Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Jesus, Conservative or liberal?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

Poll: Jesus, Political leanings (42 member(s) have cast votes)

Is Jesus Conservative or Liberal

  1. Conservative (3 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

  2. Liberal (39 votes [92.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 92.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:54 PM

Yes, because sarcasm is easy to detect with the written word with no understanding of the speaker's personality. (Sarcasm btw).

You also seem to not understand why there are so many versions of the bible. You should study a little more. That's fairly basic knowledge.

I fully understand why - which is why I refer to it as a book of fairy tales with each sector of the cult claiming their version is the one to follow. I go with the explanation of how all the various Bibles that are out there and floating around as expounded by United Church Rev. Robert Ripley (see below)

You know the United Church of Canada? The largest Protestant Church in Canada with eminently sensible positions on such things as abortion (should be legal, paid by medicare and a matter of choice for the woman in consultation with her doctor), contraception (freely avaialble and educating young people about it), the death penalty ( should remain abolished). And the big one - same sex marriage... recognized civilly AND religiously.

When anomalies in Bible interpretation are pointed out the standard response is of the "No True Scotsman" variety.

So you get books written by the likes of Michael Coren -

Posted Image

And a response to Coren by Reverend Ripley:


No one likes to be told they're wrong but that didn't stop me from reading the book Why Catholics Are Right by Michael Coren.


Frustrated at his adopted Roman Catholic Church being kicked around by non-Catholics and atheists who don't know history or don't know Catholicism and need a swift kick back, the often belligerent broadcaster has assumed the role of apologist.


Kudos to Coren for attempting to tackle a litany of hot issues. Priestly abuse, purgatory, indulgences, the Inquisition. You name it.


I feel his indignation at caricatures of Catholicism. I too have been offended by caricatures of my quite imperfect United Church of Canada. The challenge of reading a book entitled Why Catholics Are Right is to respond without hearing the epithet "anti-Catholic."


I've been called worse.


Coren puts the horror of priestly sexual abuse of children in the context of abuse in every facet of society. We don't libel minor hockey, say, just because a coach behaves badly. True. I suspect, however, that the revulsion of some non-Catholics lacks nuance because Catholic priests, unlike teachers and coaches, act "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ), which is also the explanation of why the Roman Catholic Church will not confer priestly ordination on women. If you bestow the priesthood with exclusive divine authority, then when a priest rapes a child the repulsion is magnified and yes, perhaps, distorted.


There have been bad Popes, Coren admits, but not as many and not as bad as you'd think. While reading his book, I was also watching the Bravo! series The Borgias, which chronicles how the ruthless Renaissance patriarch Rodrigo Borgia murdered and bribed his way to become Pope Alexander VI. The Borgias, dubbed the first crime family, are considered the epitome of papal corruption. Vice, it seems, is trumped by being able to trace a line of succession back to Peter, the first pope.


Some of Coren's defences are specious. For instance, if there was evil in the Catholic Church's past (Crusades and all that), then he argues it wasn't Christian or Catholic because Christ never taught evil. Yes the Church used torture, admits Coren, but no more than other authorities with judicial power back then and certainly no more than the Muslims.


Sure the Vatican is wealthy. It is the steward of great art, which is open for everyone to view in museums. As long as it is on display, affluence in the name of religion is OK.


Turning to the Bible, Coren is pleased to point out that the Church predated the Bible, edited it and gave it to us. Of course the path to creating the canon of Scripture was long and hard. A wide diversity of early Christians quarrelled over their interpretation of Jesus' teachings. The church rejected a Gospel of Peter (yes, the first pope) as unorthodox and kept 1 Timothy, which is widely considered a forgery. The contentious process took over three centuries.


The result, writes Coren, has no contradictions. I can only assume Coren hasn't actually read the Bible. Otherwise he'd know that inspiration notwithstanding, the Good Book is riddled with discrepancies from the two different creation stories in Genesis to the variations on the Easter narrative, as I pointed out last week.


Coren explains that the Church is the keeper and interpreter of the Bible. This is to keep it from falling into the hands of translators and commentators such as William Tyndale who had an agenda.


Coren fails to mention that following a malleable oral tradition, and in the absence of original writings, all we have are pieces of copies of copies of copies made over centuries by scribes who made intentional alterations to make the text say what either they wanted it to say, or thought it should say. So much for maintaining the correct word of God. But that is Catholicism's claim. As Coren puts it, how can we refuse to believe in the instrument that God used to write and select this Bible - the Catholic Church.


I found Coren's musings on the mass helpful. For years I never understood why I wasn't welcome at the Lord's Table. I once asked a Catholic friend why that was the case. He tried to explain that I was not in communion with Rome. Naively I said "But I don't want to commune with Rome, just Jesus."


Coren explains that Communion is communion with the Catholic Church and you can't be in communion with the Catholic Church unless you're a member of it. He writes, ". . . knowledge of Jesus is available to all people but to know Christ is available only to Christians in communion with the Church."


I still feel demeaned when I attend a Catholic funeral and am invited to come forward for a blessing instead of a wafer. Thanks but no thanks. I sit and stew in the pew. At least I now understand that it's not a lack of hospitality on the Church's part. It's my fault. As Coren writes, "The Roman Catholic Church allows people to exclude themselves if they want to do so."


Much of Coren's history is wishful and his generalizations broad. "While Catholicism has an abundance of intellectual underpinnings to support its arguments, anti-Catholicism and atheism have few if any." Take that Darwin, Einstein, Freud, Sagan et al.


Coren is welcome to boast that, "in a perfect world everyone would be Roman Catholic". But any religion that declares that it is the right and true one says so only with the authority of its own convictions. You have a right to claim it. And I have a right to disclaim it.


But the hubris is unbecoming of the follower of a homeless Jewish teacher.

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/bob_ripley/2011/04/28/18079996.html
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#62 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:06 PM

You are free to be a lawyer. One of many BTW.

You are also free to laugh at whomever you like to - does that make you a better person than anyone else?

Actually it is much more difficult to be a lawyer than a "Christian".

You have to actually obtain an undergrad degree with top marks academically (A- average the last time checked for my alma mater), then do really well on the Law School Admission Test (top 5 percentile) to get into law school. Three years of intense study and a year as an articled student (think indentured servant at the money being paid) and then you have to pass the Bar Admission exam, pay a whack of money yearly for professional membership fees and liability insurance. Oh yeah and then you are required to take a number of Continuing legal Education courses approved by the Law Society.

And to claim to be a Christian... Read a book of fairy tales?

Better person? I was talking about wacky ideas and tortured interpretations.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#63 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:00 PM

I am absolutely intolerant of intolerance .. I learned this from multiple readings of "Catch 22" in my formative years .. 8 years an altar boy and devout free-thinker ..


Yet you're being intolerant of those of us who are not like the stereotypical view of Christians you portray.
Seems you need to do some more reading....just saying...
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#64 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:03 PM

Actually it is much more difficult to be a lawyer than a "Christian".

You have to actually obtain an undergrad degree with top marks academically (A- average the last time checked for my alma mater), then do really well on the Law School Admission Test (top 5 percentile) to get into law school. Three years of intense study and a year as an articled student (think indentured servant at the money being paid) and then you have to pass the Bar Admission exam, pay a whack of money yearly for professional membership fees and liability insurance. Oh yeah and then you are required to take a number of Continuing legal Education courses approved by the Law Society.

And to claim to be a Christian... Read a book of fairy tales?

Better person? I was talking about wacky ideas and tortured interpretations.


I wasn't talking about difficulty, I was talking about being a better person.

But since you went down that rabbit hole, which is more difficult, believing in God or not?
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#65 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:25 PM

Jesus was a character in a poorly written book of fiction called the Bible.

Given the extremely subjective nature of this Jesus' existence, and all the other fiction espoused in that book, he's whatever you want him to be, much in the way that tangibly occurs in the real world with such fictional idols and the inherently subjective qualities that they supposedly possess.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 November 2012 - 10:31 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#66 Harbinger

Harbinger

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 05

Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

Jesus was a character in a poorly written book of fiction called the Bible.

Given the extremely subjective nature of this Jesus' existence, he's whatever you want him to be, much in the way that tangibly occurs in the real world.


We are going by but what is written about him. There is definitely a leaning. At this point it would seem the leaning is extremely to the left.
  • 0

Posted Image


#67 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

Yet you're being intolerant of those of us who are not like the stereotypical view of Christians you portray.
Seems you need to do some more reading....just saying...


I beg to differ .. I am very tolerant of every race, creed and belief .. I am impatient with those who seek to place their values upon others .. 'believe what you will, just keep it to yourself unless asked' is my motto .. I strongly believe in "God" .. but he is my God and I am not sharing him with anyone else ..

I consider spirituality to be a very personal matter, and only to be shared appropriately ..

Edited by Tearloch7, 11 November 2012 - 10:49 PM.

  • 2
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#68 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 November 2012 - 11:26 PM

I wasn't talking about difficulty, I was talking about being a better person.

But since you went down that rabbit hole, which is more difficult, believing in God or not?

I was never talking about a better person, you tried to change the goalposts.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#69 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,670 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:15 AM

Actually it is much more difficult to be a lawyer than a "Christian".

You have to actually obtain an undergrad degree with top marks academically (A- average the last time checked for my alma mater), then do really well on the Law School Admission Test (top 5 percentile) to get into law school. Three years of intense study and a year as an articled student (think indentured servant at the money being paid) and then you have to pass the Bar Admission exam, pay a whack of money yearly for professional membership fees and liability insurance. Oh yeah and then you are required to take a number of Continuing legal Education courses approved by the Law Society.

And to claim to be a Christian... Read a book of fairy tales?

Better person? I was talking about wacky ideas and tortured interpretations.


haven't you heard? they're giving out law degrees in cereal boxes these days
  • 0
Posted Image
le temps restitué

#70 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,886 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:26 AM

Jesus would be 1000% a liberal. He would be so liberal that even today's liberals would call him an extremist. The fact that conservatives have hijacked him only to spread hate is disgusting.
  • 0

#71 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:59 AM


  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#72 TheNoelPatrol

TheNoelPatrol

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,230 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:11 AM

:bored:


Jesus never existed, so what is the point of this?

Might as well list all the fictional gods and get a huge poll going.

http://www.probe.org...ian_Sources.htm
Yoiu may not choose to believe he is the son of God, but to suggest Christ is made up is silly.

Edited by TheNoelPatrol, 12 November 2012 - 02:12 AM.

  • 0

QUOTE (diesel_3 @ Aug 28 2009, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well..any way you slice it....Mike Gillis just pimp-slapped the Western Conference.

#73 TheNoelPatrol

TheNoelPatrol

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,230 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:12 AM

dp

Edited by TheNoelPatrol, 12 November 2012 - 02:12 AM.

  • 0

QUOTE (diesel_3 @ Aug 28 2009, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well..any way you slice it....Mike Gillis just pimp-slapped the Western Conference.

#74 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:39 AM

Would Jesus?

A) give the masses bread
B )teach the masses how to fish
C) tell the masses to pull up their socks and it's their fault they are hungry so frack off you freeloading pinkos, druggies and illegals or I'll throw you in jail.

Edited by hudson bay rules, 12 November 2012 - 03:45 AM.

  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#75 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:45 AM

Are you sure you can't make a more controversial topic?
  • 0

#76 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:46 AM

We are going by but what is written about him. There is definitely a leaning. At this point it would seem the leaning is extremely to the left.

Jesus would be 1000% a liberal. He would be so liberal that even today's liberals would call him an extremist. The fact that conservatives have hijacked him only to spread hate is disgusting.

One thing for sure.. "Jesus" makes a great character to market. Of course, the one thing you gotta love about Christianity and it's followers is they have an icon that they not only choose to walk a highly non-parallel course with, but by in large that there's not even effort made in this direction. Why would you (claim to) be a follower of someone who you're nothing like (due to concious choices), other than some mildly disturbing and flat out stupid satisfaction in believing omnipotent deity in the sky is so dumb they can't see through that type of (very obvious) masquerade? According to fictional Bible book by the way the masses interpret it, you can claim to accept Jesus, and to follow Jesus, yet be the biggest, most selfish, scummiest prickheaded SOB that ever slid it's way out of a human being's hairy ass, and all-knowing, all-seeing deity will rubber stamp that pass to heaven. I guess deity is in an eternal nap from that tough week of creating the Earth and gave that judgement job to someone like Ted Haggard. Or, it's just an awful made-up story with a highly taken-advantage of fictional idol. It's impossible for me to connect this type of fiction with liberal or conservative.. those characterizations represent something in the real world.

Edited by zaibatsu, 12 November 2012 - 03:55 AM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#77 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:32 AM

All of our personal interpretations of anything Jesus related that we project upon others are wrong. Speaking and projecting on behalf of someone who has been dead for thousands of years is idiotic. I do in no way denounce anyone's personal beliefs but attempting to establish which side the main protagonist in this particular story book would pick given the choice is never ending.
  • 0
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

View PostGumballthechewy, on 10 January 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....

#78 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:36 AM

I beg to differ .. I am very tolerant of every race, creed and belief .. I am impatient with those who seek to place their values upon others .. 'believe what you will, just keep it to yourself unless asked' is my motto .. I strongly believe in "God" .. but he is my God and I am not sharing him with anyone else ..

I consider spirituality to be a very personal matter, and only to be shared appropriately ..


Apologies for saying you were intolerant.
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#79 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:43 AM

I was never talking about a better person, you tried to change the goalposts.


You dodged the question.

You said "I am free to laugh uproariously at where your whacky interpretations take you."

I asked "does that make you a better person"?

Sorry, you can't take the 5th in this country.

Please answer the question and remember you are under oath.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#80 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:48 AM

Apologies for saying you were intolerant.


Thank you .. :)
  • 1
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#81 Ovech Trick

Ovech Trick

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:39 AM

Socialist
  • 0
Posted Image

Capitalist Hockey League - Minnesota Wild GM

#82 Scottish⑦Canuck

Scottish⑦Canuck

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:53 AM

:bored:


Jesus never existed, so what is the point of this?

Might as well list all the fictional gods and get a huge poll going.


Jesus could very well have existed for all you know.

Whether he was actually the son of God is another story.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#83 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:55 AM

You dodged the question.

You said "I am free to laugh uproariously at where your whacky interpretations take you."

I asked "does that make you a better person"?

Sorry, you can't take the 5th in this country.

Please answer the question and remember you are under oath.

You tried to change the parameters of the discussion.

I was discussing the underlying basis for your claims and the illogic being applied... not who is, was or may be a "better person" - whatever that may mean.

It makes me a discerning person who can see past your peculiar religious interpretations - such as your claim that Jesus died for all people.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#84 D.Doughty

D.Doughty

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,013 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:50 AM

:bored:


Jesus never existed, so what is the point of this?

Might as well list all the fictional gods and get a huge poll going.


prove it. Prove he doesn't exist
  • 0

#85 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:01 PM

prove it. Prove he doesn't exist

It is always difficult to prove a negative such as you posit. But here goes...

If there is no God then ergo there can be no Son of God who was resurrected by God.
http://www.provingth...gative-yet.html

Or we apply Bertrand Russel's Teapot Analogy - (aka the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot) an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.


As he wrote in 1952:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


And again in 1958:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.


Edited by Wetcoaster, 12 November 2012 - 12:08 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#86 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,514 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:47 PM

Hmm, if religion is so unscientific, then why do so many scientists still believe in it? Perhaps not specifically Yahweh, but a so-called higher power or a sense of connectivity in the universe. It's illogical, but yet it's still there, even with the higher minds of Einstein and Hawking. Why? It seems to be a fundamental need: To put something in place of what science is incapable of understanding.

What established churches have done is to take that need, give it a name, a history, a cast of characters, and a personality (human form, of course) so the layman can relate to it far more easily. Then the church can make up whatever rules it so desires in order to feed another basic fundamental human need: The need to control other humans.

It should be no surprise that the weak and the desperate are the ones most likely to find Yahweh or Jesus. These people have of course been targeted since the days of the Hebrew slaves. (Don't worry about the slavery/persecution, folks. You're the chosen ones, etc. Did you hear about the latest miracle? That guy was healed. This guy was resurrected. Oh yeah, it happened alright. Now donate here and here and here if you want to stay in the club and receive benefits.)

Even if these miracles were true or if Yahweh and Jesus did exist, you have to admit that it's been one of the biggest cash cows and power grabs in history. Hell, the majority of the modern world believes in this Yahweh character. THAT'S power.

Anyway, our needs have to be met, don't they? If we need to believe in a personal God, then that's our right, unscientific or not. And when that need is being met, well, the 'burden of proof' about whether the belief is in something real or not seems pretty insignificant. Belief doesn't require proof.

What science should do is try to explain the unexplainable, but thus far there is no way to apply the scientific method to spirituality, the existence of a soul, the afterlife, or even the existence of God. Other than to say 'prove it yourself.' Although there have been spiritual experiences, etc. among believers, if belief in these things doesn't require proof, what then?

This is why the two worlds collide and will always reach no conclusion but a stalemate. Look it up yourself with google for more info on the religion/science stalemate. Thank you.

Edited by TOMapleLaughs, 12 November 2012 - 12:48 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#87 Scottish⑦Canuck

Scottish⑦Canuck

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:15 PM

Hmm, if religion is so unscientific, then why do so many scientists still believe in it? Perhaps not specifically Yahweh, but a so-called higher power or a sense of connectivity in the universe. It's illogical, but yet it's still there, even with the higher minds of Einstein and Hawking. Why? It seems to be a fundamental need: To put something in place of what science is incapable of understanding.

What established churches have done is to take that need, give it a name, a history, a cast of characters, and a personality (human form, of course) so the layman can relate to it far more easily. Then the church can make up whatever rules it so desires in order to feed another basic fundamental human need: The need to control other humans.

It should be no surprise that the weak and the desperate are the ones most likely to find Yahweh or Jesus. These people have of course been targeted since the days of the Hebrew slaves. (Don't worry about the slavery/persecution, folks. You're the chosen ones, etc. Did you hear about the latest miracle? That guy was healed. This guy was resurrected. Oh yeah, it happened alright. Now donate here and here and here if you want to stay in the club and receive benefits.)

Even if these miracles were true or if Yahweh and Jesus did exist, you have to admit that it's been one of the biggest cash cows and power grabs in history. Hell, the majority of the modern world believes in this Yahweh character. THAT'S power.

Anyway, our needs have to be met, don't they? If we need to believe in a personal God, then that's our right, unscientific or not. And when that need is being met, well, the 'burden of proof' about whether the belief is in something real or not seems pretty insignificant. Belief doesn't require proof.

What science should do is try to explain the unexplainable, but thus far there is no way to apply the scientific method to spirituality, the existence of a soul, the afterlife, or even the existence of God. Other than to say 'prove it yourself.' Although there have been spiritual experiences, etc. among believers, if belief in these things doesn't require proof, what then?

This is why the two worlds collide and will always reach no conclusion but a stalemate. Look it up yourself with google for more info on the religion/science stalemate. Thank you.


Great post.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#88 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:43 PM

Hmm, if religion is so unscientific, then why do so many scientists still believe in it? Perhaps not specifically Yahweh, but a so-called higher power or a sense of connectivity in the universe. It's illogical, but yet it's still there, even with the higher minds of Einstein and Hawking. Why? It seems to be a fundamental need: To put something in place of what science is incapable of understanding.

What established churches have done is to take that need, give it a name, a history, a cast of characters, and a personality (human form, of course) so the layman can relate to it far more easily. Then the church can make up whatever rules it so desires in order to feed another basic fundamental human need: The need to control other humans.

It should be no surprise that the weak and the desperate are the ones most likely to find Yahweh or Jesus. These people have of course been targeted since the days of the Hebrew slaves. (Don't worry about the slavery/persecution, folks. You're the chosen ones, etc. Did you hear about the latest miracle? That guy was healed. This guy was resurrected. Oh yeah, it happened alright. Now donate here and here and here if you want to stay in the club and receive benefits.)

Even if these miracles were true or if Yahweh and Jesus did exist, you have to admit that it's been one of the biggest cash cows and power grabs in history. Hell, the majority of the modern world believes in this Yahweh character. THAT'S power.

Anyway, our needs have to be met, don't they? If we need to believe in a personal God, then that's our right, unscientific or not. And when that need is being met, well, the 'burden of proof' about whether the belief is in something real or not seems pretty insignificant. Belief doesn't require proof.

What science should do is try to explain the unexplainable, but thus far there is no way to apply the scientific method to spirituality, the existence of a soul, the afterlife, or even the existence of God. Other than to say 'prove it yourself.' Although there have been spiritual experiences, etc. among believers, if belief in these things doesn't require proof, what then?

This is why the two worlds collide and will always reach no conclusion but a stalemate. Look it up yourself with google for more info on the religion/science stalemate. Thank you.

And yet countless scientists (many of them notable such as Norman Bethune, Niels Bohr, Thomas Edison, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Hawking, etc. ) do not so believe:
http://en.wikipedia...._and_technology

And social scientists and others of note:
http://en.wikipedia...._(miscellaneous)#Social_sciences

All it boils down to IMHO is I have faith and I believe despite there being no scientific evidence.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#89 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,838 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

They can believe all they want but they have no scientific basis for it so what does it matter.
  • 0
Posted Image

#90 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:33 PM

Hmm, if religion is so unscientific, then why do so many scientists still believe in it? Perhaps not specifically Yahweh, but a so-called higher power or a sense of connectivity in the universe. It's illogical, but yet it's still there, even with the higher minds of Einstein and Hawking. Why? It seems to be a fundamental need: To put something in place of what science is incapable of understanding.

What established churches have done is to take that need, give it a name, a history, a cast of characters, and a personality (human form, of course) so the layman can relate to it far more easily. Then the church can make up whatever rules it so desires in order to feed another basic fundamental human need: The need to control other humans.

It should be no surprise that the weak and the desperate are the ones most likely to find Yahweh or Jesus. These people have of course been targeted since the days of the Hebrew slaves. (Don't worry about the slavery/persecution, folks. You're the chosen ones, etc. Did you hear about the latest miracle? That guy was healed. This guy was resurrected. Oh yeah, it happened alright. Now donate here and here and here if you want to stay in the club and receive benefits.)

Even if these miracles were true or if Yahweh and Jesus did exist, you have to admit that it's been one of the biggest cash cows and power grabs in history. Hell, the majority of the modern world believes in this Yahweh character. THAT'S power.

Anyway, our needs have to be met, don't they? If we need to believe in a personal God, then that's our right, unscientific or not. And when that need is being met, well, the 'burden of proof' about whether the belief is in something real or not seems pretty insignificant. Belief doesn't require proof.

What science should do is try to explain the unexplainable, but thus far there is no way to apply the scientific method to spirituality, the existence of a soul, the afterlife, or even the existence of God. Other than to say 'prove it yourself.' Although there have been spiritual experiences, etc. among believers, if belief in these things doesn't require proof, what then?

This is why the two worlds collide and will always reach no conclusion but a stalemate. Look it up yourself with google for more info on the religion/science stalemate. Thank you.

Believing in something makes it no more true than just stating something. Granted, preachers have been good at selling their product, but believing something due to someone else believing it is devoid of logic, and the inability to falsify any non-tangible, spiritual "thing" aids in the ability to dismiss it on the the fact that beliefs and statements by themselves are no more closer to the truth than hearing rumours on the internetz. Proof and usefulness is the reason science flourished when it could no longer be repressed by the superstitious, and that's where the concept of "doesn't require proof".. "doesn't fly", when this fiction is used as a tool against others.
  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.