It happened a week ago. No thread re. Cameron finds god.
Discussion
carmonk said:
You mean the nice, relevant teachings, don't you? Not the ones that advocate genocide, infanticide, sexism, intolerance, homophobia and oxen husbandry. And the reason you're able to pick out the nice teachings over the dozens of pages of exhortion to commit unspeakable acts is that you already possess those morals. So even excluding the negatives, such as believing in something that blatantly is not true, there is no reason to follow any aspect of Christianity or any other religion.
Without meaning to sound self-righteous I'd suggest that a lot of us have lost these morals. I sincerely doubt that the Christianity which DC referred to is that absolute, archaic interpretation which you mention, those negative aspects certainly haven't been adhered to for a long time. We judge people, communities and nations on their present and recent actions so it's only fair to judge Christianity as it is today. What I would advocate is not to kneel at the altar of some god or to follow without question the preaching of a vicar but perhaps to refer to and consider the moral message of the bible on a practical level. Maybe the education system could instill a bit more morality, although looking at the not quite so selfless actions of striking teachers they don't exactly lead by example!!!!!!!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So the very moral guides, and commandments set forth by this holy book are not worthy of consideration, as they are clearly immoral? This is a basis and a guide for morality how? I think secular sensibility overtakes the immorality of the Bible, et al, hence why these things are ignored. Innate morality takes precedent over divine morality.TheHeretic said:
So the very moral guides, and commandments set forth by this holy book are not worthy of consideration, as they are clearly immoral? This is a basis and a guide for morality how? I think secular sensibility overtakes the immorality of the Bible, et al, hence why these things are ignored. Innate morality takes precedent over divine morality.
Indeed. Views on homosexuality for one thing.Just following the dictates of a book cannot be moral. Morality requires a decision, not blindness. If what is in any teachings conforms to your morals then you follow yours, not the book. Western catholicism (don't know about the easetern catholic church) has a variety of severity. There are mortal sins, such as indifference, which mean excommunication. Sinaed O'Connor was threatened with excom for tearing up a picture of the pope (graven image?) in a response to child abuse by priests but the priests themselves were not. I think most people would have responded according to their own morals and suggested vice versa.
Oddly enough, divorce is a religious crime - not sure whether mortal or not - yet the divorce rate amongst the religious is higher than that amongst secular groups.
No mention of finding religion but Cameron has found some support...at least according to an ICM poll for The Guardian.
Personal Rating:
Cameron +5
Miliband -17
Clegg -19
Courage to say what's right rather than what's popular:
Cameron
Agree 55% Disagree 37%
Miliband
Agree 41% Disagree 43%
Good in a crisis:
Cameron
Yes 50% No 40%
Miliband
Yes 21% No 43%
Best at handling the economy:
Cameron and Osborne 44%
Miliband and Balls 23%
Nothing seen as yet on religious fervour though.
Guardian comment: "Hard times are getting harder under a government that has fallen out of favour but the public is still smiling on the man at the helm"
Yet the Government has moved into and maintained a narrow lead over Labour since Cameron's 'veto' so falling out of favour is curiously defined.
Personal Rating:
Cameron +5
Miliband -17
Clegg -19
Courage to say what's right rather than what's popular:
Cameron
Agree 55% Disagree 37%
Miliband
Agree 41% Disagree 43%
Good in a crisis:
Cameron
Yes 50% No 40%
Miliband
Yes 21% No 43%
Best at handling the economy:
Cameron and Osborne 44%
Miliband and Balls 23%
Nothing seen as yet on religious fervour though.
Guardian comment: "Hard times are getting harder under a government that has fallen out of favour but the public is still smiling on the man at the helm"
Yet the Government has moved into and maintained a narrow lead over Labour since Cameron's 'veto' so falling out of favour is curiously defined.
Ho hum another anti-religion thread when a man says in the vaguest possible meaning "That Jesus chap and the helping others s
t, he might have been onto something you know".
See, for all of Blair's "nut job Catholicism" I must admit I didnt actually see him do, well, anything vaguely religious during his time in office.
Same goes for Dubya...and please, for those who wish to try and do the whole Iraq = God fearing crusade crap, then yeah Ill accept that argument the same day the rest of you morons finally figure out wtf Structuralism is.
CMD is about as religious as me, i.e. âbout cock all beyond the usualy birth, deaths and marriages bit, but knows enough to come up with the odd soundbite to throw out every now and then to illustrate a wider point because it sounds good.
You have to be a complete fking idiot to see more than that.
t, he might have been onto something you know".See, for all of Blair's "nut job Catholicism" I must admit I didnt actually see him do, well, anything vaguely religious during his time in office.
Same goes for Dubya...and please, for those who wish to try and do the whole Iraq = God fearing crusade crap, then yeah Ill accept that argument the same day the rest of you morons finally figure out wtf Structuralism is.
CMD is about as religious as me, i.e. âbout cock all beyond the usualy birth, deaths and marriages bit, but knows enough to come up with the odd soundbite to throw out every now and then to illustrate a wider point because it sounds good.
You have to be a complete f
king idiot to see more than that. 
Halb said:
"Correlation does not imply causation", I hear that the climate is changing, and that humans are pumping out more co2 as well
I think apart from the obesity thing all those factors were worse under a more 'believing' population over 100 years ago.
We also had workhouses, back street abortions, fathers beating up wives and children, smog, poor health, no internet, back in the day of this supposed enlightened period of morality. Rose tinted glasses indeed. I think apart from the obesity thing all those factors were worse under a more 'believing' population over 100 years ago.Halb said:
"Correlation does not imply causation", I hear that the climate is changing, and that humans are pumping out more co2 as well I think apart from the obesity thing all those factors were worse under a more 'believing' population over 100 years ago.
You pick your own timescale, all I know is that the attitude of the older generation, aged say 65 to 85, is very different to the generation below. These are people clearly from the latter part of the last century, not more than a century ago as you refer to. I think apart from the obesity thing all those factors were worse under a more 'believing' population over 100 years ago.Take a look at the rise of teen pregnancies and alcohol related illness amongst twenty-somethings, something reported recently, what is it that has changed in our society that has led to this?
DJRC said:
CMD is about as religious as me, i.e. âbout cock all beyond the usualy birth, deaths and marriages bit, but knows enough to come up with the odd soundbite to throw out every now and then to illustrate a wider point because it sounds good.
You have to be a complete fking idiot to see more than that.
Political sooundbites are supposed to appeal to some part of the voting populace in order to retain or gain votes, as vague and general a statement so as to appeal to as many people as possible, so who do you reckon DC was trying to appeal to?!!! Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Atheists, Jews, Agnostics, Buddhists all ruled out. The youth? They don't give a sYou have to be a complete f
king idiot to see more than that. t about religion, silver foxes? They're already onside and the Christian Tory base is hardly teetering on the brink of voting elsewhere on religious grounds. So before dishing out the insults you might need to think a little harder. anonymous said:
[redacted]
hmm, not sure there are that many teen pregnancies amongst twenty-somethings.Teen pregnancies aren't anything new, but what is new is our disdain for them.
To add a little historical context, Lady Margaret Beaufort gave birth to King Henry VII when she was 13 years old, in 1457.
The youngest ever mother to deliver a live birth was only 5 years and 7 months old, and that was in 1939. A pre-teen pregnancy, if you will.
If DC wants us to mimic Jesus, he might want to consider that Mary has been estimated to have been 13 years old too when she allegedly gave birth to him.
Alcohol abuse was recorded as far back as the Egyptians.
Meteor Madness said:
hmm, not sure there are that many teen pregnancies amongst twenty-somethings.
Utterly pointless statement, don't try to be clever.And give up with the ancient history lessons, so what if teen pregnancies and alcohol abuse existed centuries ago, it has no bearing whatsoever on what is happening today. Face facts - teen pregnancies are a drain on our society and alcohol abuse is too. Alcohol related illnesses are rising in younger people and that does not bode well for our future, saying that the Egyptians had their own issues is totally irrelevant.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Culture changes, society changes. People of 65 to 85 would have grown up long after the social advances of the liberals and the health advances of technology, and under the austere auspices of post war doctrine. Had their environment become more controlled? Has ours?
When I say more than 100 years ago I refer to all the problems you refer to save for obesity, which wasn't around due to the lack of food on offer. No 50p chocolate bars for the oiks
Substance abuse in the Victorian era makes our issues look small fry, yet these issues existed in a much more religious arena. Teenage pregnancies were an issue too, everything was, none of this is new. Religion is a red herring, or at it's most, one tiny part of a vast and complex culture.Halb said:
Culture changes, society changes.
People of 65 to 85 would have grown up long after the social advances of the liberals and the health advances of technology, and under the austere auspices of post war doctrine. Had their environment become more controlled? Has ours?
When I say more than 100 years ago I refer to all the problems you refer to save for obesity, which wasn't around due to the lack of food on offer. No 50p chocolate bars for the oiks Substance abuse in the Victorian era makes our issues look small fry, yet these issues existed in a much more religious arena. Teenage pregnancies were an issue too, everything was, none of this is new. Religion is a red herring, or at it's most, one tiny part of a vast and complex culture.
You're wrong. When countries have widespread religion, they are very much utopias. We know this to be true. People of 65 to 85 would have grown up long after the social advances of the liberals and the health advances of technology, and under the austere auspices of post war doctrine. Had their environment become more controlled? Has ours?
When I say more than 100 years ago I refer to all the problems you refer to save for obesity, which wasn't around due to the lack of food on offer. No 50p chocolate bars for the oiks
Substance abuse in the Victorian era makes our issues look small fry, yet these issues existed in a much more religious arena. Teenage pregnancies were an issue too, everything was, none of this is new. Religion is a red herring, or at it's most, one tiny part of a vast and complex culture.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff