probably maybe, tho what for, i dont know

millar time

I'm afraid Red's right, anyone who has read the bible will tell you it was created in six days, with God taking a much-deserved breather on the seventh. Do keep up Millar time. And I do hope any cycling Christians are mindful that God really doesn't dig garments of more than one cloth; it says so in the bible, so best steer clear of lycra/polyester mixes and the like

I have read the Bible, (and the Qu'ran for that matter) I ask is there a good reason for pedantry? Or is it dangerous to assume that people might actually understand what i was getting at without having to actually quote the whole story?

ride_whenever

millar time wrote:

millar time, why such a closed minded attitude?

Surely my opinion is no more closed minded than those who would suggest that there is a God?

And that is a bad thing .

ride_whenever

Oh and with regards to science having the answers, all science can do is provide evidence, creation is an un-testable theory, which is why I think that the answer much more lies with the philosophers...

Just to look at it from the other side:

Say we found "the intelligent designer", living in Bristol, or wherever...

You could equally say that Jeff (for convenience sake let's give him a name) is merely a product of evolution, Jeff would have no method of proving this either way, even if omnipotent, because of our frame of reference.

With the burden or proof, yet the perpetual opportunity for counter-proof and no method of repeatable testing, I don't think an answer will ever be reached...

millar time

I think Jeff is a great name for an intelligent designer. It makes me think that he wandered into his shed one day and much the chagrin of his wife built something slightly more complex than airfix. I think she'd still have preferred that he put the shelves up like he said he would....

boybiker

ride_whenever wrote:

Oh and with regards to science having the answers, all science can do is provide evidence, creation is an un-testable theory, which is why I think that the answer much more lies with the philosophers...

Just to look at it from the other side:

Say we found "the intelligent designer", living in Bristol, or wherever...

You could equally say that Jeff (for convenience sake let's give him a name) is merely a product of evolution, Jeff would have no method of proving this either way, even if omnipotent, because of our frame of reference.

With the burden or proof, yet the perpetual opportunity for counter-proof and no method of repeatable testing, I don't think an answer will ever be reached...

Possibly not but it is funny when my loony neighbor starts ranting about Jesus. I like mad people I think they are interesting and without religion what would the loonies have to rant about?

ride_whenever

The more i think about it, the more it seems to be an excuse for intelligent debate... And everyone love baiting the local religious nut!

nasahapley

millar time wrote:

I have read the Bible, (and the Qu'ran for that matter) I ask is there a good reason for pedantry? Or is it dangerous to assume that people might actually understand what i was getting at without having to actually quote the whole story?

Sorry MT, I now realise it's dangerous to assume that people will be able to spot sarcasm on an internet forum without the use of smilies (and I do know it's the lowest form of wit, let's call it irony instead )

The point I was building up to, albeit in a rather oblique way, is that while believing in the literal truth of the creation story is nowadays seen as a bit silly by most Christians, they're nevertheless happy to go on believing a lot of things that are just as silly. And how is it that certain bits of the bible get to be viewed as metaphorical rather than literal? It's almost as if religions take their cue from the scientific knowledge and social mores of the time and adjust accordingly, i.e. if something in a religious text is plain bonkers in the light of 21st century scientific knowledge and moral norms, then it's only 'metaphorical', even though it used to be the immutable word of God. That's what I was getting at.

millar time

Fair enough. I didn't spot the sarcasm!

I think you've made a good point about how religion reflects the prevailing wisdom of the time, So in these scientifically enlightened times surely the whole thing is now just metaphorical?

millar time

Fair enough. I didn't spot the sarcasm!

I think you've made a good point about how religion reflects the prevailing wisdom of the time, So in these scientifically enlightened times surely the whole thing is now just metaphorical?

rossbarney2003

boybiker wrote:

Possibly not but it is funny when my loony neighbor starts ranting about Jesus. I like mad people I think they are interesting and without religion what would the loonies have to rant about?

I like my share of loony people too.

I work in Asda, and on the run up to Halloween we put up a display of various "scary" bits and bobs. After the display was there for a week or so, it had to be quickly removed after a group of Christians came in and were deeply offended by it.

I still find it funny that they were offended by it, and find it even funnier that Asda actually took it down because of one complaint out of the many people that came into the supermarket....

croggy

redddraggon wrote:

Everytime you say you don't believe in fairies, a fairy will die.

Let's hope it's Graham Norton.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN FAIRIES :twisted:

The Northern Monkey

I've got no problem with religious folk....as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves. I dont believe and will openly admit it.

Preechers so my sodding head in.... "can i have a few min's with you to talk about God".."erm... no. Thanks ayways."

ddraver

nasahapley wrote:

The point I was building up to, albeit in a rather oblique way, is that while believing in the literal truth of the creation story is nowadays seen as a bit silly by most Christians, they're nevertheless happy to go on believing a lot of things that are just as silly. And how is it that certain bits of the bible get to be viewed as metaphorical rather than literal? It's almost as if religions take their cue from the scientific knowledge and social mores of the time and adjust accordingly, i.e. if something in a religious text is plain bonkers in the light of 21st century scientific knowledge and moral norms, then it's only 'metaphorical', even though it used to be the immutable word of God. That's what I was getting at.

I sort of agree - How can you believe in the Reincarnation of Christ and his Acension into heaven (I was a choir boy) but that Genesis is a "story"

I've had many arguments about this with some of my geologist friends who were deep believers....

boybiker

rossbarney2003 wrote:

boybiker wrote:

Possibly not but it is funny when my loony neighbor starts ranting about Jesus. I like mad people I think they are interesting and without religion what would the loonies have to rant about?

I like my share of loony people too.

I work in Asda, and on the run up to Halloween we put up a display of various "scary" bits and bobs. After the display was there for a week or so, it had to be quickly removed after a group of Christians came in and were deeply offended by it.

I still find it funny that they were offended by it, and find it even funnier that Asda actually took it down because of one complaint out of the many people that came into the supermarket....

If I was the ASDA manager I would just say that the Christians would be the first to complain if they weren't allowed to calibrate a Christian festival, so sorry we are keeping Halloween.

cee

millar time wrote:

I'm afraid Red's right, anyone who has read the bible will tell you it was created in six days, with God taking a much-deserved breather on the seventh. Do keep up Millar time. And I do hope any cycling Christians are mindful that God really doesn't dig garments of more than one cloth; it says so in the bible, so best steer clear of lycra/polyester mixes and the like

I have read the Bible, (and the Qu'ran for that matter) I ask is there a good reason for pedantry? Or is it dangerous to assume that people might actually understand what i was getting at without having to actually quote the whole story?

technically...you (we) have not read the bible/qu'ran or any other religious texts. We have read translations of them...or more correctly translations of translations of translations. My wifey is a translator (DLitt) and she could go into a whole diatribe on the problems with translation, but I will keep it brief

No translation exists that is an absolute true reflection on the orginal text. It is impossible to do....there thats the short version of a story including cultural reference, brutality of langauge and other stuff that I only looked like i was listening to. Basically, the translator cannot help but leave their mark.

boybiker

Who cares, as far as I can see if God is so sadly lacking in self confidence that he needs people to continually worship him then he is pretty pathetic God.If he wants to pick a fight with me for saying that then he knows where I live.

il_principe

boybiker wrote:

Who cares, as far as I can see if God is so sadly lacking in self confidence that he needs people to continually worship him then he is pretty pathetic God.If he wants to pick a fight with me for saying that then he knows where I live.

Ooh you're so going to get a p*ncture now...

ride_whenever

a puncture, followed by immaculate conception...

DavidBelcher

millar time wrote:

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune with his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

Therefore, Oolon Colluphid is Richard Dawkins, and I claim my five quid.

David

jp1985

sorry are we just discussing the presence/being of any god, a god of a specific religion or an as yet uncreated/ undicovered god??

Surely the vast number of gods that have been worshiped by mankind is evidence that god has been created by man!!!

nolf

cee wrote:

millar time wrote:

I'm afraid Red's right, anyone who has read the bible will tell you it was created in six days, with God taking a much-deserved breather on the seventh. Do keep up Millar time. And I do hope any cycling Christians are mindful that God really doesn't dig garments of more than one cloth; it says so in the bible, so best steer clear of lycra/polyester mixes and the like

I have read the Bible, (and the Qu'ran for that matter) I ask is there a good reason for pedantry? Or is it dangerous to assume that people might actually understand what i was getting at without having to actually quote the whole story?

technically...you (we) have not read the bible/qu'ran or any other religious texts. We have read translations of them...or more correctly translations of translations of translations. My wifey is a translator (DLitt) and she could go into a whole diatribe on the problems with translation, but I will keep it brief

No translation exists that is an absolute true reflection on the orginal text. It is impossible to do....there thats the short version of a story including cultural reference, brutality of langauge and other stuff that I only looked like i was listening to. Basically, the translator cannot help but leave their mark.

Umm thats not technically true tho is it?
The Qu'ran is available almost exclusively available in arabic, the original language, and all Muslims learn arabic to read it. So there can't be many translation issues can there?

And the bible, is a translation of the original greek it was written in (New Testament, the old testament is a translation of the original hebrew) which we have hard copies of.
The NIV for example is entirely translated in this way, it's true that no 2 languages entirely mesh, but, if you look carefully you will see that in the Bible they take account of this. For example the word "love" (of which there are many greek forms) is often accompanied by a side note wth a description of which type of love. Also the words "The Lord" can be sometimes wholly capitalised and sometimes not, this is to signify the use of the word "iawae" (forgive my atrocious spelling) in the original rather than a different word which would translate the same.
Although no translation can be entirely perfect, the point is that the message remains the same and clear. Nothing has been lost in translation as far as I'm aware.

Cultures a side issue, but surely you aren't suggesting that the bible has been positively translated to make it more culturally relevant? Maybe interpreted that way but not translated!

Few other points, give credit to XKCD where credits due!

Also why does everyone berate christians who are A) geniunely well meaning and some of the nicest people you will ever meet? They do loads of good works, are nice people by and large and only want to try and help.
If you're going to berate preachers you should on the way berate every beggar, charity worker and charity shop.

Oh and I wouldn't assume every christian is quite as stupid as you may think, even Oxbridge has CU's...

boybiker

nolf wrote:

cee wrote:

millar time wrote:

I'm afraid Red's right, anyone who has read the bible will tell you it was created in six days, with God taking a much-deserved breather on the seventh. Do keep up Millar time. And I do hope any cycling Christians are mindful that God really doesn't dig garments of more than one cloth; it says so in the bible, so best steer clear of lycra/polyester mixes and the like

I have read the Bible, (and the Qu'ran for that matter) I ask is there a good reason for pedantry? Or is it dangerous to assume that people might actually understand what i was getting at without having to actually quote the whole story?

technically...you (we) have not read the bible/qu'ran or any other religious texts. We have read translations of them...or more correctly translations of translations of translations. My wifey is a translator (DLitt) and she could go into a whole diatribe on the problems with translation, but I will keep it brief

No translation exists that is an absolute true reflection on the orginal text. It is impossible to do....there thats the short version of a story including cultural reference, brutality of langauge and other stuff that I only looked like i was listening to. Basically, the translator cannot help but leave their mark.

Umm thats not technically true tho is it?
The Qu'ran is available almost exclusively available in arabic, the original language, and all Muslims learn arabic to read it. So there can't be many translation issues can there?

And the bible, is a translation of the original greek it was written in (New Testament, the old testament is a translation of the original hebrew) which we have hard copies of.
The NIV for example is entirely translated in this way, it's true that no 2 languages entirely mesh, but, if you look carefully you will see that in the Bible they take account of this. For example the word "love" (of which there are many greek forms) is often accompanied by a side note wth a description of which type of love. Also the words "The Lord" can be sometimes wholly capitalised and sometimes not, this is to signify the use of the word "iawae" (forgive my atrocious spelling) in the original rather than a different word which would translate the same.
Although no translation can be entirely perfect, the point is that the message remains the same and clear. Nothing has been lost in translation as far as I'm aware.

Cultures a side issue, but surely you aren't suggesting that the bible has been positively translated to make it more culturally relevant? Maybe interpreted that way but not translated!

Few other points, give credit to XKCD where credits due!

Also why does everyone berate christians who are A) geniunely well meaning and some of the nicest people you will ever meet? They do loads of good works, are nice people by and large and only want to try and help.
If you're going to berate preachers you should on the way berate every beggar, charity worker and charity shop.

Oh and I wouldn't assume every christian is quite as stupid as you may think, even Oxbridge has CU's...

I assume that they are stupid because of the things that they say and do, and some of the most appalling hypocrites that I know are Christains.

boybiker

Anyway I waited in last night to see if God wanted a fight but he didn't show up.

nasahapley

nolf wrote:

Also why does everyone berate christians who are A) geniunely well meaning and some of the nicest people you will ever meet? They do loads of good works, are nice people by and large and only want to try and help.
If you're going to berate preachers you should on the way berate every beggar, charity worker and charity shop.

Oh and I wouldn't assume every christian is quite as stupid as you may think, even Oxbridge has CU's...

That many religious folk do many good deeds is beyond dispute, and I doff my cap to them for it (though my experience tallies with Boybiker's; some of the most narrow-minded, self-righteous people I know claim to be Christians). However, the question it raises in my mind is this: Why are they good? Why do they help others? If it's because their religion tells them that's what they have to do to get good seats in the afterlife, that's not really being 'good' as I understand it, as they're really only doing it for themselves. If, on the other hand, they would do all these good deeds anyway, then that just shows that you don't need religion and all its supernatural paraphenalia to be 'good'.

I wouldn't berate a preacher because of the good things he/she does, I'd berate them if they tried to push their antiquated belief system on me.

And I wouldn't assume that an Oxbridge degree is any guarantee against stupidity...

Richard_D

I am happy to be agnostic. It is not a case of sitting on the fence it is for the good scientific reason of there not being enough evidence to convince me either way.

Science has its own belief system in that it defines things we can see in terms of things we can not and in extremis in terms of things we can not prove exist. The big plus for it is that when somebody comes up with a rule that better fits what we see than what we had before it takes it on.

ride_whenever

nolf wrote:

If you're going to berate preachers you should on the way berate every beggar, charity worker and charity shop.

I do if they are pressing their agenda in an unwanted way.

nolf wrote:

Oh and I wouldn't assume every christian is quite as stupid as you may think, even Oxbridge has CU's...

I'm at Oxford, the CU is almost entirely populated by lovely, well meaning nut-jobs. And just because we are supposed to be intelligent it certainly doesn't mean we do anything at all that is sensible (just go down to the river any term-time morning if you want to see a population slice that might be very intelligent, but entirely lacks any form of self-preservation or 'common'-sense)

boybiker

I do know one good Christian, he doesn't flaunt his religion, he doesn't preach, he doesn't judge other people on their own choices and he is generally a good bloke, but sadly he is the person I know who actually lives the kind of life that Christians all aspire to.

unclemalc

boybiker wrote:

I do know one good Christian, he doesn't flaunt his religion, he doesn't preach, he doesn't judge other people on their own choices and he is generally a good bloke, but sadly he is the person I know who actually lives the kind of life that Christians all aspire to.

Richards Dawkins is A God, and I believe in him.
However as a plant biologist, I happen to think God is a potato, and that he (or she) is in all of us.....

nolf

nasahapley wrote:

nolf wrote:

Also why does everyone berate christians who are A) geniunely well meaning and some of the nicest people you will ever meet? They do loads of good works, are nice people by and large and only want to try and help.
If you're going to berate preachers you should on the way berate every beggar, charity worker and charity shop.

Oh and I wouldn't assume every christian is quite as stupid as you may think, even Oxbridge has CU's...

That many religious folk do many good deeds is beyond dispute, and I doff my cap to them for it (though my experience tallies with Boybiker's; some of the most narrow-minded, self-righteous people I know claim to be Christians). However, the question it raises in my mind is this: Why are they good? Why do they help others? If it's because their religion tells them that's what they have to do to get good seats in the afterlife, that's not really being 'good' as I understand it, as they're really only doing it for themselves. If, on the other hand, they would do all these good deeds anyway, then that just shows that you don't need religion and all its supernatural paraphenalia to be 'good'.

I wouldn't berate a preacher because of the good things he/she does, I'd berate them if they tried to push their antiquated belief system on me.

And I wouldn't assume that an Oxbridge degree is any guarantee against stupidity...

Part of christianity is that if you try to act in a good and righteous way, you will never get to heaven. In a way good deeds are essentially pointless to a religious non christian, other than giving them a sense of well being. The whole point is that a chance to go to heaven is a gift from God, not something that you can earn. If you try in vain to work for this gift, it will be denied you because it is an unacheivable goal.
Once this gift is given there usually follows a change in heart after which people tend to want to do good deeds. You must remember though that good deeds aren't the point of christianity, it's a happy side benefit.

RE: Ride wherever-
I didn't say sensible, I said intelligent. Also one could argue that since the atheist purpose of life is essentially one of self fulfillment, surely they are just expressing their views on what self fulfillment is? (By hurling all over the college grounds)
Also I'm not entirely sure how much in common the christians of Oxford have in common with drunk students? Unless the CU has gone waaaay down hill.

And Richard D-
I wouldn't say that science and christianity are mutually exclusive. I also wouldn't say that science counts as a belief system, science doesn't pretend to offer meaning to life or purpose to continued existence, which in essence is what a belief system does.
Science is the study of how things work and how things interact. Surely you can't have a belief in the study of how things are done?

Crapaud

<intermission>


</intermission>