Irish Church leaders humiliated in Israel

fly_agaric

rockbeer wrote: »

Indeed, it all depends on context. Those 'humiliated' church leaders clearly didn't understand the context.

People need to live and let live a bit. Maybe they should have hid them away before going to the wall, maybe that Israeli should not have been so aggrieved that they didn't.

I think Israel's "settlers" do fall into the category of people with sticks up their backsides.

rockbeer wrote: »

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. In my view, all overt displays of gang/clan/superstition membership are culturally insensitive and basically divisive.

Well, that's humanity for you, God love us. I don't see any prospect of much change.
What do you suggest? Genetic engineering?

rockbeer

fly_agaric wrote: »

Well, that's humanity for you, God love us. I don't see any prospect of much change.
What do you suggest? Genetic engineering?

Not really, I just don't have any sympathy for flag-wavers and badge-wearers - and their defenders - who start acting all put-upon and self-righteous when the inevitable happens and people get upset. Accept it. It's not an outrage, just - as you say - humanity.

wes

rockbeer wrote: »

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. In my view, all overt displays of gang/clan/superstition membership are culturally insensitive and basically divisive. The motives of the wearer are irrelevant. I could wear a swastika in tribute to its pagan origins but nobody would extend me any sympathy when it upset people. Why are christianity's bizarre trinkets any different?

Anyway, the priests obviously did in fact upset somebody so the evidence suggests your argument is flawed.

They upset a nutter who is violating international law by stealing Palestinian land. The person being a settler in all likely hood is a religious extremist, who thinks the land was promised to them by God. There bound to be offended by all kinds of things. See I never said no one would be offended, but that people wearing crosses isn't a rarity in Israel. Anyway the Priests probably taught no one would be offended, after all they were with government ministers of the country, who said nothing. They broke no laws and didn't hurt anyone and I see no reason why they shouldn't wear what they choose. You see my argument isn't flawed, you reading of it however is.

Anyway so what if people wear a cross, if someone is offended, well tough ****. There wearing a cross doesn't hurt anyone. If you have a problem with that, fair enough thats you business, but people should be able to wear a cross, Star of David, a crescent moon or what ever symbol they want.

Also, if you wanted to wear a Swastika, more power to you. If someone is too stupid to understand that it is a Hindu/Bhuddist symbol, thats the fault of there own ignorance.

Botany Bay

rockbeer wrote: »

No... I'm not talking about christians, I'm talking about christian values, as specifically outlined in the christian holy book. It's the religion itself I have a problem with, not the adherents, most of whom are simply delusional. (You probably won't like me saying that, but I'm sure if you were honest you'd feel the same about worshippers of Zeus or Apollo or the flying spaghetti monster). I accept that many christians are well motivated, but the values of their religion are reprehensible. The real problem is that so few of them know what bigoted, misogynistic foulness is actually written in their holy book. And when you point it out, they usually just say those bits don't really count - despite the awkward fact that 'those bits' provide the justification for the very evils you dismiss so lightly.



That wasn't what I meant... I think (although I'm no expert) that certain protestants are offended by the crucifix as a symbol. Maybe somebody here can shed more light on this.

Very Good Post.

However, don't expect many articulate responses or rebuttals. Most Christians are utterly ignorant of the underlying concepts of their religion. Religious belief in itself is easily the most pathetic concept ever dreamt up by humans. Im still amazed how rigidly people stick to what is in essence, deluded, retarded behavior. Aww well!

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

No... I'm not talking about christians, I'm talking about christian values, as specifically outlined in the christian holy book. It's the religion itself I have a problem with, not the adherents, most of whom are simply delusional. (You probably won't like me saying that, but I'm sure if you were honest you'd feel the same about worshippers of Zeus or Apollo or the flying spaghetti monster). I accept that many christians are well motivated, but the values of their religion are reprehensible. The real problem is that so few of them know what bigoted, misogynistic foulness is actually written in their holy book. And when you point it out, they usually just say those bits don't really count - despite the awkward fact that 'those bits' provide the justification for the very evils you dismiss so lightly.

Listen I'm not going to stand here and defend every word in the Bible- but who wrote the Bible? well the old testament is the same as the Jewish holy scripture (so I doubt that thats why the Christians were in trouble in Israel)

Now the New Testament- based on the teachings of Jesus was actually written much later then Jesus was around, by common people. Now facts get a bit muddled after 50-100 years after an event, especially when people are involved. Personal prejudices get added in etc etc.

Botany Bay wrote: »

Very Good Post.

However, don't expect many articulate responses or rebuttals. Most Christians are utterly ignorant of the underlying concepts of their religion. Religious belief in itself is easily the most pathetic concept ever dreamt up by humans. Im still amazed how rigidly people stick to what is in essence, deluded, retarded behavior. Aww well!

:rolleyes:

Can we stop attacking people with religious belief - The clear that belief that you have of religions bull**** is comparable to the belief people have in the religion. Just because you are Atheist doesn't make your beliefs more valid then anothers.

We could go into why believe etc but that is off topic

rockbeer

wes wrote: »

Anyway so what if people wear a cross, if someone is offended, well tough ****. There wearing a cross doesn't hurt anyone. If you have a problem with that, fair enough thats you business, but people should be able to wear a cross, Star of David, a crescent moon or what ever symbol they want.

If you actually read my posts rather than responding to what you expect me to say, you'll discover that nowhere have I argued that people shouldn't be entitled to wear whatever they want. My issue is with people getting on one and calling it an 'outrage' when other people get upset about it. Wear whatever you like and accept the consequences, fine, but don't kid yourself that you're somehow being culturally sensitive by taking such a confrontational attitude.

wes wrote: »

Also, if you wanted to wear a Swastika, more power to you. If someone is too stupid to understand that it is a Hindu/Bhuddist symbol, thats the fault of there own ignorance.

QFT

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

Listen I'm not going to stand here and defend every word in the Bible- but who wrote the Bible? well the old testament is the same as the Jewish holy scripture (so I doubt that thats why the Christians were in trouble in Israel)

Well, isn't that the question: who wrote the bible?
Christians of course believe their infallible, omnipotent god wrote it, which leads to some awkward questions. A typical discussion of this goes something like:

Christian: Here's the bible, it's the infallible word of god.

Atheist: So god wants us to be genocidal and misogynistic then. That's what it says here.

Christian: Ah, but those bits don't really count, they're very old.

Atheist: So god was mistaken when he encouraged genocide and misogyny.

Christian: God is all knowing and all powerful, he's never mistaken.

Atheist: So he must have changed his mind then.

Christian: No, he's all powerful. He doesn't change his mind. Those bits were written for a different time when different values applied.

Atheist: So you're saying that god designed us - he did design us, right? He originally designed us not to know that peace and tolerance were good and genocide were bad, and then had to make a human sacrifice of his son to correct his error.

Christian: No. God is omnipotent and his design is perfect.

Atheist: This is hopeless, I'm going down the pub.


Of course, if the bible wasn't written by god then it's just a book written by humans like any other and should be subject to exactly the same standards of historical and contextual analysis. It should receive no special treatment and can be discarded as an obviously flawed work.

Cliste wrote: »

Now the New Testament- based on the teachings of Jesus was actually written much later then Jesus was around, by common people. Now facts get a bit muddled after 50-100 years after an event, especially when people are involved. Personal prejudices get added in etc etc.

Well indeed, so how much of it can you actually believe or take seriously?

Cliste wrote: »

Can we stop attacking people with religious belief - The clear that belief that you have of religions bull**** is comparable to the belief people have in the religion. Just because you are Atheist doesn't make your beliefs more valid then anothers.

Ah, a common mistake amongst believers. Just answer this one question and we'll leave it there: if I say to you that I believe in a chocolate teapot circling the earth out of which all the rain falls, you would obviously (I hope) think I was talking nonsense. In that case, would you think, given the evidence, that your lack of belief in my teapot was more valid than my belief in it? Yes or no will be fine.

Grudaire

Isn't this off topic

rockbeer wrote: »

Well, isn't that the question: who wrote the bible?
Christians of course believe their infallible, omnipotent god wrote it, which leads to some awkward questions. A typical discussion of this goes something like:

Christian: Here's the bible, it's the infallible word of god.

blah blah blah....

Right, God is infallible- it's just that the word can get messed up on the way down to us little folk, as it does go via less then infallible people.

rockbeer wrote: »

Christians of course believe their infallible, omnipotent god wrote it

Oh suck on it- as a Christian I don't believe it- and was thaught otherwise in religion class in a Catholic school. Come back when you make sense:rolleyes:

rockbeer wrote: »

Ah, a common mistake amongst believers. Just answer this one question and we'll leave it there: if I say to you that I believe in a chocolate teapot circling the earth out of which all the rain falls, you would obviously (I hope) think I was talking nonsense. In that case, would you think, given the evidence, that your lack of belief in my teapot was more valid than my belief in it? Yes or no will be fine.

Yes however I will leave you in peace to wear mini chocolate teapot's on your clothing should you so wish.:D

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Also, if you wanted to wear a Swastika, more power to you. If someone is too stupid to understand that it is a Hindu/Bhuddist symbol, thats the fault of there own ignorance.

I think it's one of those issues of 'just because you have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.' After you've had the crap beaten out of you for being a white neo-fascist supremacist, I'm sure you'll feel much better for having the moral high ground for the ignorance of your attackers. It's far better to educate first (It's also a Norse and American Indian symbol, by the way)

(Note, at this point I'm going a little off-topic from the settler issue, which, I think, was a little extreme, and was probably interpreted as not representative by the visiting clergy)

NTM

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

Right, God is infallible- it's just that the word can get messed up on the way down to us little folk, as it does go via less then infallible people.

So then, if you can't trust scripture how are you supposed to know what god wants? That's just laughable.

Cliste wrote: »

Oh suck on it- as a Christian I don't believe it- and was thaught otherwise in religion class in a Catholic school. Come back when you make sense

Fantastic level of debate and, to be honest, everything I would have expected. Well done.

Cliste wrote: »

Yes however I will leave you in peace to wear mini chocolate teapot's on your clothing should you so wish.:D

Thanks. Maybe you can forgive me too

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

So then, if you can't trust scripture how are you supposed to know what god wants? That's just laughable.

I am interested to hear what exact scripture has you so scepticle.

rockbeer wrote: »

Fantastic level of debate and, to be honest, everything I would have expected. Well done.

You had made a blatent falsity, and I demonstrated what I thought of it

rockbeer wrote: »

Thanks. Maybe you can forgive me too

You know forgiveness is central to my beliefs!:)

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

You had made a blatent falsity, and I demonstrated what I thought of it

That simply isn't the case. In fact I tried to humorously point out a central contradiction in your belief system, which you chose not to engage with... so more fool me but I'll try again.

It's simple enough: either the bible is the word of god and to be read as such. In which case we must accept that god is genocidal, misogynistic, an advocate of slavery, and countless other things which are completely unacceptable in a tolerant modern society. Or it isn't the word of god, in which case we must accept that it really has no more to do with 'god' than Mein Kampf or the collected works of The Beatles. The only other option is to say its partly the word of god, in which case who gets to decide which parts are and which aren't? Do you just take the bits you happen to like? How do you know that god didn't intend you to believe the other bits? The whole thing quickly becomes ridiculous, as I'm sure you would agree if we were discussing someone else's deeply-cherished beliefs rather than your own.

So where is the falsehood in that? It's just something that you, as a believer, must resolve for yourself. As a non-believer I don't have to trouble myself with those contradictions. I'm quite happy for it to be flawed and fallible as I make no attempt to live my life according to its hopelessly muddled 'teachings'.

Cliste wrote: »

I am interested to hear what exact scripture has you so scepticle.

I'm actually sceptical about all of it. Some of it may have value as philosophy or fiction, like any other book, but in my opinion none of it is 'holy' if that's what you mean. But this is so far OT now that it might be more appropriate over at Atheism and Agnosticism. I had to stop going there 'cos it was taking over my life. Looks as though politics might be heading the same way

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

That simply isn't the case. In fact I tried to humorously point out a central contradiction in your belief system, which you chose not to engage with... so more fool me but I'll try again.

You said this:

rockbeer wrote: »

Christians of course believe their infallible, omnipotent god wrote it

Which is just not true.

it is the infallible word of God- as interperated by people, then written down centuries later

rockbeer wrote: »

It's simple enough: either the bible is the word of god and to be read as such. In which case we must accept that god is genocidal, misogynistic, an advocate of slavery, and countless other things which are completely unacceptable in a tolerant modern society. Or it isn't the word of god, in which case we must accept that it really has no more to do with 'god' than Mein Kampf or the collected works of The Beatles. The only other option is to say its partly the word of god, in which case who gets to decide which parts are and which aren't? Do you just take the bits you happen to like? How do you know that god didn't intend you to believe the other bits? The whole thing quickly becomes ridiculous, as I'm sure you would agree if we were discussing someone else's deeply-cherished beliefs rather than your own.

Which bits are these though- the old testament isn't the central part of the Bible if thats what you mean, and I more remember Jesus saying love thy neighbour, forgot the bit where he lead his slave army to slaughter all- especially innocents...

And this has gone waaay off topic

wes

rockbeer wrote: »

If you actually read my posts rather than responding to what you expect me to say, you'll discover that nowhere have I argued that people shouldn't be entitled to wear whatever they want.

My bad, I misunderstood you. Apologies.

rockbeer wrote: »

My issue is with people getting on one and calling it an 'outrage' when other people get upset about it. Wear whatever you like and accept the consequences, fine, but don't kid yourself that you're somehow being culturally sensitive by taking such a confrontational attitude.

The Church leaders were there with Israeli ministers. I don't see how they could have anticipated anyone being offended. The government ministers didn't seem to have a problem, the only person seemed to be an extremist settler. The average Israeli didn't seem to be offended, but one guy.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's one of those issues of 'just because you have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.' After you've had the crap beaten out of you for being a white neo-fascist supremacist, I'm sure you'll feel much better for having the moral high ground for the ignorance of your attackers. It's far better to educate first (It's also a Norse and American Indian symbol, by the way)

Didn't know it was a Norse and Native American symbol. Thanks for the info.

Well personally I am not white, so me wearing a Swastika, would probably cause no small amount of confusion.

Also, I agree it wouldn't be a good idea, but I still stand by what I said.

Manic Moran wrote: »

(Note, at this point I'm going a little off-topic from the settler issue, which, I think, was a little extreme, and was probably interpreted as not representative by the visiting clergy)

NTM

I doubt that he represented the average Israeli. Which is one of the main reasons, why I don't think the priest are at fault. It was one nut who was offended.

Botany Bay

Can we stop attacking people with religious belief - The clear that belief that you have of religions bull**** is comparable to the belief people have in the religion. Just because you are Atheist doesn't make your beliefs more valid then anothers.

We could go into why believe etc but that is off topic

No it's not comparable in the slightest. My views are based on the evidence at hand. That's observable, verifiable evidence. I don't base my opinions on how i feel, or what sounds good emotionally, like many who are religious do. I base my opinions on empirical, reasoned evidence and logic.

So from that basis, my views are more valid, than those who hold religious beliefs. Two opposing opinions or views are not equally valid or comparable, when one opinion provides an evidence based, reasoned, rational, logical underpinning. While the other provides nothing more than chinese whispers and tall tails, whilst providing zero evidence to substantiate their claims.

How do you reconcile the fact that the Judeo-Christian religion if true, by the accounts given in the Bible. Effectively makes redundant or at least makes a mockery of our understading of the laws of Physics, Biology, medicine and a whole lot more??? People hold religios beliefs, yet display the most amazing ignorance and cognitve dissonance in relation to the information and knowledge they are confronted with on a daily basis.

Its really hard not to mock and ridicule such obtuse behaviour.

Playboy

Botany Bay wrote: »

No it's not comparable in the slightest. My views are based on the evidence at hand. That's observable, verifiable evidence. I don't base my opinions on how i feel, or what sounds good emotionally, like many who are religious do. I base my opinions on empirical, reasoned evidence and logic.

So from that basis, my views are more valid, than those who hold religious beliefs. Two opposing opinions or views are not equally valid or comparable, when one opinion provides an evidence based, reasoned, rational, logical underpinning. While the other provides nothing more than chinese whispers and tall tails, whilst providing zero evidence to substantiate their claims.

How do you reconcile the fact that the Judeo-Christian religion if true, by the accounts given in the Bible. Effectively makes redundant or at least makes a mockery of our understading of the laws of Physics, Biology, medicine and a whole lot more??? People hold religios beliefs, yet display the most amazing ignorance and cognitve dissonance in relation to the information and knowledge they are confronted with on a daily basis.

Its really hard not to mock and ridicule such obtuse behaviour.

So you are saying because we(or you) have never encountered a miracle or the supernatural then it cannot have ever happened?

Tell me what kind of evidence do you require for Jesus existence and the events that occurred in the New Testament? Would you like a video of it maybe? What kind of evidence do we have for ancient history that is generally accepted?

Grudaire

Botany Bay wrote: »

Its really hard not to mock and ridicule such obtuse behaviour.

:rolleyes:

humberklog

Botany Bay wrote: »

How do you reconcile the fact that the Judeo-Christian religion if true, by the accounts given in the Bible. Effectively makes redundant or at least makes a mockery of our understading of the laws of Physics, Biology, medicine and a whole lot more??? People hold religios beliefs, yet display the most amazing ignorance and cognitve dissonance in relation to the information and knowledge they are confronted with on a daily basis.

Newton, Darwin, Freud and Einstein held religious beliefs (christian and judean) yet they were pretty impressive in dispelling ignorance and cognitive dissonance in relation to the imformation and knowledge that they confronted on a daily basis. All four died with some form of faith reasonably in tact.
A lot of the 'science of athiesm' has been given to the school of athiesm by people that hold a religious belief. Quite generous. A generousity that's often not shared by tub-thumping athiests.

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

it is the infallible word of God- as interperated by people, then written down centuries later

Which bits are these though- the old testament isn't the central part of the Bible if thats what you mean, and I more remember Jesus saying love thy neighbour, forgot the bit where he lead his slave army to slaughter all- especially innocents...

Well sorry if I was mistaken but I genuinely had the impression christians believed the bible was the word of god. Now you're saying it's infallible but somehow simultaneously fallible. Strange how these contradictions don't seem to bother you. But if scripture is flawed then what else is there? Scripture offered you precious little, but without it there really is no more substance to your deity than my chocolate teapot.

As for your remark about the old testament not being the main part of the bible, can't you see you're doing precisely what I said before and claiming that some bits don't count. It does seem very convenient to be able to be so selective over which bits of the infallible word of god actually matter. Do you think god minds you disregarding large chunks of his message to you on the grounds that you personally don't consider them to be important? What's the point of having a god if you're going to disregard arbitrarily large chunks of his teachings? And what gives you the ability to second-guess god over which bits of his message matter the most?

If you don't know which bits I mean, perhaps you should go and read the whole thing. Good luck, you'll need a strong stomach for all that bloodshed and violence. Not to mention infinite patience for the lengthy, obscure tracts that make no sense whatsoever. I should also point out that it isn't just the old testament that's troublesome. What about the lies Jesus tells in the NT? What about the cannibalism and human sacrifice?

Anyway, this has obviously run its course so good luck. If you want to challenge your ideas some more, why not find out why god never heals amputees

humberklog wrote:

Newton, Darwin, Freud and Einstein held religious beliefs (christian and judean) yet they were pretty impressive in dispelling ignorance and cognitive dissonance in relation to the imformation and knowledge that they confronted on a daily basis. All four died with some form of faith reasonably in tact.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that is not true, at least not in the case of Darwin and Einstein. Freud was hardly what you'd call a 'hard' scientist, and Newton lived in an era when atheism was more-or-less unknown, at least in public.

Darwin himself said in his autobiography "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete", and Einstein unambiguously did not believe in a personal god.

Playboy wrote:

Tell me what kind of evidence do you require for Jesus existence and the events that occurred in the New Testament?

Any at all would be a start.

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

Well sorry if I was mistaken but I genuinely had the impression christians believed the bible was the word of god. Now you're saying it's infallible but somehow simultaneously fallible. Strange how these contradictions don't seem to bother you. But if scripture is flawed then what else is there? Scripture offered you precious little, but without it there really is no more substance to your deity than my chocolate teapot.

You're quite the militant atheist aren't you?

Please just have replies which are shorter and to the point, I'm finished leaving cert English, and this reminds me too much of it. I shan't be giving essay answers

rockbeer wrote: »

As for your remark about the old testament not being the main part of the bible, can't you see you're doing precisely what I said before and claiming that some bits don't count. It does seem very convenient to be able to be so selective over which bits of the infallible word of god actually matter. Do you think god minds you disregarding large chunks of his message to you on the grounds that you personally don't consider them to be important? What's the point of having a god if you're going to disregard arbitrarily large chunks of his teachings? And what gives you the ability to second-guess god over which bits of his message matter the most?

Well I think what happened was God decided to tell the Jews (well they became jewish after) about himself. after many years God decided that they made a right mincing of his words to re-focus what was said. Thus Old Testament = original draft, New Testament = Corrections

rockbeer wrote: »

If you don't know which bits I mean, perhaps you should go and read the whole thing. Good luck, you'll need a strong stomach for all that bloodshed and violence. Not to mention infinite patience for the lengthy, obscure tracts that make no sense whatsoever. I should also point out that it isn't just the old testament that's troublesome. What about the lies Jesus tells in the NT? What about the cannibalism and human sacrifice?

lies..? do tell (of one or two of your best, don't waste time on my behalf)

rockbeer wrote: »

Anyway, this has obviously run its course so good luck. If you want to challenge your ideas some more, why not find out why god never heals amputees

wierd website wrote:

To Christians, the Bible is the error-free word of God.

Well clearly this is wrong...

and

wierd website wrote:

Why does Jesus need your money?

ah here now....:rolleyes: Jesus is dead, buried and Risen.

rockbeer wrote: »

Any at all would be a start.

You doubt Jesus existed? Oh if only the Mormons talked to you they'd not bother coming to my house:D


Now out of curiosity I find it harder to believe that there is no God, I'm studying maths and the chance of life happening is so improbable. And if I look up at the sky at night I know that I'm such a small speck on the Universe that even Earth as massive as that is is sweet feck all, and this cockiness that people show regarding knowledge is way off. To be honest my money'd be on us both being wrong;)

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

lies..? do tell (of one or two of your best, don't waste time on my behalf)

Well how about "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." Mark 16:15

Does your belief protect you from the effects of cyanide? Are you willing to put it to the trial? Has any christian ever done so in a controlled way? No doubt you'll have some rationalisation for why it's unreasonable to take Jesus literally, but you'll note that he offers no qualifications or exceptions. Remember this is the infallible (and 'corrected') word of god we're discussing.

If that's not good enough for you, how about:
"Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."

So why hasn't prayer eradicated poverty and disease? This guy is all mouth and no trousers.

Cliste wrote: »

You doubt Jesus existed? Oh if only the Mormons talked to you they'd not bother coming to my house:D

Don't send them round here, I don't have the time.

There is a certain, limited amount of evidence of a historical Jesus character, but there is no corroborative evidence for any of the significant claims of the NT. Don't you think that if there were, christians would be shouting it from the rooftops?

Cliste wrote: »

Now out of curiosity I find it harder to believe that there is no God, I'm studying maths and the chance of life happening is so improbable. And if I look up at the sky at night I know that I'm such a small speck on the Universe that even Earth as massive as that is is sweet feck all, and this cockiness that people show regarding knowledge is way off. To be honest my money'd be on us both being wrong;)

Well indeed, you could well be right... but it's a mighty, some would say extraordinary, leap from the improbability of life to the christian god of the bible. Also as a mathematician you would probably appreciate that although the chances of life happening are statistically small, the chances of god existing are even smaller. Listen, I agree, the universe is vast and mysterious and I fully embrace and celebrate that. I don't need to worship an invisible sky pixie to help me cope with its immensity. In fact, I'd go further and say that to disregard the infinite wonder of the universe in favour of the vindictive, petty and malignant little deity portrayed in the bible is like turning your back on the banquet and tucking into the dog's dinner.

berliner

The internet is full of anti jewish stuff.those guys aren't very popular from what i read.wonder why.

Grudaire

Can we agree to disagree- I really don't have time for this, I have exams coming up.

And wonderful soundbites like the one below really aren't helping a constructive arguement- perhaps you should start being a bit more tolerant

rockbeer wrote: »

I don't need to worship an invisible sky pixie to help me cope with its immensity.

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

Can we agree to disagree- I really don't have time for this, I have exams coming up.

You can bail out any time you like, no one is forcing you into this. Or are they?

Cliste wrote: »

And wonderful soundbites like the one below really aren't helping a constructive arguement- perhaps you should start being a bit more tolerant

I think your criticism of my turn of phrase is quite telling considering how often during this thread you've responded to a serious and well-argued point with an eyeroll or by telling someone to 'come back when they make sense', or something equally dismissive which fails to engage with the point. I'm just trying to inject a bit of humour. Would you be happier if I said drily "I don't need to worship a deity for whose existence there is no objective evidence to help me cope with its immensity"?

One of the more noticeable things about christians is how many fail to see that their belief system has intolerance built into it. I remain open to change based on the evidence. Show me proper evidence instead of mumbo jumbo and second hand reports of conjuring tricks and I'll be at church right alongside you. Religious belief on the other hand is dogmatic by nature and leaves no room for dissent ('believe this or you'll spend eternity suffering in consequence' - where's the tolerance in that? Or are you going to tell me you're one of those 'new christians' who thinks the bit about hell doesn't count either?)

More importantly, you're asking me to be tolerant of something I consider to be highly dangerous, socially divisive and actively damaging to the people (invariably children) who are indoctrinated into it.

Would you ask me to be 'more tolerant' of nazism?

I don't regard christianity as any different. It's probably responsible for just as much death and almost certainly for more misery. It's even responsible for encouraging people not to oppose forces such as nazism by telling people not to worry about their earthly misery because they'll get their reward in heaven. Now that sort of thinking really deserves an eyeroll.

Good luck with your exams.

djpbarry

Playboy wrote: »

Tell me what kind of evidence do you require for Jesus existence and the events that occurred in the New Testament?

How about some archaeological evidence?