Is Britain a Christian country?

[Halo Stickman]

And as aside I feel no one is more annoying than a smug atheist preaching their anti-prejudice, oh so liberal humanitarian views. Give me the archbishop of Canterbury over Dawkins every time for kindness, compassion, tolerance and other values that should be the bedrock of our society.

 

I’ve read and enjoyed most of Dawkins’ books over the years; indeed, it was his The Selfish Gene that initiated my interest in evolution and genetics etc. He is very good at explaining sometimes complex ideas to the layman.

 

However, I’m disappointed that he has become – whether intentionally or not – a sort of mouthpiece for what some might call fundamental atheism. I would prefer him to concentrate his energies on addressing evolutionary issues such as epigenetics and the latest theories on group selection etc.

 

I know Dawkins says it was 9/11 that compelled him to speak out against religion, but I suspect there may also be more personal reasons behind his decision. Ever since the publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976, he’s received some terrible abuse from certain sectors of the so-called religious community – he gets regular correspondence from people saying that they hope he and his children get cancer, die, and rot in hell etc.

[pap]

I agree. Forget the walking on water , the water into wine, the raising the dead stuff, the fishes and the loaves, the rising from the dead etc etc. When you take some time out, ignore the mumbo jumbo rituals and read what Jesus was reported to have said I have to conclude that he was an all round good bloke. If we could all just aspire to his code then life would be so much better for all of us.

 

The problem is that we never have, and that extends to most of the institutions responsible for the propagation of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church.

 

Forget all the mumbo jumbo about the Son of God. What does religion actually allow you to achieve if you're running it? Depending on the time you choose to examine it, it's anything from empire of the mind to tithing money-spinner, and often all of those things at the same time.

[Stubby]

I’ve read and enjoyed most of Dawkins’ books over the years; indeed, it was his The Selfish Gene that initiated my interest in evolution and genetics etc. He is very good at explaining sometimes complex ideas to the layman.

 

However, I’m disappointed that he has become – whether intentionally or not – a sort of mouthpiece for what some might call fundamental atheism. I would prefer him to concentrate his energies on addressing evolutionary issues such as epigenetics and the latest theories on group selection etc.

 

I know Dawkins says it was 9/11 that compelled him to speak out against religion, but I suspect there may also be more personal reasons behind his decision. Ever since the publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976, he’s received some terrible abuse from certain sectors of the so-called religious community – he gets regular correspondence from people saying that they hope he and his children get cancer, die, and rot in hell etc.

 

Hoping anybody gets cancer, dies and rots in hell is obviously a total travesty of what Jesus taught. For anybody to describe themselves a Christian while saying such a thing makes no sense whatsoever. Please don't allow a few loonies to give you a negative understanding of what Christianity is. Every movement has a few loonies in it.

[Stubby]

The problem is that we never have, and that extends to most of the institutions responsible for the propagation of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church.

 

Forget all the mumbo jumbo about the Son of God. What does religion actually allow you to achieve if you're running it? Depending on the time you choose to examine it, it's anything from empire of the mind to tithing money-spinner, and often all of those things at the same time.

 

Any position of power or leadership brings the opportunity to abuse that position. The fact that some leaders of churches have grossly abused their position does not make the movement a bad thing, any more than the fact that some political and business leaders have abused their positions make their parties or businesses bad things.

 

And I happen to think Jesus is the Son of God. "Mumbo jumbo" is unnecessarily offensive.

[Bearsy]

What I think they should do is bring out a sequel to the bible covering all the things that God + baby jesus have been up to since the last one ended. I would read the shit out of that, if they brought out new bible!

[Spudders]

What I think they should do is bring out a sequel to the bible covering all the things that God + baby jesus have been up to since the last one ended. I would read the shit out of that, if they brought out new bible!

Who would baby Jesus actor be?

[Verbal]

Britain is a profoundly Christian country, but God has little to do with it.

 

Our beliefs in individualism - the primacy of the individual over other claims from family, clan, tribe, 'orders', etc - was promoted by Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages. This was a social revolution, because these other claims had dominated everyday life. So the beliefs in individual liberty, representative government, the moral equality of individuals - political values we grow up with - were first developed by theologians in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

 

This was possible despite the huge capacity for oppression by the Church. The reason why it was possible was simple: Christianity had become an incredibly diverse religion by the Middle Ages, with all kinds of competing ideas and beliefs - and this was especially true in Britain. But out of that mess came the core beliefs we have today.

 

So Christian, yes - but not in the way Cameron babbles on about.

[Bearsy]

Who would baby Jesus actor be?

 

baby cambridge, obv

[Saint in Paradise]

baby cambridge, obv

 

When that "baby Cambridge" pulls faces he reminds me of the "baby" in that old TV prog. "Dinosaurs" :lol:

[Halo Stickman]

Hoping anybody gets cancer, dies and rots in hell is obviously a total travesty of what Jesus taught. For anybody to describe themselves a Christian while saying such a thing makes no sense whatsoever. Please don't allow a few loonies to give you a negative understanding of what Christianity is. Every movement has a few loonies in it.

 

Oh yes, I quite agree, those people represent a minority of fundamentalists who obviously aren’t practising mainstream Christianity (for want of a better phrase); that’s why I referred to them as a sector of the ‘so-called’ religious community. As for myself, I try to keep an open mind about most things, and steer clear of fundamentalism of any kind.

[sebastian firefly]

[video=youtube;PgnWP7jD-0I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgnWP7jD-0I

Because we once were a Christian country. Today, it is largely symbolic. Our law isn't upheld by God.

[BlakeySFC]

Definitely not a Christian country.

 

Cameron is a berk of the highest order.

[svetigpung]

Most insane people I've ever met were Jewish Fundamentalists. Dangerous as fu ck and as backwards, to my reasoning, as they come.

 

Maybe they were the Judian Peoples Front ?

[Hamilton Saint]

The essence of Christianity (if you actually read the New Testament):

 

- give away everything you have and serve the poor and helpless

- turn the other cheek; do good to those that hate you

- if the destitute ask for assistance, give them more than they ask for

- abandon your family, if they get in the way of the establishment of the reign of God

- you cannot love Money and God (it's one or the other)

 

Not only is Britain not a Christian country, the majority of people who call themselves Christian, are not true followers of Christ.

[Hamilton Saint]

Britain is a profoundly Christian country, but God has little to do with it.

 

Our beliefs in individualism - the primacy of the individual over other claims from family, clan, tribe, 'orders', etc - was promoted by Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages. This was a social revolution, because these other claims had dominated everyday life. So the beliefs in individual liberty, representative government, the moral equality of individuals - political values we grow up with - were first developed by theologians in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

 

This was possible despite the huge capacity for oppression by the Church. The reason why it was possible was simple: Christianity had become an incredibly diverse religion by the Middle Ages, with all kinds of competing ideas and beliefs - and this was especially true in Britain. But out of that mess came the core beliefs we have today.

 

So Christian, yes - but not in the way Cameron babbles on about.

 

You're talking about the Enlightenment, which did not happen in the Middle Ages. It was the early phase of what became the Reformation. And the Reformation was a revolt against the orthodoxy and hegemony of Christendom.

[pap]

Any position of power or leadership brings the opportunity to abuse that position. The fact that some leaders of churches have grossly abused their position does not make the movement a bad thing, any more than the fact that some political and business leaders have abused their positions make their parties or businesses bad things.

 

And I happen to think Jesus is the Son of God. "Mumbo jumbo" is unnecessarily offensive.

 

Apologies Stubby; I did not see this post when reviewing the thread earlier on.

 

First, let's deal with the offence. It's not my intention to offend you, and I'm not trying to separate you from your soul or call you an idiot for what you believe. I think freedom to worship is very important, just as respect for other people's views is too. The two concepts are often irreconcilable. If the source of the offence is me positing that Christ might not be the Son of God, then there's a long line you need to address before getting around to me. He's not the Son of God in either of the other two Abrahamic religions. There are millions of people who would disagree with you, possibly taking as much offence as you've done here at your suggestion.

 

When it comes down to it, the source of your offence is an accident of birth and culture. If the stork had dropped you off in downtown Islamabad instead of Some-shire, England, you'd believe different things and would be cheering me on for that statement.

 

It's that sort of reasoning that means it's almost impossible for me to be anything more than indifferent on the "truth" of competing religions.

 

Genuine apologies if you're narked, like.

[Stubby]

Apologies Stubby; I did not see this post when reviewing the thread earlier on.

 

First, let's deal with the offence. It's not my intention to offend you, and I'm not trying to separate you from your soul or call you an idiot for what you believe. I think freedom to worship is very important, just as respect for other people's views is too. The two concepts are often irreconcilable. If the source of the offence is me positing that Christ might not be the Son of God, then there's a long line you need to address before getting around to me. He's not the Son of God in either of the other two Abrahamic religions. There are millions of people who would disagree with you, possibly taking as much offence as you've done here at your suggestion.

 

When it comes down to it, the source of your offence is an accident of birth and culture. If the stork had dropped you off in downtown Islamabad instead of Some-shire, England, you'd believe different things and would be cheering me on for that statement.

 

It's that sort of reasoning that means it's almost impossible for me to be anything more than indifferent on the "truth" of competing religions.

 

Genuine apologies if you're narked, like.

 

Thanks for this reply, pap.

 

I'm not offended by the fact that you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and I appreciate that you're not offended by the fact that I do. I just don't like it when anybody's sincere and deeply-held beliefs are described as "mumbo jumbo".

[pap]

Thanks for this reply, pap.

 

I'm not offended by the fact that you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and I appreciate that you're not offended by the fact that I do. I just don't like it when anybody's sincere and deeply-held beliefs are described as "mumbo jumbo".

 

That's fair enough, and indelicate on my part.

[Fowllyd]

The essence of Christianity (if you actually read the New Testament):

 

- give away everything you have and serve the poor and helpless

- turn the other cheek; do good to those that hate you

- if the destitute ask for assistance, give them more than they ask for

- abandon your family, if they get in the way of the establishment of the reign of God

- you cannot love Money and God (it's one or the other)

 

Not only is Britain not a Christian country, the majority of people who call themselves Christian, are not true followers of Christ.

 

Very well put. It's safe to say, I think, that the Catholic church bears a massive responsibility; first by insisting on keeping the Gospels in Latin, which the majority could not understand, and secondly by focussing on Christ's birth and death and pretty much ignoring everything in between. Burning of heretics wasn't too nice either, come to that.

[cambsaint]

Many years ago in my confirmation classes, which I attended of my own free will, a very wise priest told us that effectively "you did unto others as you would be done unto yourself" you would be leading a good life. He of course believed that Jesus was a son of God.

In later years I lost faith in a Godhead figure, but still try to liver my life largely by Christ's teachings which I consider to be an excellent framework for a civilised society.

Is today's Britain a Christian country?

I don't know.The pursuit of Mammon, celebrity, and the attempts of many of the the better off to continually increase their wealth by almost any means probably not.

However most of the people I know lead decent. thoughtful lives and would consider they live by Christ's standards.

[Verbal]

You're talking about the Enlightenment, which did not happen in the Middle Ages. It was the early phase of what became the Reformation. And the Reformation was a revolt against the orthodoxy and hegemony of Christendom.

 

I'm not talking about the Enlightenment at all, but theologians of the Middle Ages. If you want chapter and verse on this, read Larry Siedentop's 'Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism'.

 

The Enlightenment, like the Renaissance, is much overrated.

[42]

All of this pseudo-politically correct secularist psycho babble is all well and good. However, the bottom line is that this is unquestionably a Christian country. Our culture, heritage, laws and customs are all based on the peculiar brand of Christianity that our ancestors mixed with so called pagan rituals (Easter, Christmas, Harvest Festival etc).

 

Trying to measure how Christian we are by how often we go to Church and worship some sort of supernatural deity would conclude (as most on this thread) that we are no longer Christian as it is all a load of bo**ocks (not my words but the words of someone who thinks he knows it all).

 

However, if we measure how Christian we are with following the values of Jesus' teachings (excepting greed I would suggest) then we are probably more Christian than we were when everyone went to Church. We generally treat people better around the World, we have charity bound into our social systems (benefits, NHS, aid), we aspire to caring for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. Do we get it right? Of course not but we are slowly getting there. The modern oppressed, disenfranchised, poor and hungry are still around but would they have been better off before the creation of the welfare state? Of course not.

 

The irony is that Political Correctness is that most secular of cults but is wholly based on Christian values. Unfortunately, it is has actually brutally forced a mutant variation of Christian core values (fairness, respect for others, equality and the desire to do good) to the extent that it is just as crazy in its excesses as every other cult.

 

Peace

[Goatboy]

All of this pseudo-politically correct secularist psycho babble is all well and good. However, the bottom line is that this is unquestionably a Christian country. Our culture, heritage, laws and customs are all based on the peculiar brand of Christianity that our ancestors mixed with so called pagan rituals (Easter, Christmas, Harvest Festival etc).

 

Trying to measure how Christian we are by how often we go to Church and worship some sort of supernatural deity would conclude (as most on this thread) that we are no longer Christian as it is all a load of bo**ocks (not my words but the words of someone who thinks he knows it all).

 

However, if we measure how Christian we are with following the values of Jesus' teachings (excepting greed I would suggest) then we are probably more Christian than we were when everyone went to Church. We generally treat people better around the World, we have charity bound into our social systems (benefits, NHS, aid), we aspire to caring for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. Do we get it right? Of course not but we are slowly getting there. The modern oppressed, disenfranchised, poor and hungry are still around but would they have been better off before the creation of the welfare state? Of course not.

 

The irony is that Political Correctness is that most secular of cults but is wholly based on Christian values. Unfortunately, it is has actually brutally forced a mutant variation of Christian core values (fairness, respect for others, equality and the desire to do good) to the extent that it is just as crazy in its excesses as every other cult.

 

Peace

 

As long as they are season ticket holders;)

[Hamilton Saint]

All of this pseudo-politically correct secularist psycho babble is all well and good. However, the bottom line is that this is unquestionably a Christian country. Our culture, heritage, laws and customs are all based on the peculiar brand of Christianity that our ancestors mixed with so called pagan rituals (Easter, Christmas, Harvest Festival etc).

 

Trying to measure how Christian we are by how often we go to Church and worship some sort of supernatural deity would conclude (as most on this thread) that we are no longer Christian as it is all a load of bo**ocks (not my words but the words of someone who thinks he knows it all).

 

However, if we measure how Christian we are with following the values of Jesus' teachings (excepting greed I would suggest) then we are probably more Christian than we were when everyone went to Church. We generally treat people better around the World, we have charity bound into our social systems (benefits, NHS, aid), we aspire to caring for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. Do we get it right? Of course not but we are slowly getting there. The modern oppressed, disenfranchised, poor and hungry are still around but would they have been better off before the creation of the welfare state? Of course not.

 

The irony is that Political Correctness is that most secular of cults but is wholly based on Christian values. Unfortunately, it is has actually brutally forced a mutant variation of Christian core values (fairness, respect for others, equality and the desire to do good) to the extent that it is just as crazy in its excesses as every other cult.

 

Peace

 

Which was the point of my previous post.

 

Being truly Christian is a much more radical enterprise than being kind and charitable. Most "western" countries favour an individualistic, self-centred, materialistic life-style. That's not my understanding of Christian belief.

[42]

As long as they are season ticket holders;)

 

Good one - I did say 'aspire' - I obviously haven't got there yet ;-)

[42]

Which was the point of my previous post.

 

Being truly Christian is a much more radical enterprise than being kind and charitable. Most "western" countries favour an individualistic, self-centred, materialistic life-style. That's not my understanding of Christian belief.

 

We try to be Christian - it is still a work in progress

[melmacian_saint]

I wonder if all these Western advocates of the "free mind and spirit" who get a sour feeling in their stomach they're told they are something ever wondered what the origins of a Secular state really are.

 

And maybe why, of all the countries in the world, those who have it with minimal repression are historically linked to Christianity.

 

Maybe then, we can start to understand what our countries really are, and transmit it proactively. Until then, we're prone to whatever the rest of the world thinks of us, as well as a self-imposed hatred of our own. For example, I remember how many people in this country moaned the fact that Ireland's RTE used to transmit services, or some Southern European countries broadcasted the Sunday mass on their public TVs. Now Channel 4 is doing exactly that with others but criticism, though existing, is dismissed.

 

Of course, we might only know how good we had it when it's gone.

[SuperMikey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27177265

 

Rowan couldn't sign up on SaintsWeb, so decided to go public with his statement instead.

[42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27177265

 

Rowan couldn't sign up on SaintsWeb, so decided to go public with his statement instead.

 

 

"It's a matter of defining terms. A Christian country as a nation of believers? No.

 

"A Christian country in the sense of still being very much saturated by this vision of the world and shaped by it? Yes."

 

 

So, he basically says we are still Christian - but not practising in the traditional sense - is that what you were trying to communicate

[Jonnyboy]

No one can live up to J Christ's perfection so we are condemned to feeling guilty which in turn allows us to be controlled. Amen.

[whelk]

No one can live up to J Christ's perfection so we are condemned to feeling guilty which in turn allows us to be controlled. Amen.

 

Speaks someone with no understanding of the gospel message