• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yawwwwwn

Can we not debate something else without the same endless debate repeated n rinsed for months. None of you are going to agree are you???? That's been established.

Virtual most people believe their religious book to be truthful. That's the whole point. Faith is about believing without needing evidence whereas Science is "seeing is believing."

Anyhow Christianity is not the only religion why can't we discuss something else for a change????

Otherwise you may as well change the name of this thread to the Christianity Discussion Thread.

Ricko - you're very much need BOI. :D

Evey
 
Last edited:
Eveleivibe said:
Virtual most people believe their religious book to be truthful. That's the whole point. Faith is about believing without needing evidence whereas Science is "seeing is believing."
Click to expand...

i.e the triumph of fear, ignorance and irrational thinking over intelligence and truth.
 
I'm Hang lemme paste a loada bollox I drafted during my ban (it IS bollox hence me calling it so, but it's coming up to something).

The important thing to remember, in my opinion, is that religions / belief systems are what they are to each individual n the morals of the religion.

It's maddening that so many people are willing to fight for their religion / BS n thus actually, more often than not, doing the very opposite of the specific religious teaching

Religion means different things to different people. Some are agnostic, while others are atheist. Google distinguishes the two as follows;
- Agnosticism: knowledges ie "what knowledge do I have that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago? What knowledge do I have that Muhammad was a profit?"
Atheism: belief. I do not believe that there was/is a superior being." Atheists tend to have the view that "if I cannot 'see' it, it cannot possibly exist."

Then there's all the many different religions / belief systems. We have Judaism, Christianity (containing different branches such as Evangelical, Catholicism, Protestantism n so forth...) Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, Muslim, Hinduism (which is, according to Wikipedia, is the world's third religion after Christianity n Islam).

Religious belief are strong n very important to each individual n no matter how much people argue/debate the religions / various points of religions, it's important to realise that there's no right or wrong way. What is right is to respect one another's' views n that not everyone will share the same views.

Many people are passionate about their religion n this may have stemmed from various reasoning: carried down from earlier generations (ie taught at school, from family members n so forth). Experiential, for instance, a drugged-induced episode, or maybe some catastrophe has happened n the religion / superior being / higher power has carried you through or produced a miracle (eg saved a dying relative). Another is one may have just felt a "calling," towards that belief system or have been saved from the depths of despair, for instance.

Whatever - the point is that these individual(s) /group belief systems can be so strong, powerful, realistic that it is divided tens, hundreds, thousands, millions of people. The loyalty / attachment that a person feels towards towards their belief system is THAT powerful. And when one sits down, really sits down n thinks about it, it is paradoxical towards most religions, which often teach love n unity. "love thy neighbour," "turn the other cheek."

From this thread alone, it is fascinating, yet concerning, how beliefs systems can cause friction, upset n cause division. In this case we have atheists, agnostics n christians (apologies in advance, and please correct me, if I have this incorrect or have omitted anyone's religion / belief system---and please let me know what it is n lets have a good discussion, lets see if we can cut the friction)

----------

Now copied **** aside I prose a discussion n please ask to take it serious - no silly sarcastic remarks to try n get a negative reaction. This, after all, is a serious debating thread.

"Using evidence, illustrate, in your own words, why wars are often a consequence of religious beliefs!"[\b]

Please Begin

Regards,

Satan
 
Last edited:
I agree with most of that, but:

it's important to realise that there's no right or wrong way. What is right is to respect one another's' views n that not everyone will share the same views.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with the second sentence, but when views become actions, then there is right and wrong, and the actions have to be justified morally and ethically - faith/theology is not an option.

Most of the conflict people feel when discussing their repsective beliefs comes from cognitive dissonance - the unsettling feeling of having the ground taken from under your feet - it's common to react with hostility to this, regardless of how the belief in question might discourage this hostility. Our beliefs are what we have built our identity around, and are how we justify ourselves to ourselves, so we don't want to have to change them and unpick all that (politics is the same).

...

So, Raas...Women Bishops OK?
 
The whole thing is embarrassing for the CofE. The bible says quite a few times "Deacons must be "men of dignity" (1 Tim. 3:8). " and then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife . . . "


Remember the Church of England was inaugurated by Henry the 8th so that he could flout the rules and marry who he liked. I guess the denomination is staying true to it's origins, by disregarding scripture and creating it's own rules. While appeasing the expectations of modern political correction; it is suggesting the bible is not quite the word of God. And that is a dangerous idea for the church to project, and will surely lose confidence in it's members.
 
Viz is brilliant ...I love Major.Misunderstanding.....reminds me of a certain BLer who always gets the wrong end of the stick haha!!

As for letting bishops die out...we could always speed up the process by spending our evenings "bashing the bishop".....oh....hang on...
 
Evey, your last post makes perfect sense to me, but personally I try not to get drawn into religious debates because I just can't be arsed (other than the odd flippant comment as per above). The way I see it, (organised) religion was originally just a way for the more intelligent and powerful members of early society to control an ignorant and superstitious population. That role has now been superceded by polititions so there is no place for religion in modern society.

(Shit, I'm getting drawn in aren't I)
 
Last edited:
Raasyvibe said:
The whole thing is embarrassing for the CofE. The bible says quite a few times "Deacons must be "men of dignity" (1 Tim. 3:8). " and then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife . . . "


Remember the Church of England was inaugurated by Henry the 8th so that he could flout the rules and marry who he liked. I guess the denomination is staying true to it's origins, by disregarding scripture and creating it's own rules. While appeasing the expectations of modern political correction; it is suggesting the bible is not quite the word of God. And that is a dangerous idea for the church to project, and will surely lose confidence in it's members.
Click to expand...

So women bishops not ok then? (was it you who shouted out in the ceremony ;)). What about the images showing female preists in the early roman church - link. Women already seem to do a fine job as vicars in the uk - what's wrong with what they're doing? (well apart from the vicar of dibley maybe...) - they're probably better suited to the caring role than the usual repressed men who end up doing it (as are gay men (in the stereotype anyway)). More people will get the 'good news' if it can manage to ditch the archaic mysogyny (along with the homophobia).
 
Well it wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have homophobia/mysogyny in it. And if it was just turn the other cheek, do unto others yada yada i'd totally agree with it (but it seems it wouldn't be enough of a club without the exclusive 'everyone burns unless they join us/think a certain way/do a certain ritual' stuff)
 
I prsonally don't believe in church to talk to God. I've prayed every night for years - thsnking Him fot nature, no extreme whether in this country, asking to keep LV safe etc etc. god has answered many prayers unless he deems them inapropriate. Why does one need a building when god is omnipresent? Seems bllody daft, in my opinion.

Evey
 
Bob Funkhouse said:
Everybody talks about advances in Church as being a good thing. I seem to be the only one who sees it as bad. In my opinion we need to advance away from churches and organized religion. Instead we let them bend their own rules etc and move with the times and modern society- to me this just means we are afraid to truly advance and want to be held back by illogic thinking that does not help society.

There are many many great things about church and religions but we need to create alternative movements within our communities. Somewhere for people to come together in times of joy and sadness. Somewhere where the lonely can feel included and gain a sense of belonging....
Click to expand...

Church means people...'the connections' in the church make the body...'living stones built together'..the Spirit animates it.

I'd love to get a few Christians together in a local hall and start an open forum..where anyone (esp the marginalised ) can come together, eat a meal and talk about their spirituality or ask questions. Bit like an alpha course.

Gonna check it out with the Boss ^ properly. :D

Ragamuffin Church I'd like to call it. After the book Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning. ( check the amazon link I've got a feeling it would be your kind of thing bob)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ragamuffin-Gospel-Bedraggled-Beat-Up/dp/1590525027
 
Last edited:
Bob Funkhouse said:
Everybody talks about advances in Church as being a good thing. I seem to be the only one who sees it as bad. In my opinion we need to advance away from churches and organized religion. Instead we let them bend their own rules etc and move with the times and modern society- to me this just means we are afraid to truly advance and want to be held back by illogic thinking that does not help society.

There are many many great things about church and religions but we need to create alternative movements within our communities. Somewhere for people to come together in times of joy and sadness. Somewhere where the lonely can feel included and gain a sense of belonging....
Click to expand...

Well i pretty much agree with you that we should grow up and not need to join organised religions in an ideal world, but it's up to the individual, unless we start banning certain ideas - given that, i'd rather a christianity that engages with the modern world and evolves than not (though we can ban the actions we collectively disagree with).

...

^Dawkins' critiques of religion are simplistic in my view and don't reach the sophistication needed to deal fairly with the highest reaches of religious philosophy, preferring instead to choose easy abrahamic strawman targets. I'm on the 'side' of science, i just think dawkins' arguments, coming as they do from a specific reductionist angle, do a disservice to the whole sweep of science. And he's just unecesarrily insulting sometimes, (mostly to muslims these days it seems)
(also, his selfish gene ideas, which inform his work on religion (as well as modern social darwinism generally), are being steadily undermined/nuanced with advances in genetics/epigenetics, cell biology and complexity)
 
Last edited:
Vurtual said:
...

^Dawkins' critiques of religion are simplistic in my view and don't reach the sophistication needed to deal fairly with the highest reaches of religious philosophy, preferring instead to choose easy abrahamic strawman targets. I'm on the 'side' of science, i just think dawkins' arguments, coming as they do from a specific reductionist angle, do a disservice to the whole sweep of science. And he's just unecesarrily insulting sometimes, (mostly to muslims these days it seems)
(also, his selfish gene ideas, which inform his work on religion (as well as modern social darwinism generally), are being steadily undermined/nuanced with advances in genetics/epigenetics, cell biology and complexity)
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you there. Although I agree wholeheartedly with his general sentiments, he's become too much of a 'professional atheist' for my liking which tends to undermine the science behind it. Still a good evolutionary biologist though, and 'the selfish gene' was a good read IMO..
 
I will google this Richard Dawkins later n see what I can bring to the discussion. It is interesting to see different debates in here. No offence but it does, a lot of the time, seem like a place to gang up on Raasy n try to humiliate him when it's clearly obvious that he's gone to time n effort to do research n answer people's questions in a constructive manner (excluding Vurtual, whom I feel, does like n take his debates seriously).

.....which brings me back to my discussion question, that no one has yet answered ;)

"Why are so their so many wars as a consequence of religion?

(Yes it's worded different as i cant be bothered turning on lappy to copy/paste original question, busy day today. Can we pleasekeep it civil, yes I'm aware I'm contradicting myself but the world's full of paradoxes so hey ho!)

Evey
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top