[Closed] Anyone read the Bible?

Cougar - Moderator
STW does good debate. And I'd like to thank you all for that.

+1 again, but hope that you didn't speak too soon

eskay - Member
Religion, the root of all evil.............

Plus

International Richard - Member
The bible is for the gullible, desperate, needy & megalomaniacs of this world

..gives more support to the points mol, Ernie and I made before. Put those kind of comments in different contexts and they would more than likely be moderated out. But for some reason, religion is treated differently.

Having said that, this has been an interesting thread on the whole.

Yep. A while ago I was reading this

[url= http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EYlNAtm8L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jp g" target="_blank">http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EYlNAtm8L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

It was really good, but it got put down somewhere and I don't know where it is. This thread has made me want to finish it!

Put those kind of comments in different contexts and they would more than likely be moderated out.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think we're generally in the habit of moderating out comments just because we don't agree with the opinions presented, and the forum would be a much worse place if we did. We get a good few reported posts along those lines; do you [i]really[/i] want more heavy-handed moderation? Be careful what you wish for.

Speaking purely for myself, I largely share Philip Pullman's opinion on "offence" when it comes to moderation.

Just ordered his book ^

Cougar - Moderator
do you really want more heavy-handed moderation? Be careful what you wish for.

Absolutely not, and that is not what I am wishing. I am merely pointing out my perception of differing standards depending on the topic under discussion. I would rather comments were left there for debate - hence the idea that religion is the root of all evil, can easily be falsified and rejected and its value shown.

Cougar - Moderator
and the forum would be a much worse place if we did.

+1

It's ok to discuss religion as being good or bad, or whatever. However, as I've said many times, there's no need to make it personal.

I am merely pointing out my perception of differing standards.

It's a common perception, but I believe it's just that - a perception. Personal attacks will be deleted and warnings / bans issued as appropriate, but opinion (even unpopular ones) probably won't be. That said, some subjects are more thorny than others so it's not always clear cut.

Bear in mind too that there's more than one moderator, so one might not always make the same decision as another. That's just the nature of the beast, any "inconsistency" is unintentional. That said, we'll generally discuss any grey cases if we're unsure.

It's very often a difficult call, and some people are quite adept by now at pushing the envelope of what they can get away with. It seems to be a fun game for some people, notably one who was recently bay-ned (again). Nonetheless, we do at least try and make the right decisions with best intentions. How successful we are at that I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Cougar, you do a good job and this wasnt a dig. As you said, it comes down to perception and we have the same conclusion about the level of moderation anyway! Thanks.

Sure, and I didn't take it as such. And, thanks.

I guess it just irks me a little when accusations get bandied about. Someone said we had an "agenda" the other day, which would be hilarious if it wasn't quite so sad. The only real agenda is to sell a magazine and provide what is hopefully an engaging online community.

I can see why some people might think that there's bias, or we play favourites, or we have double standards, or any one of a number of other criticisms I've seen levelled at the moderation here. I've replied to a few of these directly, but in short it's what I just said, it's a perception issue.

Say an argument breaks out, and we issue a warning to the two parties involved. Neither of them have visibility of the warning issued to the other, so the reaction we get is "why am I being told off and not him?" Which is perfectly understandable, but ultimately baseless.

Even posts like this are difficult and risky, because it invites argument from people with a chip on their shoulder. But I personally think the transparency is worth the risk, I believe ultimately it makes for a happier, more content userbase. I don't want to get drawn into a protracted debate, but also I don't want people thinking things that simply aren't true.

I suppose the bottom line though is, no-one's forcing anyone to contribute to a forum they fundamentally don't like.

Have you[mods] considered replying to e-mails folk send you then if you wish to further explain your policy/reasons.
The tone [of bans]is often rather mocking and patronising and you get spoken to as if you were a small child.
Modding on here is not that bad tbh but it does show that the intrinsic problem the mods have is that thousands of us post and we all have different standards. Add this to the fact that more than one person decides re mod and you get the reality of inconsistency. I dont believe it is malicious tbh
I would expect a ban for writing what was said to ernie last night on the global warming thread were i to write it - then again I may need to be kept on a shorter leash 😉
To repeat I would not be here without moderation and I dont have a problem with it general and am generally supportive of it if not every decision - to be fair I accept I will earn bans as well from time to time to keep me in line I guess.
the problem i have with pulmans view [ see the problem allready folk disagree]is that to claim that you dont have the right to not be offended [ which is true] does not mean you have the right to be deliberately offensive/provocative either. We all know what words will cause offence to certain groups be it ethnic communities, the religious or homosexuals and many press the buttons on here on purpose[ie they try to annoy folk]. It also kind of misses the point that words have meaning and offensive ones mean to cause offense just like soothing words mean to sooth. Sometime you[I am referring to no one in particular] offend and make a point and sometime you just offend - we see a lot of both on religious threads tbh and usually from those with no faith.

gives more support to the points mol, Ernie and I made before. Put those kind of comments in different contexts and they would more than likely be moderated out. But for some reason, religion is treated differently.

Have you[mods] considered replying to e-mails folk send you then if you wish to further explain your policy/reasons.

We sometimes do, though a) this takes a vastly increased amount of time which isn't always practical and b) entering into a 'discussion' with someone who's just been banned isn't necessarily the smartest of moves for what should be readily obvious reasons.

The tone [of bans]is often rather mocking and patronising and you get spoken to as if you were a small child.

Don't act like one, then. (-:

to claim that you dont have the right to not be offended [ which is true] does not mean you have the right to be deliberately offensive/provocative either.

We've discussed this before, I think it's covered neatly by Wheton's Law.

Can I just say that the fact that this discussion is happening at all makes STW a better place?

This is a far cry from some threads a few years ago, when I really felt I had to step away from the forum for a good few months due to the hostility.

That Junkyard can say, above,

We all know what words will cause offence to certain groups be it ethnic communities, the religious or homosexuals and many press the buttons on here on purpose[ie they try to annoy folk]. It also kind of misses the point that words have meaning and offensive ones mean to cause offense just like soothing words mean to sooth. Sometime you[I am referring to no one in particular] offend and make a point and sometime you just offend - we see a lot of both on religious threads tbh and usually from those with no faith.

helps immensely, as it will make some people on here feel a lot less isolated or singled out. It's a kind of self-moderation that reinforces how good this place can be.

Agreed SaxonRider.

though those of faith seem to want it to be above the normal level of discourse on here and only spoken about respectfully.

Everyone should be spoken about respectfully.

and only spoken about respectfully

I suspect that is largely because once that happens the discussion tends to get interesting. Before that there tends to be a lot of taking defensive or aggressive positions but not much communication

Of course they should molly but the problem is when you disagree over faith /the meaning of life you are in to the areas where offence can be caused without trying. If we were to debate homosexuality no doubt some on here [ as in society] find it disgusting and that would offend some so it is going to happen on here on certain threads. Some try harder than others to avoid causing offence and some dont try at all and some try to be offensive. I agree it tends to be the non believers doing this.

Don't act like one, then. (-:

Never knew wheetons law and fair point

I've just caught up with this thread and I have to say the way it's ending is making me feel fuzzy inside. My faith in STW is strong! 8)

...Wheton's Law...
...wheetons law...

Google suggests it [b]Wheaton's law[/b], come on people!

(Just getting us up to the STW pedantry quotient)

Google suggests it Wheaton's law, come on people!

Google's correct; that was actually a typo rather than a braino, I did know that.

ahh the moderator defence

Git.

(-:

*reports cougar to the mods for ruining the thread by becoming abusive*

sends cougar patronising e-mail 😉

Everyone should be spoken about respectfully.

Everyone?

Child abusers?
Murderers?
Racists?

Really?

It's ok to discuss religion as being good or bad, or whatever. However, as I've said many times, there's no need to make it personal.

Although I agree with the general sentiment, and would like to see it applied to a great many topics, it can really be applied to belief religions. Belief religions, by their very nature, are [b]only[/b] personal, they aren't fact or evidence based.

If we were only to debate facts and evidence then the threads would be mercifully short. In fact a 'sticky' or FAQ could just be posted up.

When I said 'make it personal' I mean saying 'all people who believe in X are stupid'. That's calling someone stupid, isn't it?

We know that religion is an important personal issue to lots of people, and we also know it's easy to be nasty about it. And furthermore, it achieves nothing apart from upsetting the victim.

Everyone?

Yep. It's a rule I have. Respecting a person isn't the same as respecting what they've done. I think it's ok to call someone's actions stupid (I've done many stupid things) but I wouldn't call a person stupid.

If you want to judge child abusers or murders, it's actually a pretty complex thing to attempt. If you're born a psychopath without any empathy or understanding of how your actions relate to others, then is it really fair to brand them as evil or despicable?

Complicated issue. A person is a person and should not be simply dismissed with a few adjectives.

Well said molgrips!

I agree, very well put, molgrips!

If you want to judge child abusers or murders, it's actually a pretty complex thing to attempt. If you're born a psychopath without any empathy or understanding of how your actions relate to others, then is it really fair to brand them as evil or despicable?

Complicated issue. A person is a person and should not be simply dismissed with a few adjectives.

[i]Hate the sin and not the sinner[/i]

Learnt that phrase in the counselling circles. I always thought it was the best approach but a very hard state to attain, especially when it's on your own doorstep.

[url= http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2012/05/why-hate-sin-love-sinner-doesnt-work.html ]if you can hate the sin but not the sinner i can hate the belief but not the believer[/url] not the link I was looking for* but someone dismantling that cheery phrase, there's quite a few others who object to it, it allows you to revile in pretty harsh terms someone you disagree with while still attempting to keep the moral high ground.

Not that I'm against respecting other folk, just don't like neat little quotes that can be abused.

*first one google supplied and I don't know anything about the author, taken on face value so if he is a dubious character himself, apologies.

I've been reading this thread as and when I can, and I've just got up to date. I'm not a believer, never have been, I was brought up to look into things and make my own mind up, which has kept me away from faith-based systems.
I have been really impressed, however, that the thread has run for as long as it has, and there is so much considered thought, discussion and erudition here, it's been fascinating reading, helped in no small part by having a member of the clergy contributing, and also by having a Mod taking such an active part as well.
Thanks Cougar, Molly, kja78, and everyone else; it's threads like this, along with Wheely's, that have kept me coming back consistently for a decade.
I have nothing else to contribute, I couldn't argue my way out of a paper bag with discussions like this, and it would be pointless; I have my view as to how things work, (Pantheism), and I'm just happy for others to carry on believing what they like, so long as I'm not expected to follow suit.
That's all, I just thought I'd express my appreciation for such a well-mannered discussion about what can be contentious.
Thank you.
Nite 🙂

no

On balance, I think Kevevs has won this particular battle of words.

But to echo CZ, it's been a fascinating trip through the psyches of various mindsets, dogmas and possibilities, so thanks for that.

[That phrase] allows you to revile in pretty harsh terms someone you disagree with while still attempting to keep the moral high ground.

Not that I'm against respecting other folk, just don't like neat little quotes that can be abused.

That’s a sad story and it definitely highlights the dichotomy inherent in attempting to apply the ‘universal love to all except those we hate’ theory in real world circumstances.

But I wasn’t thinking so much along biblical lines, more as a general way of looking further than face value at a perceived ‘sin’. Personally, I like little phrases and quotes – they’re obviously open to interpretation, though they generally convey what I feel should be a very obvious but not necessarily instinctive attitude or outlook on life in general. Take the classic ‘do unto others’; it really doesn’t take a genius to see that way of thinking benefits everyone, yet it’s bloody nigh-on impossible to keep-up on a permanent basis for most, it would seem.

I can stick to neither of those quotes and still find myself seething with rage at some of the scummy shitbags I’ve known over the years. Sometimes I have the urge to get my revenge or serve-up a slice of justice but the rational side gets a hold and I deal with it, but I’m not saying I wouldn’t if the opportunity presented itself. Like I wrote – it’s tough when it’s on your own doorstep.

By the way, I’m not religious in the slightest, so please don’t think I’m taking any form of moral high ground or anything along those lines by posting that quote, I was simply trying to wrap-up Molgrip's viewpoint in a few choice words. You clearly don't like stuff like that - I do.

I seem to recall that all the "we're offended" complaints one hears about in the news are from people foaming at the mouth about how they are offended because someone has said something critical about their religion, or some aspect of it. Not that they themselves are stupid.

After all, intelligence is no guard against indoctrination when young, or some sort of breakdown or hallucinatory episode when older, and so on.

As has been said elsewhere - so you're offended. O.K. Be offended, then. Nothing's going to happen... 8)

True, Woppit, but there are many personal insults flying around that don't make the news. All I am saying is, don't be a dick.

Molly you are also forgetting that in many parts of the world today that simply denying god is a crime sometimes even punishable by deathas is being rude about said god or prophet.

I think we often forget the cultural legacy of intolerance that belongs to religion when they appealto us to be tolerant
Now we are free of this we are often rude but lets not pretend they are polite about us either in their bible or in their history or their present treatment of us.

Did rowan williams not say were a little less human for example for not not believing- it pretty offensive stuff as is the morals stuff.
The religious seem to want to act as if only we cause offence and their views should be tolerated as if they are always nice and fluffy. Some of their views are frankly outrageous and illegal
In fact they need special laws so they cannot be held to the same legal standards as anyone else re say gay marriage
Its a confusing miss mash of positions tbh but some of what the church preaches and its leaders says is offensive

Mr Woppit - Member

As has been said elsewhere - so you're offended. O.K. Be offended, then. Nothing's going to happen...
8)

That's a bit rich coming from someone who hit the report button and had me banned for 2 days because I called them a "tit"

There you go Woppit :

Mr Woppit - Member

I fail to see why that makes me a "tit", ernie. Perhaps you could explain why that is, unless of course you are simply using the thread to hurl some abuse my way, in which case I think you need to be moderated.
Posted 8 months ago

Let no one accuse you of being a hypocrite Woppit, unlike these religious types, eh ? 🙄

🙂

but I wouldn't call a person stupid.

oooo you big fibber, you've called me far worse than that and intimated that I'm educationally sub normal before!

or do you not define me as a person?

Let no one accuse you of being a hypocrite Woppit, unlike these religious types, eh ?

Well, quite. You were offensive about me personally, not about something I said I believed in.

"There you go..."

Offensive ? I called you a tit ffs. Perhaps before lecturing people on how tough-skinned they should be, and so dismissive of their feelings, you could be a little more tough-skinned yourself, instead of running off crying to the mods everytime you have been "offended".

For the record I have never reported any post on here as I have never felt offended by anything posted, and I've been called a lot worse than a "tit". For me to have done so would have been both hypocritical and dishonest.

..is anyone still interested if i read the bible or not? 🙄

I'm confused - can you call somebody a tit or not ?

hels - Member

I'm confused - can you call somebody a tit or not ?

i dont know, aren't we supposed to get banned using that word on the forum?

...hey why aren't we talking about bibles anymore 🙄

Go on then wolfenstein, I'm interested in whether you read the bible or not, tell me.

ernie_lynch - Member

Offensive ? I called you a tit ffs. Perhaps before lecturing people on how tough-skinned they should be, and so dismissive of their feelings,

Perhaps before lecturing me about how tough skinned I should be, and so dismissive of my feelings... and so on.

Perhaps you should just use my email if you want to argue with me and let the thread be about what it's supposed to be about, instead of using it to bluster and whinge.

let the thread be about what it's supposed to be about, instead of using it to bluster and whinge.

I am dealing with issues raised on the thread. The issue raised by you :

Mr Woppit - Member

I seem to recall that all the "we're offended" complaints one hears about in the news are from people foaming at the mouth about how they are offended because someone has said something critical about their religion, or some aspect of it. Not that they themselves are stupid.

After all, intelligence is no guard against indoctrination when young, or some sort of breakdown or hallucinatory episode when older, and so on.

As has been said elsewhere - so you're offended. O.K. Be offended, then. Nothing's going to happen...

If you think your whinge is irrelevant then why mention it ? Stick to commenting on whether you read the bible or not.

But if you want to come out with some long spiel claiming that it's ok for people be offended, then expect me to challenge your hypocrisy.

"My whinge". I have no idea what you're on about but I note your tendency to assume you can order me around. Laughable, and I'm done with it.

some long spiel

Tit.

Exposing your hypocrisy is the same as 'ordering you around' ? ffs

I've been away, so missed this.

Did we find out whether God exists? Or shall I not bother wading through the thread?

I think you'll find that Woppit & Ernie haven't read the bit about turning the other cheek...

<mod>
Woppit and Ernie, we've managed thirteen pages of intelligent discussion until you two started a pissing contest. Knock it off or I'll ban the pair of you.
</mod>

I think you'll find that Woppit & Ernie haven't read the bit about turning the other cheek...

I assumed that would have happened. Did Molgrips tell everyone to be nice to each other?

I read the New Testament as a child (school & Sunday School), and some of the Old Testament for shock horror/value. Even as a child (inquiring mind, used to watch Open University 'cause it was more stimulating than the other bilge on TV) I found it nonsensical.

Woppit and Ernie: seconds away, round three... 😆

There's no "pissing contest" Cougar. Challenging someone on their hypocrisy is a fairly accepted norm in discussions/debates.

And to suggest that only an intelligent adult who has had [i]"some sort of breakdown or hallucinatory episode"[/i] can have religious views is really quite insulting. Or has Woppit special dispensation to insult people on religious threads ?

Hold on ernie are you reporting a post to a mod there and somewhat publicly, finding it insulting and also claiming hypocrisy?

For the record I have never reported any post on here as I have never felt offended by anything posted, and I've been called a lot worse than a "tit". For me to have done so would have been both hypocritical and dishonest.

Mods[ before cougar smites me for being childish] I am getting out of this as it has been a pleasant debate and looks like it will not end well but I felt I had to say something 😥

Did Molgrips tell everyone to be nice to each other?

Mike it is well worth a read there are some excellent contributions from a Baptist minister who articulates a number of points very well.
Probably best to ignire the last page
See you all at the next one - May day ish ??

No-one has "special dispensation" which is why I said both of you. You've made your point, now wind it in.

If you have a problem with Woppit's (or anyone's) output, use the 'report post' button and we'll deal with it.

Mike it is well worth a read there are some excellent contributions from a Baptist minister who articulates a number of points very well.

Thanks, I'll have a scan through at some point.

oooo you big fibber, you've called me far worse than that and intimated that I'm educationally sub normal before!

Tazzy, I am properly sorry for calling you an idiot, although I don't remember the incident. I strive to achieve certain things, I don't always manage it. However if you were acting like one, I might've said as such 🙂

To me, saying someone's being or acting like an idiot isn't the same as saying that they ARE an idiot. However I'm not sure many agree with me or pick up on the distinction.

Well, I'm supposed to be writing two sermons for tomorrow and having just got back from a rather pleasant evening ride I ought to be getting on with it, but I thought I'd just pick up on a couple of point. (Although I do rather think this thread has run its course!)

I seem to recall that all the "we're offended" complaints one hears about in the news are from people foaming at the mouth about how they are offended because someone has said something critical about their religion, or some aspect of it.

I said it before and I'll say it again. You only see the very worst of religion, in fact of any group in the media. You cannot tarnish all people of faith with the same brush just because one or two get uptight about not being able to wear a cross at work, or the fact that someone drew a cartoon of the Prophet.

I think we often forget the cultural legacy of intolerance that belongs to religion when they appealto us to be tolerant

At risk of appearing critical of my Catholic and Anglican brothers and sisters, I don't feel you can fairly level that accusation at the Free Churches (Baptist, Methodist, URC, Brethren, Congregational, etc). Historically anyone in this country who didn't belong to the state religion was persecuted heavily by the church and state. Baptists, Anabaptists and Congregationalists were especially heavily persecuted. This is why you'll often find tiny little chapels hidden down little lanes miles away from towns and villages. Baptists from their very early origins in the 16th Century have campaigned for religious tolerance.

However if you were acting like one, I might've said as such

quite all right chap, was a difference in opinion over your hopeful stance on humans and their behaviour towards eco stuff, whereas I still maintain as species where screwed. someone mentioned that if they were me, they'd kill themselves in the same thread as I have a bleak outlook on humanity and the environment

🙂

Well, I'm supposed to be writing two sermons for tomorrow

Just point them at this thread.

"Dearly beloved, get your smartphones out and go to www.singletrackworld.com...."

At risk of appearing critical of my Catholic and Anglican brothers and sisters,

Yes it is an odd one depending on viewpoint religions have been both persecuted or persecutor be it Jews [arguably but lets not go there]in our recent lifetime or whomever at various times.

My only point is that we often get appeals to be tolerant when the reality they are often not very tolerant themselves.

At risk of appearing critical of my Catholic and Anglican brothers and sisters, I don't feel you can fairly level that accusation at the Free Churches (Baptist, Methodist, URC, Brethren, Congregational, etc). Historically anyone in this country who didn't belong to the state religion was persecuted heavily by the church and state. Baptists, Anabaptists and Congregationalists were especially heavily persecuted. This is why you'll often find tiny little chapels hidden down little lanes miles away from towns and villages. Baptists from their very early origins in the 16th Century have campaigned for religious tolerance.

So, is it any wonder, really, that a great many people, fed up of years of fighting and anger, choose to have nothing to do with the church and religion?

No wonder at all, just a deeply sad tragedy that people who claim to follow Jesus should behave like that. Sadly many of Cromwell's chaplains were what we might call 'proto-Baptist' and returned from Ireland to found churches which later became Baptist. So in fairness, we're not entirely innocent.

Not all of the Parliamentary forces were as intolerant as the Presbyterians who dominated Parliament. John Lilburne and the other Leveller leaders campaigned vociferously for the freedom of religious expression, the follow on from which is the freedom to choose no religion.
Lilburne pre-empted the US Constitution with their pamphlet 'An Agreement Of The People' that contained within the demand for the right of freedom of conscience.
I am in no way religious, John Lilburne was intensely led by his devout faith yet i sincerely believe he is one of the forgotten heroes of England due to his rigid stance on both political and religious freedoms.

I've sat on the side lines quietly enjoying this one, some great posts and points from both sides. Had a quick catch up last night and saw it was losing its way back there somewhat .... seemed a terrible shame.... So here goes for getting it back on track.

I like reading the bible by way on practising Lectio DIvina ( taken straight from wiki...a traditional Benedictine practice of scriptural reading, meditation and prayer intended to promote communion with God ) In a nut shell you take a passage of the bible, read it and note what, if any, feelings it arouses. Then, if there is anything in there, have a little think about those feelings be they good or bad and then finally have a go at contemplating how the text can be put to use in your life.

I don't always get a much out of it but on occasions the text will hit something unexpected and useful. Then again on other occasions it will be absolutely on the money. Hitting on something that is on your mind.... for instance a couple of weeks back we were have one of these discussions on here when the weekly Lectio Devina text (at the service I practise this method) was ... Lazarus and the rich man

The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

I'll leave that with you for your contemplation/shooting down in flames.... don't need remind you not to take it literally, do I ? ... and it'll probably ask more questions than it answers .... but maybe that's kind of the point ?

Off to Church and then got my last long run before the London marathon ... 22 miles, in the sun for a change !!... I'll be using another Benedictine meditation technique during my run using the mantra .... Be still and know that I am God.... it helps take my mind off all those little devils saying "walk, walk ... you know you wanna walk"

Health body, health mind... working on the soul.... give it a try...... Get soulful... (No you don't have to do it through the/a church/bible but I've found it helps)

Peace out.

Good post ro5ey. Nice to see someone refuting the 'all religious people are stupid' argument effectively.

Not quite sure where you're going with the Lazarus story though. It only makes sense if you believe in karma or the afterlife, doesn't it?

These threads have been really interesting to me. I think I've decided that my wife is actually a cultural-Anglican pantheist, rather than a Christian.

Not quite sure where you're going with the Lazarus story though. It only makes sense if you believe in karma or the afterlife, doesn't it?

It's a [i]very[/i] good example of how [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus ]you can take almost [i]any[/i] meaning out of a piece of scripture[/url].

At risk of appearing critical of my Catholic and Anglican brothers and sisters, I don't feel you can fairly level that accusation at the Free Churches (Baptist, Methodist, URC, Brethren, Congregational, etc). Historically anyone in this country who didn't belong to the state religion was persecuted heavily by the church and state. Baptists, Anabaptists and Congregationalists were especially heavily persecuted. This is why you'll often find tiny little chapels hidden down little lanes miles away from towns and villages. Baptists from their very early origins in the 16th Century have campaigned for religious tolerance.

Maybe not in the UK but in the US, as with any group, given a bit of power the tolerance rapidly fades away.

Although it has to said this thread does make me want to sit down and talk (not chat) to my cousin, she's a Baptist minister in Skipton. Be interesting to see what she has to say.