Respecting religion???

[anonymous-user]

Moonhawk said:

Irony much?

No.
I gave current examples of how a very religious nation is forging a new future through science and commerce and how some of the major disagreements involving some Western nations have nothing to so with religion.
Steve responds with a silly 'chart' that mentions some thousand year old scientific dark age that is supposedly a result of Christianity ( lest we forget the fall of the Roman Empire and all the conquests and conflicts that came from that). I am talking about religion as it is RIGHT NOW.
Do you blame Germans today for what their ancestors did in WW2?
Do you judge Britain today by what we did to the Boers?
Do you judge the Americans today by what they did with slavery centuries ago?
Seriously now?!

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

Dwelling on history seems to be an option to take and argument to or avoid depending on the need. Tick the appropriate box.

From my understanding of history.

The UK has a very long history related to this particular god and it is ingrained into society. You cannot ignore that influence. Curses such as "for gads sake" or "jesus christ!", I come out with these, it is part of my history and language in common use and has a reason for being there. Festivals kicked by the religion are used annually. Cathedrals, examples of power, are everywhere (major cities etc. as opposed to up every tree), churches in almost every town and village, many going back centuries, all tied to who ever held power. Religion did embrace technology (idea's of etc.), but only to the extent it could control it and abuse it. Much like the Cathedrals and projection of power and control downwards, idea's were to be controlled and only let out the bag if they thought it was good for the church.


Now the cat is out the bag, not happening as quick as I would like but one example is the pope (last one? they are all the same anyway) has decided that he would have no problem with an alien landing on some governments lawn, I suspect it is more to do with they cannot control the idea anymore, so must go with the flow on this one. He would get my respect allowing a woman to take high office in the catholic faith. Same for all the other male oriented religions.

I think what happens in the here and now is interesting with respect religions as they have to cope with freedom of information.

I see that I.T has probably had the most impact on breaking down the power of religious institutions or forcing them to adapt. It's like 'power to the people', where we can now communicate with each other so easily, research ideas, discuss issues (with a little anonymity too) and organise ourselves.
And those institutions that are right minded will adapt and embrace it. But the need or desire for personal faith and religion needn't alter, it might but it doesn't have to.

[jmorgan]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Jebus. My spill chackker is terrible when I do not read it back properly.

Anyhoo.

Problem is the old ways still want control, the personal choice has become a personal choice proper where as before it was "always that way". Bit like voting Tory in the S Wales valleys, hanging offence according to some. But now you can see something else but it will take time for some and in certain communities (no matter the faith)

I suspect the institutions embrace it for the camera's and more recently for twitter or Facebook. I think Father Ted was very clever in some of the jokes they had at religion. What you are supposed to think and what really happens. That is all still there in many ways.

So I cannot see separation of previous to today. It is still attached baggage.

[Claudia Skies]

jmorgan said:

I suspect the institutions embrace it for the camera's and more recently for twitter or Facebook. I think Father Ted was very clever in some of the jokes they had at religion. What you are supposed to think and what really happens. That is all still there in many ways.

I know few "religious" people who are daft enough to believe every word. What I don't understand is why so few have the guts to stand up and be counted. After all, if your fundamental beliefs are so fragile that nothing can ever be changed/doubted/disproved then your beliefs are looking very weak indeed.

The former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, said in a BBC interview with David Frost in 2003,

" All sorts of people in the church simply turned in on me, quarrelled with me about the details of the Christian faith and showed that the churches are now so turned inward, they're always trying to preserve the past for the various brands of certainty, the various brands of Christianity and indeed of course Islam and Judaism have, and have quite forgotten that if there is a real god, he's the god of now for the future.

"....the world has moved on, it isn't Christendom that's going to save everybody, it's only the coming together of human beings in civilisation, hope and service, under a god who is far greater than anything we've dreamt yet, whom is going to get on. And therefore to have an established church, to have, it's said, it's necessary for Islam to be an Islamic state, to have Judaism ruled by ultra orthodox rather than more secularised sharing people, it's a disaster."

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

Jebus. My spill chackker is terrible when I do not read it back .
.

I'll give you an example of I.T being used against religion.
Every time I type 'theists' the bloody predictive text changes it to 'thrusts'. bd thing!

[Derek Smith]

Claudia Skies said:

The former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, said in a BBC interview with David Frost in 2003,

Jenkins was something of a free thinker. Some accused him on not being a christian because he did not believe in the resurrection, miracles, the virgin birth or heaven - and hence, one would assume, the afterlife. Some suggested, and he did not contradict them, that he did not believe in a personal god.

His opinion was that all religions did was to provide a framework for how to live your life.

He had quite a following at one time. However, he had this habit of answering questions fully and honestly. That upset a few in the Anglican hierarchy and made the traditionalists spit blood.

If indeed the purpose of religion is to provide this framework, then there are much better ones to follow than the abrahmic sects. I don't think a 'framework' that includes women being second class, one's sexuality being of concern, and the overpopulation of the world being as essential, a sensible framework.

[MC Bodge]

Claudia Skies said:

I know few "religious" people who are daft enough to believe every word. What I don't understand is why so few have the guts to stand up and be counted. After all, if your fundamental beliefs are so fragile that nothing can ever be changed/doubted/disproved then your beliefs are looking very weak indeed.

The former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, said in a BBC interview with David Frost in 2003,

" All sorts of people in the church simply turned in on me, quarrelled with me about the details of the Christian faith and showed that the churches are now so turned inward, they're always trying to preserve the past for the various brands of certainty, the various brands of Christianity and indeed of course Islam and Judaism have, and have quite forgotten that if there is a real god, he's the god of now for the future.

"....the world has moved on, it isn't Christendom that's going to save everybody, it's only the coming together of human beings in civilisation, hope and service, under a god who is far greater than anything we've dreamt yet, whom is going to get on. And therefore to have an established church, to have, it's said, it's necessary for Islam to be an Islamic state, to have Judaism ruled by ultra orthodox rather than more secularised sharing people, it's a disaster."

????

Well, as it appears that all of the beliefs are fairly baseless -from a supernatural, 'god' point of view-, there doesn't appear to be much reason to believe/have "faith"in any of it, rather than having to pick n' mix.

The various religions are intertwined with the cultural norms of their community, with ideas, tradition and dogma of distinctly human origin.

If it is actually all god's word/will, then it wouldn't change.

If it is just a cultural and ethical way of living / population control that changes with time, then pretending that a god commands and controls it all is just silly.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

This sums up everything I believe perfectly. From a bloke I don't even like that much.

[Halb]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

This sums up everything I believe perfectly. From a bloke I don't even like that much.

Gay looks lost.

[mybrainhurts]

Halb said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

This sums up everything I believe perfectly. From a bloke I don't even like that much.

Gay looks lost.

Wow...

Stephen Fry beckons the Spanish Inquisition....

[NWTony]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I might mention it if they were still doing it?

[Martin4x4]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

This sums up everything I believe perfectly. From a bloke I don't even like that much.

The response "... and you think you would get in?"

Shows the questioner didn't really understand the response.

I think like Stephen Fry, I would be expecting an answer to the question not to "get in"

[Martin4x4]

NWTony said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I might mention it if they were still doing it?

Perhaps like the Church of England opposing development of treatments for serious genetic diseases or the catholic church opposition to condoms for aids prevention, or American fundamentalist Christians opposing the teaching of science and stem cell research.

[anonymous-user]

NWTony said:

I might mention it if they were still doing it?

Exactly, so by that same thinking some silly graph about a supposed Christian science dark age that ended half a millenium ago doesn't deserve much consideration and certainly isn't a valid response to talking about here and now.

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

Perhaps like the Church of England opposing development of treatments for serious genetic diseases or the catholic church opposition to condoms for aids prevention, or American fundamentalist Christians opposing the teaching of science and stem cell research.

Perhaps a little disingenuous of you there, regarding the CofE article.
They don't oppose genetic research if it is to alleviate suffering, they actually state that. What they are asking for is more research into this to ensure we know more about the mitochondrial role before plowing ahead. Are you suggesting they/we shouldn't be allowed to question science?

[Martin4x4]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes. Falsification is a core principle of Science and anybody peddling otherwise is engaging in belief not Science.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 1st February 18:44

[Martin4x4]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It is not disingenuous, the Church opposed the Bill Amendment that would allow this research to take place on the grounds that research has not taken place and that preventing genetic diseases is somehow unethical. Now I consider that is disingenuous on both grounds.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 1st February 12:44

[Martin4x4]

Martin4x4 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It is not disingenuous, the Church opposed the Bill Amendment that would allow this research to take place on the grounds that research has not taken place and that preventing genetic diseases is somehow unethical. Now I consider that is disingenuous on both grounds.

Those examples also disproves your implication that church opposition to scientific progress is a thing of the past.

Those examples also disproves religious claims to any kind of special authority on ethical issues.

[Derek Smith]

Martin4x4 said:

NWTony said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I might mention it if they were still doing it?

Perhaps like the Church of England opposing development of treatments for serious genetic diseases or the catholic church opposition to condoms for aids prevention, or American fundamentalist Christians opposing the teaching of science and stem cell research.

Not only that, in the main the Germans are appalled by their history and condemn it. They have some of the most stringent anti racist legislation in the world.

In this country the transformation of the refugee camps to concentration camps was condemned at the time and later by the Fawcett Commission.

Americans fought a war that was ostensibly over slavery.

The various abrahamic churches still use the same manual of guidance, written 3,500 years ago initially, they used in the dark ages. Some pay lip service but others are more strict. We are still learning of the cover up of child abuse by the church. Churches are resistant to change, even when there is a moral imperative. Slavery, as mentioned above, is expressly permitted in the bible and this was used by the pro-slavery group to justify their actions.

Whilst we should, must I'd suggest, remember where we went wrong in the past, this is not the most important aspect. What is vital that we learn from the past and modify our mores. We need to accept that what was reasonable in the past is not nowadays.

If we take the Boer War camps, they were justified by many at the time. Nowadays it is seen, quite rightly, as a blot. Kitchener, quite rightly, suffered for his actions later.

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

It is not disingenuous, the Church opposed the Bill Amendment that would allow this research to take place on the grounds that research has not taken place and that preventing genetic diseases is somehow unethical. Now I consider that is disingenuous on both grounds.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 1st February 12:44

They are actually questioning the ethics, safety and efficacy of it. Are you in agreement that these three things are satisfied already by the scientists? Should they not be questioned?
Don't think that you can judge the CofE by the actions of the Catholic and American Churches either, all very different organisations.