MERGED: God (all threads) - Page 2

Ramrod · 23-01-2004, 09:32

If it could be 100% proven to me then I would believe. I wish that I did believe

Jon M · 23-01-2004, 09:52

Why should he get a ticking off?

I agree with him in fact.. although his claims about percentages are subjective which I can't really comment on.

Where did anyone mention blind faith?... I've stated that I think similarly to this guy.. are you saying that I'm in that category?

23-01-2004, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

Why should he get a ticking off?

I never said he should get a ticking off. However, it is unfortunate fact that most of the leaders of the Catholic Church are stuck in a mind-set that is several centuries out of date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

Where did anyone mention blind faith?... I've stated that I think similarly to this guy.. are you saying that I'm in that category?

I made a general comment with absolutely no reference to anyone specific. If you choose to interpret my comments in that way with your response that is your choice, but I find that when people make a choice how to interpret facts it can often be a reflection upon them.

Jon M · 23-01-2004, 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If you choose to interpret my comments in that way with your response that is your choice, but I find that when people make a choice how to interpret facts it can often be a reflection upon them.

So when I interpret your comments, I'm now responding to "facts"??

OK, lets cut all the confusion and hopefully get back on topic too..

Do you agree or disagree with the statements made by the belgian cardinal?

Give your reasons..

simple

basa · 23-01-2004, 10:21

Looking at the state of the world and all its problems I have to say that even if there were 100% proof of gods existance I don't think I would wish to subscribe to revering him.

If the state of the world is part of his 'master plan' then I don't reckon he is a very nice 'entity' anyway !!

Jon M · 23-01-2004, 10:27

Even if it was as simple as that basa, would you mind if someone judged you on something you'd made? .. ( eg: urgh, look at that hideous thing little Billy has made for his mum in pottery class.. isn't Billy a horrible little boy... see the logic there? )

As I said it isn't that simple, the bad things in our world are the result of sin, God made our world good and it's sin that tainted the creation... so even the flawed logic in my example is unjustified IMHO

23-01-2004, 11:43

[QUOTE=s1lv3r]So when I interpret your comments, I'm now responding to "facts"??

It is a fact that a lot of the leaders in the Church are stuck in the past and shoudn`t be allowed to talk. It is a fact that there are a lot of people who blindly believe the ill-informed rhetoric these idiots spout. I`m not damning the rational people, but sadly they seem to be in the minority.

OK, lets cut all the confusion and hopefully get back on topic too..

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

Do you agree or disagree with the statements made by the belgian cardinal?simple

How could I possibly agree considering he falls into the category I've described above.

Jon M · 23-01-2004, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

How could I possibly agree considering he falls into the category I've described above.

Lets have the reasons then.. as I asked in my previous post just in case you missed it

Quote:

It is a fact that a lot of the leaders in the Church are stuck in the past and shoudn`t be allowed to talk. It is a fact that there are a lot of people who blindly believe the ill-informed rhetoric these idiots spout. I`m not damning the rational people, but sadly they seem to be in the minority.

Everything you've said there is your own opinion.. not fact. I'm sorry to have to re-inforce that but I'm not the sort of person that can let that sort of thing go.

Things do not become fact purely because a lot of others believe the same thing.. which is also the reason why I would not push my own beliefs as fact but rather try to present persuasive evidence if I wanted to maintain any credibility.

23-01-2004, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

Lets have the reasons then.. as I asked in my previous post just in case you missed it

He's a homophobic bigot, simple as that. I appreciate that the bible, if interpreted literally, supports his statements, but many people have chosen to interpret the bible as something that should be looked upon in a different light depending on the current social climate. If people choose to use a literal interpretation of the bible to justify bigotry then I have absolutely no time for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

Things do not become fact purely because a lot of others believe the same thing.. which is also the reason why I would not push my own beliefs as fact but rather try to present persuasive evidence if I wanted to maintain any credibility.

So when the Vatican starts telling people that condoms *never* work we are supposed to accept that. It is propganda and mis-information designed to further their own objectives. Preaching on the basis of religious doctrine is one thing, preaching on the basis of blantant lies should not be accepted.

*Edit* Strictly speaking nothing can be objectively proved, we have models that explain the behaviour of the universe and rules that have been derived from repeated observation, but none of these represent objective, absolute truth. So yes, something can become "fact" just because enough people believe in it.

23-01-2004, 14:05

So there's someone playing the guitar underwater? Oh, sorry, did they mean "Reef"?!

Of course it may well not have *been* the "Red" Sea...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...e/redsea.shtml

Jon M · 23-01-2004, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

He's a homophobic bigot, simple as that. I appreciate that the bible, if interpreted literally, supports his statements, but many people have chosen to interpret the bible as something that should be looked upon in a different light depending on the current social climate. If people choose to use a literal interpretation of the bible to justify bigotry then I have absolutely no time for them.

homophobic? He is showing neither fear nor contempt in those statements so no he isn't being homophobic.

bigoted? Up for debate I suppose but as someone who would support the view that homosexual acts and lusts are sinful I don't think of myself as intolerant.. just different in belief systems.

Biblical understanding or interpretation is no tool of bigotry, I believe the Bible is the word of God, and as such anything that is literal in context should be taken as such, nothing wrong with that.
In fact, if you apply cultural or personal interpretation as primary in understanding the bible you will be on thin ice.. because there is nothing then to stop you applying the same process to the whole of it. Who am I to tell God what he is saying to me.

Quote:

So when the Vatican starts telling people that condoms *never* work we are supposed to accept that. It is propganda and mis-information designed to further their own objectives. Preaching on the basis of religious doctrine is one thing, preaching on the basis of blantant lies should not be accepted.

I agree with that.. I never said I was a catholic did I

Quote:

*Edit* Strictly speaking nothing can be objectively proved, we have models that explain the behaviour of the universe and rules that have been derived from repeated observation, but none of these represent objective, absolute truth.

Personally, I trust the word of the one who created the entire universe when it comes to explaining both it's function and purpose. Absolute truth is necessary.. how would our judicial system function otherwise?

Quote:

So yes, something can become "fact" just because enough people believe in it.

**edit .. if in fact Christianity is the worlds biggest religion with over 1 billion followers according to the beeb http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...ty/index.shtml is that enough to make it fact for you ??

Salu · 23-01-2004, 14:28

Moses not only parted the sea on demand but got it to close again at the exact time the egyptians were crossing.

Two coincidences at precisely the right time? I don't think so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bible

21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.
23 The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea. 24 During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. 25 He made the wheels of their chariots come off [2] so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, "Let's get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt."
26 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen." 27 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward [3] it, and the LORD swept them into the sea. 28 The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen-the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived.
29 But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. 30 That day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. 31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.

**Chris** · 23-01-2004, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

cardinal gustaaf joos who was made a cardinal by the pope last year, has stated that 10% of gays are actually gay and the rest are sexual perverts...<snip>

Kronas, even by your standards this is a particularly thinly-veiled attempt to start a church-bashing thread. Next time you decide to have a moan about religion coming into everything, I will take grim pleasure in posting a link back here.

Ramrod · 23-01-2004, 14:33

I mentioned this to a vicar this morning and she said that current thinking is that it's not the Red Sea but the Reed Sea...which would refer to the reed marshes around the Nile at that time.
Apparently Herew dosn't have vowels so they missed out an 'e' in the origional translation.
*edit* Then I read grahams post

23-01-2004, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But how do you know that he did do it demand?

Imagine this situation. Moses turns up at the red sea, the natural effect takes place at just the right time, it looks like Moses has parted the waves so it is attributed to divine intervention and gets written up in the bible.

Which could otherwise be construde as an act of God