Things To Do In Bristol When You're (OCD)ead: Religion

Creationism - The arguments

Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:08:07 GMT

See, never say I don't give you anything.

Had a trawl around the web and came across a few different viewpoints. Turns out, there's a schism in the church itself between those who believe in something called the 'old world theory' (that evolution and dinosaurs are all cool within the belief structure) and 'young world theory' (we've only been here for about 7000 years and dinos were wiped out just before), as well as those who just believe in evolution.

Anyway, go have a read of the following:

http://www.answersincreation.org/dino.htm
http://www.bibleprobe.com/creationism.htm
http://www.evidenceofgod.com/answers/creation5.htm
http://nov55.com/rel/cre.html

Some fascinating stuff, whatever viewpoint you take - I'm not gonna offer one (lets face it, probably have enough pitchforks waiting to be stabbed into my ample behind as it is when I pass on), but would be interested to hear from everyone else to see what they think of such articles.

Matty

Creationism

Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:43:03 GMT

Anyone tuned into the James Whale radio show on TalkSport last night (can recommend it - is between 10pm and 1am GMT...MW 1053 & 1089, also on digital) will have heard an interesting debate from a scientist who believed in creationism, who was saying he could prove scientifically that we'd only been here for 7000 years.

Fell asleep at that point (wasn't that boring, but my sleeping problems have returned and so tend to drop off at odd times at the expense of waking up 3-4 times a night again) so am going to hunt around for the website and get more details...would like to hear a scientific vp on that one to see if I can shake my eternal state of religious dubiousness.

Matty

Bush wades in on evolution theory

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:37:32 GMT

(sorry Rob, MSN being rubbish - try again)

This is what happens when you have a fundamentalist Christian in charge at the White House.

Yes, although the oracle Bill Hicks' fears of having someone who belives in the 'cleanse the Earth of evildoers' Revelations ending of the Bible having their finger on the button appear unfounded (at the moment), Bush Jr appears intent on imposing his own beliefs on the majority - regardless of their health, education, beliefs and, in this case, scientific logic and theory.

'Intelligent design' is an interesting theory - but it really is just that. A theory with no factual evidence. So how on earth can you teach that as the way the Earth and its creatures came into existence in terms of science? Understand my viewpoint here - I actually have some sympathy for the theory itself, as no doubt many people have. In fact, I'd probably go along with it in tandem with darwinism. BUT as something to teach in place of it? No - that's crazy.

No-one is saying that Darwinian theory doesn't have flaws and spaces in it - but the enormous majority of it is scientifically proven fact. You can't pick a gap in it and then make the gap take precedence over the entire theory. The gap doesn't prove the theory unsound - it just shows it as incomplete, with more to add to it.

And besides - on that basis, which deity does Bush believe designed it? In today's political climate, with religious tension rife, he really is inviting someone to ask him that question - and Bush doesn't have the intellect to avoid offending every other religion on the planet with his reply.

I know there are a number of people who read this that have children - would be interested to know whether you'd like them to be taught this, after reading the article.

"The Western World is supressing Islam..."

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:09:38 GMT

The latest nonsense comment - this time from a Muslim on a radio phone-in. Wasn't condoning the attacks (not explicitly, anyway), but said their justification was that "the Western World must stop supressing Islam..."...

A rather bemusing comment from a British Muslim, living in and practising Islam in a leading Western World country and exercising the right of free speech for all cultures in this country by phoning into a national radio station and airing his views. Am sure any western people wishing to do the same in an Islamic state would be welcomed with open gunfire.

Sexuality question for our religious readers...

Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:33:10 GMT

...if I have any, of course! Hey, read it and 'tut' loudly if it makes you feel better - I don't mind.

Ok, this follows on from yesterdays Spanish gay marriage story and the barrage of abuse an 'Outrage' spokesman got from spokespeople from other Christian organisations yesterday. My question is this:

Isn't it wrong to say a homosexual should pray for forgiveness from God, when it was God that made the person homosexual to begin with?

Let me expand. 99.99% of gay people I've ever spoken to say there sexuality emerged at the same time as a hetrosexual person's - so, at the age of 9+ when puberty hit, they found themselves attracted to members of the same sex rather then the opposite as a natural response.

In the same way, the overwhelming weight of research by the medical profession concludes that homosexuality is part of a person's genetic make-up at birth. It's not a psychologically-developed attribute (those people who say it is 'fluid' - this is a psychologists theory. In my experience, that's a theory used by people still struggling to accept their sexuality and these people still, when pushed, have a definite preference for one or the other).

So, by your doctrine, that means God has made these people homosexual. Is not telling them to ask for forgiveness then wrong, as it isn't their fault? If God cannot make a mistake, then he made people that way. So aren't you then accusing God of making a mistake? That's very brave...

Of course, a modern argument is that it is the 'practice' rather then the inclination of homosexuality which is wrong. But why would God make you a certain way in order to test you, and make you deny absolutely natural human impulses that he created to start with? That would make God very cruel, wouldn't it?

Interested in the opinions of both religious and non-religious people...not wishing for confrontation, but just to open my mind - and maybe the minds of others, too.

There's nothing worse then an angry ex-Anglican...

Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:39:04 GMT

...which is what I currently am. Angry. I can cope with people giving opinions and advice about how to approach tackling OCD. I value those approaches that differ from my view of it being a chemical imbalance. I get frustrated with, but still appreciate the sentiment of, those people who are convinced their way of curing it (not that curing it is possible in my view) is the only way. I get annoyed but ultimately dismissive of those people foolish enough to say "it's easy - just stop worrying". BUT - when someone utters the words "trust me, God is there for you and won't let anything bad happen"...THAT'S when I get angry. When this stuff struck me down I was a devout Christian - I prayed for 18 months about it, just trying to understand what was going on and hoping for some help. And I learned the hard way that it just doesn't work like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm still very spiritual (rather then religious) and believe there is some higher force - but an approach like that is the type of thing uttered by those people who seem intensely sheltered from the real world, sealed in a little bubble of ignorance and often incapable of relating to those people to whom the advice is a little late because it's already happened, and often still is. Sorry to the religous amongst you - it isn't aimed at all of you by any means, as I know many of you are decent, unjudgemental, open-minded and sympathetic people. But others need to pay more heed to the adage 'God helps those who help themselves' and the unspoken addition 'Those of you who blindly walk into trouble, believing yourself to have some kind of holy bloody immunity because you're favoured in some way, are liable to fall on your ass in a big way through nobody elses fault but your own'.