Exilian
Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter => Discussion and Debate - The Philosopher's Plaza => Topic started by: Son of the King on October 24, 2008, 07:25:09 PM
-
Well this was the topic of one of my General RE lessons at college. I go to a Catholic college and so 50mins of RE each week is compulsory, however it is mainly just debating. In class this week we had to go and sit underneath one of three banners, each on a different wall.
We had to choose between THEIST (belief that one (or more) God(s) exist, AGNOSTIC (unsure about existence of a God or Gods) or ATHEIST (believe that there is no God).
I sat under atheist. We then had to give reasons for our belief and basically ended up debating over why we believe the things we did. Surprisingly for a Christian college, the Theists were the minority. Anywho, the lesson ended before I could really finish my point completely.
We had got onto contradictions in the Bible, and then evolution etc. Basically debated all things religious. And someone said "There is no evidence for evolution." And I actually lol'd. That sparked what was verging on an arguement. Discuss this statement.
Also, my teacher who is Christian and prays to God then went on to say that she believes that God will not intervene with the lives of humans, and then prays to him for help. And if that isn't a contradiction then what is?
I thought this was an interesting debate in the class, and came to see what you guys thought of it, and give your views.
-
i would of done the same as you SOTK
however i would not say there is no God as God(s) seem to me like another one of lifes mysteries
-
Take a wild guess (http://z9.invisionfree.com/exilian/index.php?showtopic=244)
-
Lol has anyone heard about the london buses thingy?
-
Lol has anyone heard about gaffer tape? It would be really useful right now...
-
So's yer face.
-
Marcus does indeed have a very useful face.
Also, my teacher who is Christian and prays to God then went on to say that she believes that God will not intervene with the lives of humans, and then prays to him for help.
I imagine she is speaking about different kinds of intervention. She is saying that the Lord will not prevent natural disasters or murder, nor give us wonderful rewards. This is because of the fall, when man turned from the Lord, so we must suffer the hurts of the world. The emphasis is on the soul. She prays to the Lord to help her keep her faith strong, to protect her from temptation and sin. By living as the Lord would wish us to, without sin, and enduring the pain of the earth, we may return to the hand of the Father, as we were in the beginning, under his protection.
Yeah, so, take a wild guess...
-
Guess who just got a vote............
-
If god is real, he's a fricking loon with a really bad sense o' humour methinks...
*Muahahaa... for a prank, I'll just fire off that volcano there...*
-
Meh if I was god you guys would be pretty portugaled so realy we are all quite lucky. I would be even more pissed if there was no goddeses. That would suck so bad I would let the devil eat marcuses amazingly usefull face.
-
I'm glad you're not god...
-
I think we all are. Penty, where do you stand in this, by the way?
In regard to your comment, that is precisely the opposite. It is because man sinned that these things happen. Before the fall they would not have done. God does not wish to punish, as the Bible shows he is a compassionate and merciful, but he is just and so punishes us as we deserve. Hence Jesus, the sacrifice given so that we need not take the full punishment we deserve, if we follow him.
Believe me, you will not win this argument.
-
Believe me, you can just cop out like your religion, *coughGalileocough* and trying to argue any logic is immediately defeated by the sheer anti-logic of religion
-
Please give examples.
Btw, nasty cough you've got there...
-
Galileo was put under house arrest for 'challenging the word of god' when he proclaimed, with evidence, that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe. Now it is a widely accepted fact even by the same religion that prosecuted him.
Gay priests
By Einstein's mother I can't be bothered to do this all again read this thread (http://z9.invisionfree.com/exilian/index.php?showtopic=244)
This discussion has already happened
-
I take your point that neither of us will agree on this, and you have to an extent already gone through this, but I feel honour bound to refute your points.
Firstly, you are indiscriminately associating the Catholic Church Ltd. with Christianity. That is quite wrong, as the whole point of the Reformation was to change such things. We are also talking here about an era several hundred years ago. In general, everyone in those times was ignorant of matters such of the world's shape. The Church was acting not as a religious faith but as an organ of social control, based around faith, which is what the Church and the Pope were back then. Besides that they honestly believed that the Earth was flat, and did not want Galileo lessening their power of control over the people. The actions of the medieval Catholic Church are of no significance in judging Christianity as a whole.
Secondly, I have never met a gay Christian, and if I did, I would explain to them that it is against God's law to practise homosexuality. He created man and woman for one another. It is not under the jurisdiction of normal people to stop gay men from becoming priests, though in my opinion they have no right o do so since they are breaking a fundamental tenet of Christianity by being gay. Many Christians have protested against the allowing of this, but the trouble is that the Church seems to be led by weak people who will not stand up against the ills of society, and allow themselves to be pressured into accepting gay priests. As before, just because some Christians are not sincere in their faith and commit grievous sin, that is no reason to denounce the religion as a whole, just a sign that they have given in to temptation and deserve prayer and assistance.
*breathe*
Truce?
-
I take your point that neither of us will agree on this, and you have to an extent already gone through this, but I feel honour bound to refute your points.
Firstly, you are indiscriminately associating the Catholic Church Ltd. with Christianity. That is quite wrong, as the whole point of the Reformation was to change such things. We are also talking here about an era several hundred years ago. In general, everyone in those times was ignorant of matters such of the world's shape. The Church was acting not as a religious faith but as an organ of social control, based around faith, which is what the Church and the Pope were back then. Besides that they honestly believed that the Earth was flat, and did not want Galileo lessening their power of control over the people. The actions of the medieval Catholic Church are of no significance in judging Christianity as a whole.
You all use the same 'word of god' yet you argue over it's meaning, just like with muslims, christians are bizarrely disjointed for their single common belief, why would a god divide his believers so?
Secondly, I have never met a gay Christian, and if I did, I would explain to them that it is against God's law to practise homosexuality. He created man and woman for one another. It is not under the jurisdiction of normal people to stop gay men from becoming priests, though in my opinion they have no right o do so since they are breaking a fundamental tenet of Christianity by being gay. Many Christians have protested against the allowing of this, but the trouble is that the Church seems to be led by weak people who will not stand up against the ills of society, and allow themselves to be pressured into accepting gay priests. As before, just because some Christians are not sincere in their faith and commit grievous sin, that is no reason to denounce the religion as a whole, just a sign that they have given in to temptation and deserve prayer and assistance.
So god chooses his weakest as the conduits of his word? not as smart as you would think for a divine creator and leader.
Like a classical physicist denying the validity of quantum effects; they are there and no matter how much they conflict with what you learned and you have never observed them, they happen and are widely proven.
*breathe*
Truce?
*breath*
A point is to be disputed, as long as we keep disagreements to where they should be I see no problems in continuing, but if you don't wish to carry on the argument I won't berate you for it
-
If you're up for it, let's roll!
So god chooses his weakest as the conduits of his word?
God has given us free will.
Like a classical physicist denying the validity of quantum effects; they are there and no matter how much they conflict with what you learned and you have never observed them, they happen and are widely proven.
I never denied their existence, I merely stated that they are anomalies.
I do not really believe strongly in organized religion, anyway, I should add, it does serve a purpose but I feel it just makes a target for anti-religionists. I am sure you will add that to a list of divisions between believers, but these are no different to one man taking the Tube to work, and another the car. Different people worship in different ways, but it makes no difference to the core beliefs of their faith. The only real differences are between Protestantism, Catholism, and Orthodoxy.
As a side note, "to breathe" is the verb, "breath" is what comes out. ;)
-
If you're up for it, let's roll!
So god chooses his weakest as the conduits of his word?
God has given us free will.
but they are his conduits, he should choose of strong belief and steady reason, like you would pick a general for a good mind. Rather than just a higgledy piggledy bunch of old men in robes who have a tendency to abuse young children (ok I admit the child abuse is not wholly true, just a fun stab to make)
Like a classical physicist denying the validity of quantum effects; they are there and no matter how much they conflict with what you learned and you have never observed them, they happen and are widely proven.
I never denied their existence, I merely stated that they are anomalies.
I never said you denied their existence, just their validity as people and priests
I do not really believe strongly in organized religion, anyway, I should add, it does serve a purpose but I feel it just makes a target for anti-religionists. I am sure you will add that to a list of divisions between believers, but these are no different to one man taking the Tube to work, and another the car. Different people worship in different ways, but it makes no difference to the core beliefs of their faith. The only real differences are between Protestantism, Catholism, and Orthodoxy.
That is what I was referring to, protestantism, catholism, and orthodoxy are all variations of the christian failth, oops sorry faith. And if people should be allowed to worship in different ways why the conversion attempts?
As a side note, "to breathe" is the verb, "breath" is what comes out. ;)
I mean the single exasperated breath that normally goes huhhh and signifies boredom or tiredness
-
Oh my nonexistent god...
The fact is, people are gay. It is proven that some people just do not like women, and like men instead. Homophobia, religiously grounded or otherwise, is as much a form of discrimination as sexism, racism, or any other. I'm not going to hit you with science, since I think it's pointless. I'm happy to debate on your own fields of play; morality, fairness, and justice - all of which are thrown out the window in your arguments.
Either you believe people have a choice in the matter, in which case you are simply wrong, or you believe it is right for people to be forced to supress who they fundamentally are, which is unjust.
So you have the choice to disbelieve the bible or refute reason and fairness; and it deeply saddens me how many people still choose the latter.
EDIT; POST 999, 4 digits here comes I!
-
If you suggesting I am homophopic, I am not. I just think it it a defilement of nature, that's all. I am not afraid of them. I wouldn't cross the road to avoid one. I know some gay people and have no problem with them, even if I disgree with their sexuality.
That is what I was referring to, protestantism, catholism, and orthodoxy are all variations of the christian faith. And if people should be allowed to worship in different ways why the conversion attempts?
Then you might as well add in Judaism, which is technically a branch of Christianity who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. And Islam, who believe that Jesus was only a prophet, and Mohammed is Allah's (Which literally means God) prophet. Mohammed did not invent Allah, there was clearly already a concept of monotheism in the Middle East, and guess where that came from?
That may seem off-topic, but it is an example to show my point that Catholicism and Protestantism are different religions, really.
The thing is, you are yet to actually find fault with the doctrine of Christianity. You are only criticizing the organisation of it, not actual teachings. I must stress I am not in any defending religious nutters who cry "Death to Fags" or believe God has called them to kill all sinners, or so on. I am defending my actual faith.
-
But sexuality isn't something you can disagree with, any more than you can disagree with someone being female. It's not a belief or a choice for them, it's how they are.
Oh, and actually I would say that they are all Abrahamic religion, and therefore essentially the same in most of thier teachings.
Faults with christian doctrine? Are we talking the bible, because if so I can highlight a few problems for you...
-
Be my guest.
-
Obvious discrepancies;
- Virgin Birth. Can't be done, medically provable.
- Genesis. No evidence for it, as opposed to the big bang.
- The earth is a sphere not a circle.
- Herod died 4 years BC
- The census for which they went to Bethlehem happened in 6 AD
- Censuses as prctised by Augustus were normally only covering Roman citizens and never got people to return to thier place of birth anyway.
- You can't fast for 40 days and 40 nights. Try it, see how long you last. Jesus was therefore not, as is often claimed, properly human assuming that is true...
Please do answer these...
-
- Virgin Birth. Can't be done, medically provable.
Just like it is scientifically provable that there is no God? Think about it. She was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and once you're there, you are a bit past 'medically provable.'
Nothing is impossible with God.
- Genesis. No evidence for it, as opposed to the big bang.
I take it you are referring to the Creation story? Because there is plenty of evidence for Abraham, for Joseph and the Egyptian famine, and much else of Genesis. As for the Creation story, it is just that - a story. It is there to show that God created the world, and all that is in it, not to be taken literally as seven days. In fact, the Hebrew word used could be taken as meaning 'an age' or 'period of time,' rather than 'day.' And as for evolution, I believe in it, as do many Christians. Something called 'Theistic Evolution.' That is, evolution inspired by God. The big bang was created by Him, with the ultimate aim of humanity. Did you know dinosaurs may be mentioned in the Bible? In the book of Job. There is a verse which certainly sounds like it is talking about dinosaurs. God made the Big Bang. Simple as.
- The earth is a sphere not a circle.
And?
- Herod died 4 years BC
- The census for which they went to Bethlehem happened in 6 AD
The three empire-wide censuses decreed by Augustus were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. The Gospels tell us "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria." Qurinius was governor in 6-7 AD, and so it is often assumed that that is the time being spoken of. Again, translation is key here. The Greek word for 'first' (prote) is sometimes translated 'prior to' or 'before.' The Greek text of Luke 2:2 can correctly be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."
Which suggests it was the 8 BC census. Jesus' birth is usually estimated between 4 and 7 BC, but it would likely have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine. Luke writes that Mary and Joseph received news from an angel of the Lord that Herod had died, but even so, they were afraid to return to Bethlehem when they heard that Herod Archelaus (Herod's son) was now the ruler of Judea (And continued to be until 6 AD when it came under direct Roman rule.
- Censuses as prctised by Augustus were normally only covering Roman citizens .
Augustus was very interested in the the numbers of citizens (With a little c) in the empire, particularly in whether those numbers were growing. This was the primary reason for the census. He would not have got a very good result by limiting it to Roman citizens who were at this time mostly Italians. It was only in the third century that citizenship was extended to all male inhabitants fo the empire. This was a census of the empire, not Italy.
and never got people to return to thier place of birth anyway
It was not unheard of. There are records, for example in Egypt, which show that Roman censuses sometimes did require exactly this.
- You can't fast for 40 days and 40 nights. Try it, see how long you last. Jesus was therefore not, as is often claimed, properly human assuming that is true...
Fasting does not mean you cannot drink water, by the way. There is no mention of Jesus thirsting during his fast. It is quite possible to do this.
I am interested to know, where did you get these? Or did you read through the Bible youself?
-
Those were just a few I did from memory. I have several copies of the bible should I need to start digging though - ignorance of religion is not something I can be accused of, even if I don't practice it myself. :flashy:
Just like it is scientifically provable that there is no God? Think about it. She was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and once you're there, you are a bit past 'medically provable.'
Nothing is impossible with God.
So you just consider the normal scientific rules to have been chucked out the window in this case. Fair do's.
I take it you are referring to the Creation story? Because there is plenty of evidence for Abraham, for Joseph and the Egyptian famine, and much else of Genesis. As for the Creation story, it is just that - a story. It is there to show that God created the world, and all that is in it, not to be taken literally as seven days. In fact, the Hebrew word used could be taken as meaning 'an age' or 'period of time,' rather than 'day.' And as for evolution, I believe in it, as do many Christians. Something called 'Theistic Evolution.' That is, evolution inspired by God. The big bang was created by Him, with the ultimate aim of humanity. Did you know dinosaurs may be mentioned in the Bible? In the book of Job. There is a verse which certainly sounds like it is talking about dinosaurs. God made the Big Bang. Simple as.
I didn't think tha was until lateron in the old testament, I'll need a flick back and check.
The point I want to make here is that essentially what you believe in is the contents of a book. That is funadmanetally how Christianity works. However, you and many, many other Christians do the whole 'chop and change' jobbie - you pick what bits work and keep them. Now, the bits you keep and throw are decided by you, independent of your faith. YOU decide what stays in. That is a fundamentally human thing, and doctrine does ot affect it. So however much most people claim to be fully Christian, the blindness of faith is (luckily) watered down by rationality. I think it just shows that the two do collide, and that people can find halfway houses as it were.
On the same note, once a guy got so pissed off about the gap between his faith and his religion that he went through a bible and physically cut out everything that would have to go if science was right. He couldn't even hold the remainedr toghether without it collapsing in his hands.
And?
The bible says it's a circle not a sphere. Just thought God might have actually noticed that before allowing his faithful to write a book that misinformed generations of would-be scientists.
The three empire-wide censuses decreed by Augustus were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. The Gospels tell us "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria." Qurinius was governor in 6-7 AD, and so it is often assumed that that is the time being spoken of. Again, translation is key here. The Greek word for 'first' (prote) is sometimes translated 'prior to' or 'before.' The Greek text of Luke 2:2 can correctly be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."
Which suggests it was the 8 BC census. Jesus' birth is usually estimated between 4 and 7 BC, but it would likely have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine. Luke writes that Mary and Joseph received news from an angel of the Lord that Herod had died, but even so, they were afraid to return to Bethlehem when they heard that Herod Archelaus (Herod's son) was now the ruler of Judea (And continued to be until 6 AD when it came under direct Roman rule.
It can be translated thus if you're trying to find some way to force the history and the myth ti fit together. It's only occsiaonally that prote is used in that manner, and besides, why ever would Luke simply have vaguely said 'he was born sometme before?'
But there is a deeper issue involved. The word pr
-
Sorry for double post;
in case you wanted to cite that 40 days has been done, find someone who did it in the desert, then come back. 40 days has never been survived in desert conditions, hypothermia would set in at night and intense dehydration in the day, he would have had to sit in a river the whole time past about day 20 just to keep his water levels constant.
-
One thing you might notice in the Bible is that a lot of things go in 40s. Moses spent 40 days and nights on Mount Sinai with the Lord. Jesus spent 40 days and nigfhts fasting. The flood lasted 40 days and nights. And so on. I meant to mention this before, but 40 days and nights is a commonly used writer's device (Then) to mean a long time. I don't honestly think every event of significance took exactly 40 days.
You know, I would love to carry on here, but I am going to stop. Not because I admit defeat, but because I really do not have the time to argue this properly. For that reason I will not respond to the above points, because then you will obliged to return, and then so will I, and... so on.
We'll just accept I believe one thing, you believe another, and I hope we can live with that.
-
We'll just accept I believe one thing, you believe another, and I hope we can live with that.
the thing is accepting the fact that religion exists is not very progressive
And seeing as Jubal has just hit you with the facthammer, I guess I'll have a quick swing before getting brunch
If the Earth and all the heavens where created in seven days (well truly six) then how is there a huge time gap between the age of the earth and the first life, let alone humans. Unless those where massively long days there is no way it is true
-
aahh but the earth could only be about 6000 years old if you believe that
-
No, I do not believe the Earth was created in 4004 BC, and no, I do not believe it was created in 6 days.
-
Sorry I just remembered, it does not say days, eeeuuugh fact fail, it just says seven. meh