Dawkins Demolished

[scottycelt]

What do you think, scotty?

You replied before I sorted my grammar ...

[John Skelton]

I was taking your comment literally, John Skelton as I hope that you well know

I do now, having stopped to think about it.

[Ferretfancy]

I used to believe all the stuff about 'Papal infallibility' until an old flame (a committed Italian RC on the council of her local church in Piacenza) advised that the final arbiter for a Roman Catholic was always their personal conviction, not that of the Pope.

Bryn,
Educated catholics in western societies may feel free to be guided by their own consciences, but the vast mass of ill educated and very poor catholics in countries like the Philipines rarely feel free to exercise that privilege, hell is very real to them.

[Flosshilde]

Quite.

It doesn't take a very close reading of Scripture to find the bits that are inconsistent with other bits.

So that allows you to be selective, & just select the bits that happen to support what you want to do or say?


Is that why some christians are happy to abuse me, supported by the bit in Leviticus about not lying with a man as with a woman, but meanwhile are happy to wear clothes made from mixed fibres, eat shellfish & eat food prepared by a woman having her period (all banned by Leviticus)? It does seem to be a 'pick & mix' religion.

[Flosshilde]

I doubt you'd take kindly to people discussing the things that matter to you with such flip and blithe ignorance.

Inded I don't - that's why I object so strongly to gay-bashing christianity having so much influence in legislation & the provision of public services (see the recent responses to David Cameron's support for marriage for same-sex couples)

[Lateralthinking1]

Part of the problem though is that The Bible is being looked at here as a moral instruction. Does it ever use the word "morality"? I don't know. Morality seems to be something that has been painted onto it.

A mother says to a child "you mustn't put your hands in a fire". As an adult, he then puts his hands just through a house window into flames to rescue a child.

There is no consistency there other than in the case of each child it means safety. In the latter scenario, there is a moral action but very arguably it is secondary to safety in significance.

The former instruction isn't moral but it isn't immoral either. It just makes good sense.

[jean]

So that allows you to be selective, & just select the bits that happen to support what you want to do or say?


Is that why some christians are happy to abuse me, supported by the bit in Leviticus about not lying with a man as with a woman, but meanwhile are happy to wear clothes made from mixed fibres, eat shellfish & eat food prepared by a woman having her period (all banned by Leviticus)? It does seem to be a 'pick & mix' religion.

Actually there are quite a few Christians who know all that very well, and who themselves quote Leviticus to tell their fellow-Christians how ridiculous they're being in selecting only some prohibitions, and ignoring others, exactly as you say.

But these Christians get rather fed up with being told by some non-Christians that they aren't Christains at all.

[Lateralthinking1]

I think you could see much of the text as a warning against danger. All the stuff about burning in hell or whatever. It is to scare people into safety.

I remember Peter Cook on pro-celebrity golf. Just before making a difficult putt, he used to say to himself "if you don't do this successfully, all the people in Africa will die from starvation because of it". Ludicrous but because he had a conscience it worked.

I think the man not sleeping with man references are highly selective because they should be seen in the same context as the references to man not sleeping with loads of women.

It is all very well to say that it is old fashioned and "immorally" moralistic. The fact is that they all kicked the bucket at 30 or 40. They didn't want life to be any shorter.

They didn't have contraception. They didn't have medication to clear up sexually transmitted diseases. Basically, it was thought to be in people's interests to have a code that prevented illness and at least gave them some life. That was the morality.

Some of the supposed morality on all sides of the debate is about people having life too easy now. They need something to use up all the excess time.

[scottycelt]

Bryn,
Educated catholics in western societies may feel free to be guided by their own consciences, but the vast mass of ill educated and very poor catholics in countries like the Philipines rarely feel free to exercise that privilege, hell is very real to them.

Yet again, here we have outsiders claiming to speak for 'Catholics' very far away ...

The 'ill-educated and very poor' in some of these countries are just as likely to freely join (or be bullied and threatened into joining) the local Communist or Fascist Party ....

Of course Catholics believe that the final arbiter in any personal decision-making must be conscience, and it is maybe even more worrying that some of the well-educated and relatively rich among us in 'the developed world' have apparently been in total ignorance of that.

However 'conscience' does not mean pleasing oneself as to which teachings are obeyed or not and still remaining in the club, regardless.

Unlike some atheistic totalitarian states, every Catholic is free to accept the teachings of the club or, if conscience dictates, become a Protestant, Atheist or to join any other club of his/her choice.

It really is that simple ... if rather bluntly put.

[Flosshilde]

Actually there are quite a few Christians who know all that very well, and who themselves quote Leviticus to tell their fellow-Christians how ridiculous they're being in selecting only some prohibitions, and ignoring others, exactly as you say.

I should hope there are. But that doesn't square with the question of how you decide, and who decides, what bits to follow & what bits to ignore? Or do you follow them some of the time, & ignore them at other times?

Once you start saying some bits are reasonable, & some bits aren't, it all collapses. It's just a mattre of who wins the argument. The Bible is in its present form because somepeople decided that certain books weren't part of it. Christianity (& other religions) have multiple sects because someone decided they didn't like what the head of the church was saying. I'm afraid I really can't see it as anything but complete nonsense - one that's based, it's supporters claim, on divine revelation but is really based on personal whim.

But these Christians get rather fed up with being told by some non-Christians that they aren't Christains at all.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I think all christians are christian in their own minds - but they all interpret it wildly differently.



(a thought - is it possible to believe in god but not be a christian, jew, or muslim?)

[french frank]

(a thought - is it possible to believe in god but not be a christian, jew, or muslim?)

That's Deism, isn't it?

[Flosshilde]

every Catholic is free to accept the teachings of the club or, if conscience dictates, become a Protestant, Atheist or to join any other club of his/her choice.

Scotty, you've made this sort of comment before, & it is (as so many of your comments on this topic are) rather disingenuous. What you are saying is that a Catholic is only free to exercise their conscience by leaving the catholic church - they can't decide that the pope or priest is wrong, & still be part of the church, which is not the same as being "free to be guided by their own consciences" as Ferret Fancy put it.

[MrGongGong]

Actually there are quite a few Christians who know all that very well, and who themselves quote Leviticus to tell their fellow-Christians how ridiculous they're being in selecting only some prohibitions, and ignoring others, exactly as you say.

But these Christians get rather fed up with being told by some non-Christians that they aren't Christains at all.

I think the main point is that us non-Christians are a bit fed up with the church having an undue influence on the rest of society, disestablishment would suit both Christians and non-Christians alike

[Lateralthinking1]

Christians are of the opinion that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ. That is not to say other people can't have their own opinions and believe in God in their own way. It isn't quite 1984 yet. You can believe that the grass is blue.

What Flosshilde you are alluding to in your question is whether a Christian would endorse a different route to God. Probably not but that should be of no consequence unless endorsement is wanted and if so why?

As for the Bible, I can think of two sets of instructions that everyone accommodates in life. One is the sort provided by Ikea. If you don't follow the instructions exactly, you get no furniture. The other is like those associated with operating a computer. You follow whatever you feel you need to and which works for you.

I can't see why Christianity should be any different.

[scottycelt]

Scotty, you've made this sort of comment before, & it is (as so many of your comments on this topic are) rather disingenuous..

I know, Floss ...

However, can I continue to be blunt ... you live your own life as you see fit ... the Catholic Church has no power over you or anyone else ... you and I are mercifully free, Floss, free as the birds in the air ... well, nearly .

So the question must be asked ... why do you and others here get so worked up about and object to what Christians (and especially Catholics) believe?

Don't you actually believe in freedom of thought and belief ... ?