Religous debates and questions

Well, that bit could explain a few things. I'll give him that.

Edit:

I did see whole the genesis bit, and most of the Ark. And I've seen that movie.... um... 'The first lie' or something, too. Ricky just doesn't tickle my funny bone and he doesn't inspire me to think. He's on the verge of making me nod or making me say: yes, now you're on to something... and then he just... doesn't.

The Life of Brian.

Orwell wrote:The Life of Brian.

Yup! Nuf said really.

halfwise wrote:Brian: "You're all different!"
Crowd: "We're all different!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."

That movie really was their greatest achievement, yet all the accolades goes to Holy Grail. Not that there's anything wrong with Holy Grail, it's just a less intellectual grade of humor.

Love 'em both. Thought Life the better movie for a long time, but no, they're both so differently good... Love the 'science' in Holy Grail. You know, the world being shaped like a banana --- and witches being made of wood (I mean, however would we know, if they weren't!)

According to the BBC in his Easter speech the Archbishop of Cantebury (generally considered at the liberal end of the religious scale and very much a compromiser among factions) will say;

' a hostility towards faith and religion in public life may have been tempered by a recent appreciation of the social value of religion.' But he will insist that the ultimate test of Christianity is not whether it is beneficial to the human race but whether the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened.
He will say that for Christians a vision of reconciled love between people "is there only because God raised Jesus" and that the answer is not in scientific proof but by the way believers live with their faith.'

Interesting that for someone who has been seen not to push the whole Miracle aspect of his religion he chooses to do so now. I wonder if it has anything to do with him retiring from the post shortly.

The BBC report goes on to say;

'"In his sermon he will say that the resurrection reveals a God that acts in the world and could do so to bring peace in the Middle East."

Which frankly puts the whole thing into the nutty realms for me. This God has shown no inclination to do so in the past 2000 years. If He was that inclined to interfere amd bring about peace there have been a million and one places he could (and arguably should) have started already long ago.

I dont mind people like him having their say, telling their followers these things but I do resent the fact the BBC will lavishly produce a live Easter Sunday show from the Cathedral (at tax payers expense-most of whom are secular or agnostic), filming his entire speech and the soundbites from it will be in the news headlines all day. There are other charitable instituitions out there who would love that sort of TV exposure and would make a hell of a lot better use of it without asking anyone to buy into some ludicrous zombie story.

I think he must be from the bad place!

Got a religous question a friend put to me and which I had no answer to-lets see how others manage with it.

Given we now know that in the past there were several species of human coexisting- Homo Sapiens, homo erectus, neanderthal, peking man and those hobbit folk- and they are just the ones we know of and I can remember offhand.
So the question is did God make Adam as Homo Sapien?- and if so where did all the other human species come from? Or did He make an Adam for each species of human?

Anyone happen to know what the Church (of any religion which holds the Creation story as Holy) view on this is? (Or their view on the existence of these other species of human at all in fact).

No takers on having a stab at answering this religous conundrum?

Ok no takers on that one?

How about this then- It applies all over the place but the particular thing which got me thinking happened to be in the US where these things at the moment are very polarised, but I was watching some Catholic Cardinal having a go at Obama's care program and in particular saying the abortion bit is telling religous people what to do and forcing them to go against their beliefs.
How come you can circumspect the laws of the land everyone else has to abide by if you claim an unprovable super being said you could?
If the police arrested me for some crime and I turned round and said, 'but the Tooth Fairy says its what I've to do', they would quite rightly not give me the time of day. But if a Church, which may as well be a collection of Tooth Fairy believers for all the difference in evidence there is between that and a God, say this they get all sorts of special exemptions and privelages. Why?

You could always try waiting more than two hours for a religious person to respond to your post.

Its been a long day Eldo- and was plenty folk about earlier including those with religous beliefs- and I'm not taking the piss here either- I am genuinely curious what the church answer to there having been several species of human is.

First conundrum: Um... He gently kicked a fish in the right direction and it all snowballed from there? Yeah, sounds good. I wasn't there at the time, but I think the most popular idea is that He started the Big Bang. Unless your a creationist of course.

Second: The Church used to be the ones who dictated the laws, some think that's how it should have stayed. It's not too different from a political party with conservative views in my opinion. Everybody thinks their views are the correct ones, don't they Petty? Orwell?

I am genuinely curious what the church answer to there having been several species of human is.

Gee, no pressure there! Hey, come over here and speak for the Church!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ok no takers on that one?

How about this then- It applies all over the place but the particular thing which got me thinking happened to be in the US where these things at the moment are very polarised, but I was watching some Catholic Cardinal having a go at Obama's care program and in particular saying the abortion bit is telling religous people what to do and forcing them to go against their beliefs.

How is the care program making them go against their beliefs? Not informed enough to answer, sorry.

On the adam bit.... well biologist, so evolution.... adam is a concept, although we do come from a smaller genetic stock than expected for the amount of time we have been around.

As for the creationists.. I believe it is an extension of the ' why does the earth look older than it is then?' standard response... God made it that way... the earth is only 6000 yrs old, those other 'humans' never really exisited. God created their fossils in the earth just like he did with all the others when he made the earth. (Never got a satisfactory answer as to why... I guess it is to keep us all busy investigating instead of getting up to 'mischief'

True that, Halfwise. It's not a discussion, it's "defend your puny, retarded view filthy believer so I can spit on you!!" Very charming and inviting. There's hints of actually wanting to learn a bit, though it's a bit like the Spanish inquisition. In reverse... or something. *snicker*

Its all to do with health inisurance Kafria- far as I can tell employers will be obliged to cover these things including abortion. The Church says thats forcing it to go against its beliefs- the State says you are an employer you have to obey the same employment rules everyone else does. But I may have got that wrong, especially in the details, I have not been paying huge attention to this particular aspect.

Creationists I can see taking the extreme view its all false, old fake bones put there by a bored God or something- but thats surely not the line something like the Church of England takes.
Yet we had the Archbishop of Cantebury (as liberal a church man as you can imagine) saying that belief in the actual ressurection as a real event beyond science is fundemental to being a Christian, so if one miracle is presumably so is another- such as Adam.

Halfwise- if faith is absolute it is beyond being rattled by my arguments. You can't claim to be taking orders from a super being that you cant prove exists and not expect some critics.

Amarie- that is the debate- on one side there are those of us who think its an outdated, unnecessary belief system whose time is long past-like worship of Zeus, or Isis, or Odin. The other side is supposed to be those who believe and have faith putting their counter arguments- if the counter arguments are so weak they feel they cannot answer the questions that raises its own implications.
I will not simply mock someones views, but I will mock ludicrous aspects of what Churches expect people to believe and point out perceived contradictions and problems within it.
Those of a religous mind are equally free to mock my side of the debate where they feel the need- I won't run away from the debate because of it.

Hummm..
the abortion thing is pretty emotive, but it is part of a wider question that I have been wondering about a little myself, with two other examples:-

The same sex marriage debate you have raised

Restricting pupil admission to faith schools for a particular faith to 50% of the intake.

The simple answer I would give from a faith point of view is from the new testament, Jesus preached that you should obey the law of the land, it was religious hypocrisy he particularly denounced. Of course it is never that simple and each case we are talking about the introduction of a new law and what personal freedom to follow a faith is.

Yes but why should the Churches be exempt from the democratic law of the land everyone else has to obey just because you believe in a God? (Whether thats abortion laws or same sex marriage) That's what I dont get. Why the exception at all? I can understand it hundred sof years ago but not today. Believe what you like, but the law in a democracy is supposed to be the reflected will of the people for everyone, not everyone except people in a Church. The percentage of the UK population which are active Church goers is miniscule compared to the influence over law and society the Churches hold. Its disproportional in a democracy.

If someone was claiming to believe in a God, and the concept had not occured to people before, and they did so now, in the modern age of science, they would be locked up as mentally ill. Thats not mocking its simply true. No tangible evidence, second hand evidence such as animals, plants, people and the existence of the world which offers a child like narraitve of how they came to be compared to evlution or geology or astronomy. Claims of impossible behaviour- walkingon water, parting seas, resurrection.
The problem with the fine line in what you say Halfwise is that if you take away the centuries of acceptance and reverance the Church as clevelry built up its as mad as a bag of cats and consdiderably less sane. And its rather hard not to point that out.
I have never mocked anyone for a belief in a God however, or a belief that there is more to life than this or that there is even a purpose to the whole thing- those points of view are fine- its claiming to know that God, what they want, how everyone should live and then trying to get people to make either allowances or exceptions in law for you on that basis, or worse tell them how they should live (even to the point of discriminating against groups like homosexuals) based on ludicrous tales and no evidence. Thats what I object to.


Halfwise from the outside its hard to tell how religous America really is. Bits of it seem extremely religous and other bits no more so than in Europe. But would be intresting to see, not how many Americans claim to be Christian, but what the actual numbers of regularly active, church attentding Americans is across the whole country- that would be an interesting stat indeed.

I don't neccesarily believe they should be...

To take the examples raisied.

The healthcare plan.... if you are emplying people you should provide for them, I doubt abortion is the only thing the plan may be used for of which they would disapprove, you can't cherrypick one issue. Equally in terms of going against teachings of the church, that is between an individual and their deity

The same sex marriage in churches.... brought me up short to start with, when I thought it might be mandatory, but it's not. Only in those churches that choose to. After all, if churches want to complain about this they should also stop remarrying multiple divorcees.

I actually think the noise about these issues in this country is more to do with the church feeling under attack. Less people attend church, less put down christian as their faith on the census, increased vocal dismisal of faith as irrelevant by some leading scientists and sections of the press.

I support the idea that we should each be allowed our own beliefs as long as they don't harm others and for many years, until recently it seemed as if this was the general attitude to faith. There is a feeling within the church communties I am part of that this is no longer the case. For all that halfwise and Amarie were being a little tongue in cheek they hit the nail on the head of how a lot of christians feel their faith is being treated. With that view in mind a lot of the current issues are seen as attempts to devalue faith itself, for it to be something to be ridiculed. As such there is something of 'a line in the sand' to many of the comments that have been expressed in recent years against the 'rise of secularism'.

I know I have said this repeatedly, however it does fundamentally affect the way I see these things, but my faith is not something I base on fact, I simply know I believe. For that reason I agree that we should all be subject to the law, yet I have never had to contend with a law that would make me go against something I believe in, a tenet of faith I should follow so it is an easy stand to take.

Just seen the new comment and wanted to add one thing - For all Petty rants about religion I have always found him respectful of myself and my somewhat convoluted belief, the fact that I continue to try and debate this with him proof of that.

(Although he does have a habit of phrasing his questions in a somewhat provocative manner )