"Currants Bw..."

[HCZ_Reborn]

Also

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/04/physi...onth-20588327/



Not sure this should be legal - although I do have some sympathy for the view that some euthanasia should be allowed. Not convinced this is a good use case though.

Oh this is quite the thorny topic

The standard view appears to be that this woman has the right to relinquish her life but she doesn’t have the right to solicit the state as an accomplice.

I don’t think there is a clear answer. What I know of suicide and suicide attempts is that they are messy and often botched. And that if this woman genuinely wishes to die it’s probably more ethical that she’s assisted in this. There was some talk a while back about a suicide booth (not the comical suicide booth imagined by Matt Groening in Futurama) but one that would induce hypoxia (oxygen starvation to the brain) and the person would simply use the machine without bringing anyone else into what they intended for themselves.

There’s also the extra moral dimension, are we not compelled to try and keep someone from killing themselves. As a Therapist I have a safeguarding responsibility to disclose anyone openly talking about having plans to end their life (which is markedly different from talking about previous suicide attempts or feeling low or not wanting to carry on but having no plans to act on this). Of course as a therapist what you want to be wary of is anyone who has previously been openly talking about wanting to die, and then suddenly seeming very calm and at peace in the next session…could be nothing, could be they’ve resolved to die and that brings them comfort.

[Letters]

The argument (albeit shooting fish in a barrel) is that increased understanding has forced Christianity to go from literal meaning to “well the science isn’t there but the message still has meaning”

Well, sure. I just don't see why that matters - and I'd ask the same of Christians who try to cling to the literal days by dismissing all the science. What's important here, the thought that we are a creation or when it happened?
The understanding of the latter has been changed by science, I just don't see why it's important.
The former IS the meaning.

It’s the admission that Theology can only exist in broad brush generalities

I'm not sure what that means.

If I was God, I’d give serious consideration to a re-launch exercise, rather than say no I’m sorry I gave my inspiration for my word to a bunch of semi literate imbeciles….im not doing it again.

Doesn't need a relaunch. Science may change our understanding of the mechanics of creation, but the concept that we are a creation and have a purpose is timeless, as is the Gospel message of sacrifice and redemption - which is why those themes have been repeated in countless other stories down the centuries.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well, sure. I just don't see why that matters - and I'd ask the same of Christians who try to cling to the literal days by dismissing all the science. What's important here, the thought that we are a creation or when it happened?
The understanding of the latter has been changed by science, I just don't see why it's important.
The former IS the meaning.


I'm not sure what that means.


Doesn't need a relaunch. Science may change our understanding of the mechanics of creation, but the concept that we are a creation and have a purpose is timeless, as is the Gospel message of sacrifice and redemption - which is why those themes have been repeated in countless other stories down the centuries.

It depends what you want from it

If the message is it doesn’t matter if it’s apocraphyal or not the idea of self sacrifuce and redemption as an allegorical message is timeless and inspiring it doesn’t really matter.

But Christianity does require you to believe that Jesus literally died for your sins rather than just a case of taking inspiration from the message.

My therapy style is based on Socratic principles of learning through shared dialogue, Socrates is a legendary figure in the very real sense that there’s no actual evidence that Socrates ever existed.

I think it’s fair to say that Christianity requires its followers to believe that not only did Jesus of Nazareth exist but that he was the son of God

I don’t mean that as a critique it’s more a clarification because a lot of your explanation of your belief seems to be rooted in its philosophical wisdom rather than it needing to be manifestly true.

[Niall_Quinn]

Religion deals in revealed truth. By its very nature it cannot avoid conflicting with science. Any religion will consider its message good for all time, and therefore it will naturally contradict science which forever is changing as our understanding changes and development.

I’ve just stopped myself there. Because I think this is where the division lies. If you believe in God (the monotheistic Abrahamic one for the sake of argument) you will believe that God created the universe and thus every scientific concept that comes with that. If you don’t, you believe that Christianity was written by people in Bronze Age Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding.

Now it’s fair to say whichever one of those explanations is true, and I don’t think you need guess at which one I think is true that Christianity as an institution rather than a belief system has had to adapt to the cultural and scientific changes of an ever changing world

If you read Hitchens God is not Great on Why Religion Poisons everything (slightly antagonistic title ) he speaks fondly of this old lady who was his primary school teacher and how she explained that it was proof of God’s divinity that he made all the plants a restful colour like Green rather than something more strenuous on the eyes. Where as Hitchens as a little boy thought this was plainly nonsense and it was far more likely that the eyes have to adapt to their environment

Science and Religion are one and the same, unless you view them from the perspective of mankind's churches. In which case, of course there is polarity. What does man ever do on a grand scale that doesn't divide? Maybe the Live Aid concert. That was a rare one. Cynical in its own way, behind the scenes, sadly. Dawkins is one of the greatest morons of our time. He's set out to miss the point and prove he's missed it in a thousands ways. It's like some kid saying there are fairies at the bottom of her garden and then all the wise men and Dawkins arrive to analyse the intentions of the fairies or, if as radical as Dawkins, suggest the fairies might not exist. Oh wow, what a fucking revelation. Of course god doesn't exist in the context shoehorned by Dawkins. Listening to that clown drags you a thousand miles in the wrong direction, so far away from the starting point that any point you make thereafter is entirely unrelated. I'd love to stick a knife in the bastard's arse and ask him about the laws of nature, which clearly state he'll bleed. Now write a book about the obvious and make a charlatan's career out of it, why don't you?

I'm very familiar with Darwin at the moment. Literally spend time sitting in the seats he sat in. He did great things. Applied himself in wonderful ways. But it starting to look like he was wrong about everything, as science begins to catch up with what religion knew all along. There are missing pieces that have to be fudged so any of our models work. Webb proved that too and so does his telescope. Eventually it will all coincide, but to hear it you'll have to shut your ears to these churchists and their armies of chanters.

God most definitely exists, in some for or another. Despite Dawkins' entirely irrelevant endeavours. For us to imagine what God is, or what his product stamps all over the universe mean, isn't the work of an Amazon best selling trilogy, it's the endeavour of a species over generations. Dawkins is like an anchor on that progress. A little man with small ideas who looks inwards and then claims he is considering the universe.

[Letters]

I think it’s fair to say that Christianity requires its followers to believe that not only did Jesus of Nazareth exist but that he was the son of God

I don’t mean that as a critique it’s more a clarification because a lot of your explanation of your belief seems to be rooted in its philosophical wisdom rather than it needing to be manifestly true.

You have misunderstood me somewhat.

The Bible has different types of writing in. I do believe the Gospels are eye witness accounts of what occurred.
I believe Jesus existed and was crucified - there's good extra-Biblical evidence for these things. And yes, I believe He was who He claimed and I believe He was literally resurrected. I'm not convinced the church would exist if He wasn't, it seems improbable to me that the disciples would have lived out the rest of their lives and ultimately been killed for something which they'd have known was a lie.

And I believe early Genesis is true too - I believe "In the beginning, God". I would note that for centuries science wasn't convinced that the universe even had a beginning. I believe we are a creation and we were created for a purpose, for relationship with the God who created us. And I believe our rebellion against Him was ultimately dealt with by Jesus.
BUT...I don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 should be read like a scientific text. I don't think it contains scientific truths nor is it intended to. If I'd read it hundreds of years ago I'd probably understand it differently but actually the Bible doesn't say when the beginning was. I don't think it matters and I don't understand why some Christians still try and cling to a literal understanding in the face of all the science. They're missing the point of those chapters.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Fair Enough. It’s not worth me debating you too much on this because actually I have enough humility to believe (and hope) that you understand and can explain your faith far better than I can

I personally think that the crucifixion and resurrection are the greatest examples I can think of about the transience of morality.

From my perspective, the idea that God sent his son as a human sacrifice which even today binds us in a covenant to say “he died for your sins” seems distinctly immoral. It’s telling me I’m bound by something that happened over a thousand years ago in a savage part of the world, and that I’m automatically redeemed by it. The absolute conceit of that feels breath taking to me.

But then again I don’t find Jesus a particularly morally good individual either.


Whilst I don’t hold with the concept of an eye for an eye, I don’t hold with the concept of turn the other cheek. That’s a doormat philosophy, you love your enemies if you like…I’ll look to destroy the individual who makes themselves my enemy. Because there is no sense in understanding and compassion when your enemy sees it as symbolic of your weakness.

But that’s me, I consider pacifism an exercise in unilateral stupidity, and if this stance risks harming others as well then it’s morally indecent too.

[Letters]

From my perspective, the idea that God sent his son as a human sacrifice which even today binds us in a covenant to say “he died for your sins” seems distinctly immoral. It’s telling me I’m bound by something that happened over a thousand years ago in a savage part of the world, and that I’m automatically redeemed by it.

That's an interesting take.
I'd say we're freed by what Jesus did, not bound by it. It's kinda the USP of Christianity.
In most other religions you have to earn your salvation and you're never actually sure if you've done enough.
In Christianity salvation is a gift - it's not automatic, it has to be accepted. Christianity says you can't earn your salvation, you can never do enough to do that. It was bought for you, and Jesus was the only one who could do that because He was and is God and He did it because of His love for us - John 3:16, basically.

You might not believe any of that is true of course, which is fine, but it's a pretty remarkable claim.
Judaism and Islam are all about ceremonies, Christianity is about relationship (or should be, admittedly the high churches are quite wed to their ceremonies too).

[HCZ_Reborn]

That's an interesting take.
I'd say we're freed by what Jesus did, not bound by it. It's kinda the USP of Christianity.
In most other religions you have to earn your salvation and you're never actually sure if you've done enough.
In Christianity salvation is a gift - it's not automatic, it has to be accepted. Christianity says you can't earn your salvation, you can never do enough to do that. It was bought for you, and Jesus was the only one who could do that because He was and is God and He did it because of His love for us - John 3:16, basically.

You might not believe any of that is true of course, which is fine, but it's a pretty remarkable claim.
Judaism and Islam are all about ceremonies, Christianity is about relationship (or should be, admittedly the high churches are quite wed to their ceremonies too).

But from a perspective of freedom of choice it does make far more sense (to me anyway) that you are responsible for your own salvation.


If you by basis of comparison take Enlightenment in the Buddhist sense of the word, to find Nirvana is on you as a spiritual quest but one that no one is likely to achieve in one life time so the concept of reincarnation exists that you have another crack at it.
Dont get me wrong I find that nonsense as well, but actually I find it more morally worthy than to say. Well you were born a sinner but this guy a thousand years ago died an excruciating death to alleviate you of that burden. It’s the ultimate in emotional blackmail. “Look at what this guy did for you, you ungrateful cunt”

[HCZ_Reborn]

I accept at this point that I’m largely paraphrasing the Hitchens argument about Jesus

[Letters]

But from a perspective of freedom of choice it does make far more sense (to me anyway) that you are responsible for your own salvation.

Well, you are responsible for it. You just don't have to do anything other than to accept it as a gift.
Is is not also blackmail to make people earn their salvation with no assurance whether you've done enough or not?