If the pope came to my town, I'd probably go and have a look too, to be fair.Usually where the educationally challenged are in large numbers.
Australia is another example!!
;-)
Not according to my wife it doesn’tIt's a bit like your willy, it's already there but it expands and gets bigger.
Only if he promised to tell the rags to fuck off againIf the pope came to my town, I'd probably go and have a look too, to be fair.
You’d just see a bloke in a silly but expensive uniform, supposedly displaying his pledge of poverty.If the pope came to my town, I'd probably go and have a look too, to be fair.
That's a problem the Pope doesn't have of course but Anglicans aren't generally regarded as a 'Bible Church' either. Predictably my perspective as the token delusional on here is that Dawkins was effectively dismantled by Williams in every respect and that his reply about the 'fairy tale' status of the bible creation stories was as expected i.e. if he wanted a modern explanation he would go to scientists if he wanted "to understand his moral and spiritual position in the universe he reserves the right to go back to Genesis".Excellent. It would remind you of the cordial contretemps debating that is so routine in this place, whether it be the political threads or the matchday experiences. do however feel that he himself has admitted that the Bible is wrong. The Bible is man written, not divine. He more or less agrees that his take on the on the origin of the species is the same as Dawkins,...The Archbishop however, as I said largely agrees but places god in gaps we don’t know.
I thought he totally lost the argument at the end. When Dawkins asked him why religion still clings to the fable of the bible that he openly admitted was an 800BC version of their understanding of things, not a 21st century scientific understanding. Why does religion still pedal the myth? Why does it need to? He had no answer.
What I got from his stance is that there is a difference between faith and religion. I respect that, not least because he at least admits to his understanding of faith and the religious deficiencies.
There are so many religions that will not admit the same no matter what the proof is. Not least the Catholic Church, but there are worse examples obviously.
I don’t really know as I’ve never investigated, the differences between Anglican Church and Catholicism. I get the basics and kind of understand why the split happened, but in the modern age I see the common Christian beliefs as being very outdated, differences or not.That's a problem the Pope doesn't have of course but Anglicans aren't generally regarded as a 'Bible Church' either. Predictably my perspective as the token delusional on here is that Dawkins was effectively dismantled by Williams in every respect and that his reply about the 'fairy tale' status of the bible creation stories was as expected i.e. if he wanted a modern explanation he would go to scientists if he wanted "to understand his moral and spiritual position in the universe he reserves the right to go back to Genesis".
I do recognise contextualizing a three thousand year old account of the world has always been a challenge - even in the first century when the religion was founded. Contemporary Anglican hermeneutics is pretty niche but there is an obvious need to preserve their distinctive expression of historic faith in continuity with the Book of Common Prayer and Authorised Version. The Jacobean language will sound very strange to many in this country these days outside the 46% of the population in the 2021 UK census identifying with Christianity - only slightly more than the 37% reporting no religion, double those since 2011.
"Faith" is just believing in things that have no evidence. Pointless.I don’t really know as I’ve never investigated, the differences between Anglican Church and Catholicism. I get the basics and kind of understand why the split happened, but in the modern age I see the common Christian beliefs as being very outdated, differences or not.
Protestant? Catholic? It makes no difference to me.
The Archbishop admitted the dismissal of the Old Testament’s version of events. Admitted the world and human history is a lot older and he believes in evolution etc etc., but he couldn’t take the next logical step of categorising the stories in the New Testament as taking similar liberties with the truth to those written about a thousand years earlier.
Christianity believes Jesus the man, was born to a virgin and was the son of God.
He was killed by the Romans but came back from the dead, hung around for a while and then floated off into heaven.
I respect anyone who has faith, but I do think a man as intelligent as the Archbishop has to see that if this was a trial in modern court although he would be in the position of the defence barrister and would not have to prove anything, Hawkins as prosecuting barrister to my mind sowed reasonable doubt. In a civic court all he’d need to do is tip the scales of the balance of probabilities and that most certainly was done.
As you have gathered I’m sure, I was raised Catholic but have no affinity with that anymore. My own brother being a priest in what I would consider a cult of an order probably put the final nail in that coffin.
But I have no problem with faith filling the gap for some people that certain agnostics may prefer to have science prove to them.
Both will be left waiting.
I do have a problem with the dogma of religion however. And some are quite obviously more oppressive than others.
The 'god of the gaps' is not one most modern Christians recognise. Religious faith is not in competition with science to provide an explanation of the world, it provides a meaningful context for that enterprise.I don’t really know as I’ve never investigated, the differences between Anglican Church and Catholicism. I get the basics and kind of understand why the split happened, but in the modern age I see the common Christian beliefs as being very outdated, differences or not.
Protestant? Catholic? It makes no difference to me.
The Archbishop admitted the dismissal of the Old Testament’s version of events. Admitted the world and human history is a lot older and he believes in evolution etc etc., but he couldn’t take the next logical step of categorising the stories in the New Testament as taking similar liberties with the truth to those written about a thousand years earlier.
Christianity believes Jesus the man, was born to a virgin and was the son of God.
He was killed by the Romans but came back from the dead, hung around for a while and then floated off into heaven.
I respect anyone who has faith, but I do think a man as intelligent as the Archbishop has to see that if this was a trial in modern court although he would be in the position of the defence barrister and would not have to prove anything, Hawkins as prosecuting barrister to my mind sowed reasonable doubt. In a civic court all he’d need to do is tip the scales of the balance of probabilities and that most certainly was done.
As you have gathered I’m sure, I was raised Catholic but have no affinity with that anymore. My own brother being a priest in what I would consider a cult of an order probably put the final nail in that coffin.
But I have no problem with faith filling the gap for some people that certain agnostics may prefer to have science prove to them.
Both will be left waiting.
I do have a problem with the dogma of religion however. And some are quite obviously more oppressive than others.
like singularities?"Faith" is just believing in things that have no evidence. Pointless.