Census - "Religion" question

elbowloh

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

singleton

pblakeney said:

Here's a question for the believers. Does your all powerful god really care if you attend meetings in a man made building assuming you are otherwise pious?

No, the issue of "where" we meet to worship him is not what's important, simply that we do it. Outside in the fresh air is also fine.

pblakeney

singleton said:

pblakeney said:

Here's a question for the believers. Does your all powerful god really care if you attend meetings in a man made building assuming you are otherwise pious?

No, the issue of "where" we meet to worship him is not what's important, simply that we do it. Outside in the fresh air is also fine.

Just think of the money that can be saved worldwide. Bonus!
It needs to be as a group? Sounds a bit cultish.

thistle_

surrey_commuter said:

I know this bloke who set up a godless church as he enjoyed the community spirit and singing part of churchgoing but not the religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly

Isn't that what Sunday group rides are for?

secretsam

thistle_ said:

surrey_commuter said:

I know this bloke who set up a godless church as he enjoyed the community spirit and singing part of churchgoing but not the religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly

Isn't that what Sunday group rides are for?

Or choirs???

Ben6899

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

I'm genuinely envious of anyone who can take emotional support from having a faith.

super_davo

secretsam said:

Can I just say how lovely the standard of debate is on this thread? Lots of differing opinions, treated with respect and courtesy.

Whilst I am a fully signed up atheist, I think everybody has the right to believe in what they want to believe. Religion is such a huge matter for those that truly believe it needs to be treated with respect.

On the other hand, those that pretend to practice a particular religion to get their kids into a school when they aren't really... I wish I believed in a hell to send them. It keeps perpetuating the ridiculousness of public funded religious schools and the myth they are somehow "better" (when there is a self selecting factor of pushy parents driving them up league tables) .

capt_slog

I've seen mentions of "pressure to conform" with respect to belief. You might not realise the power the church had in the UK in this respect in quite recent history.

My dad was born in 1919. When he was late teens/early twenties, he received a kick when playing football on the inside of his thigh just above the knee. It later formed an abscess and required surgery*, and this had to paid for.

My dad told me that he had to go and see the vicar to ask for the money from the church funds! Being a chap of good moral standing, member of the choir etc., the vicar was pleased to be able to help.

Perhaps it's not surprising that 'the church' was so powerful and governed lives to the extent it did.

*When he was about 78, this injury flared up again, and became osteomyelitis which involved him having a long stay in hospital (this time paid for by the NHS ) during which he had his thigh bone flushed out. He did recover but I think that was the start of his decline.


As a complete aside, a facebook mate of mine said that he needed someone to fill out his census, and wished the John Denver was still alive

rjsterry

elbowloh said:

First.Aspect said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

lesfirth said:

singleton said:

First.Aspect said:

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

I agree that children should question what their parents tell them on topics like this.

As a child I was told there was no God. I questioned that and spent some time looking into the claims of the bible and I came to the conclusion that what my parents told me was wrong, and I am an active Christian.

You are very lucky to be able to make your own decision. The overwhelming majority of any followers of any faith were brainwashed as children into believing that they should follow their parents in the correct faith and that the billions of other religious followers had got it wrong.

It's funny that when religion is being discussed, it's always 'brainwashing' but in any other context it's 'bringing up your children well'. The differences between religions (and non-religious moral codes) are relatively small compared with the things we pretty much all agree on.

I think the differences can be quite big, particularly with regards to the carrot and stick you use to enforce the code.

The threat of going to hell for eternity, is pretty horrendous imo.

It doesn't seem to provide much of a deterrent to anything in practice though does it?

I'm not sure. A lot of religious people argue that without religion, the country would become hives of scum and villainy. So think how many murders and assaults there would be if everyone was atheist!

Do they? Where's that, then?

elbowloh

super_davo said:

secretsam said:

Can I just say how lovely the standard of debate is on this thread? Lots of differing opinions, treated with respect and courtesy.

Whilst I am a fully signed up atheist, I think everybody has the right to believe in what they want to believe. Religion is such a huge matter for those that truly believe it needs to be treated with respect.

On the other hand, those that pretend to practice a particular religion to get their kids into a school when they aren't really... I wish I believed in a hell to send them. It keeps perpetuating the ridiculousness of public funded religious schools and the myth they are somehow "better" (when there is a self selecting factor of pushy parents driving them up league tables) .

Yeah, i've had this argument with the wife. She's lapsed Catholic (born into it, but never a true believer). Some of the best schools round here are catholic and i refuse to pretend to be catholic just to get the kids into a school, especially as there are other options. There's another couple in our NCT group who had the same discussion, but there the husband gave in.

Its the same reason we didn't have a church wedding. We did have a civil ceremony in a de-consecrated church though, so it looked traditional at least!

shirley_basso

We're not relgious but had an epic church ceremony, most of which was by my design.

I love a rousing sing song and christian music is up there with the best, in my view.

This being my all time favourite (I think this is the best arrangement on YouTube (starts at 1:50)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9jwyL4K88A

This also good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiX3kVxm5Ks

rjsterry

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

Well you are told what to believe, but what you're told to believe differs by denomination, not by the book as such.

Those who are being preached to then seem to have a disconnect between what they are being told and, i guess, what they are not being told. Assuming they have actually read the bible and know what the preacher is missing out from their sermons.

rjsterry

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

Well you are told what to believe, but what you're told to believe differs by denomination, not by the book as such.

Those who are being preached to then seem to have a disconnect between what they are being told and, i guess, what they are not being told. Assuming they have actually read the bible and know what the preacher is missing out from their sermons.

No, the book is slightly different from denomination to denomination, too. Notwithstanding that it's not written as an instruction manual, nobody follows all the beliefs they claim to hold to the letter, whether these are religious or more secular politics.

Charlie_Croker

I began to read this thread, I don’t really know why as the question was an optional question meaning you didn’t have to supply an answer. So any information received would not be a complete profile of the nation.

I quickly began to lose to will to live, forgive me I couldn’t go on reading : I suppose there’s a reason people say, ‘three thing that should never be disused in a pub by friends’ this is one of them

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/census/censustransformationprogramme/consultations/the2021censusinitialviewoncontentforenglandandwales/topicreport08religion.pdf

The thread may have moved on but i cannot

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

Well you are told what to believe, but what you're told to believe differs by denomination, not by the book as such.

Those who are being preached to then seem to have a disconnect between what they are being told and, i guess, what they are not being told. Assuming they have actually read the bible and know what the preacher is missing out from their sermons.

No, the book is slightly different from denomination to denomination, too. Notwithstanding that it's not written as an instruction manual, nobody follows all the beliefs they claim to hold to the letter, whether these are religious or more secular politics.

pretty difficult to follow to the letter, given the internal inconsistencies.

That said, I know a few born agains in distant family who believe the world is 6000 years old.

That's a long time right, so all sorts of things could have happened. First six days a bit hectic, mind.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

Well you are told what to believe, but what you're told to believe differs by denomination, not by the book as such.

Those who are being preached to then seem to have a disconnect between what they are being told and, i guess, what they are not being told. Assuming they have actually read the bible and know what the preacher is missing out from their sermons.

No, the book is slightly different from denomination to denomination, too. Notwithstanding that it's not written as an instruction manual, nobody follows all the beliefs they claim to hold to the letter, whether these are religious or more secular politics.

pretty difficult to follow to the letter, given the internal inconsistencies.

That said, I know a few born agains in distant family who believe the world is 6000 years old.

That's a long time right, so all sorts of things could have happened. First six days a bit hectic, mind.

There are plenty of non-literalists. If all you've got is "but dinosaurs" then I think religion has got a few more millenia yet.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

Well you are told what to believe, but what you're told to believe differs by denomination, not by the book as such.

Those who are being preached to then seem to have a disconnect between what they are being told and, i guess, what they are not being told. Assuming they have actually read the bible and know what the preacher is missing out from their sermons.

No, the book is slightly different from denomination to denomination, too. Notwithstanding that it's not written as an instruction manual, nobody follows all the beliefs they claim to hold to the letter, whether these are religious or more secular politics.

pretty difficult to follow to the letter, given the internal inconsistencies.

That said, I know a few born agains in distant family who believe the world is 6000 years old.

That's a long time right, so all sorts of things could have happened. First six days a bit hectic, mind.

There are plenty of non-literalists. If all you've got is "but dinosaurs" then I think religion has got a few more millenia yet.

Well we are working forward from the big bang and backwards from the Burgess shale. Where is religion once they inevitably join up?

A God who set all the rules, pressed "start" and then sat down to read the Sunday Times* I suppose.

*Reading all the supplements would take at least 15 billion years, and so there is at least 1.2 billion to go. God must only just be on Lifestyle by now.

briantrumpet

I do find it mildly ironic that it was a theologian, William of Okham, whose 'razor' seems to me the most powerful argument against all the tortuous reasoning for why there must a some mysterious divine being overseeing everything, especially the reasoning for all the suffering of humans, rather than just accepting that shït happens in a vaguely random universe.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

I do find it mildly ironic that it was a theologian, William of Okham, whose 'razor' seems to me the most powerful argument against all the tortuous reasoning for why there must a some mysterious divine being overseeing everything, especially the reasoning for all the suffering of humans, rather than just accepting that shït happens in a vaguely random universe.

Well not really, scholarly pursuits such as chemistry, and physics weren't really an option. It was either theology or figuring out whether alleged witches are heavier than wood.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

I do find it mildly ironic that it was a theologian, William of Okham, whose 'razor' seems to me the most powerful argument against all the tortuous reasoning for why there must a some mysterious divine being overseeing everything, especially the reasoning for all the suffering of humans, rather than just accepting that shït happens in a vaguely random universe.

Well not really, scholarly pursuits such as chemistry, and physics weren't really an option. It was either theology or figuring out whether alleged witches are heavier than wood.

OK, retrospectively ironic. (And yes, I realise that clerics were probably the most educated people of the day...)

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

Well you are told what to believe, but what you're told to believe differs by denomination, not by the book as such.

Those who are being preached to then seem to have a disconnect between what they are being told and, i guess, what they are not being told. Assuming they have actually read the bible and know what the preacher is missing out from their sermons.

No, the book is slightly different from denomination to denomination, too. Notwithstanding that it's not written as an instruction manual, nobody follows all the beliefs they claim to hold to the letter, whether these are religious or more secular politics.

pretty difficult to follow to the letter, given the internal inconsistencies.

That said, I know a few born agains in distant family who believe the world is 6000 years old.

That's a long time right, so all sorts of things could have happened. First six days a bit hectic, mind.

There are plenty of non-literalists. If all you've got is "but dinosaurs" then I think religion has got a few more millenia yet.

Well we are working forward from the big bang and backwards from the Burgess shale. Where is religion once they inevitably join up?

A God who set all the rules, pressed "start" and then sat down to read the Sunday Times* I suppose.

*Reading all the supplements would take at least 15 billion years, and so there is at least 1.2 billion to go. God must only just be on Lifestyle by now.

I am intrigued why the first part of the first book of the OT is the hill that so many believers and non believers choose to die on. If you've studied the Bible to even a primary school level and you think the fundamental message is something to do with paleontology then I think you need to go back and read it again.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

A page or so back someone was suggesting that religions are rigid doctrines that tells believers exactly what to believe, but now you're saying that believers have varying interpretations. Frankly, considering the various books of the Old and New Testaments were written by numerous different authors over several hundred years and collated by yet more people, years later still, and then translated from Hebrew and Greek through Latin to English, its a wonder there is any consistency at all. And yes, some things that made sense 3000 years ago now seem a bit silly. No doubt someone starting a religion today would include references to the social media, which might seem bizarre in another 3000 years.

Well you are told what to believe, but what you're told to believe differs by denomination, not by the book as such.

Those who are being preached to then seem to have a disconnect between what they are being told and, i guess, what they are not being told. Assuming they have actually read the bible and know what the preacher is missing out from their sermons.

No, the book is slightly different from denomination to denomination, too. Notwithstanding that it's not written as an instruction manual, nobody follows all the beliefs they claim to hold to the letter, whether these are religious or more secular politics.

pretty difficult to follow to the letter, given the internal inconsistencies.

That said, I know a few born agains in distant family who believe the world is 6000 years old.

That's a long time right, so all sorts of things could have happened. First six days a bit hectic, mind.

There are plenty of non-literalists. If all you've got is "but dinosaurs" then I think religion has got a few more millenia yet.

Well we are working forward from the big bang and backwards from the Burgess shale. Where is religion once they inevitably join up?

A God who set all the rules, pressed "start" and then sat down to read the Sunday Times* I suppose.

*Reading all the supplements would take at least 15 billion years, and so there is at least 1.2 billion to go. God must only just be on Lifestyle by now.

I am intrigued why the first part of the first book of the OT is the hill that so many believers and non believers choose to die on. If you've studied the Bible to even a primary school level and you think the fundamental message is something to do with paleontology then I think you need to go back and read it again.

It's hard to know from where some religious people are coming from.

There are some who swear the bible is the word of god and must be obeyed. There are some who see it is allegory. There are some who will flit between those 2 views depending on what supports their argument best.

I treat it as a book of fairytales, with a moral message most of the time, however some of the messages are also pretty terrible.

vincesummerskRoxcBTr

I recall reading bits of the Old Testament when stuck in a church with Cubs or Scouts (I will read anything within reach!) It just struck me as a disparate selection of stories of tribes slaughtering each other for no particularly good reason......or maybe that was just the good bits I remember!

david37

secretsam said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Cuts both ways perhaps. If you dont ask the question, the status quo is more likely. If you do ask the question and find that jedi is more popular than the CofE, that might help ultimately reduce the influence of the church.

It is not as bad as the US, but certainly religious observance as a virtue is over represented in politics in my view.

While in theory the CofE has some influence on the way the country is governed I think the practical effects are pretty minimal at least in Westminster . The objections to religious involvement in politics seem to be mostly ideological - it just shouldn't be involved - rather than objecting to any specific malign influence. I agree there's no great virtue in holding religious beliefs, but neither is there in being an ardent atheist.

There are Bishops in the Lords. FFS.

and there are scientists!

david37

pblakeney said:

Here's a question for the believers. Does your all powerful god really care if you attend meetings in a man made building assuming you are otherwise pious?

secretsam said:

pblakeney said:

Here's a question for the believers. Does your all powerful god really care if you attend meetings in a man made building assuming you are otherwise pious?

What I don't understand is why the faiths all need separate buildings. You get multi-faith rooms in hospitals, and given that worship often happens on different days, you could probably have a multi-faith worship facility. Think of the money you'd save.

Bit like ground sharing between football and egg-chasers.

if you don't get that, you don't get the nature of man

david37

shirley_basso said:

We're not relgious but had an epic church ceremony, most of which was by my design.

I love a rousing sing song and christian music is up there with the best, in my view.

This being my all time favourite (I think this is the best arrangement on YouTube (starts at 1:50)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9jwyL4K88A

This also good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiX3kVxm5Ks

Yes excellent music. Some other religious music is absolutely moving in its beauty, particularly in the correct setting. Winchester Cathedral for example has acoustics which lend themselves to choral music.


also worth noting the presence of titans of creativity within the christian community and cathedral in Winchester, Jane Austin is there alongside Isac Walton the fisherman, and several women instrumental in the development of women's rights plus for the history buffs Alfred the great and then king Cnut were buried there and some others.

Being atheist is one thing but it doesn't alter the fact that the history of this country, and many of its greatest achievements are intertwined with christian society. I suspect many of these people in Winchester Cathedral didn't believe in god but more the church was like the social media shaming that goes on now. instead of worship at the alter of Christ, many worship and supplicate themselves before the alter of consumerism.

Which make me me smile because the right on and independent are really no different than the yokels of yesteryear. Albeit with less venerial diseases. Which they can thank in no small part to the social and political campaigning of Josephine Butler (also buried in the grounds). Her campaigning was enabled in the large part because of her position in society through the Church.

It is a far more interesting question issue than just belief or not.

Antlancs76

My own view on religion is that it was a tool used to control the masses early on in the human world, do I believe Jesus existed? yes I do but I don't believe in the miracles part of it, I believe he was a figure head at the time, possibly slightly more intelligent than the average person and as such they followed him in order to learn, maybe like the loud bloke at the pub on a Saturday night who everyone loves to be friends with.

I don't believe in God either, I could go on about aliens and how people from the earliest times drew pictures of "things" descending "from heaven" but again this is something that can neither be proved or not proved as we were not alive back then to see with our own eyes, but its all about interpretation.

Same applies to other religions as well, it was to control people in different parts of the world, as we developed as a human race we obtained more information and these days I feel more of us question what we are told, be that through lots of different formats such as media, twitter, Facebook etc

The problem with religion now is that a large number of people are questioning it and looking further into it as we have so much information at our finger tips, no i don't believe just because its on the internet its true but you read both sides and form your own opinion, which is what i did, however looking at other religions such as Islam, this comes from a part of the world which is not as developed as the western area so in effect they are "a few years behind", for want of a better phrase, in relation to that and they still have their beliefs, which I am all for as long as no one tries to enforce their views upon me, this goes for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc but its all the same with anything really, if you want to dress like a banana and believe bananas are going to come to life and take over the world then you crack on, just don't expect me to just accept it as correct as I have a right to study and make up my own mind

PMark

elbowloh said:

secretsam said:

So, the non-believers among us, it's mostly about a lack of proof - the hypothesis of God being 'not proven'? No-one subscribes to the interpretation that religion is an emotional support mechanism, which shields the believer from accepting life's harsh realities (the Sartre perspective)?

Its not just about that, there is also a complete lack of logic in the concept and the inconsistencies in the "stories", certainly in the bible.

I also think there is disconnect in what a Christian, say, chooses to believe from the bible. They believe in the bits they like, but not the bits they don't like even though the book is the word of god, that is born out within just Leviticus for example, let alone the bible as a whole.

For example no Christian should eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres, but they do.

Just a side note (as I see a lot of people with this misunderstanding).

But the Bible is actually very clear that the laws around how you dress/what you eat etc don't need to be followed anymore. The old testament (Jewish part of the Bible) talks about the different agreements (covenants) between humanity and God which those laws are a part of, so it is not a recent idea. But the book of Galatians probably explains it best. They were for a time and place in history, but not for now. Any Christian or Jew who does still follow them out a sense of religious duty is not only wasting their time, but also dishonouring God.

So if you did see a Christian not eating shellfish or not wearing mixed fibres, they will be the ones which aren't following it properly.

secretsam

david37 said:

Which make me me smile because the right on and independent are really no different than the yokels of yesteryear. Albeit with less venerial diseases.

I wondered how long it would be before the resident troll popped up to insult people.