Why Religion Is For Big Infants

[LarsMac]

AussiePam;1300335 wrote: My point exactly. Which is why I didn't care to be cast as moronic / stupid / a big infant merely because I disagreed with you guys on this.

I absolutely agree with what you say about calling the Catholic church (and any other church or religion) to account. I do.


Me too. And I AM one of those big stupid infants that believes in God.

I don't really see what that has to do with religion, though.

[Glaswegian]

AussiePam;1300033 wrote: I have said many times on FG that it is my opinion that religion is a man-made construct, and has been / is used to further tribal and other power agendas.
You say here that religion is a man-made construct, AussiePam. I think it is worth taking a look at what this statement of yours amounts to.

When you say that religion is a man-made construct this means that for you there is nothing supernatural about religion whatsoever, and we are to understand it as something wholly produced by man. Therefore, when followers of a monotheistic religion like Christianity claim that their religion is God-given ('Divinely inspired') they are wrong - according to you - and we must view their claim as false. Not only that. We must view the claims made by Christianity and other religions as also false - as being something simply dreamed up by men. Thus, when a Christian claims that Jesus Christ is a living God who hears and answers his prayers then we must view this claim as false, and view the Christian who makes the claim as wrong or deluded.

As far as I can see, AussiePam, your understanding of religion is no different from mine. For I also take the view that religion is a man-made construct. Specifically, I see it as a construct born of men's fear, ignorance and self-deception: and as satisfying various infantile needs in them.

So why do you get upset when I criticise it as such?

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1300344 wrote: And I AM one of those big stupid infants that believes in God.
Are you? How do you conceive of God, LarsMac? For example, what qualities would you say your God possesses?

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1300428 wrote: Are you? How do you conceive of God, LarsMac? For example, what qualities would you say your God possesses?


He is my strength when I am weak and tired.

He is comfort when I am in pain.

He guides me when I get lost and confused.

He gives me courage when I face fear.

He is my friend when I am alone.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1300430 wrote: He is my strength when I am weak and tired.

He is comfort when I am in pain.

He guides me when I get lost and confused.

He gives me courage when I face fear.

He is my friend when I am alone.
How were you able to ascertain your God's gender, LarsMac?

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1300431 wrote: How were you able to ascertain your God's gender, LarsMac?


I don't know that God has gender.

But being male, I am more comfortable with the pronoun, "He" than with, "It"

Perhaps, were I female, I would be more comfortable with. "She"

If that bothers you, I will dispense with the pronoun in future responses.

Example:

God is my strength when I am weak and tired.

God is comfort when I am in pain.

God guides me when I get lost and confused.

God gives me courage when I face fear.

God is my friend when I am alone.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1300434 wrote: I don't know that God has gender.
Why don't you know?

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1300435 wrote: Why don't you know?
Why would God have Gender?

[Bruv]

Why do you have such a problem with anyone else's religion Mr Glaswegian?

[hoppy]

Bruv;1300445 wrote: Why do you have such a problem with anyone else's religion Mr Glaswegian?


He does seem to have a fixation on that. Sort of like a good hound dog gets fixated on the fox he's chasin, don't see nothing else. Bet he's got fleas too.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Snowfire]

LarsMac;1300303 wrote: I surrender.

There is no room for us all in here, with you guys all puffed up with your righteous indignation, and the discussion has deteriorated beyond reason.




Thats a shame. Its a discussion where two camps are diametrically opposed to each other. We probably both think each other is full of righteous indignation. Nothing unusual there given this a discussion forum on religion. We should be able to discuss without too much indignation however emotive the subject. Thats what we're here for. Shouldnt we both leave a little more enlightened about how we both feel

I'd be quite happy to have a beer with Hoppy and yourself too

[LarsMac]

Snowfire;1300483 wrote: Thats a shame. Its a discussion where two camps are diametrically opposed to each other. We probably both think each other is full of righteous indignation. Nothing unusual there given this a discussion forum on religion. We should be able to discuss without too much indignation however emotive the subject. Thats what we're here for. Shouldnt we both leave a little more enlightened about how we both feel

I'd be quite happy to have a beer with Hoppy and yourself too


It is a shame. That is why I a came back.

However, I don't think the camps are completely opposed. Just confused.

I quite agree that religion has been used for evil purposes, and have tried to show the same.

I don't agree that the evils perpetrated by those who use religious trappings indicates a lack of God. Only a lack of faith in God.

So, back to that beer,...

[AussiePam]

Glaswegian;1300411 wrote:

As far as I can see, AussiePam, your understanding of religion is no different from mine. For I also take the view that religion is a man-made construct. Specifically, I see it as a construct born of men's fear, ignorance and self-deception: and as satisfying various infantile needs in them.

So why do you get upset when I criticise it as such?


"Upset" !!!! This is a put down word men use to women who disagree with them. How I view what you have posted in here has nothing to do with emotions..

Specifically, I see religion as a human construct in response to man's real experience of the Divine. At attempt at expressing in human terms what is basically inexpressible in human terms - hence the imperfections. Divine inspiration - yes, but interpreted by humans, reinterpreted by humans, misinterpreted by humans, turned into a system by humans, tribalised, philosophised, politicised and bureaucratised by humans, hijacked etc. I agree that some bits of 'religion' have got a long way from that original spark.

As for ''infantile'' needs - here's another loaded, put-down type word.. We do all live in a tough world, aware of our human condition. It would be nice to have guarantees that all will be well etc, nice to have absolute certainties that there is some meaning in life, the universe, everything. I said before that absolute certainties seem only to be the preserve of the extreme religious fundamentalist or the atheist. The rest of us carry on as best we can.

[Amythest]

AussiePam;1300486 wrote: "Upset" !!!! This is a put down word men use to women who disagree with them. How I view what you have posted in here has nothing to do with emotions..

Specifically, I see religion as a human construct in response to man's real experience of the Divine. At attempt at expressing in human terms what is basically inexpressible in human terms - hence the imperfections. Divine inspiration - yes, but interpreted by humans, reinterpreted by humans, misinterpreted by humans, turned into a system by humans, tribalised, philosophised, politicised and bureaucratised by humans, hijacked etc. I agree that some bits of 'religion' have got a long way from that original spark.

As for ''infantile'' needs - here's another loaded, put-down type word.. We do all live in a tough world, aware of our human condition. It would be nice to have guarantees that all will be well etc, nice to have absolute certainties that there is some meaning in life, the universe, everything. I said before that absolute certainties seem only to be the preserve of the extreme religious fundamentalist or the atheist. The rest of us carry on as best we can.


Everything is construct and starts from an idea. Then it becomes action or not. I'ld rather have more civilised "constructs".

So how can the rest of us "carry on the best we can" when the bureaucratised, hijacked elements of spirtuality deny and block people from the truth. What about people who are murdered, or sacrifice their lives in the name of religion? What about people who are segregated and ousted from society, unable to work or prosper? Is that ok?

We carry on the best we can whilst being robbed of our dignity and inherent rights?

Bottom line.Organised religion used brutal force to become what it is today. It has ripped away the rights of women, and has misled men into war, made them the enforcers.

So just live with it, accept it, instead of change it?

Telling society to ignore the negative effects of organised religion is almost like telling people that individuals ( civilians, men or women) who perform random acts of violence, robbery, rape and pedophilia should go unchecked and ignored. Except it is FAR WORSE> The authoratative branches of religion spawn followers who choose to act as "gods" police? What inspires people to carry out acts of cruelty?

Just act like it's ok. You're mate gets killed in a brawl, you get your hands cut off, or are stoned to death.........aw Well. **** happens.

This is the best we can do, Carry on.

I live in a place where i don't have to worry much about my safety. I don't have to attend church or play the game.

Unfortunately there are many people, especially women, who don't have the same luxury. Why? Religion.

[Ahso!]

gmc;1300285 wrote: You can't really discuss the existence or non existence of god can you? Neither side can prove their case conclusively and all you can do is discuss why you have come to believe there is one or why you do not.Yes you can discuss the existence or non-existence of God. God does not exist, science has proven it, not by proving "non-existence" because you can't prove a negative. However, where science has investigated, nothing in the bible exists.

You can't say or you wouldn't say the easter bunny must have existed because we can't find his skeleton, but that is exactly what people who believe in God want us to submit to. God is a myth just like the easter bunny is a myth, and just because the players in religion's myth are people (jesus being the son of God) does not make it any more plausible.

We can see pretty far into space now and we haven't stumbled upon even the slightest bit of evidence any throne or paradise, we've scoured the earth and have not found the garden of eden or Noah's Arc, we know how life began and evolved and it's nothing like the biblical claims (or any other religion for that matter).

Just because some people don't want to look deep enough into the evidence that we are certain of does not give them the right to say: "Well, I don't know for sure, but neither do you." Yes I do know because I've followed the science and I've considered God deeply and.......There is no God!

All that said, I understand why religion exists and it has not much at all to do with God or power. Its a form of grouping by a species that consumes storytelling which has developed as an adaptation for the purposes of survival. I don't have a problem with belief in God, though I think it would serve us better as a whole to begin to change the narrative of the story to one that excludes belief in God.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1300434 wrote: I don't know that God has gender.
LarsMac wrote: Why would God have Gender?
Why indeed, LarsMac.

Let me hazard a guess as to why you are uncertain about your God's gender. It's because your God's invisible. Right?

I had to read the following two sentences of yours several times over because I thought my eyes were deceiving me:



LarsMac wrote: But being male, I am more comfortable with the pronoun, "He" than with, "It"

Perhaps, were I female, I would be more comfortable with. "She"
Those two sentences indicate a lack of self-knowledge on your part which is quite astonishing. And they give the game away about your 'God'. For they illustrate in the most glaring manner that your 'God' is nothing more than a projection of yourself.

An ancient Greek poet once said: 'If horses believed in God then their God would have four legs and neigh.' Brother, was he right!

LarsMac wrote: God is my strength when I am weak and tired.

God is comfort when I am in pain.

God guides me when I get lost and confused.

God gives me courage when I face fear.

God is my friend when I am alone.
What you are describing here is nothing more than an imaginary friend and wet nurse. Children usually give these things up before the age of twelve.

[Amythest]

It seems with technology advances, scientific research, opening borders to travellers and allowing research on ancient archaeological sites has unleashed a plethora of literature and videos that question, expose and educate the public about the true origins of their religious beliefs.

There's a Book out " The Gospels According to Acharya S"

IT was reviewed by Barbara G. Walker ( author of "Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets")

'The Gospel According to Acharya S' makes a clear distinction between true spirituality and what is usually called religion. The jealous, egotistical, ever-praise-hungry Judeo-Christian God is shown to be an extension of human (male) ego, fostering arrogance in his believers who claim that their own religion is the only true one, all others being false and evil. Acharya castigates patriarchal belief systems as the ultimate source of sexism, citing centuries of abuse of women on religious grounds.



"She also demonstrates the highly derivative nature of religious concepts generally assumed to be unique; amusingly debunks the game of bible-based prophecy; discusses the primordial cannibalism underlying communion rites; and demonstrates the cultic nature of so-called mainstream religions. Her book plainly makes the point that religious sects demanding 'tolerance' and 'respect' from the rest of the world are frequently unworthy of either.



"This book endorses the creative variety of spiritual practices around the world, stating that 'Those who narrow down their consciousness to reject the wisdom and perception of all other cultures in favor of their own egotistical and ethnocentric "religious" beliefs are often mean-spirited and poorly educated yet very conceited.' Actually, 'Humankind needs to drop all such ego identifications as nationalism, racism and religionism, when they become divisive.'



"There is a broad, idealistically beautiful vision embodied in this 'Gospel': a vision of a world truly at peace, people truly in harmony with nature, and an end to the religious strife and violence that have stained the last two thousand years with horrifying amounts of innocent blood. It is a vision that gives hope for freedom from the emotional shackles of religions, and the dawning of a more rational future."



Barbara G. Walker.

Most criticism of religion stems from a desire for more peace, balance and justice in the world. This doesn't mean that wars will not exist. Just that ,perhaps, wars will be carried forth with more integrity and a healthy respect for different cultures.

I doubt any of these things can be achieved if humanity stays the course with our present major religious organizations.

[Bruv]

Bruv;1300445 wrote: Why do you have such a problem with anyone else's religion Mr Glaswegian?


Just repeating my query..............

[AussiePam]

Amythest;1300490 wrote: Everything is construct and starts from an idea. Then it becomes action or not. I'ld rather have more civilised "constructs".

So how can the rest of us "carry on the best we can" when the bureaucratised, hijacked elements of spirtuality deny and block people from the truth. What about people who are murdered, or sacrifice their lives in the name of religion? What about people who are segregated and ousted from society, unable to work or prosper? Is that ok?

We carry on the best we can whilst being robbed of our dignity and inherent rights?

Bottom line.Organised religion used brutal force to become what it is today. It has ripped away the rights of women, and has misled men into war, made them the enforcers.

So just live with it, accept it, instead of change it?

Telling society to ignore the negative effects of organised religion is almost like telling people that individuals ( civilians, men or women) who perform random acts of violence, robbery, rape and pedophilia should go unchecked and ignored. Except it is FAR WORSE> The authoratative branches of religion spawn followers who choose to act as "gods" police? What inspires people to carry out acts of cruelty?

Just act like it's ok. You're mate gets killed in a brawl, you get your hands cut off, or are stoned to death.........aw Well. **** happens.

This is the best we can do, Carry on.

I live in a place where i don't have to worry much about my safety. I don't have to attend church or play the game.

Unfortunately there are many people, especially women, who don't have the same luxury. Why? Religion.


Gosh, Amethyst. I don't know where you get any of that from what I said. I don't condone any of the evil that has been done by religion or in the name of religion. Absolutely not. I'm as against all that as you are. And agree it should be actively opposed not meekly accepted. I am disenchanted with the established Christian churches.

Justifiable anger aside though, what is it you really want now?

1 Do you want all religion banned?????

That's been tried. Atheistic regimes found other ways to persuade, manipulate, oppress. And religion didn't die out, it just went underground.

What I was trying to say, and LarsMac too, is that humans do this bad stuff to other humans and will no doubt continue to do abominable things, one way or another. I look at the link between religion and politics and sometimes wonder if they are not almost the same, and also whether they are inherent in humans, drawing lines between tribes, creating a them and us, conferring power to some, forcing others into submission.

You might need to ban politics too, in order to reach utopia.

While you still have humans, I don't like your chances of success.





2 Do you want every person to agree with your view that there is no God?????

It's a tall order, and probably the only way you could achieve this is to somehow acquire enough power to force everyone else to submit to your will here, imposing sanctions on those who wish to remain stubbornly "unenlightened".

I studied epistomology at university and we went into all the arguments against the existence of God. I have lots of problems with lots of things, and am often beset by doubts and uncertainties. BUT, as I've said earlier - and I think with this, I'm finished here - there is still at times a spark of light, a glimpse of something Other and Holy if you like, which keeps me hanging in there.

-------------------------

I've actually very much appreciated this thread. I have only written a very small fraction of what I've been thinking since the thread started, and of course it coincides with Richard Dawkins visit to Sydney recently, and ongoing debate from that. Thank you.

[Amythest]

AussiePam;1300529 wrote: Gosh, Amethyst. I don't know where you get any of that from what I said. I don't condone any of the evil that has been done by religion or in the name of religion. Absolutely not. I'm as against all that as you are. And agree it should be actively opposed not meekly accepted. I am disenchanted with the established Christian churches.

Justifiable anger aside though, what is it you really want now?

1 Do you want all religion banned?????

That's been tried. Atheistic regimes found other ways to persuade, manipulate, oppress. And religion didn't die out, it just went underground.

What I was trying to say, and LarsMac too, is that humans do this bad stuff to other humans and will no doubt continue to do abominable things, one way or another. I look at the link between religion and politics and sometimes wonder if they are not almost the same, and also whether they are inherent in humans, drawing lines between tribes, creating a them and us, conferring power to some, forcing others into submission.

You might need to ban politics too, in order to reach utopia.

While you still have humans, I don't like your chances of success.





2 Do you want every person to agree with your view that there is no God?????

It's a tall order, and probably

I studied epistomology at university and we went into all the arguments against the existence of God. I have lots of problems with lots of things, and am often beset by doubts and uncertainties. BUT, as I've said earlier - and I think with this, I'm finished here - there is still at times a spark of light, a glimpse of something Other and Holy if you like, which keeps me hanging in there.

-------------------------

I've actually very much appreciated this thread. I have only written a very small fraction of what I've been thinking since the thread started, and of course it coincides with Richard Dawkins visit to Sydney recently, and ongoing debate from that. Thank you.


Firstly I never said there is no "god" just that religion is misdirected and is a lie. BIG differnece. I didn't post anything about there being no God.

I'm against religion and I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic, am comfortable not knowing, or having to place some reflection of ourselves ( whether it be our good or bad qualities) into God belief.



Even though were told different i believe Church and State are one. I think the Vatican has a large role in world decisions and economics, and this has been ongoing since the whole Roman Catholic religion was invented. Almost every European nation has allegiance to the church. Much of what is going on in the Middle east is about religious dominance. Wealth and the harnessing of it. The Vatican is behind it all.

We are governed by Roman religious law. Peel away what we are told and look for what is behind everything that is employed or deloyed by Gov.

You choose a loose form of God beleif that doesn't fall within the constructs of the Bible. I didn't discount or misinterpret that, NOR did i respond that you are wrong to beleive in "god". I did say i can live with and accept your's and Spots spiritual stance.

You beleive I am demanding total disbeleif in God by posting; "the only way you could achieve this is to somehow acquire enough power to force everyone else to submit to your will here, imposing sanctions on those who wish to remain stubbornly "unenlightened".

You talking to me? I am now some powr hungry FG dictatress?LOL I submitted my view, offered a few links, "challenged" people to research outside of the bible, look at archeological facts, compair events in other religions, engaged in some insulting bantor with someone who invited it.

So much for discussing any of that. Did i force the issue?

For the most part i haven't debated as passionately or directly as others here.

The title of this thread isn't "Why God is For Big Babies"



If it were I probably wouldn't agree.

There came a few times in my life i had to fight for my rights and escape religious persecution. I didn't just roll over and submit, so does that make me the bad person? Does posting my personal experience take a back seat to links, documents, or referenced writings? What happened to me has happened to MILLIONS over the last 2000+ years. In the past i doubt i would be alive. I doubt any form of utopia could ever be achieved with our present religious doctrins.

Utopia. Now isn't that something. Even Utopia gets sectioned off into varients.So if i choose one i would choose the Ecological one. Because i beleive man has to stop being so egotistical and destructive if we want to be spiritually, physically and mentally healthy.

Yes I get upset about how the language is used to belittle and disregard a womans input. There are a LOT of negative words aimed at the female gender to disempower us. But if we had no power we wouldn't inspire so much to keep us shackled?



If you don't want to discuss the origins of religion or acknowledge the abuses carried out under the guise of "God's" plan, fine!

Just don't pigeon hole or label me as something i am not. TYVM:)

[Glaswegian]

Bruv;1300445 wrote: Why do you have such a problem with anyone else's religion Mr Glaswegian?
For me it is religion which is the problem, Bruv. If you've read what I've posted in this thread then it must be pretty obvious to you why I see it as such, and why I take issue with it.

But why do you view what I've been doing in this thread so negatively? Why not think of me as also providing a service? Here's a good metaphor:

Think of God as a sort of metaphysical fart. And think of me as an open window.

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1300517 wrote: Why indeed, LarsMac.

Let me hazard a guess as to why you are uncertain about your God's gender. It's because your God's invisible. Right?

I had to read the following two sentences of yours several times over because I thought my eyes were deceiving me:



Those two sentences indicate a lack of self-knowledge on your part which is quite astonishing. And they give the game away about your 'God'. For they illustrate in the most glaring manner that your 'God' is nothing more than a projection of yourself.

An ancient Greek poet once said: 'If horses believed in God then their God would have four legs and neigh.' Brother, was he right!



What you are describing here is nothing more than an imaginary friend and wet nurse. Children usually give these things up before the age of twelve.


Gee, you got me all figured out, do you?

How nice for you.

Our world is a reflection of ourselves, mate. I would think that as wise as you must be, you would have gotten that, by now.

Likewise, our perception(or lack of) of God is equally dependent upon how we look for God in ourselves and those around us.

For that is exactly where we shall find God.

If you truly felt comfortable with your empty God, you would not find it so necessary to denounce Him in others.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1300505 wrote: Yes you can discuss the existence or non-existence of God. God does not exist, science has proven it, not by proving "non-existence" because you can't prove a negative. However, where science has investigated, nothing in the bible exists.

You can't say or you wouldn't say the easter bunny must have existed because we can't find his skeleton, but that is exactly what people who believe in God want us to submit to. God is a myth just like the easter bunny is a myth, and just because the players in religion's myth are people (jesus being the son of God) does not make it any more plausible.

We can see pretty far into space now and we haven't stumbled upon even the slightest bit of evidence any throne or paradise, we've scoured the earth and have not found the garden of eden or Noah's Arc, we know how life began and evolved and it's nothing like the biblical claims (or any other religion for that matter).

Just because some people don't want to look deep enough into the evidence that we are certain of does not give them the right to say: "Well, I don't know for sure, but neither do you." Yes I do know because I've followed the science and I've considered God deeply and.......There is no God!

All that said, I understand why religion exists and it has not much at all to do with God or power. Its a form of grouping by a species that consumes storytelling which has developed as an adaptation for the purposes of survival. I don't have a problem with belief in God, though I think it would serve us better as a whole to begin to change the narrative of the story to one that excludes belief in God.
Good post, Ahso!

Over the past four hundred years the claims made by Religion have been systematically taken apart by Science and shown to be false and ridiculous. And this process continues relentlessly. The picture of the universe which Science has drawn for us is simply breathtaking in its scale and complexity, and in comparison to it the one offered by Religion appears utterly meagre and parochial. Science has reduced The Great God of Religion to the merest shadow of Himself. Thus, he is now only the 'God of the gaps', and these gaps are closing up fast. Yes, thanks to Science the God cravenly clung to by religious believers is running out of spider-holes in which to hide in the universe.

It is time for people to start looking at Religion honestly and seeing it for what it is: namely, as something produced by primitive and superstitious people who didn't know any better, as something which belongs to the infancy of the human race. The average child today has a deeper and more accurate understanding of Nature and its workings than any of the authors of the Bible or Koran ever did. And that is something we can all be proud of. Those authors and their contemporaries saw demons everywhere and felt the need to pin their hopes on an imaginary ally in the sky. It's nice to know we have come a long way since then...well, some of us have anyway.

What has made Science so successful is that it is driven by free and open inquiry. For Science, nothing is to be taken for granted; nothing is to be accepted on the basis of Authority; nothing is so 'sacred' or privileged that it cannot be subjected to critical scrutiny. And this is why many religious believers harbour a deep resentment towards Science. For it has operated like a pin at Religion's balloon party with one after another of the latter's claims being exploded and thrown out. In the eyes of theologians and religious believers, Science has disenchanted the world and shown them that their belief in Gods, angels, demons and other supernatural phenomena is childish and ignorant. And they cannot forgive Science for that.

[Bruv]

Glaswegian;1300602 wrote: For me it is religion which is the problem, Bruv. If you've read what I've posted in this thread then it must be pretty obvious to you why I see it as such, and why I take issue with it.

But why do you view what I've been doing in this thread so negatively? Why not think of me as also providing a service? Here's a good metaphor:

Think of God as a sort of metaphysical fart. And think of me as an open window.


I am a simple soul, I don't do much philosiphying (See....I can't even spell it)

Seems to me science is a religion, seems science has all your faith.

But science is today's latest knowledge, tomorrow they learn something else, or something more, to disprove what was true today........and I wonder how many horrors have been done in the name of science.......and the quest for truth ? (Hinting.....as many as religion probably)

I am happy to say simply...."There are more questions than answers"

Mankind by and large are simple souls too, no matter how clever they think they are.

The need for a third party to offer consolation or proof or justification or to verify the very meaning of life, will always be there.

Religion in all it's forms has caused many problems, so has science.

The common factor in both is man.

I wouldn't know if there is a god...............but I believe the need for a higher authority, something to rely on, to trust, to thank, to be answerable to,etc.etc. is a necessity.......

[Glaswegian]

Bruv;1300715 wrote: Seems to me science is a religion, seems science has all your faith.
I admire science as a method of investigating Nature, Bruv. I think it's the best method we've devised yet. I admire the findings of science. I admire the ethos of science (democratic, open). But I don't worship science.

By the way, even the enemies of science admire it - albeit through clenched teeth. For example, when Pope John Paul II was shot by an assassin did the Princes of the Catholic Church rely on 'God' to perform a miracle and save His numero uno on earth? Of course not. They got the Pope to the best doctors money could buy because their faith in medical science was a thousand times stronger than their faith in 'God'.

Bruv wrote: But science is today's latest knowledge, tomorrow they learn something else, or something more, to disprove what was true today
You're correct. But this is how science operates. Think of scientific knowledge as provisional, as subject to constant revision and refinement. Don't fall for hustlers in dog-collars who promise you 'The Eternal and Unchanging Truth'. That's just for the gullible and insecure.

Bruv wrote: I wonder how many horrors have been done in the name of science
Many horrors have been done in the name of science. For example, horrible experiments carried out on men, women and children in the Nazi death camps, horrible experiments carried out in American prisons, Psychiatry's horrible experiments on the mentally ill...are just a tiny few.

Bruv wrote: I am happy to say simply...."There are more questions than answers"
And I'm happy to agree. This is what is so good about science. Every mystery it solves gives rise to further tantalising questions.

Bruv wrote: The need for a third party to offer consolation or proof or justification or to verify the very meaning of life, will always be there.
No. Once we stop adopting an infantile orientation to life it won't be there. We have to learn to stand on our own two feet and look at the world and our existence honestly and intelligently. It is up to us to give meaning to life. To yearn for some imaginary Being to do this for us is completely abject, and a shameful evasion of responsibility. The very fact that it lies within our power to give life its meaning is exhilarating and should be welcomed.

Bruv wrote: I believe the need for a higher authority, something to rely on, to trust, to thank, to be answerable to,etc.etc. is a necessity.......
But these are precisely the needs of the Big Infant, aren't they? What you have done here is confirm the argument I made in the OP. But tell me, Bruv, why do you need 'a higher authority, something to rely on, to trust, to thank, to be answerable to, etc.'?

[Glaswegian]

AussiePam;1300529 wrote: I've actually very much appreciated this thread. I have only written a very small fraction of what I've been thinking since the thread started, and of course it coincides with Richard Dawkins visit to Sydney recently, and ongoing debate from that. Thank you.
You're welcome, Pam.

[gmc]

Ahso!;1300505 wrote: Yes you can discuss the existence or non-existence of God. God does not exist, science has proven it, not by proving "non-existence" because you can't prove a negative. However, where science has investigated, nothing in the bible exists.

You can't say or you wouldn't say the easter bunny must have existed because we can't find his skeleton, but that is exactly what people who believe in God want us to submit to. God is a myth just like the easter bunny is a myth, and just because the players in religion's myth are people (jesus being the son of God) does not make it any more plausible.

We can see pretty far into space now and we haven't stumbled upon even the slightest bit of evidence any throne or paradise, we've scoured the earth and have not found the garden of eden or Noah's Arc, we know how life began and evolved and it's nothing like the biblical claims (or any other religion for that matter).

Just because some people don't want to look deep enough into the evidence that we are certain of does not give them the right to say: "Well, I don't know for sure, but neither do you." Yes I do know because I've followed the science and I've considered God deeply and.......There is no God!

All that said, I understand why religion exists and it has not much at all to do with God or power. Its a form of grouping by a species that consumes storytelling which has developed as an adaptation for the purposes of survival. I don't have a problem with belief in God, though I think it would serve us better as a whole to begin to change the narrative of the story to one that excludes belief in God.


Actually no it doesn't. All you can say is that based on the evidence on balance of probability it's 99.99% certain god does not exist. It's a personal decision each has to make. Science has proved the non existence of god to your satisfaction and no doubt you have gone on to work out your own reasons for your existence or perhaps decided there is no point worrying about it.

Even if you If you could prove it beyond doubt there would always be those who refuse to accept there is no god. It 's a question of faith, a leap of faith call it what you will the whole point is you believe without question, without doubt and without any kind of measurable proof. Faith is completely and utterly irrational otherwise it wouldn't be faith would it?

I know many intelligent people who believe in god and find comfort in their faith they know it's irrational and don't care. I would distinguish between them and those who are "religious". The ones who feel they have a god given right to impose their beliefs on everybody else. You could rationalise it that they feel they have a god given duty to bring others to god and look after the moral health of everybody else whether they want it or not. The result of it is always invariably repression and the use of terror to stop dissent. There have always been those who have used religion to their own ends having control of the gateway to heaven and hell is great way to get people to do what you will. Even the most rational and cynical has a problem defying the church when it's followers are convinced god is on their side and all those who do not believe are the enemies of god.

Personally i would ban faith schools and stop allowing established religions the right to brainwash children - as the jesuits would have it give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man. An acknowledgement of how you can brainwash people if ever there was one. Nowadays I suppose it would be Give me the child until he is seven and I will be quietly transferred to a distant parish by the Bishop who will ignore any complaints in order to avoid a scandal.:sneaky:

I'm al;so heartily sick of them trying to interfere in the education of children that don't go to their schools and try and prevent sex education and the theiry fo evolution being taught and other stupidities that the rest of us tolerate are too polite to tell them to DF)_()k off.

Who else should have the right to decide when they get pregnant and by whom except a woman herself and yet we have religious groups trying to prevent contraceptives and the day after pill being freely available and then complain about the number of abortions. Who agreed they should have that kind of control? Now it seems they have turned their attention to homosexuality, most people might not understand the appeal but it takes religion to want to torment anybody that's a bit different.

At the heart of both islam and Christianity is a creation myth that is so obviously just that I find it hard to credit anyone can take it literally. there is also a terrifying capricious, vindictive god that despite the arrival of JC seems to appeal on a basic level to people that like to live in terror and take great delight at the sufferings of unbelievers. It's not so much that religion is for big infants it's more a case that we should keep it away from out children till they have the maturity not to get conditioned in to following blindly.

However, where science has investigated, nothing in the bible exists.

You can't say or you wouldn't say the easter bunny must have existed because we can't find his skeleton, but that is exactly what people who believe in God want us to submit to. God is a myth just like the easter bunny is a myth, and just because the players in religion's myth are people (jesus being the son of God) does not make it any more plausible.




Actually that's not true. Some iof the more fantastical stories, Sodom and Gomorrah, the paring of the red sea we can now recognise as natural phenomena, earthquakes, volcanoes erupting etc etc the biblical descriptions make sense but the explanation is that of a primitive people who believe these things they can't understand are god being angry at them. the greek idea is more appealing- the gods played with man and you could pray to them all you wanted if you wanted but they might decide not to listen. The children of abraham just resorted to more and more extreme measures to placate their god.

posted by glaswegian

It is time for people to start looking at Religion honestly and seeing it for what it is: namely, as something produced by primitive and superstitious people who didn't know any better, as something which belongs to the infancy of the human race. The average child today has a deeper and more accurate understanding of Nature and its workings than any of the authors of the Bible or Koran ever did. And that is something we can all be proud of. Those authors and their contemporaries saw demons everywhere and felt the need to pin their hopes on an imaginary ally in the sky. It's nice to know we have come a long way since then...well, some of us have anyway.


It took us centuries of warfare to get to the point where we have a secular society there are still large sections that like the idea of witch hunts and putting people in the stocks so they can be laughed at and no mater what priests do will still cling to the notion of an infallible pope anointed by god. While I'm inclined to agree with your point of view spouting forth from the pulpit of secularism and hectoring the godly doesn't really work does it?

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1300833 wrote: While I'm inclined to agree with your point of view spouting forth from the pulpit of secularism and hectoring the godly doesn't really work does it?
I've re-read post # 223 and you're right - it does sound a bit sermon-ish. Maybe that's because I was wearing my cassock when I wrote it. From now on I'll make sure I remove it before I make a post. (It's faux giraffe-skin, by the way.)

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1300852 wrote: I've re-read post # 223 and you're right - it does sound a bit sermon-ish. Maybe that's because I was wearing my cassock when I wrote it. From now on I'll make sure I remove it before I make a post. (It's faux giraffe-skin, by the way.)


Oh dear, are you also wearing a leather apron and a gym shoe tied to your ear? How's the funny handshake coming along?





Oh dear, at least our religious nuts are unarmed.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1300833 wrote: Even if you If you could prove it beyond doubt there would always be those who refuse to accept there is no god. It 's a question of faith, a leap of faith call it what you will the whole point is you believe without question, without doubt and without any kind of measurable proof. Faith is completely and utterly irrational otherwise it wouldn't be faith would it?
Religious beliefs are irrational through and through. Religion has always enjoined the faithful to believe things in the absence of evidence. Indeed, it has actually taught that such belief is virtuous. This is an affront to all rational human beings.

Religious faith requires belief in propositions which no one can possibly know to be true. These propositions are metaphysical in nature and, as such, they fall outside the boundaries of human knowledge and are incapable of demonstrative proof. This is why religious propositions and 'truth' claims must be taken on faith - faith without reason, faith without question, blind faith.

If you read back over this thread you will see that not one of the religionists who has contributed to it has offered a single rational argument in defence of their religious beliefs. How could they? All they have done is complain and sulk when these beliefs have been criticised. This behaviour should be seen as a tacit admission on their part that their religious beliefs have no rational justification whatsoever and are at bottom just childish and silly.

The fact that religious beliefs are devoid of reason has long been recognised. For example, here is how the early Church Father, Tertullian, justified his religious belief:

'I believe because it is absurd.'

As a confession of intellectual suicide, Tertullian's statement is remarkably concise. Please study it closely for a moment or two and soon you will see the Religious Mind in all its perverse stupidity start to manifest itself before your very eyes.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1301197 wrote: Religious beliefs are irrational through and through. Religion has always enjoined the faithful to believe things in the absence of evidence. Indeed, it has actually taught that such belief is virtuous. This is an affront to all rational human beings.

Religious faith requires belief in propositions which no one can possibly know to be true. These propositions are metaphysical in nature and, as such, they fall outside the boundaries of human knowledge and are incapable of demonstrative proof. This is why religious propositions and 'truth' claims must be taken on faith - faith without reason, faith without question, blind faith.

If you read back over this thread you will see that not one of the religionists who has contributed to it has offered a single rational argument in defence of their religious beliefs. How could they? All they have done is complain and sulk when these beliefs have been criticised. This behaviour should be seen as a tacit admission on their part that their religious beliefs have no rational justification whatsoever and are at bottom just childish and silly.

The fact that religious beliefs are devoid of reason has long been recognised. For example, here is how the early Church Father, Tertullian, justifies his religious belief:

'I believe because it is absurd.'

As a confession of intellectual suicide, Tertullian's statement is remarkably concise. Please study it closely for a moment or two and soon you will see the Religious Mind in all its perverse stupidity start to manifest itself before your very eyes.


I don't actually disagree with you. It's a catch 22 isn't it? If it wasn't irrational it wouldn't be faith would it? If you could prove god exists you wouldn't need faith so you couldn't have any faith, by the same token if you could prove god exists you wouldn't need religion or priests to mediate for you because you would presumably be able to talk to him directly. Established religion has no interest in proving the existence of god because as soon as they do they are no longer needed, even less so do they have an interest in allowing their followers to think for themselves hence all the fuss about having separate schools and attempts trying to ban the teaching of science in schools. You can't have a religious approach to science because you need to be logical about it.

You cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who is deeply religious because at some point they will always be quite literally beyond reason. When it comes to religion, where the religious get political power and there is enough of them, there is always going to be a point where there is no option but to pick up a weapon and be ready to use it. It's not the mild mannered christian or muslim you need to worry about it's the fire breathing nutter who turn on their own kind with enthusiastic viciousness if they stray from the true path. Then again if you try and deal with them by banning, silencing etc etc all you do is make yourselves just like them and justify all their fears. If someone wants to use a club on you hitting them first just gives them a good excuse and makes them happy. Maybe JC was right-turn the other cheek:sneaky:

Reasonable people can live together no matter what there differences unreasonable people cannot. There will always be war, religious war is the most destructive of all and the hardest to prevent and then make peace at the end of it all. Just ask all the reasonable people in the middle east.

[beowulf]

:rolleyes:

Attached files

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1301205 wrote: if you could prove god exists you wouldn't need religion or priests to mediate for you because you would presumably be able to talk to him directly.
The two fundamental rules of priest-craft are these:

1. Pretend to be in possession of the 'Absolute Truth'.

2. Pretend to have sole access to it.

I think a major reason why the religious believer falls for these two obvious tricks is because he is desperate for 'Absolute Truth' at any cost. One gets the impression that this type of believer - the monotheist - is incapable of making his own decisions, and is content to rely on the judgement of others. This reliance on others makes him highly susceptible to suggestion, and an authoritative figure like a priest will easily gain his confidence and take advantage of his heart and mind.

The need for 'Absolute Truth' which is ready-made, and the need for belief in a 'Supreme Being' indicate that the monotheistic believer is also deeply insecure. The thought that truth is something which might have to be won through his own efforts, along with the thought that there is no One in charge of the universe, or the world, or life are enough to fill him with dread. This experience of dread accounts for why he is driven to entertain the most outrageous fantasies. For example, there are fifty million Christians in America today who believe they will be miraculously airlifted into the sky by Jesus at the time of 'The Rapture'. I suggest that you think of these pitiful fools not so much as being 'raptured' as 'rogered'.

[Glaswegian]

beowulf;1301223 wrote: :rolleyes:
I think 'The New Testament' is a pretty lacklustre title for the collection of Christian writings which fall under it, beowulf. A much better title would be: 'I Walked With A Zombie'.

Since the season of 'the living dead' is upon us let me provide you with an example from history which mirrors the bizarre tales recounted in The New Testament. What it shows is the remarkable ease with which the belief in 'miraculous events' can take hold of primitive and credulous populations like the one Jesus lived amongst.

The historical account is given by Cabeza de Vaca, a Spanish explorer who journeyed through the Americas in the 16th century. The many Native Americans that Cabeza de Vaca met longed to believe in the supernatural healing powers of himself and his 'strange, light-skinned' travelling companions. Eventually whole villages came out to meet the Spaniards, humbly imploring cures. Cabeza de Vaca writes:

'They tried to make us into medicine men without examining us or asking for credentials. The natives cure illnesses by blowing on the sick person, and they ordered us to do the same. The way in which we cured was by making the sign of the cross over them and blowing on them and reciting a Pater Noster and an Ave Maria. As soon as we made the sign of the cross over them, all those for whom we prayed told the others that they were well and healthy.'

Soon Cabeza de Vaca and his disciples - I beg your pardon, his companions - were curing cripples. Cabeza de Vaca reports that he raised a man from the dead. He writes that after that wondrous event...

'We were very much hampered by the large number of people who were following us. Their eagerness to come and touch us was very great and their importunity so extreme that three hours would pass without our being able to persuade them to leave us alone.'

When a tribe begged the Spaniards not to leave them, Cabeza de Vaca and his companions became angry. Then...

'A strange thing happened. Many of them fell ill, and eight men died the next day. All over the land, and in the places where this became known, they were so afraid of us that it seemed that the very sight of us made them almost die of fear.'

~o0o~


The only thing I find miraculous in the above account, beowulf, is the human capacity for self-deception. Likewise with The New Testament.

[Glaswegian]

At this time of year one cannot help meditating - even just a little - on The New Testament. For example, what were thirteen men doing together out in the wilderness under the cover of darkness? Of course, one must try to view this matter in the most favourable light possible. However, the images which come to mind are hellish.

(And I swear I'm not projecting.)

[Bruv]

Glaswegian;1301377 wrote:

(And I swear I'm not projecting.)


Well........there must be something wrong with your kilt then.

[Glaswegian]

Bruv;1301415 wrote: Well........there must be something wrong with your kilt then.
No, its in-built safety harness is working just fine.

[DrLeftover]

I loved reading this discussion.

I got over being absolutely astonished by about the third page. From there on I found some of the positions and statements absolutely hilarious and may skim some of the high points to use as seeds in a future edition of my thesis. What astonished me is best left to your imaginations.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY walked into the argument with the idea of the primal Uncaused First Cause explanation for the existence of the Universe and the idea put forth by Dr. Hawking "God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen."

Most posters spent their time attacking various aspects of modern organized religion as a whole and trying to explain some people's unexplainable attachment to it. Such as, I know several people who belong to this or that church, but when cornered, cannot explain why. Nor can they tell you exactly what their church actually stands for versus the one across the road. Now mind you, I know better than to ask the common "man in the pew" to explain the concept of the Triune Godhead or something like that or even to explain who "Cain" from the story of "Cain and Able" was afraid of when he left the Garden because, by the story, there were three people alive on the planet, and the other two were his parents. That would be asking far too much from somebody who is practicing their religion as "fire insurance" as it were. Which is valid as far as it goes.

Anyway.

By definition, metaphysics, which is the topic after all, is a discussion which is beyond the ken of human science, hence the name, therefor it is "irrational" going in.

(Never mind the pejorative title to the thread about "infants", deciding to NOT have an active belief system that could be called a 'religion' is a religious decision, and if you wish to poke fun at those who decide otherwise, go for it. Remember: agnosticism and atheism are belief systems!)

If "belief" as a general idea wasn't part of the human condition, then why did every known ancient human civilization have some sort of religion, their own gods, and a creation myth? We are hard wired as humans to believe in... something, somewhere, that somehow gives meaning to our existence. As to what that may be... we'll have to talk about that. I've got an idea, but that's not for here and now.

Now, I said all of that to say this.... Be careful going forward because many have confused Religions and being Religious, that is... being a Lutheran or a Baptist... with belief in GOD as the Father Creator so mentioned earlier.

I've always maintained that there will be a large number of very religious people in Hell because they will be shocked to find out when they get to the Gate that GOD isn't a "methodist" or whatever.

Carry on. Or should I say.... "flame on" for my being so presumptuous to post anything in here.

thank you

[Bevdee]

Most people don't know why they smudge ashes on their forehead the week before Easter, or the symbolism of ashes to Judaism before Christ. Or even why they call it Ash Wednesday. I get "It's a tradition" "to show we love Jesus" Oh.kay. but why? Why and where did this start? The Xmas tree? There were no Norfolk pines, no Tannenbaum in the Middle East. Hanging tinsel and icicles on a northern land tree doesn't reflect the birth in the manger story, unless you try to tie it in by plopping a nativity scene made in Buddhist China somewhere near the tree?



The trouble I had with the Xtian religion and the trappings is that I want to know why we do things. I got in a lot of trouble at church and Sunday school for asking questions. People hated me for that!!! They don't want the Q's cause they don't know the A's. They fear the Q's that require other than stock A's.

Once I found that the "teachers" and "preachers" didn't know the origins of customs they taught, I lost "faith". Or - they lost credibility. I have no rigid belief system, but I will still buy hand carved crosses from organisations trying to raise money. Those organizations I deem worthy.



What I have come to realise is that most folks need to believe in something, (remember Wilson the ball in Castaway?It was his friend. He believed Wilson heard him.) some peoples' need to have something to hold on to, some"one" to hear them, is too tenuous to lose, to be able to withstand any questions about it. Or any discussion of a belief system that doesn't coincide with their own. Most Xtian religions perpetuate that. We are the righeous, they are not. I've heard Xtians say, " I might be wrong - but what if I'm not? " and bug their eyes at me. The implication being that I will be wrong, the one to go to hell while the right ones. Don't. It's based on fear. Fear of death and what comes after. So they promise everlasting life. Like you said, fire insurance. Insurance against hellfire.

[Ahso!]

Bevdee;1301740 wrote: Most people don't know why they smudge ashes on their forehead the week before Easter, or the symbolism of ashes to Judaism before Christ. Or even why they call it Ash Wednesday. I get "It's a tradition" "to show we love Jesus" Oh.kay. but why? Why and where did this start? The Xmas tree? There were no Norfolk pines, no Tannenbaum in the Middle East. Hanging tinsel and icicles on a northern land tree doesn't reflect the birth in the manger story, unless you try to tie it in by plopping a nativity scene made in Buddhist China somewhere near the tree?



The trouble I had with the Xtian religion and the trappings is that I want to know why we do things. I got in a lot of trouble at church and Sunday school for asking questions. People hated me for that!!! They don't want the Q's cause they don't know the A's. They fear the Q's that require other than stock A's.

Once I found that the "teachers" and "preachers" didn't know the origins of customs they taught, I lost "faith". Or - they lost credibility. I have no rigid belief system, but I will still buy hand carved crosses from organisations trying to raise money. Those organizations I deem worthy.



What I have come to realise is that most folks need to believe in something, (remember Wilson the ball in Castaway?It was his friend. He believed Wilson heard him.) some peoples' need to have something to hold on to, some"one" to hear them, is too tenuous to lose, to be able to withstand any questions about it. Or any discussion of a belief system that doesn't coincide with their own. Most Xtian religions perpetuate that. We are the righeous, they are not. I've heard Xtians say, " I might be wrong - but what if I'm not? " and bug their eyes at me. The implication being that I will be wrong, the one to go to hell while the right ones. Don't. It's based on fear. Fear of death and what comes after. So they promise everlasting life. Like you said, fire insurance. Insurance against hellfire.This is a great post! And I just love your style of expression!

[Bevdee]

Well thank you sir.

[gmc]

posted by dr leftover

I got over being absolutely astonished by about the third page. From there on I found some of the positions and statements absolutely hilarious and may skim some of the high points to use as seeds in a future edition of my thesis. What astonished me is best left to your imaginations.


Why? Are you really that boring a person? Come on startle us all with your insight, shine the light of your wisdom on us other poor mortals.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1301377 wrote: At this time of year one cannot help meditating - even just a little - on The New Testament. For example, what were thirteen men doing together out in the wilderness under the cover of darkness? Of course, one must try to view this matter in the most favourable light possible. However, the images which come to mind are hellish.
According to Morton Smith, the late Professor of ancient history at Columbia University, a clandestine edition of St Mark's Gospel was in existence for some time after the death of Christ - certainly as late as 200 AD. The early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, was very rubbed by this particular version of St. Mark's Gospel because it contained teachings which he viewed as 'unspeakable'. Clement cited a passage from it in which Jesus, having raised a wealthy teenager from the dead in Bethany, became 'over-friendly with him'. Clement quoted from the Gospel as follows:

'After six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'

According to another passage from the same Gospel, when the Roman guards came to arrest Jesus in Gethsemane he was naked with another man.

~o0o~


One can only wonder as to why this version of St Mark's Gospel did not make it into The New Testament.

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1311843 wrote: According to Morton Smith, the late Professor of ancient history at Columbia University, a clandestine edition of St Mark's Gospel was in existence for some time after the death of Christ - certainly as late as 200 AD. The early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, was very rubbed by this particular version of St. Mark's Gospel because it contained teachings which he viewed as 'unspeakable'. Clement cited a passage from it in which Jesus, having raised a wealthy teenager from the dead in Bethany, became 'over-friendly with him'. Clement quoted from the Gospel as follows:

'After six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'

According to another passage from the same Gospel, when the Roman guards came to arrest Jesus in Gethsemane he was naked with another man.

~o0o~


One can only wonder as to why this version of St Mark's Gospel did not make it into The New Testament.


And what is the purpose of posting this offal, with no links I see? Is it to bait believers so you can further insult Christians? Is that how creatures of your caliber get their jollies?:p

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1311844 wrote: And what is the purpose of posting this offal, with no links I see?
Here is the book I referenced for my post, hoppy:

Protocols of the Elders of Sodom and Other Essays by Tariq Ali: published by Verso (2009) pp. 14-15

Check it out.

The purpose of my post is, of course, to show Christians that their religious beliefs are offal or, if you like, tripe.

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1311848 wrote: Here is the book I referenced for my post, hoppy:

Protocols of the Elders of Sodom and Other Essays by Tariq Ali: published by Verso (2009) pp. 14-15

Check it out.

The purpose of my post is, of course, to show Christians that their religious beliefs are offal or, if you like, tripe.


Ah yes. I might have known.

Tariq Ali

Critical Perspective

Tariq Ali is a vocal political commentator and prolific creative writer. Although he published his first novel, Redemption (a political satire set in contemporary Europe and America) in 1990, and has published three acclaimed works of fiction since, Ali is still perhaps best known for his work with the New Left and his non-fictional works of political biography, autobiography, history and politics. The reader trying to get to grips quickly with the scale and ambition of Ali's voluminous work, as well as his dual interests in literature and politics could do worse than buy a copy of his recent collection, The Protocols of the Elders of Sodom (2009). In 300 or so pages, this book exposes the reader to his public and personal thinking over the past 40 years, inluding incisive discussions of some of the world's leading contemporary authors, from Joyce, to Roth, Solzhenitsyn and Rushdie.

It's only opinion you offer. Or tripe. Someone's immagination wallowing in the gutter:wah:

[hoppy]

Just another muslim instigator.

Tariq Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1311861 wrote: It's only opinion you offer.
Not at all.

It is not Tariq Ali, or Professor Morton Smith, or even me who asserts that Jesus had homosexual relations with a youth he raised from the dead in Bethany and also with a man in Gethsemane. Rather, these assertions were contained in a particular version of St. Mark's Gospel which was in existence as late as 200 AD.

If you read post #243 more carefully, hoppy, you will see that this is the case.

Why do you consider the question of Jesus's homosexuality an insult to Christians?

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1311976 wrote: Not at all.

It is not Tariq Ali, or Professor Morton Smith, or even me who asserts that Jesus had homosexual relations with a youth he raised from the dead in Bethany and also with a man in Gethsemane. Rather, these assertions were contained in a particular version of St. Mark's Gospel which was in existence as late as 200 AD.

If you read post #243 more carefully, hoppy, you will see that this is the case.

Why do you consider the question of Jesus's homosexuality an insult to Christians?


You sure seem fixated on biblical fags. If Jesus was queer it would be understandable, since many of you keep insisting he was a liberal. Liberal and gay kinda go hand in hand.

Jesus was a carpenter too, but didn't earn his living as a carpenter. Instead, he roamed about with a band of characters who flaunted the law, seemed to party a lot, instigated trouble and lived off the charity of others. Yep. Sounds like a typical liberal. Maybe I was wrong for denying that idea.

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1311978 wrote: You sure seem fixated on biblical fags.
Which ones?