´óÏó´«Ã½

The man is an Apostate - Simple as that. He rejects the Bible, he loves the Roman Anti-christ and he is as depraved and in need of salvation as that lesbian minister who was on The Wright Stuff, this morning on Five.

Repent and believe the Gospel....for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.

Williams is a brilliant theologian. He has a great mind, and he is head and shoulders above most religious thinkers in the world today.

PB AoC

If you read the letters you would see that the Archbishop does not reject the Bible in the way that I certainly would. Williams is indulging in that most futile and dishonest of tasks: trying to find an understanding of scripture which will accommodate ideas he has formulated independently of the texts themselves. He lacks the courage to dismiss the Bible as a merely interesting and occasionally instructive collection of human religious experience. He may be a great academic theologian but he is a weak and cowardly leader, a man bereft of vision: the wisest fool in Christendom.

"...religious thinkers..."

...is almost a misnomer, is it not?

religious thought only makes any sense if you have already bought in to that religion.
So you could argue for centuarys, and people have, about the meaning of the scriptures and make them say whatever you want. But that still doesn't bring you any closer to the truth, that all sacred texts are equally valid / invalid.

"repent and believe the gospel"

it's not that straight forward is it. Belief isn't a choice. You either believe something or you don't. If I had a reason to believe then I might - but I haven't heard a good one yet

OliverB - before you believe in something you have to consider it reasonable, so there is reason and choice involved.

Some people look at christianity and their reason tells them there must be something here for so many people to believe over two thousand years. And then they read the gospels and see the Jesus presented there, and how the whole thing collapsed on Good Friday and would have ended then like so many other "messiahs" but something happened on the third day that changed the disciples from a frightened, demoralised bunch into men willing to go out and preach everywhere and die for this.

Now this isn't mathematic formula - but nor is it irrational belief.

What is irrational is to think that all religions/sacred texts are equally valid or invalid. That's abandonment of truth.

If there is a God then that is true and atheism is wrong.

If there is only one God then that is true and the hindu notions of multiple gods are wrong.

If that one God has three persons then that is true and Islam is wrong in thinking otherwise.

Now proof of these things may not be possible in this life - but that would not for one moment make them any less true, or indeed, less reasonable.

Out best estimation of truth is what we can prove in the natural world. Trying to establish the truth of the supernatural is a non-starter.
There were a lot of ifs in your post, which illustrates my previous point that there are a lot of things we have to take for granted before we even start arguing about the truth of the bible.

"what is irrational is to think that all religious / sacred texts are equally valid or invalid. Thats abandonment of truth"

Its only abandonment of truth from a Christian Theist perspective. Your assuming the truth of the gospel as a starting point.
Obviously, christianity makes sense once you've bought in to the faith - but once you have faith any other arguments are an irrelevance. Because no evidence that contradicts your world view gets a hearing.

Once you are a christian i'm sure the arguments seem very reaonable - even confusing things like the trinity - but it's that initial leap of faith that i don't think has any basis in reason.

dp

Oliver - saying it is irrational to think that all religious/sacred texts are equally valid or invalid does not require a Christian theist perspective, just a basic understanding of reason and logic. My collection of "ifs" were to point out that contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time - I wasn't presenting an argument for the truth of chrisianity as such - just stating the logical fact that if it is true (and of course I believe it is) then things which contradict it cannot be true as well.

Of course if people don't believe in objective truth (and lots of people in these discussions don't) then all we have are a series of subjective debates - like arguing whether Jimmy Greaves was a better footballer than Wayne Rooney.

"like arguing whether Jimmy Greaves was a better footballer than Wayne Rooney."


Two different types of footballer-Greavsey was goal getter par excellence-his record at every club and for country was superb. Rooney is not an out an out goal scorer as such-more a "second" striker as they call it these days. However I would say that in terms of all-round ability Rooney is the better player.

No way, Dylan Dog - Jimmy was the man - and he had the fun programme, The Saint and Greavsie.

smasher-
ok then, if we take it that something can't be true and untrue at the same time, why should i be convinced that Christianity is the truth?
At least with Jimmy Greaves and Wayne Rooney we have some sort of tangible evidence on which to base our opinions, i have yet to be presented with any evidence for the existence of god.
And yes - Gravsie was the better player.

dp

Smasher/Oliver

I suppose I am one of those people 'who don't believe in objective truth' so it may not be a total surprise to learn that I think two contradictory things CAN both be true at the same time. If there's one place where there should be a uncertainty principle it's on issues of faith and morality.

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews says 'it is appointed unto men once to die' (9 v.27) yet Jesus had already said years before: 'whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die' (John 11 v.26). Two contradictory statements yet few Christians would deny that they are both true. The truth which pervades both lies in the nuances.

Many Hindus think there is only one God and it is possible to equate the deities which are the object of popular veneration with Christian saints - mediators of an ineffable reality.

I don't things are nearly as black and white as you portray them - a friend once told me that I could find a grey area on a penguin and I was elated at the compliment. I don't, however, stop at grey - I embrace the polychromatic - which reminds me - our gay friends would probably say that when it comes to modelling Armani briefs neither Rooney nor Greavsie are a patch on Beckham.

Re #10
reminds me of the old 60's liverpool joke- what would you do if christ returned to earth.... play him in the centre and put St john(Ian) on the wing

Portwyne raises a serious point - who is uglier, Greaves or Rooney?

Oliver
Why do you trust your brain to interpret the Physical world accurately?

Science postulates many unobservable entities. Do you believe in any of them?

GV

Smashy

Greavsey may have had the show and very entertaining it was too! however I still hold that Rooney is the all-round better footballer-can't remember Greavsey tracking back to his own corner to make a tackle! then again greavsey was not that type of footballer. Now Greavsey and Rooney up front together-that would be a partnership!

As for Beckham-nice bloke but pretty boy who has traded more on his looks than football ability.

And I am of course 100% RIGHT-so there!

Pardon me for interrupting yet another faith is irrational/no it's not (and it isn't!) discussion... but...

Graham you made a suggestion regarding my possible views on Divine Command theory and Naturalism on the thread about "Reproductive Rights'. I've been away for a few days and missed it, but if you'd like to pick up a discussion, I'll post a comment there.

Sorry everyone.

As for footballers? Best, di Stefano, Puskas, Cruyff... nuff said!

Peter

I would agree with you that the footballers you mention are better-however the discussion was about the relative merits of messers Rooney and Greaves.

Also for that matter Maradonna, Marco Van Basten, Beckenbauer...just some more for the list!

Peter
I doubt very much that you hold the Divine Command view of ethics that Brian attributes to you. But the discussion might be edifying.
I'm not at all sure how Brian sees facts and ethics joining up. I don't know, as yet, what point he was trying to make when he said that he separates morality from biology in a logical sense.
The essay I pointed him to showed that nothing much follows from this. I think I established that he misread that essay - (but I misread him, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black). Hopefully he'll spot this post and resume the discussion. I think he may have some very interesting opinions on the matter, but he's left me in suspense!

Graham Veale