[Closed] Religion...

others such as the fruit one i refered to, are not.

If you read the comic you'll see that the character saying "a naked couple ate some fruit which was bad" is one of those people that "suck at religion".

If he has summarised the Garden of Eden story incorrectly then all the better - not only does he mock other religions for believing crazy things, he hasn't even got his own "crazy s..t" correct.

Likewise I don't think the Christian church officially recognises the terms "zombie" or "magic no-touchy sex" - so he's wrong there too 🙄

oh no, not at all. it was just an example

Fair enough. You'd mentioned it a couple of times, is all.

How did I do, incidentally? Anywhere near the mark?

well, see the thing is that prior to eating the fruit Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, to the extent that even disobeying God could not have been good or bad. so, eating the apple was not a bad thing, because there was no such thing as a bad thing.

I daresay that the "Church of England's" mealy-mouthed, thin lipped prevarication over women bishops and gay marriages is preferable to the Westboro Baptossers shouty demonstration hate stuff in the eyes of some.

It's still moronic and stupid, though, and no less weird for all it's typically English hypocrisy.

I daresay that the "Church of England's" mealy-mouthed, thin lipped prevarication over women bishops and gay marriages is preferable to the Westboro Baptossers shouty demonstration hate stuff in the eyes of some.

How did they prevaricate?

Which is not what the original cartoon does by the way so is a strawman argument.

Precisely, so why is the tone of this thread trending to anti christian, and the denigration of their beliefs, rather than anti (bigoted christians)?

I'd like to see the data upon which you base this assertion.

Data? You're on the wrong noticeboard. 🙂

I did think before putting that up, but my reasoning was that there's a lot of countries where the prejudice is culturally informed, rather than religious, and there's a lot of adherents of religions (specially eastern ones) which don't make prescriptive judgement on people, or have 'right and wrong' lists of rules.

There's still a fair bit of anti-gay feeling in this country, and judging by Friday nights in the pub, a fair bit of politically correct behaviour which doesn't extend far from the work place.

well, see the thing is that prior to eating the fruit Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, to the extent that even disobeying God could not have been good or bad. so, eating the apple was not a bad thing, because there was no such thing as a bad thing.

Surely something that has bad consequences would be termed a bad thing? The absence of a pre-judgement on something does not mean it can't be bad.

The link was funny - job done
🙂

Precisely, so why is the tone of this thread trending to anti christian, and the denigration of their beliefs, rather than anti (bigoted christians)?

Where?

We've got someone popping up saying [i]"[s]no one actually thinks like that[/s] sensible Christians don't think like that"[/i] and the rest of us saying [i]"we know - that's what the comic is about: the non-sensible ones"[/i].

Not sure why all the focus is on Christianity either - since the comic is about general "religion" fuelled-beliefs and clearly identifies some other religions as well.

Surely something that has bad consequences would be termed a bad thing? The absence of a pre-judgement on something does not mean it can't be bad.

but they were in no position to know that what they did was wrong. In he same way a 1 year old flipping food out of their palte wouldn't know that was bad.

Not sure why all the focus is on Christianity either - since the comic is about general "religion" fuelled-beliefs and clearly identifies some other religions as well.

well, there are a few jesus / beardy god references in there

Precisely, so why is the tone of this thread trending to anti christian, and the denigration of their beliefs, rather than anti (bigoted christians)?

...because a christian apologist missed the point of the cartoon.

Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil ... because there was no such thing as a bad thing.

I'm not sure as I follow the logic there. If you're ignorant of something, it can't exist?

Anyway. I'm not sure that "bad" and "evil" are directly analogous in this context. The crux of it (in Catholicism at least) is that mankind disobeyed god by eating fruit they'd been expressly forbidden to eat, and we've had our cards marked ever since. This is what the character describes as "bad" - it's 'bad' in the unfortunate / undesirable sense rather than 'bad' meaning wicked.

Putting that another way; the character believes it was "bad" now even if A&E didn't realise it was "bad" then.

they were in no position to know that what they did was wrong. In he same way a 1 year old flipping food out of their palte wouldn't know that was bad.

Sure. But their mother subsequently describing the state of the carpet to the father would.

Anyway. I'm not sure that "bad" and "evil" are directly analogous in this context. The crux of it (in Catholicism at least) is that mankind disobeyed god by eating fruit they'd been expressly forbidden to eat, and we've had our cards marked ever since

but they couldn't have know that disobeying god was a bad thing.

well, there are a few jesus / beardy god references in there

Huh? Is a beardy god an exclusively Christian tenet?

I always thought the image of god looking like santa claus in his underwear was a wholly western creation. If god were to pop up tomorrow I'd expect him to look more like Samuel L Jackson.

but they couldn't have know that disobeying god was a bad thing.

But that's not what the strip says, or even implies. I just said this.

the character [in the cartoon] believes it was "bad" now even if A&E didn't realise it was "bad" then.

If god were to pop up tomorrow I'd expect him to look more like Samuel L Jackson.

[img] [/img]

the character [in the cartoon] believes it was "bad" now even if A&E didn't realise it was "bad" then.

but No / few Christians think it was 'bad'. most see it as just one of those things

but they couldn't have know that disobeying god was a bad thing.

Doesn't matter. What they did was bad, doesn't mean that their intentions were bad or that they are culpable.

Important distinction, imo, in general (not just re Adam and Eve 🙂 )

What they did was bad,

why do you say that?

but No / few Christians think it was 'bad'. most see it as just one of those things

Excellent. So the character has it wrong. Hence he "sucks at religion".

We're all agreed and can close the thread.

You can leave the thread any time you like, you don't have to wait for it to be closed, you can close it yourself by not opening anymore, see ya, it's been nice chatting

The joke is a little crap if it refers to atypical characters, it only really works if the beliefs are more widely held

I rather intelligent friend of mine once said that religion was for the weak and ignorant. It's cutting but, I think, probably true.
To my mind the point of the cartoon is that many of us have silly personal ideas, lucky charms, weird beliefs etc that we keep to ourselves and that don't really do much harm - and might well provide a funny pub story. Organised religion in it's hideous bigoted, offensive and painfully backward way is, I think (not 'believe'), one of the biggest hindrances to progression in society. As Dawkins has put it many times, religious indoctrination of children should be seen as child abuse.

[img] [/img]

The joke is a little crap if it refers to atypical characters, it only really works if the beliefs are more widely held

That rather depends on how/if you understand the joke. 😆

To dissect yet another frog, it is about the hypocrisy of mocking one set of beliefs as crazy, whilst believing some equally crazy sounding stuff yourself.

It doesn't hang on some odd philosophical theology debate about whether it is right to call something "bad" because it turned out to be "bad" even though it wasn't "bad" at the time.

Nor does it hang on every religionist believing precisely the same crazy stuff as that character. Those are just [i]his[/i] crazy beliefs. I'm sure you have your own. (As do I).

but No / few Christians think it was 'bad'. most see it as just one of those things

It's the Fall of Man, the reason we were cast out of paradise, the source of the Catholic concept of original sin. And most Christians think it's "just one of those things?"

[img] [/img]

Aside from the fact that many 'Christians' seem treat their entire religion as just one of those things, it might be true that the story isn't of major import in most Christian churches, I'm not wholly sure. But it's a pretty critical one in Catholicism.

why do you say that?

Because it introduced badness, didn't it? Original sin? Isn't sin bad?

I'm not exactly well versed in this stuff mind, so please correct me - but it's interesting nevertheless.

I rather intelligent friend of mine once said that religion was for the weak and ignorant.

I do not think so. Everyone has their own relationship with religion. Some are following like sheep, but then sheep will follow anything. Other religious people are highly intelligent and critical, and understand religion perhaps in a deeper way than you do and your intelligent mate do.

It's the Fall of Man, the reason we were cast out of paradise, the source of the Catholic concept of original sin. And most Christians think it's "just one of those things?"

yes, same as the crucifixion of Christ. Neither good or bad.

Everyone has their own relationship with religion. Some are following like sheep, but then sheep will follow anything

Let's not bring (another) Apple into this.

rather intelligent friend of mine once said that religion was for the weak and ignorant.

surely you just mean relatively intelligent

yes, same as the crucifixion of Christ. Neither good or bad.

Crucifixion not good enough for you ay? String 'em up I say.

To dissect yet another frog, it is about the hypocrisy of mocking one set of beliefs as crazy, whilst believing some equally crazy sounding stuff yourself.

It doesn't hang on some odd philosophical theology debate about whether it is right to call something "bad" because it turned out to be "bad" even though it wasn't "bad" at the time.

But it parodies christian beliefs in every other statement in that phrase, so it is a little incongruous to have one 'made up' one isn't it?

yes, same as the crucifixion of Christ. Neither good or bad.

We nailed the son of god to a couple of planks for the crime of being nice to people, and two thousand years on his devoted followers aren't sure whether that was a good or a bad thing?

>.<

Sorry, I'm clearly missing something fundamental here.

He said neither good nor bad. That's not the same as not knowing if it's good or bad.

"Crucifixion not good enough for you ay? String 'em up I say. "

lol

We nailed the son of god to a couple of planks for the crime of being nice to people, and two thousand years on his devoted followers aren't sure whether that was a good or a bad thing?

Presumably if there is a "second coming" Christians everywhere will be lining up at B&Q for some 2x4 and a nail gun. 😀

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus.

Cougar, Graham, I'm dissapointed. You're arguing about interpretation.

But it parodies christian beliefs in every other statement in that phrase, so it is a little incongruous to have one 'made up' one isn't it?

The comic states A+B+C=D, and you're arguing that A doesn't look like A, it actually looks more like F. It's the logic that matters, not the content.

You're arguing about interpretation.

I'm not, I'm genuinely perplexed. (-:

Nice pun 😉

"Presumably if there is a "second coming" Christians everywhere will be lining up at B&Q for some 2x4 and a nail gun.

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus. "

See it's posts like this, that are really rather rude. Change the sudject matter to race/gender, what ever you like, and a statemnet similiar to that wouldn't go down at all well.

Oh and Graham it wasn't christains that nailed him up, think about it.

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus.

Why? It's not the fact that he died that was important, it was his actions. Coming back doesn't change that, does it?

Actually, given that Christians have worn the symbol of His death around their necks and on their churches for two thousand odd years, if there is a Second Coming then I'm going to beat Him to death with a giant rubber phallus.
>See it's posts like this, that are really rather rude.

Clearly intelligence is all relative - but I think the point he made is largely true. And the fact that people can hold two completely opposing views at the same time is well documented. There are many so called 'religious scientists' - which for most religions would be complete nonsense. I don't want to go around telling grannies to stop going to church, baking cakes and doing a bit of singing but they (well some of them) are part of a very dangerous cult they infects the globe with actions that are far from trivial.

See it's posts like this, that are really rather rude.

Apologies if you found it so. It was only intended as a humorous mental image.

Oh and Graham it wasn't christains that nailed him up, think about it.

No, but I was making light of the premise that they are apparently unsure if the crucifixion of Christ was a bad thing, by humorously suggesting that those Christians who think it was a "good" thing would be keen to repeat it.

.

[i](oooh two more frog's livers).[/i]

Oh and the analogy with race and gender really annoys me. I realise this puts me rather at odds with current law but I total reject the equivalence of race, age and gender with religious *beliefs* - the latter being the one an individual has control of. It's demeaning to the others.

Plus, as has been said many times, Christians can interpret their religion in their own way. Believing in biblical inerrancy is not necessarily a requirement.

So you can believe in evolution, big bang etc and still believe in God, because there's a clear role for Him despite all the science.

Anyone who thinks science and religion are always incompatible hasn't really thought about it very well.

I agree, but the stranger thing for me is that he capitalised 'Him'. There's blatant disrespect hiding an underlying respect for Our Lord, it seems

Nah. Just a respect for grammar and the sensibilities of others 😀

(Plus it avoids saying Jesuses'es's 🙂 )

Yeysooeses!

[img] [/img]

(via [url=

Oatmeal's facebook page[/url])

Religion is cosmic for tax avoidance.

"Anyone who thinks science and religion are always incompatible hasn't really thought about it very well."
Really? Science is objective, religion is not. The two are completely different. Of course to suggest science will explain everything is very probably a bit short sighted but that doesn't mean it's rational to appoint the things we do't understand to some guy with a beard floating on a cloud. That's just childish.

So you can believe in evolution, big bang etc and still believe in God, because there's a clear role for Him despite all the science.

You can but you'd be wrong.

Actually the statement 'clear role for him' is telling. It's like the author needs the role to exist, which is the whole thing about religion - it's invented by humans to make us feel better. Fair enough, do what you need to get through the day, but please, don't turn this into a genocidal, homophobic, costume-wearing pan-global scary bag of shit.

I don't think science and religion are mutually exclusive.

I think it's unnecessary, but it's not mutually exclusive. It's possible to retro-fit religious ideas around known(*) science, so long as your chosen branch of religion is flexible enough to allow that.

(* - 'known' to the best of our knowledge thus far, anyway)

Both scientific and religious beliefs should be 'subject to change'

No arguments here, though the keyword there is very much "should."

Depending on the theism de jour, when you're dealing with the infallible word of god there's not always a lot of wiggle room.

Science is by definition open to change.

Religion, unfortunately, isn't.

Science *does* change, every single day. Rarely does a scientific theory get totally trashed, but they regularly get refined. Gravity to quantum theory. Newton wasn't wrong, just OK for apples, which was utterly magnificent back in the day. Now we have to cope with weird wave-particle duality and possibly dead cats.

Religion either does not change (fundamentalism) and consequently looks stupid, and often offensively out of kilter with modern thinking, or, sort of stutters along as scientific developments become so blindingly obvious and mainstream only the truly dull fail to embrace them.

Basically we need to ensure non-rational thought is left to artists, where it can do wonderful things. Not though in most of real life where it mostly leads to ignorance and nastiness.

Religion either does not change (fundamentalism) and consequently looks stupid, and often offensively out of kilter with modern thinking, or, sort of stutters along as scientific developments become so blindingly obvious and mainstream only the truly dull fail to embrace them.

Religions change in much more fundamental ways than just to accommodate scientific thought.

Religion, unfortunately, isn't.

but that is just wrong most religions have undergone huge changes in their lifetimes

Yes, but often *because* of science - or other historical reasons which suited its purpose. Like the CoE now arguing (embarrassingly) about female vicars, or whether or not to like homosexuals. It always seems to *follow* changes in society, coming more often than not from rational thought, or heroic behaviour.

Lets have evidence where a religion has changed independently. genuinely interested.

CofE isn't really a religion is it?

More of a Cake and Tea and Condoms and Divorce are okay society.

Vatican II
Henry VIII
Martin Luther
Transfer of Sikh Gurus from individuals to scritpure
Sunni / Shia
Various interpretations of Buddhism

CofE isn't really a religion is it?

More of a Cake and Tea and Condoms and Divorce are okay society.

Where do I sign up?

CofE isn't really a religion is it?

More of a Cake and Tea and Condoms and Divorce are okay society.

But no women in power or bumming please.

Is it too late to withdraw my application?

Is it too late to withdraw my application?

Afraid not, once you've committed to the bumming, it's difficult to withdraw

Afraid not, once you've committed to the bumming, it's difficult to withdraw

I think you're getting CofE and Catholic confused.

Loving this, somewhat [i]irreverent[/i] thread. 😀
Emsz, s'ok, sweetie, I don't hold you responsible for the Nickleback albums; most of the culprits seem to be of the beardy male variety!
And SamCooke seems to think that Which Tyler led the Pedants Revolt... 😆

I loved him in Life On Mars.

But the Westboro Baptist Church are a group of a few seriously misguided individuals...

As opposed to other religious believers who are what? 😯

please, don't turn this into a genocidal, homophobic, costume-wearing pan-global scary bag of shit.

People are bad, irrespective of religion. There have always been wars and nastiness, across (almost) every religion. Even the ones that tell you not to kill people.

The only common factor is people arguing about their differences.

It is not religion that makes the wars happen. People fight about all sorts of things, religion is just one.

PS I am not religious, I do not believe in God.

[img] [/img]

It is not religion that makes the wars happen. People fight about all sorts of things, religion is just one.

Which brings us neatly to a related oatmeal cartoon:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism

😀

awesome link graham 🙂

did we get to the bottom of the CoE prevaricating about women bishops? "Yes we will allow some women bishops but don't worry, you can opt out if having [s]someone in a dress[/s] a lady for a boss inflames your misogynism" sounds like prevarication to me

I can't help thinking if Tim Minchin was prime minister the country would not only be a much nicer place but also a lot funnier. The quote is absolutely spot on. Which now makes me sound arrogant too. So be it.

people who say science and religion are similar have no real understanding of either.

they are both a quest for knowledge and attempt to find truth.

Whilst they have totally different methods its the same journey. A road bike and a MTB are totally different and they ride different paths but they are both still bikes and everyone a cyclists.

Please forgive my sophist argument and overstretched metaphor/analogy for you are of course correct 😀

bigrich that's a big statement to provide no supporting evidence for!

why?