You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Theology: Blah blah blah blah blah...
Blah. 🙄
Mr Woppit - Member
Theology: Blah blah blah blah blah...Blah.
Funny, Woppit. I believe that that is exactly what this man
[img] 
[/img]
would say about science. 😀
That's nice for you. He looks like a duck.
... are both typical of the apocalyptic literature of their time, and are in no way meant literally.
Isn't that a relatively modern stance, though? They're not [i]taken[/i] literally these days (by most people) but throughout history they're absolutely supposed to be literal. People have been killed for daring to disagree with that. It's only in relatively enlightened times where most people have been educated enough to go "hang on a minute, creating light three days before creating a light source? That doesn't make much sense" and start rejecting the idea of stoning homosexuals.
Going "ah, well, it's all an allegory really (apart from the bits we don't want to be)" seems to be a bit of a back-pedal. I mean, it's progress, don't get me wrong; but, still.
@SaxonRider - I was not thinking specifically, but as an example the recent comments of a couple of Bishops in the Catholic branch of Christianity seemed very sure about the absolute truth of certain parts of the bible. They have both preached about the adherence to the word of the book.
Cougar - Moderator... are both typical of the apocalyptic literature of their time, and are in no way meant literally.
Isn't that a relatively modern stance, though? They're not taken literally these days (by most people) but throughout history they're absolutely supposed to be literal. People have been killed for daring to disagree with that. It's only in relatively enlightened times where most people have been educated enough to go "hang on a minute, creating light three days before creating a light source? That doesn't make much sense."
No, this is where it gets frustrating communicating traditional points of view outside of a course on late antique literature (or whatever). People have too many (albeit reasonable) assumptions about the material that just aren't correct.
[To illustrate what I mean: I was once teaching a course on early medieval history to a group of adults, and I opened by asking them what came to mind when I said 'medieval'. And I got answers like 'bloody', 'fighting', 'torture', 'intolerance', etc. It made me want to pull my own hair out. 'What about the Carolingian Renaissance?' I asked. And they thought I was making it up, because they couldn't believe that there was any concern for scholarship until modernity rolled around.]
In any case, it is true that there have always been literalist movements within the Church, but these have never represented what the Church has understood from the Bible. Indeed, groups like the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism ]Montanists[/url] were excommunicated precisely because of their insistance on literal understandings of the Bible, and - most importantly - the idea that one man or woman could simply sit down and interpret the Bible the way s/he wanted (among other things).
SaxonRider, excellent and very interesting contributions to the thread. Definitely more interesting than 'there's no proof, so it's rubbish' that we were seeing a while back. Do you have a background in theology or something?
You're saying, I think, that the Bible is allegorical. It's a collection of stories rather than THE WORD OF GOD and should be taken as such. Why can't we apply the same view to god himself then?
You could, and I suspect many do. Which Bishop was it a while ago that caused a scandal by saying he didn't believe in God, in a roundabout way?
Going "ah, well, it's all an allegory really (apart from the bits we don't want to be)" seems to be a bit of a back-pedal. I mean, it's progress, don't get me wrong; but, still
You sound like a fundamentalist Christian whilst still being an atheist 🙂 The thing is, if you recognise the bible as a series of writings on a subject, then you have a lot of leeway. God didn't write the Bible, people did, and they wrote about their experiences with God and/or Jesus. So as we develop in intelligence as a society, we can apply that intelligence to the Bible and gain a better understanding of the nature of God. Progress, as you say.
molgrips - Member
SaxonRider, excellent and very interesting contributions to the thread. Definitely more interesting than 'there's no proof, so it's rubbish' that we were seeing a while back. Do you have a background in theology or something?
I'd prefer not to say, or no one will want to go riding with me anymore. 😉
people did, and they wrote about their experiences with [s]God[/s] temporal lobe epilepsy and/or [s]Jesus[/s] making up stories about a fictional superhero. So as we develop in [s]intelligence[/s] discovery and understanding as a society, we can apply that [s]intelligence[/s] to the Bible and gain a better understanding of the nature of [s]God[/s] the need to invent imaginary beings. Progress, as you say.
could you explain what would happen if say a gay catholic refused to follow the rules and say take confessions?
JY, do you mean 'make a confession'? If so, then nothing would happen. It would be between that gay Catholic, whatever priest they were talking to, and God. As you will know, there are countless gay Catholics, and a good many of them will go to confession. When they do, they can expect to be treated like every other human being who hopes to be unburdened of whatever it is that weighs on their conscience, and that they feel separates them from God. Beyond that priests don't pry. They try to hear what the confessor is trying to say, and then apply the most appropriate 'medicine' - which will normally be an admonition to pray (or something similar).
Which Bishop was it a while ago that caused a scandal by saying he didn't believe in God, in a roundabout way?
That was the former Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, in his excellent programme on the BBC, 'Faith and Doubt'.
I'd prefer not to say, or no one will want to go riding with me anymore.
I already want to go riding with you 🙂
Woppit - you really are getting boring now. Maybe it's time to check out of the thread?
Thanks to SaxonRider for a great exposition on how religion is a nasty, poisonous inflicter of terrible psychological damage.
Look at that poor old Scottish Cardinal. All he really needed was a hug...
Junkyard - Member
However the thrust of muy post was to counter this point
I gave some possible answers to your question, you can engage your free-will to counter why they would be wrong.
could you explain what would happen if say a gay catholic refused to follow the rules and say take confessions?
Why would a gay person want to be a member of the RC and engage in their rituals - it would be like me wanting to be a member of the WI or Mothers Union? There is no point (but the RCs here may be able to give you a better answer). But let's say that he/she refused to follow the rules, then again he/she would be following their own free-will....
Only on stw could you debate whether religions attempt to save you by getting you to follow thier rules
....which is the fundamental point. There are three theological virtues at the centre of the Christian faith namely Faith, Hope and Charity. In each case the RC, begins by defining each as a "supernatural gift" from God. Why are they so explicit and why the use of the word "gift" each time? Because in each case it is left to each and everyone to exercise their own free will in choosing whether to "accept" the gift.
Freewill is central and fundamental. That is so far away from force as to be almost the perfect antonym.
I think its nice that people like Saxon Rider have taken the time to explain their faith on this thread, its genuinely interesting.
I don't really have any faith myself but I always enjoy speaking to people who are able to articulate their views on faith.
One of my friends is the daughter of a minister. Her explanation of the Genesis myth is that the 6 days are entirely allegorical and "god days" could be any length of time. She is perfectly happy to accept the Big Bang as the origin of the universe and evolution as how we got here.
I still personally think that religion is basically a human construct born out of the need to keep tribes together once they grew beyond the numbers that could be sustained by familial bonds but I have nothing against well meaning people of faith as a lot of what they say makes sense.
I still think organised religions privileged position needs to be looked at though.
Ditto what richmtb said. Somewhere way back on about page 6 of this epistle according to STW, I did say something along the lines of no issues regarding peoples personal belief systems, its about the time they start giving it the one true faith that I start getting bilious. In fact no real problems with the generality of the rules for life inherant in religioning. Its just the mumbo jumbo to protect privilige and hypocracy that has the proverbial piss at 100 degrees Celsius.
molgrips - MemberI already want to go riding with you
Thanks, molgrips! We really should arrange something, seeing as I think we only live about ten minutes apart.
I still personally think that religion is basically a human construct born out of the need to keep tribes together once they grew beyond the numbers that could be sustained by familial bonds
That sort of implies there were tribes organised in some sort of civilisation already and that it was artificially created. I remember reading somewhere that there is also the idea that religion came before civilisation
found it - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text
I think its nice that people like Saxon Rider have taken the time to explain their faith on this thread, its genuinely interesting.
+1, agreed.
the 6 days are entirely allegorical and "god days" could be any length of time.
As I understand it, the Hebrew word for 'day' can mean 'a period of time', but 'one day' is pretty unambiguously literal. I may be wrong as I don't claim to be an expert, but I think this is another modern hack.
Regardless though, it still falls down on order. How did he create light (day 1) before creating the Sun (day 4)? Also, there's the small matter of creating land animals and man on the same day; walking with dinosaurs?
It's just a poorly thought-out story by an ignorant sheep-herding primitive, featuring an imaginary super-being. It has nothing to do with what actually happened.
Cougar - Moderator
but I think this is another modern hack.
...or something along those lines. Given the endless translations and more recent dumbing down of English for greater accessibility (sic), it makes you wonder how anyone can argue that the Bible could/should be taken completely literally. One game of Chinese Whispers quickly falsifies that idea.
Regardless though, it still falls down on order. How did he create light (day 1) before creating the Sun (day 4)? Also, there's the small matter of creating land animals and man on the same day; walking with dinosaurs?
The beauty of poetry? Notice the symmetry in days 1+4, 2+5, 3+6? Ring any bells with literature?
We really should arrange something, seeing as I think we only live about ten minutes apart.
Definitely.. I've been using all my spare time lately repairing this caravan to be sold, but once that's done there should be some time for riding, just in time for the snow that's being talked about for the middle of March...
Regardless though, it still falls down on order. How did he create light (day 1) before creating the Sun (day 4)? Also, there's the small matter of creating land animals and man on the same day; walking with dinosaurs?
It's really not that important.... If you want to be really really literally minded about it, just remember that people weren't actually there during this process, so they've only got what God told them. And perhaps God told them a simple story, because they hadn't learned enough about science to understand what really happened.
Don't get hung up on it though.
As I understand it, the Hebrew word for 'day' can mean 'a period of time', but 'one day' is pretty unambiguously literal. I may be wrong as I don't claim to be an expert, but I think this is another modern hack.
I don't disagree. I was just relaying my friends explanation of it.
And with the greatest of respect to people (Saxon Rider in particular) who've tried to explain this I don't understand who decides which parts of the Bible are either plain wrong; allegorical or correct in their literal sense. I can't square this with the Bible being the word of God.
The end point of all this revisionism would seem to be ignoring almost all of the original text
What whoppit said it was an explanation as good as any other 2000+years ago.today it just looks silly hence why even the devout tend not to defend lest they look foolish see also earth at the centre of the universe etc
THM thanks for yet another patronising answer but you quoted.one part of my post and answered that hence why I asked.you to answer.the main point. I know that will be much harder but jts very poor to resort to claiming you have answered whilst being dismissive. Its obvious religion aims to save ny following its rules
It's just a poorly thought-out story by an ignorant sheep-herding primitive, featuring an imaginary super-being. It has nothing to do with what actually happened.
And yet for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it's done remarkably well. It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world's population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, to which, whether or not taken literally, the Book of Genesis is significant.
I don't understand who decides which parts of the Bible are either plain wrong;
Well, you've got a few thousand years' worth of theology to catch up on, get reading.
@ ernie... There's nowt as queer as folk.
JY, that isn't why the 'devout tend not to defend' it. It's because there has never been anything to defend. It's never been anything other than a mythical description of the original principal, and a theological-poetic treatise on what separates creation from creator.
To read it as anything but, is tantamount to saying that ancient Greeks were stupid for believing that Poseidon kept Odysseus from getting home for 10 years. Ultimately, the Odyssey is an epic poem filled with great heroism and folly, all kicked off because of Odysseus' irrepressible pride. We could all stand to read the Illiad and the Odyssey, and - dare I say it - to learn something from it!
I don't understand who decides which parts of the Bible are either plain wrong;
Historians.
Woppit, I'm not really sure why you are still reading this thread.
Thankfully it's moved on from people sniping at religion into a very interesting read.
Move with it, or move on maybe ?
ernie_lynch - Member
And yet for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it's done remarkably well. It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world's population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, to which, whether or not taken literally, the Book of Genesis is significant.
But it's more complex than that, it's not possible to negate the fact that there were other factors involved in its longevity, from personal ambitions through political involvement, imperialism, conquest and subjugation and a few very well funded promotional bodies to support its propagation, not just personal discovery and enlightenment.
But it's more complex than that, it's not possible to negate the fact that there were other factors involved in its longevity
What do you mean ? I haven't given any factors at all for its longevity.
I merely pointed out that for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it's done remarkably well.
Junkyard - Member
THM thanks for yet another patronising answer but you quoted.one part of my post and answered that hence why I asked.you to answer.the main point. I know that will be much harder but jts very poor to resort to claiming you have answered whilst being dismissive. Its obvious religion aims to save ny following its rules
JY - why the odd tactics? Throwing words like ad hom/partonising etc whilst using then both liberally yourself ([i]I know that will be much harder[/i]) is a very weird choice ? Of course its obvious that religion aims to save ([i]maintain the link with their chosen God[/i]) through guidance or rules (you chose). But you asked a very specific question:
"WHy else would you follow a religion except to be saved?"
To which I gave a list of possible reasons in addition to agreeing with your actual point (edit, at least we have moved on from "force" to "save"). No need to be silly in response. As you would say, "you are cleverer than that"! A shockingly patronising line!
ernie_lynch - Member
I merely pointed out that for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it's done remarkably well.
Exactly!
@SaxonRider - all good stuff and great reading but you seem to be forgetting that there are devout persons defending and promoting a number of faiths, be that RC or other brands. Some of them are pretty vociferous in their promotion, challenging, and defensive activities based upon the text.
The Odyssey and the Illiad are good rip roaring reads in the same way that Lord of the Rings is an entertaining read. Does it not seem more likely that the Old Testament is more a combination of tales (morality tales or otherwise) for the people of the time and whose relevance is of that time. There would clearly be some parts that have resonance today, as there are with Chaucer, Aesop, Shakespeare and any other author who touches upon the human condition. Just because it has had the best marketing department in the history of humanity does not make it the word of God.
ernie_lynch - MemberWhat do you mean ? I haven't given any factors at all for its longevity.
I merely pointed out that for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it's done remarkably well.
You also added
It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world's population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, to which, whether or not taken literally, the Book of Genesis is significant.
And I merely pointed out that there were extenuating factors in it's longevity, over and above it being popular for its own sake.
yet for a poorly thought-out story by ignorant and primitive sheep-herders it's done remarkably well. It has survived several millennia and today the majority of humans, ie 54% of the world's population, consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions
Popularity is no indication of quality, as readily demonstrated every time you switch on the TV or radio, or pick up a tabloid. But anyway.
Religions survive because they have survival built in by design. To a greater or lesser extent, followers are usually encouraged to spread the word and to procreate as much as possible in order to create the next generation of true believers. Following of other faiths is frowned upon ('false gods') and attempting to leave can have serious consequences. Bribery and blackmail (eg, heaven and hell, the "fear of god") are common tools to stop people wandering. Over time, they build wealth and power, and influence law.
It's hardly surprising that religion has endured, really. It's more difficult, culturally, to break away from that cycle than to keep it going.
Cougar - Moderator
Popularity is no indication of quality, as readily demonstrated every time you switch on the TV or radio, or pick up a tabloid. But anyway.
Thank you, I now have a mental image of a world order based upon 50 Shades of Grey! At least the uniforms of those organising the faith would be interesting and a red room of pain on every street corner. May have to go lie down for a while! 😀
Cougar - Moderator
To a greater or lesser extent, followers are usually encouraged to spread the word and to procreate as much as possible in order to create the next generation of true believers.
Crikey, Cougar, that's a very low opinion of mankind. Generations incapable of thinking for themselves or exercising their own freewill? How have we progressed so far, if that is true? I would argue that it is far easier, culturally, to break away, hence Ernie makes a very good point IMO.
I merely pointed out that there were extenuating factors in it's longevity
Well thank you very much. I gave no reasons for its longevity.
It was simply a response to Woppit's reference to 'ignorant and primitive sheep-herders' which was clearly intended to ridicule. No problem with that. But if we are going to ridicule this 'poorly thought-out story', don't you think we should consider how successful it has or has not been ?
THM I accepted that answer / the point you made in your list. However the thrust of my post and your quote is the answer I am still waiting for. j cannot cut and paste.it on my phone
To a greater or lesser extent, followers are usually encouraged to spread the word and to procreate as much as possible in order to create the next generation of true believers.Crikey, Cougar, that's a very low opinion of mankind.
I don't see how, can you explain please?
Personally, I think the religious texts are products of a word of mouth system of passing historical knowledge on. But we only have to look at our own highly sophisticated systems of information dissemination to realise how distorted and misshapen factual detail can become. A change of emphasis here and a tweak there and before you know it there’s a bus on the moon. So its fair enough that much of what’s now written will be an interpretation of much distorted data
What I can't get through though is the very obvious and blatant corruption at the heart of organised religions, and how respect for the teachings translates to shoving real and dangerous issues into the “too difficult drawer” and simply ignoring them.
For example Cardinal O’Brien. It was obvious that the 4 priests who shopped him have had their lives seriously impacted by what is by his own admission his drunken sexual bullying. It was equally obvious how hard it was for them to come out and do something about it. Very brave in fact. Yet you still had serious big hitters like Shirley Williams and Alex Salmond publically backing the ****er up and saying what a shame it was he had to resign.
So in my simplistic world, as I said back in the day when this thread was mere stripling, I simply cannot accept this “my church right or wrong” attitude. As was amply demonstrated to those of faith by the Religious Ronaldo of his day J.H. Christ it is not acceptable to simply turn a blind eye and do nothing about that which is blatantly, indefensibly, and totally wrong.
Therefore at that point, sorry to those of faith, but I have to say idleness in this respect is not an acceptable route other than to culpability and complicity in the crimes that are being carried out.
PS: This is not Catholic bashing, there are equivalent examples across all faiths.
Generations incapable of thinking for themselves or exercising their own freewill?
Sure, though not always of their own volition. If you happen to be born into a culture where discord is punishable by death for instance, that becomes a very powerful thing. You could plausibly end up in a situation where millions of people are following doctrine because everyone else is, but not actually believing any of it. Hypothetically. Then the biggest threat to your religion isn't internal rebellion or insurgency, it's external forces.
How have we progressed so far, if that is true?
A better question might be, "how far might we have progressed if it wasn't?"
I would argue that it is far easier, culturally, to break away,
Could you expand on that perhaps?
Scuzz - I have yet to find many people who do exactly what their parents tell them - even if that is what the latter may want!! People have even greater levels of access to information that can challenge the ideas and beliefs of previous generations. The idea (explicit or otherwise) that they do not and that this is the reason why religion has endured, seems slightly far fetched to me. Plus I have a higher opinion of my childrens' generation based, among other things, on my son's ability to dissect religion in a far better way than me, thanks to.....religious "education" - the very things that others would like to ban!
edit for x-post;
Cougar - Moderator
A better question might be, "how far might we have progressed if it wasn't?"
A great question and probably well targeted at certain segment of the US perhaps? As for the next question, see above. My son is far-better armed than I ever was.
religious "education" - the very things that others would like to ban!
Waaaaait up a minute there.
I don't think anyone's suggesting banning religious education. Well, probably apart from Woppit, whose posts I stopped reading somewhere around page 5.
We've previously discussed not allowing RE to infiltrate science, and generally about how teaching RE as "fact" within context of a given denomination (as opposed to an impartial "christians believe X, whereas muslims believe Y" approach) is a bone of contention. We've also discussed whether this should be a mandatory subject up to 16.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe anyone's suggested banning RE.
Thm kids may well not do as their parent say but the correlation ( I know it does.not.show causality) between your folks belies and yours is going to be pretty high. Also whilst the folk may leave the parents religion it is some way from a random spread.in terms.that Jews have Jewish kids Muslims have Muslim kids etc they dont te d to get a newish kid a Muslim a Buddhist and bhai etc
Still going ...
For me, this:
[img] 
[/img]
explains better than I can the way in which gods alleged influence and power has retreated in the face of reason.
All this talk of "days" vs "periods of time" in Genesis and the "careful theology" (thousands of years worth!) necessary to tell the difference between homosexuals and shellfish ...
Well, its just very complicated scaffolding on a crumbling edifice.
The simplest explanation is that the whole of theology has no factual basis.
The weird thing is that the more complex and creaky the supporting "theological" scaffolding and doublethink required becomes. The more religious people start pointing at its complexity like its something to be proud of?
Its not; its just a series of desperate measures thrown up to support your irrational ideas, and smokescreen the fact that theres not really anything of any substance there to support anymore.
I would have some respect for theology and its promoters if they valued and promoted the clarity and explanatory power of its ideas, but the one thing they can never do is be clear.
edit .. forgot the point 🙂
education about the topic of religion.. fine
religious education [Nelson Muntz] HA HA [/Nelson Muntz]
religious "education" - the very things that others would like to ban!
I'm not sure that was the suggestion. It was more a case of the pervasive influence of religion via the state.
However, seeing as you've raised it, what you are actually underlining is the opening of Pandoras box, in much the same way that brought about the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. i.e. even with all the apparatus for the propagation of religion, it is no longer possible to con the population.
In the Eastern bloc a good deal of its demise was attributed to the global coverage of the 1976 Olympics, and the simple fact that it became impossible to hide the realities if life within in relation to life outside. Similarly, as information has become instantly globally available it has become impossible to stem the intellectualisation of views on religion. If you do and you take take just a short step back the sort of views being expressed on here are difficult to deny. i.e. generality is good, specifics are not, and the apparatus for delivery is corrupt.
But if we are going to ridicule this 'poorly thought-out story', don't you think we should consider how successful it has or has not been ?
Quite. But this still holds true.
it's not possible to negate the fact that there were other factors involved in its longevity, from personal ambitions through political involvement, imperialism, conquest and subjugation and a few very well funded promotional bodies to support its propagation, not just personal discovery and enlightenment.
@THM - that will probably depend upon the culture in which the family and children exist, children rebel - perhaps that is where the young free thinkers break away from the established religious order to form new branches, it allows them to modify the doctrine to better suit them and their position.
I have yet to find many people who do exactly what their parents tell them
"Exactly," no, but that's a bit of a reach isn't it. But your formative years are undeniably moulded by your parents. They tell you about the world, and they form the basis of your opinions and beliefs until you reach an age where (some people at least) have the tools to question that.
As a general rule, Catholic parents raise Catholic children (obviously, as they believe it's the right thing to do), Muslim parents raise Muslim kids, and so on. I'm sure that there are examples of, say, Muslims with Catholic parents, but I'd wager it's exceptionally rare.
I'd love to see some stats on this, but people aren't born religious. So they must get it from their parents, their peers, their family, their community. I'm sure some people find their own way their in adulthood (we've examples of that amongst STW members) but I'd hazard that's atypical.
'ignorant and primitive sheep-herders' which was clearly intended to ridicule.
Not at all. Merely descriptive of actuality. Not like you to read into something, that which isn't there, ernie. I'm disappointed.
nealglover - MemberWoppit, I'm not really sure why you are still reading this thread.
I'm god. I move in mysterious ways.
Allegedly.
As a general rule, Catholic parents raise Catholic children (obviously, as they believe it's the right thing to do), Muslim parents raise Muslim kids, and so on. I'm sure that there are examples of, say, Muslims with Catholic parents, but I'd wager it's exceptionally rare.
Yep. It's like a virus that we catch from our elders.
Helpless children become indoctrinated into dogma and unless they are fortunate enough to have the skill of independent and critical thinking strong enough to overcome the conditioning by the time (typically, eight years old or thereabouts) this skill naturally develops, they are stuck in a forced "mind-shape set" for life.
A form of child abuse.
Point accepted about RCs more likely to have RC children etc (indeed an obligation I believe at baptism). I was guilty of exaggerating to make a point which is, that the modern generation if far better placed than previous ones to exercise their own free will (this is probably true throughout history with exceptions such as the Dark Ages), and yet as Ernie points out, religious following, far from dying out, continues to endure. The answer may be the search for salvation as JY pointed out, it may the others that I added to the list. Who knows?
(p.s. JY in countering your patronising accusation, I may have come back a little stongly 😉 Then when looking through back pages to answer cougar's question, I re- read you response to someone complaining "how do you know what I am thinking," with the line "you are not very good at explaining yourself." (page 4 i think) Now that could be considered patronising, but I thought it was the funniest post of the day 😉 please continue!!!!)
There is progress, however:
the modern generation if far better placed than previous ones to exercise their own free will
Sure. Like I said, progress.
In some cultures, anyway.
Yes indeed cougar or have we reached a paradoxical position? Since exercising free-will is the fundamental first point of the three Theological Virtues are we arguing that "progress" implies that religion has been successful or the opposite?
I will leave that with you!!!
THM I accepted that answer / the point you made in your list. However the thrust of my post and your quote is the answer I am still waiting for. j cannot cut and paste.it on my phone
seems like a good time that there are at least 2 questions explicitly directed at you, for which I am waiting for an answer.
Jews have Jewish kids Muslims have Muslim kids etc
Well there's an interesting sidebar there to do with race. Judaism was and possibly still is closely tied to a particular ethnic group. So you can be Jewish and yet not be at the same time. I think they call themselves 'lapsed Jews' don't they?
Not quite as clear cut with Muslims though, but it started off being an Arab thing didn't it? Incidentally I think that's why the Catholic church is so-called, despite these days being not particularly catholic.
Mr Woppit - Member
Not at all. Merely descriptive of actuality. Not like you to read into something, that which isn't there, ernie. I'm disappointed.
Of course not Woppit, you weren't trying to ridicule religion.........silly me 😀
Since exercising free-will is the fundamental first point of the three Theological Virtues are we arguing that "progress" implies that religion has been successful or the opposite?
Your assumption there is that religion is inherently causal either way; I wonder if perhaps we've progressed despite religion.
Wasn't exercising free will what got us all into trouble in the first place? (-:
Sorry CM on phone will look back tonight but Last I read you thought I was being a dick and I had to leave it so I did not respond.
I think one was on love and yes I believe folk feel it, that it affects them and that it is real. I may have some problems proving that scientifically which l assume was the point? ditto aesthetics or say humour?
Still would argue I can show these are real whether I can fully explain them or not
Of course not Woppit, you weren't trying to ridicule religion.........silly me
Actually no, I wasn't. I was merely pointing out that the "Book of Genesis" was written by primitive people who sought an explanation for the universe through 1: story telling and 2: a belief in a supernatural being.
I am fond of ridiculing religion however, I admit. I think it deserves it, but wasn't doing so on this occasion. (smiley disingenuous face or whatever, at this point. Probably.).
@JY- there is a/physiological reaction when in love or amused, not so sure about aesthetics.
I think one was on love and yes I believe folk feel it, that it affects them and that it is real. I may have some problems proving that scientifically which l assume was the point? ditto aesthetics or say humour?
Still would argue I can show these are real whether I can fully explain them or not
I have no doubt you would, JY. The real challenge is in actually doing it.
A point that seems to be missed by some in this "indoctrination" of children part of the debate, is that if you believe in God and the positive impact your faith has on your life, of course you want your children to have that same positive experience. If you love God then it would be selfish to exclude them from at least being informed enough to make a decision.
As I mentioned several pages ago, my children aren't particular interested in being Christians but I gave them the option.
A point that seems to be missed by some in this "indoctrination" of children part of the debate, is that if you believe in God and the positive impact your faith has on your life, of course you want your children to have that same positive experience. If you love God then it would be selfish to exclude them from at least being informed enough to make a decision.
+1
As I mentioned several pages ago, my children aren't particular interested in being Christians but I gave them the option.
Exactly. They will pick up a whole bunch of stuff from their parents, including their faith - maybe. Some will keep it, some won't, but as a parent you have to share what you believe, even if others don't believe it
...all aboard?
if you believe in God and the positive impact your faith has on your life, of course you want your children to have that same positive experience
What if you're wrong ?
That apart, its not really the parental influence that is the biggy, its the association with the state which is more sinister IMHO. Really, if you read the book and believe it you have to see that JC and his teachings are radical and not aligned to the state in any way. Quite the opposite in fact. One has to wonder what the dear boy would make of how corrupted that position has become.
BB - so is you last sentence a call to reconnect? Perhaps you have found the missing answer to JY's question. 😉 ?
I've deliberately stayed away from this thread, but now its hit 23 pages I find myself suddenly drawn towards it
Could someone give me a summary of the main points covered so far,in a couple of sentences, so I can get up to speed. Thanks
One has to wonder what the dear boy would make of how corrupted that position has become.
He'd be turning in his grave, if he had one.
Could someone give me a summary of the main points covered so far,in a couple of sentences, so I can get up to speed.
Very good generally well mannered discussion about religion with many interesting points discussed. Precisely the sort of thing that should be on internet forum.
Could someone give me a summary of the main points covered so far,in a couple of sentences, so I can get up to speed
Start from about Page 17 for a quick(ish) catch up.
There can be no question that the Church has gone through a period of decades wherein many, many people were affected by abuse, and during which the Church utterly failed to deal with it properly. There is simply no excuse. That said, as the reasons for the failure are brought to light, the Church will be able to do its duty in a way it never has before. That is a duty shared with every institution in society to protect people of all ages and both genders from abuse, and to respond in an aggressive and transparent manner whenever it is suspected and/or detected.
We can all guess that there will many more cases brought to light over the coming few years, but we can also expect that the Church will not act in so opaque and uncomprehending a manner again.
I do not wish, and can not possibly defend what has happened in the Church, but I wil say this: I do not think that the media and the public get it right very often when they start expressing opinions as to why it all happened, and the idea that it was a problem limited to the Catholic Church. I do think the public is absolutely right, though, to demand justice and that it never be allowed to happen again.
Does it ever cross your mind that the other guy might be in charge, and that hes winning out hands down because you have free will to make you own choices, and by continuously failing to utterly reject the institution you are actually playing right into his hands......just asking, because honestly there is no way I could ever subscribe to such a blatantly obviously corrupt institution. I'll go a step further than that, and I'll tell you without any fear of contradiction that were JC real and still around, I'm totally confident whose side of the table he would be sitting on, and I don't believe in it, and am a thoroughly bad person and apparently always have been!!!
I think, BB, that your opinion of the Church's corruption is better discussed over a pint than on this forum. If only because I have to leave on a plane first thing in the morning and won't be able to respond to anything until Sunday night.
Either way, have a good weekend.
you too