Will you be going to mass this Christmas

The Randy Riverbeast

Cristian Grumpy Mouthful wrote: »

Some things are beyond our ability to explain using science.

Maybe beyond your ability, if something can't be explained using science then there's a good chance it might not be happening.

haveringchick

There's no scientific explanation for God
There's no scientific explanation for my feelings for my daughter. None whatsoever
You cannot give me an explanation so don't even try
Jesus transcends science
Love transcends science
You can't get around that

kylith

haveringchick wrote: »

There's no scientific explanation for God
There's no scientific explanation for my feelings for my daughter. None whatsoever
You cannot give me an explanation so don't even try
Jesus transcends science
Love transcends science
You can't get around that

Untrue. Your feelings for your daughter are caused by a release of chemicals in your brain: phenylethylamine, norepinephrine, oxytocin and dopamine. If gods exist they would be measurable by science.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

TLDR: Old Testement rules still apply, says Jesus.

Yep, Old Testament (Covenant) rules still apply if you're Jewish, New Testament (Covenant) is literally a new covenant with God for Christians.

Roman Catholics have another set of rules again within Christianity which they follow - the Cathechism, nothing at all to do with Leviticus.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, Old Testament (Covenant) rules still apply if you're Jewish, New Testament (Covenant) is literally a new covenant with God for Christians.

Roman Catholics have another set of rules again within Christianity which they follow - the Cathechism, nothing at all to do with Leviticus.

So Christians can ignore Jesus now? Why is Leviticus in the bible then? Why is the OT included at all? Why do priests read from it in mass?

mahoganygas

One eyed Jack wrote:

Roman Catholics have another set of rules again within Christianity which they follow - the Cathechism, nothing at all to do with Leviticus.

So being gay is OK?

Grand.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

So Christians can ignore Jesus now?

Many of them already do, I wouldn't judge them for it though, not my place really. But if Jesus is speaking to Jews, it doesn't apply to Christians. Christians are free to ignore that which doesn't apply to them.

Why is Leviticus in the bible then? Why is the OT included at all? Why do priests read from it in mass?

The Bible as a whole is the Word of God, that includes both the Old, and the New Testament, I don't see any particular reason to exclude parts of it just because they don't apply to a particular religious persuasion, because all religions which draw from the Bible as their source, interpret the word of God as it applies to them.

Gaygooner

Are we still OK to stone our daughters and own slaves then????

The Randy Riverbeast

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Maybe beyond your ability, if something can't be explained using science then there's a good chance it might not be happening.

Well my ability is much more then the vast majority of people, as are the many religious scientists I know two of whom are professors.

One eyed Jack

Gaygooner wrote: »

Are we still OK to stone our daughters and own slaves then????

Are you asking because you have a particular interest in stoning your daughters or owning slaves?

Why would you think that should be acceptable in modern society?

haveringchick

kylith wrote: »

Untrue. Your feelings for your daughter are caused by a release of chemicals in your brain: phenylethylamine, norepinephrine, oxytocin and dopamine. If gods exist they would be measurable by science.

Untrue.
I know my feelings for my daughter are inexplicable.
Your comparing my feelings for my daughter to the protective instinct my dog shows for her puppies
Tell me, do you have a daughter yourself?

haveringchick

Gaygooner wrote: »

Are we still OK to stone our daughters and own slaves then????

I don't think anyone will let you enslave them 2000 years later
And I don't know why you want to sthrow stones at your daughter
But I suppose you could tell the Judge that the Bible told you you could
Let us know how that works out for you anyway!

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Many of them already do, I wouldn't judge them for it though, not my place really. But if Jesus is speaking to Jews, it doesn't apply to Christians. Christians are free to ignore that which doesn't apply to them.

The Bible as a whole is the Word of God, that includes both the Old, and the New Testament, I don't see any particular reason to exclude parts of it just because they don't apply to a particular religious persuasion, because all religions which draw from the Bible as their source, interpret the word of God as it applies to them.

Then why do Christian priests preach from it? Why is it not made clear at the start of every bible reading that it's aimed at Jews and Christians don't have to pay any attention to it? I have never in my life (and I attended mass weekly for almost 20 years) heard a priest say 'A reading from the book of Isiah, but remember, this only really applies to Jews'. Why do Christians use it as examples of Christian morality?

You're talking nonsense and you know it. Christians are supposed to follow the entire bible. Jesus said so, and Christians are supposed to follow the word of Jesus. The fact that they cherry pick the bits they want to follow just means that, if they're right about there being a god, they're all going to hell.

Either the bible is the word of god and must be followed by all followers of Yaweh, or god made a mistake by not delineating it into Jewish and Christian.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Then why do Christian priests preach from it? Why is it not made clear at the start of every bible reading that it's aimed at Jews and Christians don't have to pay any attention to it? I have never in my life (and I attended mass weekly for almost 20 years) heard a priest say 'A reading from the book of Isiah, but remember, this only really applies to Jews'. Why do Christians use it as examples of Christian morality?

You're talking nonsense and you know it. Christians are supposed to follow the entire bible.Jesus said so, and Christians are supposed to follow the word of Jesus. The fact that they cherry pick the bits they want to follow just means that, if they're right about there being a god, they're all going to hell.

No they aren't. How many denominations do you think there are within Christianity, all with their own individual interpretation of the Bible?

Jesus dying on the cross was the point where a New Covenant was made with God which meant that Christians would not be spending an eternity in Hell.

I don't know if you've ever taken part in a Bible Study class, but even among Christians there can often be heated exchanges over the meaning and interpretation of passages in the Bible. Why would you think people should blindly follow the Bible to the letter? It's choc-a-block full of contradictions and plenty of stuff that really wouldn't fly today.

I think it's a good thing that the Church evolves, personally. You seem to want to judge people for not holding fast to your interpretation of the Bible, why would you want that, instead of encouraging progress?

Pherekydes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, Old Testament (Covenant) rules still apply if you're Jewish, New Testament (Covenant) is literally a new covenant with God for Christians.

Roman Catholics have another set of rules again within Christianity which they follow - the Cathechism, nothing at all to do with Leviticus.

If the old testament doesn't apply, where do Christians get their (very central) idea of original sin?

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No they aren't. How many denominations do you think there are within Christianity, all with their own individual interpretation of the Bible?

Jesus dying on the cross was the point where a New Covenant was made with God which meant that Christians would not be spending an eternity in Hell.


I think it's a good thing that the Church evolves, personally. You seem to want to judge people for not holding fast to your interpretation of the Bible, why would you want that, instead of encouraging progress?

But that's what I'm asking! If there's a new covenant why do churches still preach the old covenant? Why do they include it with their holy book? Why do they use it to try to deny homosexuals rights? The Quran comes from the Talmud as much as the Christan NT does, but it doesn't include it or preach it.

All I'm doing is expecting Christians to live by what is in their scripture and why they preach. How is that wrong? Someone tells me that their god is infallible and they follow his teachings, except for that bit and that bit and that bit, then either they don't follow the teachings of their god or their god isn't infallible and the holy book needs an editor to bring it up to date. Why should I not point that out?

It's coming to something when an atheist takes Christian teachings more seriously than Christians do.

One eyed Jack

Pherekydes wrote: »

If the old testament doesn't apply, where do Christians get their (very central) idea of original sin?

There are different interpretations of Original Sin depending upon which denomination of Christianity you're referring to tbh. The only reason I bothered to correct the other poster on Leviticus is because it's often used as a stick to beat Christians with, when it doesn't apply to Christians.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are different interpretations of Original Sin depending upon which denomination of Christianity you're referring to tbh. The only reason I bothered to correct the other poster on Leviticus is because it's often used as a stick to beat Christians with, when it doesn't apply to Christians.

Yet Christians use it as a stick to beat gay people. You'd want to tell them it doesn't apply to them.

The Randy Riverbeast

Cristian Grumpy Mouthful wrote: »

Well my ability is much more then the vast majority of people, as are the many religious scientists I know two of whom are professors.

Do they give up as soon as they think God did it so science can't answer this one as well?

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

But that's what I'm asking! If there's a new covenant why do churches still preach the old covenant? Why do they include it with their holy book? Why do they use it to try to deny homosexuals rights? The Quran comes from the Talmud as much as the Christan NT does, but it doesn't include it or preach it.

All I'm doing is expecting Christians to live by what is in their scripture and why they preach. How is that wrong? Someone tells me that their god is infallible and they follow his teachings, except for that bit and that bit and that bit, then either they don't follow the teachings of their god or their god isn't infallible and the holy book needs an editor to bring it up to date. Why should I not point that out?

It's coming to something when an atheist takes Christian teachings more seriously than Christians do.

You're not taking Christian teachings seriously at all though really, you're passing judgement on people who identify as Christian, reminiscent of the craw thumpy old farts that used pass judgement on people for not abiding by their moral standards.

The_Mac

ITT: Very brave militant atheists on the warpath.

Dyr

haveringchick wrote: »

Untrue.
I know my feelings for my daughter are inexplicable.
Your comparing my feelings for my daughter to the protective instinct my dog shows for her puppies
Tell me, do you have a daughter yourself?

Tell me, did you ever give birth to puppies? :mad:

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Yet Christians use it as a stick to beat gay people. You'd want to tell them it doesn't apply to them.

Do they? Or is it just some people who identify as Christian who do that?


There are plenty of people who identify as Christian who don't -


http://www.gcvi.ie/index.php/about-us


I wouldn't tar people who identify as atheist with the same brush either in saying that I find some people who identify as atheist or non-religious are often incredibly judgemental of other people, sometimes especially people who identify as homosexual.

Some people are just incredibly ignorant, regardless of their religious beliefs, or absence thereof.

Gaygooner

haveringchick wrote: »

I don't think anyone will let you enslave them 2000 years later
And I don't know why you want to sthrow stones at your daughter
But I suppose you could tell the Judge that the Bible told you you could
Let us know how that works out for you anyway!

So shuck bits are the actual word of god and which can we just ignore now we know better???

Not the gay bit?

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do they? Or is it just some people who identify as Christian who do that?


There are plenty of people who identify as Christian who don't -


http://www.gcvi.ie/index.php/about-us


I wouldn't tar people who identify as atheist with the same brush either in saying that I find some people who identify as atheist or non-religious are often incredibly judgemental of other people, sometimes especially people who identify as homosexual.

Some people are just incredibly ignorant, regardless of their religious beliefs, or absence thereof.

And many of those people who identify as Christian who don't oppose gay rights are going against the teachings of their church. If they go against the teachings of Christianity can they really be called Christians? If I say I'm a vegetarian but I eat meat then people won't be long pointing out that I'm not a vegetarian. Words mean things. Christian means following one of the Christian religions.

Maybe the people who want to call themselves Christian but who disagree, and in some cases actually oppose, the teachings of the Christian churches should start their own religion. They can cut out the bits of the bible they don't like and call it Jesusism or something.

kylith

haveringchick wrote: »

Untrue.
I know my feelings for my daughter are inexplicable.
Your comparing my feelings for my daughter to the protective instinct my dog shows for her puppies
Tell me, do you have a daughter yourself?

How do you know your dog doesn't feel for her puppies the same way you feel for your daughter?

Scientists have measured brain chemistry, we know what creates 'love'. Being able to quantify it doesn't make it less real.

haveringchick

Bambi wrote: »

Tell me, did you ever give birth to puppies? :mad:

No. why?

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

And many of those people who identify as Christian who don't oppose gay rights are going against the teachings of their church. If they go against the teachings of Christianity can they really be called Christians? If I say I'm a vegetarian but I eat meat then people won't be long pointing out that I'm not a vegetarian. Words mean things. Christian means following one of the Christian religions.

Of course they can. If someone identifies themselves as Christian, I'm not going to judge them for not behaving as I think a Christian should. I'm not going to judge someone who identifies as vegetarian for not behaving as I think a vegetarian should, and I'm not going to judge a gay Christian vegetarian for not behaving as I think a gay Christian vegetarian should.

I simply don't see the point in it. If people want to point fingers at other people, or people are pointing fingers at you, then knowing how that feels, why would you want to do it to other people?


EDIT: As for "words mean things", I don't think you need me to explain how language evolves and words and ideas can take on different meanings over time?

Maybe the people who want to call themselves Christian but who disagree, and in some cases actually oppose, the teachings of the Christian churches should start their own religion. They can cut out the bits of the bible they don't like and call it Jesusism or something.

That's been done many times throughout history already, and will probably happen again at some point in the future, but for now I'm happy to join Mary McAleese and many other people who identify as Roman Catholic in working within the Church to bring about change.

haveringchick

kylith wrote: »

How do you know your dog doesn't feel for her puppies the same way you feel for your daughter?

Scientists have measured brain chemistry, we know what creates 'love'. Being able to quantify it doesn't make it less real.

No we don't know what creates love
How ridiculous
You have a theory of what creates love that suits you
This you use to further rule out the possibility of a higher presence than
Kylith
When scientists get proof that there is no God then I'll listen to you
Which is never
You still haven't told me if you have a daughter or not
And if you do, that you actually believe that the emotional relationship you have with her is nothing more than a byproduct of chemical reaction
Nor have you explained why these chemical reactions take place
If we are no more than a super evolved animal, just here to procreate and survive at a more advanced rate and standard then monkeys, then why have these chemical reactions which you say are the sole source of any emotional feelings, joy anger love grief etc, not been eradicated by evolution as our appendix have?
How do you explain the many scientists who are happy to believe in the existence of God?

eviltwin

haveringchick wrote: »

No we don't know what creates love
How ridiculous
You have a theory of what creates love that suits you
This you use to further rule out the possibility of a higher presence than
Kylith
When scientists get proof that there is no God then I'll listen to you
Which is never
You still haven't told me if you have a daughter or not
And if you do, that you actually believe that the emotional relationship you have with her is nothing more than a byproduct of chemical reaction
Nor have you explained why these chemical reactions take place
If we are no more than a super evolved animal, just here to procreate and survive at a more advanced rate and standard then monkeys, then why have these chemical reactions which you say are the sole source of any emotional feelings, joy anger love grief etc, not been eradicated by evolution as our appendix have?
How do you explain the many scientists who are happy to believe in the existence of God?

What do you think the love between a parent and child is caused by and is it different to the love between friends, spouses etc?

Dyr

haveringchick wrote: »

No. why?

Then you're obviously in no position to judge a dogs feelings towards its puppies. By your own logic anyway.

Also, because the gods said so.

mahoganygas

haveringchick wrote:

If we are no more than a super evolved animal, just here to procreate and survive at a more advanced rate and standard then monkeys, then why have these chemical reactions which you say are the sole source of any emotional feelings, joy anger love grief etc, not been eradicated by evolution as our appendix have?

Feeling joy around others demonstrates a desire for community and pack / herd mentality.

Feeling anger demonstrates protecting your offspring from predators.

Feeling love demonstrates sexual attraction and procreation.

Feeling grief demonstrates a recognition that offspring have been lost and that this should be avoided in future.

kylith

haveringchick wrote: »

No we don't know what creates love
How ridiculous
You have a theory of what creates love that suits you
This you use to further rule out the possibility of a higher presence than
Kylith
When scientists get proof that there is no God then I'll listen to you
Which is never
You still haven't told me if you have a daughter or not
And if you do, that you actually believe that the emotional relationship you have with her is nothing more than a byproduct of chemical reaction
Nor have you explained why these chemical reactions take place
If we are no more than a super evolved animal, just here to procreate and survive at a more advanced rate and standard then monkeys, then why have these chemical reactions which you say are the sole source of any emotional feelings, joy anger love grief etc, not been eradicated by evolution as our appendix have?
How do you explain the many scientists who are happy to believe in the existence of God?

Prove to me that there is a god. Not 'feelings'. Not one sole book. Proof.

Why do we have emotions? It's explained well by the poster above me. Do you really think we're the only animal to feel emotions? Elephants feel joy. Dogs grieve. Horses have best friends. A mother bear will give her life for her children - is that not love just because she can't say the words?

What about scientists who believe in gods? I think they're wrong. I think one can be both intelligent and also hold erroneous beliefs. Cognitive dissonance can be a powerful thing.

see why that would matter. I have a family that I love. The fact that I understand where that feeling comes from and why does not diminish it. If anything it makes it greater. There are plenty of people who do have children and who understand what causes the feeling of love. The scientists who studied it probably have children.

Osgoodisgood

haveringchick wrote: »

How do you explain the many scientists who are happy to believe in the existence of God?

They're intellectually lazy

Some of the posts since in this thread are the kind of 'atheist attack' angles I try to avoid, but some are very good indeed.

In re: (pun intended) scientists believing in eh I don't wanna say impossibilities so let's say implausibilities without any evidence, I don't think it's enough to offer that as evidence of anything. I don't think a single one of them has managed to independently come up with the God they believe in from scratch, and I can't think that anyone would argue that being taught an ideology from birth has no effect on creation g the cognitive dissonance required.

Now, I don't agree that faith/belief and science must clash, and that it's valid to claim as a scientist that you can believe in something you cannot prove. Everyone has the right to believe and profess belief as they wish.

You just can't do that and then use your position as a scientist to validate it. All you do in that instance is undermine the latter.

Osgoodisgood

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

They're intellectually lazy

What's that supposed to mean?

Wompa1

Listen all of you a-holes just shut up. I have a science degree AND I have over 2,000 followers on Twitter. Clearly, my opinion counts for more. :pac:

Pherekydes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are different interpretations of Original Sin depending upon which denomination of Christianity you're referring to tbh. The only reason I bothered to correct the other poster on Leviticus is because it's often used as a stick to beat Christians with, when it doesn't apply to Christians.

And where does the material for all these interpretations come from?

I know you're struggling to avoid having to say "from the story of Adam and Eve, which applies because it's y'know the WORD OF GOD, but the rest of the OT doesn't apply because y'know something something something..."

TTFN

One eyed Jack

Pherekydes wrote: »

And where does the material for all these interpretations come from?

I know you're struggling to avoid having to say "from the story of Adam and Eve, which applies because it's y'know the WORD OF GOD, but the rest of the OT doesn't apply because y'know something something something..."

TTFN

I'm not struggling to avoid saying anything?

You appear to want me to say something which you can then argue about and thumb your nose at and pat yourself on the back for how clever you are.

I shall not be providing your entertainment for the evening on this occasion.

TTFN indeed.

Pherekydes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I shall not be providing your entertainment for the evening on this occasion.

TTFN indeed.

FFS, I want my money back! :mad:

No fun in here any more...


Anyways, original sin, word of god, OT. Anyone any ideas?

haveringchick

mahoganygas wrote: »

Feeling joy around others demonstrates a desire for community and pack / herd mentality.

Feeling anger demonstrates protecting your offspring from predators.

Feeling love demonstrates sexual attraction and procreation.

Feeling grief demonstrates a recognition that offspring have been lost and that this should be avoided in future.

How very sad that you feel your emotional life can be summed up so clinically
Mine cannot
And I feel neither sexually attracted to or inclined to procreate with my daughter

meeeeh

haveringchick wrote: »

How very sad that you feel your emotional life can be summed up so clinically
Mine cannot
And I feel neither sexually attracted to or inclined to procreate with my daughter

According to cultural anthropologists that depends in which culture you are born. The only universal incest taboo is among mother and son because at that stage mother normally isn't at the prime of fertility.

But if anything the whole incest question demonstrates quite well that human emotions don't have just biological composition and is in my opinion complete waste of time to equate them to animal feelings. Not that that proves God or anything like that.

AllGunsBlazing

It was Christmas?!!

Knew I forgot something important.

Osgoodisgood

Cristian Grumpy Mouthful wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean?

It means that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to a difficult question but "god did it" is a cop out, a guess, a hunch, wishful thinking, whatever you like to call it. It's definitely lazy in a scientific context.

The_Valeyard

Christmas mass is over.

This thread is now just a train wreck of I'm right your wrong, back slapping, smugness, arrogance , usual sh*te about religion/ science.

Grandeeod

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Christmas mass is over.

This thread is now just a train wreck of I'm right your wrong, back slapping, smugness, arrogance , usual sh*te about religion/ science.

Yup. Won't stop it though.

The only possibility of stopping it, is.....sex. Lots of filthy dirty sex. Men with women. Men with men. Women with women and men and women with anything on offer.

You can only care this much if you are a virgin or not getting a lot of the oul hows your father. Otherwise its a circle of death debate on boards.

mahoganygas

haveringchick wrote:

How very sad that you feel your emotional life can be summed up so clinically Mine cannot And I feel neither sexually attracted to or inclined to procreate with my daughter

Yes because that's what i insinuated.

Christ on a bike!

I'm out of here.

Fleawuss

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Christmas mass is over.

This thread is now just a train wreck of I'm right your wrong, back slapping, smugness, arrogance , usual sh*te about religion/ science.

It's always the same. All these pseudo religious threads in AH are the same. Some posts just seem trying to smuggle religion back to a status it has lost. If people want to discuss religion there are enough other forums here. I wish all these missionary posts, revive religion as a cultural phenomenon, etc etc would move elsewhere.
Must give my confession thread a bump.

Azalea

Pherekydes wrote: »

Wait, are you saying you, an atheist, went to mass and received communion?

Well when I was eight to 16, yeah - but you knew that I meant when I was a kid. Poor.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Wrong.

People not believing in a religious diety and taking the piss out of it, amazes me.

Oh right - it's just that you said "atheists" and nothing further.

Pherekydes

Azalea wrote: »

Well when I was eight to 16, yeah - but you knew that I meant when I was a kid. Poor.

Did I? News to me.

But tell me what else I know, now while you're here. :rolleyes: