'What religion are you?' poll discussion
Comments
-
Moreover, is it wise to have people who believe such things who are in position where they make judgments over peoples lives and liberties such as Lord Darling who was Lord Chief Justice of England, soldiers, policmen, teachers, or for that matter, the lollipop lady seeing our children across the road?
In many cases it's not like their beliefs are harmful, and at least their beliefs are well documented (so to anyone else, they will likely know where you are coming from, and understand where your beliefs may be a problem),
So, no, it isn't necessarily a problem for anyone with strong religious convictions to hold positions of power and/or authority. Of course, that changes when they are using their position of power to further their beliefs and/or enforce them on the unwilling.
And it would be just as wrong for a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or even a atheist to do so.
However, it is also not necessarily for others to accept the testimony of believers in different faiths as true (given so much of it is contradictory, why would they?), and given the quality of evidence that exists (a couple of thousand years ago a lot of crazy stuff was believed to be true - try taking a look at a historical bestiary or medical reference!) it would be quite unreasonable for anyone other than members of that sect to give that evidence much credence. And as a consequence it should not really be appropriate in a court of law,To the world those are not beliefs of the mentally stable, are they? Is it compassionate, kind and considerate to see people believing such nonsense and dismiss it as fine?
Of course not, and whatever I may believe, I can happily accept that I may be wrong (only a fool would consider otherwise without much better evidence than currently exists).
Consequently, why would I try to belittle someone else's beliefs simply because I happen to believe differently (it's not like I have any better evidence to support my beliefs)?
I would certainly find it offensive if someone tried to do that to me - so why shouldn't they be justifiably offended if I where to try and do the same to them?
-
Look, I'm not trying to argue down your beliefs here, I'm just saying that given the very poor evidence in circulation (and it is poor), it would be foolish to simply assume that anyone who disagrees with your (or my) conclusions is wrong, and anything other than doubt is ridiculous,- GL0 -
You tell me, it is your blueprint for a supposed better world.
A lot of the scriptures were written a long time after the death of Christ, so you could use the same argument, and to say the scriptures that actually exist in the Bible are 'faithful records' is a bit laughable.
I was just asking a couple of questions to show where popular wisdom about Chrisianity and the Bible is inaccurate. So, for example, most of the Bible was written before Jesus, foreshadowing His arrival, and the reports about Him and the letters to the early church, found in the New Testament, were written within 100 years of the resurrection. The Gospel of Luke was written around 40 years after, and the physician who wrote it interviewed people who had been with Jesus. You simply couldn't publish those kind of records, with witnesses alive with which people could check the facts, and get away with it. It's the the modern popular cultural wisdom about Jesus and the Bible that, on closer inspection, end up as being laughable. But isn't that so often the way with popular culture?0 -
Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »It might be,
In many cases it's not like their beliefs are harmful, and at least their beliefs are well documented (so to anyone else, they will likely know where you are coming from, and understand where your beliefs may be a problem),
So, no, it isn't necessarily a problem for anyone with strong religious convictions to hold positions of power and/or authority. Of course, that changes when they are using their position of power to further their beliefs and/or enforce them on the unwilling.
And it would be just as wrong for a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or even a atheist to do so.
However, it is also not necessarily for others to accept the testimony of believers in different faiths as true (given so much of it is contradictory, why would they?), and given the quality of evidence that exists (a couple of thousand years ago a lot of crazy stuff was believed to be true - try taking a look at a historical bestiary or medical reference!) it would be quite unreasonable for anyone other than members of that sect to give that evidence much credence. And as a consequence it should not really be appropriate in a court of law,
Is it compassionate, kind and considerate to pass someone's beliefs off as rubbish off the cuff?
Of course not, and whatever I may believe, I can happily accept that I may be wrong (only a fool would consider otherwise without much better evidence than currently exists).
Consequently, why would I try to belittle someone else's beliefs simply because I happen to believe differently (it's not like I have any better evidence to support my beliefs)?
I would certainly find it offensive if someone tried to do that to me - so why shouldn't they be justifiably offended if I where to try and do the same to them?
-
Look, I'm not trying to argue down your beliefs here, I'm just saying that given the very poor evidence in circulation (and it is poor), it would be foolish to simply assume that anyone who disagrees with your (or my) conclusions is wrong, and anything other than doubt is ridiculous,
Jesus said that if a blind man leads another blind man they both end up falling into a pit.0 -
You tell me, it is your blueprint for a supposed better world.
A lot of the scriptures were written a long time after the death of Christ, so you could use the same argument, and to say the scriptures that actually exist in the Bible are 'faithful records' is a bit laughable.
I don't recall suggesting the Bible was a blueprint for a better world. Most Scripture was written long before Jesus even entered into human history.:)0 -
Some of the same witness testimony also asserts that the world is only about 4000 years old, and what's more some religions do take that literally, despite extensive historical evidence that it's a lot older.0
-
The "historical evidence" is provided by believers, ie people who had an axe to grind. There is NO independent evidence of a man walking on water, raising the dead and coming back from the dead himself. All there is are the "accounts" of those intent on spreading the faith centered on him.
The reason PART OF human history (ie the West) revolves around this guy is that it so happened that his embellished story and exhortations to believe in him, as the answer to just about everything, circulated at a time of maximum Roman power, and appealed to the oppressed and dispossessed. As this belief grew among the populace, it became rather awkward for the Roman political machine to keep ignoring it. Eventually Constantine made it into the official religion of the Empire, and the fledgling church began to acquire ever greater powers until it came to be regarded as the sole soul-saver and king maker. In fact, no christian king had legitimacy without the Pope's seal of approval. With the reformation and the various splits within the church we begin to see the cracks in the religion, and the very same desire to break the shackles of papal power in the same way as early christian converts saw hope of release from imperial power.
Shaping history indeed. But only because it became expedient to do so and because christianity's inception occurred at a fortuitous time of western history, and its laudable message to the poor was heard very clearly at that oppressive time.
Believe me, if there WERE independent records (ie. outside those written by believers) the world and his wife would know them by heart because they would have been bandied around these past 2000 years. Instead... zilch, zero, zippo. All the "records" are what believers have written.
You look at any other religion out there and there are plenty of "records" about them too, except that some of them have independent confirmation. Ie. the buddha, who was heir to a throne and therefore a record of his birth would have been made and kept as a matter of course. Mohammed was a historical figure too.
Jesus was too, the sense that he was tried and crucified according to Roman Law, but that he was what his believers purport him to be, just won't wash for those who look for evidence dispassionately and without bias. The Romans would have had a field day in recording someone who could feed 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. Instead, nothing. There was the crucifixion of a troublemaker. No doubt the "true believers" have an explanation for this one too, except that's unlikely to wash either.0 -
Also, Theism comes from the greek word Theos, meaning 'God', and defines belief in at least one deity, so logically Atheism must mean the opposite, ie: complete disbelief in the existence of any deity.
There isn't any religion which is 'scientist' and allows for changing beliefs depending on new evidence and proofs is there? Or is that what you're saying Atheist is?
Also the "a" prefix, usually means "not", "anti" is usually meant as "against". People often confuse the word "antisocial" with "asocial".0 -
I tend to define atheism as the absence of a belief in god – in that way it's not really just inclusive for people with a positive belief that god does not exist. Agnosticism deals with what can be certainly known, and so doesn't really tell us anything about you're belief. It's possible to take the view that god's existence can’t be known with certainty, yet still believe in god. It's why many atheists use the term “agnostic atheist” to describe their position on the god question; what they mean is this, “I think it's not possible to determine where god certainly exists or does not, and I don't believe in god.”
Also the "a" prefix, usually means "not", "anti" is usually meant as "against". People often confuse the word "antisocial" with "asocial".
Jesus was uncompromising when he said we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind and strength and love our neighbour as ourselves. There's no room in that statement for uncertain belief. Love is an action and a discipline before it's ever a feeling.
Jesus put Love into action by going to the cross to be turtured and murdered taking the punishment we deserve for our sins. He didn't come to condemn the world but to save it and gift to those who repent eternal life. He left no middle ground for agnosticism. There are two teams. Those who believe in God who came into human history as the man Jesus Christ and the rest.0 -
adrian_clark wrote: »However, saying the existence of God cannot be proved is a specific truth claim. It is in opposition to the submission that God exists as a living creative entity, above and beyond time and the material expanding universe we know and inhabit.
Jesus was uncompromising when he said we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind and strength and love our neighbour as ourselves. There's no room in that statement for uncertain belief. Love is an action and a discipline before it's ever a feeling.
Jesus put Love into action by going to the cross to be turtured and murdered taking the punishment we deserve for our sins. He didn't come to condemn the world but to save it and gift to those who repent eternal life. He left no middle ground for agnosticism. There are two teams. Those who believe in God who came into human history as the man Jesus Christ and the rest.
Whether or not one can doubt and still be a Christian is a theological discussion. Not one that I'm equipped or interested enough to debate, but when presented with someone who accepts Jesus as his saviour and basic tenets of the faith, but doesn't claim to know (in an absolute sense). I'd be temped to label them a Christian.0 -
It really depends whether or not a particular belief system can hold an agnostic stance. But for the purposes of an on-line poll, where there is a lot of different views - not all will accept the dogma of absolute knowledge - and so can support the agnostic stance.
Whether or not one can doubt and still be a Christian is a theological discussion. Not one that I'm equipped or interested enough to debate, but when presented with someone who accepts Jesus as his saviour and basic tenets of the faith, but doesn't claim to know (in an absolute sense). I'd be temped to label them a Christian.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards