Floods are a judgement on society, say bishops

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

By challenging the authority of the Bible are you not in danger then of challenging God's authority. The point I am trying to make is that if God is supposedly all knowing, then surely what he prescribed in the days of Jesus/Muhammed (depending on what religion you wnat to follow) would be applicable in 2007 as they were in the times of those prophets.

Because society has become liberal does this mean that the religion should change to allow for the facilitation of things which were previously forbidden. For example homosexuality is now seen as being socially acceptable, whereas a while back both society and religion were in agreement that it was wrong (or perceived to be wrong in society).

By changing religion to make it acceptable or developing it based on liberal theology, are we then not implying that God is not the the all knowing entity that we think he is, or that his original commandments only applied at the time they were made?

I can't disagree with anything you say. And while I can outline the circumstances that allow for liberal 'Christian' theology, I certainly can't explain why they believe what they do.

I mean, in the case of many churchgoers I think it's a function of them being culturally Christian but lacking the means to challenge or think through the liberal objections to their faith, because they, or their family, have never truly owned the faith for themselves. For some it may simply be a case of needing to find external validation for the way they choose to live their lives. However I couldn't point to any individual and tell you why they believe what they do.

I used the word fairytale as there is nothing proved do i believe hans christian anderson's tales as truth because they were written in books that were very popular no i don't and yes i do see religion in that way.

My main point is that good people are good people because they choose to be not because any form of religion makes them that way. I hate religion's way of hijacking good peoples life and saying it was down to their faith as much as i hate people being judged by religion because they don't follow a religion's idea of how to live.

If this bishop has these beliefs (though how the hell he can in this day and age) his platform is his cathedral\church where he can spout as much of that sort of rubbish as he likes to an audience that is likely to be more receptive to it.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by danielf

Is that not just an easy cop out? The message that he conveys is 'it is not ok to lead a life style that is not endorsed by the church', and the recent flooding is a result of such life styles. And people that lead a life style that is should be comforted by the fact that it's not directly aimed at them? Frankly, it sounds like a full frontal assault.
.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Sorry, but that is such a poor parody of what the Bishop said that there's no way I'm going to validate it by using it as a platform to discuss the issue.

It's actually quite a good summing up of the bishops stance (and by extension, the stance of the christian church) but since you can't counter that argument you are forced to dismiss it in that way.....

[danielf]

It appears to me (but I may be wrong) that religious people are caught in a bit of a dilemma when they try to square the circle of a God that is both loving and extremely vengeful. I suppose the way out of the dilemma is that every person can be saved if he/she chooses to do so. This does not change the fact that the alternative is not very pleasing and may not be something people are keen to admit?

[Ramrod]

Of course, the easiest answer to that dilemma is simply to acknowledge that man wasn't created in gods image but that the opposite is true. At a stroke, all the inconsistencies and dilemmas disappear.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Of course, the easiest answer to that dilemma is simply to acknowledge that man wasn't created in gods image but that the opposite is true. At a stroke, all the inconsistencies and dilemmas disappear.

A master stroke to be precise

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It's actually quite a good summing up of the bishops stance (and by extension, the stance of the christian church) but since you can't counter that argument you are forced to dismiss it in that way.....

Originally Posted by danielf

I guess I'm just a very quick thinker

Seriously, I don't claim to be an expert, and I value the dialogue. See where others are coming from and all that. I think a lot of interesting points were raised since this morning.

Not being on this thread long enough to have read all the religious threads, I am not fully aware of the 'religious' bashing that has gone on here before I joined CF. I do think however that sometimes the religious elements here are to quick to dismiss points rasied by non religious members as being a case of 'baiting'.

I would say that the non religious (i.e non christians/muslims) do value the dialogue as Daniel says above, and sometimes they are dismissed without an argument or point of view which in my opinion can be very patronising.

But anyway, what do I know, I've only been here a while compared to the rest of you.

---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Of course, the easiest answer to that dilemma is simply to acknowledge that man wasn't created in gods image but that the opposite is true. At a stroke, all the inconsistencies and dilemmas disappear.

I was under the impression that man was created with its own will, which it then used to go against god's command (i.e Adam & Eve and the apple/serpent). Surely there is no/shouldn't be a dilemma.

Do what God prescribes and you should be ok, otherwise its the fires of Hell for you, unless God forgives you.

I know that simplifies it, but is that not why religion falls apart, when people try to make simple thinks overly complicated.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It's actually quite a good summing up of the bishops stance (and by extension, the stance of the christian church) but since you can't counter that argument you are forced to dismiss it in that way.....

Rammy, I'm surprised and disappointed that you would employ such dubious 'debating' tactics as this.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Rammy, I'm surprised and disappointed that you would employ such dubious 'debating' tactics as this.

I speak as I find. Danielfs post was a decent summing up of the bishops statement and you did dismiss it out of hand

---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I do think however that sometimes the religious elements here are to quick to dismiss points rasied by non religious members as being a case of 'baiting'.

That usually ends up being the case once they realise that their stance is untenable....

But anyway, what do I know, I've only been here a while compared to the rest of you.

imo you have been here long enough!

I was under the impression that man was created with its own will,

iirc, God created man....

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I speak as I find. Danielfs post was a decent summing up of the bishops statement and you did dismiss it out of hand

And I disagree with that point. Which means, in order to reply to him, I have to explain why I think that, then what I think the Bish really was saying, then say why I agree/disagree with it.

All of which would take rather more time than I have, seeing as I am at work right now. I've spent far too much time on this thread today as it is!

As I said to Daniel earlier, I don't feel compelled to bow to the peer pressure that exists on forums to dance to the tune of the one putting questions to me. I prefer to answer in my own time, after due consideration, as fully and honestly as I can. I think I've been around here long enough for other long-term members to know that's how I operate and not to resort to misrepresenting, deliberately misconstruing, or baiting me into responding before I'm ready or able to.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

And I disagree with that point. Which means, in order to reply to him, I have to explain why I think that, then what I think the Bish really was saying, then say why I agree/disagree with it.

All of which would take rather more time than I have, seeing as I am at work right now. I've spent far too much time on this thread today as it is!

Well, if you do find the time I would be interested to hear your thoughts. I don't know if you think I was baiting you, but to me it was just a question.

[Ramrod]

What he said ^^^

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I can't disagree with anything you say. And while I can outline the circumstances that allow for liberal 'Christian' theology, I certainly can't explain why they believe what they do.

I mean, in the case of many churchgoers I think it's a function of them being culturally Christian but lacking the means to challenge or think through the liberal objections to their faith, because they, or their family, have never truly owned the faith for themselves. For some it may simply be a case of needing to find external validation for the way they choose to live their lives. However I couldn't point to any individual and tell you why they believe what they do.

In my opinion one of the challenges to following a religion 'properly' is how to deal with liberal developing of society. Its much easier to say that the religion you follow makes allowances for such liberalness (is that a word?) therefore avoiding contraversy and making life easier for yourself.

I think thats why muslims are seen as having such a difficult time in the West, because they do not want to allow the liberal development of society to infringe upon their religion.

Should religion be adaptive? I dont think there is room for that in the core commandments/tenants because by doing so, you would be in effect that God was wrong when he started it all.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

In my opinion one of the challenges to following a religion 'properly' is how to deal with liberal developing of society. Its much easier to say that the religion you follow makes allowances for such liberalness (is that a word?) therefore avoiding contraversy and making life easier for yourself.

I think thats why muslims are seen as having such a difficult time in the West, because they do not want to allow the liberal development of society to infringe upon their religion.

Should religion be adaptive? I dont think there is room for that in the core commandments/tenants because by doing so, you would be in effect that God was wrong when he started it all.

Or is it that the people at the time's interpretation of God will/way was misinterpeted (or at best, suited to that time and place) - we have seen many examples of religions used/abused for peoples' own ends, and many of the so-called religious interpretations are often cultural biases imposed upon the religion (dietary, clothing, non-miscenegenation, etc) which then became part of the religions' ethos.

Just my thoughts, that's all.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Should religion be adaptive? I dont think there is room for that in the core commandments/tenants because by doing so, you would be in effect that God was wrong when he started it all.

Very well put! The fundamentalists are the true followers of the faith...