middleageman Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Yes. I went to a CofE school.We were forced to sing hymns in assembly, forced to read the bible etc...There was never any discussion, it was never argued, the teachers just told us how it is. There was no debate over the credibility of the Bible, it was just forced upon us.Now, as an adult, I can read the Bible and see it for what it is - a collection of stories, with no evidence. Funny how all the "miracles" happened ages ago and no real miracles have happened since. Have you seen anyone part water and walk through it or turn one drink into another?I grew up being force fed Christianity and until I was old enough to realise it's an out of date trend with no evidence to back it up, I kind of believed it. Or should I say, accepted it as everyone else did.Yes. I went to a CofE school.We were forced to sing hymns in assembly, forced to read the bible etc...There was never any discussion, it was never argued, the teachers just told us how it is. There was no debate over the credibility of the Bible, it was just forced upon us.Now, as an adult, I can read the Bible and see it for what it is - a collection of stories, with no evidence. Funny how all the "miracles" happened ages ago and no real miracles have happened since. Have you seen anyone part water and walk through it or turn one drink into another?I grew up being force fed Christianity and until I was old enough to realise it's an out of date trend with no evidence to back it up, I kind of believed it. Or should I say, accepted it as everyone else did.I absolutely agree with you! (see my previous posts) But, we are also force fed with 'our teachers' present views on Life - we know nothing, and probably, we never will.edit: ahh shit! the Devil made me double quote. Edited May 30, 2009 by middleageman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Yeah I agree M.A.M, I choose not to believe in much at all, but if it's Science vs a book of stories I'd go with Science any day.I'm crap at explaining why, just trust me lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Ha ha! I'd trust you above a bunch of 'believers!' anyday!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Correct me if i'm wrong? But maybe most, who are denying Christianity in this post, have you actually read the Bible? Or any 'Sacred Scripts'? Or are you just guessing???Yep, read other 'Sacred Scripts' too and believe that there are several out there that offer a more coherent viewpoint than the Bible, it's just that I happen to have been born in a country which seems to believe the Bible is best. C'est la vie.True true - But Its not actually affecting anyone? I'm also pretty sure they don't say 'Dave Marshall should be prayed for tonight' its more of a blanket statement. In my eyes, if it makes someone happy and doesn't directly affect anyone else, then thats fair game.To be honest, my reaction to it was more based on the 'I'm praying for you' aspect of it. I've been told it by generaland it just seems slightly weird that if it's this allegedly altruistic act, why do they need to tell people about it? Just smacks of the same kind of "I must tell everyone about all the good that I am doing" that seems to permeate through most of the 'teachings' of the Bible. If it's for the benefit of others, and you feel it's the 'right' thing to do, why do you need to tell the world about it?It just seems a bit odd to me, but I guess it's in line with the fact that the God Christians believe in demand that people pay attention to him all the time, and say thank you to him at least once a week for letting us toil on the Earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Wood Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't think they do go around telling people about it though, It was only mentioned once because it came up?From what I understand part of Christian life is to tell others about how great Christianity is, which in its self is a good 'self preservation' technique but also leads to the whole preaching thing which nobody likes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 It's been directly mentioned to me a few times, it's happened to my friends around London too, from looking at other forums and places online it seems to be used by people quite a bit too ('nuff cases of it in classic Youtube arguements ). I know it only came up once here, but it's not my first instance of seeing it, if you see what I mean? It's used fairly often in 'The News' too in general reports from disasters and so on where I suppose it has a more legitimate meaning, but it's also used in prayer in general? I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm just questioning the motive of it, really... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Right, I've got a theory of my own. It's a bit f**kin out there, but bear with me.Well, you know we are just 'delving' into genetic engineering and such; (cloning sheep etc. although experiments are widely frowned upon, but have gone on for decades). Maybe, the Scientists, against all that we consider our esscence to be Human, but maybe, they're trying to create the ultimate 'human being', - ie; fit, healthy, disease free (cancers etc.) is this such a bad thing?It will happen. Is this good or bad? It maybe a different topic entirely. But my veiw is this:You know how people, who see "Aliens", (usually some guy from mid America and such), but they always draw the same image?The image we've become to know as our 'typical' alien. Through documentaries, films and such. You know, big eyes, pointy head, thin physique.Where did this portrayal begin? You know how people depict 'Aliens' as having the same look? You know, skinny, white, thin limbs, big head/eyes etc.?Well what if this 'ourselves'?Genenitacly purified? Looking back from 'the future'?Just a thought. Edited: for spelling.middleageman. Edited May 30, 2009 by middleageman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Correct me if i'm wrong? But maybe most, who are denying Christianity in this post, have you actually read the Bible? Or any 'Sacred Scripts'? Or are you just guessing???Why should anyone read the bible. Hell, the first page is proved wrong by basic science, it's just a book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jitters Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Why should anyone read the bible. Hell, the first page is proved wrong by basic science, it's just a book.Maybe so. I've read it, albeit, it's been some time, and there are ten thousand versions. Maybe I read the wrong one? I'd like to read some other other religion's 'Bibles' but man, talk about dry - and repetitious. I'll stick to my ground.As far as Middle aged man's thoughts, I think those scrawny, giant-headed sectoid creatures are what's to become of our global race from reading too many forum threads.Think about it. Wasting away, giant glazed-over eyes from late-night monitor glow. Pasty skin tone from lack of daylight. Only nutrition is the beer consumed as we're too hung up on keeping up-to-date on the next post? Hehe. It could happen.Good times! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 ... ... ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Shucksmith Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I'm surprised this topic is still open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Isn't that Hawzie in Evolve? He gets a proper funny look from Ryan Leech + Jeff Lenosky (who presumably are Christians?) Was definately Hawziee, dunno if thats exactly what he says though.Definitely, 100% was Martyn Ashton. It's in Chainspotting outside Rio's burgers. He says that then it breaks into the 'Satan, Satan, S-s-s-s-s-satan' tune and riding in Newbury. The Hawyse one your thinking of is when some nutjob walks past carrying a full on cross telling them 'He died for our sins, how will you spend eternity in damnation' (or something) and he replies with 'I'm not really that bothered'. You guys really need to watch the oldies a bit more!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Definitely, 100% was Martyn Ashton. It's in Chainspotting outside Rio's burgers. He says that then it breaks into the 'Satan, Satan, S-s-s-s-s-satan' tune and riding in Newbury. The Hawyse one your thinking of is when some nutjob walks past carrying a full on cross telling them 'He died for our sins, how will you spend eternity in damnation' (or something) and he replies with 'I'm not really that bothered'. You guys really need to watch the oldies a bit more!!Balls. You're right. I now want to watch all the oldies but I don't own any of them any more PMs with download advice (legal, obv ) are welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Correct me if i'm wrong? But maybe most, who are denying Christianity in this post, have you actually read the Bible? Or any 'Sacred Scripts'? Or are you just guessing???Personally, I wouldn't want to waste my time on such things. The closest I've got to a bible has been checking if there's a page 666 in them... Have obviously scanned the first creation bit online, found it completely laughable (didn't realise it was a comedy) and stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) It's definitely worth a read. The sentiments are there and in the right place. Just forget that millions of people take it as a script for their everday lives and it's fine. Edited May 30, 2009 by JD™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamtrials Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 The massive decline in numbers of churchgoers -> the rise in freeloaders, multiculturalism, immorrality etc? Perhaps immigration wouldn't be tolerated to such an extent if we were all still blindly following the church's stance on everything? Perhaps the church instilling some morals into the scum in the country like they used to wouldn't be a bad thing?I'm sure Britain is a better place to live now than it was 100 years ago generally, but it'd be interesting to see what state the country would be if it was still highly religious combined with the technological revoloution that is responsible for some of the increase in quality of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Definitely, 100% was Martyn Ashton. It's in Chainspotting outside Rio's burgers. He says that then it breaks into the 'Satan, Satan, S-s-s-s-s-satan' tune and riding in Newbury. The Hawyse one your thinking of is when some nutjob walks past carrying a full on cross telling them 'He died for our sins, how will you spend eternity in damnation' (or something) and he replies with 'I'm not really that bothered'. You guys really need to watch the oldies a bit more!!You're right of course - I remember it now. Martyn's got an ace laughing accent, not sure where it's from. It's been a while since I watched Chainspotting, that's for sure. Didn't realise that both Martin Ashton and Hawzie had blasphemous parts in trials videos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Telford is the most un-holy place in the UK (or least amount of church goers as a percentage), the church have sent missionaries here to try and sort us out.FUCK THE SYSTEM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Telford is the most un-holy place in the UK (or least amount of church goers as a percentage), the church have sent missionaries here to try and sort us out.Is it wrong that I hiss at preacher people if I see them spouting their religious rubbish in the street? Or just rude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I was out riding with Bigman a while back, and some Mormons came over and started spouting shit. I tried to get away, but they were being quite forward about it all and wouldn't f**k off. Bigman starts to ride away and notices a group of chavs congregating close by so told them I was being hassled/started on by Mormons. I thought I was going to get my head kicked in, but it was safe to say they fled pretty quickly. Also mate of mine was told he was going to hell because he was black, he picked up this guys sign then threw it into the middle of the road under a bus. Religious people in the street make my day to day life waaaay more amusing. Bless 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Respect to your words, beigemaster. To me, at least, you make a great deal of sense. You also enthuse me to comment Please bare with me on this one. The ideas can be quite complex if you're not used to them but I urge you to give them a go if you really want what I strongly believe is the most sensible concept of religion and God. And in actual fact, one that is realisable if the correct means are taken on board.I have to admit that despite holding onto some reservation (a choice for avoiding dogmatism/blindness), I do mostly subscribe to the perennial philosophy that I previously put forward. It makes reading some of the discussion/argument here slightly frustrating because I perceive it to be based on a fundamental misconception. An analogy for this might be people arguing over the independence of an object and that object's colour - "The colour Red created the world!", "No he didn't!". They are clearly the same 'thing' - their difference is a value abstraction; something which we create as a means of dealing with reality. Have you ever seen colours independent of objects? Or has anyone ever seen a football and it's (sphere) shape separate? I doubt anybody has Yet, the language we use to talk about the object and it's colour can almost suggest two separate 'things'. Language can lead to misconception (or even misperception) in this way. If we take the properties of the language too literally (if we forget their sometimes abstract values), we risk distorting our view of a situation. I feel that people are mostly arguing about god as though he is a colour indepedent of an object or a sphere independent of it's football. Although this means I'm mostly unsurprised at the way the discussion/argument goes on that basis.When somebody engages in one of the various practices we find in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, Christian Mysticism and so on, they begin to perceive reality in different ways. Sometimes these differences in perception are to such an extent that they are given different labels. Although rather than perceptions they are usually called realisations. One reason for this is to distinguish them from working something out (constructing an idea or model of reality). Another reason is because these perceptions are felt to be (usually) closer aproximations to the nature of reality. An apt "realisation" or perception for me to discuss is that which is called "emptiness" ("samadhi" in Buddhism and "gezucken" to Meister Eckhart in Christian Mysticism). Within this realisation or perception, the process of dividing the world up into parts (dualism) falls away and the perceiver is left with a 'oneness'. They or that which they experience is no longer separate but the same as them. Unfortunately words really don't do justice to this realisation. They mostly confuse matters although they make, at the very least, a rudimentry indication of what's going on. The point is that this realisation isn't even a "oneness" because to have one, we must have another and that requires dualism, which as I said, we have gotten rid of*. To perhaps put it a bit better, the breaking of the world into bits has gone and because there aren't any bits, there can't be one bit - the bit that we might otherwise call the whole perception or realisation. So, when we say "oneness" we don't mean anything that there is one of. Instead, we have an abstraction (or abstract word) to indicate a type of numberless realisation. However, and here is the crux, misunderstanding the absence of dualism (of no bits in our perception) can lead us to imagine that there is an entity of some sort - some kind of "one" or "oneness". But there isn't. This is where I think the great misconception has occured within religion and those whom oppose it. God is simply another type of realisation albeit the highest form. But because to pretty much everyone, this realisation isn't instantlly attainable (it is with practice and commitment), they naturally place the realisation in terms they understand and which the language most potentially suggests - an entity of some sort. In Hinduism, "God" (or Brahman) is the highest form of realisation. We also see "God" realisation refered to in Buddhism, Occultism, Sufism, etc. God is also clearly the highest form in Christianity, except unfortunately he's the sphere who's incorrectly been divided from the football. He's no longer a realisation but an entity. What is great about this concept if that you can actually find out for yourself what it discusses. The metaphysical conception of god as residing separately to our existence is difficult to deal with - atheist or theist alike. This approach allows through practice, the realisations that are refered to, to be attained. I challenge anybody to give chance to an idea of God that is novel to them but mostly I dare anyone to try finding this stuff out, first hand, for themselves *To have one, we must also have another because each gives the possibilty of the other. This is always dependent on that, much in the same way each side of a coin is dependent on the other side. They cannot exist without each other. Edited May 31, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Crikey man, I bet your a laugh in the pub! No offence intended. Edit: I must apologise to you Ben, my comment was rather shallow and rude. I will admit that most of your post's, go over my head like an Irish Priest's cassock over a choirboy's head.What do YOU actually believe? I'm lost as to whether your commenting on your own beliefs or Religion in general? I am generaly interested in your views, as I like to keep an open mind and you obviously have learning and passion in this field. Could you maybe reply in layman's terms for those of us with less religiously educated minds please? Or PM me?Cheers M.A.M. Edited June 1, 2009 by middleageman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Crikey man, I bet your a laugh in the pub! No offence intended. None taken My interest in such matters doesn't define me anyhow. I lack seriousness and am very in touch with my inner child edit: just saw your amendment and don't worry I'm on my way out now but I'll try and talk about it again in different terms but to be honest i'm unsure as to how differntly I can place it. My understanding about it has taken several years and I'm still very confused Edited June 1, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 None taken My interest in such matters doesn't define me anyhow. I lack seriousness and am very in touch with my inner child edit: just saw your amendment and don't worry I'm on my way out now but I'll try and talk about it again in different terms but to be honest i'm unsure as to how differntly I can place it. My understanding about it has taken several years and I'm still very confused Thanks, I shall look forward to that. M.A.M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Yoshi Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 IM not a hardcore christian but i will try and help you with your questions as i have studyed for 4 years on Christanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.