Views you have that are unpopular

Trail

R.I.P. Joe Rein
May 24, 2013
30,594
6,890
I have Jewish friends and they are nice people.
I lived in Stamford Hill, South Tottenham, London - Jew Capital of England (I think it ties with Muswell Hill basically)...those fuckers are weird, especially the ultra-orthodox ones. They do keep themselves to themselves and they go about their own business, but you can't help looking at them as weird.

The landlord of our house (I was in a shared student house) was a Jewish bloke who was interested in hypnotism. He'd practise it on some of my housemates (those who were game enough), when he'd got them under he'd start questioning them about their sex lives. Fucking weirdo.
 
Reactions: NSFW
Jun 4, 2012
27,130
17,649
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were OK with slavery too, even while espousing the notion that all men were created equal.
That was just in keeping with the mores of the day.

There are probably a lot of things you do (me too) that future generations might well come to abhor and term barbaric or savage.

Times change, outlooks evolve.
I think you're making his point for him here. That's the entire argument really, if the morals of a faith that is supposed to be from God and for eternity can be looked at as out dated and wrong by today's standards, then they're not for eternity, they don't speak to a higher intelligence and power, they speak to being man made. Moreover, I'd say the almost deification of the founding fathers in the US, is absolutely problematic. The constitution is treated like some religious texts, when in reality it was a set of ideas (mostly solid ones) made by a handful of men hundreds of years ago who did have plenty of views that are pretty awful in today's world.
 
Reactions: mandela

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,500
2,083
Emain Macha
I think you're making his point for him here. That's the entire argument really, if the morals of a faith that is supposed to be from God and for eternity can be looked at as out dated and wrong by today's standards, then they're not for eternity, they don't speak to a higher intelligence and power, they speak to being man made.

No, I would only be making his point for him if I accepted that all Christians held to those points you mentioned here...

...the morals of a faith that is supposed to be from God and for eternity...
It comes back to what Mex (just an example, I don't mean to speak for Mex) means by characterizing himself as a Christian.

If his take is that being a Christian means living as Christ preached (the Golden Rule, do unto others, etc...) then he can be a Christian as he sees it without the mystical stuff and the after-life idea.

The retired Episcopalian bishop John Spong holds himself to be a Christian but is sceptical of an afterlife and a host of other ideas that many more traditional Christian hold to. He has proposed 12 points of reform for Christianity:
  1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
  2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
  3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
  4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
  5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
  6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
  7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
  8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-copernican space age.
  9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
  10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
  11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
  12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race,ethnicity, gender sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

So, a good many Christians do not believe that their morals necessarily came from an-knowing all powerful God and were eternal, but rather, the morals and codes of biblical times were rooted in the culture of the time, as well as the (limited) understanding of the nature of the universe and its laws prevalent at that time. Both the moral codes and the understanding of the nature of reality are then necessarily fluid and must evolve as we learn more and understand better.

The issue that Haggis has here is that he is ascribing (inappropriately, IMO) what he sees as the essential elements of Christianity to all self-proclaimed Christians. Mex may, for all we know, hold to none of the tenets Haggis cited, and merely be living what he himself believes to be a Christian life, and thus term himself a Christian on that basis.






Moreover, I'd say the almost deification of the founding fathers in the US, is absolutely problematic. The constitution is treated like some religious texts, when in reality it was a set of ideas (mostly solid ones) made by a handful of men hundreds of years ago who did have plenty of views that are pretty awful in today's world.

This is problematic indeed, and moronic.

The Second amendment gets cited by fire-breathing, wide-eyed zealots as though it must have been on one of the tablets that Moses lost or mislaid on his way down from mount Sinai. It is cited in and of itself as a justification for current gun laws in the US, as though it were sacred and immutable.

Fortunately, the founding fathers, though not divine nor omniscient, were wise, and incorporated mechanisms that allowed for changes in the face of new information or changing mores. The 18th amendment and the 21st amendment are examples of this.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Strike
Jun 4, 2012
27,130
17,649
No, I would only be making his point for him if I accepted that all Christians held to those points you mentioned here...



It comes back to what Mex (just an example, I don't mean to speak for Mex) means by characterizing himself as a Christian.

If his take is that being a Christian means living as Christ preached (the Golden Rule, do unto others, etc...) then he can be a Christian as he sees it without the mystical stuff and the after-life idea.

The retired Episcopalian bishop John Spong holds himself to be a Christian but is sceptical of an afterlife and a host of other ideas that many more traditional Christian hold to. He has proposed 12 points of reform for Christianity:
  1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
  2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
  3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
  4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
  5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
  6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
  7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
  8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-copernican space age.
  9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
  10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
  11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
  12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race,ethnicity, gender sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
So, a good many Christians do not believe that their morals necessarily came from an-knowing all powerful God and were eternal, but rather, the morals and codes of biblical times were rooted in the culture of the time, as well as the (limited) understanding of the nature of the universe and its laws prevalent at that time. Both the moral codes and the understanding of the nature of reality are then necessarily fluid and must evolve as we learn more and understand better.

The issue that Haggis has here is that he is ascribing (inappropriately, IMO) what he sees as the essential elements of Christianity to all self-proclaimed Christians. Mex may, for all we know, hold to none of the tenets Haggis cited, and merely be living what he himself believes to be a Christian life, and thus term himself a Christian on that basis.









This is problematic indeed, and moronic.

The Second amendment gets cited by fire-breathing, wide-eyed zealots as though it must have been on one of the tablets that Moses lost or mislaid on his way down from mount Sinai. It is cited in and of itself as a justification for current gun laws in the US, as though it were sacred and immutable.

Fortunately, the founding fathers, though not divine nor omniscient, were wise, and incorporated mechanisms that allowed for changes in the face of new information or changing mores. The 18th amendment and the 21st amendment are examples of this.
Aye, good post. My personal view is that if you call yourself "Christian" but you doubt an afterlife, don't believe Jesus was the literal son of God etc, then you're not Christian at all, and just playing semantic games. But it's harmless enough.
 
Reactions: Setanta
Dec 7, 2016
3,166
853
56
Cox is right, and that's my stance too. However, it's worth noting that Cox doesn't believe in God or religion either, as he says in that clip.

Do you people really need Cox to spell it out. I have been saying that for years on here. People like Haggis just don't understand religion. What he is talking about ( people like him always do ) is bible literalists which most Christians are not. You can tell someone like this 1000 times and he will just keep going. Catholic Schools for example teach the same science that everyone else does. Early Christians warned about taking the bible literally. They teach it is a book of faith and not Science.
 
Jun 4, 2012
27,130
17,649
Do you people really need Cox to spell it out.
No I don't, he voiced my own stance on the issue. The point is that Cox himself is a non believer, and regardless of what form your Christianity takes it still involves a superstitious belief system.
 
Reactions: BigPete
Dec 7, 2016
3,166
853
56
I’d be interested on seeing some stats to back that up. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve read before that 90%+ of people with degrees in science who work in the STEM sector believe in evolution.

That is a prefect example. This board has been through this hundreds of times and yet we see again a poster believing that you can't be a Christian and believe in Evolution. The Catholic Church ( largest Christian group ) teaches evolution in their schools.

I took an older relative to Church a while ago and the Priest during his sermon mentioned that the Earth was Billions of years old.
 
Jun 14, 2012
13,236
5,881
That is a prefect example. This board has been through this hundreds of times and yet we see again a poster believing that you can't be a Christian and believe in Evolution. The Catholic Church ( largest Christian group ) teaches evolution in their schools.

I took an older relative to Church a while ago and the Priest during his sermon mentioned that the Earth was Billions of years old.
I can vouch for this. I'm a Catholic and even our religion teacher in school said we evolved from Apes and shit like that and that a lot of stories in the Bible should be taken as metaphors. Like Adam and Eve, Noah, parting of the Red Sea etc. I never gave a shit really but I think it's mostly Americans that take some of those stories as literal. Remember DobyZee on here posting videos of these over the top Baptism bible meetings that he attended. Im from Ireland and if that shit was going on over here you'd be fucked into a nuthouse.
 
Reactions: BigPete
Jun 9, 2013
102
109
Thats all well and good but if people are just gonna pick n choose the bits that are literal and the bits that are metaphor or allegory etc then you may as well just do away with the whole thing. Its either the literal word of god or it isn't, choosing the bits that are relevant for today's world and ignoring the bits that science has made a mockery of just makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.
 
Reactions: Haggis and jazzbone
Dec 7, 2016
3,166
853
56
Thats all well and good but if people are just gonna pick n choose the bits that are literal and the bits that are metaphor or allegory etc then you may as well just do away with the whole thing. Its either the literal word of god or it isn't, choosing the bits that are relevant for today's world and ignoring the bits that science has made a mockery of just makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.

I don't agree with this at all. The stories mean the same whether they are literal or not. Again it is a book of faith and not Science.
 
Dec 7, 2016
3,166
853
56
I can vouch for this. I'm a Catholic and even our religion teacher in school said we evolved from Apes and shit like that and that a lot of stories in the Bible should be taken as metaphors. Like Adam and Eve, Noah, parting of the Red Sea etc. I never gave a shit really but I think it's mostly Americans that take some of those stories as literal. Remember DobyZee on here posting videos of these over the top Baptism bible meetings that he attended. Im from Ireland and if that shit was going on over here you'd be fucked into a nuthouse.

I grew up as a Catholic and I never even knew that some people took the bible literally until I was in my 30's and started working with a few Born Again's . One day in front of me they were actually talking about the fact that they believe someone had found Noah's Ark. I was kind of shocked.
 
Reactions: jonnytightlips
Dec 27, 2015
564
498
I don't agree with this at all. The stories mean the same whether they are literal or not. Again it is a book of faith and not Science.

In fairness, it's a book of nonsense. I've no issues with someone holding onto hope in an afterlife and whatnot. People need/want comfort through difficult times and the church can be magnificent, no doubt. But the Bible in and of itself is ridiculous.
 
Reactions: jazzbone
Jun 14, 2012
13,236
5,881
I grew up as a Catholic and I never even knew that some people took the bible literally until I was in my 30's and started working with a few Born Again's . One day in front of me they were actually talking about the fact that they believe someone had found Noah's Ark. I was kind of shocked.
They're fuckin weirdos man and I've got no time for religious fanatics like that.
 
May 31, 2012
9,830
3,793
That is a prefect example. This board has been through this hundreds of times and yet we see again a poster believing that you can't be a Christian and believe in Evolution. The Catholic Church ( largest Christian group ) teaches evolution in their schools.

I took an older relative to Church a while ago and the Priest during his sermon mentioned that the Earth was Billions of years old.

When did I say you can’t be a Christian and believe in Evolution?

My argument is that you can’t believe in evolution and the literal version of any holy book.
 

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,500
2,083
Emain Macha
Thats all well and good but if people are just gonna pick n choose the bits that are literal and the bits that are metaphor or allegory etc then you may as well just do away with the whole thing. Its either the literal word of god or it isn't, choosing the bits that are relevant for today's world and ignoring the bits that science has made a mockery of just makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.
That's your take, and clearly, among Christians worldwide, a minority view.

Very small minority !
 

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,500
2,083
Emain Macha
When did I say you can’t be a Christian and believe in Evolution?

My argument is that you can’t believe in evolution and the literal version of any holy book.

Come, come, Rakim.

Are you telling us that you don't believe ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES is not a Holy book ?????
 

DBerry

complete and utter prick
Jun 11, 2013
38,669
14,434
47
'Straya, cunt.
Haggis in here abusing people for having religious views, arguing with his simpleton, binary thought process :lol:
Don’t ever change haggis, oh, that’s right, you can’t, you’re a complete idiot.
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
7,937
1,741
A controversial yet uncommon opinion I have is that I think men should have the right to opt out of parental responsibility before a child is born. I don't get the argument that a man should be forced to pay childcare as the result of a one night stand, with a woman he has no fondness towards, just because he chose to have sex. What if the condom split? What if the woman lied about being on the pill? I don't think it should be the case that men have no options where a foetus is concerned. Women are the ones who carry it but I don't think that gives them 100% of the control over something that they're 50% responsible for and if a man says that he doesn't want to play a part in the childs life, it's fair on the woman and the child for that to be transparent whilst there's still an option available.

I'm not for males going around, getting womens pregnant and then shirking responsibility but I don't think responsibility should be forced upon men either. The classic argument against abortion is when a woman has been raped but what if a man has been raped, or had his condom purposefully split? He then deserves to spend the rest of his life contributing to a child he didn't want?

I think there's also an interesting argument about whether a woman should be allowed an abortion if the man wants to raise the child alone. If the woman wants to opt out of parenting, that should also be her right, but if a man wants a baby and the woman doesn't, it doesn't sit right with me that the man gets no say and the woman gets to do whatever she wants. Yeah, I get that it's her body but it's not her baby and if people are happy to say that men have to be dads for 18 years, why can't a woman be pregnant for 9 months?

I should probably write out a longer, more in depth argument on this to create a stronger argument but this is my opinion in general and I think there's validity there, so I'll probably add mroe if anyone agrees or disagrees.