Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 (edited) Brilliant. Sweeping generalisations completely devoid of any examples. I didn't give any examples because I thought surely everyone already knew this! Aztecs, Romans, Egyptians etc etc(list could go on a long time) all had religious buildings built by slaves All medieval European religious buildings were largely built by down trodden repressed peasants A large number of Christian Churches were built using slaves until the emancipation in the 19th Century Any beauty derived from a large number of historic religious buildings imo is wiped out by the pain, deaths caused and lack of human rights used in their construction. Edited 7 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 Any beauty derived from a large number of historic religious buildings imo is wiped out by the pain, deaths caused and lack of human rights used in their construction. Well I couldn't give a monkey's and I stand by my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 (edited) Well I couldn't give a monkey's and I stand by my statement. So the monuments of slavery and oppression are fine in your eyes? If the Mona Lisa was made using paint mixed with the blood of a slave would that make it ok or would the painting lose any of your respect? Edited 7 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 It wouldn't lose any artistic or aesthetic merit. It might even gain some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 (edited) It wouldn't lose any artistic or aesthetic merit. It might even gain some. It loses my respect as the only way they were constructed was through employing a lack of human rights and use of slavery. The beauty of something is not just how it looks aesthetically but should also include the ethics from which it was derived. Beautiful architecture and art doesn't need religion as an inspirational, it would still occur in a world free from religion. Religion just happened to have a large influence at the times of construction of these buildings and art with its influence/power/money and employed slavery in which to complete them. A world free from religion would create better and more beautiful art as it wouldn't be based on superstition and bronze age myths and instead would free the human creative mind without religious connotations or restrictions on creativity due to religious beliefs. Edited 7 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 7 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 November, 2009 the proof that he doesnt exist is that there isnt any he does( and dont say the world we live in ) Correct and that's what Pancake in particular has been discussing over the previous 249 posts. It is the ultimate dilemma with absence of proof whichever side of the fence you sit, unless you're agnostic and are sitting on the the fence waiting to join the winning side. So what makes some take that leap of faith and others unable to do so? Agnostic is no bad thing IMO provided you try to develop yourself within some moral compass. It's a bit like supporting Saints in the JPT. I believe they shoudln't be in it and would be happy if they get knocked out during the week but if they go and win and win through to the final my lack of faith would have been proved wrong and I can join the Wembley party! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 It loses my respect as the only way they were constructed was through employing a lack of human rights and use of slavery. The beauty of something is not just how it looks aesthetically but should also include the ethics from which it was derived. Beautiful architecture and art doesn't need religion as an inspirational, it would still occur in a world free from religion. Religion just happened to have a large influence at the times of construction of these buildings and art with its influence/power/money and employed slavery in which to complete them. A world free from religion would create better and more beautiful art as it wouldn't be based on superstition and bronze age myths and instead would free the human creative mind without religious connotations or restrictions on creativity due to religious beliefs. What a ridiculous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 (edited) What a ridiculous statement. Care to elaborate why? Religion creates rules for itself which restrict what you can and can't do with art or architecture. With no religion the creative spirit of the human mind can run free and express itself with freedom. By no way does this mean every secular art work or building is more beautiful than a religious one but it does allow for the possibility of unrestricted creativity. But then of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder Edited 7 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 7 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 November, 2009 Lol - old Freddy was a bit of a character. The Chapter "Why I am so Great" in Ecce Homo! (no twittering at the back) being an example. He was actually suffering from mental health problems in some of his later writings. He's not someone you should read if you're looking for a system but yet he does give you sudden moments of clarity - he has an ability to create some of the most cutting and insightul prose. An absolute genius. I reccommend reading biographical works about him as he is quite fascinating. Not sure if this piece of 'how good am I' came from the chapter you mention but as far as blowing your own trumpet it was fairly impressive. 'Why do I know more than other people? Why, in general, am I so clever? I have never pondered over questions that are not really questions. I have never wasted my strength. I have no experience. for instance, of actual religous difficulties.' He then goes on in this extract to talk about the crassness of God as a solution and how he is quite unacquainted with atheism which I found a contradiction but presumably he is suggesting if you are so sure something doesn't exist how can you be labelled as such? Tbh Benjii I am only scratching the surface of some of these philiosphers at the moment but this guy would make Brian Clough look shy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 7 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 November, 2009 It loses my respect as the only way they were constructed was through employing a lack of human rights and use of slavery. The beauty of something is not just how it looks aesthetically but should also include the ethics from which it was derived. Beautiful architecture and art doesn't need religion as an inspirational, it would still occur in a world free from religion. Religion just happened to have a large influence at the times of construction of these buildings and art with its influence/power/money and employed slavery in which to complete them. A world free from religion would create better and more beautiful art as it wouldn't be based on superstition and bronze age myths and instead would free the human creative mind without religious connotations or restrictions on creativity due to religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] Reading everyones views and what I have read about existentialism I think having no religion at all would create some form of anarchy with everyone living their lives by their own codes or codes of 1,000s of secular groups and eventually with time probably intent on destroying the works and architecture of other groups. Perhaps not unlike we have today with some religious extremists wanting to make their point in the most damaging ways but simply multiplied many times. A few days ago I might have said watching the news something like 'religion is the root of all evil'. Now I'm not sure if the alternative (no gods, no religion) would actually be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 (edited) Reading everyones views and what I have read about existentialism I think having no religion at all would create some form of anarchy with everyone living their lives by their own codes or codes of 1,000s of secular groups and eventually with time probably intent on destroying the works and architecture of other groups. Perhaps not unlike we have today with some religious extremists wanting to make their point in the most damaging ways but simply multiplied many times. A few days ago I might have said watching the news something like 'religion is the root of all evil'. Now I'm not sure if the alternative (no gods, no religion) would actually be worse. Human history has had 10,000 different Gods worshipped. Think of all the damage interaction between groups creating codes out of worship of them has caused. If the whole world had no concept of religion anymore why would that create anarchy? I have no religion yet I am still able to be a moral person creating morals for myself that would be acceptable way to life you life for most Christians. Are you telling me that before God gave the Jews the 10 commandments that the Jews didn't already know that murder or theft was wrong? Edited 7 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 7 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 November, 2009 Human history has had 10,000 different Gods worshipped. Think of all the damage interaction between groups creating codes out of worship of them has caused. If the whole world had no concept of religion anymore why would that create anarchy? I have no religion yet I am still able to be a moral person creating morals for myself that would be acceptable way to life you life for most Christians. Are you telling me that before God gave the Jews the 10 commandments that the Jews didn't already know that murder or theft was wrong? I don't know but it is odd that it's such a round number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 (edited) I don't know but it is odd that it's such a round number. What don't you know? I asked 2 questions. I said 10,000 and I rounded it, academic research has created a list of approximately 10k Gods in recorded human history. That list will or course be much larger due to some societies being lost in time and others not recording Gods they worshipped. It is not a point of dispute though as there is good evidence showing these 10k Gods. Edited 7 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 I'm a christian. I can't really prove God exists, but I will tell you why I think he exists. I was on a gap year I took helping in Africa last year. I was in Gambia and was in a small village which was worshiping God inside the local church. There was a crowd laying hands on this blind man who had the 'milkyest' blind eyes I'd ever seen. So I layed hands on him and started praying with the others, I literally saw his eyes heal. In front of me. I wouldn't lie about this, nor was I affected by the heat. It was a miracle and that's how I feel there is a higher power above us. It all comes from personal experiences, ones which when other people hear about it, is going to be hard for them to imagine. That's because it's the only proof which will convince people without God popping out from the clouds and saying 'Hey' to everyone. The whole deal of getting into heaven is if whether you chose to acknowledge what people said about God from your time on earth. That's why there has to be skepticism, it's a test of faith. Some of the comments on here are just quite concerning though. I remember reading someone who said "they automatically judge people if they say they are a christian". Come on, be fair. Judge the ones who push their faith on you by all means, but when someone like me who would rather have a pint down the pub and talk crap all night says I'm a christian, you would be judging? That's surely a religious form of racism! MLG is probably just trolling. I mean seriously, someone can't bring up some unproven fact about how religion has caused all the wars in the world and not bring up the worldwide help millions of faith based organizations have given. No-one could be that stupid. My two cents. Summary - I won't make you believe what you don't want to. I want the same treatment. Talking of eyes... excerpt from an interview with Sir David Attenborough on among other things getting hate mail from creationists. Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/27/david-attenborough-science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 Care to elaborate why? Religion creates rules for itself which restrict what you can and can't do with art or architecture. With no religion the creative spirit of the human mind can run free and express itself with freedom. By no way does this mean every secular art work or building is more beautiful than a religious one but it does allow for the possibility of unrestricted creativity. But then of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder Well, either religion is "truth" or it isn't. If it isn't it is a construct of the human mind. Therefore the notion that it's destruction would somehow "free" the human mind is a tad paradoxical IMO. Further, I just don't agree with the more general point that it somehow stifles artistic expression. It may stiffle a few individuals but the true artists have been inspired by it to varying degrees, not curtailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 Well, either religion is "truth" or it isn't. If it isn't it is a construct of the human mind. Therefore the notion that it's destruction would somehow "free" the human mind is a tad paradoxical IMO. How is it a paradox? Not every human mind is a religious one. I am free from religious beliefs and if I were an architect I would be free to design buildings for public spaces or as an artist paint a picture or movie director make a film without the need to make sure it didn't offend or go against any religious scripture. A world with no religion equals creative freedom without restriction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 7 November, 2009 Share Posted 7 November, 2009 19C, has your search for atheistic/existential philosophy found its way to Camus yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 8 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 8 November, 2009 19C' date=' has your search for atheistic/existential philosophy found its way to Camus yet?[/quote'] No but I think I mentioned his name in my opening post so is on my list to research. I'm not the quickest of readers and some of this stuff you finish reading a couple of pages of a book or articles on the net and you realise you 've read some words on a page but have no idea what it was about! Reading everything at least twice so it's slow going. I take it you recommend Camus? I can only hope he is less arrogant than Neitsche and less obtuse than Sartre who from little I have read is difficult to understand (and French). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSaint Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 Any beauty derived from a large number of historic religious buildings imo is wiped out by the pain, deaths caused and lack of human rights used in their construction. Out of interest, can you draw up a list of comparable non-religious buildings deemed 'artistic' and then prove that their construction was totally humane? Besides, what is preventing us from appreciating the human engineering, artistic talent and asthetic pleasure it gives me.... but also feeling a bit bad for the nature of it's construction? I could do that. ] A world free from religion would create better and more beautiful art as it wouldn't be based on superstition and bronze age myths and instead would free the human creative mind without religious connotations or restrictions on creativity due to religious beliefs. You are dismissing the nature of an artist's or artisan's own unique style and interpretation because the subject matter just happens to be religious (whether they were ordered to to do it or not)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 No but I think I mentioned his name in my opening post so is on my list to research. I'm not the quickest of readers and some of this stuff you finish reading a couple of pages of a book or articles on the net and you realise you 've read some words on a page but have no idea what it was about! Reading everything at least twice so it's slow going. I take it you recommend Camus? I can only hope he is less arrogant than Neitsche and less obtuse than Sartre who from little I have read is difficult to understand (and French). He's brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 You are dismissing the nature of an artist's or artisan's own unique style and interpretation because the subject matter just happens to be religious (whether they were ordered to to do it or not)? Caravaggio springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 8 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 8 November, 2009 I see the moderation police have decided to change a clever twist on a well known book to suggest I have simply copied the title of that book instead of developing a hook to get people to read this thread - very sad but that's unnecessary censorship for you. The thread was called Le God Delusion and to my knowledge a thread name without copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 He's brilliant. At goalkeeping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 I see the moderation police have decided to change a clever twist on a well known book to suggest I have simply copied the title of that book instead of developing a hook to get people to read this thread - very sad but that's unnecessary censorship for you. The thread was called Le God Delusion and to my knowledge a thread name without copyright.I noticed that. Not the first time a perfectly reasonable title has been changed without the posters consent. I am getting a little worried about such alterations. What next, altering posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 At goalkeeping? Apparently. Algiers Uni FC (I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 I noticed that. Not the first time a perfectly nonsensical title has been reasonably changed without the posters consent. I am not at all worried about such alterations. Hopefully, they'll be altering posts soon! Quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 I asked all these sorts of questions when I was in my early twenties (I have a degree in Philosophy and ancient Greek) and there is no right answer. I believed in a more or less Christian God back then - 30 years on I am still convinced there's a God but the nature of said God, supreme being whatever, .....my beliefs have changed. I don't believe in a God whose followers say is the only God that all other Gods are false etc. I do believe that there is an intelligence out there and not necessarily a personal God...... I am not a creationist either but Darwin's evolution only makes sense to me if I consider that other factors imight be involved....why do so many animals have 2 legs 5 fingers etc? Fibonacci sequences in nature I have almost finished my third glass of wine Jedward survived and my belief structure is dented..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanovski Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 TBH i dont not believe in god i jsut take it for what it is im just your average kid when it comes down to it. Evolution makes sense and just gods there too hah i just live my life you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 I'm with 19C on this. The thread is fine so why change the title? Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 8 November, 2009 Share Posted 8 November, 2009 I see the moderation police have decided to change a clever twist on a well known book to suggest I have simply copied the title of that book instead of developing a hook to get people to read this thread - very sad but that's unnecessary censorship for you. The thread was called Le God Delusion and to my knowledge a thread name without copyright. I changed it purely because I got complaints from a couple of people who clearly hadn't bothered to read the firat post before assuming you were launching into Le Tiss again. I wasn't censoring you, I was helping out the less fortunate amongst us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 TBH i dont not believe in god i jsut take it for what it is im just your average kid when it comes down to it. Evolution makes sense and just gods there too hah i just live my life you know. Which God? There are 10,000 of them throughout human history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanovski Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 christian god lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 (edited) christian god lol Would you have said that if you were born in Norway to Viking parents in 934 AD? No you wouldn't! You'd believe in Viking Gods. Why is Thor the Viking God of Thunder less valid than the Judeo-Christian God? There is just as much evidence for both. Why dismiss one God but not another? The Gods people worship are largely due to the time and country they are born into and the Gods their parents introduce them to. The religion of most people is an accident of birth and parentage, location and time period and not whether that religion has any credence other all the thousands of other religions throughout human history. Edited 9 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanovski Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 im not saying i worship it its jsut there,i dont disbelieve it or believe i take it for what it is,i was brought up around christian religion so its obvious its what im going to be used to im not saying i dismiss other gods...its just their... im not exactly religious lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 9 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 November, 2009 I changed it purely because I got complaints from a couple of people who clearly hadn't bothered to read the firat post before assuming you were launching into Le Tiss again. I wasn't censoring you, I was helping out the less fortunate amongst us. Ponty, if that was the case programmes like the 'Peep Show' would never get aired on TV or even 'Desperate Housewives', 'Loose Women' or one for the really sick 'Watchdog' etc. If the less fortunate can't be bothered to read the thread like those Dear BBC types who just jump on the disgusted bandwagon then you're censorship is misguided IMO and prevents posters from actually thinking about and contributing thought provoking threads and titles. Early on in this thread Baj made comment about the title and presumably ok'd it so why change it now so far in? There is a lack of consistency and too much influence of a moderators personal opinion/influence going into some of these decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Ponty, if that was the case programmes like the 'Peep Show' would never get aired on TV or even 'Desperate Housewives', 'Loose Women' or one for the really sick 'Watchdog' etc. If the less fortunate can't be bothered to read the thread like those Dear BBC types who just jump on the disgusted bandwagon then you're censorship is misguided IMO and prevents posters from actually thinking about and contributing thought provoking threads and titles. Early on in this thread Baj made comment about the title and presumably ok'd it so why change it now so far in? There is a lack of consistency and too much influence of a moderators personal opinion/influence going into some of these decisions. 19C, this has been a very interesting and enlightening thread so far with some excellent contributions from a lot of posters. why ruin it now with a stupid, pointless, even childish gripe about the thread title? does it really matter? It doesn't alter the content in any way. FWIW, Ponty is right when he says the title might be a bit misleading, given your known stance on the man known to us as Le God, it might have put some people off even reading it in the first place if they thought it was just another of your rants about MLT. Let it go and let's enjoy the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Ponty, if that was the case programmes like the 'Peep Show' would never get aired on TV or even 'Desperate Housewives', 'Loose Women' or one for the really sick 'Watchdog' etc. If the less fortunate can't be bothered to read the thread like those Dear BBC types who just jump on the disgusted bandwagon then you're censorship is misguided IMO and prevents posters from actually thinking about and contributing thought provoking threads and titles. Early on in this thread Baj made comment about the title and presumably ok'd it so why change it now so far in? There is a lack of consistency and too much influence of a moderators personal opinion/influence going into some of these decisions. Don't be a plum. I'm not censoring you, the thread or anything else. I was just making my life less miserable by preventing the handful of b*tchy PMs becoming an avalanche. I don't think you have the right to accuse us (or me specifically) of treating your posts unfairly or disproportionately and if I pandered to the opinion of those who did complain about the title you'd have disappeared a long time ago. It's because I/we don't that you're still able to start threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 10 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Don't be a plum. I'm not censoring you, the thread or anything else. I was just making my life less miserable by preventing the handful of b*tchy PMs becoming an avalanche. I don't think you have the right to accuse us (or me specifically) of treating your posts unfairly or disproportionately and if I pandered to the opinion of those who did complain about the title you'd have disappeared a long time ago. It's because I/we don't that you're still able to start threads. Being grateful for your support Ponty doesn't remove my right to complain about what I and others consider an unnecessary change. A number of complaints shouldn't force the change, only if those complaints are reasonable and can be upheld. Baj commented that he was hooked in under a misapprehension but didn't feel the need to change it after about 5 posts so why when we are in the 200s? Nothing personal but I don't understand it even given your explanation but I don't want to turn this into Pompey/Fitzhugh thread mark II, as Bexy mentioned but it is disappointing nonetheless. Yours Hard Done By of Hampshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 I didn't give any examples because I thought surely everyone already knew this! Aztecs, Romans, Egyptians etc etc(list could go on a long time) all had religious buildings built by slaves All medieval European religious buildings were largely built by down trodden repressed peasants A large number of Christian Churches were built using slaves until the emancipation in the 19th Century Any beauty derived from a large number of historic religious buildings imo is wiped out by the pain, deaths caused and lack of human rights used in their construction. Does this in some way explain why modern chirches are ****e? Let's be honest with ourselves here, modern buildings (built for purpose and profit) are carbunkles aren't they? Why is ti that old churches (an dbuilding sin general) are such beautiful things in every detail, they just are aren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Haven't read all this thread, but have enjoyed what I have read. Just three points, for other people not to bother reading, either....... 1. It is remarkable that the God Delusion has survived despite science and education showing it to be just that. 2. People seem to be able to compartmentalise - so that they can treat their belief in God separately from their understanding of the origin of the Universe without needing to resolve the obvious conflict between the two. 3. God and the Church are two different things. The Church plays several valuable roles in society. Not everyone who believes in the need for the Church, including some of those working in it, believe in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 10 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Haven't read all this thread, but have enjoyed what I have read. Just three points, for other people not to bother reading, either....... 1. It is remarkable that the God Delusion has survived despite science and education showing it to be just that. 2. People seem to be able to compartmentalise - so that they can treat their belief in God separately from their understanding of the origin of the Universe without needing to resolve the obvious conflict between the two. 3. God and the Church are two different things. The Church plays several valuable roles in society. Not everyone who believes in the need for the Church, including some of those working in it, believe in God. Points 1 and 2 are well observed and certainly major barriers for me to take the leap of faith that others take so readily and I envy them for being able to. I'm not sure about 3 with regard to those 'working in it'. If we are talking vergers and church wardens then I think you are wrong in my experience but if we expand to 'bellringers' who are following a hobby or perhaps gift shop staff in a Cathedral for instance then yes I agree. Bit like being an eco-warrior and working in a petrol station. Churches for me have become very stale and boring for a Sunday service but nothing provides a better back drop for a wedding or a funeral and like you allude to most who attend such services as the main stars of the show or in the supporting cast are unlikely to be regular church goers or devout believers. Personally, I think its time for those who want to hold a marriage or funeral in church and with music, choirs and all that pomp can do so but with some form of expansion of the civil ceremony. Churches are struggling to survive and wouldn't this be a way of increasing their revenues by charging out their building as oppose at appropriate rates oppose to providing a great show and service for hypocrites and on the cheap in the hope they may convert a tiny percentage who would not otherwise walk through the door? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Taking this back to morality. Any Christians out there think without religion there would be no morals or that all morals in the Bible are good morals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasiak-9- Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Taking this back to morality. Any Christians out there think without religion there would be no morals or that all morals in the Bible are good morals? In other words, if God were disproved tomorrow, would you then think rape and murder were totally acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 In other words, if God were disproved tomorrow, would you then think rape and murder were totally acceptable? The Bible sanctions rape and murder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now