Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

bodice ripper

If it's the Jews we need to be careful of, Ireland is the place to be. There are like, what, 12 or 13?

lazygal

bodice ripper wrote: »

If it's the Jews we need to be careful of, Ireland is the place to be. There are like, what, 12 or 13?

The good people of Ireland had a few pograms and then fended them off during Nazism so we're alright.

random1337

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And Im just saying that since man came out of the trees we have moved about the globe, countries have changed, cultures have changed. Its always happened. It always will. Stop fretting.

Well how come Europe is the only continent that has to harbour all these immigrants. It is not done anywhere else in the world to the extent it is in Europe on a systematic level. There are certain high up folk who are engineering immigration policies to open border status for Non Europeans into Europe. SWEDES set to be an ethnic minority in SWEDEN in 30 years, is this okay? And dont give me that ****e about Europe being developed so people wanna move here. Japan & Korea are highly developed and have almost 100% homogeneous populations, they just dont take any **** from marxists and zionists.

shruikan2553

bodice ripper wrote: »

If it's the Jews we need to be careful of, Ireland is the place to be. There are like, what, 12 or 13?

They can form a coalition with the Muslims and those Catholic Democrats.

Policies about women, gays and people who arent their religion will be put through at record speed.

lazygal

random1337 wrote: »

Well how come Europe is the only continent that has to harbour all these immigrants. It is not done anywhere else in the world to the extent it is in Europe on a systematic level. There are certain high up folk who are engineering immigration policies to open border status for Non Europeans into Europe. SWEDES set to be an ethnic minority in SWEDEN in 30 years, is this okay? And dont give me that ****e about Europe being developed so people wanna move here. Japan & Korea are highly developed and have almost 100% homogeneous populations, they just dont take any **** from marxists and zionists.

I hear Columbus discovered a new ccontinent a while back. I bet the immigration crowd will give it a try.

Smiles35

random1337 wrote: »

I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a few of those in some high up positions in RTE. Anyway the ****e they pump out on Zionist controlled American TV is definitely rubbing off here with the leftist bollocks that's fed to the masses from RTE nowadays. Even children's cartoons are infested by subtle liberal BS.

You seem more than happy to take all the other ****e banter from across the water. Zionist? wtf does that meen to me. Multiculturalism? The UK with Wales Scotand ect is the very definition of the word.

Loafing Oaf

lazygal wrote: »

What's liberal bs? Equality for women and gay people?

Didn't you know Tinky winky from the Teletubbies was propagandising the gay lifestyle...

random1337

lazygal wrote: »

What's liberal bs? Equality for women and gay people?

Sort of, these are difficult ones to explain but I'll try.

Equality for women is good yes but this excessive feminism which was birthed through Marxism is bad (look up the 'key' people who preached feminism). Now we have proggressive white feminists who go against the norm. Told not to have kids because they are more than breeding machines, hate men and have lost all sense of femininity. I hate to break it to you but women need to breed for the survival of our species. That unfortunately does mean, they need to put their careers second and family first.

Secondly, Homosexuality may be natural but it is becoming encouraged and even trendy to be gay now. Only media in the West brings homosexuality to the forefront and it is aimed at people from a young age. It becomes embedded in their psyche and can even make people become gay even if they naturally wouldn't be.

Both of these things lower birth rates, that's fact no matter what your political outlook is. Just look at the birthrate among different ethnicities in ultra liberal places like Sweden. Simple Math shows Swedes will be ethnic minorities in decades to come.

To clarify, equality for women and gay people are good things until they become too excessive.

lazygal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Didn't you know Tinky winky from the Teletubbies was propagandising the gay lifestyle...

That Peppa Pig has a lot to answer for.

kowloon

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Confront God? I think I know how that will work out.

Boss fight.

lazygal

random1337 wrote: »

Sort of, these are difficult ones to explain but I'll try.

Equality for women is good yes but this excessive feminism which was birthed through Marxism (look up the 'key' people who preached feminism). Now we have proggressive white feminists who go against the norm. Told not to have kids because they are more than breeding machines, hate men and have lost all sense of femininity. I hate to break it to you but women need to breed for the survival of our species. That unfortunately does mean, they need to put their careers second and family first.

Homosexuality may be natural but it is becoming encouraged and even trendy to be gay now. Only media in the West brings homosexuality to the forefront and it is aimed at people from a young age. It becomes embedded in their psyche and can even make people become gay even if they naturally wouldn't be.

Both of these things lower birth rates, that's fact no matter what your politically outlook is. Just look at the birthrate among different ethnicities in ultra liberal places like Sweden. Simple Math shows Swedes will be ethnic minorities in decades to come.

To clarify, equality for women and gay people are good things until they become too excessive.

Megalolz. Do you think people choose to be gay cos it's such as easy life? Or that women who are feminist don't have children? As a woman who's also a mother of two with a gay best friend I'm pretty sure you're either trolling or very young and bitter and need to get out a bit more before you turn into John Waters.
And I have a career, breastfeed my children, use cloth nappies and make their food from scratch. Alongside being happy and married and not hating men. What box do you put me into?

Dan_Solo

Fry is having a go at the Abrahamaic god when he's asked about "god". There are religions where there is no assumption that a deity is the good guy in all this, like a lot of animist or pantheist beliefs.

random1337

bodice ripper wrote: »

If it's the Jews we need to be careful of, Ireland is the place to be. There are like, what, 12 or 13?

There's probably a few thousand in Ireland. Not much you might say but when you dig deeper and find out they are heavily involved in immigration programs into Ireland maybe we're not safe.

shruikan2553

random1337 wrote: »

Sort of, these are difficult ones to explain but I'll try.

Equality for women is good yes but this excessive feminism which was birthed through Marxism is bad (look up the 'key' people who preached feminism). Now we have proggressive white feminists who go against the norm. Told not to have kids because they are more than breeding machines, hate men and have lost all sense of femininity. I hate to break it to you but women need to breed for the survival of our species. That unfortunately does mean, they need to put their careers second and family first.

Secondly, Homosexuality may be natural but it is becoming encouraged and even trendy to be gay now. Only media in the West brings homosexuality to the forefront and it is aimed at people from a young age. It becomes embedded in their psyche and can even make people become gay even if they naturally wouldn't be.

Both of these things lower birth rates, that's fact no matter what your political outlook is. Just look at the birthrate among different ethnicities in ultra liberal places like Sweden. Simple Math shows Swedes will be ethnic minorities in decades to come.

To clarify, equality for women and gay people are good things until they become too excessive.

You should really try Saudi Arabia. It sounds perfect for you. The liberal agenda is kept in check.

lazygal

random1337 wrote: »

There's probably a few thousand in Ireland. Not much you might say but when you dig deeper and find out they are heavily involved in immigration programs into Ireland maybe we're not safe.

Safe from what? Liberal bs, feminism or the gays?

mfceiling

Myrddin wrote: »

Some seem to think it's because about 4 thousand years ago the first ever human beings had sex.

Feels like that in this house as well...

random1337

lazygal wrote: »

Megalolz. Do you think people choose to be gay cos it's such as easy life? Or that women who are feminist don't have children? As a woman who's also a mother of two with a gay best friend I'm pretty sure you're either trolling or very young and bitter and need to get out a bit more before you turn into John Waters.

No I dont think people choose to be gay, but I defiently think television can play a role in the development of a person. Especially in political views but I also believe it can actually shape people's personal/emotional and sexual views.

I don't mind gay people but I believe liberalism not only defends gays, it creates them.

bodice ripper

random1337 wrote: »

There's probably a few thousand in Ireland. Not much you might say but when you dig deeper and find out they are heavily involved in immigration programs into Ireland maybe we're not safe.

Who's we, pale face?

Pherekydes

random1337 wrote: »

There's probably a few thousand in Ireland. Not much you might say but when you dig deeper and find out they are heavily involved in immigration programs into Ireland maybe we're not safe.

1933 called and wants you to stop misusing their time machine.

humanji

MOD: random1337, just stop posting in this thread. You're either trolling or actually anti-Semitic. Either way, you'll be banned if you continue.

Venus In Furs

K4t wrote: »

In the spirit of Voltaire, I'll laugh at most of what you say but disagree with the mods for banning you. They are of course worse than you and your anti-semetic views but will simply say this is a private website, which is fine but also quite ironic in the sense that it is a discussion forum where ideas should flow.

No, they're not "of course" worse than anti-semitics. This "Freedom of expression at all costs" fashion really is a pain in the hoop.

humanji

MOD: Folks, I deleted the off topic replies. Let's get back on topic here.

Smiles35

Never mind Volitare. The Philipenes fecked out France first and manage their getthos like a boss.

K4t

Venus In Furs wrote: »

No, they're not "of course" worse than anti-semitics. This "Freedom of expression at all costs" fashion really is a pain in the hoop.

Only if you put a cost on freedom of expression, which is fine, but it's value is priceless. No idea is worse than the person who would suppress that idea. You would do well to stop and think for one minute about a situation where your idea of what is right is the one being suppressed and you are suffering the effects of not being able to speak out against it. Fortunately in western society that isn't very realistic but it doesn't mean it can't happen.

Venus In Furs

K4t wrote: »

Only if you put a cost on freedom of expression, which is fine, but it's value is priceless. No idea is worse than the person who would suppress that idea. You would do well to stop and think for one minute about a situation where your idea of what is right is the one being suppressed and you are suffering the effects of not being able to speak out against it. Fortunately in western society that isn't very realistic but it doesn't mean it can't happen.

No, mods banning someone for derailing, inflaming, not actually offering anything, insulting... are not "worse" than someone whose utterances would have been heard in Berlin, circa 1935.
Getting sick of this "Free speech" bollocks - it champions the rights of bigots and doesn't give a toss about those on the receiving end.

People should be able to express their views, but if they are assholes about it, then they can be told to shut up, and rightly so.

BlaasForRafa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Fry is having a go at the Abrahamaic god when he's asked about "god". There are religions where there is no assumption that a deity is the good guy in all this, like a lot of animist or pantheist beliefs.

My favourite deity is Crom, he listens not to prayers and cares not for the weak.

""Crom is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, 'What is the riddle of steel?' If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me.""

K4t

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Getting sick of this "Free speech" bollocks - it champions the rights of bigots and doesn't give a toss about those on the receiving end.

Ah free speech only as long as it is something you agree with. Surely you understand that that very freedom only exists in the tolerance of something you disagree with.

People should be able to express their views, but if they are assholes about it, then they can be told to shut up, and rightly so.

They can be told to shut up, as I said this is a private platform, but I don't see why they should be told to shut up in this instance where they're not really being assholes or trolling but simply expressing quite an extreme view and giving examples to support their view. It's interesting to me and I'd rather know of that opinion than to not know of it. It's good to know these views exists, whether they are good or bad, right or wrong, you can then judge for yourself.

Dan_Solo

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

My favourite deity is Crom, he listens not to prayers and cares not for the weak.

""Crom is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, 'What is the riddle of steel?' If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me.""

And if you will not listen, then to hell with you!

haveringchick

K4t wrote: »

I cannot believe you based on your arguments. If his flower beds or his child rearing policy influenced life and the way people think then yes. By your argument, the guy who believes in rape and murder as virtouous and normal acceptable behaviour should be left alone to hold his beliefs without anyone ever questioning them. And not only that but he should be left alone to instill his beliefs on others and run for government on those beliefs without anyone questioning the rationality or logic behind said beliefs. We should leave him and his followers alone and not "impress our opinion of his belief system on him or his potentially many followers". Spare me your "leave them alone they never harmed anyone" liberal attempt at seeming tolerant and accepting of religion.

My mother is a daily mass goer. She returns to her church most evenings to sit and pray quietly. She does her best to adhere to the tenets of her faith. Please tell me that you understand that you have absolutely no entitlement yo challenge her or anybody else going about their faith in a peaceful manner.
Your analogy with murder etc. is frankly disgusting and moronic. You complain no dpunt about how other people's beliefs impinge on your life but apparently have no hesitation in ramming your opinion down the throhats of others.

Rezident

Zaph wrote: »

Gay Byrne looks like someone p*ssed in his cornflakes when Fry gave his answer. If you're not prepared to hear answers you don't like, then don't ask the question.

I fundamentally disagree. Life would be so much better if people were prepared to hear answers they don't like.

Just like Gaybo did. If the issue is so important - as it clearly is for many - I would much rather Gaybo's relatively restrained reaction to that of, say, a fundamentalist Islamist or a fundamentalist atheist, both of whom can display the very worst of human nature.

Whatever you do, do not stop asking the questions. Your personal preferences are irrelevant to the answers. Imagine if we all reacted better to the difficult ones. If a bona fide genius like Stephen Fry is missing the target on this one then clearly we all have a massive gap to bridge here. A gap that cannot be bridged by one side alone. It's such a shame that most of us are burning rather than building.

B.A._Baracus

Zaph wrote: »

Gay Byrne looks like someone p*ssed in his cornflakes when Fry gave his answer. If you're not prepared to hear answers you don't like, then don't ask the question.

I wasn't gonna post this as it comes off as a "smart arse know it all" type of comment. So with that said please no one view this comment as that

But most interviews are two seperate shot pieces. The person being interviewed comes in and the camera is rolling on them, while the interviewer asks the questions.
Then later as said person being interviewed leaves, the crew reposition the shoot to record 'reaction' shots from the interviewer to be edited in between... to create a seemless dialogue with reactions on tv.

So with knowing that, heck even if this was a 2-camera shoot.... Even a 3 camera shoot.... Was Gay Bryne really "shocked" (or what ever word you want to use) by Fry's comments?
Or did Gay Byrne simply put on the shocked face because realising that alot of religious Irish people were going to be watching? The dude has been on tv for decades. Tends to have an older demographic viewing audience these days.




TL:DR? Gay Byrne's reaction wasn't likely real time.

Great to see an articulate Fry answer the question properly. He's a class act tbh

feargale

Zaph wrote: »

Gay Byrne looks like someone p*ssed in his cornflakes when Fry gave his answer. If you're not prepared to hear answers you don't like, then don't ask the question.

Not at all. He looks like a person who is determined to adopt a neutral stance on the issue, the essence of a disinterested interviewer. Why should he have to express agreement or disagreement? Your second sentence is jumping the gun on Gaybo.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Is this to become one of those threads where people complain about any criticism Christianity gets while claiming every other religion is protected and then complain about atheists?

Well, did it happen? You make it sound as if you would be disappointed if it didn't.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Stephen Fry acts the idiot.
He was talking about a Christian God, but then the supposed intellectual, disregarded a part of the bible where it says how evil entered the world.
Evil according to the book of Genesis entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and the price for the disobedience was death was brought into the world, and Adam and Eve allowed evil into the world.

Stephen Fry ignored the bible so he could just have his rant.

He didn't address in his rant about meeting God, how we can choose good or evil, or that by knowing evil, it allows us to know and appreciate what is good.

Also Stephen Fry said if heaven did exist he didn't want to go to heaven, indicating he wants to reside in hell, which is just being stupid for the sake of it.

Anyway I will be watching the Superbowl rather than wasting time on Stephen Fry who thinksthat is heaven did somehow exist he would even get the chance to say directly to God 'How dare you'...

Who exactly created Satan and evil?

And who made man with the capacity for evil? Isn't man made in God's image? So if man is prone to violence, murder, rape etc, isnt that just a reflection of God's nature?

And who made the insects and the beasts? Wasn't that god, not Satan? So didn't god create the nasty insects that burrow into children's eyes? Who is responsible for earthquakes, volcanos, tsuanmis etc?

Who made man with bodies susceptible to cancers and other diseases?

Who murdered the first born Egyptians?

Who commanded the execution of gay people, adulterers etc?

Yea, god is a dick!

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

The Jews according to the bible had a special covenant with God, when they broke it and turned away from God, the prophecy of Jeremiah 16 said they would be banished to lands they do not know, they would end up being hunted down, their bodies not buried, famine and suffering...but this was to happen before Israel would be restored.

Are you ****ing serious?

You suggesting the holocaust was some sort of deserved punishment from god?

If so, I can't figure which of you is more evil.

probably you, since you actually exist

floggg

padd b1975 wrote: »

That's a pretty good argument for marriage being about children you've just made right there!

No its not.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

If you read the passage from Jeremiah that I posted where he gave the prophecy of where the Jews would be in foreign lands , would be hated and hunted down before Israel was restored, you would see there that people will pay for the sins of their ancestors.

Sure we see it with baptism where one gets baptised due to the sin of Adam and Eve and their original sin.

So you dont think punishing all future generations for the sins of their ancestors isn't a completely dickish thing to do?

I will say i do respect you a little bit for admitting god is a dick.

floggg

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm not religious, but generally I think the answer is 'freewill'. But you also have to remember, to a religious person, their time on Earth is infinitely small compared to an infinitely long eternity in heaven. Presumably, Satan has no impact on the eternal bliss we'd find in heaven.

Free will isnt really that great an explanation.

We are free to make our own decisions, but we would not decide to do evil unless the capacity to do evil had been given to us by our maker. So he made us knowing we would use it to do ****ty things.

And given that he is omnipotent, he should have known exactly how we would use it.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Read my post, read the earlier quoted bit from the prophet Jeremiah. Look at why baptism exists.

It has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe, it is there plain and clear in the bible, and plain and clear in baptism where one is baptised because they are seen to carry the original sin of Adam and Eve.

Where did I post bone cancer in children is acceptable to me?
Stephen Fry knows full well that Earth is not utopia but then acted like a fool and said he would reject heaven, ie a Utopian place where all is good.
Rezident made a good point, Fry acts as if Earth is suppose to be a heaven. Earth is a place where good and bad exists. We can either accept and try and make it a better place, or be bitter as Fry was in that interview.
We were given talent and soon we will cure all cancers as things like gene therapy advance.
Some would argue God given talent...

So God created cancer, but its not evil because he also gave us the capacity to potentially develop cures whatever many thousand of years after he created us.

I'm sure thats a lot of comfort to all the people who died in the meantime.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Stephen Fry acts the idiot.
He was talking about a Christian God, but then the supposed intellectual, disregarded a part of the bible where it says how evil entered the world.
Evil according to the book of Genesis entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and the price for the disobedience was death was brought into the world, and Adam and Eve allowed evil into the world.

Stephen Fry ignored the bible so he could just have his rant.

He didn't address in his rant about meeting God, how we can choose good or evil, or that by knowing evil, it allows us to know and appreciate what is good.

Also Stephen Fry said if heaven did exist he didn't want to go to heaven, indicating he wants to reside in hell, which is just being stupid for the sake of it.

Anyway I will be watching the Superbowl rather than wasting time on Stephen Fry who thinksthat is heaven did somehow exist he would even get the chance to say directly to God 'How dare you'...

Thats not really that great an answer.

God created Adam and Eve, and also the forbidden fruit. He created man as a being who was vulnerable to temptation, and lacked the will to say no.

As an omnipotent being, he should have known exactly how the would act in that scenario. He surely knew they would take the fruit.

So did he set them up to fail? Or is not all seeing an powerful after all?

And if man is created in God's image, does that mean god also lacks the will power to say no to an apple?

osarusan

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

TL:DR? Gay Byrne's reaction wasn't likely real time.

Is it not likely that they had two cameras - one recording each of them the whole time?

B.A._Baracus

osarusan wrote: »

Is it not likely that they had two cameras - one recording each of them the whole time?

I used to think the same as you.
That two cameras (or more) recording the interview at the same time would mean what we saw, was what happened.

However TV is't like that because of editing.
In my previous post, that's an example of how TV stations such as Sky, BBC and even RTE conduct interviews for their news broadcasts. It's also used in interview specials such as this with Stephen Fry.

Basically.... the "reaction shots" are just placed in - it's all editing. You just loop the sound of the person getting interviewed over the reaction shot.
It doesn't matter if it's a single camera shoot, a two-camera shoot or 3+ camera shoot. It's editing.

Sir Gallagher

Stephen Fry is great at telling other peoples stories.

DEFTLEFTHAND

When his times comes it won't be God he'll be meeting anyway. Knowing Fry though he'll probably pull something from Dantes Divine Comedy and talk his way out of the Inferno, endure purgatorio, then he'll stand at the pearly gates of Paradiso and be rejected.

osarusan

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I used to think the same as you.
That two cameras (or more) recording the interview at the same time would mean what we saw, was what happened.

However TV is't like that because of editing.
In my previous post, that's an example of how TV stations such as Sky, BBC and even RTE conduct interviews for their news broadcasts. It's also used in interview specials such as this with Stephen Fry.

Basically.... the "reaction shots" are just placed in - it's all editing. You just loop the sound of the person getting interviewed over the reaction shot.
It doesn't matter if it's a single camera shoot, a two-camera shoot or 3+ camera shoot. It's editing.

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that - but I'd still say that there are two cameras. You can still do all of what you said, without making the interviewer sit around after the interview faking 'genuine' reactions to answers he heard 45 minutes ago.

I'd say what we see in interviews are usually genuine reactions to questions - but maybe not always the reaction to the question that was just asked.

In this case, I would doubt that an interviewer such as Gaybo, for example, either deliberately reacted like that in a second shoot after the interview ended, or allowed a reaction to a different answer/comment to be inserted out of sequence as an answer to that quesion.

But who knows.

More generally, I don't have any strong opinions on Fry. I think it's a bit silly to be either dismissing what he said because of his personality or holding his words as incontrovertible truths because of it.

What he said isn't really all that new is it? It's just a variation on 'why does a kind God let terrible things happen?'

BenEadir

RobertKK wrote: »

If you read the passage from Jeremiah that I posted where he gave the prophecy of where the Jews would be in foreign lands , would be hated and hunted down before Israel was restored, you would see there that people will pay for the sins of their ancestors.

Sure we see it with baptism where one gets baptised due to the sin of Adam and Eve and their original sin.

So your God punishes children born today for the sins of ancestors they never met? Nice. That makes a lot of sense.

RobertKK

floggg wrote: »

Are you ****ing serious?

You suggesting the holocaust was some sort of deserved punishment from god?

If so, I can't figure which of you is more evil.

probably you, since you actually exist

You could ask yourself the same question you asked me.

I was just posting about what it says in Jeremiah 16 which it gives a prophecy of the Jews being in a foreign land, being hunted down, not getting proper burials, and how this was to happen before Israel was restored.
It is not like the Jews didn't know of this prophecy from fellow Jew, Jeremiah.

I was simply posting a reply to someone else, if a God exists and this God is a creator of us, then this God rules over his creation, in that prophecy it doesn't say God does the holocaust, it says God removed his love from the Jews, not that God did the evil.
Maybe read and understand before you judge

RobertKK

BenEadir wrote: »

So your God punishes children born today for the sins of ancestors they never met? Nice. That makes a lot of sense.

The amount of ignorance towards knowing a religion is unreal.

Do people think baptism is simply for joining the Christian church? I mean that is one part of it, but it is also to do with being born of the sin of Adam and Eve in the original sin, and how the sin is washed away in baptism.

tigger123

RobertKK wrote: »

The amount of ignorance towards knowing a religion is unreal.

Do people think baptism is simply for joining the Christian church? I mean that is one part of it, but it is also to do with being born of the sin of Adam and Eve in the original sin, and how the sin is washed away in baptism.

Original sin is such a horrible concept.

SaveOurLyric

RobertKK wrote: »

The amount of ignorance towards knowing a religion is unreal.

Exactly. The same as the huge numbers of people who havent read The Lord of the Rings. And dont believe in Orks and Elves. They should study the books before they make up their minds or comment on their existence or not.