Beliefs of Forum Members...

[Erichalfbee]

Is it true that christianity is the only religion in the world were you are born a sinner ?

Then have to spend your whole life repenting to get through the gates...

I think maybe that's RC. Being a Roman Catholic is all about guilt. It frightened the living daylights out of me when I was a small child.
I was taught that original sin is removed by being baptised (original sin being that attributable to the fall of man, ie Adam and Eve's disobedience, mistrust, and disloyalty against God) It used to be that if you died unbaptised you spent eternity in Limbo and if course if you were naughty all your life you either roasted in the fires of Hell or spent some time in Purgatory where you were bashed about a bit before finally getting to Heaven.
The goal posts have been shifted somewhat and Limbo and Purgatory have disappeared and even Hell is replaced by the state of "not being in Heaven"
My apologies if any of this is inaccurate now,it's along time since I have had anything to do with it all.

 

[Monsieur Abeille]

[
Now me, I reckon God was likely an astronaut, or similar.

Dr Von Daniken I presume!

 

[Storm™]

The trouble with any text be it a bible or a leaflet about STD's is this - it can never be detailed enough. And the author can never be exact enough to encompass every question that may arise from it. And the author can never take account of the bizarre reactions that may occur from their writings.

I remember years ago (bare with me), a man from sexual discrimination coming to work to give a lecture on the new rules about sexuality. That being "no employer or employee can question an employer/employee about their sexuality". Now this is pretty concise and in effect it says don't do it ever or .... And it went on to say what the out one would be should someone break this rule.

So the bloke came, delivered the statement and that was that. Or it should have been but he decided or it was deemed that he needed to put it in context. To jolly things up be decided to ask if anyone was gay. Thereby breaking the rule to show it's effect. Confusing eh. So few people put their hands up and whatever and he moved on. Now we all like statistics to give context and he stated the well know. One about one in 5 men are believed to be gay but it is suspected that 1 in 3 actually have tendancies. So there we were all age groups about 300 of us in a hall and be said "so that means visually that this side of the room is potentially gay". And on the lecture went.

As we left my friend was very silent and when i asked if he was ok he was about as furious as a man could be. He was ready to go back and tear chunks out of the lecturer ... For calling him gay. I didn't understand because I had not heard that but my friend had. Although the lecturer had done no such thing that's what my friend had heard. No one could see his point but non the less he made an official complaint. Now this man was probably one of the most intelligent person any of us knew. He was a legend. But really he was just a man.

Now in parliament laws are made and whether it's to find a loop hole or by accident people find ways around them. And then more laws are made to enhance and clarify what was in essence a simple rule. And so it goes on. It's necessary because text alone cannot impart everything that is intended by the author.

The bible has no new authors. No one can enhance it's teachings. No one can explain exactly what the authors meant. And they are long dust. So it remains a text that is flawed by it's simplicity. And in order to make it still powerful and still mean something those that held it dear decided to step in and keep it's teachings alive. This was a mistake. Because it apparently us the teachings of god. And yet man in all his flawed egotistical bizarre at times, ramblings is trusted to interpret it's teachings. This is wrong and should never have been permitted. But it's stories are so compelling to so many in a time when there was little else that they decided to elevate it as high as they could. Mob mentality encouraged this and suddenly it's the hottest thing in town. Those in power have to control this in some way so up spring the clergy. Sanctioned by a living god their king/ruler whatever and then suddenly it's thee biggest thing ever. And then those in charge have to come up with the very best most dazzling interpretations of it's stories. It could have been snake oil but it was the bible instead. And as with anything when you don't agree with those in charge you get beaten down rightly or wrongly. In this instance the bible was used as a weapon instead of a story book. And so it went on because once you start down a path you must walk it's full length lest you be seen to have made the wrong choice. And if your in charge that's can never happen.

So it's mans fault not the bibles or it's authors that religion is failing and that arguments start. It's mans fault and we have seen it on this thread - someone uses blunt profanity and humour to mock it and show their disdain for it. Totally allowed and why not. And the believers take a superior position and try to discredit by pointing out the failings as they see it, of his grasp of eloquence. Implying he is thick. Instead it could have gone like this:

"it's a crock"
"why do you think that"?

But it is ingrained in believers to defend by attacking however gentle that attack and it is this instant lunging defence that leads to mobs and eventually wars. Again the Bible and it's teachings are used as weapons to control. Its a little disappointing but hardly unusual.

It's not religions fault it's mans fault using religion as an excuse.

 

[victor meldrew]

Now me, I reckon God was likely an astronaut, or similar. Perhaps should include Cosmonauts as well - they were likely religious before the communists took over.....
Not sure about believing in UFOs, now that one reportedly travelled all the way across the cosmos, galaxy, or whatever - visited the Earth, and accidentally hit a wind turbine blade, knocking it off. Amazing, but apparently that occurred in Lincolnshire quite recently (last year?)! Didn't leave any clues as to them being there. No evidence at all - they must have done a good clean-up job on the site and rushed away to hide before anyone noticed......RAB

Fan of George Adamski per chance RAB ??
VM

 

[Storm™]

In fact all of Americas celebrated astronaughts left earth believing in god for the sake of getting on the programme. And returned to earth total converts in god.

However they also believed in aliens.

Buz Aldren - well documented accounts of seeing observing craft on the moon and even the helmet mike convos they had betray this. "oh I see they are here again"

Reply - "yep". However in recent years he has refused to be drawn on the subject.

Neil Armstrong - will never comment. He will not deny Aldrens claims nor speak against him. Though the helmet mike convo would seem to betray him.

Cooper - Refuses to comment about what they saw if anything.

Later we have less well know astronaughts speaking out initially then refraining from comment.

There is the iconography of saints and Jesus all with head encompassing halo's - argued to be perhaps helmets of glass. There are many government cover ups ranging from the rather bizarre Roswell where there is a massive U Turn from the military to the Police records here of police "witnessing unexplained lights". Officially and anonymously on record.

There are cattle mutilations of which there is no explanation. Occur world wide and affect all animal species. Including - if you believe it - human - the last in brazil a few years back. Backside cored out, jaw removed, genitalia removed and blamed on drug lords. But this treatment has been seen on fish (world wide), birds (world wide), dolphins (France), even insects (world wide), cows (world wide but specifically America, germany, and here) and of course sheep (world wide, but again specifically and very recently even ongoing in Wales.) unfortunately the people who have decided to make a stand and investigate it are shall we say different. But it has become very high profile in America with the FBI taking a role.

We are such a small spec of what's out there. I am sure there is room for a god but does one actually exist. Was Jesus just a time traveler who came back to help. With the world of quantum physics making all things possible, who's to say.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

There are cattle mutilations of which there is no explanation. Occur world wide and affect all animal species. and of course sheep (world wide, but again specifically and very recently even ongoing in Wales.) .

Bad example really - there are some twisted individuals around here especially in the lonely hills!!

 

[Skyhook]

But I don't think Darwin ever said there was no god

No. But he proved that the bible was wrong, whereas up to then it had been considered- well, gospel.

Given that the bible is the bedrock of christianity, one might have expected that to have been the beginning of the end.

 

[JamezF]

No. But he proved that the bible was wrong, whereas up to then it had been considered- well, gospel.

I think Darwin believed that there may be a god, but didn't buy into the commonly accepted views of the church on creation even before he started working on his ideas about evolution. AFAIR his wife was quite religious and whilst she attended church on Sunday with the rest of the family, he would not. I believe she (or her religious views) may even have been in part the cause of
his delaying the publishing of "On the Origin of Species" until after her death.

James

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

No. But he proved that the bible was wrong, whereas up to then it had been considered- well, gospel.

Given that the bible is the bedrock of christianity, one might have expected that to have been the beginning of the end.

A contemporary of Darwin - William Smith, the father of British geology had a lot to do with this - he proved that the earth was a lot older than the bible said (in those days a timeline was written in the margin of each bible) this made people think a bit more and not take the bible to be as literal as before a good thing overall although it upset some like the flat earthers.
That is why the majority of Christians nowadays are comfortable with evolution or natural selection and the Bible side by side - that and the fact that Darwin never said we were descended from monkeys and there are still great gaps and questions in his theories that have yet to be answered.
One scholar has said that one of the reasons that darwin was so interested in genetics and the like was that he married his cousin and was afraid his children would be born with degenarative illnesses and the like.
I think the thing to remember about the scriptures and Darwin's writings that neither should be taken too literally extremists in any field can be a nasty old business.

 

[JamezF]

The impression I have is that Darwin deliberately avoided coming out and saying that humans were descended from apes because he knew it would cause outrage. As it was, I believe the church (or some clergymen, at least) agreed with his theories as they only got applied to "the animals".

I'd not heard that his interest in genetics came from worries over his children, I have to admit. I know that several of them died at quite a young age; one of the deaths was alleged by a recent BBC documentary to be one of the drivers behind him rejecting religion.

James

 

[Skyhook]

That is why the majority of Christians nowadays are comfortable with evolution or natural selection and the Bible side by side - that and the fact that Darwin never said we were descended from monkeys and there are still great gaps and questions in his theories that have yet to be answered.

No, we and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor. I'm not sure what the great gaps and questions are though. There are still some details being ironed out, eg the process used to be thought quite smooth and gradual, whereas you can get quite rapid change in a few generations followed by periods of stability.

I think the thing to remember about the scriptures and Darwin's writings that neither should be taken too literally extremists in any field can be a nasty old business.

No, Darwins writings should be taken literally as he has worked out what actually happens. That's not an extremist position- the sheer volume of evidence is so overwhelming, one would have to be a fantasist to ignore it. I find it amazing how accurately new data correlates with his theory. Its one of those things like the sewing machine- the person who thought of it got it so right first time that there's hardly any room for improvement.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I'd not heard that his interest in genetics came from worries over his children, I have to admit. I know that several of them died at quite a young age; one of the deaths was alleged by a recent BBC documentary to be one of the drivers behind him rejecting religion.

James

It may have been a documentary at about the same time which mentioned his fears for his children.
I think now as well that the consensus is we and apes are descended from the same source - explains a lot when you see Saturday night city centres.

 

[Skyhook]

The impression I have is that Darwin deliberately avoided coming out and saying that humans were descended from apes because he knew it would cause outrage. As it was, I believe the church (or some clergymen, at least) agreed with his theories as they only got applied to "the animals".

James

His views on the subject were known- the famous debate in which Huxley was putting Darwin's case, and Wilberforce asked him whether he claimed descent from apes on his mother's or his father's side, was 12 years before the publication of origin of species.

In origin of species you're right, he pulled his punches- he describes evolution in animals, then says something like' people may draw their own conclusions how this applies to man'. He hated publicity and controversy, hence Huxley acting as a front for him: but couldn't conceal the truth he'd discovered.

 

[For want of a better word]

Wallace (as usual) gets ignored!

 

[Drew]

Wallace (as usual) gets ignored!

Yeah! He tried to point out that Chicken was a wrong un!!!

Oh No that was Gromit!!

 

[tonybloke]

this best describes my thoughts
http://youtu.be/r6w2M50_Xdk

so, all you believers and atheists, it seems none of you have took the time to watch the video?
if you had, you might have changed your blinkered views.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

so, all you believers and atheists, it seems none of you have took the time to watch the video?
if you had, you might have changed your blinkered views.

Yes, Tonybloke, I did watch it. And I saw two themes: the splendour of the universe was one, a bitter, closed mind was the other.

Yes, I do mean 'closed mind'. A presenter who does what he claims his opponents do: high jack facts and turns them into polemic. And, like Dawkins et al, he puts up a particular limited, simplistic view of faith and proceeds to say it's limited and simplistic.

There are plenty people of faith who delight in the splendour of the universe and see in it evidence of structure, order, purpose, direction. And who realise that our understanding must grow and does as humanity understands more. But knowledge of facts does nothing to answer the question of purpose.

I'd like to think that people will try to work to understand more, rather than ridicule and diminish others. (And that includes myopic believers as well as myopic unbelievers.)

 

[Erichalfbee]

so, all you believers and atheists, it seems none of you have took the time to watch the video?
if you had, you might have changed your blinkered views.

I've just watched it (loved the bit about 30billion years)
I remember Brian Cox discussing our position in the universe in a similar fashion. Very effective BUT if you have Faith you will not be persuaded otherwise, I'm afraid. That's the definition
I was brought up RC but have no faith now as I probably never did.
Is there a supreme being? Or are there more complex or philosophical interpretations of the divine. We are each of us as old as all the cosmos(sorry, borrowed from the video) so are each and everyone of us God?
My father believed in reincarnation and as all our atoms are returned as something else when we die, I guess in a way he was right.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

QuoteYes, Tonybloke, I did watch it. And I saw two themes: the splendour of the universe was one, a bitter, closed mind was the other.

Yes, I do mean 'closed mind'. A presenter who does what he claims his opponents do: high jack facts and turns them into polemic. And, like Dawkins et al, he puts up a particular limited, simplistic view of faith and proceeds to say it's limited and simplistic.

There are plenty people of faith who delight in the splendour of the universe and see in it evidence of structure, order, purpose, direction. And who realise that our understanding must grow and does as humanity understands more. But knowledge of facts does nothing to answer the question of purpose.

I'd like to think that people will try to work to understand more, rather than ridicule and diminish others. (And that includes myopic believers as well as myopic unbelievers.)Unquote

 

[JamezF]

I think now as well that the consensus is we and apes are descended from the same source - explains a lot when you see Saturday night city centres.

Some might suggest they only thing they've descended from is the trees

I believe you're correct though, that we and "modern" apes share a common ancestor. I read Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" a few years ago, but I can't recall exactly what the sequence is off the top of my head.

James