Religion

[newboy]

I've been away for a while and it's interesting to see where this has gone.

First off, Einstein very clearly did not believe in God, certainly not in any sense they you are thinking of. He believed in the majesty of the Universe and did not accept that there was a divine ruler/maker.

"I do not belive in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the World so far as our science can reveal it."

Secondly- Phillip Belgrave - atheists generally are not arrogant. Just because someone does not believe in what you hold so dear does not make them arrogant. At least they do not try to impose their views with absolutely no factual backing whatsoever. And quite frankly, you're nearly as atheist as I am. You don't believe in Islam, Shiva, Gaia or over 9000 other Gods that others are very adamant exists. Why not? What makes you so confident that every other religion is wrong and yours is so right? To me that's arrogance - you've no more proof than any other than anyone else and yet you come on here and are pretty abusive.

All Atheists are saying is that they refuse to believe something without proof. I'm not sure how that's not a daft approach and I can't see how that's arrogant. What have you got to offer in return? What proof do you give? You assume that you're right but give no evidence. That's arrogance.

Yes, there are some things we can't explain, but that doesn't mean that your God did it. It simply means that we cannot currently explain what it is. There's an entire history of things attributed to a God that have been later explained away as we got collectively wiser. There's certainly a trend here and time is not on religious people's side as God's domain gets smaller and smaller as mankind learns more and more. No wonder the church collectively has tried to fight against science and learning throughout the ages (with a few notable exceptions).

This whole debate was pretty well mannered til you came along and this all reminds me of something I read the other day, namely that atheists and religious people seldom have successful arguments because:

a) religious people assume that everyone has the same faith and feelings of God inside them due to it being so fundamental to them and

b) atheists assume everyone can see the world from the same logical viewpoint to them because it feels to natural to them

Until both parties take on some understanding of the others' viewpoint then the discussions are generally fruitless. Luckily there's some reasonable people on here that can do that.

[Philip Belgrave]

Where did I say all atheists were arrogant ?

My comment and quotation was inspired by the concluding remark of my interlocutor who appeared to believe that he had demolished my arguments with ridiculous ease.

[ruraldean]

Nice post newboy.

[Philip Belgrave]

I've been away for a while and it's interesting to see where this has gone.

First off, Einstein very clearly did not believe in God, certainly not in any sense they you are thinking of. He believed in the majesty of the Universe and did not accept that there was a divine ruler/maker.

"I do not belive in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the World so far as our science can reveal it."

Secondly- Phillip Belgrave - atheists generally are not arrogant. Just because someone does not believe in what you hold so dear does not make them arrogant. At least they do not try to impose their views with absolutely no factual backing whatsoever. And quite frankly, you're nearly as atheist as I am. You don't believe in Islam, Shiva, Gaia or over 9000 other Gods that others are very adamant exists. Why not? What makes you so confident that every other religion is wrong and yours is so right? To me that's arrogance - you've no more proof than any other than anyone else and yet you come on here and are pretty abusive.

All Atheists are saying is that they refuse to believe something without proof. I'm not sure how that's not a daft approach and I can't see how that's arrogant. What have you got to offer in return? What proof do you give? You assume that you're right but give no evidence. That's arrogance.

Yes, there are some things we can't explain, but that doesn't mean that your God did it. It simply means that we cannot currently explain what it is. There's an entire history of things attributed to a God that have been later explained away as we got collectively wiser. There's certainly a trend here and time is not on religious people's side as God's domain gets smaller and smaller as mankind learns more and more. No wonder the church collectively has tried to fight against science and learning throughout the ages (with a few notable exceptions).

This whole debate was pretty well mannered til you came along and this all reminds me of something I read the other day, namely that atheists and religious people seldom have successful arguments because:

a) religious people assume that everyone has the same faith and feelings of God inside them due to it being so fundamental to them and

b) atheists assume everyone can see the world from the same logical viewpoint to them because it feels to natural to them

Until both parties take on some understanding of the others' viewpoint then the discussions are generally fruitless. Luckily there's some reasonable people on here that can do that.

(And I see that Rural Dean thunders to the rescue again! I think he just likes to gainsay everything I post)

I will amplify my initial response.

Yes ,I do regard atheism as arrogant (not atheists, note the distinction). The dictionary definition (Oxford Pocket) 'Disbelief in the existance of a Diety". (No "ifs," buts", or" maybes") Thus, taking a definate stance while lacking evidence either pro or con ,is a form of arrogance, wouldn't you say ?

You have no idea whatever of what I believe, have doubts about , or reject completely. All the religions that you cite may hold elements of eternal truth for all I know. Since you claim to have studied my posts then you will be aware that I style myself a" Hopeful Agnostic", which I think-according to my lights- appears to be the most reasonable position :but I could well be wrong (arrogance?).

I'm not offering you anything, sport. What made you think I was ?

As for being ill-mannered, perhaps you should read the post made me buy into the debate in the first place.

And you think me unreasonable? Well, in the words of a Sargeant-Major in a long past Television Comedy (Bring it back, I say! ) " OH DEAR, HOW SAD, NEVER MIND !".

[Mr Mosquito]

First off, Einstein very clearly did not believe in God, certainly not in any sense they you are thinking of. He believed in the majesty of the Universe and did not accept that there was a divine ruler/maker.

An orthodox Jewish leader in New York - Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein - once sent a telegram to Albert Einstein asking " Do you believe in God?" Einstein answered, "I believe in God who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

[ruraldean]

I now have a huge problem: I want to respond to something Philip said but don't want him to feel that I'm automatically gainsaying.

But what the hell...

Disbelief without evidence = arrogance.

Rubbish. Philip you're confusing a lack of belief with militant disbelief. Let's go back to Santa for a minute. I'll assume (probably a mistake) that you don't believe in Santa, despite being told as a child that he existed. Somehow, over the years, you have examined everything you know about Santa, and maybe much as you'd like to believe in him, you now believe he was made up by someone else. Of course you have no PROOF of his non-existence, because you can't prove a negative, but nevertheless on balance, he ain't there.

Is that an arrogant position to take? Because pretty much the whole world takes it.

Now let's take the atheist position: It's exactly the same. But because it disagrees with your personal views it must be arrogance. As has been stated, arrogance comes from someone who has no evidence for their proposition expecting everyone else to accept it, or accept the label of arrogance themselves. Pure hypocrisy.

[newboy]

(And I see that Rural Dean thunders to the rescue again! I think he just likes to gainsay everything I post)

I will amplify my initial response.

Yes ,I do regard atheism as arrogant (not atheists, note the distinction). The dictionary definition (Oxford Pocket) 'Disbelief in the existance of a Diety". (No "ifs," buts", or" maybes") Thus, taking a definate stance while lacking evidence either pro or con ,is a form of arrogance, wouldn't you say ?

Absolutely not. There are many things I don't believe in - the yeti, loch ness monster, ghosts. Yet God for me is even less credible than those because there is a very-human motive for people to make up religion. Sometimes it's innocent - just looking for answers, but often it's not - as a means to control people and gain power/wealth.

I utterly fail to see how it's arrogant to not believe at all in something that:

a) has no evidence for it's existence. There's been 2000 years of Christianity and yet nothing you'd offer as proof other than people having 'spiritual' feelings that could be assigned to any religious framework you're bought up in. The only 'official' tome that is allegedly the word of God is riddled with inconsistencies and is in many parts clearly made up and clearly disprovable with actual evidence. Pretty much everyone on here agrees that large parts of the Old Testament can't be taken as literal fact. And yet it's from this 'absolute truth' that many religions have been grown.

b) would be advantageous to many to artificially create and expound upon as means of gaining power and riches.

So there's both a motive for creating religion and no evidence that any of it is actually correct. Can you tell me how it's arrogant to believe that none of that's real, and yet it's not arrogant for you to assume that Yetis don't exist etc.

Don't believe for one second that Atheism has all the answers. It's not that arrogant, unlike religion which preaches on everything and everything and in many cases takes control away from people. Atheism acknowledges that there's many many things that we don't currently understand and some that we probably never will. It just simply refuses to believe to take religion on at face value and has a pretty sensible (IMHO) stance that it needs to see some proof first. And fundamentally it gives control to people and advocates free thought. It never takes it away.

Religion demands that people act irrationally in order to believe things that any sane-acting person would dismiss as incredulous. Conversely in many cases Religion insists that non-belief is a massive sin that has to be addressed in varying degrees of severity based on the religion. So it closes minds, defuses rational analysis and indoctrinates.

How is free-thinking-promoting atheism more arrogant than closed-thinking-life-controlling religion?

One of the best quotes I've seen recently was someone arguing that all atheists are idiots because 100 million religious people can't be wrong. That's pretty arrogant and so easily reputed - not so long ago everyone on the planet thought the earth was flat and that the Sun was a God.

You have no idea whatever of what I believe, have doubts about , or reject completely. All the religions that you cite may hold elements of eternal truth for all I know. Since you claim to have studied my posts then you will be aware that I style myself a" Hopeful Agnostic", which I think-according to my lights- appears to be the most reasonable position :but I could well be wrong (arrogance?).

Well why don't you clearly state what you believe. Apologies if I assumed, but I can't really debate anything with you if you don't say what your opinion is clearly.

I'm not offering you anything, sport. What made you think I was ?

Well some reasoning behind what you're thinking would be nice. If you're going to be so bold in your assertions something to back them up would be good other wise it looks like you're just shouting.

As for being ill-mannered, perhaps you should read the post made me buy into the debate in the first place.

And you think me unreasonable? Well, in the words of a Sargeant-Major in a long past Television Comedy (Bring it back, I say! ) " OH DEAR, HOW SAD, NEVER MIND !".

It's simple. This is a nicely mannered debate. If you don't respect anyone else you'll simply be ignored. That's not helpful is it.

[ruraldean]

I shouldn't have bothered. Newboy said it all better than I did.

And by the way Philip, I did not thunder to anyone's rescue. I was merely impatient and glory-seeking.

I would love to here your response to my point though. How can it be deemed arrogant to not believe in something for which their is no objective evidence?

[gater2]

I think this is starting to go round in circles, and I'm sure this thread could easily become the longest in otib history without much trouble.. It has been debated pretty much since civilization started!

Trying to summarize as fairly as possible, I would say that this debate shows nothing can be proved. The Matrix film is not just a brilliant film, but it raises this philosophical problem. Ultimately you cannot prove that we are not in a Matrix style dream, controlled by scientists elsewhere.

As a result I think it's all about the grey, and you have to make your decision based on what, to you, seems more likely based on your experience (as rural dean has suggested). For atheists, their experience of life suggests very strongly that there can be no God. There are certainly some things which seem to support this strongly. At times everyone feels alone in the universe; when you sit in silence, can there really be anything out there? At times it feels like no; it has for me at times. Another very strong argument is the whole suffering thing. Again, this isn't a proof God isn't there, but I admit (as a Christian) it's not easy to see where God is. God seems more like a God-of-the gaps, the deus ex machina.

However, there are some things which do suggest God's presence, or at least mean there is the possibility of God. I can admit that the arguments of atheism aren't completely illogical, and I would like to think that Rural dean, Newboy and Man in Black could at least say the same about theism. As I have mentioned before, some of the greatest minds and most inspirational people, not just of history, but in the world today do believe in God, and surely this shows, not that theism is correct, but that it can be realistic intellectual position and life choice. As well as, I personally know people who have had exactly the opposite experience from rural dean; he went from firm theist to atheist, I know many people who have been just as convinced and even more militantly atheist than Newboy, Man in Black and rural dean who have come to faith. The interesting thing is of course that whichever way it goes, the major factor is almost never due to an ascent to a greater intellectual position, but the driving force is experience. Arguments I would say suggest God's existence more than not could include the existence of the depth of joy humans experience: again, you can propose an argument from evolution, but I don't think this will ever satisfy humanity as much as the source being God. Another could be the big bang: why is there physical matter in the first place? What was there before the big bang? Are there parallel universes? (I personally don't think this is a very good way to think about God: as Dietrich Bonhoeffer suggests, it's actually a good thing the deus ex machina has been pushed out of the world - I certainly don't believe in God beucase of these things).

We can argue until we are blue in the face, but I doubt it will change any of our opinions. I for one, have been very impressed with the way newboy and rural dean have argued their point, but I am not one little bit closer to atheism, but I knew all the arguments before.

Now I don't think this means it's pointless therefore to debate like this. If it is done in a respectful way, which in fact brings atheists and theists together, I think it can only be a good thing. Also, if it is more about the grey than the black and white then the arguments can be important. However, I will finish by summarizing my position with the Pascal quote I've used a few times: the observation of creation [which is what we're all essentially doing in this debate], proves neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a God who hides himself.

[ruraldean]

Hey! I'm not a militant atheist!

Nice finishing post (I would think), and thanks for the debate.

[newboy]

As ever Gater2, it's always pleasant and interesting to hear your opposing view. It's not changed my mind one iota about the presence of a God, but it's been genuinely interesting and I've learnt more about the motivations behind those who do believe. I'd certainly buy you several beers should we ever meet and wish you luck in your pastoral adventures.

As usual my summary on the discussions is different! From my point of view, I've been suprised how readily those who have contributed have admitted that there's a lot in the Bible that doesn't bear close scrutiny in terms of literal truth, but have no problems with adapting their belief around the bits they want to. I'm suprised how comfortable people are with this massive bending of 'truth', given that the whole thing is meant to be strictly all true.

All of this leads to the almost inevitable conclusion that belief is personal, and that's sorta been backed up by the general disdain towards organised religion as a whole (of course the CofE is largely benign but it's dwarfed by the Catholic Church, Judaism, Islam and probably even Mormonism in terms of numbers).

This all leads me to belive that recognised religion is a convenient coat-hook to hang your personal spiritual experience onto since it gives structure to deep feelings that one can't explain. You'd have to be utterly nuts to take any religion all ultra-literally, but there's enough in there for most people to take away something they can empathise with.

Some of us will put that 'spritual experience' down to simple happiness and not question it too much, some of us will put it down to a higher being. Fair enough.

I just hope that through conversation, I can convince at least one person that atheists aren't bad or ignorant people and that atheism is more to do with having an open mind and looking for objectivity. And that, in turn, is not a bad approach to take. Once people start on that path then there's usually only one natural conclusion (I admit that's a little arrogant/presumptious but I believe it's true

Equally it would be dumb for any atheist to not acknowledge the good that occurs in churches as a grass roots level and the value of a church for being a focal point for good people to come together.

However there's a number of things that trouble me about this debate - there's a lot of questions that have been either missed through noise or conveniently ignored. One of those would be the nature of God. Haiiti makes it more relevant than ever.

To paraphrase a better mind than mine: If God is all knowing, and all powerful, why doesn't he step into situations like Haitii?

As a religious person, how do you reconcile supporting and following a being who does nothing? How can that be morally justified?

If God is not capable of helping then why follow him? If he is capable of helping then he is surely malevolant?

I'd like to see your thoughts on this if you have time. The BBC News site had a discussion topic on it and the answers were glib at best. One respondee even said it was because the Haiitians were obviously evil!!

[Philip Belgrave]

I shouldn't have bothered. Newboy said it all better than I did.

And by the way Philip, I did not thunder to anyone's rescue. I was merely impatient and glory-seeking.

I would love to here your response to my point though. How can it be deemed arrogant to not believe in something for which their is no objective evidence?

Ah yes - although I am afraid that there is little glory in trading arguments with the likes of me. Back the pulpit ,perhaps ?

Since Newboy raised it, I can't see where I have shown disrespect to anybody. Indeed, he should show respect to me by reading my posts properly before attributing to me, in a most unctuous manner, practices and beliefs that I have never professed.:- which you quickly endorsed, I notice. .

Briefly, it was a load of bollocks ! (Is that ill mannered enough ?)

You put it in a rather convoluted manner (a double negative!) , but yes, it can be described as a form of arrogance to adhere to a belief to which no objective, empirical evidence can be proffered.

Logically, though,it might well be argued that the committed Christian, Muslim, Jew etc, display a similar arrogance, but the essential difference is the possession of FAITH.

The atheist can't take refuge there becauses how can you have faith in a void, nothingness ? This , presumably, is why you have been anxious, in debate, not to try and prove a negative.

[ruraldean]

Logically, though,it might well be argued that the committed Christian, Muslim, Jew etc, display a similar arrogance, but the essential difference is the possession of FAITH.

I agree about the other religions. Faith is a word used here to justify that arrogance.

The atheist can't take refuge there becauses how can you have faith in a void, nothingness ?

I don't need to take refuge anywhere. I'm not particularly searching for anything bigger than myself. I'm actually really happy. If I have no faith in God, then this will be God's fault, as Faith is a gift from Him alone. I'm completely off the hook.

This , presumably, is why you have been anxious, in debate, not to try and prove a negative.

I'm anxious not to try to prove a negative because it's an invalid argument. Simples.

[newboy]

I had typed a big response to Philip but it got lost. Very relieved to find that you'd responded far more succinctly.

I'd like to add that Philip - you still haven't said why you think that refusing to believe in something with no evidence is arrogant.

And if it is, why refusing to believe in pretty much anything someone could make up (fairies etc) isn't. What's the difference?

Personally, I don't need to believe in a void. I'm humble enough to accept that there's things I can't and won't understand. I can reconcile that. I don't need a collosal get-out-clause of a higher being to explain the imponderables to sleep at night.

There you go - Atheism is actually pretty humble since being an Atheist recognises that there's lots of things we don't know and can deal with that.

[Philip Belgrave]

I had typed a big response to Philip but it got lost. Very relieved to find that you'd responded far more succinctly.

I'd like to add that Philip - you still haven't said why you think that refusing to believe in something with no evidence is arrogant.

And if it is, why refusing to believe in pretty much anything someone could make up (fairies etc) isn't. What's the difference?

Personally, I don't need to believe in a void. I'm humble enough to accept that there's things I can't and won't understand. I can reconcile that. I don't need a collosal get-out-clause of a higher being to explain the imponderables to sleep at night.

There you go - Atheism is actually pretty humble since being an Atheist recognises that there's lots of things we don't know and can deal with that.

We're really getting bogged down in semantics, as such discussion often do. Look what a buzz word "'arrogance'" has become'.

You not describing an Atheist position, but an Agnostic one:- welcome to the club !

[newboy]

Hi,

I've either not been clear or you've misinterpreted what I've said and where I'm coming from.

Atheism:

the doctrine or belief that there is no God <LI>a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Agnosticism:<LI>agnostic - someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something <LI>agnostic - of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism <LI>agnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist) <LI>agnostic - uncertain of all claims to knowledge

I've said there are many things I don't know about, but I've also said that I refuse to believe anything that sounds outlandish without evidence.

I very firmly believe that there is no God due the above and that religion is either a) a crutch for those who can't reconcile things they can't understand or are in denial over the finality of life or b) as mechanism of control for those who want to control and manipulate.

I cannot even entertain the idea of God because there's no compelling reason to do so. I don't belive that means I'm closed minded - it simply means that I am very willing to have my mind changed if someone can give me evidence. Equally if I believe in something based on evidence, I'll make an attempt to disprove it as well to ensure it's sound.

Religion is closed, because it relies on avoiding evidence (even suppressing it where necessary) and aggressively condemning those who dare to think different.

[gater2]

I'd like to see your thoughts on this if you have time. The BBC News site had a discussion topic on it and the answers were glib at best. One respondee even said it was because the Haiitians were obviously evil!!

I had a feeling my post wouldn't be the last of it! I'm afraid I'm not going to be near a computer for a sufficient period of time for a few days, but when I am I'll give it a shot at a response.

As ever Gater2, it's always pleasant and interesting to hear your opposing view. It's not changed my mind one iota about the presence of a God, but it's been genuinely interesting and I've learnt more about the motivations behind those who do believe. I'd certainly buy you several beers should we ever meet and wish you luck in your pastoral adventures.

Many Thanks, best of luck to you too - would be very happy to go for some beers if we ever bumped into each other. Could be difficult as I don't live in Bristol, but hey I'm sure God could find a way

[newboy]

Could be difficult as I don't live in Bristol, but hey I'm sure God could find a way

I'm trying to find the link, but there's a report somewhere on the BBC news site about a guy who came off the road in a blizzard. Rather than getting out and looking for help he decided to stay in the car and let God help him.

He died after 4 days. When the snow subsided they found the car about 30 yards from a main road where there was plenty of traffic. If he'd just got out and looked for the road he would have been fine.

The exact details maybe slightly wrong, but the essence of the report is there.

So as a bit of advice I'd stick to GPS if I was you!

[gater2]

I'm trying to find the link, but there's a report somewhere on the BBC news site about a guy who came off the road in a blizzard. Rather than getting out and looking for help he decided to stay in the car and let God help him.

He died after 4 days. When the snow subsided they found the car about 30 yards from a main road where there was plenty of traffic. If he'd just got out and looked for the road he would have been fine.

The exact details maybe slightly wrong, but the essence of the report is there.

So as a bit of advice I'd stick to GPS if I was you!

Well that's just stupidity on his part! You won't be surprised to find out I definitely do use GPS and don't randomly set off with my eyes closed and hope God will 'show me the way'. I think he gaves us brains for a reason...!

[ruraldean]

Well that's just stupidity on his part! You won't be surprised to find out I definitely do use GPS and don't randomly set off with my eyes closed and hope God will 'show me the way'. I think he gaves us brains for a reason...!

I'm not sure that even God could negotiate his way round the Cumberland Basin without GPS...

[Philip Belgrave]

Hi,

I've either not been clear or you've misinterpreted what I've said and where I'm coming from.

Atheism:

the doctrine or belief that there is no God <LI>a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Agnosticism:<LI>agnostic - someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something <LI>agnostic - of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism <LI>agnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist) <LI>agnostic - uncertain of all claims to knowledge

I've said there are many things I don't know about, but I've also said that I refuse to believe anything that sounds outlandish without evidence.

I very firmly believe that there is no God due the above and that religion is either a) a crutch for those who can't reconcile things they can't understand or are in denial over the finality of life or b) as mechanism of control for those who want to control and manipulate.

I cannot even entertain the idea of God because there's no compelling reason to do so. I don't belive that means I'm closed minded - it simply means that I am very willing to have my mind changed if someone can give me evidence. Equally if I believe in something based on evidence, I'll make an attempt to disprove it as well to ensure it's sound.

Religion is closed, because it relies on avoiding evidence (even suppressing it where necessary) and aggressively condemning those who dare to think different.

I am sure there are committed Christians . Moslems etc who will take issue over a lot of what you say, but I think that to believe that a Deity is merely a human construct to avoid ,gloss over or mitigate , the inevitability of death may- I say may- be wide of the mark.

Dunno- but I'm an agnostic.

And I don't believe that Atheists have the monopoly of human wisdom.

[ruraldean]

And I don't believe that Atheists have the monopoly of human wisdom.

I don't think we've either said that we do, or believe that we do, but thanks for pointing it out. But in the spirit of meaningless and random sentences -

Kim can be a boy's or a girl's name. Hope that helps.

[Philip Belgrave]

I don't think we've either said that we do, or believe that we do, but thanks for pointing it out. But in the spirit of meaningless and random sentences -

Kim can be a boy's or a girl's name. Hope that helps.

Reading the piece,one has to wonder, and sorry, you lost me with the unisex allusion (If it's a crack at me for commencing a sentence with a conjunction, I plead guilty:- but what can you expect from a semi-literate colonial ?)

But enough of this nonsense.

It perhaps escaped your attention, but while you and your heathen mates were vigorously denying the possible existence of a deity, CITY suffered a humiliating defeat ,on our own turf, at the hands of our trans-Severn rivals.

Don't you see the connection ?

It's cause and effect.

It's probable that the only way that the Almighty can be placated is if you and your alter ego Newboy commences wearing sackcloth and ashes until we show definite signs of improvement.

If the crisis develops further we may have to contemplate ritual burnings at the stake in the centre of Ashton Gate.

[ruraldean]

Reading the piece,one has to wonder, and sorry, you lost me with the unisex allusion (If it's a crack at me for commencing a sentence with a conjunction, I plead guilty:- but what can you expect from a semi-literate colonial ?)

But enough of this nonsense.

It perhaps escaped your attention, but while you and your heathen mates were vigorously denying the possible existence of a deity, CITY suffered a humiliating defeat ,on our own turf, at the hands of our trans-Severn rivals.

Don't you see the connection ?

It's cause and effect.

It's probable that the only way that the Almighty can be placated is if you and your alter ego Newboy commences wearing sackcloth and ashes until we show definite signs of improvement.

If the crisis develops further we may have to contemplate ritual burnings at the stake in the centre of Ashton Gate.

Yeah, my missus says everything's my fault.

[Philip Belgrave]

Yeah, my missus says everything's my fault.

Aha,-we have something in common.

[Mr Mosquito]

ruraldean, what's the Christian norm? Ye Olde Testament is from Jewish scripture and pre dates Christianity by thousands of years.

I know.

The New Testament also contains explicitly explained executions and differs little from the levels of human depravity explained in Ye Olde Testament.

Depravity authorised and driven by God - not sure where it is in the NT though.

.....I'm surprised you don't recognize crucifixtions as explicitly explained executions and they're definately in the New Testament.

[ruraldean]

[Ison]

for me there is no 'god' but there is a missing link that our limited intellect is incapable of comprehending. we think of ants as being stupid and insignificant, but although we might be smarter than them we're just as stupid and insignificant in the grander scale of things.

[Philip Belgrave]

Sorry, but my original post referred to the behaviour of God, not Man. I'll give you a couple of examples of the loving God of the Old Testament to start with:

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh's actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler's forced action? Exodus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents; Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god.

2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them. You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone "baldy" is far from being worthy of death.

Isaiah 13:15-18 If God can find you, he will "thrust you through," smash your children "to pieces" before your eyes, and rape your wife.

Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death.

Jeremiah 19:7-9 God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

Lamentations 2:20-22 God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children.

Now, I could do this all day. God authorised and drove these things; ordered them in many cases. Crucifixion, on the other hand, is an invention of Man. Do you see my point now? Your reason for dragging Man's ill-behaviour into the discussion eludes me.

Rural Dean, you know ,more than most, that the Bible is not a straight-forward Instruction Manual on "How to relate to God"

It's a fascinating mixture of History, Philosophy, Poetry and most of all, allegory: plus, as you quote, a goodly number of cautionary tales written purely to keep the troops in line.

Also ,there's sage advice upon everyday life,such an interesting passage in the Book of Numbers that gives a sure-fire method of detecting an erring wife.

[ruraldean]

Rural Dean, you know ,more than most, that the Bible is not a straight-forward Instruction Manual on "How to relate to God"

It's a fascinating mixture of History, Philosophy, Poetry and most of all, allegory: plus, as you quote, a goodly number of cautionary tales written purely to keep the troops in line.

Also ,there's sage advice upon everyday life,such an interesting passage in the Book of Numbers that gives a sure-fire method of detecting an erring wife.

Not so neatly side-stepped PB. You and I both know exactly what the Bible is, and more importantly, isn't.

If it's The Word of God, then God is all I've said.

If it's not, then why give it mystical status, and why should I believe a word of it?