Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,856
- Likes
- 4,033
This thing about humans made in Gods image is non-sense imo.
In the past some religions wanted power and for people to work basicaly for them. To dedicate their lives totally. Humans are naturally inclined to be greedy and pursue their own ends. Having off spring and having worldly gains, a family, chasing wealth and personal pleasures are distraction. Power hungry religions don't like this.
Hence, introduce celibacy - lust is sinful and to be pure and clean and good join the church. There is thy father and thy son and the holey spirit thy ghost. So in monastries and churches all over the world you have the ranks in the faith of father, brother, mother, sister and of course the son Jesus Christ to love. They work for God and God has given their only son for them to treasure and revel in. Why not have another sibling or a sister perhaps.
This is so obvious and silly imo. How can God deny human beings their true nature - to reproduce? This is why priests are leaving their faith. I'm not taking a dig at Catholics but how can they knock Henry the VIII or C of E, for merely adhering to natures call - agreeably in less than acceptable form?
I think De Vinci Code touched on this subject really well.
I think is perfectly normal and acceptable that Jesus Christ would have had a wife and no doubt children, because it is God's ordained plan for us.
It's the people that distort the true call of most religions for their own end - who will meet their creator and have to answer for their actions.
Jack o'Clubs
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,554
- Likes
- 342
I'm reading quite a bit of the bible at the moment, albeit in simplified form, as Mrs o'Clubs takes the kids to Sunday school and they are asking for their Children's Bible to be read in order from beginning to end as their bedtime story
The Old Testament is an absolute hoot. The more I read it, the more I realise what a preposterous load of old nonsense this religion is (I've little doubt Jesus existed, although probably as one of the first socialist political figures who did a great job of turning a tired old minority death cult into something more marketable, until the Romans tried to cut him down to size and ended up making him a martyr), and the more confident I feel in my atheism!
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,753
- Likes
- 1,026
What happened was that Henry wanted his first marriage annulled which was in contradiction with his own vows. Technically all that happened was that this request was denied and so he set his own church up. He was clearly very worried about his after life because he decreed that masses should be celebrated for the repose of his soul until the end of time.
The Christian view is that God's plan for Jesus was not the same as every other human. From their standpoint he was not just another bloke who would settle down and have a wife and family. His mission was unique and clear and as such meant that it would never be an option for him to have this. Bear in mind also that Da Vinci code is total fabrication and not based on historical fact.
This brings in the whole question of what the Holy Grail is all about and many have speculated that it was supposed to be the child of Jesus or the chalice at the last supper. For those who have researched this thoroughly they know that it is neither.
Paul
I'm reading quite a bit of the bible at the moment, albeit in simplified form, as Mrs o'Clubs takes the kids to Sunday school and they are asking for their Children's Bible to be read in order from beginning to end as their bedtime story
I am a believer (I said it before and this is the last time, otherwise I'll go down as the Holy Roller of T2W!
) but I, also, believe that we were given a superior intelligence to sort out the wheat from the chaff. So I agree with practically everything that you have said. I think, though, that the OT , being one of the oldest books around, was passed by word of mouth for centuries before it was put to paper. You can imagine what the story tellers were like in those days. They got paid for telling a good yarn and, by the time the first monks started putting it down on paper, or parchment, it was nowhere nesr the truth and they ran a blue pencil through a good bit, I'll bet. In other words, we got what THEY wanted us to get.My advice is
Be Good and you'll get there. That's all I try to do, anyway.
Split
Trendie,
You watched the whole thing? You’re obviously made of sterner stuff – I managed a couple of minutes. The format was enough – Hollywood-style disaster movie on home turf (US-centric). But isn’t this intentional?
As the majority of US (and UK) consumers derive most – if not all – knowledge from news bulletins/films/videos, this is the obvious method of delivery (the same thinking behind decorating the walls of churches with paintings/frescoes). Moreover, abstract ideas and notions of the Old Testament are reduced to simplistic levels and avoid theological points of contention (would only confuse the viewer).
Re your points of the physical appearance of Jesus (dark-skinned, etc). Being of Arab/Jew parentage this is a reasonable assumption. But what of his inherited father’s (God) racial characteristics? Possibly indefinable (I suspect transparent - without connotations of lack of depth, here). Do you think his portrayal as Hasidic would be endearing to a western European consumer? Doubt it. All things to all men, I suppose (Jesus is black in some African countries).
Re translations, I think the problem was varying degrees of expertise in translation/interpretation from Aramaic/Hebrew, and to the ancient Greek (70 - Septuagint - scholars). This expands on Split’s point - the area of contention for Henry VIII with the Vatican, specifically the Latin translation (and interpretation) of Deuteronomy: Aramaic-Hebrew-Greek-Latin. Maybe Henry was hoping something was lost in translation
Despite being a non-believer, I find your mother’s position the more pragmatic re the NHS. Hope your father has a rapid recovery.
Grant.
You watched the whole thing? You’re obviously made of sterner stuff – I managed a couple of minutes. The format was enough – Hollywood-style disaster movie on home turf (US-centric). But isn’t this intentional?
As the majority of US (and UK) consumers derive most – if not all – knowledge from news bulletins/films/videos, this is the obvious method of delivery (the same thinking behind decorating the walls of churches with paintings/frescoes). Moreover, abstract ideas and notions of the Old Testament are reduced to simplistic levels and avoid theological points of contention (would only confuse the viewer).
Re your points of the physical appearance of Jesus (dark-skinned, etc). Being of Arab/Jew parentage this is a reasonable assumption. But what of his inherited father’s (God) racial characteristics? Possibly indefinable (I suspect transparent - without connotations of lack of depth, here). Do you think his portrayal as Hasidic would be endearing to a western European consumer? Doubt it. All things to all men, I suppose (Jesus is black in some African countries).
Re translations, I think the problem was varying degrees of expertise in translation/interpretation from Aramaic/Hebrew, and to the ancient Greek (70 - Septuagint - scholars). This expands on Split’s point - the area of contention for Henry VIII with the Vatican, specifically the Latin translation (and interpretation) of Deuteronomy: Aramaic-Hebrew-Greek-Latin. Maybe Henry was hoping something was lost in translation
Despite being a non-believer, I find your mother’s position the more pragmatic re the NHS. Hope your father has a rapid recovery.
Grant.
Sir Isaac Newton
Thanks for all you posts. I do read them all, we're all here to learn from from life. We all have opioions some similar some disagree. I would like to mention, Sir Isaac Newton, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all time, however, Newton was a deeply religious man. Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science.
One of Newton quotes.
“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Somthing to ponder over.
Thanks for all you posts. I do read them all, we're all here to learn from from life. We all have opioions some similar some disagree. I would like to mention, Sir Isaac Newton, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all time, however, Newton was a deeply religious man. Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science.
One of Newton quotes.
“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Somthing to ponder over.
fibonelli
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,338
- Likes
- 288
Whatever our views on religion, we should not forgot its true purpose
"Religare is the latin word for "to reconnect, to bind together" which gave origin to the word religion. Attempts to define religion are manifold and various, but for the time being we will just say that religion is at the heart of an ancient human longing for meaning and oneness, inspiring both the civil and spiritual life. This is indeed an ambitious project, to explore human spiritual quest from the point of view of such different traditions as the path of the Goddess, the voice of Angels, the way of Yoga, the rigor of Zazen, the chants of the Sufi and so many others. We will try to "re-connect" to a wide diversity of traditions and explore the spiritual path by the approach of different disciplines: history, art, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, theology, sociology, etc... but, more than anything, by the medium of our passions. "
Source: RELIGARE
"Religare is the latin word for "to reconnect, to bind together" which gave origin to the word religion. Attempts to define religion are manifold and various, but for the time being we will just say that religion is at the heart of an ancient human longing for meaning and oneness, inspiring both the civil and spiritual life. This is indeed an ambitious project, to explore human spiritual quest from the point of view of such different traditions as the path of the Goddess, the voice of Angels, the way of Yoga, the rigor of Zazen, the chants of the Sufi and so many others. We will try to "re-connect" to a wide diversity of traditions and explore the spiritual path by the approach of different disciplines: history, art, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, theology, sociology, etc... but, more than anything, by the medium of our passions. "
Source: RELIGARE
Forgive me guys, but do you really believe The "Geezer" really sat around one Saturday afternoon and created this stuff for our benefit? Perhaps, indeed, he really did put us in the centre of it (like (use of vernacular here)of everything); but then call me sceptically, if not downright circumspect in this matter.
I suspect the universe is utterly indifferent about the survival of our species on this or any other planet(s) for that matter; whioh suggests to me that we'll have to work out our own future.
My two cents worth, sorry!
Mayfly
PS: And you thought that Route 66 was one hell of drive, well this one is 90,000 (ninety thousand) light years across. So, maybe a bit of humility is in order?
I suspect the universe is utterly indifferent about the survival of our species on this or any other planet(s) for that matter; whioh suggests to me that we'll have to work out our own future.
My two cents worth, sorry!
Mayfly
PS: And you thought that Route 66 was one hell of drive, well this one is 90,000 (ninety thousand) light years across. So, maybe a bit of humility is in order?
Last edited:
Laptop,
New to me regarding Newton. However, this is not necessarily inconsistent or contradictory – Newton would not ascribe to the view that God was the cause, origin or first mover of the physical laws of the universe.
Perhaps you could provide a reference to one of Newton’s religious works (probably defending himself against Bishop Berkeley).
“an intelligent and powerful Being”.
Was Newton referring to God here or a vague abstraction, ie that there must be an ultimate, all- powerful force, eg nature (the laws of) or physics? Yes, it is difficult for some to reduce the apparent complexities of the universe to impersonal laws or principles. When I look at the stars in a clear night sky, I wonder. But this failure is not reconciled by the introduction of God.
Paul,
“Einstein...reached it by independent analysis and deduction”.
Never heard Einstein cited as a source for the argument for the existence of God. I’d like to read this. Perhaps you could also provide a reference.
Brilliance in physics or mathematics does not automatically lend weight to arguments outside of themselves, eg theology, although it is used as a prop for poor arguments. Is an architect asked for views on aspects of medicine? Then again, would you ask a theologian for advice on God? There’s a conundrum.
Grant.
New to me regarding Newton. However, this is not necessarily inconsistent or contradictory – Newton would not ascribe to the view that God was the cause, origin or first mover of the physical laws of the universe.
Perhaps you could provide a reference to one of Newton’s religious works (probably defending himself against Bishop Berkeley).
“an intelligent and powerful Being”.
Was Newton referring to God here or a vague abstraction, ie that there must be an ultimate, all- powerful force, eg nature (the laws of) or physics? Yes, it is difficult for some to reduce the apparent complexities of the universe to impersonal laws or principles. When I look at the stars in a clear night sky, I wonder. But this failure is not reconciled by the introduction of God.
Paul,
“Einstein...reached it by independent analysis and deduction”.
Never heard Einstein cited as a source for the argument for the existence of God. I’d like to read this. Perhaps you could also provide a reference.
Brilliance in physics or mathematics does not automatically lend weight to arguments outside of themselves, eg theology, although it is used as a prop for poor arguments. Is an architect asked for views on aspects of medicine? Then again, would you ask a theologian for advice on God? There’s a conundrum.
Grant.
This will get you started. Isaac Newton, having perhaps the greatest scientific mind of all time, accepted the books of Daniel and Revelation as revelations from God
I found this documentary about him which was first broadcast on BBC2 . This excellent production showed another side of the brilliant man's life quite fascinating and wonderfully climactic with the disclosure of the apocalyptic date at the very end of the documentary.
Isaac Newton - Rejector of The Trinity believer in one God
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,042
- Likes
- 509
Remembering that religion is generally inherited it shouldn't surprise you that Newton was religious (surprisingly enough most people have the religion of their parents - which is why most Moslem's believe their version and Isaac believed your version - not because one of you is right).
Laptop,
“accepted the books of Daniel and Revelation as revelations from God”. What’s the source for this?
So I’m expected to sit through a BBC (not noted for their erudition) documentary for 1 hour. Just give me a book reference (“wrote more on religion than he did on natural science”). Or perhaps this was your source? Well, better than Walt Disney I suppose. Then again...
Nine,
I don’t think beliefs are in our DNA (just teasing).
Grant.
“accepted the books of Daniel and Revelation as revelations from God”. What’s the source for this?
So I’m expected to sit through a BBC (not noted for their erudition) documentary for 1 hour. Just give me a book reference (“wrote more on religion than he did on natural science”). Or perhaps this was your source? Well, better than Walt Disney I suppose. Then again...
Nine,
I don’t think beliefs are in our DNA (just teasing).
Grant.
You should do some searching yourself. I can't do all the work for you. The documentary is a good place for you to start.. Have you watched the documentary? I got more info on Newton more to come.but watch the link first.
Laptop,
Looks like I will need to do some work.
Strange that such a simple request elicits what may be, superficially, a diversionary or stalling tactic. Perhaps your source(s) were second-hand. I do not intend to watch the BBC documentary. Why do you attach such weight to it? Is the BBC a source of wisdom?
Grant.
Looks like I will need to do some work.
Strange that such a simple request elicits what may be, superficially, a diversionary or stalling tactic. Perhaps your source(s) were second-hand. I do not intend to watch the BBC documentary. Why do you attach such weight to it? Is the BBC a source of wisdom?
Grant.