Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


It's simple really. If you believe your religion, or lack there of, is the one true one, then you shouldn't have to force anything on anyone. Clearly truth always wins. So if you are true to what you believe, don't block anyone. When Muslim nations black Christian religions, it's a sign they don't have faith in their way. When Christian people do the same, it is true as well. And when atheists try to block out religion in general, than they must not really be atheists. because something in them moves them to desire more than just there supposedly true words to force something.

In the end, if you have to force anything, it's a sign of no self confidence and lack of belief in what you publicly say is true.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


Although I am now an atheist, I had to go to church every Sunday as a child, up until I was 18 in fact. Even though I had told my mum I was an atheist she would still force me. I used to "walk down the road to church" but in actual fact I'd go to my mates house for an hour. Anyway, when I was younger I used to deny going to church, because I'd get the p*ss ripped out of me in school. The funny thing was the people taking the p*ss out of me were catholics too, now they still are and I'm not.

It's not really talked about to be honest. No one really talks about the whole religion aspect because it's perceived as boring.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 





Who cares what people choose to wear? It is none of my business. I am liberal like that. If any Xtian offered to pray for me I would offer a polite "no thanks".


There was more to the discussion than simply what someone chose to wear, as I recall it was a matter of employee dictating to the employer and making demands of reverence to religious freedoms.

The praying nurse had been harassing people and that's how that one got all worked up.

At the end of the day all the case were lost at tribunal leading to the obvious conclusion that there is a deliberate attempt by "some" to control others by demanding reverence to a particular belief probably we'll have a few more in time.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
It sounds a bit like an Alex Jones-ish claim to me...



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


When I wrote "who cares"... I was being rhetorical which was my bad. I was trying to insert my liberla views and juxtapose them against how some people get steamed up about Xtians.
Life is too short for for me to get involved and steamed about Crosses worn so it is not in my name. I am simply not offended.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


I can sort of relate. Lots of Catholics are kind of like modern Jews. It's cultural, not religious. Which is sad really.

I too became an atheist due to the hypocracy in the American Catholic School System. But soon after decided that the hypocracy of man does not reflect the truth of God. ultimately I became Catholic in title, Christian in nature. More or less a protestant Catholic in my own ways. I am devout to my faith but protest the hypocracy in the men who lead it.

I think you should realize that just because men are dumb, doesn't mean God is.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by The Djin
 


Although I am now an atheist, I had to go to church every Sunday as a child, up until I was 18 in fact. Even though I had told my mum I was an atheist she would still force me. I used to "walk down the road to church" but in actual fact I'd go to my mates house for an hour. Anyway, when I was younger I used to deny going to church, because I'd get the p*ss ripped out of me in school. The funny thing was the people taking the p*ss out of me were catholics too, now they still are and I'm not.

It's not really talked about to be honest. No one really talks about the whole religion aspect because it's perceived as boring.


Relgionists sadly will not entertain the thought of really thinking about your childhood which I'm sure millions across the UK at least would empathize with.

They completely fail or refuse to see that their religion is doomed, there is a saying - " A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

If you want somebody do want something simply take it away from them you don't have to shove it down their throats.

A couple of hundred years ago people lacked the knowledge (science) we have now, so kids had no reason not to believe the earth was flat or a man lived inside a fish. Coupled with the fact that christianity had the monopoly on what was true we're lucky to have got out of the dark ages thank god for horny kings.

We now have other better answers for the questions that used to privately trouble our minds but sadly some still choose to rationalize them away but troubled minds lead to troubled societies, The most relgious societies on earth just so happen to be the most violent why this doe not scare the crap oput of christians is beyond me.


.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["Clearly truth always wins."]

Possibly; but how is that statement justified, what's the measuretape? As a counterpoint, it's similarly also 'said' that victors write history.

In any case it took almost two thousand years to sort out the elitist-extremist-christian catastrophe (and it's not quite over yet), so it's understandable if the victims of it didn't have the stoic patience your suggestion implies, but wanted to find quicker answers.

Quote: ["When Muslim nations black Christian religions, it's a sign they don't have faith in their way. When Christian people do the same, it is true as well. And when atheists try to block out religion in general, than they must not really be atheists. because something in them moves them to desire more than just there supposedly true words to force something."]

Aaaah, the 'insecurity' argument. Haven't seen it for a while, and I must admit, that your version is far better than the standard one. But it can only be carried so far; opposing the practically manifestations of nazism can e.g. hardly be a sign of insecurity; rather the opposite considering the risks involved.

Getting something in through the backdoor, as e.g. putting up scenarios in black/white and say: "These are the only options" doesn't give credibility or confidence. It only gives the impression of sneakiness.

There are elements of 'freedom from' and 'freedom to', rights and responsibilities, and when liberal society allows and bestows egalitarian 'tolerance', this doesn't mean that palace-revolutions is an implicit and unavoidable part of the system. At one point society will say: Stop, not further.

Similar principles are appliable at the individual level (though without the collective power of society behind it), and while a lot of: "They did it first" will take place, it's really very simple to cut this kind of ideological conflicts down to claims of/for special privileges.

So there's no need to bring pop-Freudianism into this. Some people are just power-crazed (missionary extremists) and methodologies involving their early potty-training won't stop them. Only an adequate amount of pushing back.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I think you may have misunderstood me, sorry. I'm not very good with the way I type things. The reason I became atheist was because I grew older I started to specialise in science in 6th form, college and now university. My knowledge of science increased and as a result my belief in the supernatural decreased. I was always like that though, as a child I always wanted to know how things worked and wanted to find the answer to everything
edit on 17/1/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Not replying to anyone in particular on this thread, but my general thought on the subject is that Christians were the result of invasion and not a very natural religion for the British Isles. The people are merely transitioning away from what was forced upon them centuries ago - some back to the old ideas and some to a more science based modernity of religious thought (or lack thereof - agnostic / atheist)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Still not that far off from me. I just don't think God or any of that stuff physically can be quantifiable. People here who talk about ghosts and electrical energy and what not always annoy me. If the soul is a physical quantifiable entity, then it can be manipulated. Ok then, what happens when one gets stuck in a black hole? OH SHI... See? That makes no sense. My belief is things beyond concrete scientific matters is that they are not really able to exist here. Ghosts don't exist. Reincarnation doesn't exist, and most of that bullplop does not exist. That's why I returned to my faith. Christianity seemed to be the only religion out there saying that there is a separation between the two existences. That there is a gap.

That said I am a literalist for the Bible, but in a very unconventional way. Obviously if God has unlimited power, then he can go right ahead and make Noah's ark bigger inside than outside, or create the universe in 7 days but it still being 15 billion years to our observations. That later one I think is kind of like Doctor Who how the Doctor who series explains it:

Clearly if God has all power in the universe, he can skip across his own timeline and create each individual thing. Even Jesus said this, saying his father's work never ended. Because, from the type of view explained in that video, his work won't end until the universe does.

I'm almost a Christian wit atheistic influences at the same time in a very strange way. But I am Christian. I just don't believe in any of this nonsense about psychics, spiritual energy, blah blah blah. There's no proof nor evidence and therefore no reason for them to be there. Now indeed you can argue God has no proof. And I will agree with you. Then why do I believe it? Certain events in my life and that it just makes sense with me. I'm not going to be a God of the gaps person, nor am I going to be a "God who follows the rules of the universe" person. I'm a "God can do whatever he wants" type of person.
edit on 17-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Jeremy vine.....A total plonker....a tool of the PTB.
Don't take any notice of this servant of the BBC, british Brainwashing company.
Gravitor.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Re Advantage

may I give you my respect and compliments for your attitude.

I had for many years a truly wonderful pentacostal fundamentalist as friend and neighbour. He never preached, and there was never a hard word between us. He was a kind of minor saint, and probably did his congregation more good in terms of social acceptance by being helpful, nice and tolerant, than the various pastors of his faith frothing around the mouth.

And that brings me to the about only point, where we can disagree (peacefully). Admittedly the 'fairytale' and 'flying spaghetti monster' sarcasm turn up regularly. I use it myself on and off. But personally I try to limit this to frothing prophets, where communication is 100% one-way from the prophet to the world, and it's the only way to break through

I have a somewhat grumpy temperament, and after having spent almost 45 years on my life on existential, theological, philosophical and epistemological questions (plus some supportive hard science), it really p***** me off, when someone condescendingly tells me, that s/he's right because, they s/he's right, because s/he's right (and ofcourse, that I'm wrong).

But I don't start on the 'fairytale' or 'spaghetti monster' out of spite or glee. Putting up such resistance to extremism gives some result eventually.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by andy1033
 

And when atheists try to block out religion in general, than they must not really be atheists. because something in them moves them to desire more than just there supposedly true words to force something.


BING!

The bull-shizzle alarm just went off.

You people never get it do you? Atheism is NOT a belief in non-belief. IT IS A TOTAL LACK OF BELIEF / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANY THEISTIC EXPRESSION! Get it right.

Your argument is self-defeating because you don't know what an atheist is. You use the word 'something' twice in one sentence to try and ascribe some 'theistic' value to your comments.... surely you can do better than this Gorman? I've seen you do better.

As for the article in the OP - Jeremy Vine is yet another BBC presenter that cannot reconcile his atheist job of fact-seeking with his obviously facile and lies-infested religious beliefs. He's either a crap Christian, or a crap fact-seeker. Or both. (Having listened to him on a daily basis for a long time, I'm inclined to think he's just a crap Christian.)

The Rev.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Isn't it already time to get rid of the fiction that is religions? all of them, not only Christianity.

We should obey the morality laws Jesus taught, but that's about it, really. The rest are pure fantasy.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The Revenant
 


You can define it all you want. It's an entity. A collection of people. In as much as the Catholics where I live aren't really Catholics, but rather, are worshiping their culture, atheism is no different. No belief is a belief system. It's a system with rules and ideas. Not as unified as most "religions", but then again, neither is Hinduism.

I've met aggressive atheists, "I don't care" atheists, and atheists who believe what they do with clear reason. To me, it's just the same thing as Protestants Catholics and the lot. Same thing, different opinions.
edit on 17-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Please don't take this the wrong way christians , but why should you be treated any differently than any other brainwashing cult ?


Thanks for that outstanding display of ignorance. Please look into what a cult is contra a religion before posting next time.

Thanks for playing.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by The Djin
 
UTTER TWADDLE .

Mr Vine is being an over sensetive neurotic

it is not " socially unacceptable " to be a christian - but it is now socially acceptable not to be and even GASP publicily challenge the veracity of religious dogmas .

thats what Mr Vine and his ilk are really afraid of - the simple fact that " god did it " is no longer the unchallenged answer to everything they do not understand

its my opinion that Mr Vine has his head stuck well and truely in the past , in a time when the masses were cowed by threats of damnation from the pulpit

now they are not , he and his kind need to be dragged , kicking and screaming if nessecary - into the 21st century - and learn that thier dogma is no longer accepted without question

thats what really scares Mr Vine - its only a miniscule minority that actually care whether he is a christian and hold it against him , what worries him is the much large minority who no longer believe Mr Vines beliefs , just because they are told to backed by the " authority " that ` god says so ` and ` its in the bible `

so - come on Mr Vine and all like him - stop whimpering in a corner and come out and argue your case in free debate - the days of your monoploy are gone - get over it


I've found you can put forth a rational and reasonable basis for faith until the cows come home, ignorant_ape, and it doesn't go anywhere with those who've already drawn their own conclusions and formulated their own presuppositions, often times with a certain degree of contempt, prior to investigation. It's like talking to a brick wall no matter how much sense you make. We are not afraid of reason or questions, only hurt by the bigotry and intollerance of meanspirited atheists.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Revenant
 

No belief is a belief system. It's a system with rules and ideas.


Gorman, that's simply wrong. You're trying to ascribe conviction to a situation where no conviction exists. "LACK OF" does not indicate selection of "NOT TO BELIEVE" in your fallacious perceived choice of "THEISM OR ATHEISM". It simply means - nothing, no relevance, no application, no effect, null, NON. Can you actually compute this? Putting your hands over your ears and shouting "IT MUST BE THIS WAY!" doesn't mean it is.

As for the system with rules and ideas - can you enlighten me? I have the atheist signature traits, but I don't follow any rules or systems....

The Rev.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by The Revenant
 


Yes you do. Weather you know it or not. Rules are atheism are quite reduced. It also depends on which branch you fall into. In as much as protestants and Catholics are not of the same branch, you and other athiests would not be. However, in as much as every Christian has their own opinions and are unified by one single fact: Christ died and rose for our sins, Atheists are unified in one unified fact: There is no God.

Now where do you branch off from there? Are you the all Atheist, with no belief in anything? A purely scientific world view, and in my opinion, a very beautiful one. That you simply die and exist no more. Your flesh becomes molecules as it came from. Life goes on. Or are you the spiritual atheist? Do you believe that there is an afterlife, but that God does not exist. of course that in and of itself opens up some debate. Who created that afterlife, or the process by which to transfer consciousness into it? You cannot evolve to connect to it. That makes no sense. otherwise you'd have single celled organisms going over. And then technically you don't go to the afterlife, your cells do. Or perhaps you are the Buddhistic atheist? You believe that we are stuck here. Whatever causes us to live is regurgitated into new life when you die. And that we have to evolve to a point that we stay alive indefinably to stop the cycle.

There are many branches of atheism, just as there are many branches to any belief system. But atheism has a single rule. There is no God. That's what makes them together. Now that's not that different from other religions. Muslims have 2 rules unifying all Muslims: Mohammad is the greatest prophet, and there is no God but Mohammad. Christians have 2 rules unifying them too, as I said above. There is only one God and Christ died for your sins. Most religions have 1-3 or so rules that unify all branches of their religion. Atheism has a lack of belief, but there is still rules.

Now if you'd like to be without rules and regulations, you would have to get rid of your brain. Because the brain, in and of itself, is not capable of getting rid of rules. You're own intelligence by being a human being keeps you bound to some sort of rules and religion, even if that is lack of belief. To be what you THINK you are, you would have to stop being human.





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join