Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Possibly as modern day contraceptions weren't around back then. The Bible would suggest no sex before marriage and I guess in more modern times some (the Pope/Catholics) would support the idea of no contraception as it would in effect be the best way of preventing sex before marriage (apparently). Seemingly this doesn't work as so called followers won't use contraception as it's against their religion, yet put themselves at risk through sexual acts. If one is going to be a strict follower, I don't see how they can pick and choose what rules they'll 'obey'.

What confuses me about that is, what about after marriage? Is it still against the rules? Just because you follow a religion and are happy to remain faithful to your spouse, you might not want the risk of getting pregnant every time you have nookie. I'm not actually sure of their stance on this.

SRSport

Whether contraceptives were around or not doesnt really matter, it doesnt say anything about the issue so there is no issue. I cant understand why the Pope would want to support the no contraceptives idea to promote no sex before marriage, the fact that the Bible says no sex before marriage provides an opportunity to show their obedience. Take away the opportunity, take away the opportunity to grow as a Catholic/Christian etc.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Yes, no beating around the bush.

SRSport

Totally agree.

I dont really know either. As above there isnt anything wrong with using contraception (according to the Bible), but who knows with the Pope.

john banks

Why can't the beliefs and behaviours be criticised rather than aiming it at the individuals?

Why should discussion of religion be avoided? The topics are rather important when you consider the claims of religion. If that was the case no one would ever be converted either way, yet a lot of it relies on persuasion, coercion, or in the best cases I think logical argument and reason.

I mention things from the bible as I have read it through completely a few times, some of it much more than that, which is more than many Christians have. Sometimes it is useful to point out an interpretation of it that is different from what people are taught by the churches as quite remarkably intelligent people seem to be able to not properly question things in the bible like they would in any other literature. Perhaps it might spark in them a flicker of logic and allow them to question and free their minds from the control many churches exert over their flocks. This is perhaps me trying to undo some of the damage I did when I was a Christian and unfortunately contributed to a few conversions. Until I realised I was being brainwashed myself. Believe me, now I'm far less vociferous as an atheist than I was as a Christian because now I often think it really doesn't matter that much. Oddly it is only really on here that I discuss it any more, perhaps because I get a bit annoyed at the damage that religion is doing when reading a thread and watching the TV prog mentioned in the original post.

I can still respect a person who believes in something I think is as dubious as fairies just as a Christian can "hate the sin but love the sinner".

I would say that I've never met as many people with segmented minds and so much repressed sexuality as I did in churches. Churches are utterly obsessed with sex, that is probably why there is all the nonsense about clergy, celibacy, fornication, homosexuality, women priests, condoms, HIV and child abuse. There were some things that were worthy of respect in the people in the churches I knew, although I often think their motives were distorted by their erroneous beliefs.

SRSport

Just curious. What sort of church did you go to? And what made you change your mind?

john banks

Charismatic/neo-pentecostal/evangelical alliance type churches. One was Anglican and the other non-denominational. Both were fairly typical, big, modern, "white middle class" churches like you will find one or two of in any UK city or town, with house groups, tithing, good bands, outreach events, multiple midweek meetings, belief in spiritual gifts, strong leadership/accountability and a fairly fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

So nothing that many modern Christians would have any trouble or qualms about.

Change of mind came soon after marriage and around the time of university finals. Real world experiences and responsibilities tested faith and it did not stand up to reason. A short break from such intensive attendance at church meetings gave time to think and read/consider other opinions. I re-examined the original decision I made to believe it all and found it wanting, studied evolution properly rather than dismissing it blindly like I had previously, critically looked at the bible and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I also critically examined the so called signs and wonders/healing stuff from a nearly qualified doctor's perspective and concluded it was wishful thinking, suggestion and placebo.

Never been happier to have junked it, not so I could go off and "sin", just so I could think for myself for once. Wife junked it at a similar time and our marriage has thrived over the 13 years since.

It did keep the trouser snake out of other women before marriage which is a very good thing we think. There is a reason a lot of bible believing Christians marry young

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

John, that sounds very similar to the church I went to.

Before that, I went to a Methodist church, but that was kind of going through the motions as my Mam went there and it was what we did. Nothing to do with my own faith.

I really enjoyed the more 'modern' church at the time, until I started questioning things(I was told) and life changed a bit. I stopped going as I couldn't agree with everything said and to a point it felt like if you didn't accept everything, you weren't accepted.

I still like to think there is maybe something more to life than this one we are living, but I can't agree with/follow a religion. I would be a hypocrite if I did. To me, you do either believe or abide by the rules or you don't and I can't.

All that said, I do think people have the right to follow what suits them. So long as no harm is being done, leave people to it.

SRSport

John, you never had a relationship with Jesus/God?

SRSport

And similar to mine. Went because parents did, believed because i was told to believe and nothing to do with my own faith.

I then had what you could call a road to Damascus moment and now just cant say that there isnt a God.

jods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function

says it all.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Out of curiosity, do you follow a religion or just have a belief in God?

I'm not going to ask about your experience that led you to your faith as it's none of my business, just curious about the above.

SRSport

You can if you want. I can send pm if curious but Ive posted hear before and it brings out the extreme athiests shouting obscenities and dont really wish to go through that again.

I follow God and the Bible first and foremost. I agree with a lot of whats been said in this post about religion being used to create order, power, corruption. I think that the church has lost its way, deviated if you like and this has lead to the issues we have now regarding homosexuality, peadophilia etc. where everyone looks, judges and forms an opinion that there must be no God. It will also lead people to question their faith as things wont add up.

I find that my love for God makes me want to follow what the Bible says rather than following the Bible because its my chosen religion or because I should do.

While living in Ibiza there is no church to go to but back in England I now go to an Apostolic church.

Im really open to hearing from people like John who says that he looks at the evidence for the resurrection and it leads him to change his mind as I am yet to find any evidence that is strong enough to make me change my faith. There has been times where people have made good points that Ive had to go away and find out about but my conscience has always ended up being satisfied.

john banks

At 16, after many years of Catholic church attendance and even confirmation, I attended another church at the invitation of a friend where everything was more vibrant and the beliefs changed peoples' lives rather than the more nominal experience in the Catholic churches I attended. I was given a copy of "Journey into Life", the famous gospel tract with the road signs on it. For some reason, along with the enthusiasm in the church I attended I found it convincing and from then on I did think I had a relationship with God/Jesus. I participated enthusiastically in meetings, teachings, missions, finding a similar church at uni and meeting my wife there. I genuinely lapped up the whole thing but always had a little nagging doubt but suppressed it. We got married in church. After marriage we found our relationship revealed how disappointing we found our relationship with God. We did more questioning and reading, genuinely expecting it would increase our faith.

However, when we simply questioned the basis of our belief that Jesus rose from the dead (which the bible basically says along with confessing it is what makes you a Christian), we decided that we could not believe it any more as the support of selected biased documents, the earliest copies of which are dated somewhat after the events, was not sufficient to draw such an amazing conclusion. We prayed for faith/revelation/guidance invoking with a genuine heart biblical promises about such, none came after some time and we made a decision then to reject faith as a concept and instead depend on reason and evidence.

We are both scientists and reject the whole idea that faith without or instead of evidence can be a secure basis for your entire life's belief, practice and decision with an eye on the eternity with your maker thereafter. The signs and wonders stuff also didn't stand up to simple analysis. Speaking in tongues is just vocalising gobbledygook, unlike the claim in Acts there is no evidence of someone speaking a language they don't know and non-believers independently understanding what they say. Prophecy/words of wisdom/knowledge are too generic/non-specific to be remotely convincing beyond what a stage hypnotist or fortune teller could do by suggestion, although I think some of the big names like Benny Hinn and others possibly genuinely are not trying to scam people are really believe it themselves. As a medic, I have seen no verifiable case of healing.

So on multiple levels of logic, reason, experience, better alternative explanations, beliefs I actually don't agree with and a rejection of the whole concept of faith to be able to make sound decisions I am now an atheist. Not an agnostic, because they literally do not know. An atheist because I believe there is no god, and even if I believed in the possibility, because faith is used as a concept I do not believe that the evidence presented in favour of there being a god is ever likely to be satisfactory.

This is the crux of it, why should I use a lower standard of evidence/reason (ie faith) to make what is the most important decision in my life (if you believe the implications of the bible) when I wouldn't use that logic even to choose a car to buy? Why would a god if he existed not plainly supply answers to those that genuinely seek them? The bible claims he does but that was not our experience.

To us, faith is a concept to avoid proper argument. That would indeed be fine if it was a personal, non-proselytising religion, but it has extraordinary claims that include exclusivity, and its core includes mission to non-believers, many of whom do not have the intellectual training to reject concepts that are not supported with reason, leaving them vulnerable to control.

None of our friends could get our disbelief especially since my wife had worked full time as a Christian worker for three years and I had a leadership role in the church at the time! It would have been an easier decision to not rock the boat. It was a hard decision to ask the questions and reach what we're certain was the correct decision.

Geezer

I think the Catholic church's objection to contraception is due to Onan spilling his seed, whch displeased the Lord, so effectively they are saying that ejaculation that is not for pro-creation is wrong. However, that line could simply be because God had just cleaned that particular spot

I'd be interested to hear which bits you follow then, as if you follow all of it you will be doing some really unpleasant (and not to mention illegal and highly immoral) things, as well as some highly contradictory things.

If, like I suspect, you are following the bits you choose, and not the nasty bits, then you are not follwing the bible at all, but making a judgement on how to live your life based upon a set or morals which certainly did not originate in the bible. The fact that those pleasant things just happen to get mentioned at some points in the bible is rather irrelevant.

Geezer

Leslie

You have just gone shooting off again without having understood what I was saying in the first place.

Let me make it absolutely clear!

I have not said anything at all about different religions and their rules when it comes to either defending them or even running down their individual beliefs etc.

It is you and others who start wittling on about the Catholic church and contraception etc when I actually said in an earlier post that I was not into discussing the differing ideas of the various religions. Try reading my last post to Geezer with an open mind before you jump to the attack!

You were the first to bring up the matter of Aids etc. and I believe I have expressed my concerns about that in that post.

Let me remind you that I was stating in the first place that it was unfair and unnecessary to lay into those who express their beliefs in religion in such an unpleasant and boorish manner. I said that we all have the right to believe what we wish and that should be respected by others even if they believe the opposite. Insulting those with differing beliefs to yourself proves nothing and in fact does not speak well of the character of the person doing it. Doing so in fact indicates lack of self confidence or even a basic knowledge and of course is no kind of acceptable argument anyway.

I said that that a bit of tolerance and the willingness to understand that we dont all think the same way goes a long way towards avoiding unpleasantness and the acceptance that we all have a right to be a member of society regardless of how we think about these matters.

If you want to discuss the religions and their rules etc., that is entirely your affair as far as I am concerned. I also don't find any point in extracting bits of the Bible in an attempt to prove anything concrete. I did not write it or even translate it for that matter. If you want to hold it up as a heaven sent(!) proof of your beliefs or lack of anyway, I don't actually give a stuff! As I said, why quote unpleasant sounding occurrences from it if you don't believe it anyway? They could not have happened could they?

It might be worth ensuring that you understand what I was saying before you make assumptions.

Les

Hysteria1983

I find it very ironic that the people ranting on about this program are doing the exact same thing, but in reverse. It's a tad bit hypocritical.

Slating people because they beleive in something that you may consider absured, is the same as a religious person attempting to 'convert' people as you say.

SRSport

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with your heart and lean not on your understanding." Those who look at finding answers with their head will only end up being disappointed.

Thomas a friend of Jesus doubted as he was reasoning with his head.
---
Documenting the resurrection at the time risked death, written accounts at that time would have been burnt by the Romans and general practice was to preach rather than write books anyway.
---
Those who have not seen prophecy may doubt prophecy, I can give first hand accounts of unequivocal prophesy.

With tongues I have heard people speak a genuine foreign language that they did not know.

I know of several healings with medical evidence of one minute ill the next minute unexplainably not, after prayer. (including a family member).

These are just points highlighting that things arent as black and white as they may seem. I know full well I wont be changing the minds of most people like John for reasons mentioned already but being an open forum I would like to show that for every one mans experience and opinion there is another who can share and account the opposite.

john banks

Les, puzzled by your reaction I briefly reviewed what I have written in this thread. I directly challenged what you said, but I'm not sure where I was shooting off, unpleasant, boorish, insulting, disrespectful or making assumptions that are out of the ordinary for a discussion forum. All of it is or should be fair game for matters so important whether you believe it is related to your eternal salvation or on the other hand to death, war, disease and other horrors in the present.

I still find an occasional discussion on this with people of all opinions quite interesting. Nothing I've said would have bothered me when I was a Christian and I would have been very interested in such discussion. And nothing anyone can every possibly say about my present beliefs could in any possible way wound me. If your religion is personal and beyond criticism it might be best not to state opinions about it on a discussion forum? Am I misunderstanding when I might suggest that some religious people like to be able to state their side of things but don't like it when there is some robust debate for once? If religious belief is not robust enough to be thoroughly scrutinised, what use is it as a means to live your life?

john banks

The heart is a pump and its nervous system is not capable of cognition and therefore the establishment of trust.

Abandoning understanding and evidence and suspending disbelief = faith. The author of Proverbs is asking me to give blind faith to something. That command is exactly my objection!

Thomas was quite sensible to doubt extraordinary claims, but he (it is claimed) was met with extraordinary evidence. I now think far more of him for questioning. Interesting that his gospel is not contained in the cannon.

It isn't extraordinary evidence though, but interesting commentary on social and literary tradition. I do wonder though, early Christians did many things that risked death and many of them were persecuted and died for it, risk of documentation wouldn't have put them off. Oral tradition is not sufficient proof of miracles as unfortunately it isn't for others who have not witnessed or scrutinised your own experiences of signs and wonders. When I scrutinised such incidents I found far more likely explanations in the realm of non-miracles and would subscribe more to David Hume on this summarised in Wikipedia better than I could:

Leslie

I did not mean to criticise you personally John and i apologise if I gave that impression.

I was protesting against the personal insults etc. which are often directed against those who do believe in an all powerful being and who also choose to follow one of the religions. This is the theme which runs through my posts even if it is not as clear as it might have been.

The different religions are professed ways of worshipping such a being and also which give guidance to a way of life in general. If anyone wants to criticise those then as far as I am concerned thay are fair game and as I said I am not bothered. I am guilty of saying however that the way of life which religions advocate for their followers is generally a good one. I cant see anything wrong with that.

I feel that no one should be persecuted for his personal beliefs and that is basically what I was complaining about. It is disrespectful and unfair and does not show the one who is making those remarks in a good light, apart from the fact that it weakens his argument anyway. It is the bitter end when a person can be effectively accused of being demented for those beliefs! I certainly would not be prepared to behave in such a way towards an atheist.

I hope this will clear the air and remove any misconceptions.

Incidentally I must remind you that I have never stated anything about my personal beliefs or even if I in fact follow any particular religion, or even if I am religiously minded anyway! I consider all that to be strictly my own affair one way or the other.

Les

Geezer

Of course, no one has ever been disappointed by trusting their heart have they? That statement is utterly meaningless. All the millions of soldiers who have prayed for their lives in battle, no doubt truly believing in their God, have been disappointed (well, killed, let's be honest). Perhaps if they had had a little more "faith" in judging the situation rationally instead of thinking " The Lord shall protect me from thy enemies sword" they would have lived a little longer.......

So one of the first people to realise what a fraudster Jesus was?

Well, that's just very convenient isn't it? Is this lke every other aspect of Jesus's life that wasn't documented? Strange that, someone so influential that he walked in to Jerusalem like a king, upset the priests so much they wanted him killed, was executed by the Romans after a large show trial, doesn't get a single mention in any contemporary documents? The Romans were obsessive about recording stuff! The resurrection doesn't even appear in early Christian texts, but yet there are early Christian texts that talk about all sorts of stuff. Perhaps it was just made up (like the Jesus himself, so it would seem). To say it is ins't mentioned because it was dangerous to do so it utterly preposterous. The resurrection myth already existed in other sects and would not have been dangerous at all!

I doubt that very much. The first problem here is that you believe in prophecy, so even before the 'prophecy' is made, your judgement of the validity of any such claim of prophecy is clouded.

Prophecy cannot be open to interpretation, it must extremely accurate to be valid. Any account you gave would be also be clouded by your belief, or possibly a deliberate attempt to mislead and prove prophecy to be true. There is not one single piece of prophecy that has come true because it is all so wooly. You need something like "on the 23rd October 2010, at 14.54 PST a 7.1 earthquake will occur 15 km below the surface of Baja, California" That sort of event cannot be influenced by human intervention. Of course, nothing even approaching that sort of accurate prediction has occurred because it is not possible. And it never will be.


Again, you believe in tongues and so it must be true that it is divine intervention. You do not know whether the person has any knowledge of that language or not. They may wish to deceive people to further their own beliefs. Or, they may have knowledge of the languag sub-concsiously but not be aware of it. The human brain can pick up all sorts of stuff without us realising and sometimes when trauma occurs it can unleash previously unseen 'talents'.

Of course, that's a very glib statement to make "with medical evidence". There are lot's of people who can make various medical diagnoses and claim validity, but without knowing the exact details of the diagnosis or the credentials and beliefs of the person making them, it's meaningless.

As for people healing, you should read up on placebo effect to see that people can heal themselves simply by believing that the treatment they are getting (or faith healing, if you like) will heal them. Also, we have the problem of just how ill was the person? Obviously to receive faith healing, they presumable believe in God and the power of prayer, so the process is tainted. You don't know whether they are just saying they are better but they are not really. Do you know what their agenda is?

There is also the statistical probability that in every x thousand people, a small number will heal without any sort of intervention. If some of those people are believers, you can bet what they will claim healed them! The atheists who recover won't get quite the same coverage, I'm sure.

When people claim that prayer heals people, all you need to do is ask them how many amputees have had their limbs returned? Despite the claim in the bible that if you truly believe, you prayers will be answered, not a single person who has lost a limb has ever had it replaced by being prayed for. I mean, if God is instantly healing people of cancer and other extreme cases, why not amputees? I know the answer, and I suspect you do too, but just wont admit it.

No, they are black and white, your belief prevents you from seeing them for what they really are. The problem with human experience is that it is clouded my so many things, we are easily duped into thinking something has happened that has really not.

If one day a single claim is verified experimentally with proper controls and unbiased participants, then fair enough, I would hold up my hand and admit that they were true.

However, they never have, and probably never will.

Geezer

Leslie

I was once told something which I think is quite important.

We all have a conscience whatever our style of thinking. It is an internal guidance which we are born with.

It was said that what is really important for oneself is to follow what your conscience tells you in a completely honest manner. That means without altering what it says for your own convenience of course.

If you can do that then you will not go far wrong.

Les