BS: An Easter Question

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 11:18 AM

If you are not prepared to defend your belief in the supernatural, at least tell us why we should believe you.

You don't have to believe anything, and no-one here is trying to make you.
Atheists always start these things and we just respond to your statements and answer your questions as best we can.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:15 PM

Atheists always start these things and we just respond to your statements and answer your questions as best we can.

Eliza started this thread and has already stated she is a committed Christian. Exactly what is it that atheists always start? Crusades? Inquisitions? Terror attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:29 PM

"You don't have to believe anything, and no-one here is trying to make you."
Religion has been forced onto us all atone time or the the other, mainly at a time when we were least able to deal with it in a rational manner.
Now that this situation is changing, it is essential that we are able to debate it whenever we have the opportunity.
Discussions like this are such an opportunity for both sides to state their case - if you don't feel that you wish to, fair enough - please don't stand in the way of those who do.
A Dave has just pointed out, this thread was started by a believer; what are we expected to do, stay silent, as we always have?
Those days are long gone, I'm pleased to say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Senoufou
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 12:49 PM

I suppose any thread about religious ideas/beliefs is going to become a bit heated along the way. I think discussion and debate are an excellent way to expand ones thinking, or at least to start to understand the opposite viewpoint. I hope no-one here thinks I'm trying to 'sell' Christianity (or to deride it either!) I was just trying to explore some of the details of the resurrection, and to get other folks' ideas about them.

I mentioned earlier the film 'Life of Brian', (I've watched it many times) It does of course poke fun at some of the doctrine, and has offended many of the devout. But it does encourage one to plonk large amounts of salt on some of the more bizarre and rather dubious practices which have evolved from some ancient texts. I've always trusted humour as a way of seeing things in a more sensible light. I hope God can have a laugh too, or I'm truly in the soup.

Some of my husband's Muslim tenets are in my view a bit weird, but we have lovely discussions and never get nasty or offended. And my dearest friend is a complete atheist; we too have some interesting chats about belief, or lack of. It's never become a problem for us. I'm a nosy old thing, and just like to see inside people's heads and understand their mindsets. We're all here on this planet together, and it's best we try to be kind, if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 01:55 PM

Hear, hear, Eliza. I certainly was not having a go at you for starting the thread. It has been very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 02:39 PM

"I certainly was not having a go at you for starting the thread. "
Same here - it's more than a little refreshing to be able to discuss a topic like religion without falling out.
Life of Brian remains one of my favourite films - it was banned in Ireland up to 2003, 24 years after its release, rather astoundingly, 3 years later than The Marx Brothers film, Monkey Business (1931), which remained on the 'banned list for sixty-one years in all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 03:13 PM

Raggy asks: 2. Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence or, if he did exist, his death.

Well, yes, there are four Gospels, although three seem to come from a common source. There are also numerous non-canonical gospels, along with canonical and non-canonical epistles. None of these documents conform with modern standards for historical accuracy. But then, no documents of the time conform with modern standards.

You also have the fact that a significant number of people claimed to have known this Jesus, and they passed on their experiences to numerous others who considered them to be credible.

If it's true that Jesus never existed, then the body of literature that has built up around him would be the most humongous conspiracy ever known.

Either that, or the denial of the existence of Jesus must be a conspiracy theory.

I choose the latter, although I readily agree that there is actually very little that we know or can document about Jesus, other than that which is written in the Gospels.

---

Joe tells Jim Carroll: "I'll ignore the rest of your remarks"

Jim replies: Pity - I would like to have had them seriously challenged by somene who I have a fair mount of respect for - but then again, I do have history and logic on my side.

Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion, and I can't argue with a caricature. It's like trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with Donald Trump.

I readily admit that religion is rife with corruption, stupidity, and evil. I am willing to discuss specific instances of corruption, stupidity, and evil in religion - and you will most likely find that I will agree with you in most instances. However, logic and my own experience tell me that no human endeavor can be so uniformly corrupt, evil, and stupid as what you describe. I have studied many different religions and the history of unbelief over my lifetime, and I have found both good and bad in all. The one thing I have not found, is uniformity.

Therefore, it is impossible for me to argue against your blanket condemnations, because you cannot apply any single accusation to all people in all religions. And most religious groups are diverse within themselves, so it is also usually impossible to apply any blanket statement to any particular religious group.

So, rather than attempting to apply generalizations to groups, it is far better to discuss issues and incidents - with the realization that within any given group, there will be a wide variety of opinions, actions, and responses.

So, if you speak of the Catholic Church, are you speaking of it as Pope Francis would like it to be, or as John Paul II would want; or maybe are you looking at it through the eyes of Pius IX, lamenting his loss of political power? Or shall we go back to Alexander VI Borgia, the most notorious of all Popes? Or is it better to stay away from Popes and view from the perspective of the people of the Catholic Church? Which people?

See what I mean, Jim? It's impossible to take your broad statements and make any sense of them. And even when discussing issues, I have to give an answer from a number of perspectives to give any semblance of accuracy.

I don't defend the Catholic Church and I cannot defend the Catholic Church - because there is so much wrong within it that I simply cannot defend. But there are many, many Catholics who love their church and openly acknowledge and oppose its faults. I'm one of them.

---

Jim says: The ongoing thread throughout the history of religion is that you may squabble among yourselves as much as you like, but yu never question the motives of god - he's in charge!
Religion has produced nothing new that resembles evidence - it never really did - it is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspense of logic.

Again, Jim, your generalizations are too broad to discuss. You say that God is in charge, and I say that God (no humanizing pronoun) acts through humans and other creatures that have varying amounts of free will and that are also governed by the laws of nature and coincidence and natural/logical consequence. Your description of God is far too anthropomorphic and monarchic. I define God as essence and spirit, and come to vague but very different conclusions.

And while you say that religion is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspension of logic, that's not my experience at all. The people I respect for their genuine faith, are those who constantly question their own faith and challenge it with brutal logic. The others are robots.

-Joe-

P.S. And I would really like to more deeply explore the mystery of the missing noses on Egyptian statues.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:33 PM

The difficulty I have with god (little g - I do not believe it is a proper noun) is that it can only be accepted from a position of faith. Not logic or science but faith. I cannot say it does not exist, nor can I say it does. No-one can. Yet this mythical entity has, perhaps, been the cause of more suffering that anything else on this Earth.

I think I am a good person in general. My children have all grown up to be fine people themselves. My grandsons are heading that way. I do not steal. I have not killed anyone (yet!). I do not lie. I give everyone the respect they deserve. This comes from within, not from the rules laid down by the church or from some spirit in the sky.

I am heartily tired of these arguments yet I keep being told that it is me (an atheist) that is causing them. I am not. Honest! I was told, in my youth, that the likes of me will be damned to eternal damnation. Now I am told that was nonsense. People out there, influential people of all faiths, are still saying that their imaginary friend is better than everyone elses and all others are wrong. They are still killing and dying for an idea that is only a position of faith. And people wonder why religion gets a bad name. Sheesh.

If everyone got together and told the Mullahs and Pastors and Shamans who are perpetrating the hate and violence that the message is wrong then maybe this world would be a better place. Worth a try surely?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 04:49 PM

Dave the Gnome says: If everyone got together and told the Mullahs and Pastors and Shamans who are perpetrating the hate and violence that the message is wrong then maybe this world would be a better place. Worth a try surely?

We've tried, Dave, we've tried. But telling hateful people they're wrong, just doesn't work. They think that they're the only ones not damned to hell, so why should they listen to the rest of us?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:08 PM

"Again, Jim, your generalizations are too broad to discuss. "
And again Joe, that is the religion we were taught at school.
I would be happy to learn that, now religion is in retreat and open to examination things may be different, but that is what formed the christian mind right up to my generation.
It's a little like capital punishment - now largely accepted as an evil of the past but somewhat too late to undo the damage already done.
"Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion,"
It really isn't a caricature - that is the religion that formed world though right up to the present day.
Can't speak for the others but my understanding of religion didn't come as an outsider looking in, but as someone brought in the midst of it.
I couldn't begin to claim to know what happen in America, but I do know first hand of how it ws in largely Catholic Liverpool and still is in Holy Ireland, where the word of the priest was the law, never mind god, though things are rapidly changing here.
By the very terms used, God reigned supreme and Mary was, and still is the Queen of Heaven and you questioned that in peril of your eternal soul.
You can still see this in the older, more conservative clergy who once ruled supreme.
Your type of liberal Christianity was once stamped on nearly as firmly as my atheism.
"And I would really like to more deeply explore the mystery of the missing noses on Egyptian statues."
More deeply than what Joe? - we were told what we were told and I've read what I've read - perhaps you might like to suggest some specific reading material.
Thank you for the comparison to Donald Trump, accepted in the spirit is was offered, I'm sure (thought we were under orders to stop name-calling - ah well!!)
I really have put my cas as clearly as I can without abuse and can only hope that to be reciprocated.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM

"Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion, and I can't argue with a caricature. It's like trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with Donald Trump."

Well, this is not only untrue but it is also an attempt at an insult that I'm sure Jim will laugh off just as much as I do. Joe, you really don't need to diminish yourself by adopting such a bitter, defensive attitude. Just try taking on the substantive argument for a change. You should be able to manage that quite cheerfully, given the Catholic education you never tire of telling us about.

I can't caricature "religion" because religion is far too diverse a phenomenon, what with all the different creeds, different gods and different rules. If I make a point about your particular religion, for example by pointing out that all its doctrine is predicated on the existence of a deity that almost certainly doesn't exist, that's a serious challenge to you, not a caricature. If I say that the gospels are full of inconsistencies, and that some guy in the third century decreed that a large number of other gospels were persona non grata and should be destroyed, that is not a caricature either, it's a challenge, and, given your eight years in a seminary, one that I'd have thought you should be equal to. If I say to you that miracles should be the subject not of scepticism, but of outright dismissal, I am resorting to the laws of nature, not making a caricature out of your accommodation with miracles. It seems to me that your nerve all too often fails under these challenges, so you resort to insult and bitter and belittling accusations. I think you can do better than that when confronted by a rather casual atheist like me who spends most of his time....not really being much of an atheist, frankly, but living a life.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:31 PM

Jim says: By the very terms used, God reigned supreme and Mary was, and still is the Queen of Heaven and you questioned that in peril of your eternal soul.

But Jim, if one doesn't believe in God, where's the peril?

Yes, I knew conservative clergy who were dictatorial and often filled with anger. I also knew conservative clergy (and nuns) who were patient and tolerant and compassionate and joyful - even though their theology might have been a bit stodgy. And the same goes for liberals.

But I knew many priests in the 1970s who were fresh from Ireland. Sacramento imported most of its priests from Ireland back then, more than almost any other U.S. diocese. Some were like the oppressive people you speak of, but most were not.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:36 PM

And yes, Steve, many of those questions are worth discussion - one at a time. And the answers to each are complex and diverse.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 05:51 PM

'Steve said recently that there is plenty of evidence for religion, but he did not specify Christianity."

Yes Keith, this one keeps on popping up, doesn't it? Well let's look at a few examples of the evidence for religion:

Every town and village hereabouts has a church, a chapel or both.

In less rural areas than mine, and I know many, I see duomos, basilicas, parish churches, synagogues, mosques, cemeteries full of crosses, shrines and wayside pulpits.

When I turn on the radio or telly, I get Thought For The Day, Choral Evensong, The Morning Service, the Pope's Easter blessing, festivals of carols and Songs Of Praise.

When I read the papers, I read about all those clerics in the Lords and I read articles by Giles Fraser and all the rest.

Once a month I get a visit from my dear friend the local Jehovah's Witness (he knows he'll get nowhere with me but we always have a really good chat and I always read Watchtower and Awake!)

Now I think we have something there, Keith. Let's call it "religion." Of course, as I'm a scientist, I don't expect you to accept all this evidence that religion occurs without challenge. On this occasion, however, I respectfully request that you take your challenge elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 06:00 PM

Very dismissive, Joe. That does not help you much. The answers are actually much simpler than you pretend. Wrapping up the simple misconceptions of religion in cod complexities is a time-honoured strategy, and you're very good at it, but, well it's time-worn as well, unfortunately. Tactics prolong arguments, but the truth will always win out. And the truth here is that your dogma is predicated on very shaky tenets. That doesn't meant that it can't be true, of course. I'll always allow you that much, but don't go thinking that that amounts to the usual conception of fence-sitting.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 16 - 07:45 PM

Steve Shaw says: If I say that the gospels are full of inconsistencies, and that some guy in the third century decreed that a large number of other gospels were persona non grata and should be destroyed...

If you were to say that, I would agree that the Gospels are full of fascinating inconsistencies to explore and ponder. They were written by four different groups of people in a time with very limited communication, in the period from 55-105 AD, by second-hand witnesses who wanted to write down what the eyewitnesses who were dying off had said.

I would also say that these four Gospels, all from the first century, gradually became recognized as part of the "canon" of the New Testament. The official canon was not decreed until the fourth century, but most of the books chosen had risen to prominence by 150 AD and were read at liturgical celebrations. There were many other gospels and epistles, mostly written in the second century, many reflecting more of the thinking of the gnostics, which were more closely tied to the mystery religions of the time. There were also many writings of the Church Fathers, the second and third generations of church leaders, which were not included in the New Testament and were not used in liturgy. Many of these writings are still in print to this day, and some are still being discovered. I don't know of any being suppressed, but I suppose that happened to some along the way. There really was no unified church authority capable of such suppression until the church took on a more hierarchical structure in the fourth century.

Some of the gnostic gospels are very interesting, and some are really kinda weird. All have value, and are worthy of discussion. Some have some really good stories in them, some have folkloric value, and some are nice complements to the four Gospels.

Next question?

-Joe Offer-

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?

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 - 08:25 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:38 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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