He said he was on a “QUest to Eradicate Religious Thinking!”

(It was more like !!!!)

I asked him why. (Dumb thing to do.)

He said, “Religion is dangerous because it tries to control what people think.”

Sigh.

On the other hand, from the OP here:

“There are many of us Christians standing against the more extreme elements in our Church.”

Where? I have yet to see or hear of any mainstream Christian uprising against the war on women perpetrated by the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear of any Christian leaders crying out in public for homophobic bullying to stop and gay couples to be allowed to live their lives like everybody else. All I hear of are pastors declaring that children with limp wrists should have them broken while their congregation sits there and accepts it; bishops who chastise nuns who dare show compassion to the wrong people; Cardinals who are desperate to explain why it is ok for them to not tell anyone about priests who are a present danger to children; talking heads on TV insisting that homosexuality is psychologically deviant and same-sex parents will warp their adopted children; Mormon business men who make millions from firing people and pump a lot of money into efforts to remind gay people of their sub-human status by the ballot box. Who is standing up to these extremists?

There are, of course, individual Christians who treat others in a respectful, fair and loving manner, but they do so in spite of their faith, not because of it. They ignore certain parts of the bible that is distasteful to them, particularly much of the Old Testament and Jesus’ own commandment that not a letter of the old law will change until heaven and earth pass away. Their conscience has told them that it’s not ok to stone gay people or disobedient children, no matter what their holy book says, and that is to their credit. The vast majority of Christians are in this position, but they’re not making any real noise against the cacophony of extremism.

Anyway, my sincere apologies, have removed your name from above.

I often pointed out small mistakes to my university lecturers in the middle of the lecture, but if I wanted to challenge them on a major point I had the courtesy to wait until afterwards. Why not do similar with churches.

Look at Tim Keller, for example. As well as being a cogent writer, he sets aside time and asks people to challenge him.

This isn’t an inherently stupid idea, but the manner in which it is encouraged is juvenile and meant to be provocative.

I’m guessing these creeps won’t be going into the mosque to do this, tho. Which makes them cowardly hypocrites as well as creeps and trolls.

Totally agree.

It is doubtless the case that atheist collections of excuses for not listening are more readily available to the average uneducated atheist than they were. In the past they all bought these dreary books like Joseph Wheless to get their stock excuses.

But all the writer is saying is that it is easier for the atheist who doesn’t know anything for himself to find some excuse to ignore what he hears in church.

No doubt it is so. And good luck with that.

The atheist wants to throw stones at Christians, and demand that the Christians “prove” things to him (while the atheist demands that he has no corresponding duty, of course). The Christian is not, on the whole, interested in such sterile games, as he has things to do.

I believe that atheism is greatly damaged by the internet. The sheer nastiness and brain-deadness of most atheism is something that one encounters at every turn.

What on earth could be wrong with that?

Thanks for the articles, I’ll check them out especially as I can’t seem to find much of interest at the mo…..

I have not come across any atheists who bother to actually fact-check anything. Most of them barely have any research skills whatsoever, and as for the ability to use critical analysis…words fail me.

The ‘abundance of information’ that he writes of is offset by the super-abundance of conspiracy theory clap-trap and all sorts of other nonsense. The only thing that concerns me is that now a lot of people think they know it all, purely because they have access to Wiki’s etc., whereas before they at least used to try and read books if they wanted to learn anything. Plagiarism is a big problem in education now.

Coincidentally I have just this evening been reading some excellent articles on atheism written by christians. You might enjoy looking them over Stuart.

New Atheist Magical Thinking

No evidence for God?

An atheist that doesn’t get it This one tackles the claim that atheism is the default position.

You are too hard on yourself webmaster.

“…how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Hebrews 9:14 (NKJV)

You might find this website helpful to you: Forgiving Yourself

Perhaps it is trespassing against oneself which is most difficult to comprehend, as it seems so utterly foolhardy, therefore so much more difficult to forgive.

Just a thought.

Isaiah 1:18, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

I think that it may well have something to do with resolve. I wonder sometimes if, in our subconscious minds, we are unwilling to severe a limb or pluck out an eye. I guess maybe we should even forgive ourselves for lacking complete resolve.

For me, at least, this centers around such a mundane chore as eating. A life time of carelessness has left my body in far poorer health than I owe God and my family. I often wonder if those who smoke, drink, or eat imprudently, feel as I do. Lack of self dicipline in these areas oftimes exacerbates the problem.

In summary, though, I know that the issue is more a lack of surrender to grace than a lack of self discipline. Moderation, for me at least, is more difficult than avoidance.

Lebensraum???

” Malone merely reflects prejudice that is increasingly rampant in austerity Britain.”

The criminalisation of welfare recipients particularly the indigenous underclass is a social cleansing ideology that predates austerity Britain by 30 years.

The Leveson inquiry should address the Joseph Goebbels style dehumanisation and delegitimation propaganda campaigns against welfare recipients that have been orchestrated by successive governments in collusion with (in this case) the print media.

British politics may reap the National Socialism politics it has sown in emulating totalitarian propaganda techniques against welfare recipients – that is the politics of criminalisation and dehumanisation.

Hat tip to him but sadly the timely Owen Jones article is years out of time, subsistence welfare is being destroyed and the social cleansing has commenced.

Some of the reasons for believing (apparent design, efficacy of prayer for example) seem to be subject to empirical experiment (and there have been experiments on prayer. The results seem to show no positive effect although the design was criticised by believers). This shows however I think that religious belief is or should be subject to scientific inquiry and contradicts those (from science and religion) who claim that the two should maintain a polite separation.

I would go further and suggest that the other reasons, such as those Gillan sets out, including “personal knowledge” could also in theory be so investigated and I’ve seen some interesting attempts from fields as diverse as sociology and neuroscience. I appreciate this may be more controversial and uncomfortable.

It also strikes me that atheists are often (although not on this chain) criticized for not having studied the theology. However if such study is limited to those who already believe, we seem to have a bit of a bind.

It has also struck me that sometimes what religious figures say can be very different in the theology seminar and the pulpit (and different again to what ‘the man and woman in the pew’ actually believes). Again, there’s been some interesting publications on this. It was partly that I was exploring. Perhaps this is more common in Anglicism than Catholicism?

What I was really interested in was nailing down what believers actually believe which sometimes can feel rather a slippery task. I thank those above who’ve answered from their perspective clearly and honestly.

“He talked of the revelation received as he translated the New Testament, describing it as “extraordinarily alive” unlike any experience he had had with non-scriptural ancient texts. He referred to the scriptures speaking to his condition in an “uncanny way” similarly to the way the author of Psalm 119 talks. Phillips was a masterful apologist and defender of the Christian faith. He upheld the basic tenets of the faith, and was able to present them fresh to the modern reader and hearer, much as he had done so with his translation of the New Testament.”

There is also a wonderful account of his BBC discussion on translation and the effect it had on both EV Rieu and himself. I quote the closing remarks:

“Did you get the effect (I think I mentioned it in the Preface to ‘Letters to Young Churches’) that the whole material is extraordinarily alive? I think I used there the illustration that it was like trying to rewire an ancient house without being able to switch off the mains, which was quite a vivid and modern metaphor, I hope. I got that feeling, the whole thing was alive, even while I was translating. Even though one did a dozen versions of a particular passage, it was still living. Did you get that feeling?
Rieu: I won’t say I got a deeper feeling …
Phillips: Yes?
Rieu: … But I got the deepest that I possibly could have expected.
Phillips: Yes?
Rieu: It — changed me. My work changed me. And I came to the conclusion, as I said, I think, in my Introduction, that these works bear the seal of the Son of Man and God. And they are the Magna Carta of the human spirit.
Phillips: Yes.” – http://www.bible-researcher.com/rieu.html

But it seems to be a little known fact that he suffered the most agonising and terrifying depression for many years. It is all recorded in his wife’s biography of her husband, ‘JB Phillips, the Wounded Healer’.

There is a lovely article titled ‘Resurrected Writers: JB Phillips’ found here: http://therubicon.org/2008/07/resurrected-writers-j-b-phillips/

As a Christian apologist (Phillips, that is) I still treasure his little book ‘Ring of Truth’.

I do find it interesting that you are looking for heterodoxical Christians with more liberalish beliefs happy to cherry pick. Normally atheists and literalists have an argumentative but symbiotic relationship. Although I’m not trying to stereotype you, just speaking from my own experience.

I do believe that Soren Kierkegaard went against the grain, when he suggested everyone is a theologian, I suppose he is right in the sense that everyone has their own personal theology and opinions, built through experience and knowledge.

Anyway thinking again about our Creed, I will leave with a lovely quote from Kierkegaard.

“The truth is a snare: you cannot have it, without being caught. You cannot have the truth in such a way that you catch it, but only in such a way that it catches you.”

We could spend a while going round the houses with some apologetic discussions, but I’ll try and asnwer your questions directly. The Bible says that God has always existed, which if we believe, we have to go along with because there is no way of proving it one way or another.

As far as I can see He’s created a universe that is self functioning, in that he doesn’t need to intervene to keep it going. As Lisa has put it, for some of us the intricacies and harmony of the way the universe functions is a sign that there has been acreator behind it. Many people believe in God because of this.

Although this is the case for me, it’s fair enough to expect more, because at least it doesn’t prove that the Christian God is the genuine creator. Some people having read the Bible and in particular the gospel accounts of Jesus find that the God described resonates within them and their experience of life.

Whilst I have found the Christianity of the Bible to make a great deal of sense, what assures me of God’s existence beyond any doubt is mine and other’s experience of Him. I’ve a friend who was previously a drug dealer and spent years in prison for a series of offences including attempted murder. He found God whilst in prison and is now a completely transformed person. I’ve had prayers answered that I can only attribute to God. I’ve seen people being healed when someone has prayed for them. I’ve been physically healed in a way that could never happen naturally. I could go on.

For those who have experienced God in this sort of way it becomes almost impossible to deny His existence. All I can suggest is that you speak to God and ask Him to reveal Himself to you in a tangible way. You don’t need clever words, you just need to be genuine.

Few people become Christians through intellectual arguments, although some do, but many do when they realise that there is more to the world than what we physically see in front of us.

I am, as I hope also made clear, not a theologian. I do however seem to come across a lot of self-described Christians who when pushed on beliefs state that “Oh, of course that’s not literal” or “religion doesnt deal with exists or existed but how to live your life” or similar. It was the differences between those Christians and us atheists I was exploring but it seems you don’t fall in that camp.

Now that is a strange belief. Although I have come across one person who take all of the Scripture, as metaphor. But he is not ‘Christian’ in the orthodox sense, but more into the ‘new age’ and theosophy.

I would say that because an idiom is used, does not therefore mean it is an untruth. For example “seated on the right hand of the Father”. Not many would actually take this statement simply at face value in a very literal sense, because literally it doesn’t make sense. Normally idioms and metaphors in Scripture are a means of expressing a more deeper and meaningful truth. I think this is most clearly seen in the Hebrew Scriptures particularly in the first few chapters of Genesis.

Although you aren’t saying what exactly you think is metaphorically or which theologians take exactly what metaphorically. Of the top of my top, I cannot recall any theologians that do hold to the Nicene Creed as declaration of their faith. Maybe Jack Spong is the most extreme I personally know of. Yet you speak very generally, so this is probably why you having difficulties nailing down your disagreement.

Good luck with your search in finding someone to agree with you. If I may be cheeky, you could always start your own religion; nearly 40,000 post-reformation folk have.

Caral

It was rather naughty and a little tongue in cheek to post the Credo, hence my winking. So below is the current English translation of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. I say that the whole statement is a truth.

Which parts do you think should be taken as metaphors or post modern story telling?

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

A ‘Time’ article from 2008 seems quite clear to me, so it’s not as if he’s saying something he hasn’t said before. Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I’m not sure how to respond to you ‘giving me the benefit of the doubt re my intelligence’! Some atheist commentators are, perhaps rightly, critisised for their tone. I have tried to be friendly and respectful I hope. Is it too much to expect the same in return?

Privileged access to social housing and welfare benefits are the British military and ex-servicemen becoming a political class with the principles of mercenaries demanding rights and provisions above and beyond that of their compatriots whom they purport to defend?

When you say creator of “all things”, I assume you exclude God from that. Or did He self-create?

I have to say, I don’t understand what it means to be outside spacetime but also present within but I do take it from your description that God affects whats within spacetime (including us), i.e. He isn’t limited to the ‘supernatural realm’? I also assume (do correct me) that this is real, not metaphorical? So it should be possible, in theory at least, to posit what a universe without God would look like and detect those effects which show that this universe is not that one?

What should we look for?

(I am grateful that your description seems to rule out ‘non overlapping magisteria’ and any post-modernist babble which some – not Catholic – theologians seem to come back with. – Something else on which we can agree!)

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
Descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
Passus, et sepúltus est,
Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
Cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
Et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.

It’s definitely not the easiest thing to get your head round. It’s easier to experience than explain. When you expereince God personally it makes a lot more sense.

Well, I’m not sure I ‘choose’ not to believe in god? What does it mean to choose to believe? Hence, I’m not at all sure I can believe in anything… I just tried to believe that Cameron was doing a good job but although I could construct arguments, it didnt change my view. Sorry.

My initial question, in simple terms: Can someone give a definition or description of God in such a way that I can understand what Catholics (or other theists) believe in, so I can determine if I do or don’t believe in the same thing.

happy weekend

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything. — G.K. Chesterton

I believe in god but am a non practising christian, I found his book to be a good insomnia cure, sorry zzzzzzzz

Gillian asks if there are areas other than the ‘freedom to offend’ in which Christians and atheists agree (although, by the way, not sure one can lump Christians together, I know you can’t atheists!)

Anyway, I’m often told that I don’t believe in a god you don’t believe in either (the man in the sky or cosmic puppet-master for example). I’m always happy to add to the list of gods in which none of us believe (Thor, Wotan, etc).

But I’ve never really got an answer as to the god (or God) you do believe in? Does someone want to have a go at a concise definition and we’ll see if we can finally nail down what it is we disagree about!

Eternal rest, grant unto him O Lord
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May he rest in peace.

A video of him singing ‘Der Leiermann’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIIS-UgixGE

The great schism of European Christians to rehearse Jack Wilson’s Ghost Dance of self-righteousness or to embrace the righteous Saint George in the slaying of the dragon on the European continent.

“They kill you, cut you with knives, shower you with curses. And that somehow cuts your mind off from clearness, and sanity, self-control, and justice.

To have that. Not a cistern but a perpetual spring.”

He kept claiming he had posted the full email, so eventually I copied and pasted all the verbatim quotes into one document, minus his paraphrases, so I could show him where the gaps were and why it would be helpful to see the full email. All I got were excuses why it would be impractical and/or he had already posted it in full (which he hadn’t).

I’m rather baffled now why a very reasonable request was resisted so strongly. Frankly, it’s very evasive, and it’s given me suspicions I didn’t have before. Did I miss something?

Edit: My exchange with @His_Grace is all on Twitter, if anyone wants to see how the conversation went: https://twitter.com/#!/davidlrattigan

John, I think you’re misinterpreting this. The definition doesn’t say any perception of homophobia is proof of a homophobic crime. It’s not dictating how police officers should decide the *truth* of an allegation, but how they should judge the *nature* of an allegation. Surely police officers have to do this all the time?

For example, if police officers are called to a domestic situation, they may need to decide whether to treat it as, say, a domestic violence incident, a domestic dispute incident or even a sexual assault incident (those aren’t necessarily the legal terms, of course). If, because of the allegations made, the police must treat it as, say, a sexual assault incident, that doesn’t say *anything* about the truth of the allegations. It just answers the question “What kind of crime is alleged to have occurred?” which in turn informs how the police investigate it.

The CPS document you cited makes it clear that a reported incident being categorized as a “homophobic incident” only means it MAY be a homophobic crime (6.3): http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/htc_guidance.pdf

Actually, you’d probably be surprised at their ability to be at peace with it if they got more in the habit of not only saying “I have diabetes” but understanding why. The really important “why” is that you identify with Jesus and the person God made you to be, not with any disorder. I should think that it would at least cut down on one’s temptation to whine about his/her illness. At best, it might help on the really important part: that we offer our sufferings in union with Christ on the Cross so that they might be redemptive.

1) It is not bigotry to describe the replacement of a social institution (marriage) which serves a clear and important social purpose (child rearing) with one that doesn’t as a ‘gross subversion’.

2) I think I have answered your question. It depends what you mean by ‘an equal right to worship’. Let’s list the possibilities:

a) I can perform whatever actions I like. (No problem there. Same sex couples can currently do what they like.) If the government stopped me doing this, I would regard this as an attack on Catholics. (But this isn’t analogous to the current case.)

b) I can perform whatever actions I like, but the government gives no official recognition to them. (This is analogous to the current SSM situation. Same sex couples can have whatever rituals they want but they are without recognition as marriage by the state.) If the government acted thus, I would not regard it as an attack on Catholics.

c) I can perform whatever actions I like, but also insist that others have to accept my understanding of them and stop doing what they are currently doing. (The precise analogy with the introduction of same sex ‘marriage’.) If the government refused to cave in to my demands here, I would not regard this as an attack on Catholics. (Indeed, the government would be quite right in defending others from my attempt at a gross subversion of existing institutions.)

“From March 1st 2011, the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (the CAP Code) has applied in full to marketing messages online, including the rules relating to misleading advertising, social responsibility and the protection of children. Journalistic and editorial content and material related to causes and ideas – except those that are direct solicitations of donations for fund-raising – are excluded from the remit. “

Nice. Pure bigotry, in fact.

But you’ve ignored my question: if I describe a move to grant Roman Catholics an equal right to worship as a “gross subversion” — if I go further, as Cardinal O’Brien did in his diatribe against marriage equality, and describe the Roman Catholic desire to worship as an aberration — would that or would that not constitute an attack upon Roman Catholics?

No denial of the right of Roman Catholics to be Roman Catholics or to meet together, to run their lives pretty much as they want: merely the denial of their right to worship. Perhaps we could come up with an accommodation for them and call it Civil Similarity? That wouldn’t be a problem, surely?

“There is no legal definition of a homophobic or transphobic incident. However, we adopt this definition when applying our policy: “Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim or any other person”. This definition is wide and covers all incidents which are felt to be homophobic or transphobic by anyone involved in them (including the perpetrator) or by anyone who witnesses them.”

If the words actually mean what they say (any incident perceived as homophobic by any person), we are in the world of Alice Through the Looking Glass. If a person in Iceland perceives my note to the milkman asking for only two pints today as homophobic, that fits the ‘definition’. That is insane (or the person in Iceland is insane), therefore the words do not mean what they say.

That is one of the reasons why this is all becoming so problematic.

1) Sorry, I can’t see the Campaign in this way. (And you’d struggle to find anything on the C4M website supporting this interpretation.) It is a campaign to defend a traditional understanding of marriage against an ill considered revision.

2) Your analogy with Roman Catholic worship is misplaced. (There is no analogy with the suppression of Catholic worship as gay people can run their own lives pretty much as they want. As a Catholic, I couldn’t care less about whether the state endorses my worship as worship so long as it doesn’t stop me doing it. As a supporter of same sex ‘marriage’, it is precisely this state endorsement that you are seeking rather than a simple freedom.)

Try this analogy instead. If a government were to pass a law insisting that Protestant Churches were forced to conduct and understand their services in a Roman Catholic way as part of a policy of reducing sectarianism, would I regard that as a ‘grotesque subversion’ of a universally accepted human right? Yes, I would. The C4M is not about preventing the existence of civil partnerships. It is not about preventing gay relationships. It is about preventing the change of an existing institution which serves an important social purpose in the rearing of children into a frivolous ritual which serves little purpose other than making everyone feel nice.

I’d like to take up a couple of Lisa’s points that I don’t entirely agree with:

(1) That the Catholic church has little to say on the issue. There is a great deal of ancient wisdom in the church on what we now know as scrupulosity. The work that most helped me was “The Doubting Disease” by Joseph W. Ciarrocchi, Jesuit priest and psychiatry professor. You’ll find plenty of references in there.

(2) That scrupulosity is of no spiritual benefit. I am unspeakably ecstatic to be free of the throttling grip of scrupulosity and would never go back. However, I have found it excruciatingly difficult to cope with life post-OCD. I’ve discovered that, in some perverse way, one learns to live with it and it can become a crutch. Six years on I still rely on psychotherapy to help me forge a new way of being. I mention this for the benefit of anyone on the same situation who feels confused and ‘guilty’ that life is not suddenly the bed of roses you thought it would be. You’ll get there but it may not be an easy ride (though YMMV). Look to the Incarnation to find the nurturing face of Christ in the faces of those who love and support you.

I think that is the point Sue, when it is unseen physical conditions people are not labelled, nor define themselves by it. Unlike MH sufferers many do in fact define themselves by their diagnosis.

Of course with all the related stigma in society, due to lack of education about MH, one can almost taste the classic ‘self fulfilling prophecy’ which negatively reinforces the self labelling.