• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Religious tolerance

Status
Not open for further replies.

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Do you have an example of this online?

You can do your own research - it's out there if you look for it.

Another angle is why we teach the THEORY of evolution and creation in schools.
Because laying it out - we are teaching theory as fact.

Another one who doesn't really understand what a scientific theory is, it would appear.

Scientists are not so arrogant as to think that they know anything with 100% certainty, so everything is a 'theory'; a model to explain something. If evidence emerges to prove them wrong, then that will be accepted.

However, many scientific theories have so much supporting evidence that they are as close to fact as it's ever going to get - and the theory of evolution is certainly one of those. The chances of it being wrong are very, very small.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Another angle is why we teach the THEORY of evolution and creation in schools.
Because laying it out - we are teaching theory as fact.

Evolutionary theory, err, evolved over hundreds of years, leading to Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species”. But subsequent to that, it is now accepted throughout modern science that evolution is fact, not theory, backed by several hundred years of careful observation and evidence.

Creation on the other hand ....
 

Farang

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
68
Just out of curiosity, what makes the 'Western' god the correct one, as opposed to the 100's of others?

I read somewhere that if you add up all the adherents claimed by the different faiths in Japan, it comes to more than the population. One possible conclusion is that they're hedging their bets.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Another one who doesn't really understand what a scientific theory is, it would appear.
Indeed. To summarise:

  • I make an observation the sun sets in the west and rises in the east.
  • After a few times, I can come up with a maxim - the sun usually sets in the west and rises in the east
  • This is observation is confirmed by other people and found to be a law - the sun always sets in the west and rises in the east
  • Neither the law nor the maxim explain why the sun rises/sets where it does so I take these observations and come up with a hypothesis that the reason the sun sets in the west and rises in the east is because the earth is rotating
  • I can test this hypothesis by making a falsifiable prediction - all celestial objects will set in the west and rise in the east. This hypothesis is tested repeatedly and its predictions are found to be consistent. I now have the basis of geocentric theory
  • Someone then points out that some celestial objects move in a different direction to the others - so it's up to me to figure out how my theory can be adapted/adjusted/expanded to explain this new data:
    • We make the observation that the objects which move in a different direction also move at a different speed.
    • This leads to the maxim that...

And so on...

The ironic thing is that people complain that evolution is "only a theory", it's not like the "law of gravity". *sigh*
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
One needs to remember that The Old Testament was written by primitive people with little understanding of science & technology. The tale about creation would be no more than speculation or guesswork, passed down through generations, and possibly distorted at each re-telling. They had no concept about particle physics, and lacked the equipment to recognise that earth was not the centre of everything.

But equally, none of us know why the universe exists. Just a tiny shift in the laws of physics, and matter as we know it could not exist. Did some "supreme being" define the laws of physics, or was our universe just "a lucky accident". And how many other universes are there ?
And why are some people so intolerant that they reject scientific facts and insist that "everything began" in circa BC 4004 ?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
And why are some people so intolerant that they reject scientific facts and insist that "everything began" in circa BC 4004 ?

I share your concern that people reject scientific facts like evolution, but that has nothing to do with intolerance. Intolerance is things like, refusing to talk to someone or be friends with them or hating them, trying to persecute them or generally treating them as sub-human etc. purely because of their beliefs/gender/political views/ethnic origin/whatever. Rejecting scientific facts is obviously wrong, regrettable, potentially dangerous and so on. And it does to my mind illustrate one of the problems of the more dogmatic forms of religion. But it's not 'intolerant'.

As for why people do it... From my observations within churches of people who deny evolution... I would say it's a combination of lack of understanding of science combined with putting too much faith in religious texts/taking them too literally, and the very human tendency to believe people you are close to. And perhaps a reluctance to believe something that seems threatening to your identity (which is something that most people suffer from to some extent, not only religious groups. See the American Republican Party and the Corbynista wing of the Labour Party, for example :) )
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
According to Wikipedia, the CofE is worth about 7.8 billion US dollars (making it the sixth-richest religious organisation in the world). The Roman Catholic church does, of course, top the list.


I'd be careful about deducing from that that churches are overloaded with cash. In the first place, I don't know how that 7.8bn was arrived at, but does it include the value of lots of church buildings etc. whose value is for obvious reasons not really available to turn into cash? Also, in the case of the CofE, a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that the wealth creates an income of £1bn a year. That sounds a lot, but also according to wikipedia:

wikipedia said:
Although asset-rich, the Church of England has to maintain its thousands of churches nationwide.[12] The Church of England has some 16,000 church buildings, in 13,000 parishes covering the whole of England, as well as 43 cathedrals. Together they form a unique collection of buildings; between 12,000 and 13,000 churches are listed, i.e. are recognised by the government as being of exceptional historic or architectural importance. About 45% of all Grade I buildings in England are churches.[

It's not hard to see how having to maintain so many old and listed buildings could quickly drain through even £many hundreds of millions a year. And of course there are other churches, such as the methodist church, which also have old buildings to repair, and which don't have the kind of money the CofE does.

To be fair, I don't know much about the RC church, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was in a much better financial position.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
I'd be careful about deducing from that that churches are overloaded with cash. In the first place, I don't know how that 7.8bn was arrived at, but does it include the value of lots of church buildings etc. whose value is for obvious reasons not really available to turn into cash? Also, in the case of the CofE, a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that the wealth creates an income of £1bn a year. That sounds a lot, but also according to wikipedia:



It's not hard to see how having to maintain so many old and listed buildings could quickly drain through even £many hundreds of millions a year. And of course there are other churches, such as the methodist church, which also have old buildings to repair, and which don't have the kind of money the CofE does.

To be fair, I don't know much about the RC church, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was in a much better financial position.

Yes, it is complicated and the wealth in the CofE is not evenly spread - a lot is central, but some individual churches are very wealthy - normally due to owning prime town/city centre property.

The CofE is listed as the tenth largest landowner, by acreage, in the UK:

The Church Commissioners is the central body - it's not clear whether that figure includes land owned by individual churches as well.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
I've just come across this (very interesting!) discussion and had a good read of the previous six pages. I've noticed one thing missing in the debate over whether religion should be tolerated at the same kind of level as any other position such as sexuality, race or politics : faith.
I'm of the belief that everyone has a faith of some kind - whether that be a religious belief, political belief or a hope for something to happen. For example, Labour voters would have the faith that their party would have managed this pandemic much better than the Tories. The thing with faith is that, no matter how much evidence is presented, a complete decision can never be reached. You can prove that some aspects of the pandemic would have been better handled by Mr Starmer, maybe you can prove with 99.999% certainty that he would have done a better job. But since nobody knows the answer to the question, you can't prove it with 100% certainty.
It's the same with religious beliefs. As @102 fan pointed out, there are some crazy and absurd things in the Bible - talking donkeys, cities collapsing in seconds, seas and rivers splitting, people being brought back to life, etc. Perhaps you can prove, with 99.99999% certainty, that these things didn't happen. But how does anyone know what happened? After all, none of us were there to witness it.
One needs to remember that The Old Testament was written by primitive people with little understanding of science & technology. The tale about creation would be no more than speculation or guesswork, passed down through generations, and possibly distorted at each re-telling. They had no concept about particle physics, and lacked the equipment to recognise that earth was not the centre of everything.
The problem with this point is that Christians who believe the Bible don't believe it was written by primitive people. They believe it was the work of primitive people who were instructed and inspired by God to write the Bible.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
They believe it was the work of primitive people who were instructed and inspired by God to write the Bible.
Young-Earth creationists go further than that - they believe that it literally is the word of God and that the scribes were merely the conduit by which he transcribed it.

Which leads to the unescapable question (best Captain Kirk voice): "What does God need with penmanship?"
 
Last edited:

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
Young-Earth creationists go further than that - they believe that it literally is the word of God and that the scribes were merely the conduit by which he transcribed it.

Which leads to the unescapable question (best Kirk voice): What does God need with penmanship?"
In that case, if the Bible is the word of God and nothing is contributed by humans, there wouldn't be the variety of writing styles and techniques that are evident in so many places.
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
In that case, if the Bible is the word of God and nothing is contributed by humans, there wouldn't be the variety of writing styles and techniques that are evident in so many places.

If I understand rightly, it's a Christian tenet that God values and appreciates human individuality; might it be that He chose to let His -- "mouthpieces?" intermediaries? -- have their own writing styles and techniques, in ways which did not interfere with the essential message?
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
If I understand rightly, it's a Christian tenet that God values and appreciates human individuality; might it be that He chose to let His -- "mouthpieces?" intermediaries? -- have their own writing styles and techniques, in ways which did not interfere with the essential message?
I think you've understood correctly. The only ways about it would be either :

1) the Bible is just written by some men from long ago and is just an otherwise unremarkable book
2) the Bible is written solely by God himself and therefore there would not be any differences in writing patterns.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
If I understand rightly, it's a Christian tenet that God values and appreciates human individuality; might it be that He chose to let His -- "mouthpieces?" intermediaries? -- have their own writing styles and techniques, in ways which did not interfere with the essential message?
If the differences were just in style, then yes. But the differences are in matters of fact - for example (if I remember this correctly) in John the crucifixion happened before the Sabbath and in the other Gospels it happened after the Sabbath - which is a pretty big difference when you're writing about the most important event in the whole of the New Testament!
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
If the differences were just in style, then yes. But the differences are in matters of fact - for example (if I remember this correctly) in John the crucifixion happened before the Sabbath and in the other Gospels it happened after the Sabbath - which is a pretty big difference when you're writing about the most important event in the whole of the New Testament!

I think I have heard (some) Christians suggest that discrepancies such as these: are evidence that the material concerned is the truth; as opposed to a fiction slickly crafted by some fraudulent agency. But then -- people have an endless capacity (by no means only in the religious sphere) for thinking up elaborate, often convoluted, things which they will hold as being truly the case; and constructing equally elaborate / convoluted arguments in support of their position.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
I think I have heard (some) Christians suggest that discrepancies such as these: are evidence that the material concerned is the truth; as opposed to a fiction slickly crafted by some fraudulent agency. But then -- people have an endless capacity (by no means only in the religious sphere) for thinking up elaborate, often convoluted, things which they will hold as being truly the case; and constructing equally elaborate / convoluted arguments in support of their position.
I’ve read this thread with interest up to now, so thought I’d enter now. (I am a Christian myself)

The theory about small differences between stories of the same event is entirely reliable, and is used away from religion as well - one good example being in the police. For example, if they are individually questioning criminals on a crime they are suspected of committing together, then they may ask for alibis of all the suspects. If each suspect gives an answer that specifically matches with the rest, then the police will become more suspicious.

If the differences were just in style, then yes. But the differences are in matters of fact - for example (if I remember this correctly) in John the crucifixion happened before the Sabbath and in the other Gospels it happened after the Sabbath - which is a pretty big difference when you're writing about the most important event in the whole of the New Testament!
I’ve checked this, and there’s nothing as big as this that differs between them. For example, John and Matthew both refer to it being on “the day of preparation” - the day before the sabbath.

As an aside, if anyone is interested in stuff like this, the film “Case for Christ” is fascinating. A journalist who is strongly anti-Christianity decides to try and prove the resurrection didn’t happen, but ultimately fails - evidence is unable to prove it didn’t happen.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
As an aside, if anyone is interested in stuff like this, the film “Case for Christ” is fascinating. A journalist who is strongly anti-Christianity decides to try and prove the resurrection didn’t happen, but ultimately fails - evidence is unable to prove it didn’t happen.
I was a pretty hardcore evangelical Christian for 25 years. I left after years of doubts I couldn't resolve, and after realising how much psychological damage it had done to me. I'm now an atheist.

The quality of most Christian apologetics material - the stuff I used to use to try and convert people - is horrifically bad. The best most of it can come up with is "Christianity must be true because you can't prove it isn't." Sorry, that's absolutely not good enough, and I can't believe I thought it was for so long.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
I was a pretty hardcore evangelical Christian for 25 years. I left after years of doubts I couldn't resolve, and after realising how much psychological damage it had done to me. I'm now an atheist.
And you know what - that’s fine. As much as I personally would like everyone to be a Christian, we’ve got freedom of choice so some people choose to believe other things. I’d feel very uncomfortable trying to force someone into believing something that they never will.

For me, I’ve looked into it myself and personally believe it, but I know other people do not, and may never.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I’ve checked this, and there’s nothing as big as this that differs between them. For example, John and Matthew both refer to it being on “the day of preparation” - the day before the sabbath.
Yes, but in what year? The synoptic gospels say that the Last Supper was the Passover meal so Passover was on a Thursday (since Jesus was crucified on Friday) but John says that the trial before Pilate happened on the day of preparation for Passover - so Passover couldn't have been on Thursday.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
I was a pretty hardcore evangelical Christian for 25 years. I left after years of doubts I couldn't resolve, and after realising how much psychological damage it had done to me. I'm now an atheist.

The quality of most Christian apologetics material - the stuff I used to use to try and convert people - is horrifically bad. The best most of it can come up with is "Christianity must be true because you can't prove it isn't." Sorry, that's absolutely not good enough, and I can't believe I thought it was for so long.
That's very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what caused you to move away from Christianity?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
If you don't mind me asking, what caused you to move away from Christianity?
I'm not going to answer for @Journeyman , but I recently had this conversation with my father - who was raised a devout Christian. For him it was reading the Bible, as a book. He got to the third or fourth massacre that was committed in God's name and decided he'd had enough.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
That's very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what caused you to move away from Christianity?
Ultimately, it was moving from a moderate and sensible church, to a rather more extreme one, and then struggling to deal with some of the consequences afterwards.

At the age of fifteen, when I first became a Christian, I joined a Baptist church that was quite lively and thriving at the time, and in particular got involved with a youth group, which was a really nice community to be involved in. I wasn't particularly happy at school or at home, and church became a haven of welcoming, supportive people that made my life a lot more satisfying and happy. Anyway, while I was in the sixth form at school, some of my Christian friends got involved in very charismatic stuff - so we're talking Pentecostal-style, God-working-miracles type things. At the time, the "Toronto Blessing" was a very big thing, and this was supposedly a supernatural revival in the church that would see God working in great power. People were getting into stuff like healing, prophecy and words of knowledge. I now consider it all to be nothing more than group hysteria, and the same sort of dishonesty you find in "mediums" who claim they can speak to the dead, but to a slightly naive teenager, this stuff looked exciting, and I wanted a piece of it.

To cut a long story short, I spent my year out on a training/volunteering/mission programme with an organisation called Pioneer, and effectively I didn't really know I was pretty much joining a cult. All sorts of dodgy stuff went on that I only recognised as bad many years later, particularly the level of control that leaders had over us, and the complete lack of privacy we had. I was away from my friends and support networks, plunged into a very intense environment which was all about God 24/7, and where everything was viewed as a GIANT COSMIC BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. Every last thought I had was torn apart and made out to be an enormous big issue. I suffered a lot of what I would now consider to be religious abuse at the hands of these people.

When I finished my year, and attempted to return to normality, it was really hard to adjust back into normal life, and I got into bit of a mess. I ended up in another very authoritarian church, which left me feeling very uncomfortable, but I didn't really know how to get out. Eventually, I was feeling incredibly stressed and depressed every time I set foot in the place, and I had massive doubts about what I believed, especially because the church I was in was rampantly homophobic and extremely intolerant of just about every modern liberal view on society. I moved house and went to a church that was better in my new area, but I still found going to church to be very difficult and anxiety-inducing. I felt under pressure from certain people to keep going, though, so I did.

Eventually, I ended up working very long hours for a while and stopped going to church because I couldn't fit it into my diary. I didn't intend this to be permanent, but I never went back, because I realised I was (a) not having to sit there feeling miserable and stressed for two hours every Sunday and (b) the sky didn't fall in. Stepping back enabled me to take a long, hard look at my beliefs, and I realised that for some time, they hadn't been genuinely held, and I had serious doubts about a whole range of fundamentals to the faith. I began to realise later as well that my year out did me a lot of psychological damage, and really screwed up my ability to function properly in some ways. I'm actually having some counselling for that at the moment, and it's been pretty eye-opening.

Effectively, it's like a lot of things, which become damaging if they take over your life to the point where you lose balance and perspective. I have no issue whatsoever with moderate, sensible, liberal Christians, but unfortunately my experience with the more extreme ones has been so bad, that I'm not able to set foot in a church these days without having a panic attack.

I haven't even started on the mental gymnastics required to believe a million contradictory things at once, either. I'm glad to be free of that.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,546
Location
Elginshire
@Journeyman I don't necessarily see eye to eye with you on a number of issues, but thank you for sharing that with us - I imagine it wasn't easy.

I've never really had an overly religious upbringing. Both of my parents would have identified as being Church of Scotland, despite never actually going to church. My mum had her personal beliefs which she usually kept quiet (bipolar episodes usually resulted in the bible being brought out) but latterly I think these diminished over time. My dad never spoke openly about his beliefs; he was a member of a masonic lodge, but in later years he'd distanced himself from it. My mum used to read me bible stories when I was young, but they were no different to any other bedtime stories as far as I was concerned.

When we first moved here I made friends with the kid across the road. His family attended the Baptist Church and I was invited to go along to Sunday School. This continued for a couple of years until I was considered old enough to attend the regular service afterwards. I was the model pupil for a while (having been read all those bible stories) and eventually I joined the Young People's Fellowship. It was a great social life, to be honest.

I'm not sure exactly when it all began to unravel, but I think the trigger point was when we had a load of evangelicals come over from the US. All of a sudden people were "saved". There were tales of people breaking down in tears as they accepted the lord and saviour. I recall being at one evening service where people gave their testimonies, telling their stories about how and when they came to accept "him". I vividly remember one local man standing up and proclaiming "And I was saved this morning", with the inevitable murmurs of "Amen" coming from our overseas visitors. It all started to feel a bit alien to me.

I would have been about twelve or thirteen when I first started having my doubts, but it was probably when I was around fifteen or sixteen that I finally made up my mind. I had a friend who I'd met through the local model railway club. His parents were Brethren and the father was very much a strict disciplinarian. I remember being invited to stay for tea one evening - the parents were having herring, but neither I nor my friend were keen on it, so we had something else. I remember his mother commenting on how good herring was and how it "gies ye a guid clean oot" and then saw "faither" reach across the table to give her the back of his hand for saying something so "uncouth" at the dinner table. I was utterly appalled.

I couldn't see the connection between the "doing good" of Christianity and it being okay to batter your wife and kids.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
Yes, but in what year? The synoptic gospels say that the Last Supper was the Passover meal so Passover was on a Thursday (since Jesus was crucified on Friday) but John says that the trial before Pilate happened on the day of preparation for Passover - so Passover couldn't have been on Thursday.
Does it?

The trial before Pilate was the same day as Jesus was crucified, and following the crucifixion, John 19:31 states;

It was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.

To me, this suggests that it was indeed Friday that this occurred, and thus it matches up with the other gospels.

Despite what I've written above, I'll not force you to believe it though. I just don't want you to have a misconception of what the Bible says. I believe all the gospels match up, but ultimately, it's your choice over what you believe.

(Apologies if this is going a bit OT)
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
And you know what - that’s fine. As much as I personally would like everyone to be a Christian, we’ve got freedom of choice so some people choose to believe other things. I’d feel very uncomfortable trying to force someone into believing something that they never will.


Despite what I've written above, I'll not force you to believe it though. I just don't want you to have a misconception of what the Bible says. I believe all the gospels match up, but ultimately, it's your choice over what you believe.

(My bolding)

That's twice you've written about choosing to believe something, is if it's some completely free choice and people who disagree with you are just arbitrarily choosing to do so, but I don't think that's quite right. For my part, all my logical reasoning/life experience/intuition leads me to believe certain things about the Universe/religion/life/etc., and I don't perceive myself as having a choice in that. To believe anything other than what all that experience and reasoning leads to would be obviously false. Those beliefs can (and do) get slowly modified over time in the light of new experience/reasoning but that's still very much a case of, what the reasoning leads to rather than me having a choice. I can't wake up in the morning and suddenly decide to change my mind about - for example - whether there's a God - just on a whim like the way I'd arbitrarily decide to go shopping or something.

And I'm puzzled about you commenting about not forcing someone to believe something, as if that's a choice you are making. Do you actually think that if you wanted to, it's even possible to 'force' someone to believe something? (I'm pretty sure it isn't possible, other than possibly with some brainwashing techniques)

I’ve read this thread with interest up to now, so thought I’d enter now. (I am a Christian myself)

The theory about small differences between stories of the same event is entirely reliable, and is used away from religion as well - one good example being in the police. For example, if they are individually questioning criminals on a crime they are suspected of committing together, then they may ask for alibis of all the suspects. If each suspect gives an answer that specifically matches with the rest, then the police will become more suspicious.

I don't think that reasoning works. There are very good reasons why two people might give answers that are slightly inconsistent: People slightly mis-remember things. People don't know about everything their friends are doing. And so on.

But *IF* the Bible is the Word of God then that would imply it was written by one single being. And I'm pretty sure that, according to any mainstream Christian theology, God doesn't forget things. So there would appear to be no reason for different books in the Bible to be inconsistent with each other.
 
Last edited:

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
In terms of choice - as already mentioned by some other people in this thread, many people don't get that choice. They are raised into that religion from birth and as someone who isn't religious I'd argue some of it is pretty much just brainwashing. Even the more common bits of religious teachings really do rub me up the wrong way - telling children that they must follow these arbitrary rules otherwise be dammed for all eternity and suffer in hell forever? A pretty cruel way to get children to do what you want them to do if you ask me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top