if its part of your religion / culture its acceptable / normal... if its not.. well... its not... same goes for cutting any body parts off / strange rituals etc...
German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
if its part of your religion / culture its acceptable / normal... if its not.. well... its not... same goes for cutting any body parts off / strange rituals etc...
Christians believe in upholding the ten commandments, yet they are old testament.
Old Testament is not the same as New Covenant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I'm not confused about anything, you implied Jesus came along a brought this new enlightened belief with him to the masses when in fact during his lifetime no one believed he was the son of God except for a handful of his gullible followers. Only after his death and a sect of Jews decided to created Christianity was all this guff then written retrospectfully.
I know you want to believe Jesus was born and the whole world saw the light as soon as he opened his mouth but that simply didn't happen. And even when a handful of Jewish goat herders did decide to create this new religion based on a dead con man, it took centuries of mainly forced conversions before people started believing it in any great numbers (the Crusades anyone).
Do you really think large parts of Africa are so Christian because they've read the Bible and saw the light? Rubbish, we went there and forced them into the stuff at knife and bayonet point. Once the adults accept it, they just force feed the same stuff to their kids at a time when they are vulnerable to it, hence continuing the delusion.
Exactly my point, although I was directing it at people in the thread. Just because male circumcision, as most people understand it, is more culturally accepted in the UK does not make it morally right.
You are confusing anti-religion with anti-clericalism. Voltaire, Newton, Wolff, Locke were not atheists (Voltaire was essentially a Deist), they were to varying degrees anti clerical....Voltaire was specifically critical of the Catholic Church, while promoting Freedom of Religion for example.
Nonsense.....You only have to look at the contribution of religion to the concepts of Logic and Reason to see the fallacy of that statement.
What that illustrates is that you have not read the Bible and have no idea what it means....The forbidden fruit was not knowledge, but the concept of good and evil...hence the actual full title being Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the symbolism refers to morality and the concept of Sin, not scientific knowledge.
There are a whole range of interpretations as well as significant issues with translation and interpretation, particularly with regard to the idea of Adam being a single entity.
It says that I am objective in my criticism and do not base my opinions on you-tube videos.
I am not a Christian, nor a Muslim, or a Jew or any other religion for that matter..I hold no specific religious ideology at all. To say I have misunderstood the Bible as opposed to your interpretation is somewhat arrogant on your part to be honest......I am also equally critical of Christian interpretation, recently I have been critical of the Catholic Churches position on Gay Marriage, in this thread I support the idea that circumcision is not necessarily supported by scripture (read the thread) and you only have to ask Craterloads and some others in this thread that I often criticise their interpretations of the Quran and the Bible.
So attacking me in this way is pointless, especially by calling me a young earth creationist or not have understood the Bible...
Last edited:
I did not imply anything. I said that Christians believe that the coming of Christ is in fulfilment of the Covenant with Abraham and that is the basis for the New Covenant......which pre-dates the Birth of Christ.
It makes no difference to me whether Christ was born or the ideal of a schism in Second Temple Judaism. You think the Crusades were about religion?.....really!.
Who are we? and when did this happen?
Anyway, this is off topic and I refer you what I posted previously in thread as not to repeat myself ad nauseum:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22254084&postcount=176
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22254270&postcount=222
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22254345&postcount=228
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22254741&postcount=248
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22258773&postcount=442
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22259708&postcount=464
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22261619&postcount=503
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22261974&postcount=520
I have highlighted the ones that you might be interested in and illustrate that I am not inclined toward perpetrating the truth of scripture or that I am predicated by faith.
Also my own contribution to why the pro camp have some what to go to justify their position:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22263831&postcount=563
Last edited:
I fear that we may have gone slightly off-topic.
More than a little to be honest.....
Any specific examples here? I'm interested so see what religion contributed to the concepts of logic and reason.
Scholasticism and the works of William of Ockham (A Clergyman) for example.
The major Religions have been heavily involved in the evolution of logic and the philosophies that surround the concept.
Last edited:
its mostly logical stuff if you want to try and make people live better lives and have some control over them....
list the things you do and dont want peopel to do
give them a reward if they do ( heaven etc)
give them a threat if they dont (hell etc)
throw in some background to make it believable...
Scholasticism and the works of William of Ockham (A Clergyman) for example.
Scholasticism is an interesting one, although I guess we have to draw the lines of the beginning and end of religion to debate it.
Ockham though I was expecting; you might as well have said Lemaître? My understanding is his thoughts came about in spite of religion as opposed to a direct lineage from it.
I could have said a whole range of scientists and philosophers whose religion was not thought to be a barrier to their work, in fact it encouraged it and people like Robert Grosseteste, and the great Universities that were funded and maintained by Churchmen and various religions. Also the schools funded by the Church, such as School of Chartres, Catholic University of Leuven and hundreds of others have had significant influence on all manner of knowledge......if we consider Islam, we only have to look at Cordoba and it's history.
I would say that your understanding is informed by your bias rather than any actual evidence that these scientists actually though that their religion was contrary to their work, particularly as their work was usually funded through patronage from their Churches or people related to their religion.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Agreed but I would say that was more to do with the social pressures of the times they were living in more then anything else. Self proclaiming as an atheist back then would have made their lives very difficult.
Religion advocates the belief in things not backed up by evidence and in some cases reason. It has provided nothing toward that.
You could argue it has provided some interesting philosophical standpoints but all philosophy is essentially is an opinion on something otherwise unprovable presented in a fancy way.
Scholasticism and the works of William of Ockham (A Clergyman) for example.
The major Religions have been heavily involved in the evolution of logic and the philosophies that surround the concept.
Scholasticism was just a philosophical debating technique used to justify stuff that didn't really make sense anymore by over analysing semantics, it's more about trying to justify irrationality using using debating techniques than actually advancing true knowledge (I'd actually say it was the opposite).
And William of Ockham's work and contribution to science was done despite of his religious beliefs, not because of them.
And this shows you haven't understood my flippancy.
So attacking me in this way is pointless, especially by calling me a young earth creationist or not have understood the Bible...
When did I call you a young Earth creationist
As could I, my point was that it's irrelevant.
I never said that the scientists thought it was contradictory so I'm not sure where you got that from. In fact, I'd assume (and I could be incorrect although I doubt it) that they thought their study fit right into God's teachings, much like modern day YEC scientists would.
I could also name a few that have had their religious orders fund or encourage their study, which in my opinion in no way makes up for the harm that has been done to counter similar study. The vatican has employed scientists, that didn't need vatican employment to succeed, whilst the pope tells people that he is infallible and that contraception is wicked - in your opinion, is that contributing towards logic, science and rationality or hindering it?
Voltaire was very eloquent in his belief of a Supreme Being....
Religion doesn't advocate that all....some people may interpret scripture in a certain way, however Christianity, in particular Catholicism is reliant on theology. As for Evidence, it is fallacious to say there is no evidence...no scientific evidence maybe, but scientific evidence is not the only kind...also Science doesn't have anything to say about God anyway, it is not in it's purview.
You only have to read De Genesi ad literam by Augustine of Hippo to realise that Christianity doesn't advocate what you claim.
It was an example, not an opening to debate the philosophy itself.
If you read anything by William of Ockham you will realise that is not what he thought.
No it means that you were wrong, and are now trying to say you were being flippant to cover it up. (it is not the first time either)
When did I call you a young Earth creationist
Not to many of them....many, including William of Ockham thought knowledge and the search for it was intrinsic to his faith.
I think it comes down to motivation how a person rationalises that motivation....you cannot simply separate someone from their Faith when discussing whether they act despite their Faith or because of it...I suspect that it is both.....
Like all things human, there are contradictions...Science is as guilty of this as religion....Papal infallibly is relatively new, and the politics inherent in the treatment of Gallileo are widely known (including the support from other Catholic Churchmen inspite of the Papal politic at the time) ....but equally as the good doesn't negate the harm, neither does the harm negate the good.....and given that modern schooling derives from a largely Church funded ideal, not to mention the birth of Universities, it is hard to justify that Religion is anti-knowledge, I would say it is quite the opposite, despite certain political arguments and theological interpretations at certain times in the Churches history that were seemingly contrary to that......
I also do not agree with the Vatican (note the Vatican, not the entire Christian Church) position on contraception, but then neither do a lot of Catholic Clerics.
Anyway I feel this is way to far off the topic of the thread and I feel my opinion is amply made without going into an indepth discussion on the minutiae of examples and counter examples....it needs its own thread on the Influence of Religion on the evolution of knowledge.....if you want to start one (in SC if I were you) I would gladly participate. This thread is getting a little too combative for any reasoned debate at the moment (and I ma not referring to you, or anyone personally, just the overall feel of the thread at the moment)
Last edited:
There is definitely a grey area and I'm not trying to make out like this is a black and white issue but I think there's an element of religion that does give harmful or unreasonable actions extra vigour that conversely doesn't happen with benevolent or rational acts. I've witnessed it in my own city, where people killed other people's children because they were a different kind of christian. Yes, I'm more than aware it is a political issue but the religious element (even if not "properly" believed by the wrong-doers) gives the violence a certain legitimacy and protection from criticism within those communities. It's similar with circumcision - you have to ask what would encourage someone to chop off the end of a baby's penis or labia.
On the flip side, people will create amazing works of art or do amazing things when they believe that religion is their inspiration (I was in the St Peter's last week!) but it's nothing that couldn't be done without religious motivation... At least ignoring the sale of indulgences and work of slavery
On the flip side, people will create amazing works of art or do amazing things when they believe that religion is their inspiration (I was in the St Peter's last week!) but it's nothing that couldn't be done without religious motivation... At least ignoring the sale of indulgences and work of slavery
There is definitely a grey area and I'm not trying to make out like this is a black and white issue but I think there's an element of religion that does give harmful or unreasonable actions extra vigour that conversely doesn't happen with benevolent or rational acts. I've witnessed it in my own city, where people killed other people's children because they were a different kind of christian. Yes, I'm more than aware it is a political issue but the religious element (even if not "properly" believed by the wrong-doers) gives the violence a certain legitimacy and protection from criticism within those communities. It's similar with circumcision - you have to ask what would encourage someone to chop off the end of a baby's penis or labia.
On the flip side, people will create amazing works of art or do amazing things when they believe that religion is their inspiration (I was in the St Peter's last week!) but it's nothing that couldn't be done without religious motivation... At least ignoring the sale of indulgences and work of slavery
I think we are quite close together in our opinion....I have seen some pretty horrific things done in the name of belief...I have also seen some amazing acts of bravery and sacrifice done in the name of belief....If we are to blame anyone, it should be the individual or even the organisation (if appropriate, such as criticising the Vatican over their stance in Africa) rather than judging religious belief as being predominantly negative. The difference between anti-clericalism and anti-religion is important I feel....
It is simply a reflection of human nature, and this is not surprising as organised religion is a product of man, not God.