Quote Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie View Post
I understand what you are getting at but my response wasn't deflection. It is indeed the case that curse I have used has been embedded in our British culture for many centuries (and precedes Chaucer and Shakespeare) and one that I was exposed to myself.

Your point, if I understand it correctly and if I may say, would be better expressed as a separate issue or side issue; it's true that it's riskier criticising Islam on any forum on in public brings a greater risk than criticising Christianity. Similarly, one would have to be mindful of criticising Judaism and for another reason.

As we know, Christianity has not always been less forgiving but the societies it originally thrived in have changed and made it, in the main, less fundamental.
That dilution of fundamentalism has also resulted in individuals and schism considering some things as factual and other things metaphorical. How many Christians really believe in the talking snake, the talking donkey and Noah living 950 years and the creation story? My lay-preacher friend actually does and leaves churches when those churches are prepared to be less literal in their interpretation.

Islam asserts more control, in my opinion, over its adherents but I could be accused of being anti-Islamic for stating as much.
All religions I know are folklore and many of their stories were lifted from elsewhere (much to the surprise of their adherents). Some are more invasive and controlling than others.

Religions and language have traditionally travelled along the same conduit; that's why English speakers tended in recent centuries to be Christian, Arab speakers are more associated with Islam and Shintoists spoke Japanese in the main. People throughout history have largely believed the local religion foisted upon them and the same with language. Religion is parochial even when global.

Best have an overview of the souls on this planet, many of whom are believers in a deity or deities whilst believing that the non-believers of their schism are deluded. Religious adherents are merely influenced by time and place. You would not have been Christian if you were born into the Masai before colonialism, raised in the Amazon before colonialism, born in Ancient Greece or with Sikh parents in Amritsar.

Religions are patronising, infantilising, divisive and divide people. And very often overseen by a god that punishes non-adherents to an afterlife outside their supposed paradise. It's all incredibly fascinating if you are interested in humanity and history but we now have the intelligence and knowledge to understand the world in so many ways that bronze-age people couldn't.

Talking snakes and donkeys are so passé when we have an understanding of atoms, DNA and space travel.
Thank you for an interesting reply. I can see that you have obviously looked at world religions and are capable of making a reasoned argument for your case unlike others on the forum who simply have closed minds.

Obviously I disagree with you on some of the points you make. Re: talking snakes etc. - for myself I cannot be sure if some of these events are factual or metaphorical. I'm sure such events would have sounded pretty implausible even to bronze-age people - I think you do them an injustice in implying that they were gullible/thick! However if God is indeed an omnipotent being, then logically nothing is impossible?

I take the stance that either way what bearing do these “events” have on the behaviour of modern man? Yes, we have an understanding of atoms, DNA and space travel but has that knowledge in any way improved our morality? We have used that knowledge to design even more destructive weapons and quite likely biological weapons in the future. For every good use of technology there follows an evil one e.g. atomic research/nuclear weapons, Internet/child pornography; and more recently AI has been claimed to be the saviour of the world's problems - uhm...

SF ridicules my proposal that because people have largely ignored the teachings of Jesus we have the world we deserve. I am pretty sure your lay preacher friend and myself would agree on my proposal. Those who believe in the inevitable progress of man, either forget or ignore the fact that the twentieth century was the bloodiest, most destructive century in human history. The century's two world wars alone resulted in the deaths of at least 60 million people. Overall an estimated 108 million died in wars/conflicts in that century. (Ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/b...about-war.html).

You profess to believe there was an historical Jesus but the recording of his works and life are fictitious. I totally disagree. There is a common throw-away line that the gospels in the New Testament were written hundreds of years after the events but this is simply not true. The apostle Mark wrote his account in about 70AD and John about 90AD. John was the only one who died of old age, all the others were martyred for their faith.

As to your statement “And very often overseen by a god that punishes non-adherents to an afterlife outside their supposed paradise” I would argue that God does not punish non-adherents, they simply exclude themselves. Indeed God would prefer that everyone acknowledges Jesus for who he is, so no-one is excluded. I believe I will go to heaven when I die, not because I am better than anybody else or the amount of my good works but because I have accepted Jesus for who he is, become a follower, and purely by grace alone will meet him face to face one day. It is difficult to think of an exact analogy but why would anyone expect to be able to join any organisation that they had already declared that they fundamentally disagreed with? Indeed, why bother trying? The choice is theirs to make.

It's not my job to Bible-bash or judge others who do not share my Christian faith. This does not mean that I can't have opinions though! All I can do is to show how I live my life and try to put my faith into action so that others might question why I am the way I am. Actions speak louder than words as they say.