[Closed] Catholic Church and other religions!

I doubt any schools are 'determined to harm' children, but that doesn't meant the state should be funding religious indoctrination.

....doesn't meant the state should be funding religious indoctrination.

You do realise that the catholic church, for example, in effect subsides the education of children who attend their voluntary aided schools ? You do realise that the catholic church, for example, in effect subsides the training of state sector teachers in places such as St Mary's University College ? You do realise that catholic parents pay taxes ? You do realise that according to the last UK census the majority of the population, that would be the tax-paying population, profess to have a religion ? Don't you ?

Yes thanks.

It's not the money I'm worried about btw, it's the principle.

You do realise that according to the last UK census the majority of the population, that would be the tax-paying population, profess to have a religion ? Don't you ?

I wonder what that figure would be if people were left to make up their own minds about religion as adults, rather than indoctrinated from an early age.

JY it may be simplified but it simply isn't accurate. Not sure why Rowan Williams is relevant to the RC either - have I missed a major theological transformation?! But you are helping the cause of those who argue for more religious "education" not less! But why the atheist angst? If not merely a troll, then there has to be substance. The RCs define hell as separation from "Almighty God," Since the latter does not exist then the whole issue and argument is redundant. Unless of course.....

Yes 14 pages in , and that's exactly the case. But grum sheds some interesting light on the matter. As for the straw man, those who chose to be tolerant of others' beliefs have been accused earlier of guilt by association. That must include me. And if posts are to be believed that makes me guilty of a range of sins (?) from force feeding nonsense to impressionable young children, child abuse and genital mutilation. Now that sounds pretty evil to me.

I wonder what that figure would be if people were left to make up their own minds about religion as adults, rather than indoctrinated from an early age.

Could possibly be just the same. I know a lot of people who came to some sort of faith as adults rather than having gone through a church going or religious school childhood

CharlieMungus - Member

Has anyone given an example of an individual telling them they are immoral and condemned to hell?

I have. It was great! A little christian anti-gay group set up outside a theatre venue near where I was working, I wandered past and they were getting stuck into a guy who I think was a member of staff there. I got a wee bit involved, and the next thing I knew, got condemned to hell. They were very pleased about it all.

They also didn't seem to understand that you can defend someone against a gay-bashing mob of goons without being gay yourself- just didn't register with them at all. Very elastic levels of belief, some people. Believe in God? Why not. Believe in heterosexuals who don't hate gays? MADNESS!

Not sure why Rowan Williams is relevant to the RC either

But why the atheist angst?

If not merely a troll

those who chose to be tolerant of others' beliefs

I wonder what that figure would be if people were left to make up their own minds about religion as adults, rather than indoctrinated from an early age.

Maybe simular to the United States where they keep religion out of state funded schools ?

I have. It was great! A little christian anti-gay group set up outside a theatre venue near where I was working, I wandered past and they were getting stuck into a guy who I think was a member of staff there. I got a wee bit involved, and the next thing I knew, got condemned to hell. They were very pleased about it all.

I can believe you did. however, it is very very unlikey it was a mainstream denomination and less so Catholic. It is not useful to discuss Christianity in general,by referring to these evangelical groups which most mainstream christians in the UK at leat, think are crazy A bonkers too.

This might serve to clarify then. Do you think the NHS is pervasive?

Yes. I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise tbh...

Well i think many would say it is not pervassive because it is not unwelcome. i would, at least. Pervasive in general is a bad thing to be. I quite like the NHS being around, everywhere.

the next thing I knew, got condemned to hell

Ah.. semantic point.. you were TOLD that you were condemned to hell, but afaik only God can actually condemn you, no?

they keep religion out of state funded schools ?

They do try, but they still have God mentioned in the daily pledge of allegiance.

But not a member of the RC church (Rowan Williams)? Why not accuse him of opposition to women bishops as well? That would be just as inaccurate.

Only an ad hom if the cap fits, but you are regular in your antagonism towards the church, so I think that it is only fair that you are accurate when accusing it/them of something. But seriously, why the angst about hell, it has no relevance to you at all since you are an aethism. Why worry about others telling you that you will be separated from something that you know doesn't exist. It makes no sense to be agitated by that whatsoever. Hence the (general not ad hom, at least not intended) reference to trolling!

As E_L said, perhaps that alleged position of privilege reflects their majority representation in our society. The trouble with democracy in a nutshell - ends in the tyranny of the masses, or intolerance at best. Shocking!

they still have God mentioned in the daily pledge of allegiance.

No wonder they are a nation of religious nutters 😐

we must read different threads then as i gave one as did others[Grum and rusty iirc].
I dont think there is any actual dount about what the abrhamic religions say about what happens to sinners so I am not sure what you would expect them to say

I think , unless I missed the post, that all of these cases, what has been identified is that here doctrine might tell people under what circumstances they are condemned which is different to condemining them. I was asking for ( and still am really) examples more like the one Northwind posted, but spoke by someone in the Catholic Church. I continually get excerpts of decontextualised doctrine. it's not that i don't know the stuff is there, but there are a large number of qualifiers which are important in the overall message.

I can believe you did. however, it is very very unlikey it was a mainstream denomination and less so Catholic. It is not useful to discuss Christianity in general,by referring to these evangelical groups which most mainstream christians in the UK at leat, think are crazy A bonkers too.

Yes, because what those crazy nutjobs said is completely different from when the Catholic Church says you will burn in eternal hell for not following the commandments. 😕

And yes you've made the extremely tenuous distinction before, and it still isn't in any way convincing.

Reasonable sure at least some of them would have identified as catholic- wearing celtic strips. But that's a bit of a leap, i didn't ask what flavour of nutjob they were.

Ah.. semantic point.. you were TOLD that you were condemned to hell, but afaik only God can actually condemn you, no?

Actually, the RC church would not even know if you were condemned or not. So would not be able to twll any individual if they were condemned. Hence i am surprised to hear people say they have been told this.

Reasonable sure at least some of them would have identified as catholic- wearing celtic strips. But that's a bit of a leap, i didn't ask what flavour of nutjob they were.

Well, next time you should. Otherwise you end up tarring everyone with the same brush.

Yes, because what those crazy nutjobs said is completely different from when the Catholic Church says you will burn in eternal hell for not following the commandments

Erm... Yes. I really can't see why you think the ditinction is trivial.

So Grum, where do the RCs argue that you will burn in hell if you do not follow the 10Cs?

CharlieMungus - Member

Otherwise you end up tarring everyone with the same brush.

Oh dear.

THM - already quoted in this thread. From catholic.com

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

Lots more similar stuff here.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

Oh dear

Well, it must be Stephen Fry, after all Oscar Wilde is dead. you make a very good point, well said.

Oh dear.

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

10 commandments aren't the same as what Jesus said, are they?

Oh dear.

Everyone else has played very nicely in this thread. Except you, young man.

Lots more similar stuff here.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

Including this...

Thus the issue that some will go to hell is decided, but the issue of who in particular will go to hell is undecided.

unless I missed the post, that all of these cases, what has been identified is that here doctrine might tell people under what circumstances they are condemned which is different to condemining them. I was asking for ( and still am really) examples more like the one Northwind posted, but spoke by someone in the Catholic Church

But not a member of the RC church (Rowan Williams)? Why not accuse him of opposition to women bishops as well? That would be just as inaccurate.

so I think that it is only fair that you are accurate when accusing it/them of something.

But seriously, why the angst about hell, it has no relevance to you at all since you are an aethism. Why worry about others telling you that you will be separated from something that you know doesn't exist. It makes no sense to be agitated by that whatsoever.

It was answered before I dont think i claimed to be loosing sleep over it or "angst" what i said was the mesasage that my moral code is so bad that i will go to hell is not a nice one [ hence CM asked for examples that are still not good enough]. Do i believe it no - I dont believe white supremacists message of aryan superiority either but i find that offensive/not that nice as well
- we debated it a lot of pages back

Seriously Charlinemungus, let me just recap.

CharlieMungus - Member

Has anyone given an example of an individual telling them they are immoral and condemned to hell?

Me: Yes, with example.

You: Inexplicably accused me of "tarring everyone with the same brush"

Me: Oh dear

This is "not playing nicely"? I do apologise for answering your question.

10 commandments aren't the same as what Jesus said, are they?

For example lex talions [ eye for an eye] was countered with "turn to him the other cheek"
He was a bit nicer and a bit less fire and brimstone hence good samaritan etc
I know of no christian faith that rejects the 10 commandments though there probably is one somewhere

Me: Yes, with example.

You: Inexplicably accused me of "tarring everyone with the same brush"

Me: Oh dear

This is "not playing nicely"?

Maybe you missed the pint where we were talking about Catholics.
You also missed out the bit in the conversation where you assumed that some of them were catholic and that you didn't ask the what flavour of 'nut job' they were. That was the tarry not nice bit. But you seemed to have omitted that from your summary of our conversation.

tbh I have no idea why everyone has suddenly fixated on catholics as opposed to religious all of a sudden. I have not done this

Well it's a key word in the title and at the start of the discussion, I said i was surprised that anyone had condemed anyone else to hell, and that it was unlikely to be a Catholic as the Catholic Church have never done this. It is not useful to discuss beliefs when the belief under discussion keeps changing. Okwe drifted somewhat with the CofE in school, but that's probably ok, though i know less about them and their beliefs.

Thanks Grum, I had missed that. I guess I will have to weigh that quote up against the Cathecism (Q171) which states,

"We show that we love God by keeping his commandments, for Christ says, "if you love Me, keep My commandments."

Now I know that I am not a RC, so may not understand this. But like the definition of Faith I gave earlier, there seems a very clear element of free will here and one's choice to love a God. I am happy to be corrected but the RC's own owner manual still does not seem (IMO) to be doing what you accuse it of.

JY, I would suggest that the thread title gives a strong view why there is a fixation?

CharlieMungus - Member

Maybe you missed the pint where we were talking about Catholics.
You also missed out the bit in the conversation where you assumed that some of them were catholic and that you didn't ask the what flavour of 'nut job' they were. That was the tarry not nice bit.

Oh, the bit where you didn't specify catholics, but expected people to know what you meant? And then the bit where you imagined I'd said something I didn't? Fair enough.

I have inferred, not assumed, that they [i]may[/i] have been catholics. Scotland + christian fundamentalism + Celtic strip = strong likelihood of catholicism. But where you got "tarring everyone with the same brush" I simply don't know.

JY, I would suggest that the thread title gives a strong view why there is a fixation?

All this talk of hell makes me glad to be Orthodox. Our definition of "hell" is simply the "absence of God". Can't see that upsetting anyone!

Exactly Vicky. It's odd that people choose to find this quite so upsetting!

Yes, and the concept of free will is a really important one.

...don't I am currently supervising a determinism essay, hence the need for some STW distraction!!!

Exactly Vicky. It's odd that people choose to find this quite so upsetting!

'Choose to find it upsetting' is a bit of mealy-mouthed phrase. You could just as well argue Christians are 'choosing to be upset' when people dismiss Christianity as nonsense etc.

Again I dont think anyone is actually getting upset about it - why do you keep using words to describe others views that they have not used and give them causes never mentioned?

EDIT:Actually grum is right can i be rude about them and their beliefs and all will be fine as after all they think i am wrong?
Its not a great argument tbh

I don't get upset when people say Christianity is nonsense. People are free to believe whatever they want. One of the few things that gets my back up is when people say that science and religion are incompatible, and assume that all Christians are Creationists and don't believe in evolution.

No offence but the knowledge gained from science is somewhat at odds with the view that god made us [ in HIS image]and everything in the universe ,everything revolves around us and the age etc

You may wish to somehow merge them but either the god creation story is true or evolution/science/age of the universe is true
i dont see how you make them both "true" and they are incompatabile as they give different reasons for "why we are here"

Ok - lets forget the upset bit. It's a sport obviously. Religion-bashing is STW's chosen sport followed closely by MTB itself. But I love defending the seemingly/apparently indefensible! And what a page padder - for which I am guilty this time!

Creation (outside the odd version found in some places) and evolution are not necessarily incompatible BTW, but that's another story and its time for an hour of weekly [u]compulsory[/u]* force-feeding*, indoctrination* and child-abuse* (sic) now, so must rush!

* Your choice which, if any, are accurate.

The Bible uses allegory, hence I don't take Genesis literally. I am a biochemist, and my scientific understanding does not compromise my belief in God. I believe that a good scientist keeps an open mind about everything, anyway, for science itself involves a lot of theory and assumption.
All I ask is for atheists to show me that same respect as I show them.

so we all evolved from a common ancestor and god made us all as well

The mental gymastic a believer will go to try andfget know facts into their belief system is near unlimited but we cannot both have evolved from a common ancestor and god made all the things on the earth and then us in his image - it fair skips the evolution of the universe and there is little mention of dinosaurs but hey ho they are not incompatablle

Tbh whenm they can believe god is all loviong and all powerful and suffering exist they probably do actualy believe that genesis and evoltuiton can somehow meld together coherently- its no worse a fudge than some of the other thinking they do.

I realise that most realise evolution is irrefutable and then try and fit it in with creation and not reject the opening part of the bible but this belief is no more real/coherent than their belief in god

Oh, the bit where you didn't specify catholics, but expected people to know what you meant? And then the bit where you imagined I'd said something I didn't? Fair enough.

Carholicism has been a strong theme in this, as above.
And seriously? You want to argue the toss about 'assume' and 'infer'? You want a debate about how much evidence there was?
I don't know what you are referring to with me imagining something, but i don't really mind that you think that.

Either way, it's not contiributing much to the discussion, I'mhappy to continue if you chose to engage properly.

Either way, it's not contiributing much to the discussion, I'mhappy to continue if you chose to engage properly.

I am a little disappointed in myself tbh, I took it all at face value 🙁

so we all evolved from a common ancestor and god made us all as well

The mental gymastic a believer will go to try andfget know facts into their belief system is near unlimited but we cannot both have evolved from a common ancestor and god made all the things on the earth and then us in his image - it fair skips the evolution of the universe and there is little mention of dinosaurs but hey ho they are not incompatablle

Tbh whenm they can believe god is all loviong and all powerful and suffering exist they probably do actualy believe that genesis and evoltuiton can somehow meld together coherently- its no worse a fudge than some of the other thinking they do.

I realise that most realise evolution is irrefutable and then try and fit it in with creation and not reject the opening part of the bible but this belief is no more real/coherent than their belief in god

This is part of the reason we need to chose which denomination we are arguing about and why some of me are 'fixating' on catholicism

This is of interest and needs some thought

From here http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/schisms-of-religiously-unaffiliated.html

It’s interesting that so much of the rhetoric of New Atheism seems to really be directed at Evangelical Christians—those specifically who take the Bible literally word for word. Many New Atheists seem to think anyone who is religious holds similar beliefs. Yet, this cannot be equated with the mainstream Catholic point of view. After all St. Augustine wrote about allegorical interpretations of Genesis in the 4th Century CE. As Pope Benedict XVI has argued much more recently:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

Junkyard, I'm not sure I can be @rsed continuing this debate unless you can contribute something over and above simply insinuating that I'm some kind of idiot who compromises my beliefs and understanding.I'm not offended by you, and I could go into a lot more detail about Orthodox beliefs and science. My priest even gives lectures on science and God.
However, I don't believe it's worth entering into a debate without mutual respect on both sides.

teamhurtmore - Member

It's a sport obviously. Religion-bashing is STW's chosen sport followed closely by MTB itself.

As someone who has attended marxist-leninist education/talks/discussions, for a period literally spanning decades, I have never encountered hostility towards religion which even begins to approach the levels that it does on here.

Even Karl Marx, possibly the most famous atheist in history, had a more relaxed attitude to religion than some of the Guardian-reading wannabe lefties that post on here 🙂

Interestingly, I know a lot of people who are atheist because they say there is no proof for the existence of God, but are superstitious.

a lot of people who are atheist because they say there is no proof for the existence of God, but are superstitious.

It's bad luck to be superstitious..

This too

The Catholic Church includes Atheists among the faculty at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that advises popes and cardinals on the latest findings of science.

It's not so much the lack of repect but the lack knowledge about religion which i find wearing. It's fine arguing against something but it helps to understanding something about the thing against which you are arguing.

Claims are made about the scientific position without any self awareness.

I believe

Credo

1. The universe has a set of rules that it follows.
2. Through experimentation and reasoning we can determine those rules, or find approximations which we can gradually improve.

It's not so much the lack of repect but the lack knowledge about religion which i find wearing. It's fine arguing against something but it helps to understanding something about the thing against which you are arguing.

Oh so now you're going to add haughty condescension to your list of arguing techniques, while you accuse others of not playing nice.

Either way, it's not contiributing much to the discussion, I'mhappy to continue if you chose to engage properly.

Oh the ironing etc.

Junkyard, I'm not sure I can be @rsed continuing this debate unless you can contribute something over and above simply insinuating that I'm some kind of idiot who compromises my beliefs and understanding.

I'm not offended by you, and I could go into a lot more detail about Orthodox beliefs and science. My priest even gives lectures on science and God.

However, I don't believe it's worth entering into a debate without mutual respect on both sides

I know a lot of people who are atheist because they say there is no proof for the existence of God, but are superstitious

vickypea - Member

Junkyard, I'm not sure I can be @rsed continuing this debate unless you can contribute something over and above simply insinuating that I'm some kind of idiot who compromises my beliefs and understanding.I'm not offended by you, and I could go into a lot more detail about Orthodox beliefs and science. My priest even gives lectures on science and God.

Ah, Vicky! I know your priest very well. I take it you're in the Greater Manchester area?

Grum, i was responding to vickypea. It wasn't an arguing technique, it was just a statement. It didn't contribute to the discussion, happy to admit that, but it wasn't intended to. The quote above was in reference to an ongoing side discussion, so, not really the same thing. Though i guess this may become a side discussion now. To be honest I'd be more interested in tour views on the bits about rhe pope and evolution and the idea of science being predicated on two core beliefs

Have you considered refuting my argument with facts, logic or some reasoning? I dont see how you can take the "facts" in the bible and acientfic knowlegde and combine them coherently. I may be wrong but that reply wont convince me.

Depends which 'facts' you mean. Genesis is not seen as facts, by RC at least.

Junkyard - Member

Have you considered refuting my argument with facts, logic or some reasoning? I dont see how you can take the "facts" in the bible and acientfic knowlegde and combine them coherently. I may be wrong but that reply wont convince me.

The difficulty here, Junkyard - and anyone else who may be reading this - is that I could never type fast enough to offer a clear explanation, followed by a proper Q&A, of the Catholic/Orthodox faith on here. The same could be said about almost any subject I felt passionately about. There are simply too many contributors with too many opinions that would make it almost impossible to keep on track and get the salient points heard.

That said, I would be happy to talk in a public forum. There are few more challenging environments than STW.

At the same time, I have found the general tone on this thread relatively respectful and congenial, whereas my experience in the past has been that there have been some threads filled with downright vitriol against religion and those who followed one.

Religion:

Video Clip:

Audio Clip:

Edit:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

Yeah, but he came up with that when he was stoned int his first year at college, same as everyone else.

@TuckerUK

Neither comedy (the Brigstock clip) nor Hitchens make for a proper debate.

No matter what the topic under discussion, there is no answer to comedy. Indeed, if ever you want to undermine an opponents integrity in argument, use comedy. That does not, however, make it a legitimate rhetorical device.

As for Hitchens, I don't even [i]care[/i] about circumcision, but I hate his bullying. I suspect (and I have no proof for this other than instinct) that circumcision arose as a religious ritual as a result of form following function. It was probably determined by that particular tribe (the Israelites) that circumcision saved on a good deal of grief later in life. Certainly a good friend of mine wished he had been circumcised when he had to have it done as emergency operation when he was an adult backpacking in Peru! 😯

Asking for 'facts' in relation to discussing religion reveals a basic lack of understanding of what faith is! Christianity is all about having the free will to believe in God. Faith would not exist if we were simply presented with facts. Just because there are no facts does not mean that God does not exist.
You know what, I think that some (not all, obviously) people find it easy to reject religion because they are only comfortable in life if they have hard facts, and it's easy to say that the events describe in the Bible are not facts and therefore religion has no basis.
Similarly, science is not all about facts, actually.

Fair point SaxonRider, almost all of the 15 pages of this debate have been pretty respectful. I do feel that there are a few people who want the impossible (ie, facts) from this discussion. I am unable to provide facts about my faith because (as I tried to explain above) faith doesn't involve fact.

Wow. This was on page 6 or so when I went away for the weekend. Plenty of points I'd have liked to discuss, but the discussion has moved on. So, a couple of things from the more recent pages:

Let's go with this, first.

a good friend of mine wished he had been circumcised when he had to have it done as emergency operation

By that logic, we should all have routine appendectomies as kids, and possibly remove a few other redundant organs.

CharlieMungus posited that "circumsed penii are quite attractive to some folks. So, not everyone sees it as mutilation" and no-one picked up on this. I was curious CM, do you also support any other form of non-consensual infantile cosmetic surgery? I was thinking of a nice tattoo for Cougar Jr perhaps, or maybe a Prince Albert.

On the subject of mandatory RE being "like History"; when I was at (state) high school at least, you got a general education to third year and then took your options. So you could opt in to, or out of, things like History (and various other arts and sciences. Outside of this were core subjects which were considered so important that you couldn't elect not to do them; Maths, English Language, English Literature, PE, and RE. The latter two you could also choose as options, but basic PE and RE were mandatory core subjects right the way through till you were 16.

The RE teacher's stance on 'fact' was that Jesus was who he said he was, or he was the greatest trickster who ever lived. Which at the time I thought was quite balanced and pragmatic, but it does imply that either way it's a fact that Jesus existed, which is a bit sneaky. I don't remember the lessons all too clearly now, but I think they were mostly Bible studies; looking at parables and interpreting them, and such. I don't recall much if any non-Xtian teachings though.

Christianity is all about having the free will to believe in God.

Just because there are no facts does not mean that God does not exist.
...
it's easy to say that the events describe in the Bible are not facts and therefore religion has no basis.

If there are no facts, aren't you essentially describing "making things up" here? You could say the same thing about purple unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster, both of which are equally plausible.

"Facts" aside, there has to be [i]something[/i] upon which to form beliefs, surely? Where does that faith come from? Your parents and / or some bloke in a frock saying "trust me, this is how it is"? Or something else?

Similarly, science is not all about facts, actually.

Whilst the rest of your sentence is correct, "similarly" is disingenuous. They aren't similar at all.

Science isn't about facts. It is about evidence, and about trying to disprove theories. The more that theories fail to be disproven, the more it strengthens the theory. People who "believe" in science welcome and encourage criticism and review.

This is in direct contrast with religion, which fails proof at every turn and then either gets angry when you point it out or says "well, we didn't really mean that bit, it's just an allegory."

Both aren't about facts. But for very, very different reasons.

CharlieMungus posited that "circumsed penii are quite attractive to some folks. So, not everyone sees it as mutilation" and no-one picked up on this. I was curious CM, do you also support any other form of non-consensual infantile cosmetic surgery? I was thinking of a nice tattoo for Cougar Jr perhaps, or maybe a Prince Albert.

Well, non-consensual may be a red herring in this context as the parents give consent, as they do for all issues with kids under 16. You mention tattos or a Prince Albert, but how about ear piercing. How are you defining mutiliation here? Do you know many circumcised men? How many wish it had not been done?

The latter two you could also choose as options, but basic PE and RE were mandatory core subjects right the way through till you were 16.

But the point is that RE is not mandatory. You can chose not to have it.

The RE teacher's stance on 'fact' was that Jesus was who he said he was, or he was the greatest trickster who ever lived. Which at the time I thought was quite balanced and pragmatic, but it does imply that either way it's a fact that Jesus existed, which is a bit sneaky. I don't remember the lessons all too clearly now, but I think they were mostly Bible studies; looking at parables and interpreting them, and such. I don't recall much if any non-Xtian teachings though.

I think the existence or not of a historical but non Goddy Jesus is pretty much meaningless. So what if he existed, if he wasn't God?

well, we didn't really mean that bit, it's just an allegory."

Well that's not wholly fair, the stuff which is allegorical and the stuff which is true has stayed pretty fixed for quite along time. It does't change just when challenged.

Do you know many circumcised men? How many wish it had not been done?

I imagine you could find plenty of women who would say they are glad of FGM too. Not really the point though is it.

If there are no facts, aren't you essentially describing "making things up" here? You could say the same thing about purple unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster, both of which are equally plausible.

People seem to get upset when you say stuff like this but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against it. Just out of interest what do the Christians on here think of the beliefs of Scientologists, for example?

Eg

Mythology of Xenu

75,00,000 years ago, Xenu headed the Galactic Federation, which was an organization of 76 planets that had already existed for 20,000,000 years. The planets were suffering a tremendous problem with overpopulation. Xenu's draconian solution to the matter was to gather large numbers of people, kill them, freeze their thetans (souls), and transport the frozen thetans to Earth, which they called Teegeeack. The thetans were left in the vicinity of volcanoes, which were, in turn, destroyed in a series of nuclear explosions.
Members of the galactic Federation eventually rebelled against Xenu, fighting him for six years before he was finally captured and imprisoned on a planet that today is barren desert. Within the "mountain trap" on this unnamed world, Xenu still lives.

I suspect, being honest, most of you would probably say you thought it was ridiculous nonsense.

I imagine you could find plenty of women who would say they are glad of FGM too. Not really the point though is it.

Yeah, but we're not basing anything on what you choose to imagine. I thought his was the whole point of your argument.

People seem to get upset when you say stuff like this but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against it. Just out of interest what do the Christians on here think of the beliefs of Scientologists, for example?

I don't think anyone here would get upset. I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect for the second part of the question. Scientologists probably think they are cool Christadelphians probably think they aren't. Not trying to,be awkward, but the questions doesn't really mean anything.

I'd say it was a bit ridiculous, yeah. But if that's what they want to believe, then, let them go knock themselves out.

how about ear piercing. How are you defining mutiliation here?

How about "Non-reversable"? Pierced ears will close up, foreskins tend not to grow back.

You could (and no doubt will) argue that ear piercing doesn't heal 100% and leaves a scar, which may be true, but I'm not really sure how getting bogged down in a discussion on the moral and ethical issues surrounding the piercing of children's ears will do anything other than derail things further. Feel free to start a new thread on it if you want to explore the topic though.

Do you know many circumcised men? How many wish it had not been done?

Well, personally, I don't generally make it my business to discuss friends' penises with them; so as to whether they're cut or uncut, and whether they're deliriously happy or utterly depressed about that, I wouldn't know. Are you positing that the only valid opinions are first-hand ones? (Didn't we already have that discussion, or was that someone else?)

There are websites dedicated to restoration, though, so clearly not everyone is happy with their lot. I'm sure your google powers are as good as mine.

Yeah, but we're not basing anything on what you choose to imagine. I thought his was the whole point of your argument.

Is this really the standard of argument you're going to pursue? 🙄

Have you conducted a survey of circumsised men then?

Try reading some of these responses:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090417045847AAmnRd7

Here's a sample:

I am not happy being circumcised. I hate it, and have always hated it.
It robbed me of my freedom of choice in the matter, as well as all the sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin.

The was nothing, no time, no matter, nothing. Not even anything for there to be none of.then allof a sudden, for no reason at all, there was an almight boom and literally, out of nowhere, everthing there ever was and ever will be appeared.

I suspect, being honest, most of you would probably say you thought it was ridiculous nonsense.

Well, personally, I don't generally make it my business to discuss friends' penises with them

Well, can you stop tweeting me to ask for pictures of mine then for chrissakes!!

CM - how about you answer the question, honestly? No thought not.

My point is that many Christians believe (google it if you need evidence) that the stuff about Xenu is nonsense, and that Scientology is a cult etc - the point is should any belief be respected and not criticised, in case of offending the believers, however daft it might appear?

Or do you save respect for ideas that have been around for a long time and are believed by larger numbers of people?

But the point is that RE is not mandatory. You can chose not to have it.

Now, or then?

IIRC it wasn't mandatory when I did it, in so far as parents could have objected on religious grounds(*). As a kid, you couldn't opt out yourself, so it was mandatory for all practical purposes.

At my school hardly anyone ever opted out. It would mean excluding a kid from doing something everyone else was doing, and there wasn't really the infrastructure in place to deal with it. I've half a memory of one kid being excluded, I think he was only actually at our school for a few months anyway. Instead of RE, he sat on his own in the hallway outside the classroom reading a textbook from another lesson.

(* - special privilege again, hey?)

Well that's not wholly fair, the stuff which is allegorical and the stuff which is true has stayed pretty fixed for quite along time. It does't change just when challenged.

Has it? Awesome, can you tell me which bits are which? Or is there a guide or something, like Cliff Notes? Only, this seems to be a fairly big point of debate whenever there's this kind of discussion. I had no idea it had been documented now, that'll save a lot of arguments.

Grum, when your evidence is based on 'I imagine' you cannot expect it to be taken seriously. Futhermore, i did look at that link and the responses seemed pretty mixed, and there was likely to be some self-selection bias. Nevertheless the 'sample' you chose only only representedone viewpoint, why not show the other ones, or i fact look at some larger scale data.

Here for example

http://www.circlist.com/surveys/badger-01.html

Circumcision is a topic which few men feel neutral about. Only 11% answered that they didn’t care either way. Naturals were more likely to feel this way - 21% of them, in fact, as opposed to 8% of the circumcised men. Most men were happy to be the way they were - 75% of the roundheads and 67% of the cavaliers responded this way, and three-quarters ticked the "Very glad" option rather than "On balance" in each case. 18% of the circumcised men would rather not have been, while 14% of the uncircumcised men wished they had been cut. In latter case the "Very much" response was in a minority, but then, those who felt most strongly about it had already had it done! Nevertheless 13% of the remaining 'cavaliers' said that they intended to get circumcised.