Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Bible conundrum hampsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Bible conundrum hampsterwheel

Old 4th Jan 2015, 23:33
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 812
421,
I've been to Africa a few times, thanks. Just got back last month.

It's not hubris to point out they are pumping air into a punctured tyre but refusing to repair it.

Condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death for a policy introduced on christian principles.

Last edited by Miserlou; 4th Jan 2015 at 23:45.
Miserlou is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 23:36
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
It's real in the sense that any story that exists is real, but it is not actually true. Whether that matters or not is an interesting question.
I think it is fair to say that a few religionists have in fact alluded to exactly that.

And heh, it works for me, just don't call it something it clearly is not!
BabyBear is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 01:57
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 243
It's not hubris to point out they are pumping air into a punctured tyre but refusing to repair it.

Condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death for a policy introduced on christian principles.

Yup, I've lived there too...

Ok, so they should just give up and say "We'll be back to sweep you up off the streets tomorrow"

Are you seriously going to blame aid organizations rather than African "governments" that officially doubt HIV as the cause of aids, and who openly believe that raping virgins or eating bits of albinos will cure them?

Dude, you need to straighten out your priorities.

When a man is hungry and someone gives him a sandwich, it's kinda rude to bitch because he thinks there's not enough mayonnaise...
421dog is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 02:38
  #504 (permalink)  
RJM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 295
It's real in the sense that any story that exists is real, but it is not actually true. Whether that matters or not is an interesting question.
I think it is fair to say that a few religionists have in fact alluded to exactly that.
If you're saying that you can believe in religion without actually believing religion, then I agree with you. I'd say that 'morally', the motivation for living a good life doesn't matter, as long as you do live a good life.

Consider the devious little brat who decided to trick his whole village into thinking that he was a good person. He continued the charade through his life, and died a much-loved benefactor of the village. His dying words were: 'I tricked you all!'

Was he a 'good' man? I think he was.
RJM is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 02:51
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,316
Miserlou,
Many thanks for that link to the BBC debate.

The vote ´before' and ´after' said a lot..... Still some intelligence left, one would say.
I do wonder what the outcome would have been in the USA ? There recently was a debate ´over there' between an atheist and a creationist, and it was somewhat hilarious.....

Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 5th Jan 2015 at 03:07. Reason: Virtuaĺ keyboard doing funnies.
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 09:45
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
RJM, the thread is riddled with evidence that the belief is more important than the truth, whilst having zero evidence for the actual existence of God.

Originally Posted by obgraham
People of Faith do not require a scientific explanation to everything. It's the whole point.
Originally Posted by ruddman
But you answered it. Yes, you would be a believer. Big deal.
Originally Posted by ruddman
But would you worship him? Big difference.

ChristiaanJ, there are a few debates between atheists and creationists to be had. This one in particular, Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright ,has certain similarities to this thread. Which, needless to say, leaves me feeling much as I imagine Dawkins felt.


Last edited by BabyBear; 5th Jan 2015 at 11:14.
BabyBear is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 09:58
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,190
As soon as you sit in front of a TV, or watch a movie, or read a book, you enter the zone of "suspension of disbelief", and any person can perform any number of amazing things. You will believe it for the duration of the movie or book.

The bible requires suspension of disbelief. Commonly called "faith." They expect you to continue believing it after you put the book down, and well after Charlton Heston's image fades from the screen of "The Ten Commandments".
Ascend Charlie is online now  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 10:39
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
I expect a very large number of people on the AirAsia 737 prayed for a good outcome as they headed towards the ocean.
Well there's another miracle right there. Turning water into wine; turning Airbus into Boeing ...
david1300 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 11:05
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 812
421,
No need to get aggressive especially in avoiding the issue.

You assert that on the whole christianity is a force for the good of society.

I am saying that the Bush administration's withdrawal of sexual education and supply of condoms on christian foundations is a significant 'bad' for society.

What hope is there of educating African governments when even allegedly first world governments cling to primitive dogma?


And btw, I'm not 'dude'.
Miserlou is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 12:57
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
none of those atrocities which have undoubtedly taken place is approved of by any of the mainstream organised Christian churches
I would suggest that your assertion is not supported by the decades of cover-ups at all levels within at least one organised Christian church.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 13:05
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 336
The problem I have with the whole god issue as the supreme designer or whatever you want to call them is the fact that we know there was nothing supreme or intelligent about it at all. There are many many forms of life that didn't work and are now extinct. What was the point of them? Religion as a whole seems to champion the opinion that we as humans are the intended result of creation and the whole universe was created for our benefit. Why then was so much trial and error needed in the form of dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, dodo's etc? Why was there an ice age? Why didn't he/she just create humans in the first place?

Why is there a need for literally billions of planets stretched over such a vast distance if it is all about us here on one insignificant rock?

Maybe I have misunderstood but I am not very knowledgeable about the religious texts as I decided long ago I would only learn facts that either already had been or were working towards being proved.

In regards to the various religions I cannot separate the atrocities we hear being carried out in the name of Islam from those which years ago were carried out in the name of other religions. By allowing religion to take such an important role in our society, we are allowing less intelligent and less educated people to be controlled and to carry out terrible acts either in the belief that they will be punished by not doing so or be rewarded with however many virgins etc.


I also have big issues with the fact that it is given such a protected status. We are told we are not allowed to question the faith of others, we still have rules that are based on religion and we allow exceptions to be made to what are peoples basic human rights in the name of religion. Why is it ok in this day and age to even have a discussion on sex and gender issues regarding religion that would be seen as highly offensive and probably illegal in any other aspect?

It has been said on here that religion makes the world a better place and as a belief system it makes individuals better people. What it actually does is act as a system to control individuals to act in a specific way according to a set of religious rules. Many of these are the kind of thing that do make the world a better place but others are outdated and have no place in modern society. There seems to be an agreement that any of these rules that are illegal and inhumane in the modern world can be quietly dropped or made to mean something else. That to me is proof enough that religion is no more than an outdated system of control formed in a world before modern science. Why so much evolution of morals and trial and error?

I truly believe we should be working towards highlighting proven scientific theories and those being worked on above all 'faith' based beliefs. If any kind of serious work was being done into religious theories then lets hear about it, including any evidence or lack of evidence that occurs but there is no room for theories based purely on faith only.

I believe we as humans have a duty to educate those in less enlightened parts of the world in all aspects of modern science. It is easy to look at the religious fanatics we see in certain areas of this planet as delusional monsters but many of these people have not had the privilege of a balanced education. Modern scientific discoveries are not taught and any books arguing against the predominant religion are banned. They grow up with religious theories being taught as fact and told that the consequences of not blindly following result in unspeakable damnation. Can we really blame them? Do we believe that the leaders of such areas are not using religion to control the population? Can we separate this behavior from that of any other religion?

Is it not the case that the western religions have merely learned to adapt and exist in a state of evolution, quietly phasing out or rewording any of the original rules that become completely irrelevant or unacceptable in modern society while still pretending the others are relevant? If so then how can any of it be believed?
felixflyer is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 13:05
  #512 (permalink)  
RJM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 295
The bible requires suspension of disbelief.
I think it does, not to the detriment of the religion, perhaps.

Did you know that the phrase 'suspension of disbelief' was coined by S T Coleridge?
RJM is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 14:05
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Please don't confuse institutional failure with Christian faith
I'm not sure that this rather nice distinction matters an awful lot to the victims.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 14:22
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,859
I have just been listening to Will Self on Radio 4 on a visit to CERN in a rather fruitless attempt to educate himself on what the whole project is about. He was somewhat hampered in his attempt by his totally negative attitude to science and scientists, who he seemed to associate exclusively with the ones who designed the atomic bomb. The CERN guys were too polite to mention that perhaps scientists may have had some hand in the design of the aircraft that flew him to Switzerland, so they let it pass.

More relevant to this thread though was when they told him that what they were trying to discover what happened in the first microsecond (or whatever) in the life of the universe. When Self asked if they were trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, the guy said that that wasn't a question for scientists to ask or answer. He went on to say that among his colleagues there were both believers and non-believers, and this didn't present a problem as all just got on with their work.

An example that could be followed by some who have contributed to this thread.
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 15:36
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by BabyBear
* This one in particular, Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright ,has certain similarities to this thread. Which, needless to say, leaves me feeling much as I imagine Dawkins felt.
I dont know about you (or Dicky), but if it was something like screaming 'ARE YOU TOTALLY STUPID??" 2 inches from her smirking face, I empathise...
Hempy is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 16:00
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 57
I'm not sure that this rather nice distinction matters an awful lot to the victims.
It is not a 'nice' distinction at all. It is fundamental

By your reasoning, I should assume that the Liberal Party (as it then was) approved of paedophilia because of Cyril Smith and a few of his mates? Should I be concerned for any children that fall into the 'clutches’ (to use your delightful expression) of Libdems are at risk of abuse?

It seems that your antipathy to Christianity (based, apparently, on reason) has blinded you to reason itself.
foresight is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 16:59
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 812
foresight,

Your reasoning is fallacious. The two organisations are very different as are the members of the groups.

The church is by its own assertion the holders of the ultimate truth and the source of morality and ethics on a global, perhaps universal, scale. By its own standards, it would be reasonable to assume a significantly higher level of moral behaviour.

The LibDem party is only the third largest political party in a relatively small country on the edge of europe.

So one would expect to find a very slightly higher rate of paedophilia in the LibDems than in the general population. Slightly higher because power is often an enabler in various ways.

One would also expect the church to have zero paedophilia at all as one would expect it runs contrary to everything they preach.
Miserlou is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 20:04
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,623
Originally Posted by Miserlou View Post
The church is by its own assertion the holders of the ultimate truth and the source of morality and ethics on a global, perhaps universal, scale. By its own standards, it would be reasonable to assume a significantly higher level of moral behaviour.
It would be reasonable to demand such, and to expect such, but to assume such seems a mistake.

The hierarchy of any major church is made up of fallible people. As to which morality they hold to be expert/authority on, that can be the topic of another thread: is there absolute morality or not? Not going there in this one.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 21:04
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,663
The church is by its own assertion the holders of the ultimate truth
No-one can know the ultimate truth this side of heaven. If anyone did know the ultimate truth, they would be God and that is just not possible. (Exodus 33:20, John 1:18)

SO, no matter how clever we are, every one of us will fall short of complete understanding of the nature of God. The problem is that, ever since the beginning, mankind has tried to reduce the ultimate truth in order to claim that he is God, or at least the only one who is right.

I find it helpful to see the ultimate truth as a circle. Our God given role is to understand as much of the circle as we can, through prayer, science, education and, the only way for most of us, learning the hard way.

The problem is that some know one segment of the circle or even an arc, others know a completely different arc and yet both claim that their understanding of the truth is "ultimate". Obviously some religions understand overlapping arcs, which explains the similarities. Maybe there are others whose belief is completely outside the circle.

In my opinion the centre of the circle is the most important part, and this is the truth about God's unconditional forgiveness as revealed most clearly through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A bit mystical I know, but that's what I believe.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 21:39
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 812
Lonewolf,
You are quite right: demand or expect. For assume read believe, take as given.

Absolute morality is as tricky as any absoluteness if taken to mean unchanging or unchangeable.

Pulse1,
No. The church says clearly in the documents, which require of you total acceptance and obedience, that they hold the ultimate truth.
According to John on the 14th june, "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Even without the benefit of science, after reading all of the New and Old Testaments and most of the Quran, I draw completely the opposite conclusion to believers.
That man made god in the image of himself.

Although I don't intend offence, I realise some will choose to be offended, I find that ultimate scapegoating of the Jesus/resurrection/forgiveness/sacrifice repulsive and disgusting. It robs me of my personal responsibility and therein lies my morality.
Miserlou is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.