Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
Now is it just me or, for a group of people who base a lot of their argument on the concept of "There’s about as much proof of God existing as there is for the existence of the tooth fairy", are they being about as immature as they are accusing people who believe in God as being?
That’s not to say I disagree with this idea of, as some reports have described it, "atheists having a voice". I think it’s fantastic that people who don’t believe in God are having the chance to voice their opinions, and they’ve done it fairly creatively and without aggression with their favoured slogan of “There probably is no God; now stop worrying and enjoy life”. They’ve taken their ideas, affixed it with ‘probably’ instead of ‘definitely’ and made their opinions public. I like the fact that there was no forum for this kind of opinion that didn’t rely on abusive comments or tense academic debates; so these people have created one.
I think it’s fantastic that people who don’t believe in God are having the chance to voice their opinions, and they’ve done it fairly creatively.
In essence, it’s legalised graffiti, but with a message that makes you apply far more brain power than traditional "blank loves blank 4 eva". I like the way that this makes people think. I like the way that two different groups, both atheists and Christians get to put across their opinions in a creative, if slightly petty, way.
I think one thing to consider though is this: Christians aren’t the only group that believes in God. We have in this country a diverse collection of Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and many other mainstream and lesser known groups. So why is it the Christians who are getting the brunt of this yet again?
Could it be because it was a Christian group (not all Christians; there’s a difference) that put up the religious ads initially? Or is it because we British are so concerned that we will be accused of intolerance, or even direct racism, that we simply avoid questioning (that’s right, simply questioning, not attacking) any religion that may A) respond with an accusation of an ‘-ism’ or B) possess a stereotype of responding violently?
I’m not a Christian, but the more I look at them as a group the more I can see why they are used as a soft target for all kinds of issues. Sometimes it seems like people use Christians as a target in the religion debate simply because they are so afraid of being accused of some socially unacceptable bias against another group that they once again start debating the beliefs of a relatively placid and mainly pacifist few.
I don’t agree with everything Christians have to say. I don’t agree with the way that some of them (again, not all of them) try to get people to come over to their way of thinking. Most of all, I don’t believe the same as they do. However, I don’t believe the same as all atheists do either.
Call me indecisive. Call me gullible. Call me weak if you must. Never call me closed minded though. I find the creativity of the atheists in this bus ad debate fantastic, and I think it’s good that we live in a country where somebody looked at the religious slogans and thought "I’m quite tired of just seeing that… I want my opinion voiced too" and was able to do that. It is this kind of action and tolerance of said action that keeps the concept of freedom of expression alive and well.
However, what we as a nation must be careful of is the possibility of becoming way too harsh on a single group because they are the ones who will tolerate it; or becoming too harsh on a group as a whole, when it is a sub-group that is causing the issue (for example, in the case of the poster campaign it was the Alpha Foundation that put up the ads).
Perhaps the correct reaction to this should be a series of responses from different groups. Possibly that would simply perpetuate the pettiness, but at least it would be fair. Even agnostics like me should get a voice, although I don’t think we could be as catchy as either of the two groups so far involved: “There may be a God; if you see him say hi from us” probably wouldn’t have the desired impact.
#36 (Jason):
Jesus himself quoted the verse straight after the one I mentioned, using the phrase "For God commanded" (see Matthew 15:1-9). If it wasn't reliable why would he quote it and call the Pharisees hypocrites for bending it? Where do you draw the line of reliability? If you don't believe Jesus is reliable then why do you put any faith in him? If you do then it logically follows that the ten commandments (including the aforementioned passage about creation) is also reliable.
Extremely valid point. It could be said that, if you take my general point as being true, that either Jesus was saying it in light of the scriptures - i.e. so that they would understand better; Jesus was misquoted or, more probably that God commanded in the way that I previously said. Christians often say that God speaks to them and I didn't doubt the 10 themselves but the other laws... Jesus didn't say "For God struck stone with lightning and engraved the laws upon them" so there's still, as far as I see, no conflict?
#42: I'm a little confused by the meaning of your post. If I interpret it correctly, you don't doubt the 10 commandments?
Lets look at Exodus 20 (NIV):
So it was spoken by God as part of the 4th commandment.
Jesus did confirm that these were God's words (Matthew 15:1-9) and said nothing to belittle or correct them, even though he was at the time correcting the false teachings of the Pharisees. To quote Jesus: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition". Is this not what you are doing? You say the universe was not created in six days, therefore the 4th commandment is baseless and meaningless. You have nullified it.
The manner of writing down makes little difference, as Jesus obviously regarded them as God's commands (although it does say in Deuteronomy and possibly elsewhere that God wrote them in stone and give them to Moses).
A contradiction? In a religious argument?! Whatever next?! Slogans on buses.....
The phraseology I doubt, the fact that the original ten were God-given I don't so much. The fact that they decided to add the reasoning behind it as being the creation story doesn't contradict the fact that it's a good idea to have a day off every week. Most jobs recommend it and, frankly, most of the things suggested in Exodus are good for health. There's a chapter on Mildew, for instance.
And no, I am NOT doing that. I do not nullify the word for tradition's sake. That would be something more along the lines of purgatory etc. The original was talking along the lines of, say, synagogues when the Jewish laws only described a temple, and many other things besides. They did it because it was tradition.
For the record, I keep the Sabbath and don't work on a Saturday. I have done so since I decided that it was right to do so last summer. The fact that it does not, and this isn't disagreeing with the bible, it no longer condemns us as Christians doesn't stop me from following it as good teaching. I still don't find any contradiction in believing that the OT and NT was written by man based on true events or word-of-mouth and so, whilst being generally reliable on several things, isn't 100%.
Let us have a look at this then;
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87700
So yeah, we need more of those atheist buses..
I actually find it very difficult not to laugh.
And the title is "Atheism and intelligence don't mix"; oh, the irony..
Zomg. Despite the fact that it's not irony, I agree that it is fundamentally stupid. People like that, even if they have good arguments, ruin them by acting like gimps. Lesigh.
#45, Jason:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest you yourself don't keep whatever commandments (it doesn't bother me). My issue is that by devaluing scripture to nothing more than the word of men with some feelings from God possibly corrupted over time, it is now entirely down to your own arbitrary interpretation how much of the Bible you take as truth. You can potentially cut out any bits you don't like the look of (as you have done with creation), because you no longer take it all seriously as the word of God, and you can more easily push asside scripture that contradicts such belief.
It really worries me that it makes you powerless to defend or convince others of the gospel because you don't trust the scriptures yourself which would make it inconsistent to use them as evidence.
Some more relevent quotes from the new testament (I got the impression you were less skeptical of the accuracy of the NT):
Indeed, and the first quote from John is a difficulty. It doesn't contradict what I say but it does highlight the issue that you've raised - and it's one that is indeed on my mind. If the entire old testament is ignored, Jesus' words can only be backed up by his miracles but if you don't believe in the OT then you wouldn't believe that the miracles happened. Indeed.
The second quote from John isn't saying that every word of the scriptures are completely truthful and indeed at that point the scriptures weren't nearly as reconciled as they are now. Their translations had changed etc. Likewise the writer, John, could have taken Jesus' words down incorrectly, many decades after it happened.
The timothy quote is from Paul and indeed, I believe that he wrote it believing it to be true. I believe that it was indeed him who wrote them; however, his doctrine isn't necessarily accurate. Or it could be taken out of context. He doesn't, again, expressly say that everything happened according to the bible but says that it is all from God and that it is useful for many thing - and I completely agree with that point.
But the problem is, as always, taking certain bits as true and certain bits as untrue. Distinguishing is difficult and only with the Spirit is it possible; if you're relying on the bible only then you will fall regardless of how well you take the words. And you can see from the discrepancies between sections of Christianity, from the multiple-wives of certain denominations to the beliefs in purgatory of others that the bible can be seen to mean different things. So I do not focus too much on what I believe the bible means, whether Genesis is true or not, but try to live as holy as life as possible with the Spirit and see where it takes me. I do occasionally swear or make other mistakes but human nature is to sin and with the Spirit I can improve.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report