[Closed] Visit My Mosque Day, Sunday

From source, always from source.

I suspect that learning Arabic may be a barrier to entry.

(Incidentally, am I right in thinking that the Quran is prohibited from being translated into other languages, or have I made that up at some point?)

Times may have changed but when I was at school I don't remember any other faiths ever being mentioned even.

Not sure how old you are, but for the same reason our study of history is centered around the UK's, it is not surprising the same approach was taken to RE and my guess is that the Christian faith was the dominant one in this country when you were at school.

Monologue. FTFY

Good of you and much as i probably did miss-spell (or make it up) it I'm not sure monologue is the word i was looking for, maybe i should have said "delivering monologues", I may of course be wrong.

You're quite right, everyone present doesn't believe in a God or gods, though the assumption that we're not all here due to some commonality of belief (even if that's "cycling is fun"), and bound by precepts (thou shalt not evade the swear filter etc.) seems misplaced. A church is just a community formed around a common interest/belief, all be it a long established and quite large one.

It's just a bunch of opinions in a free debate.

(Incidentally, am I right in thinking that the Quran is prohibited from being translated into other languages, or have I made that up at some point?)

Regardless of prohibition, English versions are available and only a google search away...

From source, always from source.

There's plenty of [url= http://awkwardmomentsbible.com ]extreme and bizarre stuff in the Bible[/url], especially the Old Testament, but I don't see a lot of babies being cut in half at the local church bake sales.

...English versions are available...

got one myself...

(it reads like one reeeaaally long cryptic crossword clue, makes the bible seem like easy-reading in comparison)

Not sure how old you are, but for the same reason our study of history is centered around the UK's, it is not surprising the same approach was taken to RE and my guess is that the Christian faith was the dominant one in this country when you were at school.

I was under the impression that it still was?

I went to school in the 80s. Primary and secondary were both non-faith schools, though I remember hymns and prayers every morning at primary school (not sure if that continued into secondary, if it did it's fallen out of my head). AFAIK a Christian-leaning RE was on the National Curriculum, though again I may just be misremembering.

I am sorry that the academic discipline of theology has passed you by - after all, it was only one of the principal subjects that our ancient universities were founded to study.

Well, it's true I don't have any Theology. But then, I also don't have any Leprechaunology, Santa Clausology or Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-gardenology either.

Ancient or otherwise.

There's plenty of extreme and bizarre stuff in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but I don't see a lot of babies being cut in half at the local church bake sales.

I think that's part of the issue. You wind up having to pick and choose which bits are True, which are fables and which simply has no place in modern society - and all of those definitions will have changed wildly over time as human knowledge and culture has expanded. And that's problematic when one is using such a book as a guide to life.

There's plenty of extreme and bizarre stuff in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but I don't see a lot of babies being cut in half at the local church bake sales.

That's because the religious habit of eventually being dragged along kicking and screaming behind improvements in ethics from secular progress, still holds true.

I don't believe any of that stuff either. It doesn't prevent me from having a cuppa and a civilised chat with people who do. Or even from trying to understand some of their beliefs, motivations or philosophy.?

I've got no issue in that either, I've just got no wish to visit a place of worship. If I've got a question about Islam I can look it up or ask one of my many Muslim colleagues.

I am sorry that the academic discipline of theology has passed you by - after all, it was only one of the principal subjects that our ancient universities were founded to study

I'm a scientist, I believe in fact. If there was any factual evidence for anything in the bible, the Koran or the tora I would re-evaluate my position - see that critical thinking thing above - but religious people, in the face of facts generally don't change their view. Its irrelevant what University's were founded on, this isn't the 1400's, we've learned shit since then.

Free debate - where bias, bigotry, ignorance and insults will always be present along with tolerance, indifference, interest and support.
So that makes it representative of the general population.

I do wonder, the way this is (inevitably) heading, whether this splinter discussion should be taken to its own thread.

patriotpro

(Incidentally, am I right in thinking that the Quran is prohibited from being translated into other languages, or have I made that up at some point?)

Regardless of prohibition, English versions are available and only a google search away...

The Koran can't be translated since it's the literal word of Mohamed as he spoke it. Once translated it's no longer the Koran. It has been suggested this is one reason why Islam hasn't gone through a reformative process, the bible by contrast is composed of texts written by human men for the most part, so it's less blasphemous to interpret them .

So a religion that is getting bad press at the minute is opening its doors to try and build relations.

Then bigoted people on here choose to remain in their bigoted corner because afterall ignorance is bliss.

Then bigoted people on here choose to remain in their bigoted corner because after all ignorance is bliss.

how are people being bigoted just because they don't want to go to?

The Koran can't be translated since it's the literal word of Mohamed as he spoke it. Once translated it's no longer the Koran.

Aha! Cheers for that.

I do wonder, the way this is (inevitably) heading, whether this splinter discussion should be taken to its own thread.

is heading??

it's a shame that people can't rationally debate religion on here without the usual loudmouthed teenage boys braying like Tories at PMQ's.

I suppose this is what it's like to be a fancy watch owner/coveter in a watch thread 😆

it's a shame that people can't rationally debate religion on here without the usual loudmouthed teenage boys braying like Tories at PMQ's.

Your image is the result of your own prejudicial overlaying onto sets of typed words, something you've seen on TV....

Cougar - a thread which started with the evident intention of sharing a piece of information is now at risk of turning into something else entirely and I can understand you considering hiving it off it elsewhere.
I'm in leeds where there are plenty of mosques but i didn't know 'Visit my Mosque' was on this Sunday until i read the post.
Why can't people just take it at face value and move on if all they are capable of comprises insults, ignorance and cheap shots.
Can't avoid thinking that the politics and religious threads provide a clear insight into the 'real person'.

Coug's have you checked the current RE syllabus at GSCE and A level?

Both mini THMs studied the subject at both levels and one has chosen to study some modules at Uni (although not majoring in it). I asked him why...because it addresses some of the most important questions that we face in life. Pretty good reason. He goes to listen to extra lectures because one of the profs wrote one of the core academic texts that he was required to study. He finds the lectures very stimulating and acedmaically challenging.

I guess we could take that all away. Perhaps I should feel guilty about allowing him to be exposed to such nonsense and stories of the sky fairy. Tough being a parent isn't it?

Steady. "Sky fairy" is apparently a "cheap shot"...

my eldest enjoys his RE classes at high school as its one of the few classes the students get to engage in discussions with the teacher rather than just listening. The RE classes discuss different religions not indoctrinate like faith schools do.

The Koran can't be translated since it's the literal word of Mohamed as he spoke it. Once translated it's no longer the Koran.

So that's why my (fairly old) printed copy I titled "The Meaning of the Illustrious Quran". Interesting.

Also, I wonder whether there would be any benefit in lumping religion in with philosophy as far as formal education is concerned. Both seek answers to questions that traditionally couldn't be answered by the more practical sciences/arts.

Cougar - Moderator
I dunno about that, y'know. Religion isn't a manifest of anything, it's a man-made construct

Aren't all man made constructs manifestations of needs or desires?

I reckon I could draw up a framework for a new religion in my lunch hour that had plenty of "be nice to each other" without all that messy raping and killing business.

Human nature again.
Any ideology which fails to take it into account is doomed to failure.
Life is complicated and organised religions offer a comfortable social structure and belief system.

The problem in a scientific, rational world occurs when people actually choose to start believing in them.
Once people are willing to ignore their own reality, those who wish to exploit them, can.

All religions go through periods of literalism and enlightenment and are equally vulnerable to exploitation.
Issues arise in a multifaith society when individual religions are at different stages of the process.

I'm a scientist, I believe in fact. If there was any factual evidence for anything in the bible, the Koran or the tora I would re-evaluate my position - see that critical thinking thing above

So does that mean you don't think people studying many of the humanities are capable of crictical thought? How narrow minded, which is a pretty appalling quality in a scientist. Brian Cox seems to have a much more sensible view

“Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive. There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b------s,” he says. “People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots. So you’ve got to at least address that.”

Nothing apparently Woppit.

So does that mean you don't think people studying many of the humanities are capable of crictical thought How narrow minded, which is a pretty appalling quality in a scientist. Brian Cox seems to have a much more sensible view

you can study religion without believing it.

There is no naivety in thinking there is no god, religion is mankind's first attempt to explain things. However, like a lot of first attempts born in ignorance it is wrong.

I'm not Brian Cox and I stand by my comment that faith means the purposeful suspension of critical thinking.

Nothing apparently Woppit.

Thanks. What?

Nah "Sky fairy" no cheap shot to me.

Just indicates as lack of knowledge were the person who used it, or it's like, STILL thinks that God is a beardy bloke sitting on a cloud... ?? (THM I presume you don't. And your use was merely a turn of phase)

As for you Cougar, me old pal 🙂

And that's problematic when one is using such a book as a guide to life.

You're a cyclist right?

Does that mean you like to ride a bike on the road? track? bmx? MTB? ... Hey maybe you're a fundamentalist recumbent or unicyclist. You being a cyclist doesn't limit you to one or all or any number ... you pick and choose as you wish.

And back on topic .... going to try and get to my local Mosque and due to take the U6s rugby practise sunday morning.... So thats Body and Soul exercised for sunday, just need to do something for my mind... actually gaining some understanding of a different religion, race and way of thinking about the world takes care of that too, wouldn't you say?

Peace, out

I stand by my comment that faith means the purposeful suspension of critical thinking.

I'm a scientist too and I disagree. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it is not real. To millions, nay billions of people worldwide 'God' is real even without the ability to exist in the physical world.

Yes, our understanding has moved on about whether the world was built in 7 days and whether Noah really was a master boat builder but that doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of a non-physical entity.

Is love real? I've never seen it, held it, tasted it in a physical sense - but I'm sure it exists because of the effect it has on people.

And (time travel is allowed here, right - I just can't think of a better example that everyone can follow) go back 5 years. Is the Higgs Boson real? It provides answers and rationale to a lot of questions and the evidence is there that it should exist but we've never actually seen one IRL, because our tools and equipment are not sufficiently advanced to see it.

That's kind of how i view religion, and God, as a mix of those things. To a lot of people it makes perfect sense and provide validation and answers to many of their questions, and just because I don't 'understand' it in the same way as them it doesn't mean I'm right and they're not. Maybe i just lack the equipment to understand it. Maybe one day i will have that ability just as billions of others already seem to, and as we as scientists now do with the Higgs boson now our powerful microscope is working.

I used to be a militant atheist, but as i've got older and wiser I'm now genuinely don't know. Sure, a lot of bad things are done in the name of religion, but also a lot of good things, and it's not religion per se that is to blame, it's people. As i said before, sometimes I wish i did have a faith because being a depressive in a life with NO meaning is a nasty place to be.

As for you Cougar, me old pal

'[i]And that's problematic when one is using such a book as a guide to life.[/i]'
You're a cyclist right?

Does that mean you like to ride a bike on the road? track? bmx? MTB? ... Hey maybe you're a fundamentalist recumbent or unicyclist. You being a cyclist doesn't limit you to one or all or any number ... you pick and choose as you wish.

Anyone?

you can study religion without believing it.

Ah so people who study theology who don't believe are capable of critical thought, but not the ones who have faith - that really makes sense. If critical thought was alien to religion, there would be no encouragement to study theology, let alone requirement to for priests and lay readers.

Is love real? I've never seen it, held it, tasted it in a physical sense - but I'm sure it exists because of the effect it has on people.

Isn't just a chemical trick to get us to reproduce?

The God things very tricky for me. Not really sure where I sit. I do think the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is very true. Certainly is for me, not a literal foxhole but when I have been in a couple of very dodgy situations and with time to think about it.

Back on topic.

A visit to a mosque can't be a "bad" thing. Got to help tolerance and understanding for some.

However, would you go to any other place, apart from the obvious ones, that had a policy of segregation?

Could be a question to ask why they segregate people when you visit?

The Koran can't be translated since it's the literal word of Mohamed as he spoke it. Once translated it's no longer the Koran.

Whatever. Just translate it from the Arabic version then...

The bible tells us that a 500 year old man and his 100 year old sons with no experience of boat building, constructed an ark that houses all the animals of the world and their food. This man eventually lived to 900 years old. Now this we know is complete and total bollox but the Christian religion tells us this is true and as a Christian this is one of the many stories in the bible that you are supposed to believe in. Lets not even get onto evolution, the age or the earth and universe, so tell me why I should give you a break?

What? 😯

There may be some crazy Christians who believe such things, but there are fundamentalists is ALL walks of life.

I can unequivocally assure you that mainstream Christianity does not declare such stories to be literally true, never mind evolution and the age of the earth/universe.

[i]A visit to a mosque can't be a "bad" thing. Got to help tolerance and understanding for some[/i]

Do you think the folk that need some 'tolerance and understanding' are likely to go? NF coach trip?

As an aside to Woppit, I am wondering: You said what you did above about watching paint dry (which was mildly amusing), but do you really think that certain sources of human culture are not worth studying or understanding because they deal with an idea that you yourself do not believe in?

I mean, how can a person wrestle with the world's great art and literature without having some knowledge of ancient Greek and Roman mythology, [i]as well as[/i] Christianity? And don't you think a person's perception is going to be enhanced the better s/he know his or her sources?

patriotpro
Whatever. Just translate it from the Arabic version then...

Point missed.

Do you think the folk that need some 'tolerance and understanding' are likely to go? NF coach trip?

No. Unless to cause trouble, i suppose.

But if by going, I can increase my understanding of something I find fascinating and perhaps demonstrate that I am tolerant and welcoming of other types of cultures and religions (or is that virtue signalling) then maybe that'll help both sides in the long run.

Q: can i go on a Gay pride march and support the LGBT community without actually being gay? My presence there is to show my support - I don't see this as any different. With the added benefit of WIDE selection of tea and biscuits.

Do you think the folk that need some 'tolerance and understanding' are likely to go?

Very possibly. Not the EDL and NF mob obviously.

I guess there are plenty of people, particularity the older generations, who have never had much interaction with other cultures and religions, who are ignorant of Islam but basically decent people, who could gain a lot.

(THM I presume you don't. And your use was merely a turn of phase)

I was extracting Michael from the absurdity of the thread

Still, got the mini's booked in to watch Woppit do his party trick. I hope it doesnt hurt

(or is that virtue signalling)

No because you are actually doing something, not just tweeting your support.

I can unequivocally assure you that mainstream Christianity does not declare such stories to be literally true, never mind evolution and the age of the earth/universe.

Which branch of Christianity?

So everything in the bible isn't literal or true then? Even if you don't literally believe everything in the bible, the big one, a belief In a god only requires faith with no evidence required and faith is the suspension of critical thinking.

It's funny how church's change their teachings according to public opinion and fact.

So a religion that is getting bad press at the minute is opening its doors to try and build relations.

That was my take on it too.

I think there's a mosque down in Portsmouth, but I wouldn't drive into Portsmouth to visit a mountain bike shop, let alone a mosque.

Portsmouthist. 😉

Too right

It's funny how church's change their teachings according to public opinion and fact.

Only if you miss the point. Religion evolves, like everything else.

Which branch of Christianity?

So everything in the bible isn't literal or true then? Even if you don't literally believe everything in the bible, the big one, a belief In a god only requires faith with no evidence required and faith is the suspension of critical thinking.

It's funny how church's change their teachings according to public opinion and fact.

1. I said [i]mainstream[/i] Christianity. That would be Orthodox, RC, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Reformed, Methodist, and even some evangelical communities such as certain Baptist, Mennonite, and other groups. Each of these Churches will also include their more fundamentalist types, but that brings me back to one of my original comments: that ALL gatherings of human beings have their fundamentalist types.

2. That is correct. Christians do not believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. As stated many times before: the Bible is made up of many books representing many different genres of writing. Each of these genres is read differently. Think of the Bible as more of a library than a single volume. You don't go into your local library and assume every book in their should be read in exactly the same way, do you?

3. Faith is NOT a suspension of critical thinking. It is an entirely different, and philosophically legitimate, epistemological category. It is true to say that it believes a premise without 'evidence', but it does not follow to say that it is therefore the suspension of critical thinking.

4. Churches don't change their teachings 'according to public opinion and fact'. The central tenets of the Christian religion took at least four, and up to eight centuries to articulate, and these are accepted by all Christian Churches. Other, peripheral, questions have always been open to debate.

I'm a scientist too and I disagree. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it is not real...............

if there is no evidence to suggest the something is real then yes its not currently real. There is no evidence at all to suggest a god(s) are real at this current time. There isn't even a cohesive hypothesis to suggest there could be god either like there was with the higgs boson.

oh and Time travel is possible

Think of the Bible as more of a library than a single volume. You don't go into your local library and assume every book in their should be read in exactly the same way, do you?

when the book in question is considered factual and true then yes.

3. Faith is NOT a suspension of critical thinking. It is an entirely different, and philosophically legitimate, epistemological category. It is true to say that it believes a premise without 'evidence', but it does not follow to say that it is therefore the suspension of critical thinking.

you clearly don't understand what critical thinking means.

4. Churches don't change their teachings 'according to public opinion and fact'. The central tenets of the Christian religion took at least four, and up to eight centuries to articulate, and these are accepted by all Christian Churches. Other, peripheral, questions have always been open to debate

erm slavery, homosexuality (some branches), woman priests (some branches). point one and two also fall under this category.

you clearly don't understand what critical thinking means.

Um, I think you'll find I do.

erm slavery, homosexuality (some branches), woman priests (some branches).

[b]Other, peripheral, questions have always been open to debate[/b]

Faith is NOT a suspension of critical thinking. It is an entirely different, and philosophically legitimate, epistemological category.

Is it possible to think critically about a novel? Something that's entirely made up?

There is no evidence at all to suggest a god(s) are real at this current time.

Again, this isn't really the point. There's no evidence to suggest that there isn't a God, and I can't see how that could be conclusively proved. You may be able to prove that God is not like the bible says it is, but that's a different thing.

Given that it is impossible to prove the existence or otherwise of any kind of God, it is therefore absolutely a matter of faith. It cannot really be anything else, can it?

I can unequivocally assure you that mainstream Christianity does not declare such stories to be literally true, never mind evolution and the age of the earth/universe.

They kinda steered away from the flood after the sunday school years but it was preached to the kids as true and never retracted later. The first time I heard "well that bits allegorical" was after deciding it was all cobblers and questioning it.

<Edit> actually thinking back I seem to remember a chat with an affable chap who was running the (faith based obviously) holiday our youth group was on, I was getting disillusioned and questioning a lot, he did a decent job of fielding a lot of them, reckon he probably did talk about the "not literal" aspect. But that's half my point, it was only through questioning that I got a "ok, well maybe not strictly true" if I hadn't questioned...

I remember it differently.

So here's the thing. We can chinwag on here about why someone's car might not be working, but when a professinoal mechanic turns up, we listen to their opinion, cos they do it for a living, right? When someone asks if expensive oil is worth it, people come along with stuff they've read or what dave down the pub said, but then a lubricant engineer comes on and sets us straight. We love it when an expert turns up to provide proper sound information to us interested amateurs. We think it's a great thing about STW.

This is the same situation. You may or may not believe in God, but you can't dispute that SaxonRider is professionally informed on theology and church teaching, and knows more than the average church goer. In the same way that a keen gym-goer and men's health reader could give good advice about weight training, but they don't have a PhD in exercise physology.

Or in other words, there are good priests and bad ones, and intelligent church goers and thick ones.

Point missed.

Eh?

[img] [/img]

They kinda steered away from the flood after the sunday school years but it was preached to the kids as true and never retracted later. The first time I heard "well that bits allegorical" was after deciding it was all cobblers and questioning it.

There is an expectation that kids eventually do what you did: that is, begin to question.

Wordsworth wrote these lines about London:

EARTH has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth like a garment wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky;
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.
Never did sun more beautifully steep
In his first splendour valley, rock, or hill;
Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!
The river glideth at his own sweet will:
Dear God! the very houses seem asleep;
And all that mighty heart is lying still!

Why did he write them? Did he literally mean that there is nothing on Earth so beautiful? When he referred to the smokeless air, what was he talking about? It's pretty smoky now!

My point is, of course, that, if you had this poem read to you as a kid, your parent (or whomever) will just have let it sit with you... inform you... move you...

When you were older, you began to explore the poem more deeply - for its meaning and for its literary conventions, etc.

Well, that is what Christians do, and would be expected to do with various bits of the Bible.

and intelligent church goers and thick ones.

😳 8)

Saxon Rider is wonderfully articulate.

Me, I just shot from the hip of my experience.

but you can't dispute that SaxonRider is professionally informed, and knows more than the average church goer.

Would be interesting to know how many people with similar history feel the same way. I mean there's a whole load of shizzle in the bible that I reckon is complete BS so differentiating between allegorical BS and "No that def happened" BS and knowing the churches line on it is going to prove tricky huh?

well saxonrider may know the official church line but that's not necessarily in line with what happens in church every week is it?

That's what I was alluding to. But for the same reason people shouldn't accuse the Church of something just because they heard a priest say it 20 years ago.

I mean there's a whole load of shizzle in the bible that I reckon is complete BS so differentiating between allegorical BS and "No that def happened" BS and knowing the churches line on it is going to prove tricky huh?

You are free to shop around with priests I believe 🙂

Other, peripheral, questions have always been open to debate

slavery...the owning of humans by other humans as property...prepheral...right. 😯

changes my view of you, TBH

if there is no evidence to suggest the something is real then yes its not currently real

1/ Something can be 'real' while still being a hypothetical construct. Just because it doesn't obey the constraints of physical existence does not disallow it. Is love real?

2/ Billions of people will provide evidence to suggest that it is real. Just because it doesn't fit your narrow minded scientific requirements doesn't mean it isn't valid.

3/ Can you say with absolute certainty that at some point in the future, you, I, all the other billions, will not 'see' God? Maybe when our ability to see God catches up with the way in which God can be seen? Until that point - I cannot say for certainty one way or another.

There is an expectation that kids eventually do what you did: that is, begin to question.

I think the trouble with that approach is there are also lots of people who never get to that stage, never question and don't think other people should either.

For example, regarding the "allegorical" flood:
http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/about-us/earth-history/

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/universe-hologram-holographic-evidence-3d-astrophysics-university-of-southampton-a7553766.html ]No shit?[/url]

1/ Something can be 'real' while still being a hypothetical construct. Just because it doesn't obey the constraints of physical existence does not disallow it. Is love real?

love, happiness, sadness are chemical changes in the brain. They are real. my happiness can be changed by taking or stopping my SSRI medication.

2/ Billions of people will provide evidence to suggest that it is real. Just because it doesn't fit your narrow minded scientific requirements doesn't mean it isn't valid.

billions of people believing in something does not make it real. I am not narrow minded, if the evidence situation was to change I would re-evaluate my thoughts on the existence of a god. Its pretty sad that you call scientific methods narrow minded.

3/ Can you say with absolute certainty that at some point in the future, you, I, all the other billions, will not 'see' God? Maybe when our ability to see God catches up with the way in which God can be seen? Until that point - I cannot say for certainty one way or another.

no I can't but I didn't say it wouldn't change. However, given the amount of current evidence to suggest there is a god, its more likely the theory of evolution will be overturned first.

You being a cyclist doesn't limit you to one or all or any number ... you pick and choose as you wish.

Which is kinda what I was getting at. Doing something "because it says so in the Bible" was all well and good 1,500 years ago but a lot of it is at odds with modern life, either culturally or because Science. You can pick and choose, sure, but how do you know what the important bits are and what can safely be ignored? Surely you have to infer that either it's fact or fiction in its entirety, otherwise it's Just A Book. How can you believe that the son of god really walked the Earth a couple of millennia ago when your source of reference describes the physical world in a manner we know now to be patently false? How do we know that Jesus isn't an allegory himself?

Christians do not believe that everything in the Bible is literally true.

This may be true now, but it's revisionist. When the Bible was still in short pants, it was absolutely supposed to be true. Word of God, and all that. People were murdered in droves for even suggesting otherwise. Galileo suggested the Earth orbited the Sun and spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for Heresy because of it.

I kinda wish the Vatican / whoever had just gone "yeah, we got that bit wrong, sorry about that" rather than moving the goalposts and saying it's a metaphor. As science marches ever onward it just feels a bit... desperate I suppose.

There's no evidence to suggest that there isn't a God, and I can't see how that could be conclusively proved.

Come now Molly, you and I both know how this one ends. Burden of proof, impossible to prove a negative, Russell's Teapot and invisible pink unicorns living in my skirting board. (-:

slavery...the owning of humans by other humans as property...prepheral...right.

Peripheral. Yes. Compared to the central [i]religious[/i] questions about the nature of God as embodied in the Christian creeds, then of course peripheral.

The early Christians didn't sit down and start discussing how they understand issues that would eventually prevail upon society as being important. They sat down and talked about what actually made them Christians - that is, what they believed about God.

And then they ran away before getting arrested and used to light up Nero's garden parties.

I don't know what you thought of me before, but you can't seriously suggest that when I called moral issues (that weren't even thought of at the time as moral issues) secondary to the religious questions of a nascent religion somehow diminished my character. 😕

love, happiness, sadness are chemical changes in the brain. They are real. my happiness can be changed by taking or stopping my SSRI medication.

Is Philosophy real?

Is there a difference between a wonderful poem and a prozac wrapped in a newspaper?

Come now Molly, you and I both know how this one ends.

No, we know how you think it ends.

Burden of proof relates to someone who is trying to assert the existence or otherwise of God. My point is not *how* to prove God exists, rather that proving is impossible. So I don't need to provide proof because I don't think such a thing exists.

I had another reply I think, but it got lost somewhere in my head. In the meantime,

I do think the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is very true.

I think it's wishful thinking on the part of the theists, desperately trying to convince people that atheists are really secret believers. Any priests sniffing round my death bed hoping for a last-minute conversion will be disappointed and sent on their way.

I think the trouble with that approach is there are also lots of people who never get to that stage, never question and don't think other people should either.

I agree, which is why it is important for religious leaders to teach well. Unfortunately, not all appear to do so.

This may be true now, but it's revisionist. When the Bible was still in short pants, it was absolutely supposed to be true. People were murdered in droves for even suggesting otherwise.

Cougar, I have tried in past threads to illustrate how this is not accurate. I can't deliver an entire course on the history of exegesis on STW, but I think maybe I should. Alas, you'll just have to do an online tutorial with me. 😉

That's basically the Cliff Notes, isn't it?

Secondary to the religious questions of a nascent religion somehow diminished my character.

well yeah, it sort of undermines your earlier point where you tried to argue that religions don't move with the times, and now you're saying that early Christians in their deliberations about the nature of God didn't think to include Slaves...A group of folk at the very heart of the beginning of the Christian movement, and a dangerous one at that, as the WHOLE POINT of Christianity is the fact the everyone's equal, that slaves and not masters (without some serious work) could get to Heaven easier. One of the very reasons it was so appealing and gathered momentum so quickly

So to say Slavery was peripheral...hmmm

Cougs, excuse me if I have missed your reply, Hv, earlier you suggested what you would like the RE syllabus to look like. I asked if you knew the details of the current syllabus in the hope of understanding where you felt it fell short.

Dont bother answering if you dont want to and excuse me if you have done so already.

If philosophy real

Yes, it's the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Oh yeah, likening god as a concept to things like love.

I'll happily concede that "god" may well be a mental / chemical construct inside us, in so far as when you're "praying to god" in reality you're giving yourself a good talking to, telling you to pull your socks up or that everything's going to be ok, or that you've done your bit for little Timmy who's in hospital. After you're done, you feel better about things, your god has helped. Similar to how meditation works I suppose, or mindfulness, or climbing up a hill to get away from it all.

Like love you can't measure it, but you can't deny that you feel different either. But going from that to a big beardy white bloke hiding behind a cloud is too big a leap for me I'm afraid.

I asked if you knew the details of the current syllabus in the hope of understanding where you felt it fell short.

Sorry, you did, and I forgot (I read a few pages sitting in a dentist's waiting room earlier, hence the splurge now).

Short answer is no, I don't. I don't have kids so the last time I looked at a syllabus is probably about 30 years ago. I was really just thinking out loud with reference to my own schooling, I didn't intend to criticise what's currently being taught as I've no idea.

Galileo suggested the Earth orbited the Sun and spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for Heresy because of it.

Bible doesn't seem to assert geocentricism...?

where you tried to argue that religions don't move with the times

No, he said that it doesn't change to reflect popular sentiment. And then he went on to say that the central theological tenets are stable. Which isn't quite what you are talking about.

Is it really just me that understands what SaxonRider says?

"Dont bother answering if you dont want to and excuse me if you have done so already".

[img] [/img]

A lot of posts from a small number of posters and most of very limited relevance or usefulness;
Saxonrider, theotherjonv & ernie_lynch excepted from that with cougs and molgrips also being (generally) excepted.
For those who make the effort to visit a mosque on sunday - self included - would be good to share what impression it makes.
Right, just off to leeds cathedral for some quiet contemplation - and smell the incense......

it sort of undermines your earlier point where you tried to argue that religions don't move with the times

No. You had originally suggested that central Christian teaching (e.g. Biblical exegesis) changed to suit the time and place, and I responded by distinguishing between what I called central [i]religious[/i] teaching (that doesn't change), and secondary teaching, that most certainly develops and addresses issues as they arise.