I always wonder if anybody at the rank of bishop or above actually believes in God and the afterlife

just in case there is any doubt – yes, yes they do. I know a c of e bishop and there is no doubt at all that he does. i’ve also met a couple of archbishops and if they don’t believe then they fake it very well.

Unfortunately i suspect that the qualities that make you a good minister/priest/whatever are not necessarily the same qualities that make you suitable to run a global organisation

grown up atheists aren’t bothered by hell at all

Easily falsified above, unless you are saying that others aren’t grown up. But that would be rude wouldn’t it?[/quote]

I can see someone who said being told they were going to hell wasn’t nice, another who said it was offensive, and someone’s who’s questioned the effect it may have on believers’ actions to know that non-believers are damned.

I can’t seen anyone who was troubled by the thought of being roasted by Old Nick.

As for non-grown-ups, I was thinking of children not insinuating that anyone with a faith isn’t a grown up.

Easily falsified above,

Where’s that, sorry?

But that would be rude wouldn’t it?

I don’t know, you’re the one making unsubstantiated claims about rudeness and getting your moral compass from a book. Does it have anything in there about straw men?

Yes, we’re rude and horrible but seriously where’s the evidence? It’s a pretty big claim after all. It’s not like guessing the colour of someones y-fronts. The claim is not only that god exists but that those of faith know what he wants, likes and takes a dim view of – That’s the bit I find hardest to understand, why would the omnipotent creator of the universe get upset if I cracked one off or ate shellfish or pork or coveted my neighbours oxen etc etc ?

I’m not exhorting anyone to believe in God, I’m fine with people being atheists (I was married to one for 9 years, and have a lot of atheist friends as well as some religious ones). I have never threatened anyone with “hell”, and I don’t even secretly think people are “going there”. I have 2 children and although I’ve told them a little bit about Orthodoxy, I’ve never dragged them to church or indoctrinated them.
I don’t understand the constant prodding from some atheists that there is no proof that God exists. So what? I’m not asking you to believe in him!

For the record, I hope I’ve never belittled anyone with faith on a thread on here; some of my best friends are religious. Well, my wife’s an Anglican* and my sister’s girlfriend is a Catholic.

*she’d dispute this, but it’s the best ‘label’ to put on her

FFS. Another kwality cut and paste-a-thon full of the usual twattery all round.

Why not talk about bikes or something instead, eh? Go on, try it. You might even enjoy it.

I’m always intrigued by the religion threads. As a non-believer myself, the number of members of this forum who must have had horrendous first hand experiences of the abuse of people in positions of religious authority to generate so much bitter hatred of religion astounds me.

Socialists don’t get so much hatred for the actions of the Stalin, seems to be purely a religious thing that stokes the fires.

I don’t know, you’re the one making unsubstantiated claims about rudeness and getting your moral compass from a book. Does it have anything in there about straw men?

Keep leading by example cougs. How do you know where I get my moral compass from? What makes you think it’s “a book”.

Again QED, so comments about no brain are not rude???

Anyway que sera sera….there’s nothing new in this.

I don’t understand the constant prodding from some atheists that there is no proof that God exists.

I don’t understand the constant prodding from some theists that God exists.

Sorry, I’m being facetious now. Point is, this is a discussion is it not? Can we not have “healthily exchanging points of view and learning from each other” without it descending into perceived or actual “attacking”?

As an atheist, faith intrigues me and I’d love to understand more about it because I have an inordinately difficult time in getting my head round that sort of thought process. Neither “you’re all idiots” nor “we’re being oppressed” are helpful starting points.

You’re in a club with a several billion members, it’s great you’re not asking me to join but in other places membership is compulsory and comes at a stiff price. That levy is made all the more possible the bigger the club grows. Casual memberships keep the club going and frankly it’s not a great club for a large percentage of the membership. The basis for the clubs existence is unproven and the rules it can apply are often awful.

That’s “my” problem, on the whole I think the club is a bad thing.

FFS. Another kwality cut and paste-a-thon full of the usual twattery all round.

Why not talk about bikes or something instead, eh? Go on, try it. You might even enjoy it.

Thank gods you’re here to provide such a useful and insightful contribution instead then, hey? Really setting the bar.

meh.

Keep leading by example cougs. How do you know where I get my moral compass from? What makes you think it’s “a book”.

I cheerfully and unreservedly withdraw that comment, I was making assumptions.

Report me, then.

Touché.

I think you need to take that one up with the disciple of christ / bible
Why is it that those of faith just ignore the bits of the book they have no interest in defending? Like say hell or killing gays or marrying your brothers wife ?or say taking slaves and concubines after battle?- i can quote for all of those if you really want.

I can’t remember if it was to you, Junkyard, that I specifically responded to on this point in a past thread, but I remember trying to explain this.

In any case, when it comes to the Bible – a collection of many texts representing different periods, genres, and writers – not reading some texts literally, while reading others so, has always been a feature of mainstream Christian hermeneutics. There is no inconsistency in spending a lifetime studying ancient texts and understanding them from within the context in which they were written.

Biblical fundamentalism and corresponding errors in interpretation, while not unknown in ancient Christianity, is a 19th century American phenomenon that grew up in response to social liberalism.

Why not talk about bikes or something instead, eh?

Metal tubes, with wheels at each end. What’s to discuss? After a decade and a half of posting here, I couldn’t care less about wheel sizes or tyre choice.

Thank you cougs (you were 😉 ).

I actually enjoy reading all of them, especially the ones without a god in them. Even more interesting when you compare the message of both types too.

Hey flashy is here to moan about things he does not like

BINGO

Junkyard- fair question about apparently “ignoring” parts of the Bible. I’m a scientist not a theologian, but this is what I understand about Orthodoxy (can’t speak for other denominations): The Bible contains a lot of allegory, never intended to be taken literally in its entirety. Orthodoxy teaches that the interpretation of the Bible has been passed down directly from the apostles over the centuries by the Church- that is, taken together with the Church.
Obviously the Bible wasn’t originally written in English, so the difficult concept of hell could conceivably have changed slightly in translations.

when it comes to the Bible – a collection of many texts representing different periods, genres, and writers – not reading some texts literally, while reading others so, has always been a feature of mainstream Christian hermeneutics. There is no inconsistency in spending a lifetime studying ancient texts and understanding them from within the context in which they were written.

I find this aspect of religion fascinating. From the outside it looks an awful lot like deciding what you want to be true and then using your hermeneutical lense to prove it. Steve Chalke’s recent change in position on gay marriage, for example, looks a lot like seeing which way the wind is blowing and then reorienting your theological sails.

I’m genuinely interested in how a scientist rationalises their faith in god (lacking any evidence) can you try and explain? Not being rude I’d really like to understand?

Hardly surprising that a 2000 plus year old collection of stories has a whole heap of weird stuff within it. Especially when at various points in history those in the positions of power have quite openly held various synod meetings to decide which of the stories they want to use and keep and which ones they are going to get rid off.

Going back to the point that OP was asking – remember him? – I think the new Pope is trying to start to turn around the oil tanker and bring Catholic doctrine more up to date, which can only be a good thing. Whether he will succeed or not is open to debate. Whether he is doing it because he believes in it, or doing it to keep the Catholic Church in “business”, is largely irrelevant. If he is only doing it to be pragmatic, I’d sooner have a pragmatic realist as a Pope than a blinkered idealogically driven maniac.

The Bible contains a lot of allegory, never intended to be taken literally in its entirety

That’s a very modern viewpoint though. It was absolutely supposed to be taken literally for many years, it’s only in recent times where we’ve gained a better understanding of the world and the universe that we’ve had this “allegory” back-pedal.

Obviously the Bible wasn’t originally written in English, so the difficult concept of hell could conceivably have changed slightly in translations.

That’s the tip of a very large iceberg; translation difficulties are a big problem, which is why as an atheist I struggle with the concept of ‘faith’ in something which could quite readily have been accidentally or intentionally misinterpreted.

n any case, when it comes to the Bible – a collection of many texts representing different periods, genres, and writers – not reading some texts literally, while reading others so, has always been a feature of mainstream Christian hermeneutics. There is no inconsistency in spending a lifetime studying ancient texts and understanding them from within the context in which they were written.

TBH I find this the weirdest thing about it it is the word of god, no its just metaphor, its apocryphal, not that bit is not real etc no one believed creationism but its still true god made us all – its gibberish IMHO. Believers just pick and mix the bits they want to try and defend – hence why they have not engaged on the quote about burning with the devil but have said it is not true 😕 – its pretty damn clear what it means and you either follow what the book says or you dont. Apparently they now want to follow bits of it and not others and still maintain its true and not daft.
Its nothing something i can respect or admire tbh

a 2000 plus year old collection of stories

It’s not that old. Well, the OT maybe, I don’t know a great deal about that, but the NT is on average 1500 years old IIRC, give or take a few centuries.

Going back to the point that OP was asking – remember him? – I think the new Pope is trying to start to turn around the oil tanker and bring Catholic doctrine more up to date, which can only be a good thing.

No arguments here.

You wouldn’t have IS without this belief system.

Sadly, you probably would.

IS are just another bunch of brutal ideologues using religion as a justification for their actions. History is littered with incidences of groups of people using their strength to dominate and massacre others, sometimes religion is the justification, often it isn’t. The Nazis, Khmer Rouge and Stalin all committed genocide, they just replaced religion with another ideology. The Rwandan massacre was tribal.

It is too easy to blame the actions of some on the beliefs of many.

Cougar- when I talked of “constant prodding”, I hoped that sounded somewhat milder than “attacking”. I didn’t feel like you were attacking me…. or prodding for that matter!
I’m happy to discuss, but have been a bit burnt by previous discussions in which some (obviously not all) atheists have brought nothing but sarcasm and mockery to the table.

The Bible contains a lot of allegory, never intended to be taken literally in its entirety

Its a rationalisation designed to paper over the fact we know much of it at odds with the actual reality and known facts as they are today

I would not want to defend creationism nor stoning of gays nor marrying my brothers wife if he dies nor taking slaves and concubines after war nor slaughtering [male] children but it is all in the bible.
Its like folk taking ying and yang, and then karma, then lay lines and then claiming they are a wican druidh. You either take the bible as the word of god or throw it away as a made up myth. It cannot be both and we now argue about which bits are the “real” bits and which bits just non literal stories.

atheists have brought nothing but sarcasm and mockery to the table

Some have brought nothing but this some of us bring that and still try to discuss. Some of faith – you may have seen it- turn up insult and go away.

I find this aspect of religion fascinating. From the outside it looks an awful lot like deciding what you want to be true and then using your hermeneutical lense to prove it. Steve Chalke’s recent change in position on gay marriage, for example, looks a lot like seeing which way the wind is blowing and then reorienting your theological sails.

I genuinely understand why it comes across this way, but neither in the Church nor in the academy is it the case. Again, I have used this analogy on here before, but to Catholic and Orthodox Christians, along with most mainstream Protestants, Scripture and doctrine is not unlike poetry. People of faith record their experience – both communal and individual – of a reality they perceive as metaphysical or divine. Because it is precisely meta-physical, it is also inscrutable, and so interpretable by means of a language that does not correspond precisely with everyday language. Not unlike art. Of course, some take that language literally; but clearly it is meant to convey something other, as would be the case with poetry.

When Shakespeare said in reference to his mistress that ‘black wires grow on her head’, he was obviously not suggesting that literal wires were growing out of her scalp (unless he was, in which case, ugh); one would need to read the whole of Sonnet 130 to see that he was saying that, while he was not going to gush in unrealistic romantic terms about her, his mistress was his, and he loved her.

Cougar- when I talked of “constant prodding”, I hoped that sounded somewhat milder than “attacking”. I didn’t feel like you were attacking me…. or prodding for that matter!
I’m happy to discuss, but have been a bit burnt by previous discussions in which some (obviously not all) atheists have brought nothing but sarcasm and mockery to the table.

Point taken. Though I wasn’t really implying that you were suggesting an attack, it was a generalisation.

I’d like to think that the nasty debates of yore are a bit ‘old testament’ these days. We’ve culled a number of the more disruptive elements of this forum over the last couple of years and personal attacks are as verboten and thus moderated on this subject as they are any other. If they aren’t it’s because we’ve missed them rather than out of any STW ‘officially sanctioned abuse’ policy. Far as I’m aware, the only moderator or admin with any sort of interest in this topic is me.

I’ve deleted every post reported on this thread so far, which as THM declined to answer my question I can clarify is “none whatsoever.” I vigorously reject the accusation that there’s some sort of anti-theism conspiracy amongst the moderation team, it’s simply not true.

Which is a good thing because, when people aren’t being nobby, an interesting discussion occasionally breaks out.

Cougar – Moderator
a 2000 plus year old collection of stories
It’s not that old. Well, the OT maybe, I don’t know a great deal about that, but the NT is on average 1500 years old IIRC, give or take a few centuries.

The Gospel of Mark, by way of example, was written just after the halfway mark of the first century. So yes, about 2000 years old.

When Shakespeare said in reference to his mistress that ‘black wires grow on her head’, he was obviously not suggesting that literal wires were growing out of her scalp

Difference is, he never claimed to, nor did any of his readers.

Previously it was specific enough to tell me not to eat owls but now it’s inscrutable?

How come the Evangelical Alliance were sure enough about God not liking bum fun that they expelled Steve Chalke’s church when he changed his interpretation of the poetry?

The Gospel of Mark, by way of example, was written just after the halfway mark of the first century. So yes, about 2000 years old.

All of it? My understanding was that the beginnings and ends of the gospels were rather newer, to play up the divine aspects of Christ and that this is why there some discrepancy within the gospels.

The Gospel of Mark, by way of example, was written just after the halfway mark of the first century. So yes, about 2000 years old.

Yeah, you’re right, I was misremembering; the gospels are believed to be between AD60-100. From the gospel of Wikipedia,

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs.

Point was, it’s not “over 2000 years old”, it was written after Jesus’s death(*), which is an important distinction. Ie, they are not eye witness accounts.

(* – assuming for the sake of argument here that the depiction of Jesus’s life and death are factually correct.)

miketually, I can not stress enough that the Evangelical Alliance is not, nor has it ever been, considered part of the mainstream Christian tradition. In saying this, I am not trying to obfuscate or avoid what you are querying, but the Evangelical Alliance, along with many denominations such as various Pentecostal groups, Evangelical Free, different Baptist groups: while a few of them find their roots in the Radical Reformation, they all take their approach to Scripture from 19th century American fundamentalism. They have a strong voice because of the American religious landscape which has been so affected by them, but otherwise we would hardly hear about them. And of course, they have found some traction here in the UK as well.

Because it is precisely meta-physical, it is also inscrutable,

Is it not a bit crap having an inscrutable message from a god? How does god tell you what to do then? Its like “through a glass darkly” – it means believers cannot explain why god does stuff or why the bible and facts dont match so you dont even try. Its straw clutching

When Shakespeare said in reference

Shakespeare is a work of fiction but even still if he did not get his message across he has still failed.
When god says homosexuality is an abomination and they should be killed – it is not poetry nor metaphor nor vague. Its just you dont want to talk about those bits

I can not stress enough that the Evangelical Alliance is not, nor has it ever been, considered part of the mainstream Christian tradition.

Well said. I don’t think it’s particularly fair or helpful to judge the majority of modern-day Xtianity based on the views of a few fringe (largely American) churches (any more than it’s valid to use Dawkins for criticism of all Atheists).