Michael Moorcock wrote an interesting short story called Behold the Man that goes into some of that stuff, Mike - how much of the story got filled in afterwards.
Something else that I noticed recently is that nowhere in the NT does it mention anything about 3 kings. Matthew mentions "wise men from the east" - he doesn't say how many. I guess we've all come to assume there were 3 because they brought 3 gifts but one of them could easily have carried the myrrh and the Frankincense. I don't think they are very heavy. The rest of the gospels don't mention them at all. Then suddenly they have names - Balthazar, Melchior and Caspar. So somebody made that up!
Just a point, but Underhill mentioned that the line of female descent did not count. However, i was under the (possibly erroneous) belief that 'Jewishness' (corrct term?) is passed down through the female line?
EDIT: For some reason i was also under the idea that Jesus was of the Cohenim class, i.e. the priestly caste.
Not everything that makes you happy is good for you.
Quite. But if you are going to insinuate that you know what's best for everyone then.. well.. you are on thin ice!
I guess we've all come to assume there were 3 because they brought 3 gifts but one of them could easily have carried the myrrh and the Frankincense
Yeah but one of them would only have one gift compared to the other's two, and that would have been *very* awkward.
Not everything that makes you happy is good for you.
Quite. But if you are going to insinuate that you know what's best for everyone then.. well.. you are on thin ice!
Which is why every individual should be free to believe in whatever they like, so long as it doesn't impact on others or give them special privileges.
If anyone want to believe that 96000 years after humans evolved, the creator of the universe suddenly decided to send some rules in the form of stone tablets and then a couple of thousand years later decided to come to Earth so that he could be nailed to a tree in return for his own forgiveness? Great!
The problem only comes when those people or organisations want special privileges.
Which is why every individual should be free to believe in whatever they like, so long as it doesn't impact on others or give them special privileges
And it'd be nice if Woppit didn't randomly attack them for it, no? Or anyone else. That includes constant belittling btw.
And it'd be nice if Woppit didn't randomly attack them for it, no? Or anyone else. That includes constant belittling btw.
Anybody should expect to have their beliefs questioned, within the bounds of politeness and social convention. If I posted about my deeply-held belief in the tooth fairy, it would be questioned. Or my belief that women should only hold subservient roles or that interracial marriages are wrong.
If I truly and deeply believed that the ghost of Genghis Khan was sending me instructions on how to live my life, because he was descended from Shiva, it'd be queried.
Anybody should expect to have their beliefs questioned
Back to this again eh. AGAIN.
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
So we're agreed? Excellent.
Well we live in hope that one day you'll understand that they way that [i]you[/i] think that people should act isn't actually of any significance and that they are free to say whatever they want in whatever way they want, no matter what you think. You are of course also free to reply in whatever manner you see fit.
God botherers at it again-- have you no ironing to do ?
We shouldn't belittle anyone with religious beliefs, [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cars-engines-that-turn-off-when-in-stationary-traffic#post-4440318 ]but it's fine if they ask an engineering question[/url].
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
http://freethinker.co.uk/features/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people/
🙄
To get back to the OP: I have to laugh when people think they've uncovered a major flaw in something that teams of theologists have been working on for years after a few moments idle pondering in a carol service.
Hmmm - so are there still people around who claim to be able to trace their line back to David? If not, the Jews are going to struggle to find anyone to fulfil the prophesies.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938 ]This from the BBC[/url] a couple of months ago suggests there would have been loads of people around at the time who could trace their line back to David, so presumably there are even more now.
If Paul Daniels was alive back in ancient times they would have wrote the bible about him, Jesus may have turned water in to wine but Paul Daniels can cut the lovely Debbie McGee in half and put her back together!
If I posted about my deeply-held belief in the tooth fairy, it would be questioned.
If I truly and deeply believed that the ghost of Genghis Khan was sending me instructions on how to live my life, because he was descended from Shiva, it'd be queried.
I don't think you get molgrips point.
At best, you're comparing apples with pears. You raise examples of things that you most definitely do not believe in yourself as something you'd expect to be challenged on, in direct comparison to other peoples genuine beliefs. Those are not the same, closer to opposites, and it would be easy to perceive this as [i]insinuating stupidity and feeble-mindedness - yes.[/i]
However, your other post contains a quote from the Physics Nobel prize winner, Steven Weinberg. Unfortunately, it's not related to his area of expertise but to his political beliefs.
But I'll assume this time you quoted him in "good faith" through actually sharing those political beliefs, and I'd happily challenge that rather than a mock belief in a tooth fairy.
And he's wrong.
A bit of background on these politics (from Wiki):
Weinberg is also known for his support of Israel. He wrote an essay titled "Zionism and Its Cultural Adversaries" to explain his views on the issue.
Weinberg has cancelled trips to universities in the United Kingdom because of British boycotts directed towards Israel. He has explained:
"Given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than antisemitism.
And a great post stolen from chakaping on the the other thread:
I don't think you get molgrips point.
At best, you're comparing apples with pears. You raise examples of things that you most definitely do not believe in yourself as something you'd expect to be challenged on, in direct comparrison to other peoples genuine beliefs. Those are not the same, and it would be easy to percieve this as insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - yes.
Whilst I don't wan to be seen to speak for mike (he's more than capable of speaking for himself) I feel it is you who is missing the point. No belief no matter what it is is boeyond criticism. It doesn't matter whether that belief is racist, mysoginistic, xenophobic, or involves invisible pink unicorns no belief deserves special treatment or privilidge. In our society where free speach is an improtant thing, that cricism can take many forms some of which the criticised won't like and quite frankly people just need to get over it as that is a consequnce of free speach. I've been on the recieving end of some quite insulting criticism for my non belief in any sort of deity, but I accept that as part of the price for free speach.
http://freethinker.co.uk/features/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people/
Considering the article uses IQ as the measure of intelligence.
I know some [i]very[/i] intelligent (high IQ) people but they have much lower than average common sense.
Therefore, using a similarly flimsy arguement as Mr Freethinker, that must mean that religious people choose religion as the obvious choice because they have more common sense.
😀
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
Well they all claim to be the one true and real god so it stand to reason that the majority of those who commune with their diety of choice are wrong and are imagining it's presence in their lifes.
What would you prefer we describe this delusion ?
Strong? Wise? Based on reality?
Its just culturally accepted but it is not real.
Should we treat all delusions with the same respect or just ones that are religious in nature and have enough members?
You raise examples of things that you most definitely do not believe in yourself as something you'd expect to be challenged on, in direct comparrison to other peoples genuine beliefs.
What difference does it matter how much I believe ?
Does the stregth of my faith alter whether it is right or wrong?
It cannot,in any way I can see, make any difference to the truth of my claim.
See the reaction when folk set up religions and we point and laugh but th elong running ones we have to show respect
Its as credible a world view as is David Ickes but we are meant to respect it despite the non eveidence
I understand Molly thinks its special and we should tolerate/respect it but being wrong is not something I think we should tolerate
Whilst the degree educated physicts may wish to discuss proof with me here I would ask him to use his standards from science to this issue and see which side we would hvae "faith" in being correct
If you wish to respct someone who communes with and feels the presence of a non existent diety then that is your choice but please dont ask me to do the same.
One day mankind will be free from religion and all the false gods - see we can all have faith 😉
I know some very intelligent (high IQ) people but they have much lower than average common sense.
I'm not really sure what common sense is - can't really measure it can we?
Anyway, some of the brightest people I know are Christians - I don't know their IQs or level of common sense but they are highly articulate. They also earn lots of cash so must be bright right?!
One day mankind will be free from religion and all the false gods - see we can all have faith
aye + 1
Its nice that this thread (at least started as) a reasoned debate over a bible passage. Just to try and bring things back to the point, I have a list of prophecies about Jesus in the back of my bible, a bit like this one...
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm
The fact that he would be of the line of David (which he was as stated above) is just one of many details contained within the OT.
I understand Molly thinks its special and we should tolerate/respect it
No, that is not what I believe at all.
You should not be nasty to people at all, regardless of what their private beliefs might be. It does not matter what that belief is.
I believe leggings don't look good on fat people but I don't go around telling them that. Why? Cos it's pointless, it'd upset them and it's none of my business what they wear.
I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other.
Is this so difficult to understand? Is it somehow controversial?
If you wish to respct someone who communes with and feels the presence of a non existent diety then that is your choice but please dont ask me to do the same.
I'll ask you to respect every human being as such. You may not respect each belief however.
I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other.
The problem with that is that religion DOES get special treatment and all sorts of unwarranted priveleges.
Suggesting that these be removed often causes "offence" to the religious.
Although, you think THAT'S offensive? Just ask me what I think about your actual religion...
That's your religion, by the way, not [i]you[/i].
You should not be nasty to people at all, regardless of what their private beliefs might be. It does not matter what that belief is
Nazis?
BNP
Those who think its ok to beat up gays for giving us the gay plague
When exactly was religion a private belief- they only do it private and dont try and impose their beliefs on me - is this really your claim?
I could not disagree more what if their belief is really nasty?
I believe leggings don't look good on fat people but I don't go around telling them that. Why? Cos it's pointless, it'd upset them and it's none of my business what they wear.
This is nothing like religion 😕
What of they tell you you have to wear leggings and your children and everyone else and then a certian colour etc.
The fat legging wearer has no impact on your life - the religious do and they try to put their beliefs on you.
What if I tell you i hear voices and you all need to ride Orange 5 lest the voices will be angry - still ok to respect my belief now it impacts on yout life
Perhaps I could get a sacred book written buy Guy Martin and we could all honour and respect it ?
I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other.
Well I am not telling them they are going to burn in the eternity of hell for disagreeing with me- Its not me who need to RespectTFU
Is this so difficult to understand? Is it somehow controversial?
No its just wrong 😀
"I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other".
Spot on molgrips! We could all do with a little of that.
Although, you think THAT'S offensive? Just ask me what I think about your actual religion...That's your religion, by the way, not you.
What's my religion again?
I'm not in favour of religions having special privileges btw.
What of they tell you you have to wear leggings and your children and everyone else and then a certian colour etc
That would be bad.
the religious do and they try to put their beliefs on you
Meh. Red Dragon FM try to get me to listen to their radio station too. I don't let that bother me 🙂
Nazis?
BNP
Those who think its ok to beat up gays for giving us the gay plague
Yes, be nice to everyone. We are adults, this is not the school playground.
I am surprised you and woppit are having so much trouble understanding what is an incredibly simple concept.
I am surprised you and woppit are having so much trouble understanding what is an incredibly simple concept.
I understand it. It's the domain of those who prefer simple answers to complex problems.
Here's an example of some religious people that you want me to be "simply" nice to...
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/12/05/we-wish-you-a-merry-hatefest/?
Rtheir history of be nice to you includes killing folk who "blaspheme" and the treatment of Galileo for saying the world was heliocentric as it was aginst scriptures - they are still doing this today re gay marriage though they dont quite threaten to torture us or put ius under house arrest for disagreeing.
Currently i would look at their treatment of gay people and their treatment of women as further reaons why I should not respect them.
I can think of non religous views I dont respect either such as racism and homophobia if that helps
If you want to respect folk with a 2000 + year old antiguated view of reality with little basis in fact and no proof of their deity then that is your choice
Dont expect me to respect that choice either. 😉
Here's an example of some religious people that you want me to be "simply" nice to
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
You don't have to respect the choice or the views, you don't have to give them special privileges, but I do believe you have to be nice to them. Everyone needs to be nice to everyone else. You don't have to like them or let them do bad things, but you always have to be nice.
Always nice. Even when you are prosecuting the law or fighting a war. That's why soliders get into trouble for beating up prisoners of war and suchlike.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
So now you're trying to convince an atheist, with a quote from a religious book?
Oh dear. And for that unreason, I'm out...
It's from a religious book, yes, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.
Arrogant to assume you have nothing to learn from.. actually wait - do you even know what's IN the bible?
I believe leggings don't look good on fat people but I don't go around telling them that. Why? Cos it's pointless, it'd upset them and it's none of my business what they wear.
What if there was a thread on a discussion forum, asking whether red or black leggings are the bast way of covering the legs of fat people? Would it them be okay to say that you don't think any fat people should wear leggings?
For three smart guys, hasn't it occurred to you after all the STW religion threads that you are probably not going to convince each other to change your minds. So from either a Christian, secular or humanist stance, why not just agree to live and let live?
On the quote I quoted, I knew the quote, but not who said it or what their beliefs were. I Googled it so that I could attribute it, but didn't look any further.
To dismiss the quote on the basis of the political beliefs of the person quoted would be like dismissing a quote just because it was from a religious text.
Look, they were a present, ok?
And they're very comfy.
For three smart guys, hasn't it occurred to you after all the STW religion threads that you are probably not going to convince each other to change your minds. So from either a Christian, secular or humanist stance, why not just agree to live and let live?
I changed my stance on religion based, in part, upon what I'd read on religion threads on here.
You were not one of the three I had mind mike! 😉
It's the mol vs JY and Whoppit debates. I don't think there will ever be a winner/meeting of the minds etc!!!! So just accept each others views?
Mr Woppit;
Anything that is no longer palatable or is patently untrue is allegorical.Everything else is God's inspired written word and is absolute truth.
Until it becomes allegorical.
I'm stealing that .. thanks for the best and most succinct summary of bible interpretation ever.
molgrips;
Does that involuntary knee jerking cause you pain?
miketually - Member
On the quote I quoted, I knew the quote, but not who said it or what their beliefs were. I Googled it so that I could attribute it, but didn't look any further.
To dismiss the quote on the basis of the political beliefs of the person quoted would be like dismissing a quote just because it was from a religious text.
"With or without it (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
fair enough mike.
I raised the context because, IMO, it's his stance as a non-religious Zionist that proves it wrong. In this case it doesn't take religion, it takes politics. Apart from the talking bollox, it was the mouth the phrase came out of that I found hugely ironic.
as you can probablly tell, I'm in the molgrips school of philosophy (although he should give some credit to Bill and Ted) - be nice to each other. I'd be just as opposed if the quote had read:
"But for good people to do evil things, that takes [s]religion[/s] Godlessness.
It's a quasi-preachy, infamatory pile of terd whichever way you look at it.
To get back to the OP: I have to laugh when people think they've uncovered a major flaw in something that teams of theologists have been working on for years after a few moments idle pondering in a carol service.
I know, mike. I was quite surprised myself how easy I found it. Surprised, but a little bit proud.
@PhilAmon: thanks for the list. Don't you think a good candidate for Messiah would have to fulfil ALL the prophesies? And it's not as if failing to become King of Israel is a minor detail...
So from either a Christian, secular or humanist stance, why not just agree to live and let live?
If they leave me alone and stop preachin I am in
It's the mol vs JY and Whoppit debates. I don't think there will ever be a winner/meeting of the minds etc!!!! So just accept each others views?
BUT HE IS WRONG 😉
Exits stages left [ what other direction could i go] taking hint
Junkyard - Member
BUT HE IS WRONG
Are Ok !?! 😉 I was only joking - just find it funny that you guys keep it going!!!Anyway you are missing the Autumn Statement - the end of national pay bargaining for teachers for example? That should spark some more debate!!
