Options

Do you believe in God? (Part 2)

16869717374252

Comments

  • Options
    mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Humans can be created in test tubes and even cloned. Does that go against the laws of nature? Jesus did exist you just dont believe it and thats fine.

    humans created in test tubes or cloned follow the laws of nature.

    there is not one jot of evidence that jesus ever existed. nothing. nada. therefore it is a possibility that he never did.

    it could all be nonsense you know.
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes. But the nicene creed seems very explicit to me about what that actually means.
    If you believe Jesus to be born the son of God I see no problem with the creed.
    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't (some at least) Roman Catholics believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?
    I don't think I'm going anywhere with this question or making any point in particular. It's just something I think I remember reading about.
    They also pray to her as well contrary to the New Testament.
    ...yeah mate but thats bollocks, sorry, but it goes against the laws of nature.

    and theres no evidence that jesus ever existed. you say he did, i say he didnt.

    I am getting to the stage where I could actually write your posts. :p
  • Options
    droogiefretdroogiefret Posts: 24,117
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    If you believe Jesus to be born the son of God I see no problem with the creed.

    /snip/

    Well .... I guess it is one thing to believe that Jesus could have been born to a virgin if that was God's will, and another thing to believe that is what actually happened.

    But the creed seems perfectly clear to me. Christians are required to believe the virgin birth took place and not to accept that is heretical. And my experience was that many of my church going Christians friends (including myself) held the heretical belief that the virgin birth was unlikely.
  • Options
    KJ44KJ44 Posts: 38,093
    Forum Member
    SULLA wrote: »
    I am getting to the stage where I could actually write your posts. :p

    >giggle<

    I'm fascinated by the theological stuff, because the disagreements are evidence that some aspects of religion were created "down here" by humans rather than "up there".
  • Options
    anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    KJ44 wrote: »
    >giggle<

    I'm fascinated by the theological stuff, because the disagreements are evidence that some aspects of religion were created "down here" by humans rather than "up there".

    Weren't they all? Not meaning any offence. Man wrote everything in all religious texts.
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Well .... I guess it is one thing to believe that Jesus could have been born to a virgin if that was God's will, and another thing to believe that is what actually happened.

    But the creed seems perfectly clear to me. Christians are required to believe the virgin birth took place and not to accept that is heretical. And my experience was that many of my church going Christians friends (including myself) held the heretical belief that the virgin birth was unlikely.

    Who do these 'Christians' think that Jesus is then ? Don't they think he's the Son of God?

    Do they think he was the son of Joseph or some over chap ? :confused:
  • Options
    KJ44KJ44 Posts: 38,093
    Forum Member
    "Some Vicars with Jokes" on BBC4 now. :D

    Don't tread on the ducks!
  • Options
    KJ44KJ44 Posts: 38,093
    Forum Member
    anne_666 wrote: »
    Weren't they all? Not meaning any offence. Man wrote everything in all religious texts.

    Yes ;-) but if the parties claim to have received messages from God and the messages conflict ...
  • Options
    droogiefretdroogiefret Posts: 24,117
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    Who do these 'Christians' think that Jesus is then ? Don't they think he's the Son of God?

    Do they think he was the son of Joseph or some over chap ? :confused:

    We didn't discuss it in that much depth.

    But if Christ was fully human and fully divine doesn't that mean he could be both - both son of Joseph and Son of God? Surely the doctrine of the Trinity makes that possible?
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    We didn't discuss it in that much depth.

    But if Christ was fully human and fully divine doesn't that mean he could be both - both son of Joseph and Son of God? Surely the doctrine of the Trinity makes that possible?

    I thought that he would get his human side from his mother. :)
  • Options
    droogiefretdroogiefret Posts: 24,117
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    I thought that he would get his human side from his mother. :)

    Yes - I can see how that works. Well... maybe I was even more of a minority than I remember. :blush: There doesn't seem much support online for my contention that most C of E Christians don't accept the virgin birth .... so perhaps just wishful thinking and selective memory on my part. :(
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes - I can see how that works. Well... maybe I was even more of a minority than I remember. :blush: There doesn't seem much support online for my contention that most C of E Christians don't accept the virgin birth .... so perhaps just wishful thinking and selective memory on my part. :(

    I suspect that most believe different things and are too polite to argue about it.
  • Options
    droogiefretdroogiefret Posts: 24,117
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    I suspect that most believe different things and are too polite to argue about it.

    Oh dear ..... there's another minority grouping I'm now a member of. :o
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Oh dear ..... there's another minority grouping I'm now a member of. :o

    Being polite is nothing to be ashamed of :p
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You may have seen Nethwen doesn't think unorthodox means heretical - and I get the impression Sulla doesn't either. But it's not a disparaging word to me. I just take a simple approach.

    So, for instance, the Nicene creed affirms the virgin birth. In my book that means that probably the majority of Christians hold the heretical view that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth. And that will remain heretical until the C of E either rewords the creed or issues a formal re-interpretation of what 'virgin' is meant to imply.

    I like to keep it simple - if for no other reason than to emphasise the need for the Church to continually update their articles of faith for a modern world.

    BIB - Droogie, I don't understand what you are implying here. Your first two sentences seem to be a contradiction to me, for a start. If the Nicene Creed affirms the Virgin Birth, then how can "the majority of Christians hold the heretical view that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth"? :confused:

    The Nicene Creed is said every Sunday:

    "We believe in one God,
    the Father, the Almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all that is,
    seen and unseen.

    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made,
    of one Being with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
    was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
    and was made man.

    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
    he suffered death and was buried.
    On the third day he rose again
    in accordance with the Scriptures;
    he ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    We believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.
    We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
    We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
    We look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the world to come.
    Amen"


    Then there is the Apostles' Creed which is said at every morning and evening service:

    "I believe in God, the Father almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth.

    I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,

    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried;
    he descended to the dead.
    On the third day he rose again;
    he ascended into heaven,
    he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
    and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting.
    Amen."

    http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/newpatterns/contents/sectione.aspx

    Also, the Athanasian Creed is said sometimes - the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds are the two main ones.

    All affirm the Virgin Birth.

    So where do you get the idea from that we are all heretics because we obviously don't believe in it, according to you? [paraphrase] :confused:

    It seems to me that you are looking for heresy in the Church of England where there is none. :(

    And why would you want the Church of England to reword their creeds when you are a Buddhist? :confused:

    Sorry for all the :confused: but it is because I am baffled.
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    humans created in test tubes or cloned follow the laws of nature.

    there is not one jot of evidence that jesus ever existed. nothing. nada. therefore it is a possibility that he never did.

    it could all be nonsense you know.

    Such a procedure is synthetic and therefore nothing like being natural.
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    anne_666 wrote: »
    I think it came from wanting to control and increase as much as possible the income from the terrorised faithful. Nothing to do with Christ's teachings as as far as I can see. Just call me an old cynic! :D

    Strange isn't it that Christianity has done all this so-called controlling, but no other religion (including yours, I presume ;)) has done so.

    From one old cynic to another. :p
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well .... I guess it is one thing to believe that Jesus could have been born to a virgin if that was God's will, and another thing to believe that is what actually happened.

    But the creed seems perfectly clear to me. Christians are required to believe the virgin birth took place and not to accept that is heretical. And my experience was that many of my church going Christians friends (including myself) held the heretical belief that the virgin birth was unlikely.

    Oh, just seen this post.

    How many of you were there then that didn't believe in the Virgin Birth? Did you all have a special get together or something? :D
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another atheist, Nick Clegg - who said yesterday that it is 'flippin' obvious that we are a Christian nation' in response to another small group of atheists saying it isn't - today says that HM The Queen should no longer be head of the Church of England. Err - the Queen isn't head of the C of E, you numpty! Christ is the head of the Church. HM The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Big difference.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10784676/Break-Church-and-State-link-says-Clegg.html

    and the Prime Minister's response:

    The Prime Minister immediately rejected Mr Clegg’s call to disestablish the Church, saying that the proposal was “not a Conservative one” and will not be implemented by the Government.

    Nick Clegg: the most ineffective person we have ever had in government, and whose days as an MP are numbered imho. Hint: General Election 2015.
  • Options
    droogiefretdroogiefret Posts: 24,117
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nethwen wrote: »
    Oh, just seen this post.

    How many of you were there then that didn't believe in the Virgin Birth? Did you all have a special get together or something? :D

    That's a question I've been asking myself too, as you may have seen from my exchanges with Sulla. I concluded that I must be using a bit of selective memory and there weren't as many thought like me as I seem to remember.
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's a question I've been asking myself too, as you may have seen from my exchanges with Sulla. I concluded that I must be using a bit of selective memory and there weren't as many thought like me as I seem to remember.

    BIB - Oh, droogie LOL. After all that! :D

    I didn't see your post, sorry. :)
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    nethwen wrote: »
    Another atheist, Nick Clegg - who said yesterday that it is 'flippin' obvious that we are a Christian nation' in response to another small group of atheists saying it isn't - today says that HM The Queen should no longer be head of the Church of England. Err - the Queen isn't head of the C of E, you numpty! Christ is the head of the Church. HM The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Big difference.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10784676/Break-Church-and-State-link-says-Clegg.html

    and the Prime Minister's response:

    The Prime Minister immediately rejected Mr Clegg’s call to disestablish the Church, saying that the proposal was “not a Conservative one” and will not be implemented by the Government.

    Nick Clegg: the most ineffective person we have ever had in government, and whose days as an MP are numbered imho. Hint: General Election 2015.

    Is it Nick Clegg or Nick Legg.
    I think he's my daughter's MP:blush:
  • Options
    EuanDesuEuanDesu Posts: 2,842
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Do you believe in God?

    No. The idea just seems bonkers to me.. don't even get me started on the Bible Brigade my old primary and middle school used to allow to come in and do assemblies!

    When I was very young, me and my friend Em used to sing the word 'animals' through out the songs and not say amen in the prayers... :D
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    EuanDesu wrote: »
    Do you believe in God?

    No. The idea just seems bonkers to me.. don't even get me started on the Bible Brigade my old primary and middle school used to allow to come in and do assemblies!

    When I was very young, me and my friend Em used to sing the word 'animals' through out the songs and not say amen in the prayers... :D

    Tee hee :D

    We used to sing:

    "We three Kings from Orient are,
    Tried to smoke a rubber cigar!
    It was loaded
    It explo-o-ded
    Tra la la la la la"

    and

    "When shepherds washed their socks by night" - can't remember the rest. :blush:

    And then I grew up, and became a Christian. :cool:
  • Options
    lordOfTimelordOfTime Posts: 22,404
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nethwen wrote: »
    Tee hee :D

    We used to sing:

    "We three Kings from Orient are,
    Tried to smoke a rubber cigar!
    It was loaded
    It explo-o-ded
    Tra la la la la la"

    and

    "When shepherds washed their socks by night" - can't remember the rest. :blush:

    And then I grew up, and became a Christian. :cool:

    Nethwen, I am shocked!! :o:D
Sign In or Register to comment.