Religion

“Spirituality involves the recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself, something more to being human than sensory experience, and that the greater whole of which we are part is cosmic or divine in nature.
Spirituality means knowing that our lives have significance in a context beyond a mundane everyday existence at the level of biological needs that drive selfishness and aggression. It means knowing that we are a significant part of a purposeful unfolding of Life in our universe.
Spirituality involves exploring certain universal themes – love, compassion, altruism, life after death, wisdom and truth, with the knowledge that some people such as saints or enlightened individuals have achieved and manifested higher levels of development than the ordinary person. Aspiring to manifest the attributes of such inspirational examples often becomes an important part of the journey through life for spiritually inclined people.”
 
SWP's back said:
Depends if we ever sort out education worldwide. As education level increases across a population, religious belief decreases with a near 1 to 1 ratio.
Click to expand...
The type of education might matter.

The following is from former science journalist and Muslim intellectual Ziauddin Sardar’s book Islam Beyond the Violent Jihadis and describes his encounter with some Sixth Form Religious Studies students at a girl’s school in Bradford in 2015:

‘I arrived early on Friday morning expecting a relatively comfortable question-and-answer session. After a casual walk through the long school corridors, I was ushered into a classroom. Over two dozen excited girls, some wearing hijabs, stood up to greet me. The teacher, Aqeela Jahan, a gracious, sublime English woman who had converted to Islam, asked them to sit down. Today’s topic, she said, was ‘everything you wanted to ask about Islam but never dared.’ Several hands shot up before she finished her sentence. I pointed towards a girl in hijab. ‘How do you determine the will of God?’ she asked in a matter-of-fact way. The question knocked me out of my comfort zone.

…When I had recovered my composure, I said: ‘That is a difficult question. Perhaps we can start with a simple question.’ Several girls raised their hands immediately, and I randomly pointed towards a pupil who oozed confidence. ‘Would you say that Islam is incompatible with postmodernism?’ she asked. There was no way I could duck the second question. ‘Yes, it is,’ I replied. ‘Postmodernism suggests that almost everything that provides meaning and a sense of direction in our lives is meaningless – such as religion, history, tradition, reason and science. It also argues that all truth is relative. As a faith, Islam seeks to provide meaning and direction in the lives of believers. It places strong emphasis on tradition, history, reason and science. And it sees only some truths as relative. Ironically, postmodernism itself functions as a religion for some people.’ A lively discussion followed, with some girls expressing slight disagreement with my explanation. ‘It wasn’t nuanced enough’, said one. ‘

Later Sardar notes that ‘the British jihadist Nasser Muthana…is a medical student; the current leader of al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a qualified surgeon. The former leader, Osama bin Laden, was an engineer. The leader of the pack who committed the 9/11 atrocity, Mohamed Atta, was an engineer. In fact, an exceptionally high percentage of jihadis and ISIS recruits, including British Muslims, come from medical, engineering, or IT backgrounds.’

Sardar speculates that this could be because ‘science, engineering and medical students are not taught critical reasoning and are seldom encouraged to ask searching questions. This is even true in Britain, where we pride ourselves on the excellence of our technical and medical courses’, as well as for Europe and US universities. For Sardar, ‘there is now ample evidence to show that science, engineering and medical studies encourage binary understanding of correct and incorrect, and of right and wrong. No attempts are made to explore social and ethical issues, or to inspire critical thought and questions. Thus ambiguity is suppressed, and certainty about facts and techniques is enforced….This is also a major attribute of Islamic orthodoxy, where doubt is banned, criticism is seen as a sign of unbelief, and questioning is regarded as akin to rebellion and hence apostasy.’

Sardar was particularly impressed by the students he met and it is somewhat ironic that one of the best ways to get practice in critical reasoning is to do a Religious Studies A level at the moment. Most of the courses offered by the exam boards actually look at atheistic thinking in depth, which includes characters like David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, Marx, Bertrand Russell and the ‘Four Horsemen’ of the New Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris).

Stephen Law (who I mentioned upthread) is also an avowed atheist who often appears at Sixth Form Religious Studies conferences. I can certainly recommend his book ‘Believing Bullshit’ as it contains the best debunking of Creationist thinking that I have seen in print.

It’s also quite usual for Religious Studies teachers to be atheists or agnostics these days.

There is actually a Philosophy A level too (though the course offered by AQA is a bit dry, difficult and uninspiring in my view).

This organisation also do a lot of good work with younger children and teenagers:

Philosophy in schools, community and workplace

UK Charity doing philosophy in schools with children from nursery to A Level and with adults in the community, and in business. Teacher training in P4C and enquiry based learning. Resources for doing P4C.
www.philosophy-foundation.org www.philosophy-foundation.org
 
Last edited:
SWP's back said:
No you can’t because you’re talking absolute horeshit.

I genuinely haven’t met a young Earth creationist in the wild before. I thought you crazies were just a myth. It’s scary you’re allowed out by yourselves in 2021 and get a vote.

Even The Church disowns you guys.
Click to expand...


Was Jesus Christ , Messiah crazy,? He believed the young earth creation and He had divine claims
For spiritually re-vivified Christians, Jesus is more than a good teacher, a prophet or even a created being. He is in actual fact the Creator of all things, who existed before the creation of the world (John 17). Genesis 1:1 tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In John 1:1 we read the same words, " in the beginning was the Word "(logos ie translated as logic) and that the Word was not only with God but was God. This Word is the one who spoke all things into being at creation (John 1:3).
He accepted worship from people , Thomas being one who said " my Lord and my God" .He performed miraculous signs - all of this pointing to His deity.
He said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This is an open claim to deity. This “I am” (Exodus 3:14 )statement was Jesus’ fullest example of saying “I am YHVH ,” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
( in Hebrew pronounced YHVH -the name of God- Hebrew has no vowels) He is literally the great I AM , the self existent God who created everything.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament ( Jewish bible also called the TaNaKh ) historically accurate and truthful.
in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning. So no evolution.
Jesus understood that creatures were to reproduce "after their kinds" . So cats give rise to cats ,dogs give rise to dogs. There's a wild imaginary tree of evolution where every animal and plant is farcically linked back to some sort of primordial ooze. But in reality crossing the "kinds'or 'family' barrier cannot happen naturally as the information isn't available.
Rather we have thousands of trees representing the genus family or kind as the information is already available in the first fully created order of families or kinds.

Jesus not only talks about Adam at the beginning of creation but his son Abel as well (Luke 11:49–51). In that passage Jesus talked about “the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world,” the foundation being the initial 6 days +1 rest day of Creation Week. There were no murders before Adam's fall. Therefore a very good creation. No fossils underneath Eden as there was no death.
Jesus clearly understood that Abel lived at the foundation of the world. This means that the parents of Abel, Adam and Eve must also have been historical.
Over and over Jesus referenced people in the Jewish Bible in a historical way.
This can be seen from his reference to Adam (Matthew 19:4–5), Abel (Matthew 23:35), Noah and worldwide flood (Matthew 24:37–39), Abraham (John 8:39–41, 56–58), Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28–32). If Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional accounts, then how could they be a warning for future judgement? This also shows Jesus’ interpretation of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a myth or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as a sign miracle, if the events of Jonah did not take place?
He believed in the account of creation becuse
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" 1Cor8. Therefore the supernatural creation of the Universe and of Adam as the first man is seen clearly and He leaves no room for the evolutionary cosmological myths and gradualistic origins of man where particles magically change into people over billions of years.
Many people in the thread don't accept the biblical (Jewish Bible and Christian New Testament ) account of origins. They therefore don't believe what Jesus says about origins. They can mock His Word all they like. Let them answer to Him.

There are a lot in the church who don't accept what Jesus says about origins . But it has an affect of denying that the Word is true. Either the Word or Scripture is all true or its not. You cant have some bits untrue and other bits true. That undermines the whole text. Dawkins knows this. He's an expert on this point. He knows if the theological colleges can accept the god of evolution then the gospel message of Christ taking the blame and punishment for the all the sins and wrongs that every human has ever done in Adam ,is undermined. Why would Christ suffer and die for the sin of Adam if it didn't really bring death and suffering into this world and if death and suffering were already here beforehand? The answer is that He wouldn't because a real Adam,man caused the death.

The body of Catholic,Protestant,Orthodox Christians and Messianic Jews who believe and accept Christ has died for them do win the paradise anyway because creation is not a salvific issue. The body of Christ Messiah doesn't disown anyone but individuals and certain groups within the spiritual body can undermine what Christ teaches and this affects the view of salvation. That's an authority problem.
 
Elbow beards said:
Apart from there was no Adam or eve or apple or garden of Eden. Let's not even get onto talking snakes. And why for fuck sake, if he didn't want him to eat from it, did he put it there in the first place?! Couldn't he have put it on top of a mountain or something, or put a child lock on it.
Click to expand...
No creation ,no you
 
paulsimpson said:
paulsimpson said:
. So cats give rise to cats ,dogs give rise to dogs. There's a wild imaginary tree of evolution where every animal and plant is farcically linked back to some sort of primordial ooze.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mate you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's pointless having a reasonable discussion with you with views like that.
 
paulsimpson said:
Was Jesus Christ , Messiah crazy,? He believed the young earth creation and He had divine claims
For spiritually re-vivified Christians, Jesus is more than a good teacher, a prophet or even a created being. He is in actual fact the Creator of all things, who existed before the creation of the world (John 17). Genesis 1:1 tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In John 1:1 we read the same words, " in the beginning was the Word "(logos ie translated as logic) and that the Word was not only with God but was God. This Word is the one who spoke all things into being at creation (John 1:3).
He accepted worship from people , Thomas being one who said " my Lord and my God" .He performed miraculous signs - all of this pointing to His deity.
He said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This is an open claim to deity. This “I am” (Exodus 3:14 )statement was Jesus’ fullest example of saying “I am YHVH ,” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
( in Hebrew pronounced YHVH -the name of God- Hebrew has no vowels) He is literally the great I AM , the self existent God who created everything.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament ( Jewish bible also called the TaNaKh ) historically accurate and truthful.
in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning. So no evolution.
Jesus understood that creatures were to reproduce "after their kinds" . So cats give rise to cats ,dogs give rise to dogs. There's a wild imaginary tree of evolution where every animal and plant is farcically linked back to some sort of primordial ooze. But in reality crossing the "kinds'or 'family' barrier cannot happen naturally as the information isn't available.
Rather we have thousands of trees representing the genus family or kind as the information is already available in the first fully created order of families or kinds.

Jesus not only talks about Adam at the beginning of creation but his son Abel as well (Luke 11:49–51). In that passage Jesus talked about “the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world,” the foundation being the initial 6 days +1 rest day of Creation Week. There were no murders before Adam's fall. Therefore a very good creation. No fossils underneath Eden as there was no death.
Jesus clearly understood that Abel lived at the foundation of the world. This means that the parents of Abel, Adam and Eve must also have been historical.
Over and over Jesus referenced people in the Jewish Bible in a historical way.
This can be seen from his reference to Adam (Matthew 19:4–5), Abel (Matthew 23:35), Noah and worldwide flood (Matthew 24:37–39), Abraham (John 8:39–41, 56–58), Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28–32). If Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional accounts, then how could they be a warning for future judgement? This also shows Jesus’ interpretation of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a myth or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as a sign miracle, if the events of Jonah did not take place?
He believed in the account of creation becuse
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" 1Cor8. Therefore the supernatural creation of the Universe and of Adam as the first man is seen clearly and He leaves no room for the evolutionary cosmological myths and gradualistic origins of man where particles magically change into people over billions of years.
Many people in the thread don't accept the biblical (Jewish Bible and Christian New Testament ) account of origins. They therefore don't believe what Jesus says about origins. They can mock His Word all they like. Let them answer to Him.

There are a lot in the church who don't accept what Jesus says about origins . But it has an affect of denying that the Word is true. Either the Word or Scripture is all true or its not. You cant have some bits untrue and other bits true. That undermines the whole text. Dawkins knows this. He's an expert on this point. He knows if the theological colleges can accept the god of evolution then the gospel message of Christ taking the blame and punishment for the all the sins and wrongs that every human has ever done in Adam ,is undermined. Why would Christ suffer and die for the sin of Adam if it didn't really bring death and suffering into this world and if death and suffering were already here beforehand? The answer is that He wouldn't because a real Adam,man caused the death.

The body of Catholic,Protestant,Orthodox Christians and Messianic Jews who believe and accept Christ has died for them do win the paradise anyway because creation is not a salvific issue. The body of Christ Messiah doesn't disown anyone but individuals and certain groups within the spiritual body can undermine what Christ teaches and this affects the view of salvation. That's an authority problem.
Click to expand...
I didn’t read anything past the first sentence. I genuinely think you’re poorly and hope you get the help you so obviously need.
 
paulsimpson said:
Was Jesus Christ , Messiah crazy,? He believed the young earth creation and He had divine claims
For spiritually re-vivified Christians, Jesus is more than a good teacher, a prophet or even a created being. He is in actual fact the Creator of all things, who existed before the creation of the world (John 17). Genesis 1:1 tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In John 1:1 we read the same words, " in the beginning was the Word "(logos ie translated as logic) and that the Word was not only with God but was God. This Word is the one who spoke all things into being at creation (John 1:3).
He accepted worship from people , Thomas being one who said " my Lord and my God" .He performed miraculous signs - all of this pointing to His deity.
He said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This is an open claim to deity. This “I am” (Exodus 3:14 )statement was Jesus’ fullest example of saying “I am YHVH ,” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
( in Hebrew pronounced YHVH -the name of God- Hebrew has no vowels) He is literally the great I AM , the self existent God who created everything.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament ( Jewish bible also called the TaNaKh ) historically accurate and truthful.
in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning. So no evolution.
Jesus understood that creatures were to reproduce "after their kinds" . So cats give rise to cats ,dogs give rise to dogs. There's a wild imaginary tree of evolution where every animal and plant is farcically linked back to some sort of primordial ooze. But in reality crossing the "kinds'or 'family' barrier cannot happen naturally as the information isn't available.
Rather we have thousands of trees representing the genus family or kind as the information is already available in the first fully created order of families or kinds.

Jesus not only talks about Adam at the beginning of creation but his son Abel as well (Luke 11:49–51). In that passage Jesus talked about “the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world,” the foundation being the initial 6 days +1 rest day of Creation Week. There were no murders before Adam's fall. Therefore a very good creation. No fossils underneath Eden as there was no death.
Jesus clearly understood that Abel lived at the foundation of the world. This means that the parents of Abel, Adam and Eve must also have been historical.
Over and over Jesus referenced people in the Jewish Bible in a historical way.
This can be seen from his reference to Adam (Matthew 19:4–5), Abel (Matthew 23:35), Noah and worldwide flood (Matthew 24:37–39), Abraham (John 8:39–41, 56–58), Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28–32). If Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional accounts, then how could they be a warning for future judgement? This also shows Jesus’ interpretation of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a myth or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as a sign miracle, if the events of Jonah did not take place?
He believed in the account of creation becuse
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" 1Cor8. Therefore the supernatural creation of the Universe and of Adam as the first man is seen clearly and He leaves no room for the evolutionary cosmological myths and gradualistic origins of man where particles magically change into people over billions of years.
Many people in the thread don't accept the biblical (Jewish Bible and Christian New Testament ) account of origins. They therefore don't believe what Jesus says about origins. They can mock His Word all they like. Let them answer to Him.

There are a lot in the church who don't accept what Jesus says about origins . But it has an affect of denying that the Word is true. Either the Word or Scripture is all true or its not. You cant have some bits untrue and other bits true. That undermines the whole text. Dawkins knows this. He's an expert on this point. He knows if the theological colleges can accept the god of evolution then the gospel message of Christ taking the blame and punishment for the all the sins and wrongs that every human has ever done in Adam ,is undermined. Why would Christ suffer and die for the sin of Adam if it didn't really bring death and suffering into this world and if death and suffering were already here beforehand? The answer is that He wouldn't because a real Adam,man caused the death.

The body of Catholic,Protestant,Orthodox Christians and Messianic Jews who believe and accept Christ has died for them do win the paradise anyway because creation is not a salvific issue. The body of Christ Messiah doesn't disown anyone but individuals and certain groups within the spiritual body can undermine what Christ teaches and this affects the view of salvation. That's an authority problem.
Click to expand...
Did Jesus have all the facts about the Earth back in the 1st Century CE? Somehow I doubt a simple carpenter possessed all the facts. Because that is about as far as historic evidence can confirm about the existance of Jesus. Unless you genuinely believe the stuff about feeding the 5,000, water to wine, making blind men see and the walking on water.

Also, where do Pagans fit in to your world view? Their religious beliefs existed thousands of years before those texts, especially Hinduism. What of them and their beliefs? Why do they not take precident over yours, after all, they "explained" things much earlier. You wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest that their religious beliefs are.... wrong?
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Did Jesus have all the facts about the Earth back in the 1st Century CE? Somehow I doubt a simple carpenter possessed all the facts. Because that is about as far as historic evidence can confirm about the existance of Jesus. Unless you genuinely believe the stuff about feeding the 5,000, water to wine, making blind men see and the walking on water.

Also, where do Pagans fit in to your world view? Their religious beliefs existed thousands of years before those texts, especially Hinduism. What of them and their beliefs? Why do they not take precident over yours, after all, they "explained" things much earlier. You wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest that their religious beliefs are.... wrong?
Click to expand...
Mate your wasting your time, you might as well go and talk to the Privet Bush outside :)
 
Elbow beards said:
Mate your wasting your time, you might as well go and talk to the Privet Bush outside :)
Click to expand...
I'm going to start quoting chapters from Lord of the Rings. That's another incredible story, filled with interesting characters and taught morals.

It's just as relevant as his storybook.
 
SWP's back said:
Lord of the Rings is a) more believable and b) less contradictory
Click to expand...
Difference is that one is a story that is filled with obvious make-believe, impossible scenarios, typical good vs evil/saviour narrative but is obvious from the start it is not meant to be taken seriously or as fact and the other is Lord of the Rings.
 
paulsimpson said:
Either the Word or Scripture is all true or its not. You cant have some bits untrue and other bits true. That undermines the whole text.
Click to expand...

The above position, namely, that of Biblical inerrancy, is pretty much impossible to defend.

A couple of examples should suffice.

Let's take the Cleansing of the Temple, a famous episode found in all 4 gospels. In John's gospel this takes place in Chapter 2, right at the beginning of Jesus's teaching ministry. However, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, it comes towards the end of it. So someone hasn't got their chronology right. And that's before we even begin to discuss the very different words that are spoken by Jesus in these narratives, as well as the contrasting details (in John's version Jesus fashions a 'whip of cords' to drive out the moneychangers and dealers in sacrificial animals).

Then there's Mark's gospel, reckoned to be the first of the synoptic gospels to be written. Unfortunately, it doesn't contain any resurrection appearances. The original version ends at chapter 16v8 with the women fleeing from the empty tomb. See here for more on that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Moving on to the snake in the Garden of Eden (as Genesis has been mentioned a few times recently in this thread), it may be worth pointing out that that creature is definitely not to be identified with Satan.

As Elaine Pagels' points out in her book The Origin Of Satan :

'In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaism to this day, Satan never appears as Western Christendom has come to know him, as the leader of an 'evil empire', an army of hostile spirits who make war on God and humankind alike. As he first appears in in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants - a messenger, or angel, a word that translates the Hebrew term for messenger (mal'ak) into Greek (angelos)....In Biblical sources, the Hebrew term the satan, describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose blocking or obstructing human activity....Some, however, also invoke this supernatural character, the satan, who, by God's own order or permission, blocks or opposes human plans and desires. But this messenger is not necessarily malevolent. God sends him, like the angel of the death, to perform a specific task, although one that human beings may not appreciate; as the literary scholar Neil Forsyth says of the satan, 'If the path is bad, an obstruction is good.'

An example would be the story of Balaam and the satan ('angel' seems to be an inaccurate translation, given the foregoing discussion), which if I understand Pagels correctly, represents the first occasion in which the term 'satan' occurs in the Bible.

In summary, there may be good reasons why the best theology departments around the world do not tend to be staffed nor even sprinkled with faculty members that are conservative or fundamentalist evangelical Christians, and the Biblical criticism that goes on in academia often represents a direct challenge to the simplistic readings of key passages subscribed to by fundamentalists.
 
Last edited:
Jesus never claimed to be God. And before he was crucified, he prayed asking for God's help. So God prayed to God? That doctrine in itself is flawed from all angles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top