[Closed] Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

I won't spring to the defence of the Catholic Church.

I would separate one specific religion from the concept of religion.

Are you using that data to say that most of the world is polygamous? That's over 80% of the world!

was someone earlier suggesting that most atheist arguments are a bit outdated? As opposed to the hip upto date churches ideas?

It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.

Not in America. I looked into this a while back. From memory, in the Western world male circumcision rate is about 10%, apart for the USA where it's about 90%. Genital mutilation is commonplace because 'everyone else does it'.

Apologies to Cougar and any others.

this topic has been hammered over so often it's rather dull, IMHO.

So why choose to take part? Who's forcing you to read it? If it bores you, bugger off somewhere else.

Are you using that data to say that most of the world is polygamous? That's over 80% of the world!

bit of a weird one polygamy my upbringing and the society I live in shaped me to be a [i]monogamy good polygamy bad[/i] kind of person but how much of that is down to abrahamic religion shaping our society? I reckon there's definitely too much emphasis on sex, again dunno if that's a leftover from religion, probably. It's certainly one of the most (if not [b]the[/b] most) fun activities going but it's not the most important thing in the world is it? I'd be pretty pissed off if my wife had sex with someone else but thinking rationally about it we've both had sex with other people before we met, it's a fun thing to do, you don't have to be in love with the other person to enjoy it, so what's the big deal with monogamy? If you're one of those people who doesn't like sex that much and you'd prefer to go for a bike ride or have a nice cup of tea, is bike riding/tea drinking now more important to you? Should your wife start getting angsty if you go on an STW forum ride or nip down to the local tea rooms for a pot of tea and slice of cake with friends?

I've used mono/polygamy here but I'm not specifically talking about married people so I probably mean mono/polyamorous

[i]polyamorous [/i]

Is this loved up parrot a Christian?

Morning all. Day three!!

I've noticed, during catch-up, that one recurring couplet amongst the regular churn of repetitions is the following:

(Theist) "Atheism is a belief system too".

(Atheist): "Atheism is not a belief system". (Usually followed by an amusing explanation like the "stamp collecting" or "javelin throwing" quip).

Then - a little further on - guess what? (Theist): "Atheism is a belief system too".

It could be that this is partly a product of the fact that people read the arguments selectively, or join the thread some pages in and don't realise that the point has already been made, but it's been repeated so many times in previous threads on the same subject that I can only stand back in wonder at the incredibly dense piece of hardwood that this particular nail seems unable to penetrate, even though the hammer is so simple and efficient a tool...

Right. Off we go, then. 😀

Nearly 550 posts, and not locked? Must be some sort of record?

The above figs on polygamy include countries where it is practiced.
So that would include the UK, for example, as we welcome people from abroad who are already in a polygamous marriage, which seems fine to me.

Interesting isn't it?

"bit of a weird one polygamy my upbringing and the society I live in shaped me to be a monogamy good polygamy bad kind of person but how much of that is down to abrahamic religion shaping our society? "

Nah it's not a religous thing, just commen sense.

Would you want to live with more than one women ?? 😆

just remembered abrahamic relates to OT which iirc used to have a bit of polygamy going on. Hmm
[i][url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#Early_church_period ]Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time of the early church:[/url][/i]
so seems to be [i]some[/i] influence from other societies.

Some interesting stuff here, even if only scanned most of it Rusty Spanner those figures on polygamy are very interesting. What do they mean by societies? It looks like almost all societies are polygamous in some way or other. Such a strange result! What is the story behind it?

I thought Abrahamic meant the religions which held Abraham as a leader of some sort, basically Christian, Jewish and Muslim. They don't all hold to the OT do they?

Atheism is a belief system too

Though, it looks like th point is being made that those who are atheist are happy enough to believe in other things which they do not really understand and have not seen evidence for but will accept it because of their framework of how the world works.

I just googled polygamy and then spent the rest of the evening following the links from the wiki page!
Must remember to clear the search history before Ms S gets ideas. 🙂

Sure, there's lots we still don't know in the world and many aspects of science is still at theory stage.

This is where many Theist seem to get confused about science... Not all of science is Theory, much of it is Fact. A Theory is just someone's idea ((belief based on calculation or supposition) but once that theory can stand the test of experimentation and is found to be reproducible and repeatable it is then a FACT.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant and does not stop it being a Fact.

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I just googled polygamy and then spent the rest of the evening following the links from the wiki page!

Ok, so it might yet be a minority sport?

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I'm not sure those two bits necessarily go together

I thought Abrahamic meant the religions which held Abraham as a leader of some sort, basically Christian, Jewish and Muslim. They don't all hold to the OT do they?

(Most) Christians hold to some of the OT, but say some bits are cultural or historical and so don't apply, or were superseded by something in the NT.

A cynic might wonder about some of this.

(Most) Christians hold to some of the OT, but say some bits are cultural or historical and so don't apply, or were superseded by something in the NT.

A cynic might wonder about some of this

seems to me they might be thinking about their religion, not just blindly accepting, that's a good thing right?

Singletracked I just put that in as I was expecting someone to say "aha but judaism is abrahamic and it has a history of polygamy" from the wiki page it seems it might have been a societal shift to monogamy rather than specifically religious, the english 673 synod decided on monogamy but what were their motives? also mentions some christians still argue about whether NT rules polygamy in or out.

Ok, so it might yet be a minority sport?

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I'd have to disagree with that point. Just because someone is athiest it doesn't stop them believing in nonsense like homeopathey, accupuncutre, or eyewatering expensive hifi cables making a system sound better. Evidence based facts is better described as rationalism and the two things are not the same.

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I'm not sure those two bits necessarily go together

Unfortunately, Atheist is a term given to religious non-believers by religious groups, that fail to acknowledge the link between religious non-belief and sceptical enquiry, the latter being the cause of the former, not the other way around.

Atheism is to take the position of not believing in a god.

That's it...

seems to me they might be thinking about their religion, not just blindly accepting, that's a good thing right?

@Woppit

I'm with Sam Harris on this.

Atheism is a "non" word. We dont have words for not being racist or for not believing in astrology. By using the term we legitimise religion to some extent and give it special status.
We have seen examples of this above when believers focus on the word itself.

Is the bible the word of god?

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No. I think in Islam, the Koran is the word of God, but I don't think there is such a claim in Christianity. I'm not sure though

not believing in astrology

surely that would be Strology

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No.

edit might have only been gospel readings, not sure

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No. I

They'd say 'yes'. If they don't then they're not Christian.

Then you would probably know better than I, but I've not heard others claiming the bible was God's words

surfer - Member

@Woppit

I'm with Sam Harris on this.

Atheism is a "non" word. We dont have words for not being racist or for not believing in astrology.

That other, sadly-missed non-horseman of the non-apocalypse The Hitch, preferred "Anti-Theist".

He always was a combative tyke, though. 🙂

Is the bible the word of god?

I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No

😆

I love these STW threads where people argue stuff without having a basic understanding of the subject.

I love these STW threads where people argue stuff without having a basic understanding of the subject.

I hate these STW threads where people try to find and argument when there isn't one. I'm not arguing. But nice try.

Is the bible the word of god?

The correct answer of course, is "no".

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#Terms_and_opinions ]Wiki suggests[/url]

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus . . . reaffirmed the decisions of the Council of Trent and emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired and that a stated fact must be accepted as falling under inspiration, down to the most insignificant item; that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God

direct word of god vs inspired by god but open to interpretation

But "word of god" does seem a popular line amongst various christians

As with all groups, there's a range of opinion on the bible. Some Christians believe it is the literal word of God and is all true. Others believe parts are allegorical or poetic, while other parts are literal truth. Some believe that the historical context in which the bible was written must be taken into account.

This leads to lots of problems. Recently, [url= http://www.oasisuk.org/inclusionresources/Articles/MOIabridged ]Steve Chalke wrote about how he interprets the bible to say mean that same sex marriages are fine with God[/url] - he's an evangelical Anglican and so wouldn't be expected to be ok with teh gayz. It's fair to say that [url= http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/01/15/questions-for-steve-chalke/ ]some other Christians don't agree with him[/url].

That is a selective quotation D0nk, it certainly seems more complex than that. I think Leo XII was before second vatican council which chznged a lot of things, dunno about view on Word of God though

A Theory is just someone's idea ((belief based on calculation or supposition)...

That's wholly incorrect in scientific terms. A theory is way way way more than 'just someone's idea'. I suggest you look it up (in something like Chamber's dictionary, not bloody wiki(i can't spell)pedia!)

That is a selective quotation D0nk

it certainly seems more complex than that

An example:

Matthew 19:4-6 is used as a way of saying God disapproves of homosexuality, and as a model of marriage being one man and one woman. Jesus is reported as saying:

at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

To me, that's pretty clear and anyone saying they're a Christian would have to agree that gay marriage is against God's law. So, the church is absolutely correct to be against equal marriage.

But, Jesus was actually talking about remarriage after divorce. Matthew 19:3-9:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

To me, that's pretty clear and anyone saying they're a Christian would have to agree that remarriage after divorce is against God's law. So, the church would be absolutely correct to be against remarriage after divorce. The Anglican church is not against remarriage after divorce.

Surely, something in a gospel which is directly attributed to Christ himself can't be open to interpretation? Of course, he is referring to Genesis verse 2, which is now considered by most mainstream Christians to be allegorical...

To me, the fact that mainstream Christians are able to accept this contradictory approach says something about the nature of belief and believers.

direct word of god vs inspired by god but open to interpretation

But "word of god" does seem a popular line amongst various christians

Yes, if we're being pedantic (and I know STW has a great affection for being pedantic), then the Bible is more the inspired word of God rather than actually literally having been written by God

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn't exist anyway 😀

Yes, if we're being pedantic (and I know STW has a great affection for being pedantic), then the Bible is more the inspired word of God rather than actually literally having been written by God

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn't exist anyway

It's entirely relevant, as interpretation of the bible has an effect on which laws are or are not passed in this (and other) countries.

the fact that mainstream Christians are able to accept this contradictory approach says something about the nature of belief and believers

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

Like CofE with their practice of baptising babies - it's not biblical, but it's a key CofE practice. A lot of 'mainstream Christians' go along with this despite it being incorrect biblical teaching.

(Biblical baptism is about an individual [i]choosing[/i] to be baptised, babies are obviously unable to make that choice).

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

Biblical baptism is about an individual choosing to be baptised, babies are obviously unable to make that choice

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn't exist anyway

LOL, I think those people that have 'already decided that God doesn't exist anyway' have actually discounted any and all gods, so that's 3,700 according to this site [url=Godchecker] http://www.godchecker.com/ [/url].

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

So, you think remarriage after divorce is adultery?

wasn't that to combat the lovely notion of orignal sin where if your little 'un dies before they are old enough to decide it's off to the firey pit for them?

In Catholic dogma, unbaptised babies go to purgatory. or they did until the Pope said it didn't actually exist after all.

Original sin is an interesting one. As I understand it, it related to Adam and Eve but they're now considered allegorical. So, does original Sin no longer exist?