Stephen Hawking
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Christianity was cult, there was no Jesus, the new testament was written at least 70 years after his supposed life, there are no contemporary accounts of him, despite his importance. And you expect athiests to have respect for that belief? Sheesh!
Geezer
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Geezer
Last edited by Geezer; Sep 5, 2010 at 07:28 PM.
. I was just about to fire off a bit of an epic reply to Tony, but in two minds about it now.
Originally Posted by tony de wonderful
Christianity has changed over time, it has evolved, innovated.
Only goes to show how hypocritical it is.
Christianity has changed over time, it has evolved, innovated.
Only goes to show how hypocritical it is.
Last edited by Frosticles; Sep 5, 2010 at 09:33 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Science doesn't stick by one theory, If another comes along which proves the previous to be incorrect then they embrace it and study, learning more all the time.
Christianity has had to re-think it's nonsense. Their theories are like a colander and are being proved wrong time and time again.
Christianity has had to re-think it's nonsense. Their theories are like a colander and are being proved wrong time and time again.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Science doesn't stick by one theory, If another comes along which proves the previous to be incorrect then they embrace it and study, learning more all the time.
Christianity has had to re-think it's nonsense. Their theories are like a colander and are being proved wrong time and time again.
Christianity has had to re-think it's nonsense. Their theories are like a colander and are being proved wrong time and time again.
Christianity has evolved and innovated. Luther, Calvin etc, mostly Protestantism which was massively innovative after centuries of Catholic ultra-conservativism. You also have early movements such as Gnostics etc
The Church may not innovate but Christianity itself had numerous split-offs and new movements innovating.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; Sep 5, 2010 at 09:53 PM.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 15,078
Likes: 46
From: Nottm
They fail to see why we laugh when they scoff at other religions but don't see the contradiction that is. The logical and historical innacuracies in all religious texts. If they bought a non-fiction book in Waterstones today that was as full of holes as the Bible, they would probably ask for their money back!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,360
Likes: 0
From: North Yorkshire
Lol, I noticed this still going too.
Let me paraphrase:
Person 1 says; Christianty is w and x and not y and z and thats fact so I don't need to back up what I say, followed by persons 2,3,4 responding; well said, I agree, here here, you're the best.
Person 5 says; Christianity I believe is y and z and not w and x followed by persons 2,3,4 responding; prove it, where's the evidence, you're a _ _ _, mentally ill, frickin spaz,
Scooby Senior
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
From: West Midlands
mb
Scooby Senior
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 15,078
Likes: 46
From: Nottm
there's a book called
'Why Do People Suffer?' by James Jones.
In it he gives an incident from his own life. As you read it imagine that the father is 'God' and the child is each of us in our suffering.
I remember once walking past the school at the end of the road. On the other side of the six-foot wall I could hear a small child crying inconsolably. A teacher was trying to comfort hr but with little immediate success. Like any parent, the sound of a child sobbing stirred my heart.
as I walked on down the road, the child's crying ringing in my ears, I stopped dead in my tracks as I realized that the child who was in tears was my own daughter. Part of me wanted to vault over the wall and rescue her - to tell her that it was all right, that Daddy was here and she'd be OK now. But another part of me knew that I should do nothing of the kind - that I had to leave her so that others could come near to her and help her
In the end, there is no answer to the problem of suffering which will fully satisfy our reason.
Last edited by salsa-king; Sep 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM.
Seeing as everyone else is still going for it ...
OK, I'll start off by pointing out two very important things that I think Christianity did for the advancement of science and modernity. First, it provided continued centuries of relative political stability and order in the parts of the world where it became established, which in many ways are prerequisites for abstract study of any kind, as without them it's almost impossible for a society to divert significant enough resources away from satisfying the basic needs of feeding itself, providing shelter etc. Second, by the spread of its teachings in printed form it promoted literacy as a basic skill among ever-widening sections of the populations of Europe, which again is a vital stepping-stone to scientific study and free inquiry.
Now I've got that over with, I'll still have to point out that your comments are a bit of a hotch-potch of basic historical error, misassociation and misattribution. For starters, compassion as a theme in philosophy was well-known in various parts of the world centuries before the beginnings of Christianity, but in any case it had little or nothing to do with the renewed interest in Antiquity that came with the Renaissance. Similarly, those scholars of Antiquity who were rediscovered in the Renaissance had no problem at all practising the study of science as a theoretical, abstract pursuit, despite personally believing in a multitude of gods. And so far as the New Testament was concerned, you're forgetting that at the time the events it purports to describe actually occurred, its chief protagonist didn't have the slightest pretention that his teachings would or should be adopted by anyone outside of his own people - in other words, Jesus was a Jew, and only ever claimed to be speaking to or for the Jews. It's only years after his death that people such as Paul thought to take it upon themselves to spread his philosophy outside of that clan to the wider world.
So where do I think that leaves the final score, for Christinanity as a promoter of the positive things we enjoy in the world today? It's a bit of a mixed bag really, but on balance I think you have to conclude that's it's as much by happy accident as by any specific trait of thought belonging to Christianity that the western world as we know it developed on the foundations of or within the geographic boundaries of an originally Christian society. You might just as easily say for example, that the Black Death is what triggered the Renaissance and eventually the development of modern science, because of the massive shift in power that it brought about away from the central authority of the Papacy and toward the independent city states of Italy. Or, you could argue that it was the rise of the bourgeoisie, and the entrepreneurial spirit that came with it, that led directly to the culture of the amateur scientist and experimentation for its own sake. Or if you really want to play devil's advocate, there's an absolutely massive case to be made that warfare has been the primary driver of scientific innovation throughout vast swathes of our history, recent and otherwise.
Is that enough of a reason to say that Christianity should now be systematically rooted out from present-day society, and forever be condemned as a force that was historically only ever negative and evil? Most certainly not. But by the same token, it's still a massive leap to over-state the positive role it has left to play in the world today, or how much we owe it for the contribution it's played in the past to our relatively comfortable lives now. The problem for the Church then, as others have pointed out, is definitely that for it not to stand out as being increasingly anachronistic and meaningless, it's forced to concede ever more ground on the symbolism/allegory front, but the further it goes down that road the closer it gets to talking itself out of existence. It's firmly stuck between a rock and a hard place, in other words. And so far as the 'anti-Church' posters here are concerned, my bet is that they don't want anything more from the 'pro-Church' posters than an honest admission of the fact.
The Church was yes a conservative institution by then but you have the Christian morality of compassion etc which is radical compared to the Roman morality of strength, the colosseum, plus the Christian message regardless of the political aspect of The Church etc. The Christian ethic encouraged investigation of the natural world as it said that nature was not random and chaotic but the outcome of one God, one truth, which was accessible to ALL men. Previous religions had emphasised a capricious universe and fate was collective, exclusive to one tribe or priest class. With Christianity it placed the individual as paramount....that is the radical message of the New Testament.
The renaissance rediscovered learnings but not the morality of antiquity.
The renaissance rediscovered learnings but not the morality of antiquity.
Now I've got that over with, I'll still have to point out that your comments are a bit of a hotch-potch of basic historical error, misassociation and misattribution. For starters, compassion as a theme in philosophy was well-known in various parts of the world centuries before the beginnings of Christianity, but in any case it had little or nothing to do with the renewed interest in Antiquity that came with the Renaissance. Similarly, those scholars of Antiquity who were rediscovered in the Renaissance had no problem at all practising the study of science as a theoretical, abstract pursuit, despite personally believing in a multitude of gods. And so far as the New Testament was concerned, you're forgetting that at the time the events it purports to describe actually occurred, its chief protagonist didn't have the slightest pretention that his teachings would or should be adopted by anyone outside of his own people - in other words, Jesus was a Jew, and only ever claimed to be speaking to or for the Jews. It's only years after his death that people such as Paul thought to take it upon themselves to spread his philosophy outside of that clan to the wider world.
So where do I think that leaves the final score, for Christinanity as a promoter of the positive things we enjoy in the world today? It's a bit of a mixed bag really, but on balance I think you have to conclude that's it's as much by happy accident as by any specific trait of thought belonging to Christianity that the western world as we know it developed on the foundations of or within the geographic boundaries of an originally Christian society. You might just as easily say for example, that the Black Death is what triggered the Renaissance and eventually the development of modern science, because of the massive shift in power that it brought about away from the central authority of the Papacy and toward the independent city states of Italy. Or, you could argue that it was the rise of the bourgeoisie, and the entrepreneurial spirit that came with it, that led directly to the culture of the amateur scientist and experimentation for its own sake. Or if you really want to play devil's advocate, there's an absolutely massive case to be made that warfare has been the primary driver of scientific innovation throughout vast swathes of our history, recent and otherwise.
Is that enough of a reason to say that Christianity should now be systematically rooted out from present-day society, and forever be condemned as a force that was historically only ever negative and evil? Most certainly not. But by the same token, it's still a massive leap to over-state the positive role it has left to play in the world today, or how much we owe it for the contribution it's played in the past to our relatively comfortable lives now. The problem for the Church then, as others have pointed out, is definitely that for it not to stand out as being increasingly anachronistic and meaningless, it's forced to concede ever more ground on the symbolism/allegory front, but the further it goes down that road the closer it gets to talking itself out of existence. It's firmly stuck between a rock and a hard place, in other words. And so far as the 'anti-Church' posters here are concerned, my bet is that they don't want anything more from the 'pro-Church' posters than an honest admission of the fact.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
From: Epsom
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
From: Epsom
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 1
From: ....
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 1
From: ....
a book I'm reading at the moment mentions about this... just typing it out as it is....
there's a book called
'Why Do People Suffer?' by James Jones.
In it he gives an incident from his own life. As you read it imagine that the father is 'God' and the child is each of us in our suffering.
I remember once walking past the school at the end of the road. On the other side of the six-foot wall I could hear a small child crying inconsolably. A teacher was trying to comfort hr but with little immediate success. Like any parent, the sound of a child sobbing stirred my heart.
as I walked on down the road, the child's crying ringing in my ears, I stopped dead in my tracks as I realized that the child who was in tears was my own daughter. Part of me wanted to vault over the wall and rescue her - to tell her that it was all right, that Daddy was here and she'd be OK now. But another part of me knew that I should do nothing of the kind - that I had to leave her so that others could come near to her and help her
In the end, there is no answer to the problem of suffering which will fully satisfy our reason.
there's a book called
'Why Do People Suffer?' by James Jones.
In it he gives an incident from his own life. As you read it imagine that the father is 'God' and the child is each of us in our suffering.
I remember once walking past the school at the end of the road. On the other side of the six-foot wall I could hear a small child crying inconsolably. A teacher was trying to comfort hr but with little immediate success. Like any parent, the sound of a child sobbing stirred my heart.
as I walked on down the road, the child's crying ringing in my ears, I stopped dead in my tracks as I realized that the child who was in tears was my own daughter. Part of me wanted to vault over the wall and rescue her - to tell her that it was all right, that Daddy was here and she'd be OK now. But another part of me knew that I should do nothing of the kind - that I had to leave her so that others could come near to her and help her
In the end, there is no answer to the problem of suffering which will fully satisfy our reason.
So He leaves you all at the mercy of others wether they are going to help you or cause you harm?
Nice chap, isn't He.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,360
Likes: 0
From: North Yorkshire
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
The anti god botherers on here are probably just as bad as the god botherers. I would consider myself as a non god botherer. For those who believe that they are completely right (from either side,) please post the proof. If you have no proof, then accept that your beliefs are exactly that. Your beliefs. There is no point trying to convert the other side to your point of view. It is a bit like saying cars are better than bikes. You can't ever prove that, but neither can you prove that bikes are better than cars. All sensible people know bikes are better and god is a story, but unfortunately, all people can't be sensible
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 1
From: ....
Well summed up FB.
As I started this thread light - heartedly I'll finish my contribution with this:
As I said earlier, I'd had a deeply religious upbringing from a baby to until I could decide for myself.
I have many questions I need answering but none of you on here can do that as I can't put them in writing. I'll eventually find the answers but they won't consume my life to do it.
I came out the other side older and, I believe, wiser.
But then I remembered this :
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).
Taken literally (and if not, what's the point of believing?) do you really believe you will all live forever?
Good health.
As I started this thread light - heartedly I'll finish my contribution with this:
As I said earlier, I'd had a deeply religious upbringing from a baby to until I could decide for myself.
I have many questions I need answering but none of you on here can do that as I can't put them in writing. I'll eventually find the answers but they won't consume my life to do it.
I came out the other side older and, I believe, wiser.
But then I remembered this :
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).
Taken literally (and if not, what's the point of believing?) do you really believe you will all live forever?
Good health.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Oh come on, you surely are just trolling now! Christianity is riddled with introlerance. Religious intolerance, sexual intolerance, suppression of women.....
Feel free to quote one thing I have said that is intolerant? I am not actually intolerant of religion per se, but I do get frustrated at the illogical and refusal to answer pointed questions, except with a rather glib statement about faith.
Hell, where do you want me to start?
Genesis is wrong in the order of creation, the way the world was created, the length of time for creation.
There are many problems with, well, most of the stories!!! The great flood, no evidence whatsoever, there isn't eough water on the Earth to cover all of the land as it currently stands (and if we believe the Earth is only 6000 ears old, then it is effectively as it stands).
The ages of people, the fact that there would be no genetic diversity in the population if they had propogated in accordance with the bible.
Exodus, no evidence of it from the Egyptians.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he deos not fulfil the prophecy (which is particularly poor and shows what idiots the writers were!). The new testament is historically innaccurate and inconsistent. Jesus could not have been born when they say he was and have been living during the reign of Herod and been in the census of Quirinus.
The gospels all have different lineage for Jesus, not even agreeing on numbers, let alone names!
I could go on, but is there really a need?
Geezer
Feel free to quote one thing I have said that is intolerant? I am not actually intolerant of religion per se, but I do get frustrated at the illogical and refusal to answer pointed questions, except with a rather glib statement about faith.
Genesis is wrong in the order of creation, the way the world was created, the length of time for creation.
There are many problems with, well, most of the stories!!! The great flood, no evidence whatsoever, there isn't eough water on the Earth to cover all of the land as it currently stands (and if we believe the Earth is only 6000 ears old, then it is effectively as it stands).
The ages of people, the fact that there would be no genetic diversity in the population if they had propogated in accordance with the bible.
Exodus, no evidence of it from the Egyptians.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he deos not fulfil the prophecy (which is particularly poor and shows what idiots the writers were!). The new testament is historically innaccurate and inconsistent. Jesus could not have been born when they say he was and have been living during the reign of Herod and been in the census of Quirinus.
The gospels all have different lineage for Jesus, not even agreeing on numbers, let alone names!
I could go on, but is there really a need?
Geezer
Scooby Senior
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 15,078
Likes: 46
From: Nottm
Hell, where do you want me to start?
Genesis is wrong in the order of creation, the way the world was created, the length of time for creation.
There are many problems with, well, most of the stories!!! The great flood, no evidence whatsoever, there isn't eough water on the Earth to cover all of the land as it currently stands (and if we believe the Earth is only 6000 ears old, then it is effectively as it stands).
The ages of people, the fact that there would be no genetic diversity in the population if they had propogated in accordance with the bible.
Exodus, no evidence of it from the Egyptians.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he deos not fulfil the prophecy (which is particularly poor and shows what idiots the writers were!). The new testament is historically innaccurate and inconsistent. Jesus could not have been born when they say he was and have been living during the reign of Herod and been in the census of Quirinus.
The gospels all have different lineage for Jesus, not even agreeing on numbers, let alone names!
I could go on, but is there really a need?
Geezer
Genesis is wrong in the order of creation, the way the world was created, the length of time for creation.
There are many problems with, well, most of the stories!!! The great flood, no evidence whatsoever, there isn't eough water on the Earth to cover all of the land as it currently stands (and if we believe the Earth is only 6000 ears old, then it is effectively as it stands).
The ages of people, the fact that there would be no genetic diversity in the population if they had propogated in accordance with the bible.
Exodus, no evidence of it from the Egyptians.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he deos not fulfil the prophecy (which is particularly poor and shows what idiots the writers were!). The new testament is historically innaccurate and inconsistent. Jesus could not have been born when they say he was and have been living during the reign of Herod and been in the census of Quirinus.
The gospels all have different lineage for Jesus, not even agreeing on numbers, let alone names!
I could go on, but is there really a need?
Geezer
Mmmm, I see you've really gone into this, nothing more I need to follow up with then, I take it this is all you're view from a non religious slant which you've bedated with religous clergy to come to your conclusion after asking your questions to someone who could give you an answer back?
You've not read my first post in this thread though?
Last edited by salsa-king; Sep 6, 2010 at 07:17 AM.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Well, debated with the clergy? No, debated with people who have faith? Yes. Eventually you either get angry people who shout at you or just say "I have faith". Neither situation is very satisfying.
I have read every single post in this threrad, but there are quite alot, so I don't remember your first post and I don't intend it search for it
Geezer
I have read every single post in this threrad, but there are quite alot, so I don't remember your first post and I don't intend it search for it
Geezer