[Closed] I suppose it'll be the atheists next, then...

No it's not.

Mike and NW, do you actually know what the Bible says about those issues and the context in which it says it, or are you just quoting someone else's ignorance?

Plucking sentences out of their Biblical context in order to justify cultural and anthropological responses to homosexuality and to oppress people groups is an abuse of scripture.

Mike and NW, do you actually know what the Bible says about those issues and the context in which it says it, or are you just quoting someone else's ignorance?

I know what Jesus specifically says about divorce, yes.

Yes, JY I am!

Really Mike? Jesus says that in cases where one partner has committed sexual immorality the other is not committing adultery if they get remarried - Matthew 19:9. Additionally when he meets the woman at the well, who has been married 5 times and is currently living with a man she is not married to, he says nothing at all to condemn her, instead he has a spiritual conversation with her - John 4.

Jesus says

Nope.

Jesus [s]says[/s] saves

You've no idea what Jesus said Woppit 🙂

Kja, interesting posts. Pace yourself though.....

He didn't say "Jesus said". Pay attention.

Yes, JY I am!

I agree that the church often takes individual texts/ phrases and ignores the overall message of be excellent to each others, forgive folk, let him without sin cast the first stone, do unto others etc.

Also JC said nothing about it all so it seems reasonable to assume it was no thigh on his list of worries/sinfulness.

Really Mike? Jesus says that in cases where one partner has committed sexual immorality the other is not committing adultery if they get remarried - Matthew 19:9

He 'says' that is the [i]only[/i] case where remarriage after divorce is acceptable. Any other marriage after divorce is adultery.

But, I really don't want to get into an argument over the semantics of what (IIRC) was said in Aramaic, heard, remembered, passed on orally, eventually written down in Greek, edited for political reasons, and then translated into English.

I'm perfectly happy for people who love each other to get married, assuming there's the ability to give consent; I don't need to have it written down for me in a book to know whether or not it's considered okay. Indeed, (most) Christians that I know feel the same so it's a [i]really[/i] pointless argument.

Also JC said nothing about it a

Who can say? There may be other, undiscovered made-up stories about this fictional character...

Woppit why do you insist Jesus didn't exist?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

"Jesus" has a detailed conversation with "god" in the "Garden of Gethsemane" on the night before his alleged execution. All others were said to be "some way off and asleep".

Who was there, then, to report what was said?

... and so on...

Kja, interesting posts. Pace yourself though.....

.. and thank you

The debate over what Jesus did and wether or not he talked to God etc is entirely separate from the debate over whether or not he existed.

I've read many times that the large majority of scholars believe that someone called Jesus did actually exist, did preach to followers and did get crucified. I'm happy to accept that point of view, I don't see any reason not to.

I don't see any reason not to.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

And lo, the thread did reach 100 posts. Verrily, they were still going round and round in circles.

Ok so you have some guy who wrote a webpage. That's great.

Now why should I believe THAT particular website?

Yay, a thread about Molgrips. These are always edifying.

Ok, I apologise. I am spoiling for a rumble and challenging Woppit for being ridiculous.

I'll stop now.

Dont i for one salute your idefatigability 😀

You'd need to demonstrate why you don't accept it's contents. It seems quite accurate to me.

Yay, a thread about Molgrips

*Possibly

Dont i for one salute your idefatigability

Wow that's really something coming from you 🙂

😆
Chapeau Sir, genuine laugh for that one

kja78 - Member

Mike and NW, do you actually know what the Bible says about those issues and the context in which it says it, or are you just quoting someone else's ignorance?

I do. And the context is [i]massively[/i] silly, just product differentiation.

Ooh goodie, a religion thread. We've not had one for a couple of days.

It's not intolerant to question someone's beliefs, but it is also none of your **** business.

(* - unless they enjoyed that sort of thing, of course)

The existence of God is unknowable - impossible to deny with any certainty. So whatever position you take is a belief. I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to convince me of the existence of God, so I believe that He does not exist. That makes me an atheist.

I believe my wife took my kid to school and did not leave her at the park on her own.

The existence of a god is unknowable, sure, but there's an absence of any reason to think that it's a likely explanation above any other hypothetical idea. "God" is as likely a concept as the planet Mars' core being made of Angel Delight, but in the absence of any evidence I'd be crazy to be giving that possibly an equal weighting as, oh I don't know, "rock" say.

By your logic I should therefore "believe" that Mars isn't made of creamy butterscotch dessert. But, come on, that's crazy talk. I can't prove it, but [i]I know beyond reasonable doubt[/i] that this isn't the case. I've no reason to even entertain the idea for more than five seconds. Calling that a belief is just special pleading.

I don’t believe that Christianity in and of itself can be used to justify homophobia.

Agreed. But as I alluded to a moment ago, the problem comes when people try to. You've got a contradictory, vague source text compiled from documents written in a dead language millenia ago, then translated, edited and generally frobbed about with by people who wanted others to read their version of events. People wanting to pursue their own agendas, to persecute those they don't like, can and do cherry-pick their own meanings out of it.

Which, y'know, isn't Christianity's fault, it's people that are the problem. But it'd be kinda nice if that old bloke over in Rome had a bit of a word and told them to knock it off.

The four Gospels and the book of Acts make no mention of homosexuality; given that these five books are the only ones in the Bible that give a ‘first hand’ narrative of Jesus

What do you mean by "first hand?" Even if we assume for argument that they're factually accurate, the gospels weren't Jesus' homies. Mark is believed to have been the first one written IIRC, and that was decades after Jesus' death. And weren't two of the others basically copying Mark? It's highly unlikely that any of them were eye witness accounts.

They're the closest things we've got, sure. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that the gospels are, well, gospel, cos they aren't. Even they were hand picked IIRC, weren't there loads more that ended up on the cutting room floor?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that many Christians fall into the trap of reading their cultural expectations into the Bible, rather than allowing it to speak into their culture.

Exactly.

I think in these debates the language used is often the problem. The problem with using the noun belief or it verb, is that it is used in so many more contexts that religion, often to signify the reaching of a conclusion. That is why using the term faith is more productive.

It is difficult to argue that atheists have a faith, although someone will no doubt try. Also, while incorrect to describe it as the antithesis of rationality, it is clearly very different. This partly explains why the debates on here go round and round. Many on here are only comfortable with conclusions reached on the basis of rational thought in the scientific tradition. They seem to find it exceedingly difficult to understand people who can reach a conclusion based on something else like having a faith. As a result you end up with rather a lot of inane arguing.

They seem to find it exceedingly difficult to understand people who can reach a conclusion based on something else like having a faith.

I find it difficult to believe. (-:

They seem to find it exceedingly difficult to understand people who can reach a conclusion based on something else like having a faith

Not at all, I am perfectly able to understand any fairy story I come across.

Also, I can perfectly understand why someone brought up in a [s]faith[/s] fairy story carries on believing it into adulthood. That's what indoctrination is for.

In seriousness,

mefty, you're probably right to a point. I don't think it's inane though; it's kinda fun.

Atheists get - actually, no, let me reword that. [i]I[/i] get itchy when atheism get accused of being a belief system, or a club, or something that makes it Just Another theism. Because, it's tarring things with the same brush.

Theists - [i]some[/i] theists - would just love to score that little point, as it reinforces their misapprehension that believing and not believing are ostensibly the same thing. That, as a random example, the Young Earth creationist idea should be given equal credence as the Big Bang Theory. Or to put it another way, a fairy story that a scholar two thousand years ago made up is as valid a theory as one thousands of our best minds all agree on based on available, measurable evidence.

That's why it's important to us - to me - that we press the difference. I don't "believe" that the moon orbits the earth, I know it does largely because we've been up there and watched the bastard do it. I don't "believe" in my astral pudding because there's absolutely no reason I should. Not even if it says so in a 2000 year old book translated from the original Martian by a bloke who knew a bloke who said he'd been there and it was delicious (though we'll have to take a lot of it on faith as no-one speaks Martian any more).

I do believe, however, that we'll be having this debate until the heat-death of the universe, or Molgrips admits he's wrong, whichever happens first.

(-:

Careful Cougar, the original Martian word for 'moon' in the original manuscript written a couple of centuries later, could also mean camel/lesbian/quantity larger than 3 gourds. I know a bloke in a dress that can work out which based on the context.

Molgrips the reason not to believe that website is finding a historian contemporaneous to Jesus who refers to him . A record of the census that is the start of the birth of Jesus story or any evidence that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus birth . It should be easy the Romans were involved and kept shed loads of records and loved writing histories and letters.

So Mars could in fact be orbited by a pair of small lesbians? Thank goodness we've got the book to clear all this up or who knows where we'd be.

Just don't look out of the window and figure it out for yourself - you might get a camel in the eye.

It's not clear whether Jesus ever existed or not. It would seem likely that the gospels were written about some Jesus-like character, which may or may not have been the same person. That's kind of how legends work, it's pretty much the same with Robin Hood.

Maybe there was a bloke knocking around, being randomly nice at people. Tales spread, and get embellished with each telling. The feeding of the five thousand might have origins in big J having had some fish finger butties squirrelled away. Perhaps he'd learned a few conjuring tricks too, bit of misdirection perhaps? Tommy Cooper turned water into wine and he wasn't the son of god, he was the son of a Welshman. Imagine if Dynamo had been strolling through the Middle East 2000 years ago, what would we be reading about him today?

Or maybe Mark and his predecessors just had an overactive imagination. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it matters either way. Whether Jesus was a real person or a fictional character, it doesn't really change anything. The "message", if you want to call it that, is the same.

I believe in semantics.

Seemingly, some atheists are so insecure in their beliefs that they cannot countenance accepting a dictionary definition of "belief" for fear of being compared to some of those "stupid" theists.

I believe this is true.

Semantics are fun.

Seemingly, some theists are so insecure in their beliefs that they insist on atheists accepting a dictionary definition of "belief" so that they can be compared to some of those "stupid" atheists.

See what I did there?

You can argue all you like that you don't think it's important. I do, and I've tried to explain why. And you know, it's ok for us to disagree on that.

Oh, and, which dictionary definition are we using? The one that agrees with me, or the one that agrees with you? As demonstrated earlier, the dictionaries don't agree with each other.

See, books. Can't trust 'em.

I'm happy to disagree with you.
Your argument makes no sense.

I do think it's important to extract the misplaced superiority that peeks through on these threads.
Call it a kind of political correctness against social division.

Fwiw i ain't no theist.

Sorry Mr. W, in future if I write the words 'Jesus says...' you are free to assume that what I actually mean is 'One or more of the four Gospel writers that we commonly refer to as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and/or subesquent redactors of their material, claims that Jesus said words to the effect of...'

Cougar - for the reason that I put 'first hand' in inverted commas see above. I wonder what you imagine happens on a Theology Degree course? The Bible is stripped apart, criticised far more heavily than anyone on here is capable of doing, by theologians, historians, archaelogists, language experts etc. The very first essay I wrote for my degreee was 'Was there ever a united Israelite Monarchy?' The only answer you can really come up with, is there was no exodus, no King Saul, no David and that Solomon might just be based on a real historical figure. In my first year at Bible college a quarter of the class dropped out because they couldn't handle the level of criticism we were expected to examine our faith with.

I do firmly believe that Jesus was a real person, I even believe that he is God. But please don't you fall into the trap of thinking that I hold my beliefs uncritically or naively.

Your argument makes no sense.

Ah, so it's not that you don't agree, it's that you don't understand. Fair enough.

I do think it's important to extract the misplaced superiority that peeks through on these threads.

Well.

If you're suggesting that I myself (or presumably, theists generally) feel superior, we don't. Well, with the possible exception of Woppit. That's not really the point.

I'm fairly sure though that both atheists and theists believe that their viewpoint is superior to the alternatives, though. Otherwise, they'd change it. No? The atheists think that evidence and scientific theory is a superior school of thought to blind faith in unverifiable myths and legends; conversely the theists think that nothing can be more superior than the word of god. That's what makes discussion so interesting, we all may disagree, but we're all fairly sure that we're right.

Ah, so it's not that you don't agree, it's that you don't understand. Fair enough.

Are you 6 years old? Wow.

In my first year at Bible college a quarter of the class dropped out because they couldn't handle the level of criticism we were expected to examine our faith with.

That strikes me as a bit strange. I mean, if your faith is strong then you should embrace criticism as it can only reaffirm your beliefs, right? If you're scared that it's going to fall apart under scrutiny, then maybe it [i]needs [/i]to fall apart so you can review what you believe in? Otherwise, what you're saying is that people dropped out because they thought their beliefs were wrong and didn't want to know; that they'd rather believe in something that wasn't true.

Wow.

I wonder what you imagine happens on a Theology Degree course?

I can't say as I've given it much thought. Do you do the same with other religious tenets also? The Quran and such?

Only, it would seem sensible to compare and contrast. I'd expect that if they all broadly reported the same sort of things then there's a much higher likelihood that the tales are at least based on actual events. If they all wildly disagree then who do we know who to trust?

If memory serves, there's been something like thirty million gods over the years. Most theists don't believe in 29,999,999 of them. A bit of cross-referencing might come in handy.

please don't you fall into the trap of thinking that I hold my beliefs uncritically or naively.

Touché, sir.

Cougar - I think it is inane because very few people with faith bother posting on these threads and therefore you don't really get a better understanding of their faith. It is normally Molgrips who gets into the semantic arguments and he is an atheist too. With the result, you will have loads of posts which completely misrepresent what most Christians have faith in.

For instance the Jesus people have faith in was not a scientist and had no pretensions to being one and expounded no scientific theories, he mainly talked about things like love. Drawing a generalization from a tiny group is no more valid for faith than it is for science - there are some scientists with some pretty wacky theories after all.

My original post was more a suggestion than an argument. By adopting it in this post, it becomes pointless asking for proof etc. because it is clear it is not based on logical reasoning based on the scientific evidence. I can get comfortable with that, many could not - which leads us to the stunningly novel conclusion that people are different.

Cougar - yes we did take a look at other faiths during my degree course. In particular those that we were likley to interact with in this country. Also, before I became a Christian I was quite interested in Druidism and that sort of thing. Indeed,even now I like to engage with Celtic Christian tradition which has a far more 'earthy' feel than that which came from Rome.

The thread of humanity needing salvation runs through most of the world's faiths. My littlest daughter loves watching the Disney film Hercules at the moment - the son of God comes to earth, lives as a human among humans. Dies, enters the underworld to save the one he loves and comes back to life. Sounds familiar.

In regards to strength of faith - psychologists recognise several stages of faith, not just religious faith. I can't remember the exact stages off the top of my head, and I may have had a pint or two of Ringwood's finest 49er. However, stage 4, let's say,is where one's faith is externally very strong. One is convinced that it is absolutely correct and it cannot be questioned. A lot of older Christians in this country remain at that stage indefinetely. The problem comes when that faith is really challenged by people who know what they're talking about. Stage 5 appears to be a loss of faith; here is where difficult questions are asked and the result can either be a complete loss of faith, or as was in my case, a move on to stage 6 where any question can be asked, truths can challenged and open debate can be had without rocking one's own faith.I went through this challenge stage very early on in my Christianity, less than a year after coming to faith. Most of the questions and criticisms of Christianity, I have thought about and dealt with myself. And yet my faith remains strong.

I'm reading this while hearing on R4 that someone in ****stan is due to be murdered by religionists for blasphemy.

I've never seen even the Mr Woppitists suggesting anything as inhumane and stupid as this...

even now I like to engage with Celtic Christian tradition

Which would add weight to the idea that 'religion' of whatever type is a social construct?

The 'Celtic Christian tradition' is simply two forms of said social construct interacting for the benefit of the leaders of both, allowing the Celts to continue as social/tribal leaders and allowing the Christians access to the populace via such leadership.

Religion only begins to make any sense when viewed in the context of human development.

It's a people thing.

I'm reading this while hearing on R4 that someone in ****stan is due to be murdered by religionists for blasphemy.

I've never seen even the Mr Woppitists suggesting anything as inhumane and stupid as this...

Plenty of people persecuted for their religious beliefs in the 20th century, not exclusively by people of a different faith...

True, RichPenny, but I didn't see any atheists/agnostics calling on other people to be murdered because they disagreed with a non-existent dogma of 'atheism'. Stalin murdered for power, not for religion. Hitler was a catholic and killed for power too. These people want to kill because their old book tells them to.

EDIT: Although Hitler did mention killing Jews due to the Jesus thing. Most probably another power-play.

These people want to kill because their old book tells them to.

Moreover, that's how they've chosen to interpret it.

Plenty of people persecuted for their religious beliefs in the 20th century, not exclusively by people of a different faith...

Funny how language changes over time, isn't it. Back then "persecuted" would mean being stoned to death; these days, it means being told you're wrong on a web forum.

The thread of humanity needing salvation runs through most of the world's faiths.

It's not difficult to see why. How do you ensure that people do what they're told? You either threaten them or coerce them. Fires of hell, redemption, salvation, eternal life, they're powerful ideas.

psychologists recognise several stages of faith

Interesting. I didn't know that, thanks.

Jesus. I read all this waiting for dinner to cook. If you can't see this:

The absence of belief is not belief. This is basic logic I'm afraid.

Then the rest really is wasted text. Sometimes it's hard being a proper atheist, I need a support group.

But that misses the point.

It's illogical to argue a word has only one definition when obviously that isn't the case with "belief".

Embrace your belief in atheism as you embrace your belief in the existence of a teacup.

FeeFoo - Member

Embrace your belief in atheism as you embrace your belief in the existence of a teacup.

Nah, I shall neither embrace or not embrace my absence of belief. But good on you for telling everyone else what they think.

Whoa, a bit harsh. Not telling anyone what they think.

Jeez, what an uppity bunch tonight.

"Embrace your belief in atheism"- if I am misunderstanding please do correct me

Nah, I'm gonna leave it there.
I believe it's time for bed.

Jeez, what an uppity bunch tonight.

I am, apparently.

kja78 - Member

I wonder what you imagine happens on a Theology Degree course?

I had a temp working for me for a while, who'd just got his first in Theology and was preparing to start a postgrad. And as far as I can tell, what happens on a Theology degree is, they identify every part of the brain that can be used to do anything useful- like, file something alphabetically, or eat a sandwich without biting your own hand so badly you end up in a&e, for example- and remove it with an icecream scoop. Asked him what he intended to do once he had his Masters- he said he'll do his PhD. And then? He'll teach Theology. He was brilliant, more than anything in the world I wanted to lock him in a room and not let him out til he'd assembled an ikea wardrobe.

Only very occasionally now do I bother to read these threads on here. They are boring to the point of predictability.

Same old same old, whereby the clique of faux-socialist middle class with mortgages and other fine trappings of a capatilist society bully and berate all those who dein to disclose that they have a faith and belief in something that the clique demand for there to be scientific proof. Right and wrong, black and white. No uncertainty. Still, I suppose uncertainty can create insecurity and fear, so best have known facts so we know where we stand and are eh? Maybe I missed the Bit in the Forum rules that states 'atheist's need only apply'?

The virtual high five's and mutual backslapping as yet another post asks for 'scientific proof' I find laughable and saddening. It sometimes even borders on cyber bullying with the sanctimonious and patronising way some of those who have spiritual belief's are dealt with.Anyone read Lord of the Flies? Just in context of the gang mentality. And emotional intelligence.

Proof will either be revealed or not when we lose our mortal coil, until then, go your own way and live life, love and treat others as you would wish to be loved yourself and maybe allow others to believe whatever they wish. And yes, huge crimes against humanity and the planet have happened in the name of whoever and whatever, tragic, sad and inexplicably 'human'.

The main line of argument from athiest's on here seems to revolve purely around the New Testament and Christianity in particular. Indeed, for those of literal mind, it is difficult to relate to, especially in the contemporary context. God, on the other hand is open to interpretation and definition. May I suggest that respect is shown to those who have their own definition, as you have yours?

I generally like this forum, there is some great humour, sage advice and vast and varied OT knowledge. Personally, I find the believer baiting and bashing to be like a broken record and for those of you who start such threads, may I suggest you try other playgrounds to play in, unless of course you require constant affirmation from your friends?

I am, apparently.

Yes, Cougar, I said that as I found you unnecessarily condescending and patronising in your responses to my post.
Ironically proving my point about the superiority problem some have on this topic.

It's not surprising to get that kind of thing from the jaded big hitters but odd from a moderator.

That appears to be a bit of a revision of how the thread actually played out slackalice.

Don't bother alice,the smug know alls who usually battle it out on these pathetic threads will never listen,not even to god:).

slackalice - most people here have been much more respectful than you have (not Woppit obviously). Suck it up princess.

grum - I am bemused by your assertion of my disrespect! Especially when reading through some of your previous posts on this forum.

Projection perhaps?

This isn't really respectful or constructive, (or accurate):

Same old same old, whereby the clique of faux-socialist middle class with mortgages and other fine trappings of a capatilist society bully and berate all those who dein to disclose that they have a faith

may I suggest you try other playgrounds to play in, unless of course you require constant affirmation from your friends?

Truth as I perceive it 😀

Have a good day grum, I'm off out to ride my bike and get all spiritual 😯

is it ok for me to not believe in god because it's stupid and dumb?

Yes.

Proof will either be revealed or not when we lose our mortal coil,

And you know this, how? 😆

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Basically, he argues that if you were a rational and logical person you would believe in God.

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).[1]

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Yes, most people have. Keep reading the wikipedia article and you'll see a number of arguments against it. Even more if you look at a philosophy site like:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#5

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Pascals Wager is an interesting but flawed piece of reasoning (at least when applied in the context of belief). The rational person cannot force themselves to believe if they do not see sufficient evidence. Therefore their belief would be inauthentic and detectable as such by an omniscient deity.

Only very occasionally now do I bother to read these threads on here. They are boring to the point of predictability.

And yet, here you are.

The main line of argument from athiest's on here seems to revolve purely around the New Testament and Christianity in particular.

If I can just stop you there.

The reason for this is twofold. First up, in what is debatably a "christian" country, it's the religion that most of us know something about. I've read the Bible, I haven't read the Quran.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, it's the religion that most theists on here seem to subscribe to. We discuss the New Testament because [i]that's what you tell us you want to discuss.[/i] Previous threads have questioned some of the more dubious biblical teachings and the response we've had back is 'ah, that's Old Testament stuff, no-one really follows that any more.'

When I talk about religion I usually try to generalise, unless someone's brought up specifics. Check how many times I've used the worth "theist" in this thread, and how many times I've said "Christian."

May I suggest that respect is shown to those who have their own definition, as you have yours?

With a notable exception or two, respect is show to other people on the whole these days I think. That doesn't mean we have to respect whatever random belief you happen to lodge in your head though. If you thought you were Lord Admiral Nelson, I'd still respect you as a person, but I'd consider that thought to be somewhat strange.

Yes, Cougar, I said that as I found you unnecessarily condescending and patronising in your responses to my post.

I shall try to keep my condescension to more necessary levels in future. (-:

In seriousness; I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to be; I suppose I tend to talk to people on here like I'd talk to mates in a pub, which means I'm probably sarcastic and over-familiar. Please don't start taking me seriously.

It's not surprising to get that kind of thing from the jaded big hitters but odd from a moderator.

Oh, come on. What's that got to do with anything? I'm a moderator which means I get to delete double-posts and send pithy little passive-aggressive notes to people. Big whoop, that doesn't make me 'special'. 99% of my posts on this forum are as a user, just like everyone else.