All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Chindie]

I've encountered my fair share of... outspoken Christians. I lived with one for a while, one that would pop her head round my door and inform me 'Jesus loves you!', that on being introduced to a friend of mine who happened to be gay sat him down and demanded to explanation to his sexual orientation.

And of course on here we've had one or two who have said some rather crazy things. The Biblical flood literally happened, and other literal facts in the bible. Some of it can be seen in this very thread.

Saying that that for me it's not even just the particularly crazy ones. They're all bad to one degree or another.

[PussEKatt]

If we are discussing god then we have to mention KILLING.

God killed people with fire and brimstone from the sky.

WW II bombing raids.

God killed everyone in the known world with the great flood.

Dambusters.

God killed people ( including children and the weak and aged) with starvation,sckness and disease ( with plagues of locust and rats etc )

Concentration camps.

Sorry, God you come a poor second.

Maybe churches should have a broken cross on top of their spire ?!

[mjmooney]

I think that the people chrisp65 talks about are the ones that most interest me.

Sure we can have fun in this thread with the (funda)mentalists, but that's almost a different issue - a serious one, as Gary points out, if you live in North America.

But I'm also interested in the wishy-washy ones - often actual clergymen (and women) in the UK. I'd like to hear their rationale for which bits of the superstition they buy into, and which bits they reject. It must be a much more difficult balancing act than just saying "The Bible is all true, end of".

[Rodders]

my local priest rationalised there was a seperate god for the old testamaent and the new testament.

Amazing.

[mjmooney]

my local priest rationalised there was a seperate god for the old testamaent and the new testament.

Amazing.

That's the sort of thing. They say things without any rationalisation. I'd like to call them on it.

[Rodders]

i think it just really highlights the intest power of indoctrination and cultural conditioning, that kids are still not taught to be critical enough in questioning their environment and challenging "received wisdom". But I suppose that's the point.

edit:

and that attitude just carries on with them through life. It's easy, they think they want to know more and study theology ( talk about doss subject ) but must only ever shy away from serious reflection, for fear of answers they don't know how to process, which might upturn what's driven their identity for so long. For some that's a great challenge and a joy to make such a discovery, and that's there more to learn, but for alot I guess, it's just easier to learn all the facts and accept them, buy into such half assed but nice exculpatory noises like "he works in mysterious ways" to explain away anything remotely challenging.

[ozvillafan]

i think it just really highlights the intest power of indoctrination and cultural conditioning, that kids are still not taught to be critical enough in questioning their environment and challenging "received wisdom". But I suppose that's the point.

edit:

and that attitude just carries on with them through life. It's easy, they think they want to know more and study theology ( talk about doss subject ) but must only ever shy away from serious reflection, for fear of answers they don't know how to process, which might upturn what's driven their identity for so long. For some that's a great challenge and a joy to make such a discovery, and that's there more to learn, but for alot I guess, it's just easier to learn all the facts and accept them, buy into such half assed but nice exculpatory noises like "he works in mysterious ways" to explain away anything remotely challenging.

You may find this surprising - but the same criticism can be thrown in the direction of atheists too.

I know plenty who back up their atheism by dipping into the well of critiques against the bible/religion/God and never investigating an alternate point of view.

[mjmooney]

i think it just really highlights the intest power of indoctrination and cultural conditioning, that kids are still not taught to be critical enough in questioning their environment and challenging "received wisdom". But I suppose that's the point.

edit:

and that attitude just carries on with them through life. It's easy, they think they want to know more and study theology ( talk about doss subject ) but must only ever shy away from serious reflection, for fear of answers they don't know how to process, which might upturn what's driven their identity for so long. For some that's a great challenge and a joy to make such a discovery, and that's there more to learn, but for alot I guess, it's just easier to learn all the facts and accept them, buy into such half assed but nice exculpatory noises like "he works in mysterious ways" to explain away anything remotely challenging.

You may find this surprising - but the same criticism can be thrown in the direction of atheists too.

I know plenty who back up their atheism by dipping into the well of critiques against the bible/religion/God and never investigating an alternate point of view.

Wrong.

A deluded fantasy does not constitute 'an alternat(iv)e point of view'.

Argue on evidence, and the religious will lose every time.

Although of course they won't admit it.

[norton65ca]

MJM, I think you won't find to many wishywashies willing to get into this debate. The fundies are quite happy to dive in, but I think you'll find no-one interested in holding the liberal Christian position because really and truly, there isn't one to be held. Liberal Xtianity is so close to being nothing that there's very little to defend.

New Earth? No.

Adam & Eve/ Fall of man, Garden of Eden, Fruit trees, serpents? No.

Exodus, Moses, Tablets of Law, Red Sea parts, burning bush? No.

Job in whale? No.

Historicity of Judah?Israel? Davidic empire? No.

Prophecies and fulfillment of same? No.

Virgin birth? No.

Miracles? No.

Resurrection? No. Jesus as literal God man? No.

What have you got left to defend? I rejected liberal Xtianity from the get go, there's nothing there to get at all excited about to be honest, at least the fundie version has a muscular, ideologically robust supernaturality about it that one might be able to get behind, but liberal Xtianity? dishwater compared to single malt scotch comes to mind as a comparison.

[Rodders]

Oz, I think that casually accepting cultural environments doesn't discriminate between philosophies and thus yes, there are plenty of people who are indifferent to the whole issue who may think themselves atheists without ever having meditated on the subject at all.

However, for lay people on both sides as it were, you can say it comes down to choosing an approach you respect more. I don't know all there is to know about science, but I know the scientific method is worth respecting,the basic humility of seeking to prove a theory wrong, that to be a skeptic is preferable to believing or subscribing to any system / belief. Challenging questions is what improves us, and any limits on that, any absolute presuppositions that suggest we have to assume a Creator before questions is flawed. That if there is a God above all everything we know, a primestarter, it wouldn't align itself with such limited dogma and scripture at arbitrary points in the human line. Furthermore a God displaying human traits is not worthy of being held in such esteem above other humans. We have enough examples of good people on earth to take heed of who aren't coloured by a such a negative score in the bad column. Our values evolve, the world we live in evolves and our attitudes develop as we go. That God put no mechanism in the Bible for allowing for this was frankly rather short sighted if you ask me, and if there is a passage which allows for it, it clearly wasn't emphasised enough.

No, I don't know all the parts of the bible, nor all the scientific answers and I ought to rectify the holes in my scientific knowledge where I can, which is why I say atheist agnostic, I cannot say with absolute certainty that there isn't something out there, but to limit oneself, especially to a philosophy that is SO divisive is just bizarre. I don't mean to offend you personally in any of this, and I apologise if I do, but there are just innate issues with any organised structural system that will always reveal their limitations.

There's plenty of useful tales ( and plenty of repugnant stuff too ) to be taken from the bible and other morality handbooks, some of them still relevant and admirable but I think religion will continue to face opprobium and dissent from us lot so long as it insists on limits, and on rigid values that many contemporaries find irrelevant, antagonistic and just plain wrong.

[mjmooney]

MJM, I think you won't find to many wishywashies willing to get into this debate. The fundies are quite happy to dive in, but I think you'll find no-one interested in holding the liberal Christian position because really and truly, there isn't one to be held. Liberal Xtianity is so close to being nothing that there's very little to defend.

New Earth? No.

Adam & Eve/ Fall of man, Garden of Eden, Fruit trees, serpents? No.

Exodus, Moses, Tablets of Law, Red Sea parts, burning bush? No.

Job in whale? No.

Historicity of Judah?Israel? Davidic empire? No.

Prophecies and fulfillment of same? No.

Virgin birth? No.

Miracles? No.

Resurrection? No. Jesus as literal God man? No.

What have you got left to defend? I rejected liberal Xtianity from the get go, there's nothing there to get at all excited about to be honest, at least the fundie version has a muscular, ideologically robust supernaturality about it that one might be able to get behind, but liberal Xtianity? dishwater compared to single malt scotch comes to mind as a comparison.

But that's exactly why it's so interesting to me. Over here in the UK, we have relatively few fundies, but reasonably high numbers of the 'halfway-housers' - probably including 90% of the C of E clergy.

Like I said upthread, I actually know a C of E vicar, who's a really nice bloke - but I don't dare mention the whole atheist thing in case we fall out. Which is a shame, because I'd love to know what he REALLY believes, off the record as it were.

[chrisp65]

MJM, I think you won't find to many wishywashies willing to get into this debate. The fundies are quite happy to dive in, but I think you'll find no-one interested in holding the liberal Christian position because really and truly, there isn't one to be held. Liberal Xtianity is so close to being nothing that there's very little to defend.

New Earth? No.

Adam & Eve/ Fall of man, Garden of Eden, Fruit trees, serpents? No.

Exodus, Moses, Tablets of Law, Red Sea parts, burning bush? No.

Job in whale? No.

Historicity of Judah?Israel? Davidic empire? No.

Prophecies and fulfillment of same? No.

Virgin birth? No.

Miracles? No.

Resurrection? No. Jesus as literal God man? No.

What have you got left to defend? I rejected liberal Xtianity from the get go, there's nothing there to get at all excited about to be honest, at least the fundie version has a muscular, ideologically robust supernaturality about it that one might be able to get behind, but liberal Xtianity? dishwater compared to single malt scotch comes to mind as a comparison.

But that's exactly why it's so interesting to me. Over here in the UK, we have relatively few fundies, but reasonably high numbers of the 'halfway-housers' - probably including 90% of the C of E clergy.

Like I said upthread, I actually know a C of E vicar, who's a really nice bloke - but I don't dare mention the whole atheist thing in case we fall out. Which is a shame, because I'd love to know what he REALLY believes, off the record as it were.

That conversation is really not easy. You've got to be truly comfortable in each others company and trust the conversation to be private.

We were under pressure from non religious relatives to get a sprog christened. After a year it was getting quite uncomfortable and people were expecting their family 'do'. Though strangely, none of those applying pressure were in any way paragons of church going goodness.

I had a discreet word with a friend who is also in the job, the person that would do the christening should we chose to go down that road. Their advice? Doesn't matter either way, I haven't had mine christened.

I thought at first that was a flippant joke. But no, someone in the job hadn't had the kids christened. It'll be up to them when they are older.

That kind of ties in with your point above, i wouldn't worry about your atheist conversation, it might surprise you the answer you get.

Perhaps I should have asked the same question over in the good old USA as Norton suggests.

[chrisp65]

MJM, I think you won't find to many wishywashies willing to get into this debate. The fundies are quite happy to dive in, but I think you'll find no-one interested in holding the liberal Christian position because really and truly, there isn't one to be held. Liberal Xtianity is so close to being nothing that there's very little to defend.

New Earth? No.

Adam & Eve/ Fall of man, Garden of Eden, Fruit trees, serpents? No.

Exodus, Moses, Tablets of Law, Red Sea parts, burning bush? No.

Job in whale? No.

Historicity of Judah?Israel? Davidic empire? No.

Prophecies and fulfillment of same? No.

Virgin birth? No.

Miracles? No.

Resurrection? No. Jesus as literal God man? No.

What have you got left to defend? I rejected liberal Xtianity from the get go, there's nothing there to get at all excited about to be honest, at least the fundie version has a muscular, ideologically robust supernaturality about it that one might be able to get behind, but liberal Xtianity? dishwater compared to single malt scotch comes to mind as a comparison.

Quakers.

I think they are rather grand.

There, I said it.

[legov]

MJM, I think you won't find to many wishywashies willing to get into this debate. The fundies are quite happy to dive in, but I think you'll find no-one interested in holding the liberal Christian position because really and truly, there isn't one to be held. Liberal Xtianity is so close to being nothing that there's very little to defend.

Or maybe it's because the majority of "liberal Christians" just haven't thought about it?

In Britain as well as the rest of Europe and the northern parts of North America so-called "liberal" Christianity is the norm, and hence the religious group people gravitate towards by default. Thus, one would expect someone who's been brought up in that sort of society and hasn't had the urge to contemplate such issues (which I suspect is the case for most people worldwide) to self-identify as "liberal Christians," simply because that culture is the most familiar and most readily available one.

Similarly, in the American South the majority religious group are the fundies, so (unthinking) people who live there would (in theory) tend to adopt fundamentalist practices and mindsets as they are more familiar and accessible to them.

Of course, if this is the major factor, it still leaves another big question unanswered - how did the schism we see between religious and non-religious societies start off in the first place? (Once again, assuming what I've said so far is true) - the initial divergence between say, New York City and rural Tennessee in terms of religiosity, must have had a cause, or causes, that set the two cultures on slowly diverging paths.

[legov]

So, I was eating (at McDonald's ) with a colleague that day and I asked him if he ate beef (some Buddhists abstain from beef, others of course eschew meat completely).

He said

Pray don't eat

which translated () means that he doesn't eat beef on days (or weeks, not sure) when he participates in prayers.

I can't think of a word to describe this other than....odd.

[mjmooney]

MJM, I think you won't find to many wishywashies willing to get into this debate. The fundies are quite happy to dive in, but I think you'll find no-one interested in holding the liberal Christian position because really and truly, there isn't one to be held. Liberal Xtianity is so close to being nothing that there's very little to defend.

New Earth? No.

Adam & Eve/ Fall of man, Garden of Eden, Fruit trees, serpents? No.

Exodus, Moses, Tablets of Law, Red Sea parts, burning bush? No.

Job in whale? No.

Historicity of Judah?Israel? Davidic empire? No.

Prophecies and fulfillment of same? No.

Virgin birth? No.

Miracles? No.

Resurrection? No. Jesus as literal God man? No.

What have you got left to defend? I rejected liberal Xtianity from the get go, there's nothing there to get at all excited about to be honest, at least the fundie version has a muscular, ideologically robust supernaturality about it that one might be able to get behind, but liberal Xtianity? dishwater compared to single malt scotch comes to mind as a comparison.

But that's exactly why it's so interesting to me. Over here in the UK, we have relatively few fundies, but reasonably high numbers of the 'halfway-housers' - probably including 90% of the C of E clergy.

Like I said upthread, I actually know a C of E vicar, who's a really nice bloke - but I don't dare mention the whole atheist thing in case we fall out. Which is a shame, because I'd love to know what he REALLY believes, off the record as it were.

That conversation is really not easy. You've got to be truly comfortable in each others company and trust the conversation to be private.

We were under pressure from non religious relatives to get a sprog christened. After a year it was getting quite uncomfortable and people were expecting their family 'do'. Though strangely, none of those applying pressure were in any way paragons of church going goodness.

I had a discreet word with a friend who is also in the job, the person that would do the christening should we chose to go down that road. Their advice? Doesn't matter either way, I haven't had mine christened.

I thought at first that was a flippant joke. But no, someone in the job hadn't had the kids christened. It'll be up to them when they are older.

Canon Dr Paul Shackerley, vicar of Doncaster Minster, has been posting some rather spectacularly irreverent remarks on Facebook. “Sin is such fun!” he rejoices. The canon apparently swears a lot and complains about having to go to church: “I’ve done f--- all today other than jazz lesson and visit a friend.” He salivates to the fizz of the tonic in his gin, as he puts his feet up, before adding, “Alas, I have religion tomorrow.”

Teelgraph

[norton65ca]

I think you'll find a lot of senior clerics in many denominations don't believe the same things as the congregation to be honest. It can be a solid, life long career, (good job security) after all, why threaten it by delving into whether it's true or not? Why cloud the picture with facts?

[mjmooney]

I got into an argument with street evangelists. I know I shouldn't, but sometimes I just can't resist it.

Usual stuff - "It's in the Bible, so it must be true", "The world is complex so it must have been designed", "I used to be a drug addict, but Jesus spoke to me", "Catholics are not Christians (only WE are)", etc., etc.

They prayed for me and assured me that Jesus would be coming into my life in the next week or so. I said I'd pop back and let them know how he got on.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

"No, Father. I've a very different idea of love. And until my dying day I shall refuse to love a scheme of things in which children are put to torture."

A line from The Plague. Perfectly said.

[legov]

Founder of Singapore's biggest church in trouble