Gospel saved England from violent revolution (From Bucks Free Press)

Dear Rev. Simpson

Please explain to me why, as an atheist, you consider that I have no morals? Why do religious people think that they have a monopoly on morality?

And I can show you families where there is a father in residence where the sons are encouraged to drink, take drugs, beat women etc. because the father thinks it is OK. Conversely there are families that grow up with no father where the children grow up to be a valuable member of society.

Bring back Zeus - that's what I say :)

Who said animals don't have a 'conscience'? Would you like to give some evidence for this assumption?

I want to meet an unruly boy :)

I agree with Rev Simpson,
The break down in respect and a lack of morality being a major cause of the recent riots. Lack of christian influence in todays society is obviously one of the factors. The trendy liberal teachings of the last thirty years hasn't worked. we need to get back to teaching responsibilities and ultimate consequences if you do not obey.

Dave.. wrote:
I agree with Rev Simpson,
The break down in respect and a lack of morality being a major cause of the recent riots. Lack of christian influence in todays society is obviously one of the factors. The trendy liberal teachings of the last thirty years hasn't worked. we need to get back to teaching responsibilities and ultimate consequences if you do not obey.

Yep - it is all the fault of the Christians for not being forthright enough.

I knew it:))

The evidence you site is that animals have no conscience, like Trip asks what is the evidence for this. I would have thought it would be very difficult to prove that an animal has no conscience.

I also fail to see the connection between believing in Darwinian Natural Selection and rioting in the streets, I can certainly say that none of the Scientists at the Institute where I work are feral and unruly. There are planty of scientists I know who are quite happy with Darwin yet still are religous.

There is nothing wrong with marriage but there is also nothing wrong with not being married, it is down to a persons choice and as NicM says how children turn out has very little to the married status or number of parents.

As I was bought up in a family where my parents were divorced, believe in Evolution, married (although there was no religous part to the ceremony), and an atheist I guess I should hand myself into the Police as a potential danger to society....

(Oh and Demoness, from what I remember Zeus certainly seemed happy with sexual relations outside marriage)

I flipping love Zeus Brachy - all the greek gods rock :)

demoness the second wrote:
I flipping love Zeus Brachy - all the greek gods rock :)

Certainly are great stories, and according to Wikipedia Zeus was involved in the original Olympics (topical with it being 2012).

Even these ancient gods seem to be embedded in our modern culture.

Dave.. wrote:
I agree with Rev Simpson,
The break down in respect and a lack of morality being a major cause of the recent riots. Lack of christian influence in todays society is obviously one of the factors. The trendy liberal teachings of the last thirty years hasn't worked. we need to get back to teaching responsibilities and ultimate consequences if you do not obey.

I believe in responsibilities and ultimate consequences. I do not believe that saying sorry to a God and because someone was meant to have died for me that I will be excused from my wrongdoing. I have responsibility to other members of society not some fictional being. Please do not assume, like the Rev. does, that Christians have a monopoly on morality.

Dear NicM,

Many thanks for your comments. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, but the Trinitarian God whom they worship does, for He made us.

Courteously, I did not say that you have no morals as an atheist, but that “secularism is devoid of an absolute moral foundation”. In other words atheism has no objective standard on which to base its morality, other than what society deems to be acceptable at any one moment. How does the atheist decide what is right? If one atheist disagrees with another, who arbitrates?

When the atheist is morally upright, it is because he is responding to his God-given conscience, even though he would not, of course, acknowledge that.

You will surely agree with me that most atheists do not have a problem with sexual relations outside of marriage, but this creates enormous social problems, e.g. teenage pregnancies and unwanted children. I therefore suggest that atheism is morally deficient in this regard.

You spoke of families where the fathers drink and beat the women, and you are right, but if those fathers were Christians, they would not do that. Such wicked behaviour would not happen, if the wayward fathers had learnt to fear God.

But what is atheism’s answer to the problem of drink? It seems powerless to stop it, but in the 18th century the preaching of the Christian Gospel stopped a nationwide addiction to gin. The historical facts are there, for those who wish to find them.

Yes, of course, there are single-parent families which do an excellent job, but that does not alter the fact that a traditional two-parent family unit provides a more stable background for a child. That is what God intended. Furthermore, the statistics prove that married couples are more likely to stay together than cohabiting ones. Again a vindication of Christian morality, and evidence that atheistic liberalism has failed.

Many of the rioters would have come from homes where there was no Christian influence, nor any resemblance to a God-ordained family structure. Once upon a time in Britain there were vast numbers of children attending a Sunday School. If this had been the case today, we would not have seen 12 year olds looting supermarkets for bottles of cheap wine. Atheism, along with a generally secular education system, have had a free run in this country since the 1960s, but they have not been able to prevent the large scale social disorder and mayhem which we saw all across England recently.

Yours in friendly discussion, Rev. Peter Simpson.

For friends who ask for evidence that animals have no conscience I cite the following:

1) The Bible's teaching that man has an immortal soul, whereas the animals do not.

2) The empirical evidence of how creatures behave across the animal kingdom -they kill their prey, usually smaller than they, for no other reason than that they are hungry. In other words, they do not think through the moral implications of their actions, unlike men, who, made in the image of God, are on a completely higher plane, having the ability to make moral choices.

Yours amicably,
Rev. Peter Simpson

Peter Simpson wrote:
For friends who ask for evidence that animals have no conscience I cite the following:

1) The Bible's teaching that man has an immortal soul, whereas the animals do not.

2) The empirical evidence of how creatures behave across the animal kingdom -they kill their prey, usually smaller than they, for no other reason than that they are hungry. In other words, they do not think through the moral implications of their actions, unlike men, who, made in the image of God, are on a completely higher plane, having the ability to make moral choices.

Yours amicably,
Rev. Peter Simpson

Please do not try and understand zoology- first of all humans are animals, secondly not all animals kill other animals for food, and thirdly you most likely get Asda to kill your food for you so who are you to talk about morals?

Peter Simpson wrote:
Dear NicM,

Many thanks for your comments. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, but the Trinitarian God whom they worship does, for He made us.

Courteously, I did not say that you have no morals as an atheist, but that “secularism is devoid of an absolute moral foundation”. In other words atheism has no objective standard on which to base its morality, other than what society deems to be acceptable at any one moment. How does the atheist decide what is right? If one atheist disagrees with another, who arbitrates?

When the atheist is morally upright, it is because he is responding to his God-given conscience, even though he would not, of course, acknowledge that.

You will surely agree with me that most atheists do not have a problem with sexual relations outside of marriage, but this creates enormous social problems, e.g. teenage pregnancies and unwanted children. I therefore suggest that atheism is morally deficient in this regard.

You spoke of families where the fathers drink and beat the women, and you are right, but if those fathers were Christians, they would not do that. Such wicked behaviour would not happen, if the wayward fathers had learnt to fear God.

But what is atheism’s answer to the problem of drink? It seems powerless to stop it, but in the 18th century the preaching of the Christian Gospel stopped a nationwide addiction to gin. The historical facts are there, for those who wish to find them.

Yes, of course, there are single-parent families which do an excellent job, but that does not alter the fact that a traditional two-parent family unit provides a more stable background for a child. That is what God intended. Furthermore, the statistics prove that married couples are more likely to stay together than cohabiting ones. Again a vindication of Christian morality, and evidence that atheistic liberalism has failed.

Many of the rioters would have come from homes where there was no Christian influence, nor any resemblance to a God-ordained family structure. Once upon a time in Britain there were vast numbers of children attending a Sunday School. If this had been the case today, we would not have seen 12 year olds looting supermarkets for bottles of cheap wine. Atheism, along with a generally secular education system, have had a free run in this country since the 1960s, but they have not been able to prevent the large scale social disorder and mayhem which we saw all across England recently.

Yours in friendly discussion, Rev. Peter Simpson.

I find your argument interesting as you state that secularism lacks an absolute moral foundation, but I would suggest that so does Christianity.

Absolute morals are extremely rare. If we take the most famous of the 10 Commandments 'Thou shalt not kill', can you state that Christians would believe that there are no circumstances where killing would be permissible i.e. is it always immoral? If you cannot say that it is always wrong, then who decides when it is right?

You will presumably say that man should ask God (if you do not then I apologise). However to me this is an example of consequentialist morals. Someone needs to decide whether it is right or wrong, in the same way as us atheists have to look at the overall good of society.

If your argument about lack of Christian faith having a direct link to the riots is true, then why have we always had crime and disorder in society?

Having said all of that I agree that one of the underlying reasons for deterioration in behaviour is lack of consequences for actions. If we had a society that required criminals to make recompense then things may be different.

You stated that the evidence that there is a god is that man has a conscience and animals do not, when asked for the evidence for animals not having a conscience you come back that god tells you so in the bible which doesn't really answer your critics but just brings you back to the original question.

Yes animals kill for food (the prey is not always smaller), but may also kill in territorial disputes or even in some spiders just after mating. Whether they are thinking about the moral implications how would you know?

In the example (http://news.softped
ia.com/news/Elephant
s-Show-Compassion-an
d-Have-an-Awareness-
about-Death-32660.sh
tml) it would seem that scientists believe these elephants were showing compassion. One could also use the example of Jambo at Jersey Zoo when the young child fell into his enclosure. Is that evidence of a conscience?

The fact is man is an animal and accepting that fact in no way threatens someone's religious beliefs.

Your argument seems to be Christians vs atheists, what about that those in society who believe in a god but not necessarily the Christian one, I would be interested to know your opinion of that - would the fact that they are religious prevent them from rioting?

And are fox-hunting and battery hens examples of man not having a conscience? Many Christians would argue that fox-hunting is not immoral...

I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

NicM you mention"thou shalt not kill", I believe Peter Simpson gave an example in the correspondence to his previous letter which spoke of the time the King called the nation together in national prayer during the Battle of Britain which he said was what helped turn the battle.

I assume that the main aim of the airforce in stopping the Germans would have been to shoot down as many planes as possible (killing the pilots).

I guess that means you are allowed to kill under certain circumstances.

At the risk of conflating an awful lot of history it seems to me that christians (and followers of other prophets of the same hypothetical deity) are allow themselves to kill anyone who disagrees with them.
.
It has only been the growth of "liberal atheism" and a secular state over the last couple of hundred years that has curbed the blood-****.

I don't know why the sweaty filter removes the second part of bloodlust when I hyphenate it.
.
Still, it goes me the opportunity to proof-read my previous comment properly and point out that "are allow themselves " show read "allow themselves "

And, of course, I didn't proof read that properly either.

If you didn't spell so well , the stupid auto-censor would not remove the words it 'thinks' are offensive - it's just some list a clerk has typed in really.
.
And an American one at that , just to rub it in. Another example is you can't say A-S-S , because 'they' think you are trying say 'bottom' in a rude way. Pathetic really. Why can't we have an English auto-censor. They come over here, take our jobs , steal our words etc etc
.
Where would we be without this rendered down globalized homogenized simplified 'language' that every claims to speak nowadays ?
.
Our beautiful flexible derived and evolving language is being stolen from us in the interests of international and compulsory corporate control.
.
If you want to say a particular word and if in doubt either mispell it or put separators in the word. Good Luck with that. And B-o*ll-o*ock*s to the censor.

Fpr elucidation: the primary meaning of the Hebrew word translated 'kill' in the 6th of the 10 commandments is 'murder' and does not forbid all killing - in self defence or in defence of the realm in times of war.

Blood ****.....


hmmmm sounds interesting.. ;)

Mick Harris wrote:
Fpr elucidation: the primary meaning of the Hebrew word translated 'kill' in the 6th of the 10 commandments is 'murder' and does not forbid all killing - in self defence or in defence of the realm in times of war.

What about burning of heretics and witches? Stoning of adulterers? Did they have realms in Moses' time or is it just in defence of territory? I need to know WHO decides it is OK. When arguing for absolute morals there have to be very clear rules about what is absolutely allowed or not.

So who decided that eating shellfish or wearing clothes of mixed fibres is OK? Is homosexuality OK or not, and if it is not OK why not because similar passages are ignored as being out of date?

You see I am very confused about most religions. The religious books are supposedly the word of God, but they have been written by man at a time of more limited understanding than today. As society evolved certain bits were ignored and certain sects ignore more bits than others. But then everyone claims their understanding of the Bible is correct and all other sects and other religions are wrong. Most confusing.

I think that it is really funny that people take the word of religious nutters written well over 2000 years ago as the word of God.
Actually it isn't funny..... it is scary.

demoness the second wrote:
I think that it is really funny that people take the word of religious nutters written well over 2000 years ago as the word of God. Actually it isn't funny..... it is scary.

Then again some people seem to take the word of a nutter written three times a week as the truth.......

;)

brachyura wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I think that it is really funny that people take the word of religious nutters written well over 2000 years ago as the word of God. Actually it isn't funny..... it is scary.

Then again some people seem to take the word of a nutter written three times a week as the truth.......

;)

Not me ... I may have commented but I never believed.
But some people do-you are right :)

‘In friendly response, I cite as evidence the God-given conscience, which the animals do not possess. Man made in the image of God is a morally responsible agent.
If children are taught, however, that they are merely evolved beasts, with no design or purpose to their existence, other than the vagaries of Darwinian natural selection, then it is no wonder that we have ‘feral’ criminality on our streets, as seen in the recent riots.’
/
There are Darwinian explanations for the existence of unselfish behaviour and ‘conscience.’ Children start the day with a compulsory act of worship. We may have avoided revolution in the past but there have been riots periodically in this country throughout modern times – why didn’t Nonconformity stop the (ferociously destructive) Gordon riots of 1780?

Peter Simpson wrote:
Dear NicM,

Many thanks for your comments. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, but the Trinitarian God whom they worship does, for He made us.

Courteously, I did not say that you have no morals as an atheist, but that “secularism is devoid of an absolute moral foundation”. In other words atheism has no objective standard on which to base its morality, other than what society deems to be acceptable at any one moment. How does the atheist decide what is right? If one atheist disagrees with another, who arbitrates?

When the atheist is morally upright, it is because he is responding to his God-given conscience, even though he would not, of course, acknowledge that.

You will surely agree with me that most atheists do not have a problem with sexual relations outside of marriage, but this creates enormous social problems, e.g. teenage pregnancies and unwanted children. I therefore suggest that atheism is morally deficient in this regard.

You spoke of families where the fathers drink and beat the women, and you are right, but if those fathers were Christians, they would not do that. Such wicked behaviour would not happen, if the wayward fathers had learnt to fear God.

But what is atheism’s answer to the problem of drink? It seems powerless to stop it, but in the 18th century the preaching of the Christian Gospel stopped a nationwide addiction to gin. The historical facts are there, for those who wish to find them.

Yes, of course, there are single-parent families which do an excellent job, but that does not alter the fact that a traditional two-parent family unit provides a more stable background for a child. That is what God intended. Furthermore, the statistics prove that married couples are more likely to stay together than cohabiting ones. Again a vindication of Christian morality, and evidence that atheistic liberalism has failed.

Many of the rioters would have come from homes where there was no Christian influence, nor any resemblance to a God-ordained family structure. Once upon a time in Britain there were vast numbers of children attending a Sunday School. If this had been the case today, we would not have seen 12 year olds looting supermarkets for bottles of cheap wine. Atheism, along with a generally secular education system, have had a free run in this country since the 1960s, but they have not been able to prevent the large scale social disorder and mayhem which we saw all across England recently.

Yours in friendly discussion, Rev. Peter Simpson.

Courteously, I did not say that you have no morals as an atheist, but that “secularism is devoid of an absolute moral foundation”.. How does the atheist decide what is right? If one atheist disagrees with another, who arbitrates?
/
If Christians are employing an ‘objective standard’ why do they disagree with each other?
.....
In other words atheism has no objective standard on which to base its morality, other than what society deems to be acceptable at any one moment
/
In our modern society people elect governments to give them what they believe is best for them – we have an NHS, universal education (though with great variations in quality)and greatly increased life-expectancy with greatly reduced infant mortality – is that really worse than what was going on in the late 18th century when most people had no vote and illiteracy was common?
.....

When the atheist is morally upright, it is because he is responding to his God-given conscience, even though he would not, of course, acknowledge that.
/
When the Christian is morally upright he is unconsciously following the imperatives of Darwninian selection though he would not, of course, acknowledge that.

Yes , the Non-conformists should be be thoroughly ashamed of themselves - particularly after all this time too. And still no word of apology
.
However nobody stole Chinese flatscreen TVs , cheap trainers or cans of cola in the 1780 riots. I suppose people were a lot better off in those days.

demoness the second wrote:
Bring back Zeus - that's what I say :)

And throw the Christians to the lions in the Colosseum!

Lawrence Linehan wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
Bring back Zeus - that's what I say :)

And throw the Christians to the lions in the Colosseum!

Yes!!!
Ah the greek gods - there was glory!

Are we all playing here now BTW? ;)

This is where we all go for our holidays.
.
Lot more interesting subject too.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
This is where we all go for our holidays.
.
Lot more interesting subject too.

How can you say that Tom? :-)

However when we are not on holiday we rarely talk about what is written but how or who is writing it!

I suspect that he would probably agree with the views expressed (even to get a reaction from some of us!).

tom.marlow2 wrote:
This is where we all go for our holidays.
.
Lot more interesting subject too.

Indeed because it is far easier to assume that we are all away as opposed to facing facts :)

demoness the second wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
This is where we all go for our holidays.
.
Lot more interesting subject too.

Indeed because it is far easier to assume that we are all away as opposed to facing facts :)

A bit like assuming the bible is true - soft option, far easier than putting the time and effort into thinking for yourself

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need but are denying

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need

I am not mocking "God".
I am mocking an antiquated set of rules.

What do I use?
I use my own moral code that is how my parents brought me up and my own experience.

Is God a person then?

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need

I am not mocking "God".
I am mocking an antiquated set of rules.

What do I use?
I use my own moral code that is how my parents brought me up and my own experience.

Is God a person then?

Yes, absolutely. As real as you and me. What do the rules say that you are mocking?

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

A typically flippant remark it must be said, what more can we expect from you?

This is true of anything these days, but the comments here begging all sorts of questions over morality, demanding explanations and 'disproving' this or that reveal just one thing. The love of self and our 'ideas' and 'ways' leads to sin and contempt for God.

Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose to new life to take the punishment from us for our wayward behaviour. Only when a person realises that this should be required, however, does this make sense.

Guys, seriously, take a look at the arguments about what Christianity is really all about. I would recommend you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis for a good layman's introduction. It may not change your life. But if it does, that can only be a good thing.

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need

I am not mocking "God".
I am mocking an antiquated set of rules.

What do I use?
I use my own moral code that is how my parents brought me up and my own experience.

Is God a person then?

Yes, absolutely. As real as you and me. What do the rules say that you are mocking?

I am not going to get into a debate here. I was brought up high church - I have been a sunday school teacher and youth leader. So I am well acquainted with the bible and its irregularities.

I do not think god is a person. I think of he/she as an entity. I do have a faith but I do not like the narrow rules inflicted by so called xianity.
I actually have no problems with people following their beliefs - as long as they do not come onto a public forum and try and tell all of us that we are wrong and sinners.
The bible was written a long time ago and has been used to terrorise a lot of people over the centuries. That is wrong IMO.

@Mike - I can quote the bible verbatum...
so please do not assume I know nothing about your religion.

You want to be a Christian - well I actually do respect that.
I do not respect people like Peter Simpson though - they are zealots... and we all know what happened to them :)

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need

I am not mocking "God".
I am mocking an antiquated set of rules.

What do I use?
I use my own moral code that is how my parents brought me up and my own experience.

Is God a person then?

Yes, absolutely. As real as you and me. What do the rules say that you are mocking?

I am not going to get into a debate here. I was brought up high church - I have been a sunday school teacher and youth leader. So I am well acquainted with the bible and its irregularities.

I do not think god is a person. I think of he/she as an entity. I do have a faith but I do not like the narrow rules inflicted by so called xianity.
I actually have no problems with people following their beliefs - as long as they do not come onto a public forum and try and tell all of us that we are wrong and sinners.
The bible was written a long time ago and has been used to terrorise a lot of people over the centuries. That is wrong IMO.

I was brought up a mix of high church and Catholic and then I met Him for myself - completely swept away everything I'd been taught about Him. He's real and He's good. I'm not going to debate either, would be disrespectful to

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need

I am not mocking "God".
I am mocking an antiquated set of rules.

What do I use?
I use my own moral code that is how my parents brought me up and my own experience.

Is God a person then?

Yes, absolutely. As real as you and me. What do the rules say that you are mocking?

I am not going to get into a debate here. I was brought up high church - I have been a sunday school teacher and youth leader. So I am well acquainted with the bible and its irregularities.

I do not think god is a person. I think of he/she as an entity. I do have a faith but I do not like the narrow rules inflicted by so called xianity.
I actually have no problems with people following their beliefs - as long as they do not come onto a public forum and try and tell all of us that we are wrong and sinners.
The bible was written a long time ago and has been used to terrorise a lot of people over the centuries. That is wrong IMO.

I was brought up a mix of high church and Catholic and then I met Him for myself - completely swept away everything I'd been taught about Him. He's real and He's good. I'm not going to debate either, would be disrespectful to

I absolutely respect your beliefs :)

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

demoness the second wrote:
I think it is quite sweet that he believes in fairy tales still.
I also think it is really quite sad that the rev and his ilk need a book to tell them how to live and behave.

Bless.

What do you use then? Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Be careful, you may be mocking the Person you most need

I am not mocking "God".
I am mocking an antiquated set of rules.

What do I use?
I use my own moral code that is how my parents brought me up and my own experience.

Is God a person then?

Yes, absolutely. As real as you and me. What do the rules say that you are mocking?

I am not going to get into a debate here. I was brought up high church - I have been a sunday school teacher and youth leader. So I am well acquainted with the bible and its irregularities.

I do not think god is a person. I think of he/she as an entity. I do have a faith but I do not like the narrow rules inflicted by so called xianity.
I actually have no problems with people following their beliefs - as long as they do not come onto a public forum and try and tell all of us that we are wrong and sinners.
The bible was written a long time ago and has been used to terrorise a lot of people over the centuries. That is wrong IMO.

I was brought up a mix of high church and Catholic and then I met Him for myself - completely swept away everything I'd been taught about Him. He's real and He's good. I'm not going to debate either, would be disrespectful to

I respect you beliefs absolutely too. But if someone is going to write to a local paper stating that the wrongs of this society are entirely because most people do not believe in exactly the way that person believes then they should be prepared for people to disagree strongly with them.

I am prepared to admit that I might be wrong, but people of religious belief would never admit that I might be right!

Most religions preach love, but at the same time practice absolute intolerance towards everyone else who do not live life the way they think they should.

In common with most faiths, christianity has a pretty consistent track record of getting things wrong, all the way from clinging to the Aristotelean picture of the universe to some of the bizarre recent predictions of the armageddon. None of the stuff in between stands up to much objective analysis.
.
Im not sure I have much respect for the beliefs themselves although I respect peoples right to hold them.
.
Can anyone tell me what...
"Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose to new life to take the punishment from us for our wayward behaviour. Only when a person realises that this should be required, however, does this make sense." ...means ?
.
The first sentence is, I believe an axiom of christianity but the second sentence has lost me completely.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
In common with most faiths, christianity has a pretty consistent track record of getting things wrong, all the way from clinging to the Aristotelean picture of the universe to some of the bizarre recent predictions of the armageddon. None of the stuff in between stands up to much objective analysis.
.
Im not sure I have much respect for the beliefs themselves although I respect peoples right to hold them.
.
Can anyone tell me what...
"Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose to new life to take the punishment from us for our wayward behaviour. Only when a person realises that this should be required, however, does this make sense." ...means ?
.
The first sentence is, I believe an axiom of christianity but the second sentence has lost me completely.

It means that if you don't realise that things have eternal consequences and a sacrifice needed to take place, and that Jesus stepped into pay the price of those eternal consequences - basically God's wrath fell on Jesus not us so we could be back in right relationship with Him if we acknowledge what Jesus did for us - then the rest of what the guy said won't make sense. I wouldn't bother too much with people's interpretation over the years, if you've got questions go direct, ask God Himself - I bet He's been waiting to hear from you for ages

Veritad Veritad wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
In common with most faiths, christianity has a pretty consistent track record of getting things wrong, all the way from clinging to the Aristotelean picture of the universe to some of the bizarre recent predictions of the armageddon. None of the stuff in between stands up to much objective analysis.
.
Im not sure I have much respect for the beliefs themselves although I respect peoples right to hold them.
.
Can anyone tell me what...
"Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose to new life to take the punishment from us for our wayward behaviour. Only when a person realises that this should be required, however, does this make sense." ...means ?
.
The first sentence is, I believe an axiom of christianity but the second sentence has lost me completely.

It means that if you don't realise that things have eternal consequences and a sacrifice needed to take place, and that Jesus stepped into pay the price of those eternal consequences - basically God's wrath fell on Jesus not us so we could be back in right relationship with Him if we acknowledge what Jesus did for us - then the rest of what the guy said won't make sense. I wouldn't bother too much with people's interpretation over the years, if you've got questions go direct, ask God Himself - I bet He's been waiting to hear from you for ages

But why the sacrifice? How does that actually change anything?

tom.marlow2 wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
In common with most faiths, christianity has a pretty consistent track record of getting things wrong, all the way from clinging to the Aristotelean picture of the universe to some of the bizarre recent predictions of the armageddon. None of the stuff in between stands up to much objective analysis.
.
Im not sure I have much respect for the beliefs themselves although I respect peoples right to hold them.
.
Can anyone tell me what...
"Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose to new life to take the punishment from us for our wayward behaviour. Only when a person realises that this should be required, however, does this make sense." ...means ?
.
The first sentence is, I believe an axiom of christianity but the second sentence has lost me completely.

It means that if you don't realise that things have eternal consequences and a sacrifice needed to take place, and that Jesus stepped into pay the price of those eternal consequences - basically God's wrath fell on Jesus not us so we could be back in right relationship with Him if we acknowledge what Jesus did for us - then the rest of what the guy said won't make sense. I wouldn't bother too much with people's interpretation over the years, if you've got questions go direct, ask God Himself - I bet He's been waiting to hear from you for ages

But why the sacrifice? How does that actually change anything?

Ok, can we take it as a given that just because someone doesn't believe in God, that doesn't change the fact that He exists, and that is where I'm coming from. Our relationship with Him broke down and over the ages has become more and more forgotten about anyway. The sacrifice that Jesus made back then put an end to the annual sacrifices that people made to get back in good-standing with God. The Jews don't believe that Jesus is Saviour for example so they still observe the Day of Atonement, whereas Christians do believe that and gratefully celebrate Easter because of all that event means

Veritad Veritad wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:

Veritad Veritad wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
In common with most faiths, christianity has a pretty consistent track record of getting things wrong, all the way from clinging to the Aristotelean picture of the universe to some of the bizarre recent predictions of the armageddon. None of the stuff in between stands up to much objective analysis.
.
Im not sure I have much respect for the beliefs themselves although I respect peoples right to hold them.
.
Can anyone tell me what...
"Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose to new life to take the punishment from us for our wayward behaviour. Only when a person realises that this should be required, however, does this make sense." ...means ?
.
The first sentence is, I believe an axiom of christianity but the second sentence has lost me completely.

It means that if you don't realise that things have eternal consequences and a sacrifice needed to take place, and that Jesus stepped into pay the price of those eternal consequences - basically God's wrath fell on Jesus not us so we could be back in right relationship with Him if we acknowledge what Jesus did for us - then the rest of what the guy said won't make sense. I wouldn't bother too much with people's interpretation over the years, if you've got questions go direct, ask God Himself - I bet He's been waiting to hear from you for ages

But why the sacrifice? How does that actually change anything?

Ok, can we take it as a given that just because someone doesn't believe in God, that doesn't change the fact that He exists, and that is where I'm coming from. Our relationship with Him broke down and over the ages has become more and more forgotten about anyway. The sacrifice that Jesus made back then put an end to the annual sacrifices that people made to get back in good-standing with God. The Jews don't believe that Jesus is Saviour for example so they still observe the Day of Atonement, whereas Christians do believe that and gratefully celebrate Easter because of all that event means

Hmm, I think I can see the confusion now. You seem to infer that belief in something translates to some absolute truth. The implication, from the way that you state it, is that anyone who doesn't share your belief is wrong.
.
To me that is a faulty analysis on many levels. The main problem is that from some unsubstantiated predicate like that, you can draw any conclusions you want. Or, to put it more simply, its just sounds like you are making it up as you go along.

Hmm also. Similarly to tom.marlow2 views , it would seem that some folk insist that everybody should believe what was written in centuries' old books of rules and regulations about lifestyles .
.
Books , the contents of which are said to be created via a heavenly being through personal contact and dictation to a very limited number of people. All the history of these incidents are conveniently lost in the mists of time and rationally far beyond any man/woman's recall.
.
These incidents are said to be have been witnessed and reported via just a chosen few So they are totally unprovable - like all myths and fables - therefore likewise cannot be rationally argued against. The celebrated books appear to be the only 'evidence'
.
There was a time when books were full of information about how our Earth was a flat disc and the Sun went round the world as did the stars.
.
If anybody disagreed with these 'facts' they were called heretics and could suffer the fate of at best being ostracized but quite a lot of non-believers were tortured and put to death. All because they didn't believe what the books and their advocates (disciples) said they should believe.
.
There are still some religions today still insisting that the Earth is flat and that anyone who thinks differently should be severely punished. There are none so deaf as those who choose not to hear - throughout history.

Obviously the world is not flat, but is a disc on the back of four elephants which stand on a giant turtle.

I have a whole load of books that tell me this "fact"!

'Ok, can we take it as a given that just because someone doesn't believe in God, that doesn't change the fact that He exists, and that is where I'm coming from.'

To clarify, I, along with some of the other posters, would argue that your 'fact' that God exists is no more a given than the world is flat, or a disc! As I said, I am happy to admit that I may be wrong, religious types will never concede that they may be.

Ha ha ha ha, look if I'm wrong it has no consequence does it, we all end up dust! However, because the claims that Christians make are so outrageous, they must be worth investigating surely. If I am right . . . . . . .

Peter Simpson wrote:
For friends who ask for evidence that animals have no conscience I cite the following:

1) The Bible's teaching that man has an immortal soul, whereas the animals do not.

2) The empirical evidence of how creatures behave across the animal kingdom -they kill their prey, usually smaller than they, for no other reason than that they are hungry. In other words, they do not think through the moral implications of their actions, unlike men, who, made in the image of God, are on a completely higher plane, having the ability to make moral choices.

Yours amicably,
Rev. Peter Simpson

So why do we kill animals? For food, because we are hungry. Only we also kill them for 'fun'. A much worse reason if you ask me.

Also, how do you explain the social behaviour of most more complex animals? Looking after weaker members of a group, mourning their dead, looking after the young of others?

Veritad Veritad wrote:
Ha ha ha ha, look if I'm wrong it has no consequence does it, we all end up dust! However, because the claims that Christians make are so outrageous, they must be worth investigating surely. If I am right . . . . . . .

I'd go to Heaven for the weather, but Hell for the company.

Pascal's Wager
.
There's a good article in wikipedia

I'd aldo wager that without laws carrying punishments for crimes such as murder, they would be much, much more common. Making us 'as bad as animals'. Though you have to wonder, killing another member of the same species is not particularly common amongst animals. Animals also are not draining the resources of this planet like some kind of parasite.

Still, Christianity is working well in Eire and N.I. isn't it? They get on really well.

Oh, and if 'God' created the Earth, who created 'God'? Does 'God' have a 'God'? And should we just bypass 'God' and worship the 'God' of 'God'?

Trip wrote:
Oh, and if 'God' created the Earth, who created 'God'? Does 'God' have a 'God'? And should we just bypass 'God' and worship the 'God' of 'God'?

There is allegedly a different god for each distinct parallel universe.
.
So which one was the first ? And do they argue about it amongst themselves ?
.
It could explain the strange lights and noises in the skies recently. Or was that 'our' god just being upset about the way things are going amongst all the religious people ?
.
Only trying to get to the truth , God. All the different 'Books' you wrote don't make sense to me. Are they all 'true' ? Can you explain that ? Thank you.

Trip wrote:
Oh, and if 'God' created the Earth, who created 'God'? Does 'God' have a 'God'? And should we just bypass 'God' and worship the 'God' of 'God'?

By the same token, what caused the big bang?

"Merely" evolved beasts...? The "vagaries" of natural selection...? A scary dearth of critical analysis going on here... Oh, and incidentally: all animals killed for food - at least in this country - are, in fact, killed for fun (the "fun" of eating their flesh), given that there is absolutely no nutritional need to eat them whatsoever...

OliverW wrote:

Trip wrote:
Oh, and if 'God' created the Earth, who created 'God'? Does 'God' have a 'God'? And should we just bypass 'God' and worship the 'God' of 'God'?

By the same token, what caused the big bang?

The same undeterminable regression

OliverW wrote:

Trip wrote:
Oh, and if 'God' created the Earth, who created 'God'? Does 'God' have a 'God'? And should we just bypass 'God' and worship the 'God' of 'God'?

By the same token, what caused the big bang?

Who knows. But I'm not telling people they should worship the Big Bang. I don't see much point in worshipping some middle-man. It would make more sense to go straight to the top of the chain.

What about worshiping the Big Bang Banjo Band ?
.
Now they are good and spread Happiness, Peace, Harmony and Joy wherever they go. That makes more sense to me.
.
It could be the 'New Religion'. In fact I have just spoken their 'Agent' who told me I should write a book about it - I am mulling that over.
.
Watch this space. All I actually need is some spontaneous generous funding from a few gullible folk. To start with . Thanks a lot.

Trip wrote:

OliverW wrote:

Trip wrote: Oh, and if 'God' created the Earth, who created 'God'? Does 'God' have a 'God'? And should we just bypass 'God' and worship the 'God' of 'God'?

By the same token, what caused the big bang?

Who knows. But I'm not telling people they should worship the Big Bang. I don't see much point in worshipping some middle-man. It would make more sense to go straight to the top of the chain.

I wasn't suggesting anyone worshiped anything, merely providing an opposing view.
People that do impose their views on others severely annoy me, but that isn't to say that all christians impose their views on others, even if they do 'evangelise'.
I think there is a difference between people imposing their views because they judge those who don't believe what they do and those who are just passionate about what they believe and want to tell others, in the same way that one might say "I went to xyz restaurant last week, you really should go, its fantastic".

The article written does make an interesting point irrelavent of whether you believe in a religion of not, despite maybe having some flaws in the auguments used.
In my opinion, there are a many issues with our society, mostly stemmimg from poor up bringing of children for the past few decades. The reasons for this can be put down to many things including some of the points made in this article, but whilst religion no doubt has some influence on what people think is right or wrong, I don't think lack of religion is the only factor.
The issue that I do think relates more strongly to religion is that of when times are hard, what do people do?
I would appear that people who were religious turn to God for support / guidance to help them through the tougher times.
Now that less people believe in religion, they don't feel they have that hope (irrelavent of whether the God the believe in does or doesn't actually exist) of a better future.
This lack of hope, combined with the lack of responsibility and respect, I believe is what contributed most to the riots we saw recently.

Sorry , that is almost as believable as all those religious zealots' utterances who threaten innocent folk with dire consequences if folk don't do as they are told to by one of Their vengeful gods 'representatives'.
.
Every body must conform these people's gods rules and regulations - so they say. Or Else !!!
.
It frightens me, I tell you. Where's it all going to end ?

J B Blackett wrote:
Sorry , that is almost as believable as all those religious zealots' utterances who threaten innocent folk with dire consequences if folk don't do as they are told to by one of Their vengeful gods 'representatives'.
.
Every body must conform these people's gods rules and regulations - so they say. Or Else !!!
.
It frightens me, I tell you. Where's it all going to end ?

Perhaps I'm miss understanding your point, but I don't quite see how what you've said in response follows on from my previous comment.

I agree with you that some religious zealots do try to scare others into their way of thinking, which in my opinion is completely reprehensible. It is also stupid from a 'marketing' point of view as it is potentially damaging their aim to 'spread the word' of which ever religion they purport to represent by alienating the very people they are looking to communicate their 'good news' to.

It is however, not the religious zealots that frighten me.
It is those who cannot objectively look at the information being given to them and make up their own mind about what they believe, that causes me concern.

Nic M, wrote, “I am happy to admit that I may be wrong, religious types will never concede that they may be”. I honour your humility, but, with respect, is it a crime to believe that the truth is the truth? When I, as a Christian minister, encourage people to become Christians, what would be the point of my saying, It does not matter, if Christianity might be false; believe it anyway? Truth can only be truth, if it is exclusive and absolute. Truth which can be undermined by another man’s ‘truth’ is no truth at all.

And it is not Christians who are saying, We are right. It is Christ Himself who claims, “I am the truth”, and the only way (John 14:6). He healed the sick, He raised the dead, He said He Himself would rise from the dead, and then He did. His tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers to stop His body being stolen by any who would try to claim falsely that He rose. The soldiers, however, were powerless against the angel who rolled away the stone in front of the tomb, and by then Christ’s body had already risen through the hard rock of the newly hewn out sepulchre. The first disciples risked their lives by saying that He rose from the dead, but they did so, because they knew that it was true - He had been speaking to them.

Now, the Lord Jesus Christ is either a charlatan and a liar, or He is all that He claimed to be, the personification of all truth, and nothing less than God Himself manifested in the flesh.

I wonder if the atheist/agnostic, and I say this politely, has ever stopped to think how much contemporary philosophical fashion may have conditioned his thinking. Is he really a free thinker, or is he a conformist to the majority view around him? The cast iron grip of evolutionary ideas on many people’s minds has been demonstrated by the strong objections raised to my comment that man is on a higher plane to the beasts and exclusively has a conscience.

What monkey, however, ever produced an oil painting, composed a symphony or wrote a computer program? Man is special, because he is made in God’s image.

Evolution lacks any solid scientific foundation. The fossil record, for example, is without any intermediary links (e.g. reptiles to birds, ape to man) to support it. Fossils of fully developed complex creatures exist in the lowest geological strata, for they, as man, were created from the beginning.

Becoming a Christian in ‘liberal’ 21st century Britain means exposing oneself to much suspicion, derision and even abuse. You regularly get called a bigot etc. for teaching what Christ Himself taught. But if Christ is the truth, if He did rise from the dead, then this truth is the greatest thing to live for.

I am a Christian, because I acknowledge myself to be a sinner in need of God’s mercy (my conscience tells me that). This mercy, which all men need (because they have chosen to rebel against God) is only to be found in Jesus Christ, who is the Saviour to those who repent, but also the Judge of those who do not. Which brings us back to the riots and the need to fear God.

Yours in friendly discussion,
Rev. Peter Simpson.

This is great fun again - fear, souls, sin, hell, guilt, repentance, etc: the whole shebang! Do keep it up! So when do we actually get to put gay people to death by stoning? Was Leviticus just feeling a tad homophobic on that day; or was he perhaps a repressed homosexual himself?

Rev Peter.
That is YOUR absolute truth.
It is not others.
Sadly christianity has done little to endear itself to people over the years and for you to come on here preaching fire and brimstone is not going to help your cause.
I notice you have not answered me directly. Yes I know that I have made some pretty catty points but I would say that out of all the contributors on here I am the one who can see where you are coming from.
Yes I have been there, done that and I completely reject most of the OT and a great deal of the NT as being anything but a way of controlling people. Faith in God has little to do with it.
You atheists can all mock me - I don't care. BUT I do believe that there was a man called Jesus Christ. And I do believe that he was a good man and I think that a lot of what he said made sense.
BUT I reject all the rest of the doggerel. The New testament was written years after JC had died by dodgy witnesses. It is full of politics. It is used as an excuse to keep so called minorities in their place.All that subjugation of women, the dreadful beliefs about gay people , the ridiculous assertion of not drinking alcohol.. that is man made not God made.
IF there is a God then it is one who made this beautiful world and one who would want all people to treat each other well and to love the world he/she gave us.
That is the God I follow and I do not need an antiquated book of words to tell me how to do it. Neither do I need to be shown right or wrong - I know what it is.
You fear your "God" rev -I will treat mine as a loving parent who oversees but does not interfere.
Our life choices are ours... nothing to do with religion.
So just to make it clear.
I am not religious.
I do have a faith.
And there is a difference.

dtap wrote:
This is great fun again - fear, souls, sin, hell, guilt, repentance, etc: the whole shebang! Do keep it up! So when do we actually get to put gay people to death by stoning? Was Leviticus just feeling a tad homophobic on that day; or was he perhaps a repressed homosexual himself?

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=WN-eDbWck
AU

Trip wrote:

dtap wrote: This is great fun again - fear, souls, sin, hell, guilt, repentance, etc: the whole shebang! Do keep it up! So when do we actually get to put gay people to death by stoning? Was Leviticus just feeling a tad homophobic on that day; or was he perhaps a repressed homosexual himself?

http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=WN-eDbWck AU

Shame: my PC was too scared to visit this site...

What monkey, however, ever produced an oil painting, composed a symphony or wrote a computer program? Man is special, because he is made in God’s image.

Evolution lacks any solid scientific foundation. The fossil record, for example, is without any intermediary links (e.g. reptiles to birds, ape to man) to support it. Fossils of fully developed complex creatures exist in the lowest geological strata, for they, as man, were created from the beginning.

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

Strange you should think that, the oldest fossils discovered are of bacteria dating to 3.4 billion years ago. Very complex.

I'd suggest getting up to date with the latest discoveries, rather then relying on criticisms of the fossil record as it was when Darwin wrote his famous book.

How does intelligent design explain junk DNA out of interest?

Funnily enough, a lot of modern abstract art and art drawn by apes looks very similar . . .

dtap wrote:

Trip wrote:

dtap wrote: This is great fun again - fear, souls, sin, hell, guilt, repentance, etc: the whole shebang! Do keep it up! So when do we actually get to put gay people to death by stoning? Was Leviticus just feeling a tad homophobic on that day; or was he perhaps a repressed homosexual himself?

http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=WN-eDbWck AU

Shame: my PC was too scared to visit this site...

wow... just, wow...
.
I've turned up late to this party so I'm going to respond to a couple of posts at once
.
"What monkey, however, ever produced an oil painting, composed a symphony or wrote a computer program?"
.
apes can paint, and can also learn use sign language to converse (albeit in a limited vocabulary) with humans - and anyway, what human wrote a computer program back in Jesus' time?!
.
"Evolution lacks any solid scientific foundation. The fossil record, for example, is without any intermediary links"
.
you can track the evolution of humans back through the ages (such fossils as australopithecus are proof enough for me - and they are much older than the 6000 years that your world has existed for... how far back do you want to go? its been suggested that the humble chicken has most likely descended from something like a velociraptor - you know what? I find that much easier to believe than the existence of a supernatural God), it takes but a cursory glance at the skull of a chimp (and the knowledge that genetically we're 96% identical) for it to be blindingly obvious we have common ancestors. as Professor Dawkins has stated recently:
.
"We need to stop calling evolution a theory. In the ordinary language sense of the word it is a fact. It is as solidly demonstrated as any fact in science."
.
as for intelligence and signs of conscience in other animals? how about we get more abstract than the great apes... take the crow for example; not only can they use tools to get food, but they are also seen to mourn their dead... just because they're not advanced a species as us does not mean they aren't capable of the same emotions
.
oh and finally
.
"Ok, can we take it as a given that just because someone doesn't believe in God, that doesn't change the fact that He exists"
.
no, we can't 'take it as given'... I don't believe in God or Creationism because through what I've learned of the world, I have decided that there is insurmountable evidence for evolution, and *none *for creationism - sorry, but 'some words in a book' are evidence of *nothing*

whoops, I didn't mean to quote that post... sorry dtap!

KentP wrote:
whoops, I didn't mean to quote that post... sorry dtap!

You are absolved!

" I cite as evidence the God-given conscience, which the animals do not possess."

Do you have proof of this...?

If children are taught, however, that they are merely evolved beasts, with no design or purpose to their existence, other than the vagaries of Darwinian natural selection, then it is no wonder that we have ‘feral’ criminality on our streets, as seen in the recent riots.

History supports my contention that the riots were due to the loss of the fear of God.

Rubbish! It is because of a loss of fear in the law thanks to years of left-wing policy trying to pander to criminals and the human rights of those who refuse to participate in society. Children do not need to be taught they are merely 'beasts' but they do need to be taught how to behave in society and the legal consequences should they not do so.

For example, the French historian, Elié Halévy, asks, “Why was it that of all the countries of Europe, England has been the most free from revolutions, violent crises and sudden changes? We have sought in vain to find the explanation by an analysis of her political institutions and economic organisation”. Halévy goes on to state that what made England different was that “the working class, the hard-working and capable bourgeois, had been imbued by the Evangelical Movement” (History of the English People in 1815).

In other words, it was Biblical Christianity which gave ordinary people hope, purpose and moral integrity.

That is just one side of the argument. You cannot make a statement that backs up your view and then say 'This proves I am right...'

Secularism cannot solve the contemporary national malaise, because it is devoid of an absolute moral foundation. For example, it refuses to state that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful. It has therefore encouraged alternative types of family unit, where unruly boys are without proper discipline, because their fathers are not even there.

Nothing to do with religion. All to do with the break down of good society and the move away punishing criminals in place of trying to appease them with community service, soft touch jails and ASBOs

Setting residential flats on fire and throwing petrol bombs at policemen are acts of murderous potential. It would have done the rioters good to know that they will not escape the wrath of God for such wickedness.

It is the wrath of the police and legal system they should be afraid of.

How does the atheist decide what is right? If one atheist disagrees with another, who arbitrates?

Maybe he goes to a Catholic and Protestant Co-Operative Forum for some advice...

Many of the rioters would have come from homes where there was no Christian influence, nor any resemblance to a God-ordained family structure.

Do you have some statistical proof to back up this unsubstantiated generalisation?

And it is not Christians who are saying, We are right. It is Christ Himself who claims, “I am the truth”, and the only way (John 14:6). He healed the sick, He raised the dead, He said He Himself would rise from the dead, and then He did. His tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers to stop His body being stolen by any who would try to claim falsely that He rose.

Evidence? You really cannot just say this book that I believe in says this thus I am right.

HonkHonk wrote:
Evidence? You really cannot just say this book that I believe in says this thus I am right.
you know what they say though... don't let facts get in the way of a good story!

I can see the course of evolution has good evidence, but who's to say whether or not God instigated the evolutionary process, and that man writing the bible wrote it in such a way that people of the time could understand (maybe God simplified the message to write so they could understand). Afterall, if thousands of years ago they wrote about DNA, no-one would understand what they meant.
Ultimately, If someone chooses to believe in God and creation, that's their choice. They may be wasting some of their life if they're wrong, but would have lived by good morals. But what if they are correct about God......

And before someone says it, yes non religious people can also have good morals.

"What monkey, however, ever produced an oil painting, composed a symphony or wrote a computer program?"

I would just like to say that I have a painting at home that was painted by a sealion. It is framed and on my wall.

"What monkey, however, ever produced an oil painting, composed a symphony or wrote a computer program?"

I would just like to say that I have a painting at home that was painted by a sealion. It is framed and on my wall.

I can see the course of evolution has good evidence, but who's to say whether or not God instigated the evolutionary process, and that man writing the bible wrote it in such a way that people of the time could understand
so, God's created this confusion deliberately because he knows that some people aren't capable of comprehending that they are distantly related to chimpanzees?
.
you know, as an all-powerful creator, he's not giving his creations (who remember, are made in his image) a whole lot of credit there is he?!

I can see the course of evolution has good evidence, but who's to say whether or not God instigated the evolutionary process, and that man writing the bible wrote it in such a way that people of the time could understand

so, God's created this confusion deliberately because he knows that some people aren't capable of comprehending that they are distantly related to chimpanzees? . you know, as an all-powerful creator, he's not giving his creations (who remember, are made in his image) a whole lot of credit there is he?!

I think the Rev. Simpson should be employed here instead - or at least as well as - "ivor". Sorry, "ivor", but this is all much more entertaining (and terrifying: what is more scary, vicious retribution meted out by secular law - as suggested by HonkHonk - or the vengeful wrath of the Old Testament`s desert-god?). Phew...

dtap wrote:
I think the Rev. Simpson should be employed here instead - or at least as well as - "ivor". Sorry, "ivor", but this is all much more entertaining (and terrifying: what is more scary, vicious retribution meted out by secular law - as suggested by HonkHonk - or the vengeful wrath of the Old Testament`s desert-god?). Phew...

agreed... though as much as I love debating theology, a lot of the debates end up treading very similar ground (I'm a veteran of the IMDb boards (from back when they used to be good), and the 'soapbox' board used to have new-but-the-same religious debates almost hourly) - almost every one would descend into 'but the bible says this...'; 'yeah but science says this...', etc
.
hmm, a quick look reveals the IMDb boards now have a separate board for religious discussion - what trailblazers we were :o)

If 'God' started evolution, we can't be created in his image. Unless 'God's' physical characteristics are the product of evolution . . .

Trip wrote:
If 'God' started evolution, we can't be created in his image. Unless 'God's' physical characteristics are the product of evolution . . .

maybe god's natural state is a pile of primordial goo?

When I was a child, and believed in fairy stories, I used to imagine God wore a green robe and had short black hair and a black beard. Like Gerry Adams without the glasses.

In reading the above posts I cannot help noticing that Rev. Peter Simpson always writes in a courteous way whereas most of those who disagree with him (which they have a perfect right to do) write in a harsh or mocking way. It seems to me that his faith produces better results than the atheistic words directed against him.
But this is no surprise to a bible believing Christian for the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2:14 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'
I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?
Perhaps those who comment could address the last question.

"atheistic philosophies" is a completely nonsense concept to be honest with you - all 'being an atheist' means is that we don't believe in a god, or gods... that's basically it...
.
you should look up secular humanism, which tends to be the branch of philosophy that atheists frequently adhere to

Mick Harris wrote:
In reading the above posts I cannot help noticing that Rev. Peter Simpson always writes in a courteous way whereas most of those who disagree with him (which they have a perfect right to do) write in a harsh or mocking way. It seems to me that his faith produces better results than the atheistic words directed against him. But this is no surprise to a bible believing Christian for the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2:14 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies? Perhaps those who comment could address the last question.

I do agree with you. I was also guessing, that because of his role as a pastor, he is probably used to it sadly. It's been wonderful reading the beautiful truths in his responses though

I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?

So are you implying that as a non-believer I should be compared with racists, gang members, drug addicts and criminals?

I have never stolen, I have never committed a crime or hurt another person or animal and yet I have never been to church or read the bible. How does that work?

HonkHonk wrote:
I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?

So are you implying that as a non-believer I should be compared with racists, gang members, drug addicts and criminals?

I have never stolen, I have never committed a crime or hurt another person or animal and yet I have never been to church or read the bible. How does that work?

I almost complained about this comparison too HH, but you know, turn the other cheek and all that...

HonkHonk wrote:
When I was a child, and believed in fairy stories, I used to imagine God wore a green robe and had short black hair and a black beard. Like Gerry Adams without the glasses.

Awesome ! And then some.

KentP wrote:

HonkHonk wrote:
I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?

So are you implying that as a non-believer I should be compared with racists, gang members, drug addicts and criminals?

I have never stolen, I have never committed a crime or hurt another person or animal and yet I have never been to church or read the bible. How does that work?

I almost complained about this comparison too HH, but you know, turn the other cheek and all that...

Yes - but poor advice. I think a Jewish bloke originally suggested that. It didn't get him anywhere though
.
In fact he was severely put to death for saying it at the time.

HonkHonk wrote:
I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies? So are you implying that as a non-believer I should be compared with racists, gang members, drug addicts and criminals? I have never stolen, I have never committed a crime or hurt another person or animal and yet I have never been to church or read the bible. How does that work?

Some people only listen to what they want to hear.
Why take what someone says as a personal insult, missing the "as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion" part.

I don't think that my answers were particularly discourteous and yet Mick was quite rude to me.
I notice that my longer posting has been ignored as well by the pro bible folk.:)

And what about we folk who don't believe in anything at all including atheism.
.
Everybody just ignores us. Why can't we be persecuted and despised like everybody else claims to be.
.
It's very unfair and discriminatory in my extremely humble opinion. Thank you.

J B Blackett wrote:
And what about we folk who don't believe in anything at all including atheism. . Everybody just ignores us. Why can't we be persecuted and despised like everybody else claims to be. . It's very unfair and discriminatory in my extremely humble opinion. Thank you.

Nice one

J B Blackett wrote:
And what about we folk who don't believe in anything at all including atheism. . Everybody just ignores us. Why can't we be persecuted and despised like everybody else claims to be. . It's very unfair and discriminatory in my extremely humble opinion. Thank you.

I`m convinced that invisible gay unicorns guide our destiny; I also demand persecution. Seriously, though, you have a good point: it`s not about "religion vs. atheism", it`s about having the humility to admit that we know nothing. At that point, we can make a start...

I agree (but not about the unicorns of course). But the human race never gets to that point - it appears to retreat on approach like the end of an enticing colourful rainbow.
.
The unmentionables in pursuit of the unattainable ? Still if we knew everything - 'we' would be 'God' wouldn't we ?
.
I personally could not cope with that (even if I was 'God'). However some politicians , religious leaders and financial experts might find it easier as they claim to be halfway there to being gods anyway. And they all have 'given books' or have written them on the topic , haven't they.
.
What more could one wish for - to be rule over by such people one day. Is it coming soon ? Will it be called Judgement Day ? That's something to look forward to , is it not ?

demoness the second wrote:

Lawrence Linehan wrote:

demoness the second wrote: Bring back Zeus - that's what I say :)

And throw the Christians to the lions in the Colosseum!

Yes!!! Ah the greek gods - there was glory! Are we all playing here now BTW? ;)

No - this can only be meant seriously.

Our Mr Simpson stays courteous but faces barrages of abuse and derision. He gets comfort from his faith but I do wonder what really convinces him to cling rock steady to that faith. Has an angel come down to convince him, has someone done a miracle before him? He just believes the words of a very, very old book which in some parts has some very odd statements and sentiments.
So much evil in this world, so much sadness. God didn't intervene in World War One's trenches, the other horrors of WW2 concentration camps, the persecution of millions for their religion, the continuing famines, disasters and little personal things like the death of a young innocent child.
So many faiths in this world. Which one is the right one? What convinces him he's backing the right one? Can he convince us? Is he in the correct strand of very fractured christianity, or should be be another sort of Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Unitarian to name just a few? Should we be Jews or Muslims to go to the promised land?
So much pomp and wealth in many churches and religions cause so much strife and bloodshed too as they clash. Religions can be dangerous!
I think it's best to lead a straight, decent life helping others and animals and then await developments, if any, after death!! I get some strength and some contentment by just doing that.

You are a true pilgrim. Absolutely.

Scarletto wrote:
Our Mr Simpson stays courteous but faces barrages of abuse and derision. He gets comfort from his faith but I do wonder what really convinces him to cling rock steady to that faith. Has an angel come down to convince him, has someone done a miracle before him? He just believes the words of a very, very old book which in some parts has some very odd statements and sentiments.
So much evil in this world, so much sadness. God didn't intervene in World War One's trenches, the other horrors of WW2 concentration camps, the persecution of millions for their religion, the continuing famines, disasters and little personal things like the death of a young innocent child.
So many faiths in this world. Which one is the right one? What convinces him he's backing the right one? Can he convince us? Is he in the correct strand of very fractured christianity, or should be be another sort of Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Unitarian to name just a few? Should we be Jews or Muslims to go to the promised land?
So much pomp and wealth in many churches and religions cause so much strife and bloodshed too as they clash. Religions can be dangerous!
I think it's best to lead a straight, decent life helping others and animals and then await developments, if any, after death!! I get some strength and some contentment by just doing that.

Thank you for this Scarletto. It is the conclusion that I came to a long time ago.
.
I am spiritual but it is a deep personal thing that I will not share. And it is completely apart from the rhetoric that so many religions preach.

Scarletto wrote:
Our Mr Simpson stays courteous but faces barrages of abuse and derision. He gets comfort from his faith but I do wonder what really convinces him to cling rock steady to that faith. Has an angel come down to convince him, has someone done a miracle before him? He just believes the words of a very, very old book which in some parts has some very odd statements and sentiments. So much evil in this world, so much sadness. God didn't intervene in World War One's trenches, the other horrors of WW2 concentration camps, the persecution of millions for their religion, the continuing famines, disasters and little personal things like the death of a young innocent child. So many faiths in this world. Which one is the right one? What convinces him he's backing the right one? Can he convince us? Is he in the correct strand of very fractured christianity, or should be be another sort of Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Unitarian to name just a few? Should we be Jews or Muslims to go to the promised land? So much pomp and wealth in many churches and religions cause so much strife and bloodshed too as they clash. Religions can be dangerous! I think it's best to lead a straight, decent life helping others and animals and then await developments, if any, after death!! I get some strength and some contentment by just doing that.

Beautifully put!
.
If people want to believe in a god, in any form, that's up to them. Personally I believe in something but I don't think it's god, perhaps it's mother nature or just an innate goodness in some people.
.
I just can't quite get my head around an all powerful being who allows children to die and other's to kill in the name of their religion. I also can't quite understand how because I lived in sin with my then boyfriend for 2 years before we married I'm some morally bankrupt individual.
.
Ho hum each to their own.

Scarletto wrote:
Our Mr Simpson stays courteous but faces barrages of abuse and derision. He gets comfort from his faith but I do wonder what really convinces him to cling rock steady to that faith. Has an angel come down to convince him, has someone done a miracle before him? He just believes the words of a very, very old book which in some parts has some very odd statements and sentiments.
So much evil in this world, so much sadness. God didn't intervene in World War One's trenches, the other horrors of WW2 concentration camps, the persecution of millions for their religion, the continuing famines, disasters and little personal things like the death of a young innocent child.
So many faiths in this world. Which one is the right one? What convinces him he's backing the right one? Can he convince us? Is he in the correct strand of very fractured christianity, or should be be another sort of Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Unitarian to name just a few? Should we be Jews or Muslims to go to the promised land?
So much pomp and wealth in many churches and religions cause so much strife and bloodshed too as they clash. Religions can be dangerous!
I think it's best to lead a straight, decent life helping others and animals and then await developments, if any, after death!! I get some strength and some contentment by just doing that.

Scarletto that sums it up brilliantly. The religious types should read your words and then compare them to the Rev.Simpson's and then wonder who is the truly good person. With very best wishes.

Mick Harris wrote:
In reading the above posts I cannot help noticing that Rev. Peter Simpson always writes in a courteous way whereas most of those who disagree with him (which they have a perfect right to do) write in a harsh or mocking way. It seems to me that his faith produces better results than the atheistic words directed against him.
But this is no surprise to a bible believing Christian for the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2:14 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'
I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?
Perhaps those who comment could address the last question.

I love how atheists are thrown in the same collection along with rapists and drunkards! Err no! Rape is a crime, and excessive drinking is dangerous, atheism is not.
-
If there was solid proof that God existed, there wouldn't be many atheists. Not derived proof, not interpreted proof, not Bible proof: plain and simple proof. I mean all God would need to do is make a Christmas broadcast like the Queen and everyone would be happy! It is his son's birthday after all.

Well,

Man of Action... Tonight I am Woman of Action.

I had a look online and it is incredibly easy to make a message board.

So if anyone wants to have some Bucks debate and banter about news and stuff then...

http://bucksbanter.p

roboards.com/index.c

gi

Hope to see some of you, can add more categories or change things over time if people want it to work.

I wonder why some have thought that I implied that atheists were drunkards, rapists (actually I wrote racists) etc. I did mention the conversion of some who held those views or lived in a particular way but I also said - as some have pointed out - 'a host of ordinary people who had not previously thought religion could have any part in their lives."
I have friends who are atheists and we discuss sometimes but generally agree to differ and maintain our friendship.
I did conclude with a question wondering whether becoming an atheist has transformed lives that some would think were beyond hope.
The gospel has done that countless times.

I do know several people whose circumstances and relationships have been wrecked and ruined after 'discovering' certain religions.
.
Before that happened to them , they had led fairly pleasant and rather happy useful lives with an agnostic / atheistic approach to life.
.
???
You were saying .....

Mick Harris wrote:
I wonder why some have thought that I implied that atheists were drunkards, rapists (actually I wrote racists) etc. I did mention the conversion of some who held those views or lived in a particular way but I also said - as some have pointed out - 'a host of ordinary people who had not previously thought religion could have any part in their lives."
I have friends who are atheists and we discuss sometimes but generally agree to differ and maintain our friendship.
I did conclude with a question wondering whether becoming an atheist has transformed lives that some would think were beyond hope.
The gospel has done that countless times.

Hey, don't worry. . . . . . . . has blinded the minds of the unbelievers. Been interesting though eh?!?

Mick Harris wrote:
I wonder why some have thought that I implied that atheists were drunkards, rapists (actually I wrote racists) etc. I did mention the conversion of some who held those views or lived in a particular way but I also said - as some have pointed out - 'a host of ordinary people who had not previously thought religion could have any part in their lives."
I have friends who are atheists and we discuss sometimes but generally agree to differ and maintain our friendship.
I did conclude with a question wondering whether becoming an atheist has transformed lives that some would think were beyond hope.
The gospel has done that countless times.

My mistake, but rapists or racists, my point remains unaltered. You talk of those ordinary non-religious people as though they are missing something in their lives, as though they are worse off.
-
And to be honest if Christain Aid gives out soup to the homeless (commendable), I think the homeless are more grateful for the soup than the religion.

Mick Harris wrote:
In reading the above posts I cannot help noticing that Rev. Peter Simpson always writes in a courteous way whereas most of those who disagree with him (which they have a perfect right to do) write in a harsh or mocking way. It seems to me that his faith produces better results than the atheistic words directed against him.
But this is no surprise to a bible believing Christian for the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2:14 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'
I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?
Perhaps those who comment could address the last question.

Interestingly only one of the top 25 biggest spending charities in the UK has anything to do with religion, and that's Church Commissioners for England.

Their role is "Financial support for the ministry of the Church of England, particularly in areas of need and opportunity. Also, the provision of central services required by the Church in areas such as clergy housing, pastoral reorganisation, redundant churches and the stipends and pensions payroll"

That last section sounds very helpful to society in general :)

It`s certainly always fascinating to have a glimpse of the pre-Darwinian mindset: for over 1,600 years, our culture has been dominated by this strange Middle-Eastern cult of the supernatural, culminating today in 28,000 or so differing versions of it; many of which, of course, despise each other violently. And it`s this entrenched fear and hatred (of gays, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, take your pick - whoever`s on the "outside" ), thinly glossed over with conventional courtesy, which still sends a shiver down the spine. Many self-professed Christians would do well to heed some of the fine advice given in the Sermon on the Mount, and heed less the vicious admonitions of Jahweh, the spiteful desert-god of the Old Testament.

NicM wrote:
Dear Rev. Simpson Please explain to me why, as an atheist, you consider that I have no morals? Why do religious people think that they have a monopoly on morality? And I can show you families where there is a father in residence where the sons are encouraged to drink, take drugs, beat women etc. because the father thinks it is OK. Conversely there are families that grow up with no father where the children grow up to be a valuable member of society.

Hi NicM,
I find it most interesting when atheists start talking about morals.

Atheists invariably base their worldview on an acceptance of evolution.

If evolution were true then there is no such thing as absolute morality. Right and wrong are just (potentially helpful) human constructs.

Beliefs about right and wrong are just arbitrary personal opinion. In fact not even opinions really, since our thoughts are not free thoughts, they are simply caused by chemical reactions, which are the result of millions of years of chance.

You cannot know that your thoughts and morality are in any sense 'correct'. They just are. To believe in evolution and criticise someone else for having a different opinion to your own is pretty silly. If my view is different to yours it is not my fault, or my choice, and more than your view is your choice. It is just how the chemicals in our brain happen to work.

If evolution were true then morality and free will are illusions.

Therefore the evolutionist has no *rational* basis for objecting to me taking their belongings. If my 'morality; says it's ok to take their things, and their 'morality' says that theft is wrong, then who's to say who is right? There is no objective measure to judge.

Yet evolutionists do agree that certain things are wrong (murder, theft, etc). And they do accept that they have free will and can have personal opinions, in a real sense.

In accepting that some things are wrong they are borrowing the concept of morality from the Bible. (Or should that be stealing rather than borrowing!)

J B Blackett wrote:
Hmm also. Similarly to tom.marlow2 views , it would seem that some folk insist that everybody should believe what was written in centuries' old books of rules and regulations about lifestyles . . Books , the contents of which are said to be created via a heavenly being through personal contact and dictation to a very limited number of people. All the history of these incidents are conveniently lost in the mists of time and rationally far beyond any man/woman's recall. . These incidents are said to be have been witnessed and reported via just a chosen few So they are totally unprovable - like all myths and fables - therefore likewise cannot be rationally argued against. The celebrated books appear to be the only 'evidence' . There was a time when books were full of information about how our Earth was a flat disc and the Sun went round the world as did the stars. . If anybody disagreed with these 'facts' they were called heretics and could suffer the fate of at best being ostracized but quite a lot of non-believers were tortured and put to death. All because they didn't believe what the books and their advocates (disciples) said they should believe. . There are still some religions today still insisting that the Earth is flat and that anyone who thinks differently should be severely punished. There are none so deaf as those who choose not to hear - throughout history.

You are mistaken about the flat earth idea.

Noone has ever seriously advocated that the earth is flat - least of all Christians. The Bible teaches that the earth is spherical and rotates on its axis. Jews and Christians have always believed this.

The flat earth idea has been promoted by anti-Christians.

In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.

The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.

In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.

Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.

Chaschas wrote:

NicM wrote:
Dear Rev. Simpson Please explain to me why, as an atheist, you consider that I have no morals? Why do religious people think that they have a monopoly on morality? And I can show you families where there is a father in residence where the sons are encouraged to drink, take drugs, beat women etc. because the father thinks it is OK. Conversely there are families that grow up with no father where the children grow up to be a valuable member of society.

Hi NicM,
I find it most interesting when atheists start talking about morals.

Atheists invariably base their worldview on an acceptance of evolution.

If evolution were true then there is no such thing as absolute morality. Right and wrong are just (potentially helpful) human constructs.

Beliefs about right and wrong are just arbitrary personal opinion. In fact not even opinions really, since our thoughts are not free thoughts, they are simply caused by chemical reactions, which are the result of millions of years of chance.

You cannot know that your thoughts and morality are in any sense 'correct'. They just are. To believe in evolution and criticise someone else for having a different opinion to your own is pretty silly. If my view is different to yours it is not my fault, or my choice, and more than your view is your choice. It is just how the chemicals in our brain happen to work.

If evolution were true then morality and free will are illusions.

Therefore the evolutionist has no *rational* basis for objecting to me taking their belongings. If my 'morality; says it's ok to take their things, and their 'morality' says that theft is wrong, then who's to say who is right? There is no objective measure to judge.

Yet evolutionists do agree that certain things are wrong (murder, theft, etc). And they do accept that they have free will and can have personal opinions, in a real sense.

In accepting that some things are wrong they are borrowing the concept of morality from the Bible. (Or should that be stealing rather than borrowing!)

since when did the bible hold a monopoly on morals?
.
is this the same bible that preaches homophobia and genocide, from an angry, jealous god?
.
I don't doubt that the bible (and any other religious text anyone might select to follow) also preaches some fairly good humanist values, but we evolved culturally as well as genetically into the civilized society that you live in today

Chaschas wrote:

J B Blackett wrote:
Hmm also. Similarly to tom.marlow2 views , it would seem that some folk insist that everybody should believe what was written in centuries' old books of rules and regulations about lifestyles . . Books , the contents of which are said to be created via a heavenly being through personal contact and dictation to a very limited number of people. All the history of these incidents are conveniently lost in the mists of time and rationally far beyond any man/woman's recall. . These incidents are said to be have been witnessed and reported via just a chosen few So they are totally unprovable - like all myths and fables - therefore likewise cannot be rationally argued against. The celebrated books appear to be the only 'evidence' . There was a time when books were full of information about how our Earth was a flat disc and the Sun went round the world as did the stars. . If anybody disagreed with these 'facts' they were called heretics and could suffer the fate of at best being ostracized but quite a lot of non-believers were tortured and put to death. All because they didn't believe what the books and their advocates (disciples) said they should believe. . There are still some religions today still insisting that the Earth is flat and that anyone who thinks differently should be severely punished. There are none so deaf as those who choose not to hear - throughout history.

You are mistaken about the flat earth idea.

Noone has ever seriously advocated that the earth is flat - least of all Christians. The Bible teaches that the earth is spherical and rotates on its axis. Jews and Christians have always believed this.

The flat earth idea has been promoted by anti-Christians.

In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.

The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.

In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.

Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.

With respect , I would like to point out to you several religions / cults including Christian ones that even in these days still believe and advocate / promote the Flat Earth theory.
.
There is evidence and proof of these beliefs all around if to care to look or do the research. If you choose not to look and deny it - well that's your decision / choice.
.
And since when have Jews and Christians allows believed in the Copernican theory of the solar system never mind the Universe ?
.
It wasn't until the 16th century that books were written and people began tothink about the fact that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Even Copernicus himself said that the Sun was the centre of the universe.
.
Most of the main religions before this time preached and wrote that the Earth WAS the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it - it's in the Bible by the way.
.
So if you choose to ignore those historic facts you are therefore acting similar to the Flat-Earthers were and are.
.
We will conveniently put to one side the history about all the people of various religions who were punished or tortured or put to death for being 'heretics in the meantime.
.
It's not just Christian sects that persist in the Flat Earth theory BTW , but to claim that Christians have always rejected that theory and the Bible (Old Testament and New) does , is in denial about the actual historic facts and obvious evidence.
.
If you believe and say otherwise you are doing yourself and your religion no favours. And I mean that sincerely

Mick Harris wrote:
In reading the above posts I cannot help noticing that Rev. Peter Simpson always writes in a courteous way whereas most of those who disagree with him (which they have a perfect right to do) write in a harsh or mocking way. It seems to me that his faith produces better results than the atheistic words directed against him.
But this is no surprise to a bible believing Christian for the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2:14 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'
I am now retired but was in the Christian ministry for over 50 years and have seen many lives transformed (from atheists, drunkards, racists, gang members as well as a host of ordinary people who previously had no interest in religion). After many years I am still in contact with many of them and their lives today show that their conversion was not a five minute wonder. What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?
Perhaps those who comment could address the last question.

'What are the fruits of atheistic philosophies?' Atheists are atheists because they would be living a lie to do otherwise - they don't do it with 'fruits' in mind - they do it because they cannot believe there is a god. When his son Noel died, T.H. Huxley was offered consolation in Christ by Charles Kingsley who was his friend and an Anglican priest – Huxley said that to him ‘truth was more precious than gold’ (I am quoting from memory) and he also said that as he knelt beside his son’s coffin he felt as if there was a devil sitting on it laughing at him.
....
While we are on the subject of fruits I would say can you deny that the ‘fruits’ of Christian belief are sometimes bitter fruits as well?

Chaschas wrote:

NicM wrote:
Dear Rev. Simpson Please explain to me why, as an atheist, you consider that I have no morals? Why do religious people think that they have a monopoly on morality? And I can show you families where there is a father in residence where the sons are encouraged to drink, take drugs, beat women etc. because the father thinks it is OK. Conversely there are families that grow up with no father where the children grow up to be a valuable member of society.

Hi NicM,
I find it most interesting when atheists start talking about morals.

Atheists invariably base their worldview on an acceptance of evolution.

If evolution were true then there is no such thing as absolute morality. Right and wrong are just (potentially helpful) human constructs.

Beliefs about right and wrong are just arbitrary personal opinion. In fact not even opinions really, since our thoughts are not free thoughts, they are simply caused by chemical reactions, which are the result of millions of years of chance.

You cannot know that your thoughts and morality are in any sense 'correct'. They just are. To believe in evolution and criticise someone else for having a different opinion to your own is pretty silly. If my view is different to yours it is not my fault, or my choice, and more than your view is your choice. It is just how the chemicals in our brain happen to work.

If evolution were true then morality and free will are illusions.

Therefore the evolutionist has no *rational* basis for objecting to me taking their belongings. If my 'morality; says it's ok to take their things, and their 'morality' says that theft is wrong, then who's to say who is right? There is no objective measure to judge.

Yet evolutionists do agree that certain things are wrong (murder, theft, etc). And they do accept that they have free will and can have personal opinions, in a real sense.

In accepting that some things are wrong they are borrowing the concept of morality from the Bible. (Or should that be stealing rather than borrowing!)

I find it interesting when clergymen start glossing evolution.
.....
If evolution were true then there is no such thing as absolute morality. Right and wrong are just (potentially helpful) human constructs.
/
Yes
......
Beliefs about right and wrong are just arbitrary personal opinion.
/
Yes
......
In fact not even opinions really, since our thoughts are not free thoughts, they are simply caused by chemical reactions, which are the result of millions of years of chance.

/
No – our opinions are the result of rational consideration of whether not there is a god. The millions of years of chance have accidentally produced animals of all sorts that are the best-equipped to survive and to pass on their genes.
......

You cannot know that your thoughts and morality are in any sense 'correct'. They just are.
/
No – scepticism is the result of rational deliberation – it is the believers in god who just are correct ‘by faith’. We sceptics may be mistaken but our views are soundly based in reason and we hold them in good faith for that reason.
......
To believe in evolution and criticise someone else for having a different opinion to your own is pretty silly.
/
Well if you disagree with someone you criticise their views - you’re criticising atheists and atheism aren’t you - is that silly?
......
If my view is different to yours it is not my fault, or my choice, and more than your view is your choice.
/
What does that MEAN?
......
It is just how the chemicals in our brain happen to work.
/
No – it is the result of detached and rational deliberation (detached and more rational in the case of atheists).
......

If evolution were true then morality and free will are illusions.

/
Morality is a human concept that is useful to people and some kinds of morality are more useful than others. Free will in the choosing of sexual partners or the rearing of children or lie and death choices are a prt of evolution.
......
Therefore the evolutionist has no *rational* basis for objecting to me taking their belongings. If my 'morality; says it's ok to take their things, and their 'morality' says that theft is wrong, then who's to say who is right? There is no objective measure to judge.
See my last point – if your morality leads you to do this then my morality may lead me to resist you – all explicable in Darwinian terms and Christianity is not an ‘objective measure to judge ’ morality by – otherwise why would Christians disagree with each other and why do Christians sin?

......
Yet evolutionists do agree that certain things are wrong (murder, theft, etc). And they do accept that they have free will and can have personal opinions, in a real sense.
/
See my last two points.
......
In accepting that some things are wrong they are borrowing the concept of morality from the Bible. (Or should that be stealing rather than borrowing!)
/
In accepting some things are wrong they are behaving reasonably in a fashion independent of the Bible.