Question about Christianity.

[ambigous]

I'm interested to know what people think of my religion,and Christians in general..
I read this in the times a while ago..
"If I believed that Jesus was the son of God, and he could save all of us..
even if I believed just 1% of this, how could i care about what version of the prayer book I used? I would sell my house and all my possesions, and go out in to the world with a burning desire to find out more, and then tell everyone. Far from being surprised that a Jehovahs Witness or Mormon should knock on my door, I find it hard to believe that anyone who believes what is written in the Bible could spend their waking hours in any other endevaour".
Matthew Parris, an atheist writer in the Times
I see this as a inditment upon christians in general, and a motivation to christians. What is your opinion on this and Christians/Christianity in general?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Contrary to popular belief - I have no problem with Christians and to coin a phrase, some of my best friends are Christian.

I do of course hold all organised religions in contempt - for the simple reason that they generally it seems to me that it encourages apathy and dependence and historically have less than a glowing record.

Spirituality is a lot more constructive than religion - I mean just look at all the emotional baggage people who are brought up Catholic have to carry around.

[Anon.]

My parents are both very strong Christians, but would not describe themselves as "religious". My father, who was brought up in a devout Catholic family, holds that a stifling, organised religion of that sort is one of the major enemies of Christianity throughout the world.

I personally also think that if fewer Christians went about misguidedly trying to force their faith down other peoples' throats (I don't mean you, Comedy - I'm talking about people like Mrs Ross) people in general would have a lot more respect for them. Yes, Christians should spread the gospel (the "Great Commission", or whatever it is), but repeated suggestion is not the way forward.

I probably believe more of the stuff in the Bible than most Christians do, but wouldn't call myself a Christian. I believe Christianity should be about having a personal relationship with God (something I don't come anywhere close to having, and which I am not making any attempt to cultivate), not about sitting in a pew chiming in with the responses every Sunday.

[EviLTwiN]

First:- i apologise for this post sounding aggressive and rude, but that's how creationism makes me feel. My rant is not really against religion, but against fundamentalism...

-----------------------------------

as 10 said, i have no problem with religions, although i can't understand how normal everyday people can believe such things.

My problem is organisation of religion, because this almost always turns into a situation when power and internal religious politics come into play.

Religion,... if you're going to do it, do it privately. That sums it up pretty much.

Oh, one other thing, i wouldn't mind religion so much except for things like how in a large proportion of American schools (esp. in the south) they're forcing teachers to teach the "world was created in 7 days" thing as an equal SCIENTIFIC alternative to evolution. Many schools have banned evolution altogether.
Ok, if people still are stuck in the 17th century and want to believe that crap then fine, but i HATE it when they try to add false legitimacy to it by classing it as "science" and teaching it as such.

Forget Iraq! The most powerful nation in the world... 50% of it believes in creationism! That sort of blind faith and stupidity in the face of science fact is dangerous as hell. That sort of fundamentalism helps to cause things like the witch trials/burnings etc.

I wonder if Geogre W Bush believes in evolution or creationism...?

I propose that after iraq we have a campaign against dangerous fundamentalism.

OK so I'm joking, but you get the picture. I thought the world was developing fast. Obviously not that fast.

And it's depressing.

[Anon.]

Evolution is still only a theory. A theory with a considerable amount of evidence to support it, true, but not enough to prove it as a fact. Belief in evolution as a fact is unscientific, and as much a faith as belief in the creation.

[Little she-bear]

[s]Anon. wrote on 10:17, 21st Feb 2003:Belief in evolution as a fact is unscientific, and as much a faith as belief in the creation.


No, belief in evolution as the most likely true theory is not a matter of faith. It is based on a welter of relevant epistemological data, belief in creationism is fideistic.

[Sarah.]

Speaking as someone who started coming to the melville link group this year but was put off by the leader's behaviour outside of the group meetings and now have no urge to have any involvement with the CU whatsoever, even though i am a committed christian........

Ambigous - what do you think of Ephesians 5:18?

[Greebo]

[s]Anon. wrote on 10:17, 21st Feb 2003:
Evolution is still only a theory. A theory with a considerable amount of evidence to support it, true, but not enough to prove it as a fact.

Evolution is theory and fact - theories and facts aren't related in a way that makes them different steps on a ladder of certainty. Facts are the world's data, theories are ideas to interpret and explain facts.
Rival theories don't get rid of facts: Take gravity - theory AND fact. Einstein's theory replaced Newton's but that didn't mean gravity ceased to be fact.
In science, fact does NOT mean "absolute certainty", never has, no self-respecting scientist would ever claim that a theory is absolute truth as there can always be the chance that new evidence may arise that may change the theory. Ironically creationist "scientists" do just that.

Belief in evolution as a fact is unscientific, and as much a faith as belief in the creation.


That's BS - there is a huge amount of evidence backing up evolutionary theory, you said that yourself, in fact so far the more evidence that has arisen, the more it's been supported.
On the other hand there's sweet FA supporting creationism other than the Bible.

Much as I hate arguments citing authority, does the fact that 95% of scientists accept evolutionary theory not tell you something? Or that no creationist "scientist" has ever submitted evidence of creationism to peer review?

[Biitchboy]

It's not like creationism and evolution, etc are mutually exclusive. If I were a Christian, which I'm rather obviously not, I would probably believe that God created the world by starting off these processes, such as the Big Bang. He didn't just magic up people, but he set evolution, etc into motion to get to us. Blah blah blah. You get the idea.

[hr]If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

[S.P.I.G]

I hate them

[Rennie]

How can people possibly still believe that there is more truth in 'the world was creted in 7 days' than in the theories of the big bang and so on.

As someone already pointed out on this thread, the ONLY evidence for the 7 day idea is the Bible - somehow i don't rate this in terms of a scientific journal as highly as 300 years of scientific research and papers.

[James]

We seem to have lost the thread of this thread - but it's all interesting.

A couple of points:

- Evolutionism ... a scientific theory requiring absolute definitive proof, otherwise it should not be regarded as anything approaching true. Therefore ... provide such proof. And God? Well, if anyone ever tries to fully assess religion in the manner of science and the like, then they've missed the point. Christianity has to do with more than the physical world, so analysing it in purely physical terms is wrong. It is also possible to be a Christian who believes in Evolution.

- Teaching Creationism in schools ... wrong, of course, but it's likewise wrong to teach Evolutionism in a similarly bigotted way. "Choice" is the word we want.

- "Religion is OK just as long as you keep it private" (someone said that) ... that's fine until your religion requires that it is not kept private. Anyway, if you believe it's true, and the only truth, then surely you have an obligation to spread the word.

Someone else have a turn ...

---

Cf. Douglas Adams' use of the Bablefish and God.

[harmless loony]

Just a point to make - im not christian, i just studied RS (to A level - dont ask why??)


If u go back to the original version of the bible (the hebrew version) the word that we have now translated as "day" cud have another meaning "period of time". so it doesnt neccessarily mean the earth was created in 7 literal days. It could mean 7 periods of time. Some scientists have suggested that the big bang, etc may have taken place in 7 stages. So the 2 can necc. go together.

[Cola Cube]

Question.

How did those that write the bible know what happened? Perhaps they just wrote an explanation that in those days people could understand.

Announcing then that we were descended from monkeys would not, I think, have gone down well.

Also, I thought that the bible was not supposed to explain how thing happen or happened but WHY they do. For example, perhaps Noah didn't do the amazing feat he's said to have done, but the story teaches us nevertheless.

I apologise if the answer to my question is blindingly obvious, I haven't read the bible since I stopped going to church (a long time ago).

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I always asked my good friend Emma, why if God had told people to write the Bible it was so full of big areas that were hugely open to interpretation.

You'd think a supreme being would have done a better job on the prose.

[medea]

I'm going back to A level here so it could be a bit fuzzy...

The first 5 books of the Bible (Jewish Torah) were written down whilst the Hebrews had been exiled to Babylon. The older Hebrews saw that the younger ones were getting a bit carried away with the Babylonian culture / religion which was going on around them & realised that the 'old religion' was going to be lost unless they did something about it.

So they decided to write it down - hence Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy & Numbers - and maybe others but I can't remember.

Most Biblical scholars see the earlier parts of Genesis (eg/ Creation myth) as myth. Its aetiology: they didn't have science as we know it today but the people still wanted explanations for stuff

eg/ why do we speak diff langs? = Tower of Babel myth

eg/ why do we wear clothers? = Adam and Eve embarassment story

You see? But conversely, these stories had been oral tradition for centuries so obviously had to come from somewhere. Where however, we will probably never know but it is true that most creation / flood stories (and many more) are echoed in surrounding Near Eastern culture. For example - there's a Babylonian Noah story (he's called Utnapishtim) & a simliar (ish) Creation myth.

I'm a Christian myself & struggle with the whole of the above but I just can't ignore the historical facts & the likelyhood that the origin of some of the Genesis stuff does derive from the surrounding (and much older) cultures.

[Emma]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 17:21, 21st Feb 2003:
I always asked my good friend Emma

That's not me, btw. And I'm staying out of this one.


[hr]
'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Yeah but don't think I forget my promise to diss you on the Sinner!

[medea]

It's a shame that you left Link Group because of the leaders behaviour outside of the group, cos I'm pretty sure it didn't affect what he said in Link.

Contrary to popular belief, we Christians don't think that we're perfect in every way. And surely a leader has as much right to enjoy himself outside of his worship / study / debate etc. From the passage you quoted I think you mean the drink. Which, as I'm sure you know, many Christians (including myself) partake of.

Sorry to rant, cos I don't know you, but I do know the leader in question, and he is a decent guy. The leaders of the link groups are chosen because of their abilites as leaders and their knowledge of said subject, rather than their behavoiur outside (I think.)

I just think its a shame. And certainly not the best reason for leaving something you could potentially get a lot out of.

[Cola Cube]

I don't really take the religion of a person into account when I meet them. Whether or not they are a good person, to me is more important.

Not so sure about Brethren though.