Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 68 of 68

Thread: On your bike mr pope

  1. #51
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DD View Post
    The big bang theory involves the universe creating itself out of nothing. You don't get much more bonkers than that! The whole deal is absurd. I suppose that's why people have religion as it's an easy explanation and it saves you from driving yourself mental thinking about it. 'Infinity' is the most frightening word in the world!
    They are vastly different magnitudes of bonkerdness. Your point regarding the big bang is valid, however there is some evidence pointing towards it rather than none. As we get closer from then to the present time there are swathes of evidence regarding the development on earth that more than suggest it wasnt created in 7 days and on the 7th day there were herds of wilderbeast yomping accross it.

  2. #52
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    11,407
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    They are vastly different magnitudes of bonkerdness. Your point regarding the big bang is valid, however there is some evidence pointing towards it rather than none. As we get closer from then to the present time there are swathes of evidence regarding the development on earth that more than suggest it wasnt created in 7 days and on the 7th day there were herds of wilderbeast yomping accross it.
    Every ancient religion had creation myths. The egyptians believed their god basically had a sherman tank, swallowed his semen, gave birth to a son and a daughter, who were the gods that created the universe. Just like us, they were scrabbling round for an explanation of creation, and the truth is we know as much as they did.

    The old testament talks about a great flood - that has been proven to have taken place. The story of Noah is taken from an earlier sumarian myth featuring a king called gilgamesh. And every ancient civilisisation had a story of flood survivors.

    You must read the old testament in the context it was written - its about the semetic people of the middle east. The story of Adam & Even taken out of context doesn't work, we think of them of the first people on earth because of mistranslations, but if we take in context (ie the first jews) it makes more sense.

    The parting of the Red Sea is a mistranslation. The original hebrew calls them the Reed seas, which are in Northern Egypt. These seas have been proven to have receeded when the Greek Island of Thera (now called Santorini) exploded causing huge tidal waves.

    I have more of an issue with the new testament than the old TBH.

    As I said, I am not a believer, but I came to that decision after reading what was available, most believers haven't done that. They believe what the church tells them, and it is purely mind control.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,020
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    no particular axe to grind with the pope one way or the other , but it annoys me that all these middle aged lefties like richard dawkins and clare raynor eulogise and hero worship two of the biggest criminals and murderers the world has ever seen , namely stalin and mao tse tseung.

  4. #54
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    11,407
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Just found this on Graham Hancock's website

  5. #55
    Banned Spider Ski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hanging off the Scaff Wall
    Posts
    3,494
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Just found this on Graham Hancock's website
    Another interpretation may also be that Moses actually parted a "sea of reids" and it is a poor translation of ancient Hebrew.

  6. #56
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    799
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    With regards to the Pope's visit, it put me of mind of the Queen's jubilee a few years ago. In the time leading up to it, it was suggested the royal family was outdated, unpopular and that there was widespread public apathy. Actually, there was a much better reception than expected. The same took place with regard to the Pope - it created a good interest amongst a good number of people. By the very nature of these events, they interest and attract a certain type of person, but that's no reason no quash them. That's like saying Channel 4 should only show Big Brother because it's the only thing anyone watches in numbers.

    The argument with regard to the money spent on the visit ignores the benefit to the economy in terms of the tourism, travel and other industries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northampton_Saint View Post
    the outright refusal of the human mind, with all its inate inquisitiveness and need to know, to ever accept that the answer to most questions is, and likely always will be, simply "I don't know".
    Ironcially, this covered in the book of Genesis.

    Christians know the answer to every single question - nice and simple. I often entertain and amuse people (not really) with my "Christian Encyclopedia" (a single post-it note with the word "God" written on it) at parties - goes down a storm at bar-mitvahs that one...
    I understand why "God" being the answer to every question is a poor argument, but it has no more failings than any of the other arguments on these pages. If Christianity is correct, far from being a terrible argument, it's the ultimate argument. The point in question is never what is the answer to 'every single question', but the validity or otherwise of Christian beliefs (or other beliefs).

    Anyway - the sooner people accept that the answer to those questions is "I don't know" rather than "God" then maybe we can all stop blowing each other up
    This is both ridiculous and offensive. I've been going to church all my life. I've never blown anyone up.

    Or force you to not protect yourself from disease and rampant overpopulation
    You will find the Catholic church (of which I am not part) supports celebacy. Celebacy, I think you will find would do a perfectly good job of protection from "disease and over population".

    just so we can force yet more millions of ignorant innocents onto the planet who we can dominate and get money and power from.
    ... in which statement you take a completely one sided view and disregard the vast amounts of charity, community and voluntary work that the Catholic church, and other denominations, carry out in this and other countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy
    As I said, I am not a believer, but I came to that decision after reading what was available, most believers haven't done that. They believe what the church tells them, and it is purely mind control.
    To be fair, the Bible has been in English for centuries. The church cannot be held fully responsible if its members don't read it - you can't force them, but I know of and applaud a great number of 'sensible' churchmen who encourage their congregations to check the Bible and make their own mind up.
    Last edited by downknowsleyroad; 25th September 2010 at 18:28. Reason: adding to this post rather than a double post

  7. #57
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downknowsleyroad View Post
    I understand why "God" being the answer to every question is a poor argument, but it has no more failings than any of the other arguments on these pages.
    .
    It is a significantly weaker argument compared to fact and evidence based arguments. A lot of people get confused with the right to have an opinion and the validity of that opinion. All opinions are not equally valid though the people that express them have an equal right to do so. Think of it this way, I may think that the moon is made of cheese, you may think it is made of rock. The evidence is on your side, your view is more valid than mine.

  8. #58
    In The South Stand Legolas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,770
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Except nobody except those who prefer the evolutionary argument have ever said science and religion are incompatible. Neither is an absolute science, and I can dispute many so called scientific "facts" with many religious arguments taken fr from the Bible. Science argue the big bang, religion argues the first line of Genesis. "and God said let their be light." that light is the big bang.

  9. #59
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legolas View Post
    Except nobody except those who prefer the evolutionary argument have ever said science and religion are incompatible. Neither is an absolute science, and I can dispute many so called scientific "facts" with many religious arguments taken fr from the Bible. Science argue the big bang, religion argues the first line of Genesis. "and God said let their be light." that light is the big bang.
    the point is that there is only evidence for the light bit not the god bit. Likewise with evolution, it is entirely possible that God sowed the seeds for evolution to happen. However there is no evidence for this therefore God is an irrelevant part of it. Evolution could have happened witrhout god and should be considered to have done so until there is evidence to the contary.

  10. #60
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    799
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    the point is that there is only evidence for the light bit not the god bit. Likewise with evolution, it is entirely possible that God sowed the seeds for evolution to happen. However there is no evidence for this...
    I understand what you mean, and it's a fair point contained in the quoted text - but it depends what an individual is willing to accept as evidence. Some will be happy to look at the world and see that as evidence of the existance of God, others will look at the same thing and draw no conclusion, others still will look at the same thing and see it as proof of the non-existance of God.

    In so much as saying "there is evidence for light but not God" - again it comes down to a persons acceptance of the truth or otherwise of a religion. The Bible will tell you, in one context, that "...God is light..." (John 1:5, here), and in another context (Genesis 1 here) that God also created light. Therefore if you believe the Bible, the existance of light equals evidence of the existance God.

    If you don't believe the Bible - it's just light, it's just science.

    You will note the Genesis creation story mentions that there was "light and dark" before "sun and moon" - whether creation as defined in Genesis is a literal account or not, perhaps the sequencing is not by accident. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a fan of read the Bible and make your own mind up rather than just listen to people, so if you're interested enough to do so, it's here

    . Evolution could have happened witrhout god and should be considered to have done so until there is evidence to the contary.
    I agree evolution could have happened without God in a purely 'scientific' way, but as DD pointed out above, the argument that everything we see 'just happened' is also quite unsatisfactory; as Legolas pointed out, it is also completely plausable that God created science and either let or made science do the rest.

    [continues below...]
    Last edited by downknowsleyroad; 26th September 2010 at 01:28. Reason: clarification of point

  11. #61
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    799
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The over-arching point to all these discussions is that it will always come back to whether you accept an individual religion's teachings or not. The Bible is clear that it is through faith, not understanding, that one is saved (one example). So, as ever, it's an individual's own reasoning that it comes down to.

    Which, interestingly, brings us back to the point raised earlier in this thread about mankind's unwillingness to accept what he or she doesn't know, which Genesis tells us is what got us into this mess in the first place (Genesis 3 (particularly verse 6), here)

    (forgive the double post - every time I try and edit the previous one it won't let me)

  12. #62
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downknowsleyroad View Post
    I understand what you mean, and it's a fair point contained in the quoted text - but it depends what an individual is willing to accept as evidence.
    absolutely, but I do think that religious people are very generous in what they call evidence, in particular when quoting the bible. Now, I am no bible expert however of the few things i do know I would question its credibility as an accurate source of information. Each of the books within it were written hundreds of years apart, it has been translated countless times and the stories within it are almost certainly word of mouth stories that have then been written down many many years later. You only have to play a game of chinese whispers to see how information is modified rapidly even over a short scale. I think the teeaching in there are based on real events but the perception of what really happened is somewhat different and that there has been numerous modifications, exaggerations and manipulations over time. I dont think it is completely false, I do believe that the stories regarding Jesus were based on a real person, I just dont believe that he did the party tricks that he has been proffessed to. If I had to hazard a guess or offer a theory Id say he was probably just an intelligent charismatic person who could tell a tale or two and inspire people.

    Quote Originally Posted by downknowsleyroad View Post
    Some will be happy to look at the world and see that as evidence of the existance of God, others will look at the same thing and draw no conclusion, others still will look at the same thing and see it as proof of the non-existance of God.
    Its not evidence of any of them. Its evidence that the world exists...thats it. There is no evidence there of the existance (or for that matter non existance) of god from that observation.

  13. #63
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    11,407
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downknowsleyroad View Post
    To be fair, the Bible has been in English for centuries. The church cannot be held fully responsible if its members don't read it - you can't force them, but I know of and applaud a great number of 'sensible' churchmen who encourage their congregations to check the Bible and make their own mind up.
    Actually that's ecxactly what religion has forced prople to do for centuries.

    Explain this please:

    Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.
    If Cain was the son of Adam & Eve, he is accepted by the Church as the third human on Earth, so who exactly who find him and not kill him?

    If they were the first Jews then it would make sense, but would completely fly in the face of Christian belief, ie, Adam was the first man on Earth. So the church chooses to ignore issues like this, and the dozens of others the bible yields.

    How can Mary be a virgin if she had other children? Simple ignore the children - even though one of them wrote several books of the bible.

    What about letters to Paul telling him Christians must still lead the life of Jesus, ie, a Jew? Paul was told he should preach that converts keep their Sabbath (Saturday), must eat kosher (sp) food and must circumsise make children, yet those things are completely ignored.

    Christmas is a pagan festival brought into Christianity to make conversion more popular, so was all saints day
    Last edited by Buddy; 26th September 2010 at 09:16.

  14. #64
    Banned Spider Ski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hanging off the Scaff Wall
    Posts
    3,494
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downknowsleyroad View Post
    Which, interestingly, brings us back to the point raised earlier in this thread about mankind's unwillingness to accept what he or she doesn't know, which Genesis tells us is what got us into this mess in the first place (Genesis 3 (particularly verse 6), here)
    In a counter to that, this can also be used as evidence of religion justifying the position of male dominance in society, and (and to bring it full circle in the thread) that this is something particularly well practiced in the Catholic Church.

  15. #65
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    799
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Actually that's ecxactly what religion has forced prople to do for centuries.
    We live in different times, I can't make comments on the practices of the past, only to say that they were widespread and accepted. Every area of society has things that went on in the past that modern life has changed, brought into question or broadly abolished. You have to understand that in one way or another, the society of the past has been looking for many answers in religion that we find in science or history - those things were not available to these people, so it's reasonable that they take the only 'evidence' (if you will permit me to call it that for this purpose) they had.

    Explain this please:

    If Cain was the son of Adam & Eve, he is accepted by the Church as the third human on Earth, so who exactly who find him and not kill him?

    If they were the first Jews then it would make sense, but would completely fly in the face of Christian belief, ie, Adam was the first man on Earth. So the church chooses to ignore issues like this, and the dozens of others the bible yields.
    Honestly? I don't know. The 'first Jews' argument holds water but as you say is in contradiction to generations of accepted teaching. The 'first people' would seem that it would have to be another of his brothers or sisters, his own parents or children, or by extension other clans/tribes/nations on the earth, either already existing or created after Adam and Eve or the fall of man. Put simply, the Bible doesn't say (at least to my knowledge).

    It's no great mystery that there cannot have only been Adam, Eve and Cain on earth full stop - after all, with no more people, humanity would have died out there and then.

    Maybe someone else on here can offer a better explaination.

    How can Mary be a virgin if she had other children? Simple ignore the children - even though one of them wrote several books of the bible.
    The Bible states Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. There is no Biblical reason to consider she had no sexual relationships and children after this. She is known as the Virgin Mary as reference to her at the time of the birth of Christ.

    Christmas is a pagan festival brought into Christianity to make conversion more popular, so was all saints day
    Correct. An inspired piece of marketing by the early church.

    Haven't got time to answer any of the rest at the moment... I'm off to church lol

  16. #66
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    11,407
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downknowsleyroad View Post
    We live in different times, I can't make comments on the practices of the past, only to say that they were widespread and accepted. Every area of society has things that went on in the past that modern life has changed, brought into question or broadly abolished. You have to understand that in one way or another, the society of the past has been looking for many answers in religion that we find in science or history - those things were not available to these people, so it's reasonable that they take the only 'evidence' (if you will permit me to call it that for this purpose) they had.



    Honestly? I don't know. The 'first Jews' argument holds water but as you say is in contradiction to generations of accepted teaching. The 'first people' would seem that it would have to be another of his brothers or sisters, his own parents or children, or by extension other clans/tribes/nations on the earth, either already existing or created after Adam and Eve or the fall of man. Put simply, the Bible doesn't say (at least to my knowledge).

    It's no great mystery that there cannot have only been Adam, Eve and Cain on earth full stop - after all, with no more people, humanity would have died out there and then.

    Maybe someone else on here can offer a better explaination.



    The Bible states Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. There is no Biblical reason to consider she had no sexual relationships and children after this. She is known as the Virgin Mary as reference to her at the time of the birth of Christ.



    Correct. An inspired piece of marketing by the early church.

    Haven't got time to answer any of the rest at the moment... I'm off to church lol
    Not true I'm afraid. The Roman Catholic church and by extension the Church of England deny she gave birth to other children.

  17. #67
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    799
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    absolutely, but I do think that religious people are very generous in what they call evidence,
    I agree (but would add the word 'SOME' religious people).

    Each of the books within it were written hundreds of years apart, it has been translated countless times and the stories within it are almost certainly word of mouth stories that have then been written down many many years later. You only have to play a game of chinese whispers to see how information is modified rapidly even over a short scale.
    All correct. There is some evidence though that some of the books were written first hand, or by eye witnesses, or at least scribed on behalf of such people.

    I think the teeaching in there are based on real events but the perception of what really happened is somewhat different and that there has been numerous modifications, exaggerations and manipulations over time. I dont think it is completely false, I do believe that the stories regarding Jesus were based on a real person, I just dont believe that he did the party tricks that he has been proffessed to. If I had to hazard a guess or offer a theory Id say he was probably just an intelligent charismatic person who could tell a tale or two and inspire people.
    ... and this is a reasonable conclusion. I absolutely understand it. It's just not mine.

    Its not evidence of any of them. Its evidence that the world exists...thats it. There is no evidence there of the existance (or for that matter non existance) of god from that observation.
    This illustrates my point - people look at the same thing and see different things. I was speaking purely from the perspective of someone considering 'all around us' as evidence or not. Again, you have reached a fair and reasonable conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Not true I'm afraid. The Roman Catholic church and by extension the Church of England deny she gave birth to other children.
    I can't speak for the Catholic church, but in over 25 years attending Church of England services, I have honestly never, ever once heard this. The Church of England is a broad church, though, with a 'catholic' wing (if you will), so perhaps it goes on in Anglo-Catholic circles.

    The Bible doesn't seem too keen on it, either - Matthew 13:55-56 for instance. There's a suggesion on Wikipedia (of all places!) that 'brothers and sisters' may be a mistranslation or an interchangable term for "close relatives." I haven't seen, nor would I understand the original texts, though, so can't comment and am happy to go with "brothers and sisters" as we would commonly understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider Ski
    In a counter to that, this can also be used as evidence of religion justifying the position of male dominance in society, and (and to bring it full circle in the thread) that this is something particularly well practiced in the Catholic Church.
    I understand this, but many denominations (including increasingly the Church of England) are moving somewhat away their previous position. As Christians we can't be asked to justify the history of the church any more than as Britons we can be asked to justify some of the actions of the British Empire. It is important to note them historically and learn from it what is there to be learned, in the interests of informing the church (or Britain) of today.

    That's not to say I don't know Anglicans who oppose females becoming members of the clergy - they have, by and large, made an honest interpretation of their beliefs and though I may not agree with them, you have to say that from a purely Biblical perspective, you can see their point.

    Similarly, I know Anglicans who welcome female clergy wholeheartedly and look forward to the days they are permitted to be part of the episcopate (Bishops). They too have made an honest interpretation, based on Biblical, cultural and historical perspectives.

    It is not merely in the arena of religion that you will find such seemingly non-modern viewpoints (though I do concede we have our fair share), and I would rather leave it for a Catholic to comment on the Catholic church, as I cannot presume to know the intricacies of their position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy
    What about letters to Paul telling him Christians must still lead the life of Jesus, ie, a Jew? Paul was told he should preach that converts keep their Sabbath (Saturday), must eat kosher (sp) food and must circumsise make children, yet those things are completely ignored.
    The letters of Paul (as in, written by him, rather than to him), make it quite clear that a person can be "made right with God" without these things. Christians should live as Christians and Jews as Jews. You can be made right by obediance to the law, or by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-24, for example). It is accepted in the Christian faith that only one of these is actually possible for fallen man (Romans 2:17 - 3: 20 covers much of this).

    As I've said before, it will always come back to your acceptance or not of a faith and therefore the acceptance or not of the existance of its God. It's probably the one thing none of us can ever 'prove' one way or the other and we'll only find out absolutely when we either stand before God or something else happens - or we'll never find out because we'll simply be dead. The gap between the two is faith - and sometimes it's a very wide gap.

    I'm not trying to preach in any of what I've posted here or earlier, I'm simply trying to answer the points raised. I may be right or wrong, that's for discussion and individual opinion. I do applaud most of the contributors to this thread however for their sensible reponses. Too often these discussions turn into absurd slanging matches and I only joined in this one because there seemed to be genuine disucssion and debate. That's a great credit to most on here who have made it that way. I probably wouldn't have bothered on the Sin Bin on RLFANS. It's easy to cynically throw up catch 22 questions disingenuously, such questions should be asked honestly and with a willingness to fairly consider the answer, accept that there may not actually be one, or that it may be "I don't know." That seems to be the spirit (no pun intended) here. I hope my contributions meet this standard.

    I assure you, such questions are asked by me and other moderate Christians reading these texts just as much as anyone else. It is the image of the "know-all" TV evanglist which does us no favours.
    Last edited by downknowsleyroad; 26th September 2010 at 13:44.

  18. #68
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    11,407
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downknowsleyroad View Post
    The letters of Paul (as in, written by him, rather than to him), make it quite clear that a person can be "made right with God" without these things. Christians should live as Christians and Jews as Jews. You can be made right by obediance to the law, or by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-24, for example). It is accepted in the Christian faith that only one of these is actually possible for fallen man (Romans 2:17 - 3: 20 covers much of this).
    But Paul was neither a Jew or a follower of Jesus, yet Christianity accepts his word over the early Christian leaders, why?

    I think the letter is called the epistle of James and is recognised by historians as the earliest Christian document. It certainly mentions that Christians should eat kosher food, and IIRC discusses playing with yourself , so presumably that was an early Christian issue!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •