Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

My beef with Stephen Fry is the type of logic he used.

He basically said the presence of so much evil in the world and the likes of childhood cancer mean its impossible for there to be a god.

He said no such thing.

Look at the interviews again and get back to us.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

If I wanted to hear an intellectual speak, the last person I would listen to is Fry. So yes, I have very little familiarity with anything he has spoken about, thankfully. Next you will be telling me to listen to Russel Brand's opinions on politics.

So, to summarize, you don't know what he said but he's wrong.
Thanks for that.

Shurimgreat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

He said no such thing.

Look at the interviews again and get back to us.

What was your understanding of what he said?

First of all, he's an athiest, you agree on that? He said if he met God, he would say all these things to them and want to have nothing to do with him. However, reading between the lines, he's an athiest and the presence of so much evil in the world is his reason for not believing.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, to summarize, you don't know what he said but he's wrong.
Thanks for that.

That pretty much sums it up yes. Most people are wrong on most things. I don't get excited by what UK celebrities have to say, clearly you do and take it as "gospel".

Rabo Karabekian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

My beef with Stephen Fry is the type of logic he used.

He basically said the presence of so much evil in the world and the likes of childhood cancer mean its impossible for there to be a god. But its flawed.

If I punch someone on the street, am I then supposed to say, "why didn't god stop me?" or "how could he let me do such an evil thing?"

Too many poeple outsource evil and blame it on a "god" and never take responsibility.

Fry may be right and there is no God, but he didn't really give a good explanation for it. He completely ignored Free Will which is a central tenent of christianity. He also ignored that most cancers come from behavorial, genetic or environmental factors.

Lung cancer for example, a lot of it comes from smoking. Is god to blame for that too? At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own free will or their own evil instead of blaming a "god"?

The examples he used were of naturally occurring 'evil' like worms who survive by feeding on eyes. The examples you used are of organisms who are just being dicks.

Shurimgreat

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

The examples he used were of naturally occurring 'evil' like worms who survive by feeding on eyes. The examples you used are of organisms who are just being dicks.

And again, Fry and his followers on here, seem to think God should be intervening and that because he doesn't intervene he either doesn't exist or he's an evil god, which is plainly ridiculous.

If there is a god, the idea he would intervene to stop naturally or manmade evil is plainly ridiculous.

Its a concept that ranks with the idea of a Santa Claus delivering presents individually.

K4t

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Please, he is attacking Catholics by calling their religion a "disease" many other offensive terms.

If I went and kicked you in the face would you be offended? The posts by that (and many other) posters are along the lines of that.

That's similar to the analogy the Pope used in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, except even he did not go as far as to explicitly suggest that speech is equal to physical violence, and that someone insulting a person's beliefs is the direct equivalent of shooting them with a gun or kicking them in the face.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

A person and their beliefs are one in the same.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

And some of the stuff posted here would certainly be an offence under the blashmaphy laws in this country and could get you arrested too.

Using the blasphemy law to issue threats and in an attempt to suppress speech.



This is a direct question to you and your reply:

hynesie08 wrote:

Nox, do you still believe that all religions other than Catholicism are "wrong" and that kids should have it forced on them in school?

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Pretty much yes.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

"Likes of" as in any group of Islamic fundamentalists who commit terror attacks.
The poster probably didn't mean it that in hind sight however the word fundamentalist immediately makes a connection to terror attacks etc in my head anyway so I don't like it being used towards me.
How could I call myself a catholic if I didn't believe other religions were wrong to some degree or other.

You're not a fundamentalist, but you're not exactly a million miles away from it either when it comes to your religion.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

That pretty much sums it up yes. Most people are wrong on most things. I don't get excited by what UK celebrities have to say, clearly you do and take it as "gospel".

Oh, I see. Because I made a fool of you and your assertion that Fry is often incorrect, I must therefore agree with everything Fry says and be a big fan.
Is this one of those non-logical spiritual arguments again?

Rabo Karabekian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

If there is a god, the idea he would intervene to stop naturally or manmade evil is plainly ridiculous.

Why not? He used to be *all* about getting mixed up in our sh1t.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And again, Fry and his followers on here, seem to think God should be intervening and that because he doesn't intervene he either doesn't exist or he's an evil god, which is plainly ridiculous.

If there is a god, the idea he would intervene to stop naturally or manmade evil is plainly ridiculous.

Its a concept that ranks with the idea of a Santa Claus delivering presents individually.

So, tell us, what purpose does this god who never intervenes serve and why should I worship him?

Shurimgreat

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Why not? He used to be *all* about getting mixed up in our sht.

Give one example in the history of humanity where "god" has verifiably stopped something happening, eg appeared in the middle of a battle and told everyone to go home? Stuck his hand out and pushed away an asteroid? I'm not talking about inspiring people to do this or that, but to actually physically do something or physically appear himself.

So when we are all agreed that god has never intervened and probably never will, then we have made a start. In other words, its not his business to intervene.

The whole point of evil is related to free will. It's actually a simple concept. This has more to do with philosophy than religion.

In summary I find Fry an intellectual lightweight who impresses some people but not others.

K4t

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, tell us, what purpose does this god who never intervenes serve and why should I worship him?

That argument doesn't suit this particular narrative. Please try again later.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, tell us, what purpose does this god who never intervenes serve and why should I worship him?

Again its not complicated. There is evil going on down the road from you which you are aware of. A woman is being raped or a man is being attacked.

So what should happen in this scenario? Who should intervene?

K4t

K4t wrote: »

That's similar to the analogy the Pope used in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, except even he did not go as far as to explicitly suggest that speech is equal to physical violence, and that someone insulting a person's beliefs is the direct equivalent of shooting them with a gun or kicking them in the face.

One thing I will say it that jokes or cartoons or tv programs making a joke wouldn't bother me in the least and I wouldn't see it as attacking my beliefs more just a bit of fun, as I said I'm far from a really crazy religious person. In fact most people I know who wouldn't actually see me there wouldn't even know I go to mass etc.

I dont find the comments like a "disease" etc insulting though as they are not said as a joke or satire they are really meant.

K4t wrote: »

This is a direct question to you and your reply:

Replace the word "force" with taught and that looks a lot better doesn't it. I believe that in a catholic school it should be taught yes, hardly an outlandish opinion and Id wager the majority opinion in this country.

Rabo Karabekian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Give one example in the history of humanity where "god" has verifiably stopped something happening, eg appeared in the middle of a battle and told everyone to go home? Stuck his hand out and pushed away an asteroid? I'm not talking about inspiring people to do this or that, but to actually physically do something or physically appear himself.

Oh, I agree with you. I don't think 'God' intervened in anything at all. But just so we're clear (and apologies if I'm misinterpreting you) you don't believe in anything that happened in the Bible, right?

Shurimgreat

A better way to explain all this is that manmade evil is related to manmade actions, and its pointless expecting a "god" to interene. The mistake people often make is they think god will intervene to stop something, so they don't have to bother.

As for non manmade evil, again, its a bit ridiculous. A lot of the things Fry mentioned, eye worms, bone cancers in children are related to poverty or environmental issues. They can be cured by man and they can be prevented by man. But hey lets all blame "god".

In other words Fry is talked out his a*s and his admirers have accepted it without questioning.

Shurimgreat

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Oh, I agree with you. I don't think 'God' intervened in anything at all. But just so we're clear (and apologies if I'm misinterpreting you) you don't believe in anything that happened in the Bible, right?

Very little if any of it. Most of it was myth, metaphor or parable. I'm more into imperical evidence myself or in the absence of that sound logical reasoning.

In any case the Christian god is of the spiritual rather than the material realm, another cornerstone. He doesn't do interventions is my view of it. The idea that he would zap eye worms and stuff like that is pretty foolish.

Rabo Karabekian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A better way to explain all this is that manmade evil is related to manmade actions, and its pointless expecting a "god" to interene. The mistake people often make is they think god will intervene to stop something, so they don't have to bother.

As for non manmade evil, again, its a bit ridiculous. A lot of the things Fry mentioned, eye worms, bone cancers in children are related to poverty or environmental issues. They can be cured by man and they can be prevented by man. But hey lets all blame "god".

In other words Fry is talked out his a*s and his admirers have accepted it without questioning.

We could create a perfect world where there's no poverty or environmental issues (bar volcanoes, earthquakes, floods and so on) but we both know that's never going to happen. And if *we* know that's never going to happen, I'm pretty sure God, with his all-seeing omnipotence knows this as well. So, given we live in this imperfect world, smiting eye-eating worms would be something.

Rabo Karabekian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very little if any of it. Most of it was myth, metaphor or parable. I'm more into imperical evidence myself or in the absence of that sound logical reasoning.

In any case the Christian god is of the spiritual rather than the material realm, another cornerstone. He doesn't do interventions is my view of it. The idea that he would zap eye worms and stuff like that is pretty foolish.

That's fair enough. I can't say whether there's a creator or not, especially one who doesn't participate in any way in our experience.

I do think that Fry is arguing more against God as portrayed in the Abrahamic faiths, a God that believers claimed intervened numerous times in human history.

Shurimgreat

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

We could create a perfect world where there's no poverty or environmental issues (bar volcanoes, earthquakes, floods and so on) but we both know that's never going to happen. And if *we* know that's never going to happen, I'm pretty sure God, with his all-seeing omnipotence knows this as well. So, given we live in this imperfect world, smiting eye-eating worms would be something.

See my post above. I will summarise my argument to make it easier for you.

God is of the spiritual and not the material realm, if he exists at all. He's not going to be appearing here zapping eye worms.

All manmade evil is caused by man not a god. All manmade evil can only be solved by man.

Most diseases in the world which badly affect children such as those which affect them in the third world are related to poverty and manmade evil such as civil wars. Again only physical men can cure them and prevent them not a spiritual superman.

Some people have a very infantile view of a god coming down, like santa claus, to individually help them with their problems. It's not goint to happen. Hating someone who may or may not exist is childish to be honest.

Shurimgreat

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

So, given we live in this imperfect world, smiting eye-eating worms would be something.

Which would be better? Wait an eternity for a spiritual superman to solve the problem? Or perhaps with medicine that's widely available and costs perhaps 50c a go, we solve the problem?

Most "evil" can be overcome if people make a small bit of effort, instead of waiting around for spiritual superman to solve the problem.

Maximus Alexander

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Give one example in the history of humanity where "god" has verifiably stopped something happening, eg appeared in the middle of a battle and told everyone to go home? Stuck his hand out and pushed away an asteroid? I'm not talking about inspiring people to do this or that, but to actually physically do something or physically appear himself.

So when we are all agreed that god has never intervened and probably never will, then we have made a start. In other words, its not his business to intervene.

Is Jesus not a thing anymore?

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Atheists, theists and anyone in between... I mean do they think what they post or say really changes anyone to their viewpoint?
It is usually people on either side just thanking people who share their point of view rather than someone thanking to say 'yeah, that was a convincing argument'.

So if one continues arguing a point, it makes the person irrational as they are just going round in circles arguing the same thing.

Why are you here and participating then?

I have often been forced to look at things from a new perspective when participating in debates on boards.

Rabo Karabekian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

See my post above. I will summarise my argument to make it easier for you.

God is of the spiritual and not the material realm, if he exists at all. He's not going to be appearing here zapping eye worms.

All manmade evil is caused by man not a god. All manmade evil can only be solved by man.

Most diseases in the world which badly affect children such as those which affect them in the third world are related to poverty and manmade evil such as civil wars. Again only physical men can cure them and prevent them not a spiritual superman.

Some people have a very infantile view of a god coming down, like santa claus, to individually help them with their problems. It's not goint to happen. Hating someone who may or may not exist is childish to be honest.

Yeah, you don't have to summarise anything. As I said, I assumed you were arguing from the point of view as someone who had a belief in the Bible, seeing as you were arguing against somebody whose understanding of 'God' was of the interventionist type.

Fry's argument (of a God that refuses to zap worms) only makes sense if he is speaking of the God of the Bible who intervened countless times to alter the earth's history. A God who exists in a 'spiritual' sense (or even a physical sense) who has no impact on human existence bar (perhaps) acting as the 'clock maker' is not what Fry is talking about.

Donkey Oaty

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I try to view the complete picture instead of focusing on one side of the coin and as I explained there's nothing bad and evil which occur in this world without good being a by product of the process.


Just a slight correction Al-Maʿarri who lived during the Abbasid Caliphate was not an atheist, in fact he believed in a God and believed in the same attribute Muslim believe him to have, but rather he was a strong critic of religion, he was an outstanding poet and philosopher who attracted alot of student during his stay in Baghdad of his time, controversial in his own time, and is regarded as a heretic today, because he was one of the rare examples of religious scepticism in the Islamic world, and while he was blind he was not ostracised or seen as less than perfect during this time.

As an aside it's great to see your interest in the Arabic poetry as there's a fountain of wisdom in what those people have written, you might be interested in Ibn Al Rawandi and Al Razi both of which had a similar but less critical train of though then al marri.

Defender, I am very encouraged by your response here - and while I do not agree with your analysis of his faith, I would be very interested to know how you came to your conclusion. Scholars are not united on this, but then maybe that makes him all the better a poet. ( The movie "Juno" was praised by both pro- and anti- abortion campaigners, and rightly so.)

You will know that Rumi is apparently the best-selling poet in the USA over the last few years, and Al- Ma'arri would be hot on his heels, in my view, given the right publicity.

We should have a separate thread - "After Hours, Classical Arabic Poetry" to discuss the work of Rumi and Al-Ma'arri.

Any links to some decent translations of the poets you mention which include the original classical Arabic would be much appreciated.

kingchess

Next thing you will be saying is that God did not send his only son to "save"us,he intervened by giving some commands to Moses??,

floggg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I still want to know how praying for people to be nice to each other or kill more protestants or whatever doesn't contravene the Jesusfleet Prime Directive of free will.

Clearly you don't understand the religious rules of causation.

Undesirable outcomes are caused by free will (which seemingly also covers natural disasters) where desirable outcomes are the result of gods direct intervention in world affairs.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So when we are all agreed that god has never intervened and probably never will, then we have made a start. In other words, its not his business to intervene.

If god never intervenes, how can anybody in this universe have any indication that he exists? By definition there is no such information available.

Dan_Solo

floggg wrote: »

Clearly you don't understand the religious rules of causation.

Undesirable outcomes are caused by free will (which seemingly also covers natural disasters) where desirable outcomes are the result of gods direct intervention in world affairs.

Oh I know this one well.
Church does good? That's god.
Church does bad? That's man.
Simples.

floggg

TheDoc wrote: »

As a matter of interest.

While I don't believe in god, in any shape or form, I would believe that we are not alone, and that there is other life somewhere.

I can't fathom that in all the galaxies and universes that we know off, never mind the near infinite space we do not know about, that there wouldn't be other living life, somewhere.

I have no basis for this, absolutely no proof or evidence. Nor does anyone else. I'm not a Area51 tinfoil hat wearing freak, I just think the likelyhood is there is something out there. It's a belief, no evidence or basis, just a belief.

I wonder would some of the non-religious people in here and elsewhere, who label religous people as bat **** crazy, and seem to take some enjoyment at planting the "prove it to me" arguement, do the same with me?


Then again probably helps that I don't preach it every Sunday morning, cause that would be weird

I wouldn't anyway.

Your belief is based on probabilities - while the offs of finding life on any one planet are small, there are an almost infinite number of planets so it's much more probably that at least one other planet will have life.

It's like the lotto - the odds of me winning it this week are minuscule, and you would likely think me deluded if I was convinced I would.


However, if was convinced that SOMEBODY would win it this week, that would seem a lot more reasonable given the vast numbers playing.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As for non manmade evil, again, its a bit ridiculous. A lot of the things Fry mentioned, eye worms, bone cancers in children are related to poverty or environmental issues. They can be cured by man and they can be prevented by man. But hey lets all blame "god".

All the diseases god made could have been cured by man at any stage in our entire history? So if you get shot and the doctors can't save you, that's the doctor's fault I suppose.
Comical.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If god never intervenes, how can anybody in this universe have any indication that he exists? By definition there is no such information available.

He's of the spiritual realm not the physical one. If there is a god, he probably didn't "create" the universe since that is the physical/material realm. Its probably impossible to verify the existance or non existance of god, and possibly rightly so. In short however, people are entitled to believe what they like, one way or another.

The person who says I can "prove" god doesn't exist should be viewed with the same suspicion as someone who says I can "prove" he does exist.

There's no experiment you can carry out to prove it one way or another. At best you can come to sound logical conclusions about it.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Give one example in the history of humanity where "god" has verifiably stopped something happening

I might ask you to give any example in the history of humanity where "god" has done anything at all.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

All the diseases god made could have been cured by man at any stage in our entire history? So if you get shot and the doctors can't save you, that's the doctor's fault I suppose.
Comical.

so now you believe god is going around inventing diseases?

floggg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah come on now. If we banned kids from being brainwashed every religion on earth would be ****ed in a generation.

As would many sports teams.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

He's of the spiritual realm not the physical one.

So you have no evidence whatsoever as he doesn't interact with our universe in any way.
Anything else that you have no evidence of at all that you propose we never possibly can have evidence of you would like us to consider for our amusement?

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

so now you believe god is going around inventing diseases?

Are you proposing diseases did not exist before mankind?

Dan_Solo

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Fry's argument (of a God that refuses to zap worms) only makes sense if he is speaking of the God of the Bible who intervened countless times to alter the earth's history. A God who exists in a 'spiritual' sense (or even a physical sense) who has no impact on human existence bar (perhaps) acting as the 'clock maker' is not what Fry is talking about.

That was my original problem with his answer to the question. Plenty of religions have no concept of god being "good" or "bad". He went for the abrahamaic version, though I'd imagine he had a fair idea of the context in which he was being asked (gaybo from RTE).

Dan_Solo

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I do think that Fry is arguing more against God as portrayed in the Abrahamic faiths, a God that believers claimed intervened numerous times in human history.

Snap.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If god never intervenes, how can anybody in this universe have any indication that he exists? By definition there is no such information available.

You are coming very close to my point of view now. Fry doesn't think God exists because no god would be so evil as to invent eye worms and bone cancer in children, or else allow it to happen. Free will and a non interventionist god go hand in hand. If he intervenes, then free will goes out the window and he becomes a dictator just like any other. Its virtually impossible to determine if he exists or not, in the christian view of things. You just have to wait and see and hope he does or doesn't as the case may be.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are you proposing diseases did not exist before mankind?

Of course they existed FFS. There are millions of species on earth, each one affected by diseases of one kind or another and many of them shared between humans and animals such as cancer.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Of course they existed FFS. There are millions of species on earth, each one affected by diseases of one kind or another and many of them shared between humans and animals such as cancer.

But you blamed humans for not curing or preventing diseases. Stupid humans, should have cured all diseases a million years ago when they came down out of the trees. It's so easy.
Like I said, you're blaming the doctor not the gunman when you're shot dead.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You just have to wait and see and hope he does or doesn't as the case may be.

Or not give a **** either way as it makes no tangible difference to anybody's life whatsoever.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Fry doesn't think God exists because no god would be so evil as to invent eye worms and bone cancer in children

He didn't say that. Did you make an exception just this once and listen to what Fry actually said?

Loafing Oaf

Shurimgreat wrote: »

My beef with Stephen Fry is the type of logic he used.

He basically said the presence of so much evil in the world and the likes of childhood cancer mean its impossible for there to be a god. But its flawed.

If I punch someone on the street, am I then supposed to say, "why didn't god stop me?" or "how could he let me do such an evil thing?"

Too many poeple outsource evil and blame it on a "god" and never take responsibility.

Fry may be right and there is no God, but he didn't really give a good explanation for it. He completely ignored Free Will which is a central tenent of christianity. He also ignored that most cancers come from behavorial, genetic or environmental factors.

Lung cancer for example, a lot of it comes from smoking. Is god to blame for that too? At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own free will or their own evil instead of blaming a "god"?

I don't think you've got your head around Fry's argument: it applies as long as there's pain, suffering, death or any sort of imperfection in the universe. Instead of the words he used think of him asking God "With your unlimited powers, why didn't you create a flawless universe instead of the messed up one we have?" and see if you can give a sensible answer from the deity's POV...

Shurimgreat

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't think you've got your head around Fry's argument: it applies as long as there's pain, suffering, death or any sort of imperfection in the universe. Instead of the words he used think of him asking God "With your unlimited powers, why didn't you create a flawless universe instead of the messed up one we have?" and see if you can give a sensible answer from the deity's POV...

Again based on this Fry doesn't seem to understand Christianity.

The flawless world is the next world, supposedly. Its the number one point about christianity.

Access to the "perfect flawless world" is conditional on good deeds in this world.

The whole point about christianity is to encourage people to do good and get a reward. Its not to hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it.

Fry again fails to make a distinction between the material world and the spiritual world.

As for Evil, it comes from the so called original sin of adam and eve, in other words there will always be evil in the world.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with christian thinking, I'm just highlighting crucial facts about it.

In any case I'm being harsh on Fry. Most of Gay Byrnes questions are light hearted and in jest. He knows full well Fry is an athiest and he knows full well he will get an entertaining answer.

K4t

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

I dont find the comments like a "disease" etc insulting though as they are not said as a joke or satire they are really meant.

How would you find it so? Would you not agree that religion and religious beliefs have caused suffering to many people and inflicted much pain on the world? You only have to look as far as Mother Theresa and many of her actions in India as undeniable evidence of the pain and suffering of millions due to religious beliefs.

Replace the word "force" with taught and that looks a lot better doesn't it. I believe that in a catholic school it should be taught yes, hardly an outlandish opinion and Id wager the majority opinion in this country.

You say you're not a fundamentalist (I believe you when you say that) and you say you aren't crazy religious either, but then why are you not content to exert your right to hold your own religious beliefs, practice them and share them, without the need for your beliefs to be taught exclusively as right and correct to children in state funded catholic schools, and all that accompanies it with school prayer, visits by priests, confession, crucifixes on the walls, communion and confirmation and so on, instead of offering them the opportunity to study and view both Catholicism and atheism, Islam and Judaism, agnosticism and so on equally, without placing greater significance on one, without saying one is undeniably correct. Why do you need your own personal catholic religious beliefs which help you live a better life to be instilled into the minds of children in state funded catholic schools? As a person of science (physicist?) surely you should support secular schools where young people's minds are open to the world, the universe, and all kinds of explanations and beliefs, and that they are allowed to find or choose their own path? Secular schools, where teachers will educate their students on all aspects and types of religious and non religious belief, where they do not simply teach that god either does or does not exist, is surely the most equal and most fair for all?

Shurimgreat

K4t wrote: »

How would you find it so? Would you not agree that religion and religious beliefs have caused suffering to many people and inflicted much pain on the world? You only have to look as far as Mother Theresa and many of her actions in India as undeniable evidence of the pain and suffering of millions due to religious beliefs.

Scuse me for interupting but I don't buy this. There was poverty in India long before Mother Theresa. There was a caste system and there were untouchables. There was all kinds of misery there before she came along. There was no family planning much either, poor people cannot afford condoms, doctors, abortions or the Pill.

Blaming Mother Theresa for the problems of India is bizarre. The problems were endemic to Indian society and still are, relating to caste and poverty.

Loafing Oaf

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again based on this Fry doesn't seem to understand Christianity.

The flawless world is the next world, supposedly. Its the number one point about christianity.

Access to the "perfect flawless world" is conditional on good deeds in this world.

The whole point about christianity is to encourage people to do good and get a reward. Its not to hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it.
.

You're still not getting Fry's point. You're trying to rationalise things from the point of view of the Christian religion rather than from God himself, who surely came before that religion. He can create whatever kind of universe he wants: why did he create this obstacle course of a universe that people had to negotiate before accessing the next world? Did he get bored lying around in eternal bliss and decide to devise the ultimate spectator sport? Why shouldn't God "hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it" if he has/had the capacity to do that, rather than make the 'vale of tears' we have been landed with?

RobertKK

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're still not getting Fry's point. You're trying to rationalise things from the point of view of the Christian religion rather than from God himself, who surely came before that religion. He can create whatever kind of universe he wants: why did he create this obstacle course of a universe that people had to negotiate before accessing the next world? Did he get bored lying around in eternal bliss and decide to devise the ultimate spectator sport? Why shouldn't God "hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it" if he has/had the capacity to do that, rather than make the 'vale of tears' we have been landed with?

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.