ChatterBank2 mins ago
If God really existed
63 Answers
as depicted in the bibble and is good to all Men, would it then not be sinful for Religion to build costly opulent places of worship when just a stable or even an open field would be sufficient to gather? The money saved could be used to help those less fortunate.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wildwood. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Maggie, //Stop taking the pi$$. Tomorrow is resurrection day,//
I don’t see ridicule in the question – and even if I did, your unfounded belief in magic doesn’t give you the right to demand that everyone else pussyfoot around you in deference to that belief. Believe what you like – but don’t expect others to respect it.
To answer the question, I think if Jesus knew what the people of religion have ended up believing, and have done - and still do - in his name, he would be absolutely appalled. If he ever does return to earth, as his followers anticipate, they won’t recognise him – and he certainly won’t recognise them.
I don’t see ridicule in the question – and even if I did, your unfounded belief in magic doesn’t give you the right to demand that everyone else pussyfoot around you in deference to that belief. Believe what you like – but don’t expect others to respect it.
To answer the question, I think if Jesus knew what the people of religion have ended up believing, and have done - and still do - in his name, he would be absolutely appalled. If he ever does return to earth, as his followers anticipate, they won’t recognise him – and he certainly won’t recognise them.
Jesus is supposed to have said that people should pray in private rather than in a church.
http://www.openbible....s/praying_in_a_closet
Opulent golden churches full of self appointed oligarchs in fine robes seems to me the last thing Jesus would have wanted. They are indeed hypocrites.
http://www.openbible....s/praying_in_a_closet
Opulent golden churches full of self appointed oligarchs in fine robes seems to me the last thing Jesus would have wanted. They are indeed hypocrites.
Perfectly entitled to your point of view Beso, just as I'm entitled to mine. There are many, in your words "stupid books" in the world - Koran, Bible etc. but we don't force you to read them. Have some spare copies of the Dandy and the Beano if you'd like me to send them to you.
Happy Easter - the Lord is risen xx
Happy Easter - the Lord is risen xx
Maggie, Wildwoods question is perfectly reasonable and quite topical. The curhch is increasingly noted of late for definitely unpious displays of oppulence while warning us to beware of superficiality and the responsibility to help the needy.
Is this not contrary to the teachings of Christ?
Is this not by definition, and, as Jesus is reported to have said, hypocricy?
Is this not contrary to the teachings of Christ?
Is this not by definition, and, as Jesus is reported to have said, hypocricy?
If reasonable questions make the faithful uncomfortably perhaps they should look into themselves rather than pointing to others as the problem.
Jesus is supposed to have asked us to deal with the log in our own eye before pointing out the mite of another. Why is it that they faithful don't seem to apply God's Word to themselves?
Jesus is supposed to have asked us to deal with the log in our own eye before pointing out the mite of another. Why is it that they faithful don't seem to apply God's Word to themselves?
maggiebee // Perfectly entitled to your point of view Beso, just as I'm entitled to mine. There are many, in your words "stupid books" in the world - Koran, Bible etc. but we don't force you to read them. //
No we are not forced to read them now but our ancestors had been for many centuries. Many places still demand the indoctrination of all in the details of their mystical books.
The religious still expect their books to be taken into account when determining public policy. Look at the uproar of the church over same sex marriage. It is just one in a long history of reactionary responses they have deayed the progress of moral development of our societies.
The Church still stands in the way of women's rights and have failed to impliment protections of the rights of the child while they sheltered their pedophile preists from prosecution for decades, probably centuries.
You are entitled to you opinion about church and its books too but don't expect us to stand by and quietly accept another generation of children be indoctrinated with the rancid philosophy of Abrahamic religion.
The gods of Abraham and his kind are deeply malevolent, psychotic visions of madmen and only a coward would fail to speak against them in a society where free speech and genuine morality is held in regard above the sensitivities of the ignorant.
No we are not forced to read them now but our ancestors had been for many centuries. Many places still demand the indoctrination of all in the details of their mystical books.
The religious still expect their books to be taken into account when determining public policy. Look at the uproar of the church over same sex marriage. It is just one in a long history of reactionary responses they have deayed the progress of moral development of our societies.
The Church still stands in the way of women's rights and have failed to impliment protections of the rights of the child while they sheltered their pedophile preists from prosecution for decades, probably centuries.
You are entitled to you opinion about church and its books too but don't expect us to stand by and quietly accept another generation of children be indoctrinated with the rancid philosophy of Abrahamic religion.
The gods of Abraham and his kind are deeply malevolent, psychotic visions of madmen and only a coward would fail to speak against them in a society where free speech and genuine morality is held in regard above the sensitivities of the ignorant.
Maggie, I’m not sure we been exactly in this place before, and I don’t recall agreeing to differ. However, I do recall being in a place several times where you have attempted to stop me posting, presumably because my opinions are not yours.
As for Wildwood’s reasons for starting this post, I assume he thought it was a valid question – and it is.
As for Wildwood’s reasons for starting this post, I assume he thought it was a valid question – and it is.
Fair enough BOXTOPS, you are of course right but a bit pedantic maybe (?) about pure definition versus colloquial language. No hard feelings about correction, but playing into hands of the deluded myth-believers by diversion from my main points? I see that no religionist has challenged any of my major points. My atheism is based to a great extent on my knowledge of the books they call "bibles" as well as science and common sense. Note: I have a "christian" friend who does not know that the new-testament stories deliberately overthrow the old-testament stories. However, of course he is stupid without simple know-how of the "bible" from which he choses to select his quotes (pmsl). I must stress I have no fundemental predjudice against anyone, whatever their creed, but some hypocritical or ignorant preachers of their beliefs are a bit annoying. I am against violence in the name of any religion which has included
so-called "chrisitianity" as well as "islam" etc., over centuries.
so-called "chrisitianity" as well as "islam" etc., over centuries.
Tamborine, we're agreed.Quakers do, indeed, have plain surroundings for meetings, be those in a barn or a purpose-built 'meeting house'.
I didn't know of the Quaker village. I suspect that a clause insisting that only adherents of a particular faith, or a branch of that faith, may be tenants , is contrary to present discrimination law.
I didn't know of the Quaker village. I suspect that a clause insisting that only adherents of a particular faith, or a branch of that faith, may be tenants , is contrary to present discrimination law.
