Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    But such morals as in Leviticus which tell us to kill adulterers and homosexuals are surely wrong? Does that not cast doubt on the other morals expressed in the Bible?
    Fair point. That was really an error on my part. Many Christians prefer the morals of the new testament... 'Love thy neighbour'.
    I was thinking on why these things were considered bad and to be fair you must accept that the old testament was a set of commands to God's people (the Jews) and of course for his people to survive, procreation was very important, how were a homosexual couple to reproduce in those times? There was no such thing as an organised adoption system. So to be fair that commandment was more relevant to the day it was written in, and I would personally argue is no longer relevant due to things like adoption and the fact that anyone can become one of faith, rather than being born into it. However you can also consider God forgives sin if you ask him to so just praying to be forgiven of all your debts before you die would make it alright. As for adulterers well... they deserve it (JK refer to argument as above)
    All this as it may be I personally would be neither an adulterer or a homosexual as I understand it could still be construed as a sin, so make your own mind as to what to do really.
    As for devaluing the other morals I would argue that the modern testament lays out a new set of rules for Christians to follow, and being newer than the old testament it should be held at the forefront of the Christian morals, and of course to love thy neighbour would be to convert them and show them the error of their ways ... not kill them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    Fair point. That was really an error on my part. Many Christians prefer the morals of the new testament... 'Love thy neighbour'.
    I was thinking on why these things were considered bad and to be fair you must accept that the old testament was a set of commands to God's people (the Jews) and of course for his people to survive, procreation was very important, how were a homosexual couple to reproduce in those times? There was no such thing as an organised adoption system. So to be fair that commandment was more relevant to the day it was written in, and I would personally argue is no longer relevant due to things like adoption and the fact that anyone can become one of faith, rather than being born into it. However you can also consider God forgives sin if you ask him to so just praying to be forgiven of all your debts before you die would make it alright. As for adulterers well... they deserve it (JK refer to argument as above)
    All this as it may be I personally would be neither an adulterer or a homosexual as I understand it could still be construed as a sin, so make your own mind as to what to do really.
    As for devaluing the other morals I would argue that the modern testament lays out a new set of rules for Christians to follow, and being newer than the old testament it should be held at the forefront of the Christian morals, and of course to love thy neighbour would be to convert them and show them the error of their ways ... not kill them.
    All things considered, this bill would only change the official religion, setting Christianity on an equal level with all the other religions. I specifically mentioned in the notes that it would not restrict Christians' right to practise their religion.

    Think of it like this. In England, not that many people speak Russian, so it would be silly if Russian was made the official language, wouldn't it?

    In England, the majority of people are not Anglican, so it doesn't make sense that Anglicanism is the official religion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    All things considered, this bill would only change the official religion, setting Christianity on an equal level with all the other religions. I specifically mentioned in the notes that it would not restrict Christians' right to practise their religion.

    Think of it like this. In England, not that many people speak Russian, so it would be silly if Russian was made the official language, wouldn't it?

    In England, the majority of people are not Anglican, so it doesn't make sense that Anglicanism is the official religion.
    Whilst you have a point, I personally think this would be dis-respectful to our history and take a nick out of the country's history and culture. I just don't think it would right to just be rid of it. I'm also not sure where these stats of yours come from but I'm quoting the last census of all the people of the United Kingdom. Would you please put my mind at rest and just quote a source. To any frim and solid and fair survey I would bend my neck.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    Whilst you have a point, I personally think this would be dis-respectful to our history and take a nick out of the country's history and culture. I just don't think it would right to just be rid of it. I'm also not sure where these stats of yours come from but I'm quoting the last census of all the people of the United Kingdom. Would you please put my mind at rest and just quote a source. To any frim and solid and fair survey I would bend my neck.
    Of course. Here is one.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Of course. Here is one.
    I accept there may be some solid evidence behind it, but it is at least partially theoretical and I have also noticed the given graph suggests c. 29,676,000 people identified in 2011 as Christian in the census, oddly however the number quoted by Wikipedia is actually 33,200,000 I mean there's a difference there of 2,500,000 so the question is accuracy. By the newspaper's statistic now just 44% of Brits identify as Christian suggesting that even if there is not new majority (>50%) there may be more irreligious people in the country than Christians, even using the wikipedia suggestion of the census by now but I still feel that it would be to oust a part of our culture to say the country no longer has a religion, that we are now completely un-influenced by religion. And for me as a Christian it would be a sad sad day.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    I accept there may be some solid evidence behind it, but it is at least partially theoretical and I have also noticed the given graph suggests c. 29,676,000 people identified in 2011 as Christian in the census, oddly however the number quoted by Wikipedia is actually 33,200,000 I mean there's a difference there of 2,500,000 so the question is accuracy. By the newspaper's statistic now just 44% of Brits identify as Christian suggesting that even if there is not new majority (>50%) there may be more irreligious people in the country than Christians, even using the wikipedia suggestion of the census by now but I still feel that it would be to oust a part of our culture to say the country no longer has a religion, that we are now completely un-influenced by religion. And for me as a Christian it would be a sad sad day.
    The country may not have a religion, but the country's people have religions, and they're free to express it! So long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right, this really won't make worship any different.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    The country may not have a religion, but the country's people have religions, and they're free to express it! So long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right, this really won't make worship any different.
    Well that was a fun discussion. Sometimes it's fun to have a little debate.

    On a point I made earlier do you feel that Richard Dawkins is infringing on Christianity by penning books about how nonsensical parts of the Bible are (in his opinion) and his constant attacking (verbally) of Christians and bullying people into atheism.
    (just wondering your opinion not to dispute)

    Also I was just reading this, is this what a world of atheism would be like? Aph and RayApparently I thought you two logicians might be interested in this as well.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    Well that was a fun discussion. Sometimes it's fun to have a little debate.

    On a point I made earlier do you feel that Richard Dawkins is infringing on Christianity by penning books about how nonsensical parts of the Bible are (in his opinion) and his constant attacking (verbally) of Christians and bullying people into atheism.
    (just wondering your opinion not to dispute)

    Also I was just reading this, is this what a world of atheism would be like? Aph and RayApparently I thought you two logicians might be interested in this as well.
    It's true, the Bible is very nonsensical in parts, but so long as you don't try and force that belief onto others or use it to justify violence or hate, you're entitled to believe whatever you want.

    In fact, the world would be better off if everybody stopped using their beliefs, religious and not, to justify violence.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    Eminent scientist? He is no such thing, he has a degree in zoology from Oxford and has written a couple of books trying to disprove parts of the bible, he is a blustering fool when yo see him on camera trying to stir up religious hatred. He is also for no given reason an Anti-Christian, why? To encourage hatred of the religion. He picks on the religion, he could do actual science to disprove it, no he just blusters and shouts over any opposition. Moron does not even begin to describe this foolish imbecile.
    And any plethora of 'evidence is still not proven, there is no proof, it is impossible. Make a time machine and then I'll believe it, but I also know Christians who don't dispute the 'big bang' in fact I was talking to someone about it recently who said they believed the bible was phrased in such a way as to explain it to the people to help them better comprehend it, you must remember this is part written over 2000 years ago to a naive world with primitive understandings. Does not the order of the bible vaguely resemble evolution too? Plants them fish then animals then humans? that sounds about right to me. And also if you read other parts of the bible it says 'A day in heaven is like 1000 years on earth' and with no way of discerning how log a year was back then it is more than possible, it hasn't always been 365 days.

    Is that alright with you?
    Lol. What exactly is wrong with having a degree in zoology from Oxford?

    His work on the gene-centric view of evolution caused a mini-paradigm shift. He is not a great scientist because of his work promoting atheism, he is a great scientist because he is a great scientist. Do you think calling someone who is obviously highly intelligent a 'blustering fool', a 'foolish imbecile' and a 'moron' strengthens your argument? It is especially strange to see you call someone else unintelligent when your asking that scientists 'build a time machine' before you recognise the evidence for widely accepted theories.

    You seem to be torn between trying to argue that teaching evolution is promoting atheism and arguing that religion and evolution can be accepted side by side.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    Well that was a fun discussion. Sometimes it's fun to have a little debate.

    On a point I made earlier do you feel that Richard Dawkins is infringing on Christianity by penning books about how nonsensical parts of the Bible are (in his opinion) and his constant attacking (verbally) of Christians and bullying people into atheism.
    (just wondering your opinion not to dispute)

    Also I was just reading this, is this what a world of atheism would be like? Aph and RayApparently I thought you two logicians might be interested in this as well.

    What do you mean by 'infringing' on Christianity? If making arguments to persuade people is 'bullying' then all politicians, religious apologists, proselytisers, campaigners etc. are bullies.

    You obviously hate Richard Dawkins because he represents a massive challenge to your faith and not for any reasonable criticism of himself as a person. Would you be interested to know that you can disagree with someone without hating them?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    Our laws, values and customs all derive in no small part to this country's Christian heritage. Certainly Christianity as a practising religion is declining, but its enduring influence on our society is unquestionable.

    This bill supposes that, as Christianity continues to fall out of favour, it becomes redundant in this country. I would disagree and say that the Anglican nature of this country still affects it in numerous ways, and we should still retain the core values of our Anglican tradition.

    And it's not as though undermining the Church of England in this way will lead to an even more tolerant, secular society free of dogmatic thinking and bigotry. When one looks at the fastest growing and most ardently followed religion in the UK, there is a strong case for reaffirming our Anglican-derived values of freedom, tolerance and enlightenment.

    This bill strikes me as being emblematic of the regressive left's loathing of religious dogma being limited to easy targets like the Church of England.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Nay.

    Our laws, values and customs all derive in no small part to this country's Christian heritage. Certainly Christianity as a practising religion is declining, but its enduring influence on our society is unquestionable.

    This bill supposes that, as Christianity continues to fall out of favour, it becomes redundant in this country. I would disagree and say that the Anglican nature of this country still affects it in numerous ways, and we should still retain the core values of our Anglican tradition.

    And it's not as though undermining the Church of England in this way will lead to an even more tolerant, secular society free of dogmatic thinking and bigotry. When one looks at the fastest growing and most ardently followed religion in the UK, there is a strong case for reaffirming our Anglican-derived values of freedom, tolerance and enlightenment.

    This bill strikes me as being emblematic of the regressive left's loathing of religious dogma being limited to easy targets like the Church of England.

    Whilst I plan to vote in favour of the bill and smirk at the phrase 'regressive left' which stinks of Trump calling Hillary crooked, the religious calling atheists 'sheep' and Brexiters calling the EU xenophobic, I agree that we should be doing more to target the dogmatic views of less 'easy' targets.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What do you mean by 'infringing' on Christianity? If making arguments to persuade people is 'bullying' then all politicians, religious apologists, proselytisers, campaigners etc. are bullies.

    You obviously hate Richard Dawkins because he represents a massive challenge to your faith and not for any reasonable criticism of himself as a person. Would you be interested to know that you can disagree with someone without hating them?
    From what I've seen he just blusters and shouts over the other peoples arguments. I was watching a video of him in a debate with a Jewish female rabbi, a priest and another atheist (but not anti-christian) woman, and when the rabbi and priest started explaining their argument or responding to his he just shouted over them, shouting things like 'can you let me finish' yet he went on to just repeat what he had already said. I hate him because he is ANTI-Christian I wouldn't care otherwise, when he starts shouting people down, starts shouting at people for having different interpretations, it annoys me he is so intolerant to the idea that someone may disagree with him (IK you're gonna say sounds like me... I know but... what can you do). He also has a habit of taking the bible at it's face value. This also really annoys me, as I quoted earlier from the bible as to how evolution and creationism can co-exist in peace, yet he feels that it should be literally pop and it happened in a day.He is so ignorant of alternative interpretations and opinions and his arrogance and ignorance are enough to make me hate him. And there are hundreds of people as and more intelligent than him who are not even half as loud or arrogant yet another reason he's an idiot he must be seen! He has experience of the university of Oxford but not that of the university of life.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I agree that we should be doing more to target the dogmatic views of less 'easy' targets.
    Fear not, that's next in the line-up (for me personally, not the Socialist party as a whole). I don't believe those bills will be as accepted as this one, though. Then again, I wildly overestimated the opposition to this bill.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    From what I've seen he just blusters and shouts over the other peoples arguments. I was watching a video of him in a debate with a Jewish female rabbi, a priest and another atheist (but not anti-christian) woman, and when the rabbi and priest started explaining their argument or responding to his he just shouted over them, shouting things like 'can you let me finish' yet he went on to just repeat what he had already said. I hate him because he is ANTI-Christian I wouldn't care otherwise, when he starts shouting people down, starts shouting at people for having different interpretations, it annoys me he is so intolerant to the idea that someone may disagree with him (IK you're gonna say sounds like me... I know but... what can you do). He also has a habit of taking the bible at it's face value. This also really annoys me, as I quoted earlier from the bible as to how evolution and creationism can co-exist in peace, yet he feels that it should be literally pop and it happened in a day.He is so ignorant of alternative interpretations and opinions and his arrogance and ignorance are enough to make me hate him. And there are hundreds of people as and more intelligent than him who are not even half as loud or arrogant yet another reason he's an idiot he must be seen! He has experience of the university of Oxford but not that of the university of life.
    I on the other hand have heard him speak very calmly and eloquently. And whilst you do appear to very much see the Christian faith as defenceless victims under constant attack by the educational establishment, Dawkins is not 'anti-Christian' ins particular but anti-religion in general. And yes, you're right, it does sound a bit like you. Religious debate gets people angry. But you can't say he's an 'moron' because he argues passionately against what you believe in. Richard Dawkins is likely much more intelligent than you or I.

    You indicated that you don't 'believe' in the big bang or evolution. Otherwise I don't see how you could possibly protest against the facts being taught in schools.

    When he criticises the Bible he's challenging the view that it is the 'word of God' by pointing out it's flaws. That's because 'religion' is much easier to critique (and much more valuable to critique) than 'theism'.

    I imagine that he is quite familiar with alternative interpretations to his own. Thus allowing him to write and speak about them. He simply disagrees with those interpretations.

    Seeing as he is and has been alive I'd say he probably does have 'experience of the university of life' - whatever that may be.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Fear not, that's next in the line-up (for me personally, not the Socialist party as a whole). I don't believe those bills will be as accepted as this one, though. Then again, I wildly overestimated the opposition to this bill.
    Given how few have posted there is no way of telling support or opposition; the supporters seem mostly to be those who have already tried and failed to do this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Whilst I plan to vote in favour of the bill and smirk at the phrase 'regressive left' which stinks of Trump calling Hillary crooked, the religious calling atheists 'sheep' and Brexiters calling the EU xenophobic, I agree that we should be doing more to target the dogmatic views of less 'easy' targets.
    The term regressive left applies almost solely to those on the left who are generally progressive but are unwilling to criticise illiberal practices of minority communites such as to not be seen as politically incorrect, racist etc.

    So given the emboldened part of your post, I'm inclined to think you share my distaste of this particular subset.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given how few have posted there is no way of telling support or opposition; the supporters seem mostly to be those who have already tried and failed to do this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No they don't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given how few have posted there is no way of telling support or opposition
    True, but I'd expect those who have legitimate reasons to oppose this would announce them. Or am I expecting too much?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    No they don't.
    So who so far has expressed support while opposing a few months ago?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 23, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.