Deity and the faith of man (2)

Sebastian Hawks

Feb 6th, 21:49

Why give all this importance to the bible? We only know it exists because emperor Constantine decided so. Now that IS a historical fact.

What has the bible thaught us? Nothing really.

Do you think people were killing, stealing and raping at will before Moses gave us the 10 commandments? Ofcourse not.
Morality is something inherent, something necessay for peoples to function and florish. Religion simply takes it on and tells us that without it (religion), we will decend into chaos. Thank you very much for telling us what we've known instinctively for millions of years.
I say millions because by the way, we are not the only speces to have morality or some sort of social structure.
If a lion had to violate the social structure of the pride, it will be kicked out, or exiled.

I would like to know whether Gerry Cowie would still think the bible, a source of information, if it were written for the first time today. Or would he think it's utter nonsense?

Arthur Soler

Feb 6th, 06:06

@ Gerry Cowie

Thank you for your reply.

You asked "......how do you directly compare the ancient book of the Church to current internet articles which seek to discredit that Church?" To be honest.....you continue “mixing apples with oranges”.

In my earlier post I noted that the Internet is simply a tool that enables one to access virtually limitless information. Indeed, one can read the Bible in countless languages on the Internet, as you yourself noted. It follows that "current internet ARTICLES that seek to discredit the Church", are the exact same ARTICLES in newspapers, magazines, blogs, radio, television and every other type of media.

Therefore, the issue is not whether we can “directly compare the ancient book of the Church to current internet articles”, but whether the criticisms of the Church, written by countless people, in countless languages, using various media, are in fact justified? I would submit that some criticisms are perfectly justified.

For example, the heinous crimes of paedophilia, committed by Catholic priests in several countries over a period of several decades, were the result of a mass cover-up and poor judgement by the Church authorities. Thus, I would submit that those who wrote to discredit the Church on this issue were absolutely justified in doing so. Let me also add that the Church has done a pretty good job in discrediting itself on many other issues including its attitude towards gays and lesbians; its condemnation of artificial contraception, stem cell research , in vitro fertilization etc.

In your last post you accused me of "nit-picking in order to try to undermine my ( your) opinions." Really! Can you please provide specific examples ......rather than defend your position by a generalized and meaningless statement that the Bible "carries more weight than your (my) arguments".

Gerry Cowie

Feb 5th, 17:53

Thanks for your contribution, Arthur. I do not understand your logic. You are nit-picking in order to try to undermine my opnions. If you are a biblical scholar then fine, but if not, how do you directly compare the ancient book of the Church to current internet articles which seek to discredit that Church?

The internet of course also contains the Bible in every language known to mankind. I think it carries more weight than your arguments, to which you are of course entitled!

I thank Leo Attard for his comments, though I beg to differ on his point that one should respect other people's sources. As I say, such sources are often handpicked for the way in which they appear to uphold somebody's opinion.

Arthur Soler

Feb 5th, 01:31

@ Gerry Cowie

Quote.."The Bible - and I am glad, Karl, that you acknowledge the Bible - is a recognised and world-renowned source of information which has existed for a very long time. Internet articles cannot be compared to the Bible"

I do not understand the logic behind this comment.

The Bible is an accumulation of scores of different stories written by scores of different people spanning many centuries. It contains some factual information...e.g., the existence of Christ and his Crucifixion, and some perfectly imaginary stuff...e.g. the story of Adam and Eve. It also contains examples of sound morals, e.g. love thy neighbour , and some positively awful ones....e.g. slavery is condoned by God in the Old Testament.

On the other hand the Internet is well...the Internet. It contains anything and virtually everything...both good and bad. It enables instant communication and is a source of virtually limitless information, both historical and current. In today's day and age it is an essential tool ....thus the reason you and I are able to communicate so readily.

Thus, comparing the Bible to the Internet is really comparing "apples and oranges"

The Bible may very well be a Holy book for Christians but so is the Koran for Muslims. The Koran too has some wonderful morals, and some horrid ones too. For example, it makes it clear that apostasy is punishable by death.

The point of all this is that all religions claim that theirs is the one and only true religion of God. So which one is the real one, if any at all?

Non-believers, such as me, subscribe to the simple philosophy that we "do not believe in anything without reasonable evidence." And as I see it, there is no reasonable evidence to support the belief that Christ is the Son of God; that he was resurrected from the dead; that the Trinity exists; or Heaven and Hell, or that the prophet Mohammed flew to Jerusalem and to Heaven from Mecca on some winged house; just to mention a few examples. Indeed, there is no reasonable evidence that God exists.

So let me summarize. If religion makes you happy, then that’s great. However, there are many who have no need to believe in the supernatural, or to have faith in the relevance of 2000 year old holy books, written during an era of great ignorance and even greater superstition.

As Carl Sagan, a highly respected American scientist noted, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The Bible and the Koran both contain extraordinary claims...but the supporting evidence is hardly extraordinary. It is based on faith...blind faith that is. That may be good enough for you Gerry…but not for those of us who need evidence…...reasonable evidence that is.

Mr leo attard

Feb 4th, 22:16

Mr consiglio...one should always seek to learn. you have no rigt to mock the bible or anyone else's religion or holy script, and Mr Cowie should respect your opinion and sourses as well...But, let me point out that if you believe there is a chance of there being a God, then cant anything be possible then? even life after death? I think even you have a tiny fraction of a doubt there might be, even you could be reaching out for someone to prove it to you... I see this in that tag question you add at the end of the fourth paragraph after you give list of why we had to ''invent'' a god --- your last two words of paragraph 4: DIDN'T WE?...nOw these comments of yours are more balanced than your usual biased blogging. Just keep an open mind --- where's the harm?

Gerry Cowie

Feb 4th, 11:44

The Bible - and I am glad, Karl, that you acknowledge the Bible - is a recognised and world-reknowned source of information which has existed for a very long time. Internet articles cannot be compared to the Bible. Also, the "other available authors" should be as open to criticism as those of the Bible! Again, you wish to have this all your own way, thus demonstrating the lengths to which people go to disprove the existence of God!

You may "broaden your horizons" however you wish, Karl. Nobody is stopping you! Just don't expect people to accept the various authors you may wish to quote as being meaningful to them. Many have commented with authors who think differently to those which you chose.

Now who's the hypocrite?

Gerry Cowie

Feb 4th, 11:12

Excellent! As somebody who regularly writes in to the Times in order to speak against religion, it was expected that Karl should write this letter. What is hypocritical about pointing out the shortcomings of those who wish to try to disprove the existence of God and mock religion?
As he knows well, any article can be lifted from the internet and spun to suit the stance of the writer. After all the internet is full of all sorts of things and can be trawled for whatever one wishes to find!
So, if it is is hyprocritical to put one's own side of things, then that is Karls' own spin! You cannot have your cake and eat it, Karl! And why anybody should feel threatened, I know not! What an overdramatic response to my letter which piqued people who do not like to admit the truth that people do go do a lot of trouble to attack religion. What Karl did was take it personally instead of looking at the wider picture. He does not seem prepared to admit that there is a lot of negative comment levelled at the Church by a small number of quite determined people. The good thing is that here, once again, Karl seems to be opening up to the fact that God exists.