Marx is wrong 1

[monkeydust]

Well i think the CofE is as independent as possible - whilst still remaining essentially, one church.


Right.

At least we've established now that the CofE is an example of organised religion, irrespective of whether you consider it the pinnacle of lenience in such organisation.


What reactionary values?


The usual.

The establishement of the male as the naturally 'dominant' sex (in all areas of social life).

The incessant drive to make abortions illegal, to the point of attacking doctors who partake in such practices.

The oppression of homosexuals.

The list goes on.



OR

We come together because we have similar beliefs. I don't know what it is like in your area, but religion is "uncool" around here. There arn't any christians trying to talk to me ever.


Or both. I never claimed that spreading religion was the only function of organised religion, though it's certainly one of its key aspects.

Do you know of any major religions who do not, or have not tried to spread their influence in order to gain new 'believers'?



I dislike organised religion when it does that. Thus why i said i'm against the evils of it.
I don't believe the CofE does that though at all.

I don't know what CofE you belong to.

Back when I was at school Church was compulsory, religious speakers came into school (especially in primary school) and learning about (the 'nice' aspects of) Christianity was compulsory.



Thus, no - gay christian marriages shouldn't take place.


You're in the minority (of Christians) if you hold this opinion.

In fact nearly all Christians wish to ban any form of homosexual marriage, that is, if they can't stamp out homosexuality altogether (by any measn necessary).

Recently in Australia a consitutional amendment was made to outlaw gay marriages.........and guess who was suporting the proposals all the way.... :blink:


Where have i supported these 'nazi' christians?


You're a Christian.

You're part of their 'group' whether you like it or not.

To give another parallel.

Even if I disliked Hitler, would it be 'Okay' for me to support the Nazi ideology?


Christians don't follow the rules and orders of the Olt T.


Since when?

I'm aware that you value the teachings of Christ more than the Old testament. Though that isn't to say you ignore it completely, not at all.

Many Christians always extoll the 'ten commandments' as the 'way to live', for example.


I follow the teachings of jesus - not moses' law.
Same applies to all actual christians.


Not in my village......


Yes; i don't think i can understand God completely at the moment


wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about the Bible


A) according to the bible? Lets have some quotes please


How about I start asking some questions.

Give one example of Jesus talking to someone who was literate.


B) Prove this claim: "always illiterate"


All our Ancient sources dating to the time of Jesus (and thereabouts) are consistentin the claim that 'ordinary folk' were not given the opportunity to learn the basics of literacy.

Most literate people were from the upper echelons of Roman society.

There were some who were 'ordinary' Roman citizens.

They were even a few who reputedly could read and write, yet were only 'Latin' citizens.

Yet the people of Judea were fiercely independent, and didn't even want Roman citizenship, with the benefits it brings (including the possibility of an education).

Like it or not, the people Jesus met were illiterate.


and use the bible to justify this claim.


Where?

[redstar2000]

Support these claims please.

Easily.


Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

These are probably the clearest verses from the New Testament on the subject.

The moral is obvious: God hurts us to correct our behavior and Christians should accept this. Likewise, fathers hurt their sons for the same reason. Both do it out of "love".

As I noted in my previous post, Jesus never repudiates this kind of "morality"...or at least of those things that were claimed that he said, there's nothing to the effect of "but I sayeth unto you, don't beat your kids!".

As to the association of Jesus and eternal damnation, I would think that would be self-evident. The idea of "Hell" as a place of punishment for sinners is "un-Jewish"...I don't think there's anything in the Old Testament to justify it. Indeed, any kind of after-life is "out-of-place" in Jewish theology...to the extent that the idea was "floating around" in the early years of the first century, it was probably an incoherent mixture of Greek and Persian ideas.

Face it: Hell was invented by Christians, specifically by Yeshuah ben-Yosif "H"imself.


But you know how they are the tools of capitalism, repression and...
blah blah blah [insert random yet "cool" anti state gibberish] blah blah blah

I'm sorry, but "speaking in tongues" is not considered an acceptable "argument" on this board.


Have you actually read the "evidence" on that website?

I think you should have done so before you posted it - but you didn't: and now you just look like someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Funny that, eh?

Since you found the site I recommended inexplicably unsatisfactory, try this one...

Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html)

As a bonus, they have the Koran and The Book of Mormon as well.


I'm afraid that St Peter is the "judge".

I'm afraid you're another one of those Christians that doesn't even know your own "holy book".


2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;


The wedding I went to did not use the word obey, you know why? Because society has changed since the original marriage system.

I thought the "Word of God" was "eternal". :lol:


So in fact you are talking about something you have no experience with, basing your evidence upon isolated high profile cases and propaganda you have been provided with?

I have a pretty good idea that shit tastes bad; I don't actually have to eat it to nail down my case.

We've had 17 centuries of "isolated high-profile cases".

Enough is enough!


If you are going to try to make up shite to "back up" your arguments I really don't see a point in talking to you.

I've made up nothing; it is you who have come to this leftist board spouting a bunch of reactionary superstitious crap -- all of which is "made-up shite"!

Do I spam your message boards?

No.

Do I stand on the streetcorner near your building with a bullhorn and scream at you to "become communist" or "burn in fascism"?

No.

Have I defaced your urban landscape with ugly monuments to servile superstition?

No.

Why don't you take your moronic message over to jesuslovessuckers.com?

And not talk to me...ever!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Funky Monk]

Im not a Christian mate.

And St Peter is the gatekeeper. He reads the book and decides who goes to heaven.


Since when is the word of god confused with ceremony? Surely you can realise that a multitude of interpretations have recognised that ceremony isnt important?





QUOTE
If you are going to try to make up shite to "back up" your arguments I really don't see a point in talking to you.



I've made up nothing; it is you who have come to this leftist board spouting a bunch of reactionary superstitious crap -- all of which is "made-up shite"!

Do I spam your message boards?

No.

Do I stand on the streetcorner near your building with a bullhorn and scream at you to "become communist" or "burn in fascism"?

No.

Have I defaced your urban landscape with ugly monuments to servile superstition?

No.

Why don't you take your moronic message over to jesuslovessuckers.com?

And not talk to me...ever!


I think you seem to be losing the plot here. Have i tried to convert anyone? Why would i since i dont practice the religion?


Have i sprouted any anti-communist doctrine?


I don't even know where your landscape is let alone defaced it.

Unless you are referring to the insides of your head.

[James]

Right.

At least we've established now that the CofE is an example of organised religion, irrespective of whether you consider it the pinnacle of lenience in such organisation.


Of course it is an grouping - thus tech an organised religion - but i have never considered it "that" sort of "organised religion" which jesus himself attacks.


The usual.

The establishement of the male as the naturally 'dominant' sex (in all areas of social life).

The incessant drive to make abortions illegal, to the point of attacking doctors who partake in such practices.

The oppression of homosexuals.

The list goes on.



How did the CofE do this? It has female vicars etc
And i think the male dominance has more to do with society - not the organisation.

Abortions illegal? Well i don't see the CofE campaigning for this all the time. If ever. Do you??
Do the CofE attack those involved?
:S
Oppression of homosexuals? The bible simply says it is a sin - like other things. Its not because of the CofE. I don't think you understand the concept of being a protestant. How does the CofE "oppress" them anyway?


Do you know of any major religions who do not, or have not tried to spread their influence in order to gain new 'believers'?


Do you know of any grouping which does not try to do so?
The CofE is very quite around here. You must live in an exceptional area.


Back when I was at school Church was compulsory, religious speakers came into school (especially in primary school) and learning about (the 'nice' aspects of) Christianity was compulsory.

I think this has got alot to do with your parents.
Yes i too went to a religious primary - but i wouldn't consider it "heavy". I don't know any of those who went there who are now christians.


You're in the minority (of Christians) if you hold this opinion.

In fact nearly all Christians wish to ban any form of homosexual marriage, that is, if they can't stamp out homosexuality altogether (by any measn necessary).

Recently in Australia a consitutional amendment was made to outlaw gay marriages.........and guess who was suporting the proposals all the way....


I'm totally against any form of gay christian marriage. If they wish for equal legal rights - then fine. But not actual christian marriage.

These are two seperate issues. One is religious - and the other is legal.



You're a Christian.

You're part of their 'group' whether you like it or not.

To give another parallel.

Even if I disliked Hitler, would it be 'Okay' for me to support the Nazi ideology?


What aload of rubbish mate. When have i supported any of them?

You are being silly now - on the level of those morons who think all leftists are stalinists ("well your a leftist - your in that group whether you like it or not").
Or if your white it means your responsible for all white actions. Or your english, so are responsible for the imperialist evils of the world.

Its naive - and rather stupid.


Since when?

I'm aware that you value the teachings of Christ more than the Old testament. Though that isn't to say you ignore it completely, not at all.

Many Christians always extoll the 'ten commandments' as the 'way to live', for example.


I wish you'd actually read what i posted about the new covenant; the old t was fullfilled, and jesus brought a new law and order. We acknowledge the old t - but we don't follow it. If we did; then we wouldnt' be christian.

You are doing what i used to do - posting nasty bits of the old t blindly to try and score some points.

I and christians follow jesus. Jesus teaches against both of the quotes you posted.
You want some evidence?


Not in my village......

They still stone people??

Why don't you point out to them what jesus had to say about juding people.


wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about the Bible



The same applies. It doesn't pretend to know him inside out. Where have you got this crazy idea from?


How about I start asking some questions.

Give one example of Jesus talking to someone who was literate.


He talks to all classes mate. Everyone from prostitutes and fishermen, to high priests and Kings.

Prove that he "only" talked to those who couldn't write. Sadly the bible doesn't say "and jesus spoke to the crowd - 32% of which had a GCSE in English".



All our Ancient sources dating to the time of Jesus (and thereabouts) are consistentin the claim that 'ordinary folk' were not given the opportunity to learn the basics of literacy.

Most literate people were from the upper echelons of Roman society.

There were some who were 'ordinary' Roman citizens.

They were even a few who reputedly could read and write, yet were only 'Latin' citizens.

Yet the people of Judea were fiercely independent, and didn't even want Roman citizenship, with the benefits it brings (including the possibility of an education).

Like it or not, the people Jesus met were illiterate.



But jesus didn't just meet the lower classes of judea... again this is a classic example of you going off popular misconceptions. I suggest you actually read the thing.


Where?

When he speaks about the holy spirit...

[James]

These are probably the clearest verses from the New Testament on the subject.

Which i'd like to add isn't from jesus...

I suggest you exit that website; pick up a bible - and actually read these bits. It would stop you from making such a fool of yourself. Look at the context.
Hebrews 12 talks about the ordeal of being a christian (valid when you consider how they were fed to lions - and are victimised by ignorant people...). It gets across the idea that god is like any father who disciplines his son. I don't know of any father who doesn't discipline his son.. do you? Actually i do - they usually have spoilt kids who don't know how to interact with other people.

If discipline means not turning into selfish wankers - then i'm all for it.
As i'm sure your communist utopia would be.




As I noted in my previous post, Jesus never repudiates this kind of "morality"...or at least of those things that were claimed that he said, there's nothing to the effect of "but I sayeth unto you, don't beat your kids!".

He never supports it.
I suggest you read john 8 - that sums up jesus's teachings rather well mate.


As to the association of Jesus and eternal damnation, I would think that would be self-evident. The idea of "Hell" as a place of punishment for sinners is "un-Jewish"...I don't think there's anything in the Old Testament to justify it. Indeed, any kind of after-life is "out-of-place" in Jewish theology...to the extent that the idea was "floating around" in the early years of the first century, it was probably an incoherent mixture of Greek and Persian ideas.

Face it: Hell was invented by Christians, specifically by Yeshuah ben-Yosif "H"imself.

He (jesus) had an actual place in mind: Valley of Hinnom, south west of jerusalem. Basically a pagan area - where there were sacrifices to Meloch (leviticus 18:21)
By C1stAD jews were using the place as a metaphor for everlasting punishment for the wicked.


I'm sorry, but "speaking in tongues" is not considered an acceptable "argument" on this board.


And speaking with authority about something you have never even experianced IS??
yeah...


Since you found the site I recommended inexplicably unsatisfactory, try this one...


That last site was so misleading - taking quotes out of context, ignoring christian concepts and practises etc etc
Hope this next one will be a bit more advanced.

[James]

well "redstar" - i wasn't suprised to find it is just as poor.

Please highlight some areas you think are worthy of discussion - there is simply far too much for me to address everything.

[monkeydust]

How did the CofE do this? It has female vicars etc

And i think the male dominance has more to do with society - not the organisation

Yes the CofE does have female Vicars.

Yet females are not allowed to enter the higher echelons of the church. The Archbishop, for example, must be male.

Moreover, in supporting the Bible, the CofE establishes the male as 'dominant' (in all areas of social life). If only because of phrases concerning the fact that women should 'submit' to their husbands at all times.


Abortions illegal? Well i don't see the CofE campaigning for this all the time. If ever. Do you??


Not so much as Catholics, but yes I do.

I'm not referring so much to blatant methods as "protest marches" and the like.

Rather, the CofE exerts whatever influence it can to prevent abortion, though they've largely 'given in' on the issue, due to lack of popular support .

To give but one example the bishops in the House of Lords (usually around 10 or so) have always vehemently opposed any legislation concerning abortion. They were starkly opposed to the inital act legalising it (1967?) and all further amendments, which served to make abortion a more widespread practice.

Please don't try and tell me that Bishops aren't real members of the CofE, I've had enough of such pedantry.


Oppression of homosexuals? The bible simply says it is a sin - like other things.

Agreed.


Its not because of the CofE

No, the CofE isn't the root of the oppression, though, as you say, the CofE upholds the Bible, and, as you say "The bible simply says it is a sin ".


Do you know of any grouping which does not try to do so?


These guys for starters: very scary (http://www.boybliss.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi).


I think this has got alot to do with your parents.


My parents weren't religious.


Yes i too went to a religious primary - but i wouldn't consider it "heavy".

My primary (and secondary) schools were very much the 'norm' at the time. They certainly weren't overtly, or officially Christian schools. Yet still, religious references were ubiquitous, Church was compulsory a few times a year etc.

I'm also aware that religious studies is still compulsory up to GCSE level (even though a modeern language is soon to become optional). Christianity is the main topic studied; only the 'nicer' aspects make it onto the syllabus, however.


I'm totally against any form of gay christian marriage. If they wish for equal legal rights - then fine. But not actual christian marriage.


Again you're in the minority.

Most Christians don't want anything near equal rights for such groups.


What aload of rubbish mate. When have i supported any of them?


You're a Christian.

You're part of their 'group' whether you like it or not.


You are being silly now - on the level of those morons who think all leftists are stalinists ("well your a leftist - your in that group whether you like it or not").
Or if your white it means your responsible for all white actions. Or your english, so are responsible for the imperialist evils of the world.


That's not really a fair comparison with what I said.

An equivalent statement might be for me to say "you're religious, so you're a Christian".

However, that's not what I said at all.

You're a Christian, therefore you support Christianity, whichever way you wish to put things.


We acknowledge the old t - but we don't follow it.

Who is this mysterious 'we'.

Most Christians I know adhere fairly closely to the teachings of the Old testament, just nowhere near as strongly as they follow the Gospels and Jesus' teachings.


They still stone people??


If you want to take what I said out of context then go right ahead.


Why don't you point out to them what jesus had to say about juding people.


Because I don't know what juding is.

If that's some kind of 'Bible lingo' then I've certainly never heard of it.


The same applies. It doesn't pretend to know him inside out. Where have you got this crazy idea from?


I already stated that it doesn't need to claim to know him "inside out" for the point remain relevant.

Again I will repeat the initial criticism:

In the Bible, all of the attributes commonly assosciated with transcendence - especially those attributed by religious doctrine suffer from the fatal flaw that they attempt to make comprehensible, analagous references to a being which Christians admit is wholly beyond the scope of their ability to reason. This results in a whole lexicon of completely meaningless phrases concerning the nature of metaphysical reality.

Do you deny that there is truth in this criticism. Yes or no?


He talks to all classes mate. Everyone from prostitutes and fishermen, to high priests and Kings.


Right, I gather that this is what you believe, though I asked for an example for you to clarify your point. AndI still haven't got that.


But jesus didn't just meet the lower classes of judea... again this is a classic example of you going off popular misconceptions. I suggest you actually read the thing.


Again, that is not what I said.

As I stated, nearly all Judean classes, were illiterate, simply because they shunned the possibilities of education which Roman citizenship (only really available to upper classes or those who have served as auxilliaries in the army anyway) brought.


When he speaks about the holy spirit...

From my, albeit limited knowledge of the Qu'ran, I cannot recall any information concerning the holy spirit in which the Bible is given as a fundamental basis for Islam's divine legitimacy.

Have you any more specific phrases/examples?

[redstar2000]

It gets across the idea that god is like any father who disciplines his son. I don't know of any father who doesn't discipline his son...do you? Actually I do - they usually have spoilt kids who don't know how to interact with other people.

The mask comes off!

It is "moral" to "discipline" (beat!) your kids.

Because otherwise they'll turn out to be "spoilt"...that is, disobedient, rebellious, and possibly even atheist.

Or, as Hebrews puts it, "bastards!"


If discipline means not turning into selfish wankers - then I'm all for it.

Of course you are; you're a Christian, aren't you? Do not pretend that it is not obvious what you mean by "selfish wanker"...it means a kid that uses his/her own mind and doesn't swallow your crap!

A few good thrashings will teach that kid obedience to authority, right?

Blowing away the fog of "love" shows Christianity's reality...clerical fascism!


He never supports it [beating your kids].

Yes and "He" never repudiates it either...and "He" found plenty of things to repudiate when "He" wanted to.

"His" silence on the matter is presumptive evidence of "His" approval.


That last site was so misleading - taking quotes out of context, ignoring Christian concepts and practises etc., etc.
Hope this next one will be a bit more advanced...well "redstar" - I wasn't surprised to find it is just as poor.

The words are plainly written in your own "holy book". If you don't like them, that is not the fault of the sites.

If you don't like straight-forward readings of what they say but would rather surround them with a fog of "interpretation"...then I'm afraid nothing will help you.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

I'm not a Christian mate.

You've posted a massive amount of pure crap in defense of Christianity in this thread.

If you're "not" a Christian, why'd you do that?

If you post "as if" you were a Christian and then assert that you're not one, when are you telling the truth?

When are we supposed to believe that you are posting your "real" views?


Have I tried to convert anyone?

Yes, right here...


Try some methodists or evangelicals. Posted by Funky Monk on May 27, 2004

Not to mention your "harping" on "personal experience" as the "only" "legitimate" grounds on which to evaluate Christianity.

As if I had to join a neo-Nazi group for "a few years" before I could "fairly" say that Nazism was shit.

You (and in a more restrained way, James) are trolling for converts.

Both of you really belong in Opposing Ideologies.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Funky Monk]

I do it because you are sprouting "Pure Crap" about the Christian religion. And quite frankly your argument that you can explain it without experience of it is laughable.

Who is to say that i post "as if" i was a true Christian? Think you are reading a little to much into this.

Where have i tried to convert anyone? You are getting paranoid. You think that quote is an attempt at conversion, dredging the barrel a bit. Seriously, it would take a complete twat to interpret that phrase as an attempted conversion. You said you had never experienced a Christian sect which did not preach your idea of adherrence to society, i was merely offering you some examples which you may like to witness to allow you to gain a broader view. Obviously your narrow mind wouldnt be able to cope with that.

Still using the Nazi analogy? It's not impressing anyone you know. Its like me saying that left wing politics is shite without ever having any direct experience of it. Like i would base all my opinions on Communism from information i have read from a fascist website.

[Dune Dx]

why should a vicar In the church od England be forced to marry a gay couple if he doesnt agree with what their doing?

[DaCuBaN]

As if I had to join a neo-Nazi group for "a few years" before I could "fairly" say that Nazism was shit.

Well, in all honesty, to make a fair judgement, you would have to join up. Anything else wouldn't be fair. But we can still judge based on information that others have acrued, so we do not have to tarnish ourselves in this fashion.

So it does become a form of hear-say

Religion is a problem of course, but it's all back to the idea of the 'revolution of the mind'revolution of the mind. These people still believe they are the 'chosen ones' for starters (quite worrying). Religion has evolved a considerable amount - it's had to to avoid becoming totally defunct - but it's still pandering to those who fear their own, or the demise of their loved ones; those who refuse to see the inherant ills in mankind.

Simply put, I assert that this problem will continue until we have evolution of the mind.

[James]

Moreover, in supporting the Bible, the CofE establishes the male as 'dominant' (in all areas of social life). If only because of phrases concerning the fact that women should 'submit' to their husbands at all times.


This is utter rubbish. Yes - society is dominated by males; so yes this does spill into the church.
The bible is not so though.

Popular misconceptions
1)
Man was made in god's image - yes; but it means male and female. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

2)
"Just helpers"
No - The Hebrew word translated "helper" is ezer, in 2 instances in Genesis, ezer refers to the woman Eve. Interestingly 16 of the other 19 instances the word is used in the old t is used to describe God 'Himself'. Thus the term cannot be said to represent some sort of lower role. Also, regarding the phrase "helper suitable for him"; the translation "suitable" is not the most common translation for the Hebrew word. In fact, the most common translation is "opposite." Anyone who is married knows that their spouse is often completely opposite from themselves. Or are you special left?

3)
"Just mothers"
Deborah - judge and leader of Israel.

Number of women are described as being prophetesses.

Often involved in teaching the "word of god" or serving as deaconesses in the early Christian church.

Esther - became queen of Persia. The Bible says Esther had "come to royal position for such a time as this" - thus to christians is seen to be destined by god to save the Jews.

etc etc

4)
"Jesus didn't try to change the sexist society he came into" (Redstar likes this idea)
Rabbis were not meant to have contact with women by convention (some still follow this). Jesus shocked many of his followers by breaking down this boundary erected by man;
john 4
john 8
matthew 8:15
matthew 27:55-56
matthew 28:5-6
mark 15:40-41
mark 16:5-6
mark 16:9
luke 8:1-3

5)
"Submit"
women belongs to her husband - and a man belongs to his wife
And all christians are meant to "submit to one another" (Ephesians 5:21)

6)
"Male dominance"
The old t refers to god's people as female - Isaiah 62:11, Zechariah 2:10, Zechariah 9:9
Christian church is refered to as being female - Ephesians 5:25



Even though the world does not treat humans as equals we are equal spiritually in the eyes of Jesus. In fact, those who exalt themselves (which characterises) many men) will be humbled and those who serve others (which characterises many women) will achieve a higher status in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 23:12, Matthew 18:4, 1 Peter 5, Mark 9:35. Seems likely to me that heaven will be a place that will be run by the caring (like mothers?) and people who have served others while living on earth.



Rather, the CofE exerts whatever influence it can to prevent abortion, though they've largely 'given in' on the issue, due to lack of popular support .

To give but one example the bishops in the House of Lords (usually around 10 or so) have always vehemently opposed any legislation concerning abortion. They were starkly opposed to the inital act legalising it (1967?) and all further amendments, which served to make abortion a more widespread practice.

Please don't try and tell me that Bishops aren't real members of the CofE, I've had enough of such pedantry.


Oh so they have actually given in have they...
Abortion - this isn't just a religious issue. Its an issue regarding is it a human life being murdered - sure alot of christians take the view it is wrong, but so do others you know.
Bishops - firstly i'm a christian who follows jesus christ. Secondly i MAY join the CofE to gain some of its benifits.
This applies to all true christians - this isn't me being pedantic, its being an actual christian. Unless you are suggesting that christians all rank jesus second below their organised religion (which i'd say alot of those high up do do - but luckily they can't really harm anyone in the CofE).



My parents weren't religious

Well i pitty you - mine were ever so slightly: so i was sent to CofE school. I pitty you because in my area there were other schools of different religions or beliefs (e.g. non religious schools) which i could have gone to.
This isn't a flaw of christianity, rather more of a flaw of the state in its failure to provide schools equally representing different views (although i'm in favour of having no religious state schools... but this is a different and very complex issue)


Church was compulsory a few times a year etc.

I'm also aware that religious studies is still compulsory up to GCSE level (even though a modeern language is soon to become optional). Christianity is the main topic studied; only the 'nicer' aspects make it onto the syllabus, however.


i think we went into the church a few times too. Hardly indoctrinating stuff though was it.
It should be studied as a GCSE level. True it needs reshaping and more funding: but i disagree that its biased. Or if it is biased, its biased to showing the positives of all faiths.


Again you're in the minority.

Most Christians don't want anything near equal rights for such groups.


So what? Its still what i believe as a christian. Or am i not a real christian because i'm not in the majority?

I also contest this claim... any chance of facts/figures?


You're a Christian.

You're part of their 'group' whether you like it or not.


uh hu - so you agree - no: i don't actually support them.


That's not really a fair comparison with what I said.

An equivalent statement might be for me to say "you're religious, so you're a Christian".

However, that's not what I said at all.

You're a Christian, therefore you support Christianity, whichever way you wish to put things.


Your a leftist - thus you support all leftists (everything from stalinists to anarchists!). Its just the same; both are as diverse, and more importantly "Left": both claims are equally as stupid.

Or maybe you seem to also think that all muslims support "militant" muslims who believe in terrorism etc. Its the same thing after all... right?


Who is this mysterious 'we'.

Most Christians I know adhere fairly closely to the teachings of the Old testament, just nowhere near as strongly as they follow the Gospels and Jesus' teachings.


Christians - go read over what i said about the new covenant.


If you want to take what I said out of context then go right ahead.


But thats the old T - so you agree with me: christians don't follow the teachings of the old t. We keep it in mind - but obviously jesus appears to teache "against" many olt t teachings; what you would call a "contradiction" - which i would reply with by saying such a claim is typical of someone who doesn't actually understand the religion (the new covenant).

I love the "out of context" quote - a classic. What do you think your quotes from the bible have been?


Because I don't know what juding is.

If that's some kind of 'Bible lingo' then I've certainly never heard of it.


Why you resorting to that level? You know what i meant - if not, then you really must be quite stupid.
I meant to say judging.


I already stated that it doesn't need to claim to know him "inside out" for the point remain relevant.

Again I will repeat the initial criticism:

In the Bible, all of the attributes commonly assosciated with transcendence - especially those attributed by religious doctrine suffer from the fatal flaw that they attempt to make comprehensible, analagous references to a being which Christians admit is wholly beyond the scope of their ability to reason. This results in a whole lexicon of completely meaningless phrases concerning the nature of metaphysical reality.

Do you deny that there is truth in this criticism. Yes or no?


I disagree - post the quotes that you are refering to.


Right, I gather that this is what you believe, though I asked for an example for you to clarify your point. AndI still haven't got that.


Do you want me to go through and get you the references of him talking to different "classes"?


Again, that is not what I said.

As I stated, nearly all Judean classes, were illiterate, simply because they shunned the possibilities of education which Roman citizenship (only really available to upper classes or those who have served as auxilliaries in the army anyway) brought.




Okay - prove this illiterate fact. And also prove that he only spoke to these people.


From my, albeit limited knowledge of the Qu'ran, I cannot recall any information concerning the holy spirit in which the Bible is given as a fundamental basis for Islam's divine legitimacy.

Have you any more specific phrases/examples?


http://www.muhammad.net/mnstc/mnstc34.htm
Is one example.

[DaCuBaN]

This is utter rubbish. Yes - society is dominated by males; so yes this does spill into the church.
The bible is not so though.


Really (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html)

[James]

The mask comes off!

It is "moral" to "discipline" (beat!) your kids.

+ +

discipline / 'dspln/


•n.
1. the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour. →controlled behaviour resulting from such training.
2. a branch of knowledge, especially one studied in higher education.
•v.
1. train in obedience or self-control by punishment or imposing rules. →[as adj. disciplined] showing a controlled form of behaviour.
2. punish or rebuke formally for an offence.

+ + +

punish


•v.
1. inflict a penalty on as retribution for an offence. →inflict a penalty on someone for (an offence).
2. treat harshly.


+ + +

Didn't know you had a REDSTAR dictionary in those "redstar papers"

Anyhow - try to stick to the accepted meaning of words. This way you won't make yourself look like a prat.


Because otherwise they'll turn out to be "spoilt"...that is, disobedient, rebellious, and possibly even atheist.

Or, as Hebrews puts it, "bastards!"

Or they become selfish individuals who have no concept of self restraint/control.

Yes redstar... this means i'm a capitalist
:S



it means a kid that uses his/her own mind and doesn't swallow your crap!

A few good thrashings will teach that kid obedience to authority, right?

Blowing away the fog of "love" shows Christianity's reality...clerical fascism!

No it means a kid doesn't become spoilt. Do you know what a spoilt kid is like?
Have you ever left your computer screen?


Yes and "He" never repudiates it either...and "He" found plenty of things to repudiate when "He" wanted to.

"His" silence on the matter is presumptive evidence of "His" approval.

erm... i have given you quotes which show this to be incorrect.
John 8 is so simple you may even be able to understand it.



The words are plainly written in your own "holy book". If you don't like them, that is not the fault of the sites.

If you don't like straight-forward readings of what they say but would rather surround them with a fog of "interpretation"...then I'm afraid nothing will help you.

No you misunderstood (or ignored) what i said.
For example Take a quote from that site of yours

"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."
Apparently this means jesus is being rude.
How do they know? There is no emphasis added.
This is also an old translation - its more accurate to say "and jesus said to her "woman, what does this have to do with me? my hour has not yet come". If you read the previous paragraph this makes perfect sense.

That site is full of misunderstandings, ignorance, or sheer pedantic "notes"

[cubist]

jesus had no female disciples!!!!


judges SOMEWHERE "bring out that man so that we can rape him" the man at the door replies "please don't be so vile he is my cguest have my virgin daughter and his concubine instead"

David had polygamous relationships

god ordered the rape of davids mistresses

also james, if you take the bible as real then the start of the bible is dipicted from the start of society so historically all sexism in society spilled out from the bible




DACUBAN, stop reading that shit

you wanna use bible gateway, its christian so you will find the quotes in true context they will still proove your point but they will insight you as to why,

antichristian sites are the worse ones to use for objective quotes

[DaCuBaN]

I was raised a catholic, so I'm quite familiar with the bible thank you very much ;)

I specifically use that site because it is objective. It looks at the bible from a realistic point of view without any more than a thought provoking comment on the side.

I have no desire to study the bible any more: I merely abuse it to suit my goals.


antichristian sites are the worse ones to use for objective quotes

It's anti-islam and anti-mormon too :)
Hence it's called the skeptics annotated bible

[cubist]

firstly apologies you are not a fool,

yes i am aware, i prefer to use the bible and be objective myself i find i learn more and my argument becomes stronger as the context argument is ruled out for them, i have a few years of debating pro god as a bible basher, and i know what the arguments i used were, and sites like that are easy to give info to people who can't use it properly and thuis get defeated by the christian on contextual bullshit grounds,

[Dune Dx]

those who refuse to see the inherant ills in mankind.
Now it might just be me but dont Christians think the Human race are inperfect and sinfull so they quite clearly see the flaws in man.

I was raised a catholic, so I'm quite familiar with the bible thank you very muchDebatable

[cubist]

thats just you mate, christians predominately acvcept that they are weak and fallable, and ungodlike, some call themselves subhuman as they are lower than what god intended,

it is also clearly stated in the bible on several occasions,

but like most christians people pick and choose what they like

[DaCuBaN]

those who refuse to see the inherant ills in mankind.

Taken in context...


Religion has evolved a considerable amount - it's had to to avoid becoming totally defunct - but it's still pandering to those who fear their own, or the demise of their loved ones; those who refuse to see the inherant ills in mankind.

I'm not asserting that every christian falls into the latter category, nor even the first. Merely that the majority will fall into one or the other.

Certainly this is what I've seen of my experience of religion - Catholicism in Scotland.

[monkeydust]

This is utter rubbish. Yes - society is dominated by males; so yes this does spill into the church.
The bible is not so though.


Fair enough.

Yet it still seems to me that Christians have, and still are, largely more conservative, concerning the role of women, than wider society as a whole.

Am I to believe that they simply misunderstand the Bible?


Oh so they have actually given in have they...

No they haven't actually given in on the issue, I put 'given in' in inverted commas to ilustrate the fact that they only ostensibly tolerate the issue.


Abortion - this isn't just a religious issue. Its an issue regarding is it a human life being murdered - sure alot of christians take the view it is wrong, but so do others you know.


Of course, though the distribution of 'pro-life' activists is not random amongst society.

A far greater proportion of Christians are against abortion than the corresponding proportion in society as a whole. Moreover, the most vehement opposers to abortion around tend to be Christians. Someone on this site a while ago posted information about a message board where names, addresses and pictures of abortion performing doctors were posted; these pictures had crosshairs over the faces of Doctors. The implications as such were obvious.

And yes, it was a Christian website.


I pitty you because in my area there were other schools of different religions or beliefs (e.g. non religious schools) which i could have gone to.


And?


although i'm in favour of having no religious state schools... but this is a different and very complex issue

How about no religious schools at all?

Let the youth choose ther own path, in their own time. Don't tell them what to believe in school, before their intelligence is such that they can think critically.

If you want to defend Christianity then go right ahead, you've presented a compelling case already. But at least allow those who worship to do so out of an objective decision, rather than being "suckered" into belief throughout childhood.


It should be studied as a GCSE level.

Surely there's more important things to learn.

A Modern language is no longer a compulsory requirment at GCSE level, yet Religious studies is.

Which do you feel is more important?


but i disagree that its biased.

Really?

Why don't you ask yourself who goes for jobs teaching religious education.

Teachers of religious studies (at least in this country) are very often Christians.

A Christian teacher cannot be fully objective when discussing Christianity, even if one wishes to be so.


So what? Its still what i believe as a christian. Or am i not a real christian because i'm not in the majority?



I'd say you're probably at the 'far left' of the "Christian spectrum".

I'm not saying that Christians cannot be progressive, the current Archbishop is actually fairly liberal (and has been criticised for just this reason).

What's important is not whether you are or are not a real Christian. What matters (when determining the nature of the faith) is where the opinion of the vast majority lies.

And the majority of Christians (if not all) are reactionary.


I also contest this claim... any chance of facts/figures?


There aren't any. There simply hasn't been a survey to determine 'how many Christians are reactionary'. At least not one that I've heard of.

Yet the behaviour of Christianity as a whole can still be assesed when we look at the acts of real Christians.

'Progressive' laws passed, such as the abortion act are always heavily criticsed. Some praise such legislation yes, but the 'big' Christian groups are always in stark oppostion.

How many pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage or feminist Chrisitan pressure groups do you know?


no: i don't actually support them

You may not support them on every issue.

But you're still, largely 'on their side', simply by association. And you help their cause by populating their beliefs (intentionally or otherwise).


I disagree - post the quotes that you are refering to.


Essentially I am referring to any analagous or descriptive reference to God in the Bible. Take you pick of which, it bothers me not.


Do you want me to go through and get you the references of him talking to different "classes"?


Yes.


Okay - prove this illiterate fact.

I can't prove it beyond doubt (as you cannot irrevocably prove the other way).

Yet all ancient Roman writers (Tacitus, Dio, Pliny, Suetonius, Juvenal etc.) seem to point towards that fact.

Perhaps the best way to prove illiteracy of lower classes is by the actual lack of proof.

There's not one document that has survived, written by someone not in the upper classes of ancient society.

Unless of course.......you believe you have found one. :blink:


Is one example.

Yet how does it prove that Muhhamed is not the more important prophet and that Islam should not be followed as the more important message from God?

[James]

Fair enough.

Yet it still seems to me that Christians have, and still are, largely more conservative, concerning the role of women, than wider society as a whole.

Am I to believe that they simply misunderstand the Bible?


Not as much misunderstand (because i expect alot would agree understanding is on a personal basis), but Ignore. I don't think this is a concept beyond comprehension. Alot of "christians", as you pointed out, ignore some fundamental teachings. e.g. you shall not kill. You shall not judge. You shall be nice to your wife. etc etc. The crusaders for example. The persecution of catholics, protestants, and witches (and now abortion doctors)



Of course, though the distribution of 'pro-life' activists is not random amongst society.

A far greater proportion of Christians are against abortion than the corresponding proportion in society as a whole. Moreover, the most vehement opposers to abortion around tend to be Christians. Someone on this site a while ago posted information about a message board where names, addresses and pictures of abortion performing doctors were posted; these pictures had crosshairs over the faces of Doctors. The implications as such were obvious.

And yes, it was a Christian website.




I'd say that this goes against the teachings of jesus christ, even though o think that abortions are alot of the time - wrong (of course there are exceptions...).

Even though alot of bad stuff was happening in jesus' time, we don't have any reports of him killing all those "unclean". He even refuses to condem in john 8: thus going against the strict rules of moses' law.

I know what you are saying, and i totally agree with you. These people are bang out of order. I know that you think i'm "one of them", but i really don't see it that way. Christians are like any mass group - they are so so so diverse.


How about no religious schools at all?

Let the youth choose ther own path, in their own time. Don't tell them what to believe in school, before their intelligence is such that they can think critically.

If you want to defend Christianity then go right ahead, you've presented a compelling case already. But at least allow those who worship to do so out of an objective decision, rather than being "suckered" into belief throughout childhood.


I quite agree, regarding the "principle". Like i said - "i'm in favour of having no religious state schools". Indeed, jesus said that one must be re-born to be a follower i.e. you have to come to it of your own free will; you can't simply be born one.


Surely there's more important things to learn.

A Modern language is no longer a compulsory requirment at GCSE level, yet Religious studies is.

Which do you feel is more important?

oh yes, forgotten about that change. I wish it had been like this when i did them! Well no, i only say that because i was awful at german.

Both should be studied at GCSE.

I also think that both need serious investment (well the departments at my school anyway). RE needs to have a much wider range of teachers as you pointed out; but i think this will happen anyway over time. RE is important because it helps kids learn what the beliefs are of different people - granted they learn alot in the playground, but i garuntee you that not every religion will be represented in the playground. I think this is especially important during a time such as this where poor understanding of different cultures is leading to violence and segregation.



Really?

Why don't you ask yourself who goes for jobs teaching religious education.

Teachers of religious studies (at least in this country) are very often Christians.

A Christian teacher cannot be fully objective when discussing Christianity, even if one wishes to be so.

I was refering more to the course - i remember we focused more more on different forms of belief, and ethical issues. True we had a christian teacher, but god bless her, she had such a hard time. She was remarkably good too, even though she'd explain her beliefs to me (in response to me lol, i was bit of a redstar in those days), she didn't do it in a way which suggested she was the only right person.

But yes: RE needs radically restructuring.


I'd say you're probably at the 'far left' of the "Christian spectrum".

lol, thanks :)


I'm not saying that Christians cannot be progressive, the current Archbishop is actually fairly liberal (and has been criticised for just this reason).

What do you think of his lectures? I've only seen one of two (or TV), but these were very good.


What's important is not whether you are or are not a real Christian. What matters (when determining the nature of the faith) is where the opinion of the vast majority lies.

And the majority of Christians (if not all) are reactionary.

You do realize that the "majority" composition is actually changing? Its no longer in the west, but more in africa and the east.

Yes, a large proportion in the UK may be "reactionary", but i'm not sure if its actually the majority... (i suppose it changes from region to region). The US on the other hand...



Essentially I am referring to any analagous or descriptive reference to God in the Bible. Take you pick of which, it bothers me not.

Can you be a little more specific? I'm not sure i understand what you mean




Do you want me to go through and get you the references of him talking to different "classes"? - Yes.

lol, ok well i'll do it tonight.


I can't prove it beyond doubt (as you cannot irrevocably prove the other way).

Yet all ancient Roman writers (Tacitus, Dio, Pliny, Suetonius, Juvenal etc.) seem to point towards that fact.

Perhaps the best way to prove illiteracy of lower classes is by the actual lack of proof.

There's not one document that has survived, written by someone not in the upper classes of ancient society.

Unless of course.......you believe you have found one.

It can't be proven one way or the other: there are strong arguments on each side. Its a "we will never know" case.
Personally though, i wouldn't be suprised if "Q" did exist.


Yet how does it prove that Muhhamed is not the more important prophet and that Islam should not be followed as the more important message from God?

Well that means you have to ignore alot of things jesus said.

[redstar2000]

discipline v. 2. punish...for an offence.

punish v. 2. treat harshly.

What is so difficult to understand about the word that you used?

What do you think your "holy book" means when it uses the word translated as "chastise"?

The word has softened its meaning over the last century ("censure severely" is a phrase that shows up in modern dictionaries).

But the 1913 Webster's dictionary is closer to the original meaning: "to inflict pain upon, by means of stripes, or in any other manner, for the purpose of punishment or reformation; to punish, as with stripes."

http://wordweb.info/2/wdfree.pl?chastise


Anyhow - try to stick to the accepted meaning of words. This way you won't make yourself look like a prat.

If you want to criticize my views, try writing something that makes sense.


Or they become selfish individuals who have no concept of self restraint/control.

Meaning just what I said...they won't obey prats like yourself.


Do you know what a spoilt kid is like? Have you ever left your computer screen?

A "spoilt kid" is one who refuses to take your superstitious bollocks seriously.

My "real world" experience far exceeds your own or anyone else's on this board.


John 8 is so simple you may even be able to understand it.

I have just read it; there is no reference to the practice of beating children.

http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?lang...n+8&version=KJV (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=John+8&version=KJV)

Better turn your fog machine to "high" if you're going to "interpret" this one! :lol:


That site is full of misunderstandings, ignorance, or sheer pedantic "notes"

Did they misunderstand this?


Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

3:20
Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

Want to interpret that? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gaf]

i'll go further than that(begining tread) the future is right in your hand(mind) no religion,
even no politiks, then we may speak other FREEDOM and the rest....?????

[James]

What is so difficult to understand about the word that you used?

What do you think your "holy book" means when it uses the word translated as "chastise"?

The word has softened its meaning over the last century ("censure severely" is a phrase that shows up in modern dictionaries).

But the 1913 Webster's dictionary is closer to the original meaning: "to inflict pain upon, by means of stripes, or in any other manner, for the purpose of punishment or reformation; to punish, as with stripes."




Chastise means punish severly - in more recent translations of the bible that word is only used once (in contrast to KJV using it constantly) - following the use of the word discipline/punish etc.
Or do you think it meant that god would literally come down and inflict pain upon guys with stripes?
:rolleyes:

This is the disadvantage of using a translation from 400 years ago (KJV). Do you think king james' court was better at translating the origional hebrew, than our modern experts?
<_<


If you want to criticize my views, try writing something that makes sense.


:huh:


Meaning just what I said...they won&#39;t obey prats like yourself.


yeah redstar... whatever you say... :rolleyes:


My "real world" experience far exceeds your own or anyone else&#39;s on this board.

:lol:
wow; slightly arrogant arn&#39;t we.
So you know everyone on this board in detail? :huh:

What may i ask have you done which makes you so superior? (i doubt your claims because of your wierd interpretation of a spoilt kid...) :rolleyes:



I have just read it; there is no reference to the practice of beating children.

:rolleyes:
Okay we shall take this nice and slowly mr redstar. Say if you want me to slow down any further.
Firstly: where are you getting your quote from the says fathers should beat their kids?


Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

3:20
Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

A previous post of mine on this thread addresses the first
second and third - well this is assuming the word of paul is the word of jesus (god)... anyhow - yes, christianity teaches one to submit to authority; as well as submiting to one&#39;s husband/wife, each other, god etc etc etc . Rather altruistic one could say.

To you this may seem like an evil - but it makes sense really when one considers the time (christianity would have died straight away if jesus and his few followers had tried an armed revolution); and also when one considers what a bad name many "christians" have given to christianity when they have opposed authority/tried to over throw/ gone to war.

You could say that, in modern terms, there is alot of "PR" in all this. To a revolutionary such as yourself (a concept that does amuse me, i must say), this may seem "evil" or "counter-revolutionary" or blah blah blah.

But sadly we can&#39;t all be che Gs like yourself.
:rolleyes:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Rather altruistic one could say


Not even remotely. :lol:


You should not use words than you are not familiar with.

[redstar2000]

This thread, like all religion threads, is degenerating into rubbish.

James, you remember neither your own posts nor the contexts of the points you made and that I and others have answered.

You drag in side issues as distractions, offer totally a-historical "interpretations" (excuses), and, when all else fails, simple abuse.

It is as if your "strategy" in this "discussion" is just to throw so much random crap at people that someone (you hope&#33;) may think there "must" be "something" to what you&#39;re saying.

There isn&#39;t&#33;

At my age (far greater than yours), time is too short to waste any trying to pin down an evasive bozo who belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

Piss off&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[James]

Well me and left are just fine redstar. Maybe it is because some people (and i do mean you) don&#39;t actually have that much of a clue, so simply cut and paste (out of context) small extracts from the bible, to try and prove some anti-christian "point".


And yes, one could say its rather altruistic.

[monkeydust]

Not as much misunderstand (because i expect alot would agree understanding is on a personal basis), but Ignore. I don&#39;t think this is a concept beyond comprehension. Alot of "christians", as you pointed out, ignore some fundamental teachings. e.g. you shall not kill. You shall not judge. You shall be nice to your wife. etc etc. The crusaders for example. The persecution of catholics, protestants, and witches (and now abortion doctors)


Nevertheless, they managed to justify their actions with your Bible, irespective of whther or not you think their justifications &#39;don&#39;t count&#39;.


I&#39;d say that this goes against the teachings of jesus christ, even though o think that abortions are alot of the time - wrong (of course there are exceptions...).


What&#39;s wrong about them?

Is it simply because killing an unborn baby is &#39;murder&#39;?

I can sympathise with your views to an extent. Im not against abortion, but I don&#39;t like it being used as birth control.


garuntee you that not every religion will be represented in the playground

Nor will it in R.E. lessons.

I remember when I had them. We studied Christianity a hell of a lot, touching upon Judaism and Islam briefly.

There was no mention of any the &#39;Eastern&#39; religions.


What do you think of his lectures? I&#39;ve only seen one of two (or TV), but these were very good.




They seem OK. For a Christian he seems alright. He&#39;s not a &#39;bad guy&#39;....unfortunately the rest of the Christian faith are not (and in my opinion cannot be) like him.


Can you be a little more specific? I&#39;m not sure i understand what you mean


What I mean concerning the irrationality of Christian doctrines (and, to be fair most monotheistic religions) is as follows:

Christians admit that God, as a transcendent being cannot be understood by them, at least not in any substantive manner.

You mention Jesus&#39; descriptions of what &#39;God wants&#39; yet presumably, god&#39;s wishes and desires cannot really be explained in our language. He&#39;s simply &#39;beyond&#39; us, he&#39;s wholly beyond our scope of understanding.

Despite this, Christians tend to talk of God (in the Bible and elsewhere) &#39;as if&#39; he were a person, and they try to explain him in a descriptive maner. Moreover, many believe that they know exactly what he wants.

To me, this seems irrational...maybe not you, but that&#39;s a different issue.


lol, ok well i&#39;ll do it tonight.


Nah...don&#39;t bother, I&#39;ll take your word for it.

It apears we have reached an impasse......

You&#39;ve presented a fairly compelling pragmatic argument for your case, whilst I disagree with you on several issues, at least you have argued your points well.

I don&#39;t think we can go much further in this argument now, and frankly, I can&#39;t be bothered to type any more.

[James]

Nevertheless, they managed to justify their actions with your Bible, irespective of whther or not you think their justifications &#39;don&#39;t count&#39;.


They may use extracts.
Like some people may use extracts of the law.


I can sympathise with your views to an extent. Im not against abortion, but I don&#39;t like it being used as birth control.


I agree: i&#39;m against it when it is used to rectify a "mistake".


Nor will it in R.E. lessons.

I remember when I had them. We studied Christianity a hell of a lot, touching upon Judaism and Islam briefly.

There was no mention of any the &#39;Eastern&#39; religions.


Surely you did sikhs and hindu&#39;s?
We did them loads and loads...


You mention Jesus&#39; descriptions of what &#39;God wants&#39; yet presumably, god&#39;s wishes and desires cannot really be explained in our language. He&#39;s simply &#39;beyond&#39; us, he&#39;s wholly beyond our scope of understanding.

Despite this, Christians tend to talk of God (in the Bible and elsewhere) &#39;as if&#39; he were a person, and they try to explain him in a descriptive maner. Moreover, many believe that they know exactly what he wants.


Whilst i agree that it does seem contradictory that a person should say you can&#39;t understand someone, yet talk to them as if they do: i personally see it in the following way.

Whilst i will never understand god completely in this life; i think there are many strong aspects which i do - even though i may not now the "how", i do have a grasp of the "what" (regarding what he wants us to do for example).
Also many people pray to jesus (who was, basically put; a man); probably being one of the many who see jesus as a "bridge" between themselves and god.


It apears we have reached an impasse......

Agreed.


You&#39;ve presented a fairly compelling pragmatic argument for your case, whilst I disagree with you on several issues, at least you have argued your points well.

I don&#39;t think we can go much further in this argument now, and frankly, I can&#39;t be bothered to type any more.


lol - yours was fairly compelling too :P

[Dune Dx]

well 15 pages of typing ... this should really be stickied

[The idealist]

:blink: 15 pages. If this has been debated before just stop me, I couldnt be bothered to read all 15 pages.

Believing in (a) god and Atheisme are both religious standpoints. alienating the believers because of their opinion is wrong. But religion should stay inside peoples heads, and using religion as a reason for doing something should not be allowed. It is like using an unbased opinion as an answer.
Religious debate clubs or even buildings could be constructed, but not for worship. Only for debate between Atheists and believers. If these debates are not popular, don&#39;t even bother doing that.

[cubist]

Dune DX,

you asked if a vicar should be forced to marry a gay couple?

the answer is no he shouldn&#39;t,

religion in itself defies human rights and equality,

christian marriage is a symbolism of two people who want gods blessing on there lives, and seeing as homosexuality in the eyes of christianity is a sin god can hardly bless it, its not the same as marriage in a registrars office.

marriage in england has come from christianity and nothing else but the laws allowing gay marriage don&#39;t have to spread into christian matromony becuase the bible says you should obey the laws of the land except when it defies gods rules,

that doesn&#39;t mean christians shouldn&#39;t accept homosexuality they should, they should embrace them and witness to them to try and alter the errors of their ways,

i know many people will find what i have written offensive, it is merely an answer to a question on the christian standpoint its not my beliefs

[Dune Dx]

Most of you here are evolutionists so from your point of view how do you explain beuty in animals and plants, for example Peacocks do not need all those wonderfull and complex coulours to attract a mate the female peacock can hardly see the colours and even human egineers cant copy the complexity of the design. In plants the petals sole perpose from an evolutionary point of view is to attract insects and that colours help this well then why do plants go to such lengths to make complex colours when simpilar colours will do for example the chemicals needed to make the colour blue are very complicated pattern but some plants have blue petals when more simplistic colours will attract insects.

All so bird songs they are highly accurate and if you put them into note form and compare them to some composers you can see that they end there song with far less notes that are musically .. well not very nice. Some evolutionists say that the birds develop these songs to keep their territory or to attract mates but in some species you find birds both male doing duets now how and why can these birds do this, some evolutionists would say they are trying to outbest the other bird to show they are the better singer for a pertential mate, but there is one spiecy in Africa which do quartets each pair having one male one female, Now some people say this is to scare off the over mating pair so they sing a song then the other pair sings the next part of the song to show that there not scared the the other pair sings the next bit back to show that their not scared either and so on and so on.
This seems to me that it would of taken a very long time for these charateristics and then only to use these songs to frighten over birds .... why not just fight off the birds intruding into your territory?

just wanted to know what you think because beuty does pose a problem for the theory of evolution as Darwin said I feel sick when I look at a peacock

[Dune Dx]

well dont answer me then

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Erm... because beauty is subjective?

Evolution has a lot more going for it than creation.

Creation &#39;theory&#39; is an attempt to stifle scientific discussion; it merely says &#39;god created these things, and let&#39;s leave it at that. And we need a bigger cathedral&#39;

[Dune Dx]

really&#33; what are all those books by biochemists pointing the flaws in evolution doing on the shelves?

and how is a bird song subjective the point im making is these designs are more complicated for mere survival or to be chosen as a mate

[James]

i believe in creation being the origin: and secondary evolution. The ability to evolve, being god given.

[Dune Dx]

y there is no evidence for it the idea that one day there was a genetic mutation that helped a creature to survive better is obsurd&#33;

The amount of genetic mutations that would be needed to benefit a creature is enormous and if you dont have all of these mutations it wont better the creature and wont give it an edge thus wont be passed on.

[Dune Dx]

Also a thing that has been annoying me for a while while I was watching this program on the Jungle in Africa, the program said "this tree has evolved its fruits specificly so they can be air lifted by birds" - how exactly is a tree meant to know that a bird is eating seeds... How does it even know birds exist it cant see them its not even like nothing else could reach that high because monkeys are leaving right up on the tree top.

[James]

My friend, i wouldn&#39;t go down this route. I imagine that &#39;Natural selection&#39; will cover alot of the questions you have.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

really&#33; what are all those books by biochemists pointing the flaws in evolution doing on the shelves?

Being a waste of paper, most probably. Biochemists don&#39;t know jack shit about paleontology.


and how is a bird song subjective the point im making is these designs are more complicated for mere survival or to be chosen as a mate

They are &#39;complicated&#39; because they work. Evolution is pragmatic in that sense. Of course a few flaws slip through the net, but that&#39;s mostly because the flaws are compensated for (Shortsightedness in humans = Glasses) or aren&#39;t damaging enough to cause problems.


y there is no evidence for it the idea that one day there was a genetic mutation that helped a creature to survive better is obsurd&#33;

There is evidence in the fossil record.


The amount of genetic mutations that would be needed to benefit a creature is enormous and if you dont have all of these mutations it wont better the creature and wont give it an edge thus wont be passed on.

That&#39;s why evolution takes so long: Remember mutations are occurring all the time and most of the beneficial/neutral ones are not immediately apparent.
An eagle with slightly better eyesight will catch more prey than a normal eagle, will have produce more young as a result, and those eaglets will have their mother&#39;s sight, and so on.
Of course, not all the eaglets will survive; in fact it is likely that all but one of the eaglets will die of exposure, get eaten by predators, etc. This also &#39;slows down&#39; the evolutionary process somewhat.


Also a thing that has been annoying me for a while while I was watching this program on the Jungle in Africa, the program said "this tree has evolved its fruits specificly so they can be air lifted by birds" - how exactly is a tree meant to know that a bird is eating seeds... How does it even know birds exist it cant see them its not even like nothing else could reach that high because monkeys are leaving right up on the tree top.

What you are describing is what&#39;s known as &#39;co-evolution&#39;. It&#39;s a well-documented phenomenon. Google for it and you will see.

In short, you have a lot of learning to do my friend.

[Dune Dx]

hmmm fossil records ... so reliable in their dating. Fossils of dragon flies have been found, now you know how insects after they die basickly turn to dust as they dry out how quick do you think they would have to be burried? very quickly along with other creatures to be kept as fossils this would mean you would have to have a huge planet wide catastrophic event which could cause the fossilisation of these animals... which points towards the flood

[Dune Dx]

.|

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Insect Fossils (http://www.ub.es/dpep/meganeura/52inrocks.htm)

Note that most fossil insects (And fossils in general) formed millions of years ago, well before the fictional flood and homo sapiens.

[monkeydust]

Like Jesus, this thread seems to be "back from the grave". And, unsurprisingly, the ressurection has brought back a pile of wank.


Most of you here are evolutionists so from your point of view how do you explain beuty in animals and plants

By evolution.


for example Peacocks do not need all those wonderfull and complex coulours to attract a mate the female peacock can hardly see the colours and even human egineers cant copy the complexity of the design.

No, peackocks don&#39;t need those colours to attract a mate, but it sure helps&#33;. And natural selection tends to favour those who reproduce their kind.


just wanted to know what you think because beuty does pose a problem for the theory of evolution as Darwin said I feel sick when I look at a peacock


Firstly you should consider the fact that beauty is not necessarily an isolated concept separate from a human&#39;s existence. It may simply be the case that we consider certain creatures to be beatiful merely because it happened to be advantageous for such creatures to take forms which we find pleasing.

According to natural selection, perhaps, flowers are beatiful merely because those that have survived happen to be considered pleasing to our eyes, thus were nurtured, not destroyed.

Moreover, you seem to ignore the fact that many creatures are widely considered to be physically ugly, or grotesque. Is it surprising that there are some beautiful creatres around? I don&#39;t think so.


y there is no evidence for it the idea that one day there was a genetic mutation that helped a creature to survive better is obsurd&#33;


Why exactly?

It&#39;s far more plausible than your creation theory.

Genetic mutations do happen, we see them today, quite often. Normally they are useless, but, certain mutations facilitate survival for a species. We have in fact, seen some recent examples of this. Supposedly cockroaches in inner cities are getting thinner; it apparently helps them to survive, i.e by not getting trodden on.


The amount of genetic mutations that would be needed to benefit a creature is enormous and if you dont have all of these mutations it wont better the creature and wont give it an edge thus wont be passed on.


Actually, no.


Also a thing that has been annoying me for a while while I was watching this program on the Jungle in Africa, the program said "this tree has evolved its fruits specificly so they can be air lifted by birds" - how exactly is a tree meant to know that a bird is eating seeds... How does it even know birds exist it cant see them its not even like nothing else could reach that high because monkeys are leaving right up on the tree top.


?&#33;?&#33;&#33;?

The tree doesn&#39;t know, nor does it have to.

It is simply the case that in some stage of its development, one or more of those trees underwent a genetic mutation, thereby making its fruit easier for birds to lift.

Naturally, this specific mutation caused more birds to transport its fruit, thus the seeds of the tree were propagated further. The mutation facilitated reproduction, it&#39;s unsurprising that it conseuqently became a widespread species.


hmmm fossil records ... so reliable in their dating.

hmmmmmm the Bible.......so reliable in its dating.


My friend, i wouldn&#39;t go down this route. I imagine that &#39;Natural selection&#39; will cover alot of the questions you have

Quite right. It&#39;s nice to see that not all Christians are completely clueless.

[cubist]

if your going to biccer about dating the turin shroud was carbon dated to 1200 AD 1167 years too late i beleive

[Dune Dx]

hmmmmmm the Bible.......so reliable in its dating.
Great response use my point against amazing debating skills.

QUOTE
Most of you here are evolutionists so from your point of view how do you explain beuty in animals and plants



By evolution. yeah evolution explains beuty..
what rubbish animals and plants dont need such complicated patterns of colours to survive, get a mate. Going back to my point about the peacock it doesnt need those complicated patterns a simperlaer pliner color would do just as good a job.

Supposedly cockroaches in inner cities are getting thinner; it apparently helps them to survive, i.e by not getting trodden on This is just micro evolution this doesnt disproove what im saying.

Actually, no. ooh what complexity

The tree doesn&#39;t know, nor does it have to.

It is simply the case that in some stage of its development, one or more of those trees underwent a genetic mutation, thereby making its fruit easier for birds to lift.

Naturally, this specific mutation caused more birds to transport its fruit, thus the seeds of the tree were propagated further. The mutation facilitated reproduction, it&#39;s unsurprising that it conseuqently became a widespread species. why would this mutation be passed on? opposed to any other seed its not like any less of the heavier seeds are eaten compared to the lighter ones and its not even like the birds spread the seeds out further giving it a higher sucess rate loads of the land animals have a larger roaming area and when they diposet the seeds, the seeds have a large piece of dung to grow in.

[cubist]

you except micro evolution but not macro evolution i find that hard to believe