Pards on Goals on Sunday

[landford.saint]

In the previous post, you set out comprehensively several examples of history being rewritten in Japan and Germany as recently as after the last great war. It is therefore not a great leap of imagination to assume that exactly the same thing has happened here, where over centuries a myth has arisen over this gate, to fit the Bible quotation. As the article and Stephen Fry said on QI, there was no evidence of this gate's existence and it only came to be mentioned at all since the 9th Century. Undoubtedly crowds of visitors since that time have been regaled with the tale and it has mistakenly become legend.

 

Easy to see how these things come about and illustrated well by an example I had personal experience of. In a mocked-up village in New Hampshire, local volunteers had formed an historical society and acted out the parts of the storekeeper, teacher, banker, etc in the authentic period costume of the early settlers . In the store, we were told that they stocked Denim from India. I had to correct him and inform him that it came from Nime in France, but there must have been several thousands of visitors who believe that it came from India.

 

The problem is where you get your 'knowledge'. I think Stephen Fry is a brilliant communicator and show host and I am an avid watcher of QI, but his shows information is only as good as the information gathered for him. There are often errors and mistakes in QI but that doesn't make it less entertaining... all information is only as good as the source. Dont take everything on TV spoken by so called experts as 'Gospel' (no pun intended). Most books are written with an adgenda in mind. And as for the accuracy of on-line information, there are absolutely no checks made on the acuracy and validity of most of the hogwash cited as facts.

[david in sweden]

The problem is where you get your 'knowledge'. I think Stephen Fry is a brilliant communicator and show host and I am an avid watcher of QI, but his shows information is only as good as the information gathered for him. There are often errors and mistakes in QI but that doesn't make it less entertaining... all information is only as good as the source. Dont take everything on TV spoken by so called experts as 'Gospel' (no pun intended). Most books are written with an adgenda in mind. And as for the accuracy of on-line information, there are absolutely no checks made on the acuracy and validity of most of the hogwash cited as facts.

 

I have to go along with that comment, Landford.

I really get angry at " information " sources - in mags. and TV / media outlets

that proclaim ..." ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ...." when in fact what they mean is ..." *** here are some facts that you might remember after your 20 second span of concentration is past...and you're no longer interested in listening to lots more boring facts."

 

 

*** No insult intended to anyone in particular...but why do you think politicians and speech-writers use 20 second long " sound bites " ?

[rpb]

Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.

 

Good points but if there is mention of Jesus by a genuine non-Christian historian of the time... How about the evidence of the Roman historian Josephus?

 

Antiquities 20:9.1 ... "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

 

Josephus was born around 30 AD so not far removed from the events.

[rpb]

The problem is where you get your 'knowledge'. I think Stephen Fry is a brilliant communicator and show host and I am an avid watcher of QI, but his shows information is only as good as the information gathered for him. There are often errors and mistakes in QI but that doesn't make it less entertaining... all information is only as good as the source.

 

QI claimed that the earth had more than one moon (Cruithne + several others) but it would seem that this was false ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne

 

(OK - I know that wikipedia isn't the most trustworthy of sources)

[david in sweden]

In the previous post,

 

Easy to see how these things come about and illustrated well by an example I had personal experience of. In a mocked-up village in New Hampshire, local volunteers had formed an historical society and acted out the parts of the storekeeper, teacher, banker, etc in the authentic period costume of the early settlers . In the store, we were told that they stocked Denim from India. I had to correct him and inform him that it came from Nime in France, but there must have been several thousands of visitors who believe that it came from India.

 

 

Good that we can still teach our "colonial cousins " something about history.

 

However, it may well be that the " denim " that they had, was indeed imported from India, (or anywhere else in the Far East) who seem to produce most of the vastly over-priced jeans that people wear today...and not necessarily from France.

 

As you correctly pointed out.." denim " was a product from Nimes in France, and known as " cord de' nimes ". As (some) historians will have it first marketed by a man named called ...Levi Strauss, a tent maker in the California Gold Rush of 1849 -on..who found the material was better suited to making harder-wearing trousers for the prospecters who spent most of their days on their knees panning for gold. (info.only from memory - no source)

 

However, I am fairly sure that Nimes produces very little " denim" nowadays despite the fact that the name still persists.

[Wes Tender]

Good that we can still teach our "colonial cousins " something about history.

 

However, it may well be that the " denim " that they had, was indeed imported from India, (or anywhere else in the Far East) who seem to produce most of the vastly over-priced jeans that people wear today...and not necessarily from France.

 

As you correctly pointed out.." denim " was a product from Nimes in France, and known as " cord de' nimes ". As (some) historians will have it first marketed by a man named called ...Levi Strauss, a tent maker in the California Gold Rush of 1849 -on..who found the material was better suited to making harder-wearing trousers for the prospecters who spent most of their days on their knees panning for gold. (info.only from memory - no source)

 

However, I am fairly sure that Nimes produces very little " denim" nowadays despite the fact that the name still persists.

 

I had heard that it was called Serge de Nimes. But after I took the guy to task, he earnestly made notes and informed me that they would do some research and correct his spiel if it was proven to be wrong. Granted that nowadays most of their Denim might indeed come from India or the Far East, but the point is that this village was an historical reconstruction much as Ironbridge is today, so everything should be accurate. As you say though, our American cousins do need to be corrected often on historical matters. It is a constant battle because Hollywood often rewrites our history to suit their own agendas. Classic examples often star our Antipodean friend Mel Gibson in anti-English propaganda on behalf of the American Scottish or Irish immigrants communities. Watch 101 Dalmations as a Yank and you'll even believe that the Cotswolds had racoons running wild about the place. They really must rate highly in the thick population stakes.

 

And of course, Plymouth has wrongly been associated with them as the place that the Pilgrim Fathers left from, instead of Southampton.

Edited 14 October, 2009 by Wes Tender
Added last line

[up and away]

Originally Posted by david in sweden

An explanation I heard was that the gate resembled a very large (sewing) needle, and was set in the wall near the main gate that people used, but animals passed through the " eye of the needle " (which most practically meant you didn't have to walk through camel dung, either.)

 

The " needle " was also a sort of " toll gate " that camels had to climb through to get into the city, and any crafty merchant trying to enter the city with an " overloaded " camel was forced to pay an extra tariff.

An ordinary person who led his animal throught he gate without hindrance - did so without having to pay the "congestion charge".

 

I have also read about the blocked-up gate. In fact several of the gates around the city have either been bricked up for security, or in the case of the gate opposite the Garden of Gethsemne, because there is a cementary right outside the bricked-up gate and no-one can desecrate it. (I've actually seen it, as I visited many years ago. FACT!

In the previous post, you set out comprehensively several examples of history being rewritten in Japan and Germany as recently as after the last great war. It is therefore not a great leap of imagination to assume that exactly the same thing has happened here, where over centuries a myth has arisen over this gate, to fit the Bible quotation. As the article and Stephen Fry said on QI, there was no evidence of this gate's existence and it only came to be mentioned at all since the 9th Century. Undoubtedly crowds of visitors since that time have been regaled with the tale and it has mistakenly become legend.

 

Easy to see how these things come about and illustrated well by an example I had personal experience of. In a mocked-up village in New Hampshire, local volunteers had formed an historical society and acted out the parts of the storekeeper, teacher, banker, etc in the authentic period costume of the early settlers . In the store, we were told that they stocked Denim from India. I had to correct him and inform him that it came from Nime in France, but there must have been several thousands of visitors who believe that it came from India.

 

There is a lot of confusion over this "eye of the needle" gate, mainly because of the interpretation put on it in the middle ages. The interpretation put on it from the middle ages was discounted, but obviously originated from local culture. There was an excellent program on C4 with Robert Beckford, where although discounting the middle age version, current digs had unearthed a gap in the original wall going back to the time of Jesus. One point discounted was that the original term could not have referred to an actual eye of a needle, this comparison would have absolutely no significance to the people of this time and be totally alien to their manner of thinking.

[landford.saint]

How good must people feel about Saints that we are discussing history, religion, etc. and not Football, relegation, The FA' s stipidity, lack of funds etc.

Brings a smile to an old cynical man.

[saintbletch]

There is a lot of confusion over this "eye of the needle" gate, mainly because of the interpretation put on it in the middle ages. The interpretation put on it from the middle ages was discounted, but obviously originated from local culture. There was an excellent program on C4 with Robert Beckford, where although discounting the middle age version, current digs had unearthed a gap in the original wall going back to the time of Jesus. One point discounted was that the original term could not have referred to an actual eye of a needle, this comparison would have absolutely no significance to the people of this time and be totally alien to their manner of thinking.

 

I've tried to stay out of this but have enjoyed the debate from a distance. Can I just clarify what you're saying? Genuinely confused - no agenda here.

 

Are you saying that the people of the time would not have used or understood the significance of the phrase "through the eye of a needle" BUT that the gate that may or may not have stood in the wall was known as the "eye of the needle"?

 

If you are then I don't understand how the phrase "through the eye of a needle" was NOT understood but that metaphor/idiom "the eye of a needle" used to describe the hole in wall was understood.

 

Unless of course the "eye of the needle" was by some coincidence the name of this small gate. But I don't understand how it would have got that name outside of some sort of metaphor/idiom.

 

One final point - the biblical quote that I see talks of "...eye of A needle" not "...eye of THE needle". i.e. it's a concept not literal.

[david in sweden]

I've tried to stay out of this but have enjoyed the debate from a distance. Can I just clarify what you're saying? Genuinely confused - no agenda here.

Are you saying that the people of the time would not have used or understood the significance of the phrase "through the eye of a needle" BUT that the gate that may or may not have stood in the wall was known as the "eye of the needle"?

If you are then I don't understand how the phrase "through the eye of a needle" was NOT understood but that metaphor/idiom "the eye of a needle" used to describe the hole in wall was understood.

Unless of course the "eye of the needle" was by some coincidence the name of this small gate. But I don't understand how it would have got that name outside of some sort of metaphor/idiom.

One final point - the biblical quote that I see talks of "...eye of A needlenot "...eye of THE needle". i.e. it's a concept not literal.

 

 

I'm back again on this one..and you have some good points, but..as I see it ,

 

The " needle " might have been fairly normal in cities, (though there were very few of those in OT times). People of the time would have been familiar with the concept of an overladen camel passing through the "eye " of the needle, and thus needing to pay an extra toll to the gatekeeeper.

Therefore, Jesus' analogy of passing through the " eye " unhindered must surely have been a familiar concept to them.

Obviously, people in later civilisations were more familiar with a needle being used for sewing thread, so the whole idea of a huge camel passing through

that " eye " would have been as ridiculous as it sounds.

We know Jesus spoke in parables, but there would have been little point in him talking to people in riddles, when his very idea was to impress people with good examples.

[SaintRobbie]

I'm back again on this one..and you have some good points, but..as I see it ,

 

The " needle " might have been fairly normal in cities, (though there were very few of those in OT times). People of the time would have been familiar with the concept of an overladen camel passing through the "eye " of the needle, and thus needing to pay an extra toll to the gatekeeeper.

Therefore, Jesus' analogy of passing through the " eye " unhindered must surely have been a familiar concept to them.

Obviously, people in later civilisations were more familiar with a needle being used for sewing thread, so the whole idea of a huge camel passing through

that " eye " would have been as ridiculous as it sounds.

We know Jesus spoke in parables, but there would have been little point in him talking to people in riddles, when his very idea was to impress people with good examples.

 

[david in sweden]

 

those Camels are only likely to get you there quicker !

[Marsdinho]

RPB - Can I refer you to one of my earleir posts vis-a-vis Josephus.

 

PS: Im serioulsy considering signing up as a full member, just so that I can continue this very interesting discussion.

 

MODS - Please dont lock this thread, its a very healthy debate. If yo have to do anything with this thread, please move it to the Lounge. cheers

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

RPB - Can I refer you to one of my earleir posts vis-a-vis Josephus.

 

PS: Im serioulsy considering signing up as a full member, just so that I can continue this very interesting discussion.

 

MODS - Please dont lock this thread, its a very healthy debate. If yo have to do anything with this thread, please move it to the Lounge. cheers

 

Hmmm - As The Lounge seems to have become a place where (as recently as two weeks ago) the 'powers that be' of this forum were quite happy to tolerate (encourage many might say) a serious criminal conspiracy and far right propaganda it's not a place the more upstanding members of this on-line community should probably visit .

[rpb]

RPB - Can I refer you to one of my earleir posts vis-a-vis Josephus.

 

Sorry Marsdinho, I missed that.

 

Mind you, if he was born four years after Jesus' reputed death he's pretty close to being an eye witness as plenty of people around at the time would have seen him. I was born soon after Hitler died but i don't doubt his existence...

[Legod Third Coming]

What is worrying about organised religion is that lack of evidence is alway met with a requirement to "have faith". In my view it is this blind acceptance rather than healthy debate which leads to fundamentalism and then perversion of the true faith. The Pope's view on contraception is a case in point. Surely a Jesus alive today would not condone a decision which immerses more humans into misery, hunger abs premature death?

 

And overall isn't it time we saw some real evidence of God?

 

To follow blindly is never ever healthy in my view.

[up and away]

I've tried to stay out of this but have enjoyed the debate from a distance. Can I just clarify what you're saying? Genuinely confused - no agenda here.

 

Are you saying that the people of the time would not have used or understood the significance of the phrase "through the eye of a needle" BUT that the gate that may or may not have stood in the wall was known as the "eye of the needle"?

 

If you are then I don't understand how the phrase "through the eye of a needle" was NOT understood but that metaphor/idiom "the eye of a needle" used to describe the hole in wall was understood.

 

Unless of course the "eye of the needle" was by some coincidence the name of this small gate. But I don't understand how it would have got that name outside of some sort of metaphor/idiom.

 

One final point - the biblical quote that I see talks of "...eye of A needle" not "...eye of THE needle". i.e. it's a concept not literal.

 

My main reference goes back to what Robert Beckford presented, backed up by leading American, English and Israeli professors (basically their views, not Beckfords). I cannot remember all the exact details but I would possibly guess that a word representing a small opening may be applied to a wall or a needle. The one thing they were consistent about was that the parable never referred to an actual needle. But as you say, if the term can be used for both an actual needle or something many times greater in a wall, how can you definitively say this was not in reference to an actual needle? I would guess that the exact meaning could be specifically defined by the object the word was associated with, something not uncommon.

 

As to the biblical quote, I have no idea. I don't know what definition of grammer could be defined from the original writings. Whether they were written at the time or several hundreds of years later. If what was quoted regading the "eye of the needle" could not be that of an actual needle, I would assume that what we have today is a later day interpretation of the parable.

 

Either way, it is not a question of what Jesus quoted, just the interpretation that exists today of that parable. Either would serve the same purpose equally well, but the interpretation with the gate looks far more applicable.

[David Strover]

I don't believe in God.

[david in sweden]

What is worrying about organised religion is that lack of evidence is alway met with a requirement to "have faith". In my view it is this blind acceptance rather than healthy debate which leads to fundamentalism and then perversion of the true faith. The Pope's view on contraception is a case in point. Surely a Jesus alive today would not condone a decision which immerses more humans into misery, hunger abs premature death?

And overall isn't it time we saw some real evidence of God?

To follow blindly is never ever healthy in my view.

 

 

Don't say that ..I've been following Saints blindly got the last 50 years !!!!

 

" organised religion "... another phrase I hate does lead to extremism in many cases but these are all products of cultural influences.

You named the Pope, and although he heads the largest Christian denomination (without the Catholic Church christiainity would never have got through the Dark Ages,) but Martin Luther read the same Bible but still denounced some practices in the RC church. Subsequent " movements " laid special emphasis on some certain lifestyles; The Quakers, The Methodist church, the Baptists, Salvation Army, and Pentecostal movements all have the same basic beliefs.

Many Christian figures in history were led to particular tasks; thousands of missionaries during the last 150 years went to all continents around the world carrying the Gospel message. Evangelists like the wesley Brothers, William Booth and D.L. Moody, Billy Graham, and Martin Luther King made an incredible impact on the lives of millions and women like Mother Theresa gave up their whole lives in service of the Christian faith.

It doesn't mean that we are all expected do the same, but God can inspire people to do both great and small works. Many Christians would say that they try hard and fail miserably, but still they feel the strength of God supporting them. Those who succeed have a vision of what they should do and often make great personal sacrifice - as Jesus did.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

What is worrying about organised religion is that lack of evidence is alway met with a requirement to "have faith". In my view it is this blind acceptance rather than healthy debate which leads to fundamentalism and then perversion of the true faith. The Pope's view on contraception is a case in point. Surely a Jesus alive today would not condone a decision which immerses more humans into misery, hunger abs premature death?

 

And overall isn't it time we saw some real evidence of God?

 

To follow blindly is never ever healthy in my view.

 

Religion in some form seems to be almost as old as mankind itself , it clearly has performed a deep seated need to explain the mysteries of existence before any strictly rational , evidence based explanations became widely available .

 

The modern world provides convincing scientific answers as to how the universe really works (incomplete as they clearly are) and this must surly go a long way towards explaining why belief in organised religion is in long term decline in educated western society at least . For example who really believes anymore that the Earth was created complete by God in 6 days a few thousand years ago when the fossil record , Darwin's 'Origin of Species' and a mass of incontrovertible geological evidence tells you something very different ?

 

If you can intellectually except the bleak 'truth' that death is truly the final end of a human beings existence (as I have) and that Heaven or Hell and the very idea of the Human Soul are merely the inventions of mankind then the final need for religious faith must fade into history - this is humanity's distant future I believe .

 

Not everyone is prepared to accept the above however and why should they ? For countless millions of perfectly bright and intelligent people the need for life to hold some greater meaning than just the struggle for survival and the understandable human desire for belief in a afterlife require that faith in some power greater than themselves is manifested - this inherent need is the basic underpinning of all religious faith down through the ages in my view .

 

For all it's faults and inconsistencies , for all the grave crimes that have been committed in its name Christianity still provides much meaning , comfort and wisdom to its followers , whatever helps people get through their day must be worthwhile I'd say . As long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on everybody else then surely the survival of the Christian faith has to be seen as a welcome aspect of our continuing humanity .

[saintbletch]

What is worrying about organised religion is that lack of evidence is alway met with a requirement to "have faith". In my view it is this blind acceptance rather than healthy debate which leads to fundamentalism and then perversion of the true faith. The Pope's view on contraception is a case in point. Surely a Jesus alive today would not condone a decision which immerses more humans into misery, hunger abs premature death?

 

And overall isn't it time we saw some real evidence of God?

 

To follow blindly is never ever healthy in my view.

 

Don't know that I agree. I'm not a believer BTW so I may not be qualified on matters of faith.

 

However, I don't see a direct link between faith and fundamentalism. I know many people of faith who are not fundamentalists.

 

I think the point where you and I appear to agree is that religion should be interpreted in the context of the current times. I heard a very interesting interview today with Geert Vilders (Dutch MP on an anti-Islam ticket) where he expressed his dislike of Islam because to its believers, the Koran is actually the word of Allah and as such must be interpreted literally and is not open to interpretation.

 

He believes that it is this fact that leads to Muslim Fundamentalism. Whereas he pointed out that Christian teachings were recorded by scholars after the supposed (my term, not his) fact and therefore followers strive to work out the meaning of the text of the bible - as people are doing here. A luxury not given to Muslims as they believe that they are dealing with the word of Allah.

 

I have no alignment to the general views of Vilders, but I did think the distinction he made between the two religions was very interesting.

[madruss]

Religion in some form seems to be almost as old as mankind itself , it clearly has performed a deep seated need to explain the mysteries of existence before any strictly rational , evidence based explanations became widely available .

 

The modern world provides convincing scientific answers as to how the universe really works (incomplete as they clearly are) and this must surly go a long way towards explaining why belief in organised religion is in long term decline in educated western society at least . For example who really believes anymore that the Earth was created complete by God in 6 days a few thousand years ago when the fossil record , Darwin's 'Origin of Species' and a mass of incontrovertible geological evidence tells you something very different ?

 

If you can intellectually except the bleak 'truth' that death is truly the final end of a human beings existence (as I have) and that Heaven or Hell and the very idea of the Human Soul are merely the inventions of mankind then the final need for religious faith must fade into history - this is humanity's distant future I believe .

 

Not everyone is prepared to accept the above however and why should they ? For countless millions of perfectly bright and intelligent people the need for life to hold some greater meaning than just the struggle for survival and the understandable human desire for belief in a afterlife require that faith in some power greater than themselves is manifested - this inherent need is the basic underpinning of all religious faith down through the ages in my view .

 

For all it's faults and inconsistencies , for all the grave crimes that have been committed in its name Christianity still provides much meaning , comfort and wisdom to its followers , whatever helps people get through their day must be worthwhile I'd say . As long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on everybody else then surely the survival of the Christian faith has to be seen as a welcome aspect of our continuing humanity .

 

+1

 

This is some quality debatin' a happenin' on this thread! I could only hope to produce such an eloquent summation of religion and the human condition! Top notch Sir!

[Saint Fan CaM]

What is worrying about organised religion is that lack of evidence is alway met with a requirement to "have faith". In my view it is this blind acceptance rather than healthy debate which leads to fundamentalism and then perversion of the true faith. The Pope's view on contraception is a case in point. Surely a Jesus alive today would not condone a decision which immerses more humans into misery, hunger abs premature death?

 

And overall isn't it time we saw some real evidence of God?

 

To follow blindly is never ever healthy in my view.

 

 

Why does that matter? And who's God should we see? If there is such an entity as 'God', why should we be able to see Him/Her/Them/It atall?

 

I am of the view that IF there is some form of life after death, we have no chance of ever coming close to imagining what that would be like. At the same level as a stone-age man not having a vision of riding a bicycle or turning on a light-switch for example. These everyday acts would be beyond not only his comprehension, but completely outside the context of his life entirely. Even though we have the intelligence to discuss 'after-life', this will never bring us closer to actual knowledge of what that experience might be. Faith means accepting that we will not know until we die - so why bother arguing and killing in the name of something that cannot be proven?

 

Fact is, the evidence is impossible to obtain, so why not leave that quest behind? The sooner the human race collectively starts looking for the answers to the problems it faces in bettering the lives of all LIVING humans rather than relying on antiquated beliefs to drive the important aspects of life like compassion, love, sincerity etc, the closer to true divinity we will all be.

Edited 15 October, 2009 by Saint Fan CaM

[trousers]

FFS

[ericofarabia]

 

I am not The Messiah, and WTF is this fred still doing on The SFC page :confused:

[dubai_phil]

 

I am not The Messiah, and WTF is this fred still doing on The SFC page :confused:

 

lol...

 

Don't worry about them Eric, only another few years and their PC police will have forcibly assimilated them into "the other lot" in case somebody causes offence by trying to go to Lidl's during prayer time.

[dellboypete]

 

I am not The Messiah, and WTF is this fred still doing on The SFC page :confused:

 

 

Hi Eric & Phil,

 

You might feel at home next time you back to blighty if the uk ragheads have their way..............

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/134080/Now-Muslims-demand-Give-us-full-Sharia-law

[trousers]

Before my next post, can I just clarify the SWF policy on posting pictures of Mohammed....?

[landford.saint]

Religion in some form seems to be almost as old as mankind itself , it clearly has performed a deep seated need to explain the mysteries of existence before any strictly rational , evidence based explanations became widely available .

 

The modern world provides convincing scientific answers as to how the universe really works (incomplete as they clearly are) and this must surly go a long way towards explaining why belief in organised religion is in long term decline in educated western society at least . For example who really believes anymore that the Earth was created complete by God in 6 days a few thousand years ago when the fossil record , Darwin's 'Origin of Species' and a mass of incontrovertible geological evidence tells you something very different ?

 

If you can intellectually except the bleak 'truth' that death is truly the final end of a human beings existence (as I have) and that Heaven or Hell and the very idea of the Human Soul are merely the inventions of mankind then the final need for religious faith must fade into history - this is humanity's distant future I believe .

 

Not everyone is prepared to accept the above however and why should they ? For countless millions of perfectly bright and intelligent people the need for life to hold some greater meaning than just the struggle for survival and the understandable human desire for belief in a afterlife require that faith in some power greater than themselves is manifested - this inherent need is the basic underpinning of all religious faith down through the ages in my view .

 

For all it's faults and inconsistencies , for all the grave crimes that have been committed in its name Christianity still provides much meaning , comfort and wisdom to its followers , whatever helps people get through their day must be worthwhile I'd say . As long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on everybody else then surely the survival of the Christian faith has to be seen as a welcome aspect of our continuing humanity .

 

The problem with stating that organised religion is in decline in the western world is both true and false at the same time..

In Britain and Europe the method of establishing religious service attendance had been to simply obtain data from the main orthodox churches. I.e. Church of England (CoE), Roman Catholic (RC), etc. It is true that the attendence to these have been on the decline since the 1960's. However the establishment of many non-denominational and independent churches, makes the collecting of accurate data more problematic. There are many independent churches in this country and world wide that have seen their attendee's (congregations) grow enormously. Sometimes to the thousands.

Therefore the data collection process is questionable, making the resultant data unreliable.

When census are done people have traditionally stated they are CoE, RC, Jewish, etc. when in reality like recently times, they only step inside a chuch/synagoge/temple etc for christenings, marriages and funerals.

In fact recent enquiries into peoples 'spirtitual' beliefs and attitude, show that more than ever people are searching for spiritual guidance and the answer to the question of 'life the universe and everything' (and before you say, I know its 42).

 

Modern science is not contradicting the Bibles account of creation, in some way it is confirming it. If you accept the basic premis that the first 5 books of the Bible (the Jewish Torah) were dictated by Moses to his scibe (secretary), even if you believe they were written much later they are indisputably thousands of years old. Moses (or the writer) was describing events and happenings to a people not as scientifically as knowledgable as us. They had to be explained in a format that could be understood by the people at that time. It would have been useless trying to explain particle physics to a person who had no comprehension of basic elements (not earth.air,fire and water).

I am definately no scientist, but as far as I can see each step in the creation story takes place in the order scientists believe they occurred. The universe first and man last. As far as on the seven days are concerned, how would you explain several million/billion years to someone with a lifetime of may be 70 at best and probably 40 on average. A day is just a method of determining a period of time, or a part of a process.

 

Personally the idea that the 'bleak truth' is that there is no afterlife, and that this is it, if I believed that it would truely be 'bleak'. But the implication that this is a 'truth' is in some way assumptive. I am a Christian, and believe in God, but if you asked me to prove conclussively Gods existance, I could not. It is my own personal belief and experience. Likewise if I asked you to prove there is no God, you could similarly not be able to prove conclussively there was not.

Edited 15 October, 2009 by landford.saint
spelling

[SW11_Saint]

I'm still trying to work out how we got from Pards on 'Goals on Sunday', to a theological debate?!

 

PS I won't enter it, but I will say Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" is a very thought provoking read if anyone is interested...

[landford.saint]

I'm still trying to work out how we got from Pards on 'Goals on Sunday', to a theological debate?!

 

PS I won't enter it, but I will say Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" is a very thought provoking read if anyone is interested...

 

With a team nicknamed The Saints, a theological debate was almost inevitable.

[benjii]

I'm still trying to work out how we got from Pards on 'Goals on Sunday', to a theological debate?!

 

PS I won't enter it, but I will say Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" is a very thought provoking read if anyone is interested...

 

Dawkins get my goat a bit. He is just as much a dogmatist as the religious folk he castigates and often glosses over the gap between "science" as a practical tool and "science" as an epistemelogical method.

[Saint Fan CaM]

The path to divinity (whatever God you chose to believe in) will only be realised in the positive actions and thoughts that we as individuals exhibit in our free will. Unfortunately this meaning has been diluted and distorted over the centuries by the religions of mankind. For example, do you become closer to God by attending church every Sunday and begging forgiveness or by freely showing a stranger kindness in someway? Actions speak much louder than words. And with that, although the debate is enjoyable and informative, I'm out.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Dawkins get my goat a bit. He is just as much a dogmatist as the religious folk he castigates and often glosses over the gap between "science" as a practical tool and "science" as an epistemelogical method.

 

 

Agreed, but perhaps he feels that force of arguement is needed to counter the balance away from the 'religious' angle?

 

(Blast - got dragged in again).

[dubai_phil]

Noetics

 

Dan Brown

 

simples

 

Hi Eric & Phil,

 

You might feel at home next time you back to blighty if the uk ragheads have their way..............

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ull-Sharia-law

 

Well that's your PC crew for you. Here we sit in a Muslim World, with one easy mantra. Respect each other. This is the UAE this is what we are as a culture and a people, you do your thing and we'll do ours.

But if you don't like something then fook off.

 

Back there - guys, you'll be banning women from driving next...;

 

Now there's an

 

No soccer matches duirng daytime in Ramadan and a weekend of Friday and Saturday in case the 25 people left who go to church each week offend a working Muslim shopkeeper

[RonManager]

To quote Cheech & Chong -

 

'Once, I was all messed up on drugs,

 

Then.....

 

I heard the word of the Lord,

 

And now.......

 

I'm all messed up on the Lord'.

[benjii]

The problem with stating that organised religion is in decline in the western world is both true and false at the same time..

In Britain and Europe the method of establishing religious service attendance had been to simply obtain data from the main orthodox churches. I.e. Church of England (CoE), Roman Catholic (RC), etc. It is true that the attendence to these have been on the decline since the 1960's. However the establishment of many non-denominational and independent churches, makes the collecting of accurate data more problematic. There are many independent churches in this country and world wide that have seen their attendee's (congregations) grow enormously. Sometimes to the thousands.

Therefore the data collection process is questionable, making the resultant data unreliable.

When census are done people have traditionally stated they are CoE, RC, Jewish, etc. when in reality like recently times, they only step inside a chuch/synagoge/temple etc for christenings, marriages and funerals.

In fact recent enquiries into peoples 'spirtitual' beliefs and attitude, show that more than ever people are searching for spiritual guidance and the answer to the question of 'life the universe and everything' (and before you say, I know its 42).

 

Modern science is not contradicting the Bibles account of creation, in some way it is confirming it. If you accept the basic premis that the first 5 books of the Bible (the Jewish Torah) were dictated by Moses to his scibe (secretary), even if you believe they were written much later they are indisputably thousands of years old. Moses (or the writer) was describing events and happenings to a people not as scientifically as knowledgable as us. They had to be explained in a format that could be understood by the people at that time. It would have been useless trying to explain particle physics to a person who had no comprehension of basic elements (not earth.air,fire and water).

I am definately no scientist, but as far as I can see each step in the creation story takes place in the order scientists believe they occurred. The universe first and man last. As far as on the seven days are concerned, how would you explain several million/billion years to someone with a lifetime of may be 70 at best and probably 40 on average. A day is just a method of determining a period of time, or a part of a process.

 

Personally the idea that the 'bleak truth' is that there is no afterlife, and that this is it, if I believed that it would truely be 'bleak'. But the implication that this is a 'truth' is in some way assumptive. I am a Christian, and believe in God, but if you asked me to prove conclussively Gods existance, I could not. It is my own personal belief and experience. Likewise if I asked you to prove there is no God, you could similarly not be able to prove conclussively there was not.

 

 

I love these kinds of bizarre pounding exercises that religious types do. Wildly inventive!

[dubai_phil]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

 

Burn the witch

 

Except that she is an emminent scholar and strong believer

[Saint Fan CaM]

Personally the idea that the 'bleak truth' is that there is no afterlife, and that this is it, if I believed that it would truely be 'bleak'. But the implication that this is a 'truth' is in some way assumptive. I am a Christian, and believe in God, but if you asked me to prove conclussively Gods existance, I could not. It is my own personal belief and experience. Likewise if I asked you to prove there is no God, you could similarly not be able to prove conclussively there was not.

 

The idea that an after-life was possible was born out of myth and superstution thousands of years ago in societies we have no grasp of really understanding as we cannot 'wind-back' our intelligence to those ages. Its relationship to the modern religions has IMO inhibited mans ability to mature further and this has been perpetuated by all the relegious faiths. I would contest the bleakness of no after-life is felt because our everyday lives are somewhat empty and devoid of true fulfillment as an advanced modern society.

 

As you say, nobody can prove or dis-prove whether a 'God' exists or if an after-life is around the corner - so why not ignore these unsolvable problems and get on with making life bearable for ALL humanity? THAT would be a wonderful thing indeed.

Edited 15 October, 2009 by Saint Fan CaM
typo

[landford.saint]

The path to divinity (whatever God you chose to believe in) will only be realised in the positive actions and thoughts that we as individuals exhibit in our free will. Unfortunately this meaning has been diluted and distorted over the centuries by the religions of mankind. For example, do you become closer to God by attending church every Sunday and begging forgiveness or by freely showing a stranger kindness in someway? Actions speak much louder than words. And with that, although the debate is enjoyable and informative, I'm out.

 

To quote the Bible 'By their fruits you shall know them'.

Basically I agree with you,

Does pomp and ceremony make you a christian (or jew, or hindu, or whatever), may make you 'religious' but more than that? Probably why Church of England etc. have been in decline, all religious ceremony and practices, and forgetting the spiritual.

[Saint Fan CaM]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

 

Burn the witch

 

Except that she is an emminent scholar and strong believer

 

 

Ah, so God may in fact be a biologist or indeed a geneticist?

[landford.saint]

As you say, nobody can prove or dis-prove whether a 'God' exists or if an after-life is around the corner - so why not ignore these unsolvable problems and get on with making live bearable for ALL humanity? THAT would be a wonderful thing indeed.

 

I agree. Thats its unsolvable as far science is concerned. However unsolvable on a personal level that is a different matter. It is not in humankinds nature to ignore something because its unsolvable, in fact thats the reason many major advances in science and technology have occurred. Solving the assummed unsolvable is a human trait.

Making life bearable for all of humanity, how could anyone argue with that. (Unless you are an american arguing against health care, thats something I cant understand).

[sussexsaint]

Seriously though WTF is this still doing on the main board? and how in hell did we get here from Alan Pardew on Goals on Sunday, could understand if he was on 'Songs of Praise'

 

that music still makes me think I should be doing my geography homework

[dubai_phil]

To quote the Bible 'By their fruits you shall know them'.

Basically I agree with you,

Does pomp and ceremony make you a christian (or jew, or hindu, or whatever), may make you 'religious' but more than that? Probably why Church of England etc. have been in decline, all religious ceremony and practices, and forgetting the spiritual.

 

Had great fun while in the US winding up a Lutheran and a Jew. One of the points that came up was the comment that organised religion really has become simply "another Multi-National Corporation" offering career paths to it's employees and "due process" to it's customer base.

 

Without doubt they play a vital and valid role in the lives of many many people.

 

Down here we have what we refer to as the "Church Souq" which is basically one building, unadorned in the manner of "Higher Churches" where people can choose to go to worship in whichever system they wish.

 

The resident clerics have a far different role, operating in a world where many values or ways of doing things that are taken for granted at home do not exist. The occassions I have been to these, sermons have taken on a different angle, often educational rather than "preaching"

 

I have found them far more "interesting or even uplifting" than the trips I remember from my younger days to the .

 

Anyway, it matters not, WW3 started years ago, we just haven't figured it out yet

[landford.saint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

 

Burn the witch

 

Except that she is an emminent scholar and strong believer

 

I like the way she says the Hebrew word bara doesn't mean 'to create' but it means 'to seperate'.. then she later says 'bara' does mean 'to create'. ???????

[saintbletch]

Dawkins get my goat a bit. He is just as much a dogmatist as the religious folk he castigates and often glosses over the gap between "science" as a practical tool and "science" as an epistemelogical method.

 

I agree (once I'd looked up epistemological that is). I enjoyed reading the God Delusion but was left feeling that Dawkins was 'religiously' anti-religious. It's belief systems in general that I have an issue with and Dawkins almost tries to turn science into a belief system. Smart bloke though.

[trousers]

I am definately no scientist, but as far as I can see each step in the creation story takes place in the order scientists believe they occurred. The universe first and man last.

 

It was a bit sloppy of God not to give the poor old dinosaurs a mention in his biography though.

[benjii]

I agree (once I'd looked up epistemological that is). I enjoyed reading the God Delusion but was left feeling that Dawkins was 'religiously' anti-religious. It's belief systems in general that I have an issue with and Dawkins almost tries to turn science into a belief system. Smart bloke though.

 

Indeed. If one were to conduct a tick box exercise in terms of the things that annoy them about evangelical religious behaviour then Dawkins would check most of them.

 

That said, he does make a valid contribution and it's always entertaining to see his exchanges with religious figures.

 

On a slightly different note, but very much in relation to the "human condition" (in fact the condition of all life) you might want to check out his "The Selfish Gene".

[benjii]

It was a bit sloppy of God not to give the poor old dinosaurs a mention in his biography though.

 

Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.

[RonManager]

Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.

 

Are you implying that the dinosaurs were all mad?

 

What about ladybirds?