Forum menu
and I am expressing doubt about his sanity and/or truthfulness.
If, as he says, he was out walking and "engaging and talking to God" how can he then say "Yes, I doubt"
How can he doubt, as if he has [i]ever[/i] engaged with god, he would know that he existed.
If he doubts then it is clear that he has never 'engaged' with god and is therefore misleading people about where he gets his guidance from, i.e. he's making it all up...
And if he is hearing voices in his head but he doubts that they are from god then does this mean he is a bit unhinged/psychopathic?
STEP AWAY FROM THE GIN!!
Now go and eat your Snickers - you're not yourself when you don't eat your Snickers.
Feel better?
It's nonsense like this which makes the C of E such a weak institution.
Surely belief in God is in the job description?
I think he is trying to "engage" with the public mood.
I think you handle doubt by having faith. Faith trumps logic...
So it's ok to have doubts.
Maybe he genuinely thought he'd engaged with God?
I mean there's been plenty of times I've thought I've zipped my fly up only to discover later that I haven't.
Having no doubt would imply having absolute proof, and we all know what happened with the babelfish - therefore I'd suggest doubt is part of the job description.
Yup, what epicyclo said, I think ... you'd be mad [i]not[/i] to have doubt, wouldn't you?
Faith is, I suppose, something you can choose to have, whereas belief emerges from things you can measure or prove. So I may choose to put my faith in the power of love, forgiveness and tolerance even though my 21st-century human brain can't bring itself to believe that people can be brought back from the dead (for example).
Mind you, when it comes to putting your faith in things you can measure or prove – science and technology, basically - I find that hard to do when I look at the state of the planet and society in general.
I wouldnt worrying TG, I happened to walk past him outside Southwark Catherdal this week and seemed perfectly happy.
The other reason I object to him saying this is the fact that it implicitly prioritises the lives of white europeans. The Christian God is supposed to love everybody, but Welby has chosen to confess feelings of doubt in relation to Paris - but why then doesn't he have those feelings regarding the thousands of children who starve to death in Africa?
I'm afraid he has tried to catch the public mood unsuccessfully.
Obviously he doesn't 'know' God exists because;
A) It's just a silly story (Donaldson, J 2008).
B) it's a matter of 'faith'.
Kudos to him for actually being honest, to be honest. I'd rather a 'weak' but honest religious institution than one that actually thought it was preaching 'facts'. It's part of what makes the C of E so innocuous and acceptable in what is in reality quite a secular society in all but actual law.
It's part of what makes the C of E so innocuous and acceptable in what is in reality quite a secular society in all but actual law.
I agree, it makes the C of E more acceptable to secular society. But from it's own point of view, it's suicide.
The C of E is dying out, whereas evangelical churches are growing (plenty of research proves this).
By talking like this, Welby is hammering the nail into the coffin.
I agree, it makes the C of E more acceptable to secular society. But from it's own point of view, it's suicide.
The C of E is dying out, whereas evangelical churches are growing (plenty of research proves this).
Suits me. (Except for the evangelical church growth bit, but hey, at least it makes the fruit loops easier to spot and even less credible).
Surely questioning the existence of God is one of the very cores of Anglicanism? In order to have faith one needs to do so. Having spoken to a family friend who studied theology, I doubt you could become a priest without having questioned it.
How does the death of 130 people in Paris shake his faith when the deaths of millions hasn't?
I think that a lot of people who would still identify themselves as 'CofE' don't [i]literally[/i] believe in the existence of a supernatural omnipotent being. I think (and I'm being nice) that a lot of them accept (if only internally) that it's actually mor of a moral code and community organising force for good, rather than the ritualistic gathering round the altar of a magnifecent higher power. All that stuff is a bit last century(s) to be honest, which means Wellby may actually be very relatable to his predominantly white, middle class flock. (Which also probably accounts for the bias towards 'western' atrocities, too).
[quote=badnewz ]The other reason I object to him saying this is the fact that it implicitly prioritises the lives of white europeans.
+1 - the Paris attacks are far from the worst thing which has happened in the last few years, let alone within his lifetime. It would be a bizarre god who protected wealthy Europeans whilst ignoring poor Africans. If anything, the Paris attacks are more out of god's hands than all the natural disasters which have killed thousands or millions - just to pick one random (and far from the worst) example, where were his doubts on boxing day 2004?
Was the Mali national anthem played at Premier League grounds yesterday?
Don't single out the AoC here....
Having doubts in light of paris does not preclude him having had doubts in light of other tragedies. I fact I would wager that he's in a fairly constant state of self questioning and self doubt which is thrown into relief by events like this however his faith remains strong in spite of his doubts.
Wouldn't it be great if he came out & said 'yup it's all nonsense, there's no God & no Heaven. Now I'm off to get ripped on coke & shag some hookers, live for the now people'
No it would be rather sad IMO as would the life centred on those foundations
Welby is supposed to be on the evangelical wing, I think he is simply playing at PR.
In my experience, Anglicans are generally the least religious of Christians in terms of actual belief. There was one bishop a while back who wrote books and gave media broadcasts continually questioning the existence of God. Now while I think that is fine for the laity, he was happy to accept a (rather lucrative) living through the church.
I think (and I'm being nice) that a lot of them accept (if only internally) that it's actually mor of a moral code and community organising force for good, rather than the ritualistic gathering round the altar of a magnifecent higher power.
They'd be better off becoming Quakers then. None of that "ritualistic gathering round the altar".
Meh. I just get on with life and try not to let god-botherers impinge on any facet of it. I couldn't give two shiny shites if churches live or die. Actually, that's a bit of a fib, I'd prefer it if this was the last ever generation to have such ridiculous beliefs and we all, from now, worked together towards a brighter future for us all, not just the people who read the same comics that we do.
What is this brighter future precisely?
More consumerism?
Deadening one's brain with 80 TV channels?
I'm afraid life doesn't suddenly improve once you get rid of the church.
Human beings also tend to need it at emotionally difficult times, like losing a loved one.
I'd prefer it if this was the last ever generation to have such ridiculous beliefs and we all, from now, worked together towards a brighter future for us all
We would find something else to beat each other up over.
I agree with Badnewz. If your reason for doubting the existence of God is that terrible things happen to innocent people, you would have doubted it a heck of a long time before the Paris attacks.
Human beings also tend to need it at emotionally difficult times, like losing a loved one.
so they can question why is happened, why was it deserved, and other such rubbish, instead of accepting life for what it is - accidents happen, people get old and diseased, people are evil, etc.
I reckon it is a belief in god that makes things more difficult in such times, rather than a matter of fact acceptance of what has happened.
Thousands of people die horrible deaths every day though murder, war, famine, and disease. Poor Justin must either be blissfully unaware of this, or wondering if he's in the right job every minute of every day.
or wondering if he's in the right job every minute of every day.
It's the perks.
I reckon it is a belief in god that makes things more difficult in such times, rather than a matter of fact acceptance of what has happened.
Why?
so they can question why is happened, why was it deserved, and other such rubbish, instead of accepting life for what it is - accidents happen, people get old and diseased, people are evil, etc.
TurnerGuy, that would be pretty awful advice to someone in emotional distress from having lost a loved one.
My point is, we don't know whether God exists or not, but it makes sense to have a religiously motivated institution which people can turn to in times of trouble. People don't have to stay in that institution, but in a cold hard world, where many people have nobody to turn to, I have no problem with a group of people meeting up every Sunday who can in-turn help people in difficult circumstances.
Packing them off with the latest Richard Dawkins book, telling them to cheer up and have a happy life, doesn't tend to have the same comforting effect!
Maybe "he's seen the light"
Badnewz- humans seemed to have managed ok well enough before christianity was invented. I'm sure there are other support groups available that don't require the mumbling of platitudes to an imaginary friend which has rules on how to love. For what it's worth, my idea of a brighter future for us all is somewhere that is less materialistic, where nobody has to go without and somewhere where we can potter along together instead of making ground at someone else's expense and being in 'competition' with other nations.
My point is, we don't know whether God exists or not,
I'm pretty sure but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. Go for it.
but it makes sense to have a religiously motivated institution which people can turn to in times of trouble.
Mostly it makes sense [i]for those institutions.[/i] Must be the softest target audience in the world.
Let me edit that for you. "it makes sense to have a [s]religiously motivated[/s] institution which people can turn to in times of trouble."
Why does it have to be religiously motivated, or indeed, motivated by [i]any[/i] means other than helping people?
People don't have to stay in that institution, but in a cold hard world
...they probably will. Doesn't that make anyone else a little uncomfortable or is it just me? Ditto the last point; isn't "recruiting the vulnerable" essentially how ISIS works?
I have no problem with a group of people meeting up every Sunday who can in-turn help people in difficult circumstances.
Nor me, it's a brilliant concept. But why can't they do that regardless of religion? What purpose is 'god' serving here?
In terms of greed and materialism, the Abrahamic religions are in their purest, uncorrupted form, negative towards them.
Christianity was an unprecedented civilising force in Europe. The things the posters take for granted on here, like human rights, would not have developed without Christianity, as the book "Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism" demonstrates.
The idea that humans left to their own devices will create a less competitive, materialistic world without the insights of the great religions into human nature is to my mind naive. Europe has had two centuries of Enlightenment, but during that time we've had extreme political ideologies which have largely filled the void left by religion, like nationalism and communism, and which have killed many innocents along the way.
Cougar, I've read many of your contributions to religion forums, and it's clear that you have a pathological, irrational dislike of religion.
This has the unfortunate consequence that you come across as close minded and arrogant.
Infact, it's such an attitude which is now harming the atheist cause - plenty of people are fed up with Richard Dawkins because of his complete self-confidence that God does not exist (which he has actually rescinded under pressure, as nobody can be completely sure either way).
My point is
Just to follow up; [i]my point is [/i]that you seem to have posited "god" as the root cause of morals, human kindness and other such noble traits. It isn't a prerequisite.
Pretty sure he's on record as having doubted before, specifically when he lost his young child? Either way, pretty ignorant if you're criticising a Christian for doubting...it's almost part of the job description.
plenty of people are fed up with Richard Dawkins because of his complete self-confidence that God does not exist
Many others applaud his plain speaking.
it's clear that you have a pathological, irrational dislike of religion.
I have a completely rational dislike of religion, actually.
I'm not quite sure where you get 'pathological' from - are you suggesting that [i]not[/i] believing is a mental illness? If so, I'm sure Woppit will be along shortly to discuss that idea.
This has the unfortunate consequence that you come across as close minded and arrogant.
Arrogant I'll give you, it's a side effect of confidence that I'm right. (-:
Close minded (ignoring the atheist bingo card tick there for the sake of discourse), you couldn't be further from the truth.
As a random example: I used to subscribe to The Unexplained magazine, I've always been fascinated with this stuff; but then I researched at length everything it discussed and ultimately worked out how it was all done. Try me, I'm good at this (so, sorry, still arrogant I suppose). I've looked into a lot of things over the years. Don't confuse educated rejection with ignorance.
Richard Dawkins
House!
because of his complete self-confidence that God does not exist
Last I knew, Dawkins self-identified as agnostic. Has that changed?
Oooo! Been waiting for this! Very amusing IMO and one for all the atheists out there 😀
Fill yer proverbials...
One day we'll have moved beyond all this nonsense. Not in my lifetime though.
ns are in their purest, uncorrupted form, negative towards them.
Christianity was an unprecedented civilising force in Europe. The things the posters take for granted on here, like human rights, would not have developed without Christianity,
Like the right to own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46 )
I suppose it's a bit like bravery... You can't be brave unless you're scared, if you're without fear then you're not brave, just probably stupid. Same with faith; doubt can break faith but faith with doubt is probably stronger and more rational than faith without. TBF if you never once question your faith you're likely either a zealot or stupid. Even christ had a wobble.
badnewz - MemberThe things the posters take for granted on here, like human rights, would not have developed without Christianity, as the book "Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism" demonstrates.
Nope. You can certainly argue that they developed here, in this instance, because of christianity. But it doesn't follow that they wouldn't have happened without.
kayla1 - Member
Badnewz- humans seemed to have managed ok well enough before christianity was invented. I'm sure there are other support groups available that don't require the mumbling of platitudes to an imaginary friend which has rules on how to love. For what it's worth, my idea of a brighter future for us all is somewhere that is less materialistic, where nobody has to go without and somewhere where we can potter along together instead of making ground at someone else's expense and being in 'competition' with other nations.
I'm pretty sure a great many societies managed to get by without needing Christianity because they'd developed their own belief systems often centuries before, and felt no need for somebody else's.
Some, like the Japanese, manage to rub along quite well with three belief systems, although the majority of Japanese aren't Christian, they're Shinto when they're born and Buddhist when they die, thus getting the benefits of both.
The Indian sub-continent is also largely non-Christian, and has been for possibly millennia.
They all pray/believe in imaginary deities, often multiple ones, so I'm rather surprised that the venom directed at Christians for talking to their 'imaginary friend' isn't also directed at all other global faiths/religions.
Me, I'm perfectly happy for anyone to believe in whatever they damned well want, just so long as they don't try to foist their beliefs on me, by force or otherwise.