Archbishop Warns Against 'Hero Worship'...What About Jesus?

[Eric Mc]

hornet said:

Eric Mc said:

And yet, and yet....

Many children brought up in very religious households still manage to make their own minds up on what they want to believe...

I'm sure they do, but my point was they had no say in their "faith" from the outset, which was the original point being made. ETA - or not. I'm confused now!

Edited by hornet on Monday 1st April 21:08

Best way to be really.

[JDRoest]

hornet said:

I'd disagree with that, on the grounds upbringing plays a huge part in belief. Children raised in a religious household are not making a choice, they're just assuming said faith is normal as that's their day to day experience growing up. Fair enough if people go to a belief as an adult, but I'd suggest a great many people believe what they believe for no other reason than it's wired into them as children.

Not at all. My family is the complete opposite. Myself and my eldest sister were brought up in a Christian household as our father was a practicing minister, and neither of us has stepped foot in a church (other than weddings and funerals) for probably 25 years. Confounding all expectations, my youngest sister never went to church when she was younger (my parents had long since given up their ministry), and is now a devout Christian.

Your 'wired' thing could not be further from the truth. Many of my uncles and aunts are practicing Christians, very few of my cousins are.

[JDRoest]

Derek Smith said:

The changes that have improved lives have been secular in the main, or at least not coming from the church.

Not in the slightest. The whole trade union movement has roots directly to the church about how man should treat another man, and at the time, did an incredibly good job at giving people the rights we take for granted today. If the church hadn't have stood up for the common man, then we'd all be earning f-all in horrible slave labour type jobs that were seen at the turn of the 20th century.

[Eric Mc]

And an awful lot of the "social awareness" changes that began in Britain in the mid 1800s were driven by devout Christians.

Religion (like all human activity) is double edged. It can be a driver for good - and sometimes a driver for evil.

[supertouring]

Eric Mc said:

And an awful lot of the "social awareness" changes that began in Britain in the mid 1800s were driven by devout Christians.

Religion (like all human activity) is double edged. It can be a driver for evil - and sometimes a driver for good.

Fixed that.

[Eric Mc]

supertouring said:

Eric Mc said:

And an awful lot of the "social awareness" changes that began in Britain in the mid 1800s were driven by devout Christians.

Religion (like all human activity) is double edged. It can be a driver for evil - and sometimes a driver for good.

Fixed that.

If you insist. The sentiment is the same. People are both good and bad. Whatever activities they get involved in often have that dual aspect.

[PugwasHDJ80]

Eric Mc said:

supertouring said:

Eric Mc said:

And an awful lot of the "social awareness" changes that began in Britain in the mid 1800s were driven by devout Christians.

Religion (like all human activity) is double edged. It can be a driver for evil - and sometimes a driver for good.

Fixed that.

If you insist. The sentiment is the same. People are both good and bad. Whatever activities they get involved in often have that dual aspect.

but you tend to find greater extremese when those same people can devolve all personal responsibility to a "higher power".

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

And an awful lot of the "social awareness" changes that began in Britain in the mid 1800s were driven by devout Christians.

Religion (like all human activity) is double edged. It can be a driver for good - and sometimes a driver for evil.

But not by the church, a vital distinction. In fact the church was against many of the social reforms. Indeed many of the church institutions wee subject of reforms.

You know about the workhouses and orphanages that were run by the religious. The fact that many of the owners had bibles in their hand from which they could quote does not mean religion was bad, evil in fact, but merely that the individuals were, and the converse is true. A reformer who is a christian at a time when he would be ostracised from society if he admitted to atheism does not necessarily give any credit to his church.

I know christians whom I admire for their service to the community but, if they hadn't been born into christian families, they still would have been just the same. We had a methodist vicar in a little village in NW Kent where I live who has dedicated his life to the support and betterment of others. However, once you get to know him you realise that he would have done exactly the same if his motivation was socialism. He is that rarest of creature, a good man.

In England/Wales it was only the church loosing its grip and its ability to control that led to the reforms. There was no pressure from any major church for a better life for us plebs. Before that the church was the epitome of conservatism.

[Eric Mc]

I never mentioned the word "church".

I have little or no time for institutionalised religion. To me it is wholly a personal choice what and how one chooses to believe. I do not think for one moment that men (or women) who are part of some sort of organised body have the right to tell me how or what to think.

I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind.

However, that does not mean that I write these bodies off completely. I am perfectly happy to listen to what they have to say. And then chose to accept or reject what they are saying.

[SpeckledJim]

JDRoest said:

Derek Smith said:

The changes that have improved lives have been secular in the main, or at least not coming from the church.

Not in the slightest. The whole trade union movement has roots directly to the church about how man should treat another man, and at the time, did an incredibly good job at giving people the rights we take for granted today. If the church hadn't have stood up for the common man, then we'd all be earning f-all in horrible slave labour type jobs that were seen at the turn of the 20th century.

Like spending your whole life in poverty because you spend every waking hour building someone a Cathedral, for example.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

And yet, and yet....

Many children brought up in very religious households still manage to make their own minds up on what they want to believe...

1 in 12 do. 11 out of 12 adults have broadly the same religious beliefs as their parents had.

[MX7]

JDRoest said:

If the church hadn't have stood up for the common man, then we'd all be earning f-all in horrible slave labour type jobs that were seen at the turn of the 20th century.

I don't like criticising religion, but you're making it very hard for me not to.

Mankind is not void of compassion, and nor is it entirely based on greed. The church is, to some extent, a moral compass, but they didn't invent philanthropy. To claim that we wouldn't have progressed over the last 100 years is very odd.

[hornet]

JDRoest said:

Your 'wired' thing could not be further from the truth. Many of my uncles and aunts are practicing Christians, very few of my cousins are.

It could not be further from the truth in your circumstances, but successive generations of believers (whatever the faith) are coming from somewhere. I'm simply suggesting that a great deal of the time it's upbringing rather than a conscious decision. I don't think that's a especially contentious claim when applied to the population as an average. Are you suggesting the probability of children going on to be religious in future life isn't impacted by their upbringing?

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

I never mentioned the word "church".

I have little or no time for institutionalised religion. To me it is wholly a personal choice what and how one chooses to believe. I do not think for one moment that men (or women) who are part of some sort of organised body have the right to tell me how or what to think.

I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind.

However, that does not mean that I write these bodies off completely. I am perfectly happy to listen to what they have to say. And then chose to accept or reject what they are saying.

You seem perfectly capable of making up your own religion as well it would appear. I've studied religion but am not religious, but this 'pick and mix' version is not religious. It is just make believe. What can it possibly be based on? The KJ bible? Hardly given its gestation.

A belief in an organised religion, or one invented by oneself, is of no consequence when it comes to 'doing good', or as the thread has turned out, working to improve the life of the average bod.

The Earl of Shaftsbury might well have been a nominal christian but there is little doubt where his motivation came from, and it wasn't any desire to preach. Anyone brought up the way he was might well have ended up with similar motivations. You don't have to be Freud to work that out.

In a time when everyone was obliged to be religious, it is no surprise that the majority of the reformers who came from the establishment were nominally christians.

My experience is that some people of selfish and others selfless. Belief in myths and the suspension of the laws of physics is common to both.

[bad company]

There was another clergyman writing in the Telegraph about Easter being a time of reflection and that the pubs opening late was all wrong.

I get the right with these self rightous t***s telling the rest of us what we should and should not be doing. I regard myself as tolerant and respect anybodies right to follow whatever religion they chose BUT please leave the rest of us alone.

[HOGEPH]

Pistonheads, bashing the bishop matters!

[Nikolai Petroff]

Eric Mc said:

And an awful lot of the "social awareness" changes that began in Britain in the mid 1800s were driven by devout Christians.

Religion (like all human activity) is double edged. It can be a driver for good - and sometimes a driver for evil.

Who would have done the same even if they were atheists.

If he didn't believe in the sky fairy. Osama binLaden would have had a quiet life raising horses.

[otolith]

Nikolai Petroff said:

Who would have done the same even if they were atheists.

If he didn't believe in the sky fairy. Osama binLaden would have had a quiet life raising horses.

Weinberg said:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

[Gaspode]

AnonSpoilSport said:

Don't call Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha weasels, please.

No indeed, it would be massively demeaning to all Mustelids

[im]

Who says Jesus couldn't perform miracles?

He managed to find mates named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John hanging around in the Middle East.