Religion on TV

[da-robster]

Intresting article here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8132320.stm

Makes you wonder how private religion is.

Should TV try to influence your faith.

Or is this just a harmless way of connecting faiths.

[Onceinawhile]

Can you imagine it was the other way round and there was a show trying to convert people to atheism?

The churches would be in uproar. Religion is a Sham

[Sir David Gray]

Can you imagine it was the other way round and there was a show trying to convert people to atheism?

The churches would be in uproar. Religion is a Sham

It's maybe not a show but is that not already happening (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm)?

I'm quite sure this show will be causing an uproar amongst some people. No doubt the Turkish equivalent of Richard Dawkins will be issuing a complaint as we speak!

[khib70]

So, they'd pay my bus fare to ER, then?

"The prize for any converted contestants is an expenses-paid pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen faith."

[hibsbollah]

There is virtually no religion on TV. When i was a lad it was all over the Sunday schedule. Saying that, im sure if they brought back 'the god slot' it wouldnt be any worse than whats currently on TV:yawn:

[Betty Boop]

I watched Around the World in 80 Faiths when it was on the BBC, although I am not religious it was a fascinating series.
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1C1RNCN_enGB319GB319&q=around+the+world+in+80+faiths&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=0ypOSvCVNNjKjAfIhN28BQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4#

[Onceinawhile]

It's maybe not a show but is that not already happening (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm)?

I'm quite sure this show will be causing an uproar amongst some people. No doubt the Turkish equivalent of Richard Dawkins will be issuing a complaint as we speak!

which was paid for by a completely independent body, and was on buses, far more people are influenced by televisions than by buses.

[Hibrandenburg]

Freedom of speech doesn't exist for Atheists.

To shout from the tree tops "there is a god" causes no offence.

To shout from the tree tops "there is no god" could cost you your life.

Crazy but true.

[Sir David Gray]

which was paid for by a completely independent body, and was on buses, far more people are influenced by televisions than by buses.

It's still something that is there to promote atheism and i'm assuming their ultimate aim is to attract people to the British Humanist Association, which is a pro-atheist organisation.

Therefore it is "trying to convert people to atheism". Whether more people are influenced by television or not, wasn't really the point I was making and it's also not the point that you were originally making either.


Freedom of speech doesn't exist for Atheists.

To shout from the tree tops "there is a god" causes no offence.

To shout from the tree tops "there is no god" could cost you your life.

Crazy but true.

I don't think that's true at all, certainly not in this country at least. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the reverse is true.

In Britain today, there is a growing amount of offence being taken against Christians who publicly profess their faith.

There's not so many examples of atheists who are criticised for publicly denouncing religion.

[Hibrandenburg]

It's still something that is there to promote atheism and i'm assuming their ultimate aim is to attract people to the British Humanist Association, which is a pro-atheist organisation.

Therefore it is "trying to convert people to atheism". Whether more people are influenced by television or not, wasn't really the point I was making and it's also not the point that you were originally making either.



I don't think that's true at all, certainly not in this country at least. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the reverse is true.

In Britain today, there is a growing amount of offence being taken against Christians who publicly profess their faith.

There's not so many examples of atheists who are criticised for publicly denouncing religion.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The fact that every village, town and city in this country is packed full of buildings built in honour of one deity or another that contradicts what Atheists believe in, hasn't led to any of us getting our pitchforks and burning the places down.

However if I was to build a shrine to honour the nothingness after death and hang placards outside saying that God/Allah doesn't exist. It wouldn't take long before my fire insurance payments shot through the roof.

[Brizo]

I don't think that's true at all, certainly not in this country at least. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the reverse is true.

In Britain today, there is a growing amount of offence being taken against Christians who publicly profess their faith.

There's not so many examples of atheists who are criticised for publicly denouncing religion.


:agree: I couldnt agree more. To tell people in the workplace or at a party or in the pub that you are a practising christian usually provokes a half disbelieve half hostile response that ive only seen elsewhere when someones confessed to be a practising jambo

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: I couldnt agree more. To tell people in the workplace or at a party or in the pub that you are a practising christian usually provokes a half disbelieve half hostile response that ive only seen elsewhere when someones confessed to be a practising jambo

Exactly the same applies for Atheists in other companies, only you can forget about that promotion if you don't turn up at the club on Sundays.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Exactly the same applies for Atheists in other companies, only you can forget about that promotion if you don't turn up at the club on Sundays.

Which is ridiculous, as religion has no place at work.

[Hibby D]

Which is ridiculous, as religion has no place at work.



Yeah! See they ministers and priests...it's about time they found proper jobs :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

:agree: I couldnt agree more. To tell people in the workplace or at a party or in the pub that you are a practising christian usually provokes a half disbelieve half hostile response that ive only seen elsewhere when someones confessed to be a practising jambo

To be fair, it's easier to believe that some bloke with a beard built the world in six days, can resurrect the dead and can make bushes go on fire and talk and that, than it is to believe the utter guff that comes out of Plan F's mouth.

[Mibbes Aye]

Which is ridiculous, as religion has no place at work.

Unless you're a pewmaker to trade :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The fact that every village, town and city in this country is packed full of buildings built in honour of one deity or another that contradicts what Atheists believe in, hasn't led to any of us getting our pitchforks and burning the places down.

However if I was to build a shrine to honour the nothingness after death and hang placards outside saying that God/Allah doesn't exist. It wouldn't take long before my fire insurance payments shot through the roof.

I take it you live in Berlin so I can't comment on the situation in Germany as I've never been there. Despite what the census figures might say, Britain is now one of the least religious countries in the world and I'm pretty sure that atheists in this country would be free to say and do whatever they like, with regards to their views on religion.

As I said earlier, that hasn't been the case for quite a number of British Christians in recent times.

[Hibrandenburg]

I take it you live in Berlin so I can't comment on the situation in Germany as I've never been there. Despite what the census figures might say, Britain is now one of the least religious countries in the world and I'm pretty sure that atheists in this country would be free to say and do whatever they like, with regards to their views on religion.

As I said earlier, that hasn't been the case for quite a number of British Christians in recent times.


I was walking in the park only yesterday and about fifty people were holding an open mass. There were no hecklers or snide remarks and certainly no threat of violence towards the participants. People either stopped to listen or went on their way without being offended.

That pretty much sums up everything to me. I didn't take offence to them following their beliefs even though it contradicts what I believe/don't believe. Live and let live is my motto.

However if I was to start preaching that there is no god/allah, then I'm sure I would need police protection.

I have no god that tells me he is the only and true god and that all others are idols, therefore I have no reason take offence to anyone who believes differently. That in a nutshell is the big difference.

[Hibrandenburg]

I take it you live in Berlin so I can't comment on the situation in Germany as I've never been there. Despite what the census figures might say, Britain is now one of the least religious countries in the world and I'm pretty sure that atheists in this country would be free to say and do whatever they like, with regards to their views on religion.

As I said earlier, that hasn't been the case for quite a number of British Christians in recent times.

I'm sure I'd be hanged from the nearest lampost if I walked through some areas shouting there is no god/allah, here or in the Uk.

The bus advert is the best example of what I'm on about. Daily I pass temples telling me that "god lives" but it doesn't bother me. Someone puts a sign on a bus saying "maybe there is no god"and low and behold people start getting their knickers in a twist.

Double standards :agree:

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm sure I'd be hanged from the nearest lampost if I walked through some areas shouting there is no god/allah, here or in the Uk.

The bus advert is the best example of what I'm on about. Daily I pass temples telling me that "god lives" but it doesn't bother me. Someone puts a sign on a bus saying "maybe there is no god"and low and behold people start getting their knickers in a twist.

Double standards :agree:

Works both ways that. Some people bring their children up in a religious faith and you have the likes of Dawkins accusing them of brainwashing. In Germany, parents are forbidden by law from teaching their children at home, something which many families wish to do for religious reasons.

[Hibrandenburg]

Works both ways that. Some people bring their children up in a religious faith and you have the likes of Dawkins accusing them of brainwashing. In Germany, parents are forbidden by law from teaching their children at home, something which many families wish to do for religious reasons.

Dawkins is one of a few Professional Atheists who makes a fortune being controversial. Still he doesn't call for the religious to be put to death or warn them of fire and brimstone in the afterlife if they don't mend their ways, unlike many church leaders/ayatollahs. Therein lies the difference.

As for parents wanting to educate their children at home, IMO each to his own, but home education can put kids at a disadvantage, children may lose the ability to interact socially among many more disadvantages.

Also if you educate your kids to be religious instead of letting them chose their own way, isn't that a form of brain washing?

[(((Fergus)))]

Dawkins is one of a few Professional Atheists who makes a fortune being controversial. Still he doesn't call for the religious to be put to death or warn them of fire and brimstone in the afterlife if they don't mend their ways, unlike many church leaders/ayatollahs. Therein lies the difference.

As for parents wanting to educate their children at home, IMO each to his own, but home education can put kids at a disadvantage, children may lose the ability to interact socially among many more disadvantages.

Also if you educate your kids to be religious instead of letting them chose their own way, isn't that a form of brain washing?

If you're going to bring foreigners into it then how about the Han communists versus the Tibetans or the Falun Gong? There's plenty of secular loonies going about causing bother.

Any form of education comes from one particular world view. On balance, it's probably better to let all the various parents brainwash their children in their own different ways than have the state brainwash them in one way only. When the kids go out to play in the evening, they can test each other's understanding rather than just rattling off the same crap parrot-fashion.

[Sir David Gray]

Dawkins is one of a few Professional Atheists who makes a fortune being controversial. Still he doesn't call for the religious to be put to death or warn them of fire and brimstone in the afterlife if they don't mend their ways, unlike many church leaders/ayatollahs. Therein lies the difference.

As for parents wanting to educate their children at home, IMO each to his own, but home education can put kids at a disadvantage, children may lose the ability to interact socially among many more disadvantages.

Also if you educate your kids to be religious instead of letting them chose their own way, isn't that a form of brain washing?

That might be down to the fact that he's an atheist and I'm not aware of any atheists who actually believe in an afterlife. You're right though, he doesn't call for religious people to be killed.

In terms of brainwashing your children, I think every parent does that to an extent.

Parents always instill their personal values, beliefs and views onto their children. As an example, if you have a child and from an early age you get that child to support a certain football team, surely that is a form of brainwashing?

I don't see a problem in bringing your child up to follow a particular religion, as long as you don't force them into sticking with it when they are older.

If I ever have children, they would be brought up as Christians but if they decide as teenagers that it isn't for them then that would be fine. I would love them just the same.

[Hibrandenburg]

That might be down to the fact that he's an atheist and I'm not aware of any atheists who actually believe in an afterlife. You're right though, he doesn't call for religious people to be killed.

In terms of brainwashing your children, I think every parent does that to an extent.

Parents always instill their personal values, beliefs and views onto their children. As an example, if you have a child and from an early age you get that child to support a certain football team, surely that is a form of brainwashing?

I don't see a problem in bringing your child up to follow a particular religion, as long as you don't force them into sticking with it when they are older.
If I ever have children, they would be brought up as Christians but if they decide as teenagers that it isn't for them then that would be fine. I would love them just the same.

Good post. But kids also need external input at an early age or they will end up being programmed instead of educated. To first confront the real world later can only be a recipe for disaster.

[Hibrandenburg]

If you're going to bring foreigners into it then how about the Han communists versus the Tibetans or the Falun Gong? There's plenty of secular loonies going about causing bother.

Any form of education comes from one particular world view. On balance, it's probably better to let all the various parents brainwash their children in their own different ways than have the state brainwash them in one way only. When the kids go out to play in the evening, they can test each other's understanding rather than just rattling off the same crap parrot-fashion.

:agree:Providing they get to mingle.

[J-C]

I personally have brought my kids up to know right from wrong, obey the laws of the land and try and treat people with the respect they expect themselves. As far as religion is concerned I have no sway either way, you'd probably call me an agnostic but I let my kids (25,23 &16) find out for themselves through education and life knowledge. If they want to become all religious and follow one then that is their perogative s it's their life and when they become adults I have no control in what they do.

[Hibrandenburg]

I personally have brought my kids up to know right from wrong, obey the laws of the land and try and treat people with the respect they expect themselves. As far as religion is concerned I have no sway either way, you'd probably call me an agnostic but I let my kids (25,23 &16) find out for themselves through education and life knowledge. If they want to become all religious and follow one then that is their perogative s it's their life and when they become adults I have no control in what they do.

How it should be IMO :agree:

[Bishop Hibee]

:agree: I couldnt agree more. To tell people in the workplace or at a party or in the pub that you are a practising christian usually provokes a half disbelieve half hostile response that ive only seen elsewhere when someones confessed to be a practising jambo

:top marks I've had people literally choke on their pints when I've told them myself and my family go to church on a Sunday and I believe in God. Usually comes up when asked what I'm doing at the weekend.

Less reaction if I'd told them I was going to Beltane or C.C. Bloom's :wink:

I'm personally easy with any organised religion or atheist or agnostic group being allowed to advertise. With the caveat that sects whose members are forced to attend against their will e.g. scientologists are not allowed to advertise on T.V. or elsewhere.

[AndyM_1875]

I personally have brought my kids up to know right from wrong, obey the laws of the land and try and treat people with the respect they expect themselves. As far as religion is concerned I have no sway either way, you'd probably call me an agnostic but I let my kids (25,23 &16) find out for themselves through education and life knowledge. If they want to become all religious and follow one then that is their perogative s it's their life and when they become adults I have no control in what they do.

That's pretty much where I see myself.

My wife and I are expecting our first and I can see problems with the family as neither of us practise any form of religion. Mother in Law is active COS and my own mum is lapsed although I don't think it will take much for her to start shouting the odds when there's no movement in the Christening department. Various Aunts who are practising (COS/Kafflik) will also start stirring it.

Like I say..... I forsee trouble and I will be seen as Mr Bad.:bitchy:

Alternatively we could cave in to rank hypocrisy and adopt the 'anything for a quiet life' approach.:duck:

[Darth Hibbie]

That's pretty much where I see myself.

My wife and I are expecting our first and I can see problems with the family as neither of us practise any form of religion. Mother in Law is active COS and my own mum is lapsed although I don't think it will take much for her to start shouting the odds when there's no movement in the Christening department. Various Aunts who are practising (COS/Kafflik) will also start stirring it.

Like I say..... I forsee trouble and I will be seen as Mr Bad.:bitchy:

Alternatively we could cave in to rank hypocrisy and adopt the 'anything for a quiet life' approach.:duck:

Neither my partner nor I are religious and when we were expecting our daughter we decided that we would not be getting her christened as we felt it would be against what we believed.

Her mum despite not having been in church herself for as long as I had known her took great offence at this and never spoke to us for well over a month. She suddenly started going to church and was saying that we were bad parents. She even tried to get the minister to christen the wee one without us knowing but he refused point blank.

There were times when we thought it would be easier if we just done it because we were in a position where we needed her mum to help out with child care but we stuck to our guns and I am glad we did.

If when she is older chooses herself to follow any faith then I will give her all the encouragement and support that she needs and I do not intend to force my beliefs onto her. It is her decision to make when she decides to make it.

P.S. Its now been over two years since the mother in law was last a church:rolleyes:

Familys are a nightmare:greengrin

[--------]

Yeah! See they ministers and priests...it's about time they found proper jobs :greengrin

Aye, D. We all waste far too much time on sites like this, don't we? :devil:


Interesting thread, this.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Neither my partner nor I are religious and when we were expecting our daughter we decided that we would not be getting her christened as we felt it would be against what we believed.

Her mum despite not having been in church herself for as long as I had known her took great offence at this and never spoke to us for well over a month. She suddenly started going to church and was saying that we were bad parents. She even tried to get the minister to christen the wee one without us knowing but he refused point blank.

There were times when we thought it would be easier if we just done it because we were in a position where we needed her mum to help out with child care but we stuck to our guns and I am glad we did.

If when she is older chooses herself to follow any faith then I will give her all the encouragement and support that she needs and I do not intend to force my beliefs onto her. It is her decision to make when she decides to make it.

P.S. Its now been over two years since the mother in law was last a church:rolleyes:

Familys are a nightmare:greengrin

:agree: Similar. My wife and I were both, not deeply religious, but both went to church every week (GT was even a choirboy in his younger days!!!), married in the village Kirk etc. Yet when the brats came along too much family cr ap meant neither have ever been christened. Don't ask me why but sometimes I still feel a little uneasy about that. They are now old enough to make their own minds up obviously so it is up to them.

[The_Todd]

I

Should TV try to influence your faith.
.

TV should inform, inspire and educate. It should encourage you to think and form opinions. It should not tell you your opinions.

[J-C]

If you want to learn about religion, watch the discovery channel, very informative and usually very nuetral.

[(((Fergus)))]

TV should inform, inspire and educate. It should encourage you to think and form opinions. It should not tell you your opinions.


Trouble is TV broadcasts are approved by a number of different "authorities" (editorial, artistic, technical, legal, advertisers...) and therefore have a greater perceived validity than some random YouTube vid.

[(((Fergus)))]

Dawkins is one of a few Professional Atheists who makes a fortune being controversial. Still he doesn't call for the religious to be put to death or warn them of fire and brimstone in the afterlife if they don't mend their ways, unlike many church leaders/ayatollahs. Therein lies the difference.

As for parents wanting to educate their children at home, IMO each to his own, but home education can put kids at a disadvantage, children may lose the ability to interact socially among many more disadvantages.

Also if you educate your kids to be religious instead of letting them chose their own way, isn't that a form of brain washing?

I also wanted to respond to this point as it is often cited as a reason against home education.

From what I have observed with many home-educated children is that, since they spend most of their time within their families, i.e., with older/younger siblings and neighbours, they have a far greater ability to relate to and interact with children who are much older or younger than themselves.

What conventional schooling does is partially extract children from their families and create an artificial grouping based on age. The children then have two spheres of living - family and schoolfriends - which have, to a greater or lesser degree, the potential to be mutually exclusive.

Since the family is the single biggest obstacle to a totalitarian state, it is obviously in the interests of some types of government to dilute its influence.

[--------]

TV should inform, inspire and educate. It should encourage you to think and form opinions. It should not tell you your opinions.


You've just told us YOUR opinion of what WE should think about TV.... :cool2:


In my experience, TV is already extremely manipulative and does a great deal of telling people what they should think.

Compare the news content of different channels and the way news stories are presented. Fair bit of opinion-moulding going on there. I would also question the impartiality of a fair number of current affairs programs. Media controllers can do a lot of mind-bending just through program selection - the subjects they choose to air, the way those subjects are presented, the sound-bites used, the way the actors do the voice-overs. You don't have to have a Ministry of Truth banging out a Party line all the time. Media manipulation's done a LOT more subtly that THAT, chum.

You don't REALLY think TV's a neutral medium right now, do you? :cool2:

And if you ban all religious content from TV, aren't you just manipulating the medium to mould people's opinions in favour of secularism and atheism?

So secularists are allowed to do a fly bit of brainwashing but religious groups aren't? :cool2:

But then, I suppose I'm just a brain-dead religious zombie, right? :rolleyes:

[Chez]

Speaking of religion on tv, a guy said in a programme this quote :


"Religion is for people who are scared of going to hell when they die, spirituality is for those of us who've already lived in hell"

One to think about :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

You've just told us YOUR opinion of what WE should think about TV.... :cool2:


In my experience, TV is already extremely manipulative and does a great deal of telling people what they should think.

Compare the news content of different channels and the way news stories are presented. Fair bit of opinion-moulding going on there. I would also question the impartiality of a fair number of current affairs programs. Media controllers can do a lot of mind-bending just through program selection - the subjects they choose to air, the way those subjects are presented, the sound-bites used, the way the actors do the voice-overs. You don't have to have a Ministry of Truth banging out a Party line all the time. Media manipulation's done a LOT more subtly that THAT, chum.

You don't REALLY think TV's a neutral medium right now, do you? :cool2:

And if you ban all religious content from TV, aren't you just manipulating the medium to mould people's opinions in favour of secularism and atheism?

So secularists are allowed to do a fly bit of brainwashing but religious groups aren't? :cool2:

But then, I suppose I'm just a brain-dead religious zombie, right? :rolleyes:

Oddly enough, despite being something of a militant atheist, I have no problem with religion on TV. The fact religion exists, is always likely to exist and is an important element of our collective history and culture does mean it should have a place.

However, what I would like to see is it being presented within its context. I do fume when there has been a tragedy and the first face wheeled in front of the camera to pontificate about it is the local priest/vicar/minister/rabbi/imam.

Why should they have a soapbox or a platform for it. Wouldnt it be interesting to see a reporter asking "so Father, why do you think God has allowed this child to be killed in a car crash in the way home from hospital"?

I think religion gets a very easy and tolerant ride on telly - it would be much more interesting for me to see a rigorous defence of it in areas such as this in open debate with the like of Dawkins or Hitchens.

[hibs0666]

However, what I would like to see is it being presented within its context. I do fume when there has been a tragedy and the first face wheeled in front of the camera to pontificate about it is the local priest/vicar/minister/rabbi/imam.


It also does my goat when the clerics are wheeled out to comment on moral issues. What authority do these people have over issues like abortion, stem cell research etc. that make their views any more insightful from that of Joe Public? :confused:

[--------]

Oddly enough, despite being something of a militant atheist, I have no problem with religion on TV. The fact religion exists, is always likely to exist and is an important element of our collective history and culture does mean it should have a place.

That's extremely tolerant of you. Allowing that many of the people who pay the BBC licence fee and subscribe to the various channels are believers. :wink:

However, what I would like to see is it being presented within its context. I do fume when there has been a tragedy and the first face wheeled in front of the camera to pontificate about it is the local priest/vicar/minister/rabbi/imam.

How often does that happen - honestly? Usually the first face you see is the 'Damian Day' reporter purveying the gruesome details to an avid and salivating audience. I can't remember the last time I saw the local priest/minister being interviewed in those circumstances. Speaking for myself, I can only say I wouldn't be so intrusive on other people's grief. Nor would the VAST majority of my colleagues.

Why should they have a soapbox or a platform for it. Wouldnt it be interesting to see a reporter asking "so Father, why do you think God has allowed this child to be killed in a car crash in the way home from hospital"?

I presume you envisage the reporter doing this with grieving relatives looking on? because I don't know a single minister or priest in my area who would ever speak to the media about the death of anyone - child or adult - without the full permission and consent of the closest of family members. And I would expect the family to be either present or looking on on TV.

Actually, I've never met a journalist whom would be so crass and unfeeling.

But it's the sort of thing I could envisage Richard dawkins asking me, without regard to context or company.

I think religion gets a very easy and tolerant ride on telly - it would be much more interesting for me to see a rigorous defence of it in areas such as this in open debate with the like of Dawkins or Hitchens.

I can think of a fair number of Christian apologists who would be equal matches for either of those. the truth is that when they come on TV, it's dawkins and Hitchens and their ilk who get the easy ride. Dawkins was on 'Newsnight' a few years back, being interviewed by jeremy Paxman (who happens to be a Christian believer, btw). Paxman asked plaenty of straight questions, but was never discourteous.

IMO Dawkins came over as rather superior and a touch arrogant - and a wee bit shifty?

(But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?) :devil:

[(((Fergus)))]

It aso does my goat when the clerics are wheeled out to comment on moral issues. What authority do these people have over issues like abortion, stem cell research etc. that make their views any more insightful from that of Joe Public? :confused:

A knowledge of the Old Testament, the Talmud, the New Testament, the Koran, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the enduring works on human morality.

[hibs0666]

A knowledge of the Old Testament, the Talmud, the New Testament, the Koran, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the enduring works on human morality.

Exactly my point - why should knowledge of a few old books confer some sort of moral authority? For example, I thought it was widely accepted that the old testament god was a right barsteward of a deity - I seriously hope that we don't base a moral code on the actions of that particular grumpy sod.

[(((Fergus)))]

Exactly my point - why should knowledge of a few old books confer some sort of moral authority? For example, I thought it was widely accepted that the old testament god was a right barsteward of a deity - I seriously hope that we don't base a moral code on the actions of that particular grumpy sod.

Don't know what Sunday School you went to but I'm not sure that assessment is 100% accurate. :wink:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Don't know what Sunday School you went to but I'm not sure that assessment is 100% accurate. :wink:

Have a read at the old testament. The God of the old testament is a horrible character.

[Twa Cairpets]

Don't know what Sunday School you went to but I'm not sure that assessment is 100% accurate. :wink:

You might want to try Genesis 19. Thats a cracker. One chapter, 36 verses. Its got the lot: pimping of your virgin daughters, mass murder, and drunken incest, and thats just by the good guys!

[ancienthibby]

Have a read at the old testament. The God of the old testament is a horrible character.

Just how you could compose and write these words is quite beyond me!

The God of the Old Testament is the Creator God of Eden who set his people in a chosen place of wonder and delight but his people let him down as did the successor nation of Israel whom God called to be His chosen people and covenant after covenant made by God with his people was broken by the people and the nation.

You would do well to remember how the Ten Commandments were created. God first called his people saying (Exodus 20.2) that He had brought them out of captivity in Egypt into His freedom and then gave them a set of guidances for them to live by. God made and renewed these covenants over and over again and the people broke these covenants time and time again - as is being done still today!

Man's continuing rejection of God's grace and mercy through these covenants caused him to send His Son, the Lord Jesus, as the ultimate sacrifice for man's rejection of God and through that action alone, we have Hope!!

[Twa Cairpets]

A knowledge of the Old Testament, the Talmud, the New Testament, the Koran, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the enduring works on human morality.

Could you point me to the chapter in the Qu'ran that specifically expresses an opinion on GM crops, or maybe the famous bit in the bible relating to the moral arguments over stem cell research. How about that cracking chapter in the Talmud that expressly states an opinion on vaccination or chemotherapy?

Obviously, you cant, and neither could any religious scholar with any degree of sincerity because, hey - guess what - they dont exist.

Religion as a basis for a moral life? No chance. Religion as a bastion for decency and valid comment on modern life? No chance - the further we progress as a society, the further we remove ourselves from the risk of religion restricting what how much further we can go, I hope. Any religious opinion on modern mores or activities - i.e. things that just didnt exist when the Holy Books were written must, necessarily, be a human interpretation of what He would believe. And who are we to know the mind of God, eh?

[Twa Cairpets]

[/B]

Just how you could compose and write these words is quite beyond me!

The God of the Old Testament is the Creator God of Eden who set his people in a chosen place of wonder and delight but his people let him down as did the successor nation of Israel whom God called to be His chosen people and covenant after covenant made by God with his people was broken by the people and the nation.

You would do well to remember how the Ten Commandments were created. God first called his people saying (Exodus 20.2) that He had brought them out of captivity in Egypt into His freedom and then gave them a set of guidances for them to live by. God made and renewed these covenants over and over again and the people broke these covenants time and time again - as is being done still today!

Man's continuing rejection of God's grace and mercy through these covenants caused him to send His Son, the Lord Jesus, as the ultimate sacrifice for man's rejection of God and through that action alone, we have Hope!!

Again, I offer you Genesis 19. You want this dude as your moral compass?

[Twa Cairpets]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
Oddly enough, despite being something of a militant atheist, I have no problem with religion on TV. The fact religion exists, is always likely to exist and is an important element of our collective history and culture does mean it should have a place.

That's extremely tolerant of you. Allowing that many of the people who pay the BBC licence fee and subscribe to the various channels are believers.

However, what I would like to see is it being presented within its context. I do fume when there has been a tragedy and the first face wheeled in front of the camera to pontificate about it is the local priest/vicar/minister/rabbi/imam.

How often does that happen - honestly? Usually the first face you see is the 'Damian Day' reporter purveying the gruesome details to an avid and salivating audience. I can't remember the last time I saw the local priest/minister being interviewed in those circumstances. Speaking for myself, I can only say I wouldn't be so intrusive on other people's grief. Nor would the VAST majority of my colleagues.

Why should they have a soapbox or a platform for it. Wouldnt it be interesting to see a reporter asking "so Father, why do you think God has allowed this child to be killed in a car crash in the way home from hospital"?

I presume you envisage the reporter doing this with grieving relatives looking on? because I don't know a single minister or priest in my area who would ever speak to the media about the death of anyone - child or adult - without the full permission and consent of the closest of family members. And I would expect the family to be either present or looking on on TV.

Actually, I've never met a journalist whom would be so crass and unfeeling.

But it's the sort of thing I could envisage Richard dawkins asking me, without regard to context or company.
I think religion gets a very easy and tolerant ride on telly - it would be much more interesting for me to see a rigorous defence of it in areas such as this in open debate with the like of Dawkins or Hitchens.

I can think of a fair number of Christian apologists who would be equal matches for either of those. the truth is that when they come on TV, it's dawkins and Hitchens and their ilk who get the easy ride. Dawkins was on 'Newsnight' a few years back, being interviewed by jeremy Paxman (who happens to be a Christian believer, btw). Paxman asked plaenty of straight questions, but was never discourteous.

IMO Dawkins came over as rather superior and a touch arrogant - and a wee bit shifty?

(But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?)

Hello again Doddie. Am I right in thinking you are a minister?

I wouldnt for a minute think of actually asking the question re a death, becuase that would be very cruel for the victims family, but there are many occasions when the local religious "leader" is put on the screen about a tragedy. not every time, but enough for it to be a noticeable irritation. But the philosophical/moral question is still valid, in the abstract. I know some people find their faith a strength in hard times - the parents of Madeleine McCann are a good example - but it still doesnt mean its right.

I wont rise to your rather petty dig re-tolerance. You will I hope have seen through this entire (and very interesting thread) that I have tried avoid sniping. Whether or not lots of licence payers are christian or not is a moot point. just because there are a lot of a group doesnt necessarily mean they are right or have the right to a voice. You dont see hunderds of thousands of philatelists complaining about there stance on the war in Iraq not being heard do you?

[J-C]

[/B]

Just how you could compose and write these words is quite beyond me!

The God of the Old Testament is the Creator God of Eden who set his people in a chosen place of wonder and delight but his people let him down as did the successor nation of Israel whom God called to be His chosen people and covenant after covenant made by God with his people was broken by the people and the nation.

You would do well to remember how the Ten Commandments were created. God first called his people saying (Exodus 20.2) that He had brought them out of captivity in Egypt into His freedom and then gave them a set of guidances for them to live by. God made and renewed these covenants over and over again and the people broke these covenants time and time again - as is being done still today!

Man's continuing rejection of God's grace and mercy through these covenants caused him to send His Son, the Lord Jesus, as the ultimate sacrifice for man's rejection of God and through that action alone, we have Hope!!


This is the bit that always gets me.

Why did God choose the Israelites as the " Chosen people " why them and not say, the Greeks, the Islamic people of the day who believed in God, or even the Egyptians themselves.

If say all men are created in his image then all the people of the world would effectively be the " chosen people ", what makes the Jews of the ancient world them.

Who's to say Jesus was right and not Muhammad, or even the Hindu teachings.

So god was that wise that he decided to create man, give him choice over his thoughts and deliberations then completely upset the apple cart by saying, I choose the Jews to be the best and the rest can go and get stuffed. Not very wise if I'm being honest, rather stupid really as it's caused man to fight amost himself for the best part of 2,000 years.

[(((Fergus)))]

Could you point me to the chapter in the Qu'ran that specifically expresses an opinion on GM crops, or maybe the famous bit in the bible relating to the moral arguments over stem cell research. How about that cracking chapter in the Talmud that expressly states an opinion on vaccination or chemotherapy?

Obviously, you cant, and neither could any religious scholar with any degree of sincerity because, hey - guess what - they dont exist.

Religion as a basis for a moral life? No chance. Religion as a bastion for decency and valid comment on modern life? No chance - the further we progress as a society, the further we remove ourselves from the risk of religion restricting what how much further we can go, I hope. Any religious opinion on modern mores or activities - i.e. things that just didnt exist when the Holy Books were written must, necessarily, be a human interpretation of what He would believe. And who are we to know the mind of God, eh?

All those subjects are covered in the Torah, Talmud, etc., because they deal in principles rather than particulars.

[(((Fergus)))]

This is the bit that always gets me.

Why did God choose the Israelites as the " Chosen people " why them and not say, the Greeks, the Islamic people of the day who believed in God, or even the Egyptians themselves.

If say all men are created in his image then all the people of the world would effectively be the " chosen people ", what makes the Jews of the ancient world them.

Who's to say Jesus was right and not Muhammad, or even the Hindu teachings.

So god was that wise that he decided to create man, give him choice over his thoughts and deliberations then completely upset the apple cart by saying, I choose the Jews to be the best and the rest can go and get stuffed. Not very wise if I'm being honest, rather stupid really as it's caused man to fight amost himself for the best part of 2,000 years.

Apparently the covenant was offered to many (all?) other nations but none wanted it, only the Israelites decided to accept. Look at the bother it has caused them, but apparently there are benefits too, e.g., the ability to comment with authority on moral issues of the day :wink: and generally attain a mroe spiritual and less material level (wisdom /happiness).

Also the Covenant isn't exclusive to the jews, i.e., anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it.

[Twa Cairpets]

All those subjects are covered in the Torah, Talmud, etc., because they deal in principles rather than particulars.

Would you be able to give me any indication of the principles within any holy book that deals with GM Crops? Just one would force me to think about this. Or stem cell research. Or blood transfusion for the Jehovahs Witnesses.

And I think this is a very spurious argument anyway - religious leaders of various ilks tend to be very specific about some elements of personal life and behaviour. Contraception, Sexuality, permitted foods,when you should work and rest etc.

The point of the thread was religion on TV, and I have yet to see why a religious leader should have any kind of platform to take a stance, publicly on an important programme such as, say, Question Time and claim divine guidance on any of the matters not specifically covered in the bible. They can have a private view of course, but that should be what it is - a private view expressed as such.

[Twa Cairpets]

Apparently the covenant was offered to many (all?) other nations but none wanted it, only the Israelites decided to accept. Look at the bother it has caused them, but apparently there are benefits too, e.g., the ability to comment with authority on moral issues of the day :wink: and generally attain a mroe spiritual and less material level (wisdom /happiness).

Also the Covenant isn't exclusive to the jews, i.e., anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it.

Now I'm no theologist, but this post is surely worthy of some kind of award for flaky grasp of religion.

I almost spat my coffee out at the highlighted bit. "Frankly who needs the trouble" "its not compulsory" So you dont want to become an apostate because its a secular hassle?

[(((Fergus)))]

Would you be able to give me any indication of the principles within any holy book that deals with GM Crops? Just one would force me to think about this. Or stem cell research. Or blood transfusion for the Jehovahs Witnesses.

And I think this is a very spurious argument anyway - religious leaders of various ilks tend to be very specific about some elements of personal life and behaviour. Contraception, Sexuality, permitted foods,when you should work and rest etc.

The point of the thread was religion on TV, and I have yet to see why a religious leader should have any kind of platform to take a stance, publicly on an important programme such as, say, Question Time and claim divine guidance on any of the matters not specifically covered in the bible. They can have a private view of course, but that should be what it is - a private view expressed as such.

Where did you study the Bible?

[Twa Cairpets]

Where did you study the Bible?

Ive not studied it formally. But I have read it, and read around the subject of religion from both sides, with - I hope - an open mind. How could I possibly justify my opinions without a good knowledge of the what those who believe differently think. Thats called prejudice.

[(((Fergus)))]

Now I'm no theologist, but this post is surely worthy of some kind of award for flaky grasp of religion.

I almost spat my coffee out at the highlighted bit. "Frankly who needs the trouble" "its not compulsory" So you dont want to become an apostate because its a secular hassle?

If you are not born a jew and you don't become a jew, how is that apostasy?

[Twa Cairpets]

If you are not born a jew and you don't become a jew, how is that apostasy?

Its not. You stated:

Also the Covenant isn't exclusive to the jews, i.e., anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it.

Unless I've misread this, you are suggesting people convert to judaism to take advantage of "The Covenant". That conversion would be apostasy

[--------]

Hello again Doddie. Am I right in thinking you are a minister?


I wouldnt for a minute think of actually asking the question re a death, becuase that would be very cruel for the victims family, but there are many occasions when the local religious "leader" is put on the screen about a tragedy. not every time, but enough for it to be a noticeable irritation. But the philosophical/moral question is still valid, in the abstract. I know some people find their faith a strength in hard times - the parents of Madeleine McCann are a good example - but it still doesnt mean its right.

I wont rise to your rather petty dig re-tolerance. You will I hope have seen through this entire (and very interesting thread) that I have tried avoid sniping. Whether or not lots of licence payers are christian or not is a moot point. just because there are a lot of a group doesnt necessarily mean they are right or have the right to a voice. You dont see hunderds of thousands of philatelists complaining about there stance on the war in Iraq not being heard do you?


I wasn't being petty. And you already have risen to it. :wink:

And maybe I was, but I was trying perhaps to make a point?

You keep saying that "local religious leaders" are interviewed on TV regularly regarding natural disasters and so on. I watch the news most nights, and I seem to be missing all this coverage my co-religionists are being given so freely. It just doesn't happen anything like as regularly as you're making out.

Also, whether you like it or not, I have the right to make my beliefs and opinions known, as long as I'm not inciting people to break the law.

There are lots of times I feel like complaining to the admins here about some of the 'humour' that passes on other forums, or even some of the terms folks use in discussion threads like this to attack my faith.

I sometimes wonder why, if atheism is so self-evidently the right way to look at things, some atheists are so abusive of Christians and others when they dare to express their beliefs in public. The laws are the same for me as they are for you. If I break them, I stand to be punished, right? Same as you.

But I DO have the right to speak what I believe, especially when I see others distorting and twisting the truth.

[J-C]

Apparently the covenant was offered to many (all?) other nations but none wanted it, only the Israelites decided to accept. Look at the bother it has caused them, but apparently there are benefits too, e.g., the ability to comment with authority on moral issues of the day :wink: and generally attain a mroe spiritual and less material level (wisdom /happiness).

Also the Covenant isn't exclusive to the jews, i.e., anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it.


So bacically you're saying if you want to become one of the "chosen people" you firstly have to convert to Judaism, in essence God has decided that Jews are the only ones and all the rest are heathens and unless you convert you've no chance.

Or Maybe the Jews are the ones that started all this one God business so they could keep their people under control and do as they're told.

The Jews Disowned Jesus because of his teachings as he gave people more freedom with his views on God etc. and the following masses clambered for his teachings because of his revolutionary ideas towards God and whatb he represents. He showed God as a more loving tolerant being, not the one from the old testament, all thunder and lightening and plagues etc. do as you're told or you will be sent to hell and all that.

[--------]

So bacically you're saying if you want to become one of the "chosen people" you firstly have to convert to Judaism, in essence God has decided that Jews are the only ones and all the rest are heathens and unless you convert you've no chance.

Or Maybe the Jews are the ones that started all this one God business so they could keep their people under control and do as they're told.

The Jews Disowned Jesus because of his teachings as he gave people more freedom with his views on God etc. and the following masses clambered for his teachings because of his revolutionary ideas towards God and whatb he represents. He showed God as a more loving tolerant being, not the one from the old testament, all thunder and lightening and plagues etc. do as you're told or you will be sent to hell and all that.



If you think that the teachings of Christ somehow set a lower moral standard than the Law of the OT, you need to read what He actually said.

Try Matthew's Gospel, chapters 5,6, and 7. (The Sermon on the Mount.)

Jesus makes it very clear that while God loves us enough to make an infinite sacrifice for us, there are no circumstances imaginable where He's prepared to tolerate sin.

[Twa Cairpets]

Hello again Doddie. Am I right in thinking you are a minister?


I wouldnt for a minute think of actually asking the question re a death, becuase that would be very cruel for the victims family, but there are many occasions when the local religious "leader" is put on the screen about a tragedy. not every time, but enough for it to be a noticeable irritation. But the philosophical/moral question is still valid, in the abstract. I know some people find their faith a strength in hard times - the parents of Madeleine McCann are a good example - but it still doesnt mean its right.

I wont rise to your rather petty dig re-tolerance. You will I hope have seen through this entire (and very interesting thread) that I have tried avoid sniping. Whether or not lots of licence payers are christian or not is a moot point. just because there are a lot of a group doesnt necessarily mean they are right or have the right to a voice. You dont see hunderds of thousands of philatelists complaining about there stance on the war in Iraq not being heard do you?


I wasn't being petty. And you already have risen to it. :wink:

And maybe I was, but I was trying perhaps to make a point?

You keep saying that "local religious leaders" are interviewed on TV regularly regarding natural disasters and so on. I watch the news most nights, and I seem to be missing all this coverage my co-religionists are being given so freely. It just doesn't happen anything like as regularly as you're making out.
There is every possibility that we are both subject to confirmation bias here - I see someone on TV and think - "there they are again -what right do they have etc etc". you see them and think - "well thats good because because its giving succour to the family, etc". As neither of us have statistics to backup our stances, it becomes an unwinnable argument, so this is one where we'll agree to disagree.
Also, whether you like it or not, I have the right to make my beliefs and opinions known, as long as I'm not inciting people to break the law.

You're missing the point, I think. You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs, and how you live your life if, as you say, it is within the law. I dispute your right to inflict these as a moral certainties with an undercurrent of divine retribution on the rest of society. As a personal belief, they are sacred (in every sense fo the word), but have no inate superiority over my lack of spiritual belief

There are lots of times I feel like complaining to the admins here about some of the 'humour' that passes on other forums, or even some of the terms folks use in discussion threads like this to attack my faith.

I hope youre not meaning me. I also think this is a very weak stance to take - if you see a lively, informed debate as an attack, it surely suggests that you aren't particularly happy to defend your position.

I sometimes wonder why, if atheism is so self-evidently the right way to look at things, some atheists are so abusive of Christians and others when they dare to express their beliefs in public. The laws are the same for me as they are for you. If I break them, I stand to be punished, right? Same as you.

What on earth are you talking about here? Who's saying otherwise?

But I DO have the right to speak what I believe, especially when I see others distorting and twisting the truth.

The truth as you see it. I'd love you to respond to any of the particular points I've made in either of the two threads on the go at the minute. Not because I want to go "yah, boo sucks", but because Im interested in this stuff, and am open to new ideas and ways of looking at things - thats how we find out what really is truth, surely.


.

[J-C]

Hello again Doddie. Am I right in thinking you are a minister?


I wouldnt for a minute think of actually asking the question re a death, becuase that would be very cruel for the victims family, but there are many occasions when the local religious "leader" is put on the screen about a tragedy. not every time, but enough for it to be a noticeable irritation. But the philosophical/moral question is still valid, in the abstract. I know some people find their faith a strength in hard times - the parents of Madeleine McCann are a good example - but it still doesnt mean its right.

I wont rise to your rather petty dig re-tolerance. You will I hope have seen through this entire (and very interesting thread) that I have tried avoid sniping. Whether or not lots of licence payers are christian or not is a moot point. just because there are a lot of a group doesnt necessarily mean they are right or have the right to a voice. You dont see hunderds of thousands of philatelists complaining about there stance on the war in Iraq not being heard do you?


I wasn't being petty. And you already have risen to it. :wink:

And maybe I was, but I was trying perhaps to make a point?

You keep saying that "local religious leaders" are interviewed on TV regularly regarding natural disasters and so on. I watch the news most nights, and I seem to be missing all this coverage my co-religionists are being given so freely. It just doesn't happen anything like as regularly as you're making out.

Also, whether you like it or not, I have the right to make my beliefs and opinions known, as long as I'm not inciting people to break the law.
And so do we, I'm an agnostic, not really a believer but open to facts an truths and if I or others don't agree with your view point, we have the right to disagree.
There are lots of times I feel like complaining to the admins here about some of the 'humour' that passes on other forums, or even some of the terms folks use in discussion threads like this to attack my faith.
I don't think anyone is attacking your faith Doddie, this discussion has been very enlightening and allows us to open our eyes a little and see other peoples view points.:confused:
I sometimes wonder why, if atheism is so self-evidently the right way to look at things, some atheists are so abusive of Christians and others when they dare to express their beliefs in public. The laws are the same for me as they are for you. If I break them, I stand to be punished, right? Same as you.

But I DO have the right to speak what I believe, especially when I see others distorting and twisting the truth. This could be seen both ways though, you could easily be distorting your faith to distort the truth, no!
.

[--------]

Quite possibly we ARE subject to 'confirmation bias' - however, when was the last (most recent) occasion a LOCAL religious leader was interviewed regarding a road traffic accident, or the death or abduction of a child, or anything similar?

How many priests/ministers/clergy appeared in the media comnmenting and giving opinions when Maddy McCann was taken? I don't remember a single one other than man who was present when Kate's parents were interviewed - and he sat quietly in the background, saying nothing. Surely we'd all have been out hunting publicity in a high-profile case like that one?

Anyhow, I have work to do, minds to corrupt. BCNU. :bye:

[(((Fergus)))]

Its not. You stated:

Also the Covenant isn't exclusive to the jews, i.e., anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it.

Unless I've misread this, you are suggesting people convert to judaism to take advantage of "The Covenant". That conversion would be apostasy

I was responding to a post implying that there was some inequality among the various groups. In fact, anyone can become a jew. Whether that makes you an apostate or not depends on your own previous religion and since you've left it it is no longer relevant to you.

[(((Fergus)))]

So bacically you're saying if you want to become one of the "chosen people" you firstly have to convert to Judaism, in essence God has decided that Jews are the only ones and all the rest are heathens and unless you convert you've no chance.

Or Maybe the Jews are the ones that started all this one God business so they could keep their people under control and do as they're told.

The Jews Disowned Jesus because of his teachings as he gave people more freedom with his views on God etc. and the following masses clambered for his teachings because of his revolutionary ideas towards God and whatb he represents. He showed God as a more loving tolerant being, not the one from the old testament, all thunder and lightening and plagues etc. do as you're told or you will be sent to hell and all that.

No, there are levels of spirituality that are open to every human being. I think the only "club" that is totally exclusive is the Kohanim or jewish priestly class (descendants of Aaron). The vast majority of jews are excluded from this by birth. From a jewish perspective, all that is "required" of non-jews is that they observe the Seven_Laws_of_Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah), which were given to mankind before Abraham accepted the covenant (i.e., Noah wasn't a jew, neither were Adam and Eve for that matter). Those who want more can convert.

I know it rankles to think that some people can have something that we can't have, however with every new right comes a new responsibility, so it's not necessarily a bad situation. As each of us develops, we can take on more. The ones I feel sorry for are the jews, who are born with a higher level of requirements. As far as I know, they can't choose not to be jews (under Jewish law).

[(((Fergus)))]

Quite possibly we ARE subject to 'confirmation bias' - however, when was the last (most recent) occasion a LOCAL religious leader was interviewed regarding a road traffic accident, or the death or abduction of a child, or anything similar?

How many priests/ministers/clergy appeared in the media comnmenting and giving opinions when Maddy McCann was taken? I don't remember a single one other than man who was present when Kate's parents were interviewed - and he sat quietly in the background, saying nothing. Surely we'd all have been out hunting publicity in a high-profile case like that one?

Anyhow, I have work to do, minds to corrupt. BCNU. :bye:

The last time I remember them wheeling out the clerics on the news was the tsunami in Asia, where the angle was "right, why did your God do this then, eh?". Funny how people know God's address when they have a complaint to make. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Quite possibly we ARE subject to 'confirmation bias' - however, when was the last (most recent) occasion a LOCAL religious leader was interviewed regarding a road traffic accident, or the death or abduction of a child, or anything similar?

How many priests/ministers/clergy appeared in the media comnmenting and giving opinions when Maddy McCann was taken? I don't remember a single one other than man who was present when Kate's parents were interviewed - and he sat quietly in the background, saying nothing. Surely we'd all have been out hunting publicity in a high-profile case like that one?

Anyhow, I have work to do, minds to corrupt. BCNU. :bye:

No need for the quotes around confirmation bias. It is a well accepted principle - it just means you look for evidence to support your stance, and become blind to contrary indications. It seems you've found the only thing I cant provide immediate evidence for and are hanging on to it. When we get an example I'll be sure to post it. You be sure to do the same now, in the interests of fairness.

[Twa Cairpets]

The last time I remember them wheeling out the clerics on the news was the tsunami in Asia, where the angle was "right, why did your God do this then, eh?". Funny how people know God's address when they have a complaint to make. :wink:

But youve got to admit it was a good question.

Remind me Fergus - what was the answer again?

Was it the same answer as for the flooding of New Orleans, which if I recall rightly was in some quarters attributed to God having a hissy fit about homosexuality?

[Twa Cairpets]

I was responding to a post implying that there was some inequality among the various groups. In fact, anyone can become a jew. Whether that makes you an apostate or not depends on your own previous religion and since you've left it it is no longer relevant to you.

I understand the concept of apostasy Fergus. But you quite clearly said:

"anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it."

So you are saying that you can become one of Gods chosen, but you cant be bothered. Isn't that the length of it?

[--------]

No need for the quotes around confirmation bias. It is a well accepted principle - it just means you look for evidence to support your stance, and become blind to contrary indications. It seems you've found the only thing I cant provide immediate evidence for and are hanging on to it. When we get an example I'll be sure to post it. You be sure to do the same now, in the interests of fairness.


The quotation marks are there because I'm quoting you directly.

I know what confirmation bias is. I note that it's Fergus who answered one of my questions - how long ago was the tsunami in the Indian Ocean? That's quite a while, I'd say.

'Blind to contrary indications'? Do you actually think I do what I do (and have done for the past 25 years) blind to what's all around me? Do you really think that I sail through life with no questions, no doubts, no pain, cruising on a cushion of certainty?

This discussion isn't an academic one. When YOU get a phone call to go round to sit with a young couple who've just lost their three-day-old daughter and haven't a clue how to deal with it or what comes next - or to take a father down to the hospital to sit by the bedsides of his two children seriously injured inn a car crash on Christmas Eve, and he doesn't know if he has one, two or no children at all when he gets in your car - or you're asked to call on a friend's sister who's just been told that the cancer she thought she'd recovered from a few years ago has come back, and she has 2 months at most - or to wait with people while the lifeboat and the coastguards search for the bodies of their two boys who went out in a boat in the wrong weather after a night partying, and be there when the news comes back that they've found the boat and one body (but they never find the other one) - or a Sunday-evening call with the policeman to tell an elderly couple that their black-sheep son has been found dead of an overdose a month after he got out of prison after a 5-year sentence, and he got the drugs in the half-way house the non-religious and thoroughly secular-minded social-work department sent him to....

Blind to contrary indications? You have to be joking, mate.

I do it, and I'm not strong enough, or good enough, or wise enough, or holy enough, or loving enough in myself to do it without something or someone outside me holding me up and guiding me and giving me the words and the patience (and sometimes the silence) to do it. And I don't always do it right, or well enough, and I let myself and the folks I go to down, but blind I am not.

Because human life is bloody at best, because we've made it so, and if it weren't for the grace of God in Christ we'd all be lost and hopeless.

So don't tell me I'm BLIND to contrary indications or whatever - I see them and I question things more than you'll ever know, mate.

And I believe what i believe because ultimately it's the best and fullest and most satisfactory account I have yet found of the world I live in and the nature of my own heart and soul. OK?

[(((Fergus)))]

I understand the concept of apostasy Fergus. But you quite clearly said:

"anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it."

So you are saying that you can become one of Gods chosen, but you cant be bothered. Isn't that the length of it?

If you are asking about me personally, it is none of your concern. I was speaking generally about Jewish law.

[(((Fergus)))]

But youve got to admit it was a good question.

Remind me Fergus - what was the answer again?

Was it the same answer as for the flooding of New Orleans, which if I recall rightly was in some quarters attributed to God having a hissy fit about homosexuality?

It's a good question from someone who believes in God, but from a professed atheist it is totally illogical since there is no such thing as God.

[Twa Cairpets]

The quotation marks are there because I'm quoting you directly.

I know what confirmation bias is. I note that it's Fergus who answered one of my questions - how long ago was the tsunami in the Indian Ocean? That's quite a while, I'd say.

'Blind to contrary indications'? Do you actually think I do what I do (and have done for the past 25 years) blind to what's all around me? Do you really think that I sail through life with no questions, no doubts, no pain, cruising on a cushion of certainty?

This discussion isn't an academic one. When YOU get a phone call to go round to sit with a young couple who've just lost their three-day-old daughter and haven't a clue how to deal with it or what comes next - or to take a father down to the hospital to sit by the bedsides of his two children seriously injured inn a car crash on Christmas Eve, and he doesn't know if he has one, two or no children at all when he gets in your car - or you're asked to call on a friend's sister who's just been told that the cancer she thought she'd recovered from a few years ago has come back, and she has 2 months at most - or to wait with people while the lifeboat and the coastguards search for the bodies of their two boys who went out in a boat in the wrong weather after a night partying, and be there when the news comes back that they've found the boat and one body (but they never find the other one) - or a Sunday-evening call with the policeman to tell an elderly couple that their black-sheep son has been found dead of an overdose a month after he got out of prison after a 5-year sentence, and he got the drugs in the half-way house the non-religious and thoroughly secular-minded social-work department sent him to....

Blind to contrary indications? You have to be joking, mate.

I do it, and I'm not strong enough, or good enough, or wise enough, or holy enough, or loving enough in myself to do it without something or someone outside me holding me up and guiding me and giving me the words and the patience (and sometimes the silence) to do it. And I don't always do it right, or well enough, and I let myself and the folks I go to down, but blind I am not.

Because human life is bloody at best, because we've made it so, and if it weren't for the grace of God in Christ we'd all be lost and hopeless.

So don't tell me I'm BLIND to contrary indications or whatever - I see them and I question things more than you'll ever know, mate.

And I believe what i believe because ultimately it's the best and fullest and most satisfactory account I have yet found of the world I live in and the nature of my own heart and soul. OK?

Wow

For absolute clarity, I was defining what confirmation bias is when I wrote about "blind to contrary indications", and relating it solely to the appearance of clergy on TV to comment on local or national tragedy. You have chosen to interpret in a much, much wider sense, which led to a very interesting post.

I've absolutely no doubt that what you do in your job as you have passionately outlined above is a good thing, that you do it well in conditions of immense stress, and that what you do helps people cope with tragedy and upset. I'm pretty sure I couldnt do what you do, and I think I'm a pretty decent, empathetic guy.

My take on it would be that you are strong enough, good enough, wise enough and loving enough to do what you do. If it truly was your God supporting you, then surely, logically, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs - or even atheists - could not fulfill a similar role of providing support and succour in other cultures/societies, and I would suggest that that is patently not the case.

I'm not going to change your opinion of what you believe - and I don't seek to. I ask questions so I can understand what you think and why, and if I out up what is to my mind a sensible counter argument or point, then lets explore it.

[Twa Cairpets]

It's a good question from someone who believes in God, but from a professed atheist it is totally illogical since there is no such thing as God.

Nice squirm away from giving an answer Fergus.

I'll rephrase it then in a manner that might help.

"As an atheist, I am interested in the religious rationale behind a benevolent deity allowing the tsunami to happen with the resultant suffering, loss of life and tragedy befalling the victims. Could you help me to understand?"

[Twa Cairpets]

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
I understand the concept of apostasy Fergus. But you quite clearly said:

"anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it."

So you are saying that you can become one of Gods chosen, but you cant be bothered. Isn't that the length of it?
Reply by Fergus
If you are asking about me personally, it is none of your concern. I was speaking generally about Jewish law.

Again, interesting semantic wriggling Fergus.

How about

Your statement can be interpreted as "One can convert to Judaism to become one of Gods chosen, but why would one bother"

I think this de-personalises it sufficiently to merit a response, and its got nothing to do with Jewish Law.

[(((Fergus)))]

Nice squirm away from giving an answer Fergus.

I'll rephrase it then in a manner that might help.

"As an atheist, I am interested in the religious rationale behind a benevolent deity allowing the tsunami to happen with the resultant suffering, loss of life and tragedy befalling the victims. Could you help me to understand?"

No, I don't see how that would be possible. Maybe someone else could, but not me.

[(((Fergus)))]

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
I understand the concept of apostasy Fergus. But you quite clearly said:

"anyone can convert to judaism. It's not compulsory though and frankly who needs the trouble, but the path is there if people want it."

So you are saying that you can become one of Gods chosen, but you cant be bothered. Isn't that the length of it?
Reply by Fergus
If you are asking about me personally, it is none of your concern. I was speaking generally about Jewish law.

Again, interesting semantic wriggling Fergus.

How about

Your statement can be interpreted as "One can convert to Judaism to become one of Gods chosen, but why would one bother"

I think this de-personalises it sufficiently to merit a response, and its got nothing to do with Jewish Law.

What's your interest in this issue?

[Twa Cairpets]

What's your interest in this issue?

If you make sweeping statements of apparent nonsense then Im interested to ensure Im not missing something.

Your statement still astonishes me, and coupled with your other, cop-out reply above, its obvious that your grasp of your own viewpoint is, at best, flaky.

[(((Fergus)))]

If you make sweeping statements of apparent nonsense then Im interested to ensure Im not missing something.

Your statement still astonishes me, and coupled with your other, cop-out reply above, its obvious that your grasp of your own viewpoint is, at best, flaky.

I don't believe you. I think you think you know it all already.

[The_Todd]

You've just told us YOUR opinion of what WE should think about TV.... :cool2:


In my experience, TV is already extremely manipulative and does a great deal of telling people what they should think.

Compare the news content of different channels and the way news stories are presented. Fair bit of opinion-moulding going on there. I would also question the impartiality of a fair number of current affairs programs. Media controllers can do a lot of mind-bending just through program selection - the subjects they choose to air, the way those subjects are presented, the sound-bites used, the way the actors do the voice-overs. You don't have to have a Ministry of Truth banging out a Party line all the time. Media manipulation's done a LOT more subtly that THAT, chum.

You don't REALLY think TV's a neutral medium right now, do you? :cool2:

And if you ban all religious content from TV, aren't you just manipulating the medium to mould people's opinions in favour of secularism and atheism?

So secularists are allowed to do a fly bit of brainwashing but religious groups aren't? :cool2:

But then, I suppose I'm just a brain-dead religious zombie, right? :rolleyes:

Wow. What a way to make an assumption. I never said it should ban religious content, nor did I say it should be used for secular brainwashing.

I couldn't care less if you're religious or not. Just because I don't believe what you believe doesn't mean I'm in the slightest bit bothered.

I said TV should entertain, challenge and make you make your own decisions. I said should, I never said that's what the case actually is. It should show both sides of the argument. Why should that be a problem, "chum"?

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't believe you. I think you think you know it all already.

Nope. Just more than you :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

Nope. Just more than you :wink:

So you don't need me to explain anything.