny that he's complaining about things that weren't voted for

So do I as this is what has happened on every election. That is politics.

Surrounded By Zulus - Member

It disgusts me that there is such a thing as a Christian MP Committee.

Local lore has it that the reason 'Our Gary' switched to conservatism from being an SDP councillor when he first stood for parliament so that he could do God's work as quickly as possible, ie by joining the party which was most likely to have a parliamentary majority. The ironing of course being that he is still conservative despite not having a parliamnetary majority for nigh on 15 years. History points for first person to post who famously first 'switched teams' also for Jesus. 😀 {edited for historical accuracy, i always remembered him as a conservative coucillor round here when i was younger, forgot how recently it was he changed political flavour}

Each Man (or Woman) has the right to put forward thier voice and opinion.
So you don't care much for what he says, your choice. He does have many Millions of followers and the Guy isn't speaking out of turn, whether you like/dislike/agree/disagree with the doctorine of his Church and his opinions and the Christian faith foundation on this society we live in.
I'm glad the bloke stood up and questioned this Immoral society we've grown accustomed to.

Somehow I read the title as Archbishop Rowan Atkinson...

Is bike buoy being sarccy or do they mean that?

the doctorine of his Church and his opinions and the Christian faith foundation on this society we live in.
I'm glad the bloke stood up and questioned this Immoral society we've grown accustomed to.

Each Man (or Woman) has the right to put forward their voice and opinion.

In my opinion you immediately forfeit that right when you grow a beard

No I don't think so, and he has a point.

The Archbishop is the head of an an organisation, whose weekly meetings number around 350,000 UK citizens. So his opinion (which should be that of the organisation he is representing) does count for more than the average bloke in the street.

You may not like this fact, but it doesn't stop it being true.

while i dont agree with his stance on jesus h christ
all of the points he makes are valid

although the nature of a coalition being what it is, especially betwen 2 parties of (supposedly) different sides of the political spectrum, it just makes it easier for politicians to be duplicitous

is the Archbishop bringing politix into religion better or worse than elected politicians who bring religion into politix? (i'm thinking US really rather than UK.)

We need a written doctrine of separation of church and state.

Alas, our constitution is all wrapped up. Queen chooses government, is head of armed forces and head of church of England. Parish councils divided by churches not population/demographics. And I just wouldn't know where to start with the variety of reasons people are in the Lords. We would have to give up a great deal of what we as a nation are used to in order to effectivley separate church and state.

I think he makes some good points tbh.

In the same edition of the New Statesman, chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks wrote this

"A powerful store of social capital still exists. It is called religion: the churches, synagogues and other places of worship that still bring people together in shared belonging and mutual responsibility. The evidence shows that religious people – defined by regular attendance at a place of worship – actually do make better neighbours".

"Religion creates community, community creates altruism and altruism turns us away from self and towards the common good."

Now my instant lefty atheist knee-jerk reaction is to think - 'screw you Jonathon Sacks, how dare you make out that religious people are superior'.

But I have started to wonder recently - I have many problems with organised religion, but maybe society does need a moderating force to encourage people to be less self-centred and materialistic, and more altruistic. I'd like to think people wouldn't need this but maybe they do?

Don't you think that was always the point of of belief in God, if you think someone is watching you (and can punish you) you are less likely to act like a ****.

As for does GOD exists, personally I don't know, but I do get hung up on if we are just a random occurrence as Atheists think, where is everyone else?

I have many problems with organised religion, but maybe society does need a moderating force to encourage people to be less self-centred and materialistic

Religion as a moderating influence? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

[img] [/img]

Handily this also re-enforces my earlier comment about people with beards 😀

[img] [/img]

And just for balance.....

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5814815520_16e8378b46.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5814815520_16e8378b46.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

[img] [/img]

This photo was taken last week in East Jerusalem, of young Jewish settlers mocking a Palestinian woman whose home is now occupied by Israelis. They came to the Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah to celebrate Jerusalem Day in the face of those being displaced

[url] http://notmytribe.com/2010/semite-v-east-jerusalem-anti-semites-817029.html [/url]

Yeah you can provide extreme examples, but the majority of religious people have nothing to do with that surely? I dunno, I'm not saying I'm sure about it - I just wonder what is there left in society that goes against the might of advertising, big business etc that encourages us to be selfish materialistic arseholes.

Thank the God(s) for their/his/it's moderating influence, all over the world.

Nope I'm a hippy Athiest.

No sarcasm intended. I'm glad the head of "a" Church that represents a huge population is able to tell this Gov't what it thinks, I'd be happy with any religion offering up their opinion too, but they don't seem to do that in public. Other religions have tended to hold "talks" and offer up cohesive arguments behind closed doors with the Gov't in power at the time and kept out of the way of the general public hearing about them, which is wrong IMHO.

selfish materialistic arseholes.

Isn't that a description of the Catholic Church?

Isn't that a description of the Catholic Church?

Yeah pretty much - ok for the sake of argument let's say I'm just talking about the Church of England. 🙂

Which was formed out of one man's selfishness!

So you think you should throw all the good they do away, Christian Aid/Salvation Army, World Vision to name a few; because of a few nutters and Henry the 8th?

and they say Christians are nutters.....

Which was formed out of one man's selfishness!

Not really relevant now though is it.

Like I said, I am a firm atheist these days - I just think that society could do with more compassion, less materialism, more concern over social justice/equality etc etc. Those things were important in the brand of christianity I was brought up with and that many of my family still follow.

[img] [/img]

richc - Member
So you think you should throw all the good they do away, Christian Aid/Salvation Army, World Vision to name a few, because of a few nutters, and Henry the 8th?

and they say Christians are nutters.....

Is charity the reserve of the religious now?

This guy believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I'm pretty sure that he doesn't. He wrote [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100084843/a-six-year-old-girl-writes-a-letter-to-god-and-the-archbishop-of-canterbury-answers/ ]a letter to a six year old girl[/url] that might help you understand what he believes.

Who voted for you Rowan?

He's not in charge of the country so it doesn't really matter.

Every time I hear an otherwise [b]intelligent individual[/b] like Tony Blair declare religious belief I just honestly can't believe it

Perhaps it's time to learn something then?

No but they seem to fund a hell of a lot more aid charities than any Atheist organisations.

So whilst Charity isn't the sole reserve of Religion, Religion does seem to encourage charity, more than belief in oneself and nothing else.

the guys only good telly cos of his wacky facial hair and his views are the same as the bbc's ( never on the lead story on sky or itn is he)

Murdoch is hardly likely to allow Criticism of his investment is he?

Murdoch has spend a lot of time and money getting the Tories into power, so now its time to cash in he isn't going to risk muddying the water by broadcasting dissenting views.

richc - Member
No but they seem to fund a hell of a lot more aid charities than any Atheist organisations.

"Seem to". Good enough for me.

When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide

So whilst Charity isn't the sole reserve of Religion, Religion does seem to encourage charity, more than belief in oneself and nothing else.

You know that really is rather insulting and not really in keeping with the teachings of Christianity. Of course there are charities such as Oxfam, Save the Children and the Red Cross (some of which you may have heard of) that as far as I can find have any specific religious ties.

"Seem to". Good enough for me.

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.

I am not sure if its just me but it just seem to be used to stifle discussion/action to me, as when you have to prove and qualify everything nothing ever happens .... Seems to be the ideal religion for apathetic's or lawyers to me.

1 - 0 to the God botherers IMHO...... and that really pisses me off.

Oxfam: Oxfam originated as a church affiliated food aid program in Melbourne.

Save the Children: Historians have since connected the overwhelming success of Save Our Children with the organization of conservative Christian participation in political processes

I will give you the Red Cross, as even though a lot of founders (and funders) were staunch Christians, they understood that the organisation needed to be politically, nationality and religiously independent in order to function effectively.

Oxfam was originally a Quaker organisation, and from Oxford.
[b]Ox[/b]ford Committee for [b]Fam[/b]ine Relief

Oxfam invented oats?

Yeah you can provide extreme examples, but the majority of religious people have nothing to do with that. I dunno, I'm not saying I'm sure about it - I just wonder what is there left in society that goes against the might of advertising, big business etc that encourages us to be selfish materialistic arseholes.

It’s easy ([i]very, very[/i] easy) to pick holes in the Christian doctrine, and I’m sure it’s the same in other religions. There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions that anyone who’s a believer should be seriously questioning what it is that they purport to support.

The vast majority of people who call themselves Christians and who attend church regularly have no real idea about their own religion. They go along with the idea that stealing from people is bad, being nasty is, y’know, not really a good idea, and that we should probably give money to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

But that’s not specific to Christianity (other religions are available). It’s just basic humanity. Look at what Leviticus says, for example, and ask Christians to support that, and they’d almost all refuse to. But there it is, part of your religion. Right there, it states, categorically, that homosexuality is banned, and that gays should be put to death. It also states that Christians shouldn’t eat pork or shellfish, that you can keep slaves....lots of other stuff that virtually no-one whould go along with. So do you just accept the bits you like and say that the rest is wrong? If you take the stance that it was interpreted by men, and that times have changed, then you’ve got a problem as well, because that means that anything's up for grabs.

Ask most Christians – churchgoing Christians – to name you the Ten Commandments, and they’d typically get about half. A survey I saw maybe a decade ago reckoned that only around 25% of Christian clergy could name them all.

So what you have is an Archbishop criticising a government, based on the fact that he’s got 2-3m supporters, despite the fact that 90+% of said supporters have little real idea of what their religion really stands for. Other than ‘Jesus was a kinda nice guy’.

Not that I disagree with him, but I don't think his views should hold any more sway than anyone else

I agree his views shouldn't hold any more sway than any other head of voluntarily charitable organisation with over 3 million active members, which owns large chunks of the UKs infrastructure, national monuments and countryside.

richc - Member

"Seem to". Good enough for me.

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.

I am not sure if its just me but it just seem to be used to stifle discussion/action to me, as when you have to prove and qualify everything nothing ever happens .... Seems to be the ideal religion for apathetic's or lawyers to me

😆

Facts stifle debate? Brilliant.

Oxfam: Oxfam originated as a church affiliated food aid program in Melbourne.

Not according to this

which state that it was fouding in the UK in 1942 and has no religious affiliations.

Save the Children: Historians have since connected the overwhelming success of Save Our Children with the organization of conservative Christian participation in political processes

Part of the Save the Children websiste states that they have no religious affiliation

http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/about_us/1919_supporters.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=700

What historians have connected that charity to is irrelevant, they have no religious affiliation.

I will give you the Red Cross,

how very gracious of you.

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I am not sure if its just me but it just seem to be used to stifle discussion/action to me, as when you have to prove and qualify everything nothing ever happens

I think it's just you, unless of course you think that all the advancements made in science all of which will have been suject to the statement 'prove it' didn't happen.

Demanding unquantifiable or available facts do, yes, as it falls back to two people shouting 'prove it' at each other.

Life ain't black and white, and if you have to absolutely define everything before you will start an intelligent conversation you ain't going to be saying much.

For example:

Person 1: Good morning.
Person 2: Prove it.

which state that it was fouding in the UK in 1942 and has no religious affiliations

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/work_with_us/trustees/history_of_oxfam.html

[img] [/img]

oh [i]Rowan[/i] Williams...

[img] [/img]
oh Rowan Williams...

Gary Streeter described Williams' piece in the New Statesman as a "party political rant".

Does anyone remember if The Archbishop ranted at the last government in this way? (hint: oh yes he did) If so, what 'party' is he ranting for? Try as I might I can't reconcile very many conventional C of E values with NuLab either, nor with much of what they did in government. 😕

Oxfam link:> http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/work_with_us/trustees/history_of_oxfam.html
/p>

Extract: Members of the Society of Friends (the Quakers) were to play a significant part in Oxfam’s development.

A lot of these Charities have to prove independence in order to be effective, hence breaking ties with any Belief / Country or Ideology.

However to disregard the influence of Religion on why they were created in the first place seem naive especially considering the strong beliefs of the founding members, in an ideal world, leaders of oppressive regimes wouldn't care who is helping them, and what they believe in. However we don't so these organisations need to be independent, in order to help as many people as they can.

My argument, against the doing nothing unless you prove it first applies to Science as well, for example we known how to use Quantum Mechanics to navigate submarines and create microchips however Science cannot 'prove' how it works, they just know it does.

I seem to recall that beardy had a thing or two to say about Iraq to Blair.

At least he's consistent, and it has to be said, bang on on both counts.

Anyone who's prepared to use his position to challenge either of those monumentally arrogant, power-crazed loons is alright by me

Life ain't black and white, and if you have to absolutely define everything before you will start an intelligent conversation you ain't going to be saying much.

For example:

Person 1: Good morning.
Person 2: Prove it.

That has to be the most laughably weak strawman argument I have ever come across. No really well done on that.

Prove it

Prove it

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Bad? Arguable. It is hideously limited though.

The 'prove it' brigade are like those people who always go out to the same restaurant and always order the same dish...

molgrips - Member

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Bad? Arguable. It is hideously limited though.

The 'prove it' brigade are like those people who always go out to the same restaurant and always order the same dish...

Could you expand on both points please?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Oh..... 😳

It is hideously limited though.

Is it? In what way do you find it limiting?

It was quite effective in demonstrating that Oxfam didn't originate in Melbourne.

Extract: Members of the Society of Friends (the Quakers) were to play a significant part in Oxfam’s development.

Oh and that's cherry picking quotations too. If you read the whole of that part of the website you will find that [i]some[/i] of the founding memebers seem to have clear religious affiliations but the same cannot be said about all of them. To use this as part of an argument to demonstrate that it has it's foundations in religion is flawed.

Prove it

Prove it

Prove what exactly? Your inability to form or respond appropriately to reasoned arguments? You're doing a prefectly good of that, you really don't need any help from me.

richc - Member
No but they seem to fund a hell of a lot more aid charities than any [b]Atheist organisations[/b].

Atheist organisations?

Have a flick through the local paper and you'll see plenty of people raising money for charity who aren't doing it because of religious belief OR because they belong to these mystical atheist organisations.

Perhaps when I raised money for TUSK last year, I should have nailed my colours to the mast and announced that I was doing it because of my membership of an atheist organisation?

Is my workplace an atheist organisation? I'd guess that it is because it's not a religious organisation. There's plenty of money raised there.

You know those 1000s of people who run the London Marathon every year - how many are doing it through a religious group and how many through 'atheist organisations'?

Do you need me to carry on to see how ridiculous your argument is?

You don't need to prove or disprove this - just open your eyes.

By the way atheist has a small A for very obvious reasons.

Prove what exactly? Your inability to form or respond appropriately to reasoned arguments? You're doing a prefectly good of that, you really don't need any help from me.

Well at least you finally got my point about about how stupid the 'Prove It' response is, so in answer to your previous comment: 'You say that like it's a bad thing' we seem to agree that answering 'Prove it' to anything/everything is a stupid response.

Could you expand on both points please?

A philosophy based on evidence and proof is only one possible way of thinking.

There are others.

It's like asking someone what the best film in the world is.

[img] [/img]

Oh.. Rowan [i]Williams[/i]

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.

For the 100000th time belief in God is not the same thing as the belief in biblical inerrancy.

makes more sense [b]to me[/b] than having faith.

FTFY.

'You say that like it's a bad thing' we seem to agree that answering 'Prove it' to anything/everything is a stupid response.

Well you might as well have said responding with "belgium" (apologies to Douglas Adams) to anything someone says is a stupid response. You made a specific claim (in fact you have made several falsifiable (sp) statements on this thread without any proof) and in that situation it is perfectly resonable to reply with "prove it". Instead of entering into an actual debate and backing up your claim, you insisted on putting up a series of strawman arguments in a rather weak attempt to support your position.

Incidently it isn't an athiest position to ask for claims to be proven, it's more of a rationalist position. There are many irrational athiests just as there are rational thiests. Sadly on the basis of what you have posted here you certinaly don't belong to the latter group.

Nothing wrong with faith in my opinion, life without a belief in anything (and I don't just mean god) would be a pretty miserable existence as there are only two facts that everyone agrees on. 1. you were born, and 2. you will die. Everything else is a bun fight.

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist. Which is stupid as we know about lots of things that we cannot prove (yet).

Finally; I thought that most Religions (bar the nutters, and both sides have plenty of loony's) all agree with the Theory of evolution, geological record etc. The bit where it gets interesting is what started it all, as I said earlier, if we are random, where is everyone else? and that doesn't even address the chicken and egg dilemma of DNA which came first the proteins or nucleic acids.

Ask most Christians – churchgoing Christians – to name you the Ten Commandments, and they’d typically get about half. A survey I saw maybe a decade ago reckoned that only around 25% of Christian clergy could name them all.

In all fairness the 10 commandments are judaism not Christianity. Christianity still thinks the Old testament is important but that the new testament has replaced it. This is the closest in the new testaments I reckon :

"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 neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40]

Jesus(ie Christianity) was nt all that big on commandments to be fair ie

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27)

Also in response to the first point I reckon most Jews probably could recite the ten commandments. Both Jews and Muslims are very keen on learning the law/bible/quran, Christianity from its birth was very much more about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So its probably a good thing that those Christains you mention earlier cant recite the 10 commandments.

I rode through Parliment Sq t'other day, still have a few tents there with protesters in scattered around. No one was awake though, does that mean they don't have an opinion or the right to be heard?
Archy B simply placed a moral argument in front of some blunted instruments of our civic society that fail to understand what it actually is that the people want, and need, in this ere' society of ours.

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist.

What annoys me about them is that they seem to think that proof is the only thing that should be important.

Also in response to the first point I reckon most Jews probably could recite the ten commandments. Both Jews and Muslims are very keen on learning the law/bible/quran, Christianity from its birth was very much more about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So its probably a good thing that those Christains you mention earlier cant recite the 10 commandments

Whoah, steady on! You're getting dangerously close to an open minded and intelligent assessment of the situation there!

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist. Which is stupid as we know about lots of things that we cannot prove (yet).

I've never met anyone with that sort of attitude and you were the only one on this thread that presented this as a view point. All you appear to do whenever your statements are challenged is to change the topic and ignore legitamte criticism.

The bit where it gets interesting is what started it all, as I said earlier, if we are random, where is everyone else?

Why does something (or someone) have to have started it all? Just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible. If by everyone else you mean life on other planets then ffs give us a chance. We've only been going into space for 50 years and the universe is a pretty big place.

and that doesn't even address the chicken and egg dilemma of DNA which came first the proteins or nucleic acids.

I have no idea. But just because I don't know it doesn't make it unknowable and doesn't require the invention of a supernatural being. Besides even if you do invoke a supernatural being there remains the question how that being was created. The only two answers to that question that I've come across are "they always existed" (a cop out) or the equivalent of "turtles all the way down" which is nonsensical.

Christianity from its birth was very much more about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So its probably a good thing that those Christains you mention earlier cant recite the 10 commandments

Sounds more like post hoc rationalisation to me.