BS: An Easter Question

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:45 AM

What are you on about, ake. I have never been anyone else. Never will be.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:43 AM

"I believe in reincarnation,1.e. vis a vis Dave, Steve and Raggytash."
It seems some people's interest in this thread is beginning to flag.
Give it a rest lads - you know what will happen if you don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:24 AM

I would have thought you had a ready answer to that Akhenaton


We were all obviously Satan.


That is, of course, if you believe in Satan. Yet another fairy tale to me though.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 04:17 AM

"You are just playing silly games and spoiling a serious discussion".

I believe in reincarnation,1.e. vis a vis Dave, Steve and Raggytash.

.....but who were they in their previous form? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 03:21 AM

Dave,
When I said there is no evidence for religion, only an utter fool would assume I meant evidence that religion exists.
As a church member I am such evidence myself.
No-one needs evidence that religion exists. We have all seen churches!

You are just pretending to believe that to save Steve's face.

Religions are founded on belief in supernatural entities, for which there is no hard evidence, was my obvious meaning.
You are just playing silly games and spoiling a serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Apr 16 - 02:58 AM

It's comforting to know that others have dearly loved their cats too. I've wept absolute buckets on losing a cat. I must have had about thirty of the little blighters over a long life. (I generally have three or four at a time) The Bible doesn't say anything about animals going to heaven. I shan't stay there long if they aren't welcome. I'd miss all the wildlife as well. Hope the fallow deer, pheasants and foxes I've befriended will be there too. My husband has lost numerous relatives to terrible diseases and suffering in Africa. He often speaks hopefully about seeing them again. But I suppose I'm trying to recreate Earth in heaven, and it isn't feasible. My atheist pal is elderly too, and she just grins and says, "Well, sunshine, see yer there eh? But I don't hold out much hope!"

That's interesting Joe. I used to have a cup of tea quite often with some RC nuns. (IBVM) Really nice women and very happy to elucidate doctrine for me. They explained Purgatory, and that only 'saints' went directly to heaven. But not their bodies, just their souls. I met them (the nuns, not the saints) while Prison Visiting, as they did cooking with the inmates. They always invited me to pop round to their little house which served as a convent. I also made retreats with the All Hallows (C of E) nuns (CAH) at Ditchingham in Norfolk. I actually really like nuns (most of them) as they 'walk the talk' so to speak.

If I rabbit on any more, this 'Easter' thread will end up edging into Christmas!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 07:04 PM

Current Catholic teaching is that some go straight to heaven. Some with unresolved issues are in a state of "preparation and purification" called purgatory. The Catechism says that some think of purgatory as flames and punishment, but that there is no reason to insist that it's flames and punishment.

My view is that purgatory is kind of like Mitch Alkbom's The Five People You Meet in Heaven - you meet people or relive experiences to resolve the unresolved issues in your life.

I've read very credible Catholic authors who think that there will be very few people in hell.

In the past, Catholics were strongly influenced by Dante's Inferno and Purgatorio. Current teaching is much more vague that it once was. I think that's a sign of growth.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 06:46 PM

What.. an eternity without women... ?????!!!!!!!!!!

.. though being a realist.. if I've been up there for a few millennia
it might be nice to have the occasional century of peace and quiet,
not getting nagged for leaving boxes of music gear and cables out on the heavenly clouds...

My old mum has the ashes of two cats and my sister under a little coffee table in the kitchen.
It's a mini shrine decorated with photos and cheap plastic trinkets.
One of the cats has a better quality, more expensive urn than my sister...

I wouldn't be too comfortable under that table with them....

At least my parents, even though mum was an undereducated menial worker,
and dad a factory machine operator wage slave after his demob from national service,
were young post war political progressives,
refusing to have their kids christened on principle.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:07 PM

"He replied along the lines that in heaven there's no such thing as men or women"

Oi, bugger that then! And I'll bet that punkfolkrocker's with me there!

"I've had many delightful cats over the years, that I loved very much."

Me too. There's a little place in our garden where five of our cats lie under the sod (we've lived here for nearly thirty years now). There's a slate slab just behind on which I always put some pots planted up with flowers, along with a little statue of Tom Kitten. If and when we ever leave this house (never, I hope), I'll cut a piece of turf from their patch to transplant into our new garden. Even atheists can be sentimental old fools! :-(

Actually, I know a place where pets can be buried in an official pets' cemetery. That's fine. Except for the crucifixes on their graves. Aargh!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 04:29 PM

Raggytash, I seem to recall that in the Bible, Jesus was asked that very question. It was put to him that if a woman had a series of marriages, each leaving her a widow, what should she do on arriving in heaven and having several men claiming her? He replied along the lines that in heaven there's no such thing as men or women, and no marriage. I take this to mean it's a different dimension altogether, and human parameters don't apply.

Regarding our own resurrection, I have an idea we have to wait for the Second Coming (unspecified time) whereupon we'll be given new bodies and join God in heaven. Meanwhile we're in an intermediary holding position, until he arrives once more.

I just don't know what to think about all this. My atheist friend says, "Look mate, when yer dead yer dead!" In fact, as my father used to say, nobody knows, nobody can say, so you just have to get on with your life as best you can.

I've had many delightful cats over the years, that I loved very much. I do hope they can be resurrected too. Maybe at the Second Coming, they'll materialise in front of me. Trouble is, most of them had bad habits. I reckon the angels wouldn't relish a pack of Siamese cats weeing on their harps.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:50 PM

Strange the way religion moves the goal posts at regular intervals.

When I married I made a commitment for life as far as I was concerned, a product of my upbringing some would say. I was taught that when my spouse died we would be reunited in heaven.

Now here I have a problem. If I shuffle off this mortal coil before my good lady and she were to remarry after my demise then, in the every after, would she then reside with her new husband or with me.

Presuming she remarried for love it would be reasonable for her to expect to be with her second husband when they popped their clogs leaving me, her first husband, out in the cold.

Puzzled, that's me.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 02:42 PM

Maybe our resident theological expert, Joe, can enlighten us as to what is currently taught?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 02:41 PM

I don't think that is most folks understanding, Eliza. In the bible stories themselves both Jesus and his mother ascended into heaven without a second coming. If Jesus came to earth as god's son to be like a human then surely what applies to him must apply to the rest of us.

Having been brought up in the Russian orthodox and then Catholic faiths I am pretty sure that the reunited and looking down on us myths were and still are very much perpetuated by the established churches.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 02:35 PM

Punkfolkrocker, as I understand it, when one dies, one doesn't whizz up to heaven and start living a life of Riley. Apparently, one stays asleep, in an intermediate state. Only when Christ comes again will all the dead rise up and start to live. Loads of folk aren't aware of this doctrine, and imagine one is reunited immediately with loved ones etc. So all those sad little bunches of flowers and cards saying 'She is now an angel in heaven' or 'Reunited with Fred' and so on are, theologically speaking, far off the mark. I'll have a long wait for my endless supplies of crumpets and ale, and my husband won't get his hands on the 57 virgins quite as fast as he thinks!

I do hope God/Jesus will know what to do with all the small heaps of cremated ashes scattered about numerous Gardens of Remembrance. I shan't want to be resurrected as a rather fetching pile of dust...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:56 PM

There is plenty of evidence for religion, Keith.

No way, even in the widest dreams of a lifelong acid freak after a night out on mescal, can that be interpreted as there is plenty of evidence to support religion.

Sorry Steve. The language they speak in Hertford is not only different to the rest of the UK, it is not of this world. How do you cope with your in-laws? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:41 PM

ok, about heaven..

when married folks cherish the belief of meeting up and being together again for all eternity...

what arrangements does heaven make for people who were happily married to 2 or 3 or more spouses...???

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:36 PM

"Steve pretends to believe I meant evidence for religion, like churches and things "
He obviously meant no such thing.
Nice to see you believe there is no evidence for god though - perhaps we might start a campaign together to stop people from teaching it as if there was - about time, doncha think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

And I'm still wondering about all those Catholics who went to hell for eating meat on Friday....I never believed they did. -Joe-

OK, but what happened to all those pagan babies when they disappeared Limbo?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

Dave, if you read Jim's post 7.52AM today, you will see he did not assume Steve meant what he now claims.

These were my statements that he was responding to,

"Why do so many of you keep pointing out that there is no evidence for religion?
We all knew that, especially us with faith.
No-one is claiming evidence for religion! OK?"

"Musket, I am surprised you do not believe in science.
You should. It can answer most of the questions about life, the universe and everything.
I believe in the Big Bang. Don't you?
I believe in evolution. Don't you? You should. The evidence is very compelling."

Steve's reply,
"There is plenty of evidence for religion, Keith. And scientists don't believe in science. Your penchant for inexactitudes of this sort gets you into trouble. Remember the Wheatcroft fiasco? "

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:22 PM

Jim,
Why is it "tosh" to ask for evidence of a god,

Steve said he was not talking about the existence of God.

I had said there was no evidence for God, and Steve pretends to believe I meant evidence for religion, like churches and things even though he knows I attend them.

Tosh right?
And all because he sneeringly replied that there was plenty of evidence for religion and now regrets it and is trying to wriggle off the hook.
Absurd behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 12:38 PM

Well, it seems that there are enough "facts" hanging around in two millennia of Christianity, to concoct any theory one might want to concoct. Yes, Jim, there were far too many incidences of cruelty, anger, bad theology, and misinformation in the history of the church.

I work with Irish-born nuns, and I've asked several about their experiences growing up Irish Catholic. They claim the bad stuff was there, but that it was the exception to the rule. Of course, they're in their eighties and still nuns, so their experience must have been good. Jim and Steve haven't been Catholic for a long, long time, so their experience must have been bad. I suppose both the nuns and the detractors have built stories to support their perceptions. We humans do that.
My experience has been mixed - mostly good, but also some serious bad experiences. I blame the bad people for the bad experiences.

The idea of fasting was a spiritual practice to focus one's attention on God - mindfulness might be a more modern word for it. The suggestion became a rule, and with the rule came sanctions for disobedience of the rule. And along with that came some weird reasoning about food in the belly making the body somehow unworthy to receive communion. I don't think you'll find that last thing in any official teaching - but it was a common misconception.

And I'm still wondering about all those Catholics who went to hell for eating meat on Friday....
I never believed they did.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 11:01 AM

Thanks Dave, I'm glad it's not just me.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:38 AM

Or were they clauses. It's been a long time... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:37 AM

"Hand up those who thought Steve meant that there was plenty evidence for the existence of religion"

Both hands waving; the statement in it's context was entirely clear to me.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:35 AM

Careful, Dave. My in-laws live in Hertford. It's very nice there, actually! Thanks for that. Saves me having to ridicule Keith, which I'd never dream of doing, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:32 AM

"In my confirmation classes, (I was ten) we were told never to eat for 3 hours before Communion."

Well, when I were a little lad it was from the previous midnight. I seem to remember that it had gone down to an hour before I ceased to partake. Of course, when I point out that Limbo has suddenly gone, that on certain days only I was able to spring people of my choice out of Purgatory by going into a church and saying three Hail Marys, that all of a sudden it became all right to eat meat on Fridays, that grown men in the Vatican (who have spent even longer in seminaries than Joe) sit around agonising as to whether people telling packs of lies about virginal apparitions should be officially believed, that no one-legged man has ever returned from Lourdes with two legs, that official cheating took place in order to get Mother Teresa her two miracles, that a second-century polemicist suppressed and even burned some gospels that didn't fit his vision for future Christianity, that we were told at school that heaven had only Catholics in it, that not a single scrap of evidence for the existence of God has ever come to light, how the Romans, oddly, never recorded anything of significance about Jesus, that Moses was a murderous thug, that it IS my business when the schools I pay my taxes to fund are allowed to tell children a pack of lies and make them bow their heads, I'm told by Joe that I'm indulging in a pernicious logical fallacy. The fact is, I'm actually stating facts. Shamelessly selected facts, naturally (only taking a leaf out of religion's books in that regard, folks), but my, how they stack up, and there are plenty more where they came from!


"I'm sorry to say, he loves bacon"

Yikes, two phrases that clearly don't belong in the same sentence!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:16 AM

Hand up those who thought Steve meant that there was plenty evidence for the existence of religion when what he said was he said there was plenty evidence for religion...

Me, Steve, Jim, Greg and many others I suspect but I cannot see as far as I used to.

Now hands up those who thought Steve meant that the there was plenty of evidence to support religion when he did indeed say no such thing...

Keith, errrr, Keith, errr, no, sorry Keith it doesn't count when you hold all your arms and legs up. It is still just one vote.

Dunno about the UK and US being separated by a common language. I think Hertford may be separated from the rest of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 09:00 AM

"All these man-made rules are indeed a form of control,"
Yes - yes - yes, personal beliefs are fine; it's when they are used to control that they become a problem to us all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 08:45 AM

I've been re-reading all the posts to this thread, and to me Llanfair has made some good points. I couldn't reply to him/her as Guests were suddenly banned and I had to wait to get one of those Cookie things.

Llanfair:-
"I also believe that the scriptures have been tweaked over time to be a form of social control."
and:-
"Translated by the powerful literate to keep the great unwashed in their place."

I like his/her appreciation of 'Mother Nature' too.

There are many, as I see it, ridiculous and dodgy interpretations of religions.
For instance, my poor husband, in the searing heat of Africa, carrying huge sacks of cement on his back, was expected during the month of Ramadan to eat nothing from dawn until dusk, but what is worse, to drink nothing either. He says people regularly collapsed, and at the end of Ramadan, folk were weak and ill, which is probably due to dehydration and kidney damage.

On a lighter note, the little old lady who washes the church linen was ill, and I volunteered to do it. It included the 'purificator', a small white cloth used for wiping the chalice between customers. I was told to wash it by hand in a little bowl, then to tip the dirty water onto bare earth. I was puzzled and asked why I couldn't just bung it in the washing machine. No, the cloth had been in contact with The Consecrated Wine and therefore the washing water couldn't go down the drain. I'm afraid I burst out laughing. I'd never heard anything so daft in all my born days.

In my confirmation classes, (I was ten) we were told never to eat for 3 hours before Communion. I asked why. The vicar said that the bread couldn't be in the stomach along with other food, so you had to give your last meal time to go down a bit. My father (not a believer) laughed like a drain when I told him that.

My husband should never touch a dog and should only eat halal meat.

I'm sorry to say, he loves bacon and adores our neighbour's huge dog, who licks him all over, to his delight. He doesn't 'do' Ramadan any more, and I don't think I'll tell the Rector I did bung the purificator in the washing machine. God hasn't yet struck us both dead with a lightning bolt.
My point is, we are both confident enough to use common sense when following our respective beliefs. We neither of us feel that God is a nasty vindictive chap watching our every move and neither of us want to thrust our religions down other people's throats.
All these man-made rules are indeed a form of control, which is a bit sinister.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 07:52 AM

"So Steve Shaw thinks that users of this forum need evidence that their is such a thing as religion!"
If these discussions are not about the existence of religion , what are they about?
"Tosh!"
Unless that was your answer, of course, in which case, I would guess many people agree with you.
The world now needs evidence of the existence of religion now that so many atrocities are being committed in the name of one god or another - including the Christian one.
Why is it "tosh" to ask for evidence of a god, if he (or she) doesn't exist, what's all this killing about?
Nobody disputes the existence of religion - we've had it shoved down our throats for long enough?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 07:16 AM

So Steve Shaw thinks that users of this forum need evidence that their is such a thing as religion!
Tosh!
You meant evidence supporting religion and then regretted saying it making yourself, as I said, absurd.

"No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive."

"Who does Steve?"

From your answer, no-one here then.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:52 AM

"Ah, yes, And Irenaeus, your patron saint. In his quest against gnosticism, he almost single-handedly invented the pernicious art of argumentum ad absurdum that appears so often in your posts. He redefined gnosticism to the point where it was ridiculous, and then he proceeded to refute what he had redefined. Sound familiar, Steve?"

Cross posted.

Yes, St Irenaeus was a very single-minded fellow. You owe him a great deal, Joe. Without his advocacy on the one hand and demonisation on the other, you certainly wouldn't have the cosy version of Christianity you have today. His war against the Gnostics was the kind of campaign that would have lost him all credibility had he waged it today. He probably have gone the way that Trump is destined to go.

Again, Joe, your modus operandi is to attack your attacker. I don't do what you allege, as I work in the world of stating facts about your religion. Excuse me if, as an atheist, I don't manage to do it in a gushingly complimentary way. Eight years in a seminary, Joe? You should hardly feel that you're on the ropes against a casual infidel such as me. Why, I haven't even got a belief system to fight you back with. Perhaps that's your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:40 AM

"No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive."

"Who does Steve?"

Well what else is there for the poor old ordinary Christian to go on? It takes a fair bit of scholarship to dig out those many non-approved gospels (and they are most decidedly non-approved, which hardly helps when it comes to trying to include them as part of the big picture). Then there are the ones, possibly many, which were deliberately destroyed as they were seen to be rather inconvenient, failing to follow the line that St Irenaeus dictated when he nominated the famous four as the canonical gospels. It's a fair bet that most Christians are ignorant of this early, very murky history of selective inclusion and destruction of writings. It's quite entertaining to read of the wrangling that went on. What we have left is the sanitised stuff that was supposed to make a good shot at being the basis for Christian theology. Forgive some of us for being extremely sceptical not only of the content of what we're left with but also of the motives of those early church fathers. Begrudging kudos to them, I suppose, for managing to convince so many people down the centuries of their contrived nonsense. Best not to take their success as an indication of veracity, however, to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:37 AM

"you still have nothing specific I can reply to"
I really can't see why Joe
I have given my reasons for saying why religion should not be taught to immature children.
I have said that I believe it should be a matter of voluntary acceptance and not enforced brainwashing.
I have outlined the behaviour of the church over and over again.
I have told you how religious education has worked here
I have explained the present situation of the church on this side of the pond and how it stands to deteriorate (from your point of view).
If there is nothing specific to reply to in all that, then you appear to have no defence (or you agree with me totally, of course)
I have no religious qualifications other that those received by me and my family at the chalkface.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:26 AM

Mr. Shaw sez: No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive. They must have told you in your theology classes that those four were promoted only by decree, in a rather arbitrary manner, and that others were either suppressed or destroyed

Well, no, Steve, they didn't tell me in the seminary that the four Gospels were "promoted only by decree." As I said, I was taught that they came to the forefront by about 150 AD, and were decreed to be part of the canon in the 4th century. I know of no other first-century gospels, and I know of no decree earlier than the 4th century.

And if I say the Gospels were written between 55-105 AD, am I incorrect? Yes, some scholars say that all three Synoptics were written after about 75 AD, five years after the fall of Jerusalem. And some say Mark or an Aramaic Matthew came as early as 55. But my point was that the four Gospels were written in the first century, mostly from second-hand witnesses; and other known gospels came from the second century. Do you have documentation of other first-century gospels, or of orders for their destruction? And what other gospels would you consider to be definitive, and why? Have you read any of them? I've read several non-canonical gospels myself, and I found them interesting.

Ah, yes, And Irenaeus, your patron saint. In his quest against gnosticism, he almost single-handedly invented the pernicious art of argumentum ad absurdum that appears so often in your posts. He redefined gnosticism to the point where it was ridiculous, and then he proceeded to refute what he had redefined. Sound familiar, Steve?

And Jim Carroll, you still have nothing specific I can reply to. I visited a good number of convents and churches on my two visits to Ireland. Some were oppressive and severe, as you describe; and some were open, generous, aand friendly. The latter had people who enjoyed intellectual conversation. I had an especially good time at the original convent of the Sisters of Mercy on Baggot Street in Dublin. I had dinner there with the heads of the Sisters of Mercy in the US and the UK. Both were delightful, interesting, intelligent people. I went to Pentecost Sunday Mass at the cathedral in Galway, and it was sad and severe. So, I saw both.

And Dave the Gnome still thinks I haven't been scolding bad Christians enough. I haven't found scolding to be particularly effective in dealing with self-righteous nasty people, Dave. Why don't you do it? Or are you saying that those people are my responsibility, since both they and I call ourselves Christian? But Dave, I don't have any more in common with them, than you do. So, you go ahead and tell those nasty people to be good, and see if they listen to you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:16 AM

Just wish some of the old US and Canadian catters would come back, I loved to read their views on current affairs...much less cynical than ours.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:14 AM

"When you said there was plenty of evidence for religion, you meant in support of it. It would be absurd to ask for evidence that religion exists and you make yourself absurd pretending that."

Well, as you know, Keith, "Humility" is my middle name. Notwithstanding, I boldly claim to be able to express myself in terms that should leave you in no doubt as to what I actually mean, taking into account nuance and the use of literary devices such as sarcasm, parody and metaphor. So, Keith, do not think of trying to tell ME what I mean. I will always be kind enough to tell YOU what I mean. I think I generally manage that feat quite well. This is the second time this week I've caught you trying to impose a narrowly literal meaning on things I've said. I know two otherwise very nice people who do that routinely, and they both need a fair bit of looking after.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:12 AM

"It is always atheists who start these debates for and against religion. "
This one was started by a believer Keith - or was she telling lies.
THese arguments invariably start when believers state their beliefs as incontrovertible facts and get challenged
Believers threads have been known to run for months and months.
In the end, it doesn't matter who started them, those who dislike being contradicted should really steer clear of them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 05:03 AM

I think it's very refreshing that now we can have proper discussions without all the rancour and bullshit, what a difference, the air smells fresh and clean, Spring is just around the corner.

It would be good if we could all think before posting anything personal.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 04:20 AM

The OP stated:

"We are told Jesus' body was left in the tomb overnight wrapped in a shroud. When the open tomb was discovered on Easter Sunday, this gravecloth was found neatly folded, but Jesus had disappeared.
Soon afterwards he was seen by various folk, walking about quite the thing. Now what was he wearing? And where had he obtained the clothes"

Now you Professor are stating unequivocally that this was a miracle.

I am asking when did it become a miracle as I have never heard of such and clearly Eliza hasn't either.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:59 AM

Since when has Jesus being clothed been classed as a miracle.

He was entombed in grave clothes, but not washed because of the Sabbath.
That is why the women went back to the tomb.
The grave clothes were folded but Jesus was alive and clothed.
It is part of the Resurrection which if true is miraculous.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:52 AM

"It is always atheists who start these debates for and against religion. Never believers."

Now there's a puzzle.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:51 AM

"Eliza's OP was about a specific miracle"

Since when has Jesus being clothed been classed as a miracle. Can't remember that from my indoctrination .......... or perhaps someone is rewriting the gospels as well.

Sheeesh!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:37 AM

No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive.

Who does Steve?

When you said there was plenty of evidence for religion, you meant in support of it. It would be absurd to ask for evidence that religion exists and you make yourself absurd pretending that.

It is always atheists who start these debates for and against religion. Never believers.
Eliza's OP was about a specific miracle, but once again the atheists turned it into yet another for and against religion bash.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 03:34 AM

"But Jim, if one doesn't believe in God, where's the peril?"
It isn't to a non-believer - you claim that our "Donald Trumpish" arguments were anthromorphic, I pointed out how the religion we were taught was just that - kings and queens ruling over us all.
I find your both contemptuous and patronising attitude a little hard to take here Joe - on the one hand, we are too like your present star fascist politician to ague with, on the other we appear to be oversimplifying something that is beyond our understanding because we haven't had a seminary education.
The dictatorial, anger-filled clergy were the ones we knew - they ruled the roost here, and to a great extent, still do - it was their teachings that created today's Catholics and it is they who are desperately clinging on to the right to educate over 90% of our youngest children, despite the revelations of what happened throughout the 20th century.
I have said over and over - I don't believe your myths, but if people come to them voluntarily and accept them as a part of their lives and live up to the philosophies they aspire to, fine - they have made their choice at an age at which they were able to do so.
But the time for teaching them as facts is over unless you are prepared to enter into open debate to defend them.
When John Thomas Scopes attempted to teach Darwinism he was put on trial for doing so because that was the way the world was in those days.
It's your turn now - because that's how the world is now.
We are not, as you claim, impossible to argue with - we say it as we understand it and, certainly in my case, have experienced it - it is you and Ake and Keith who are refusing to put your case and it is all of you who are distorting our arguments and our position.
Whatever way the church is now it has become so, not out of enlightenment or fresh information, but out of simple pragmatism - it can no longer get away with what it has in the past because that past has caught up with it and is biting its bum something rotten.
Incidentally, re the Egyptian defacement of idols.
On your suggestion, I looked it up and it transpires that the case is very much disputed.
Some archaeologists argue as you do, that some following rulers did deface monuments, not as a matter of tradition but because they saw their forbears as rivals to their own rule, for instance, Akhenaton was regarded an heretic, Hatchepsute was considered a despotic monster.
Other archaeologists blame the Coptics (as ours did) for not wishing to be looked down on by rival gods.
The question of who is right is very much an open one in the opinions of the experts and the debate is a lively one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:57 AM

"We destroyed our environment, not "god"."

But... the bible says this:

"Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


This idea we are separate from the earth and everything that is on it is there for us to exploit is one of the most damaging, idiotic statements ever committed to paper. It denies your true place as part of nature, another link in a complex and wonderful web of energy flow that we are destroying with abandon.

God is a crap environmentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 16 - 01:43 AM

We've tried, Dave, we've tried. But telling hateful people they're wrong, just doesn't work.

We have indeed, Joe, but we must never give up. Eventually even the most hateful and stupid person in the world will get the message.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:25 PM

Anyone who wants to know why the four gospels we have were chosen, and what happened to the "unsuitable" ones, should google St Irenaeus. He was barking mad but, my word, so crucial in developing the version of Christianity we endure today.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:17 PM

I could never say that they're NOT true. Sorry, not enough negatives.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 08:15 PM

No use clinging on to the four gospels as definitive. They must have told you in your theology classes that those four were promoted only by decree, in a rather arbitrary manner, and that others were either suppressed or destroyed. And that no scholars believe that the earliest, Mark, was written anything like as early as 55, as you claim. Add at least twenty or more years to that, and by then your eye-witnesses were getting very thin on the ground indeed. Apply the standard for historical veracity suggested by the likes of Keith and Teribus and I'm afraid you're well into the realms of hearsay and folk tales. All I ask you to do is acknowledge that. I could never say that the gospels are, in part at least, true. But, as historical documents, they have no validity. They were penned by men with a mission, they relied far too much for comfort on word of mouth rather than written sources, and they were conceived far too long after the alleged death of their hero. All that sits rather uncomfortably with the fact that your whole religion, with all its dogma and edicts and threats, is predicated entirely on them. A house built on sand, eh?