12 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt's not a "claim". And you're being oddly 'literal' about a turn of phrase. It's a bit of wordplay used as a title for the report. [Are you sure you listened to the podcast?] It's referring to the millions of Christians who are active in 'good works' and political activism etc. and the podcast's "point", which I have not missed, I think - is that the degree to which these religious people are active, runs counter - in the view of the Thought For The Day contributor - to a perception that it is unfashionable to be Christian in the U.K. and therefore they hide their lights under bushels.
The claim was 'people who do god do good'. period.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyI don't know and neither does the report.
Why is it then that those of faith tend to give more of their time and money to helping the poor than those who are not of a faith?
As for slavery, the Mosaic era was born to free slaves from Egypt. They then creaed the Sabbath as a day of rest for everyone. They also allowed for slaves to be freed after about 7 years of service. Granted, the Mosaic law ...[text shortened]... iation from the ancient world at that time where most men found themselves at the end of a whip.
There are all sorts of potential reasons.
One being that churches do charity work and many charities have a religious element or
foundation and so people who go to church and/or who are religious already go to
somewhere that does charity.
People who don't go to church are not regularly going to somewhere that collects money for
causes such as helping the poor.
However there are now secular organisations that are starting to grow that might start to fill
that gap (secular humanists for example). But for most of our history until really very recently
the number of people who didn't go to church and were religious was very small.
So our societies and infrastructure haven't yet adjusted to the fact that now a majority of
people don't go to church every week (where they no doubt get regularly reminded about charitable
causes and have people collecting money).
However I remind you that Sweden which is close to being the most secular country on the planet
with very low levels of religiosity also has a rock solid social security net and very good national healthcare
very little poverty and a relatively low wealth gap so internally charity is not really needed.
The state does what it's supposed to do and looks after people.
12 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou can specualate all you want as to why those of faith do more for those with less but the facts are the facts.
I don't know and neither does the report.
There are all sorts of potential reasons.
One being that churches do charity work and many charities have a religious element or
foundation and so people who go to church and/or who are religious already go to
somewhere that does charity.
People who don't go to church are not regularly going to some ity is not really needed.
The state does what it's supposed to do and looks after people.
As for Sweden, it is interesting of note that that country used to be the wealthiest country in Europe, until modern times. Now it is not. In a tax burdened state prosperity is a thing of the past. So it begs the question, what of the rest of the world? In fact why is the rest of the world not doing the same you think? Additionally, Sweden is about the size of New Jersey. I think you will find that the more local government is, the more efficient it is. In fact, I think it a good agruement for state rights in the US. Perhaps some states could test the Swedish model? And lastly, is there no poverty in Sweden? My guess is that is not the case and as I have also pointed out there is an entire world out there starving to death. My guess is that there is next to no outreach from Sweden. Instead, my guess is the attitude that I pay my taxes, so let the state take care of them. In fact, it is my theory that most atheists are socialists to help alleviate their guilt for not helping those in need. No matter, the poor still come and are in need. As Jesus once said, the poor will you have with you always........
12 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo, I have not listened to the podcast. But I will respond to one of the snippets.
Interesting 'Thought For The Day' podcast [4 mins] from BBC Radio 4, by Anglican priest Rev Lucy Winkett. Snippets:
"In my role as an Anglican priest, I meet significant numbers of people who are on the cusp of leaving the church".
"I met an NHS nurse recently who said it was a lot easier admitting she was gay than admitting she was a Christian".
"These ads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20120411-1040a.mp3
Thoughts anyone?
Let me offer some words of Jesus:
Matt 6:1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyDude, didn't you read the thread on slavery we just had? Mosaic Law was not the 'beginning of the end' for slavery. In Jesus' day there was still slavery. The end had not yet come some 1300 years later!
Why is it then that those of faith tend to give more of their time and money to helping the poor than those who are not of a faith?
As for slavery, the Mosaic era was born to free slaves from Egypt. They then creaed the Sabbath as a day of rest for everyone. They also allowed for slaves to be freed after about 7 years of service. Granted, the Mosaic law ...[text shortened]... iation from the ancient world at that time where most men found themselves at the end of a whip.
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've read some history on slavery and I've got nothing but love for the Quakers and other similarly-minded religious groups that worked hard to abolish slavery, and had the guts to advocate a deeply unpopular position.
By 1783, an anti-slavery movement was beginning among the British public. That
year the first British abolitionist organization was founded by a group of [b]Quakers.
Bartolomé de las Casas was a 16th-century Spanish Dominican priest, the first
resident Bishop of Chiapas, who as a settler in the New World witnessed, and was
driven ...[text shortened]... erate slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
clearly you need a history lesson.[/b]
Trouble is, they kept getting outnumbered by the other religious people who either ignored them or worse, claimed Biblical justification of slavery.
Let's do a little math lesson to go along with our history lesson. 1865 - 1688 = 177 years of abolition movements before slavery was actually banned in the US.
Justice too long delayed is justice denied.
-Martin Luther King
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI said it was the beginning of the end. Clearly slavery had been curbed by Mosaic law through the use of the Sabbath, which everyone obeyed, and freeing slaves every 7 years or so. In addition, Moses came to free slaves.
Dude, didn't you read the thread on slavery we just had? Mosaic Law was not the 'beginning of the end' for slavery. In Jesus' day there was still slavery. The end had not yet come some 1300 years later!
I believe Jesus further addressed the slavery issue, because I view slavery and sin to be one in the same. Really, the only way to erradicate slavery is to erradicate sin, but in the interim we can at least find ways to fight it.
12 Apr 12
Let's get back to the thread:
"I am spiritual, but I'm not religious."
In order to discuss this we need to clarify the terminology:
Spiritual: of, relating to, consisting of, having the nature of spirit, not material.
Religious: having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity or god.
So is it possible to believe in spirit, an intangible non-material stuff that survives the body after death while not believing or showing reverence for a god?
Richard Dawkins ( The God Delusion ) would say an emphatic NO, but I disagree.
And the reason I disagree ilies in the interpretation of the word "god".
The Christian God is a creating, human-like entity (we were made in His image) who looks over us and intercedes in our affairs. But if you widen the meaning to include the creative force of the universe, in us, around us, in every particle of the Cosmos, then it is quite possible to be spiritual without being religious.
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyI was the one who gave you the verses from the Bible that showed that not all slaves were freed after 7 years, that you were allowed to sell your daughter as a sex slave, that you were allowed to pass slaves on as an inheritance to your children, that you were allowed to beat your slaves so long as they didn't die in the next 2 days, etc. etc. etc.
I said it was the beginning of the end. Clearly slavery had been curbed by Mosaic law through the use of the Sabbath, which everyone obeyed, and freeing slaves every 7 years or so. In addition, Moses came to free slaves.
I believe Jesus further addressed the slavery issue, because I view slavery and sin to be one in the same. Really, the only way to erradicate slavery is to erradicate sin, but in the interim we can at least find ways to fight it.
None of that sank in, did it?
Putting token restrictions on slavery is not fighting slavery. It's quite the opposite. It's legitimization of slavery by the pretense that it's perfectly OK as long as certain extreme practices are forbidden.
Jesus only mentioned slavery once, and that in a parable, making no moral judgment on it. I challenge the claim that slavery is sin. Please quote any passage that says it is.
I'll go with the 13th Amendment over 'eradicating sin' any day.
12 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut the tone of the podcast was more; god. can be a vehicle for doing good and she wanted to remind people of that aspect of faith, rather than you do god therefor you do good.
You are missing the point.
The claim was 'people who do god do good'. period.
This claim is just plain wrong on the face of it.
I pointed this out by citing examples of people who do god who did not do good.
I could (and will if this carries on) mention the present day religious bigotry against
homosexuals and gay marriage.
But whether ...[text shortened]... ng badly now or in the past the fact remains
that many people who do god have not done good.