IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
I think we need to go back to basics on this as on so many social issues.
Personally I think all organised religions are equally suspect, from Moonies to Christians. Accept one lot and back the morality with law and it's only fair to take all, however mad.
Or none - which makes sense to me.
We need to work out exactly what the law is there for. It's spread so wide it is ludicrous as it is.
You see, if we think God's law (as in the Church of England or via the Vatican) why not the Moonies' God or Scientologists' God - let alone Islamic God, Hindu God...
Slippery slope but the Archbishop is quite right. If you accept "God" and the right of everyone to choose which "God", why not all "Gods"?
JK2006 wrote: You see, if we think God's law (as in the Church of England or via the Vatican) why not the Moonies' God or Scientologists' God - let alone Islamic God, Hindu God...
Slippery slope but the Archbishop is quite right. If you accept "God" and the right of everyone to choose which "God", why not all "Gods"?
Did God not say something like "I am the only God"?
Are you not confusing the man-made "religions" etc with the one true God?
In that case, could you help me out with a few queries?
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (because its says so in Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them - and are threatening to complaint to the Environmental Health Dept at the Town Hall. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery (as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her, and do I have to accept payment in shekells? If the buyers wants time to pay - will the deal be subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (even though that Act makes no mention of slavery)?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - )see Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Should women be forced to wear, say, a bright orange sticker on their lapels when they are menstruating, to warn men?
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Welsh and Scots (as they are joined to England), but not the Irish. Can you clarify? Why can't I own the Irish?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.
Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them to death? - (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
But actually you're backing up my opinion - that all religions are barmy so why allow one to dominate the law (despite selecting which less ludicrous rules are obeyed) and not another?
In The Know wrote:
Interesting. How do you KNOW that he's imaginery?
I've never met the Aga Khan - but I still believe he exists.
And LO there was zoo's post. And so did zoo's post say, "Only fools shall say to themselves, 'I disbelieve in zoo's post,'" and therefore indeed, zoo's post is the truth, the light, and the way.
Group A are those who believe that once upon a time there was nothing. Then that nothing became a complex but well balanced universe without anything in existence beforehand to cause it to happen.
Group B believe that something must have caused this occurance; that it is higly unlikely that nothing could become something without cause or reason.
JC wrote: Group A are those who believe that once upon a time there was nothing. Then that nothing became a complex but well balanced universe without anything in existence beforehand to cause it to happen.
Group B believe that something must have caused this occurance; that it is higly unlikely that nothing could become something without cause or reason.
I'd guess that group A are the scientists who promote the theory of the atom exploding and creating the universe, although they have no real explanation of where the atom came from or why. A scientist on a TV debate a few years ago claimed that it was easier for him to believe that there was nothing existing before the Big Bang than for him to believe in some greater intelligence.
I think the only certainty is that there are things beyond man's understanding. I'd love to know where space ends, or if it ends, or what's beyond it if it does end, but I doubt I'll ever find out.
The Cat wrote: I'd guess that group A are the scientists who promote the theory of the atom exploding and creating the universe, although they have no real explanation of where the atom came from or why. A scientist on a TV debate a few years ago claimed that it was easier for him to believe that there was nothing existing before the Big Bang than for him to believe in some greater intelligence.
I think the only certainty is that there are things beyond man's understanding. I'd love to know where space ends, or if it ends, or what's beyond it if it does end, but I doubt I'll ever find out.
Saying something is easier to believe doesn't mean that person is asserting it as fact, which is what this supposed Group A is doing.
Group A is unlikely to be significantly populated by scientists - their answer would be "I don't know".
Adding a conscious being before the beginning of the Universe simply puts "I don't know" one step back as "Where did the conscious being come from?" is the obvious next question.
Occam's razor would apply here as the conscious being cannot be verified and the Universe operates the same with or without the conscious being, eg petitioning the being has no effect, the being can be discarded as superfluous.
Back to our muttons... Group A is not the proponents of Big Bang Theory.
I'm a bit late on this thread admittedly, but I've found the words to express my opinion through the magnificent Pat Condell, linked below.
I'd urge everyone to watch all his videos. He gives the treatment to the followers of those nasty organized religions Christianity, and its even more vicious younger brother Islam (my words, not Pat's) that they deserve.
Forums 
