Please read the following link concerning the Institutes of Biblical Law. Here you will find the explanation why our justice system is failing to deliver justice and why the state is passing more and more laws to curb our freedom: it all boils down to the rejection of the fundamental principles of Biblical law towards humanistic laws.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
exceprts:-
Negativism of the Law
It is important to call attention to an aspect of the law which makes it especially offensive to the modern mind: its negativism. To the modern mind, laws of negation seem oppressive and tyrannical, and the longing is for positive officials of the law. The best statement of a positive concept of law was the Roman legal principle: "the health of the people is the highest law." This principle has so thoroughly passed into the world's legal systems that to question it is to challenge a fundamental premise of the state. The Roman principle is basic to the American development, in that the courts have interpreted the “general welfare” clause of the U.S. Constitution in terms radically alien to the original intent of 1787.
A negative concept of law confers a double benefit: first, it is practical, in that a negative concept of law deals realistically with a particular evil. It states, “Thou shalt not steal,” or, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” A negative statement thus deals with a particular evil directly and plainly: it prohibits it, makes it unlawful. The law thus has a modest function; the law is limited, and therefore the State is limited. The State, as the enforcing agency, is limited to dealing with evil, not controlling all men.
Second, a negative concept of law insures liberty. If the commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal,” it means that the law can only govern theft: it cannot govern or control honestly acquired property. When the law prohibits blasphemy and false witness, it guarantees that all other forms of speech have their liberty. The negativity of the law is the preservation of the positive life and freedom of man.
But, if the law is positive in its function, and if the health of the people is the highest law, then the State has total jurisdiction to compel the total health of the people. The immediate consequence is a double penalty on the people. First, an omnipotent State is posited, and a totalitarian State results. Everything becomes part of the State's jurisdiction, because everything can potentially contribute to the health or the destruction of the people. Because the law is unlimited, the State is unlimited. It becomes the business of the State, not to control evil, but to control all men. Basic to every totalitarian regime is a positive concept of the function of law.
This means, second, that no area of liberty can exist for man; there is then no area of things indifferent, of actions, concerns, and thoughts which the State cannot govern in the name of public health. To credit the State with the ability to minister to the general welfare, to govern for the general and total health of the people, is to assume an omnicompetant State, and to assume an all-competent State is to assume an incompetent people. The State then becomes a nursemaid to a citizenry whose basic character is childish and immature. The theory that law must have a positive function assumes thus that the people are essentially childish.
When the law of the State assumes a positive function in protecting the health and general welfare of its people, it then does not assume the liability. The people are absolved of responsibility, but the medical profession (business firms, property owners, and the like) assume total liability. The steps toward total liability are gradual, but they are inevitable with a welfare economy.
Historians often praise the medical practice of pagan antiquity, and they commonly credit it with far more merit than it had. At the same time, they blame Christianity for corrupting and halting medical progress. But the decline in ancient medicine began by their own admission in the third century B.C. In fact, Christianity rescues medicine from sterile presuppositions.
In ancient Egypt, Babylon, and elsewhere, the doctor was subject to total liability. If the patient lost his life, the doctor lost his life. Even though the fault was not his, the doctor was totally liable. But, even when the doctor was at fault, what made the doctor totally liable? The patient, after all, had come voluntarily, and the doctor was not a god. Or should he be? The European pagan background, as well as other pagan practices, associated medicine with the gods. Ascetic practices were required of the doctor, so that the doctor was gradually converted into a monk. Only gradual, with the Christianization of the West, was this pagan concept of medicine abandoned, and, with it, the concept of total liability which required the doctor to be a god or else suffer.
State controls over the medical profession have steadily restored the old concept of liability, and the doctors find themselves especially prone to lawsuits. It has become dangerous for a doctor to administer emergency roadside care in an accident because of this proneness to liability. The day may not be too far distant, if the present trend continues, when doctors may be tried for murder if their patient dies. There were hints of this in the Soviet Union in Stalin's closing days.
If the law assumes a positive function, it is because it is believed that the people are a negative factor, i.e., incompetent and child-like. Then, in such a situation, responsible men are penalized with total liability. If a criminal, who is by his criminality an incompetent, enters a man's house, he is protected in his rights by law, but the responsible and law-abiding citizen can face a murder charge if he kills the invader. A hoodlum can trespass on a man's land, climbing a fence or breaking down a gate to do so, but if he then breaks his leg in an uncovered post-hole or trench, the home owner is liable for damages.
When the law loses its negativity, when the law assumes a positive function, it protects the criminals and the fools, and it penalizes responsible men. Responsibility and liability are inescapable facts: if denied in one area, they are not abolished but rather simply transferred to another area. If criminals are not responsible people but merely sick, then someone is guilty of making them sick. Under communism, this means the total liability of the Christians and capitalists as guilty of all of society's ills. As totally liable, they must be liquidated.
Responsibility and liability cannot be avoided. If a scriptural doctrine of responsibility be denied, a pagan doctrine takes over. And if the scriptural negativism of the law is replaced with a law having a positive function, a revolution against Christianity and freedom has taken place. A negative concept of law is not only a safeguard to liberty but to life as well.
Relativism
Relativism reduces all things to a common color. As a result, there is no longer any definition for crime. The criminal is protected by law because the law knows no criminal, since modern law denies the absoluteness of justice which defines good and evil. What cannot be defined cannot be protected. A definition is a fencing and a protection around an object: it separates it from all things else and protects its identity. An absolute law set forth by the absolute God separates good and evil and protects good. When that law is denied, and relativism sets in, there no longer exists any valid principle of differentiation and identification. What needs protecting from whom, when all the world is equal and the same? When all the world is water, there is no shore line to be guarded. When all reality is death, there is no life to be protected. Because the courts of law are increasingly unable to define anything due to their relativism, they are increasingly unable to protect the righteous and the law-abiding in a world where crime cannot be properly defined.
The relativistic society is indeed then an “open society,” open to all evil and to no good. Since the relativistic society is beyond good and evil by definition, it cannot offer its citizens any protection from evil. Instead, a relativistic society will seek to protect its people from those who seek to restore a definition of good and evil in terms of Scripture.
Full Version: Why British Justice Is Upside Down
Scarlet, I know this is difficult for you to understand, but this is housepricecrash.CO.UK
This is all about America, and as an aside, its a crock of religious bull$hit.
This is all about America, and as an aside, its a crock of religious bull$hit.
QUOTE (anorthosite @ Mar 12 2008, 06:21 PM) 
Scarlet, I know this is difficult for you to understand, but this is housepricecrash.CO.UK
This is all about America, and as an aside, its a crock of religious bull$hit.
This is all about America, and as an aside, its a crock of religious bull$hit.
So typical of software nowadays to assume that it will only be used in America ...
you folks are out of your depth
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:25 PM)
you folks are out of your depth
Please explain the context of that post.
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:25 PM)
you folks are out of your depth
You're right. We're drowning in BullSh1t here.
Please stop ...
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:16 PM)
Here you will find the explanation why our justice system is failing to deliver justice
I thought it was down to apathy and incompetence.
QUOTE (anorthosite @ Mar 12 2008, 06:31 PM)
Please explain the context of that post.
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:16 PM)
Please read the following link concerning the Institutes of Biblical Law. Here you will find the explanation why our justice system is failing to deliver justice and why the state is passing more and more laws to curb our freedom: it all boils down to the rejection of the fundamental principles of Biblical law towards humanistic laws.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
.
Most people would agree the more and more laws are being passed to curb our freedom -- but its a bit pathetic to say that its due to the rejection of biblical law
I take you still haven't read the book I suggested The myth of a Christian Nation
Oh Gawd. I log off after work, come in this morning, log on and find Scarlets started yet another mad religious thread. 
QUOTE (jackster1 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:31 PM)
Most people would agree the more and more laws are being passed to curb our freedom -- but its a bit pathetic to say that its due to the rejection of biblical law
no it's not pathetic, it makes sense:-
A negative concept of law confers a double benefit: first, it is practical, in that a negative concept of law deals realistically with a particular evil. It states, “Thou shalt not steal,” or, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” A negative statement thus deals with a particular evil directly and plainly: it prohibits it, makes it unlawful. The law thus has a modest function; the law is limited, and therefore the State is limited. The State, as the enforcing agency, is limited to dealing with evil, not controlling all men.
Second, a negative concept of law insures liberty. If the commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal,” it means that the law can only govern theft: it cannot govern or control honestly acquired property. When the law prohibits blasphemy and false witness, it guarantees that all other forms of speech have their liberty. The negativity of the law is the preservation of the positive life and freedom of man.
What Scarlets is essentially talking about is the difference between a Napolenic code of laws as used in most European countries and the English system. In the former, everything is prohibited by default and the state explicity says what is allowed. In the latter, everything is permitted unless specifically stated otherwise.
There are pros and cons to each system. The advantage of the Napoleonic system is that rights are explicitly laid out making it easier to see when they are being eroded or withdrawn. People are more able to understand their rights and so are more likely to stand up for them. The English system has the benefit of liberty being the default position and the state having to explicitly define what is not allowed.
The big problem for Scarlets' arguement however is that in Christianity, in at least its fundamentalist, protostant version, the default position seems to be that everybody goes to hell. In fact the church is quite explicit about this. You have to believe in Jesus Christ and if you don't you burn for all eternity. The rest of the post therefore seems pretty moot.
There are pros and cons to each system. The advantage of the Napoleonic system is that rights are explicitly laid out making it easier to see when they are being eroded or withdrawn. People are more able to understand their rights and so are more likely to stand up for them. The English system has the benefit of liberty being the default position and the state having to explicitly define what is not allowed.
The big problem for Scarlets' arguement however is that in Christianity, in at least its fundamentalist, protostant version, the default position seems to be that everybody goes to hell. In fact the church is quite explicit about this. You have to believe in Jesus Christ and if you don't you burn for all eternity. The rest of the post therefore seems pretty moot.
QUOTE (ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere @ Mar 13 2008, 04:12 PM)
What Scarlets is essentially talking about is the difference between a Napolenic code of laws as used in most European countries and the English system. In the former, everything is prohibited by default and the state explicity says what is allowed. In the latter, everything is permitted unless specifically stated otherwise.
There are pros and cons to each system. The advantage of the Napoleonic system is that rights are explicitly laid out making it easier to see when they are being eroded or withdrawn. People are more able to understand their rights and so are more likely to stand up for them. The English system has the benefit of liberty being the default position and the state having to explicitly define what is not allowed.
The big problem for Scarlets' arguement however is that in Christianity, in at least its fundamentalist, protostant version, the default position seems to be that everybody goes to hell. In fact the church is quite explicit about this. You have to believe in Jesus Christ and if you don't you burn for all eternity. The rest of the post therefore seems pretty moot.
There are pros and cons to each system. The advantage of the Napoleonic system is that rights are explicitly laid out making it easier to see when they are being eroded or withdrawn. People are more able to understand their rights and so are more likely to stand up for them. The English system has the benefit of liberty being the default position and the state having to explicitly define what is not allowed.
The big problem for Scarlets' arguement however is that in Christianity, in at least its fundamentalist, protostant version, the default position seems to be that everybody goes to hell. In fact the church is quite explicit about this. You have to believe in Jesus Christ and if you don't you burn for all eternity. The rest of the post therefore seems pretty moot.
Well either system can be applied without refering to Biblical law, Its Scarlets attempt to claim that the breakdown of the English system is due to a departure of biblical law that gets on my nerves
Scarlet claims in that capital punishment should be used if someone murders someone and says its right because the bible says so - so using that argument then by default Scarlet has to agree that capital punishment should be used for adultery, sleeping with your fathers wife, sleeping with your daughter in law, marrying a mother and a daughter, and having sex with an animal
Leviticus 20.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
Trouble is scarlet uses the argument that its in the bible so must be obeyed - when it suits his argument - but then uses the context argument to wiggle out of why all laws set down in the Bible are not to be obeyed
I think we should start a trhread listing all the questions scarlets has been asked and give him a chance to answer
QUOTE (jackster1 @ Mar 14 2008, 11:31 AM)
Well either system can be applied without refering to Biblical law, Its Scarlets attempt to claim that the breakdown of the English system is due to a departure of biblical law that gets on my nerves
Scarlet claims in that capital punishment should be used if someone murders someone and says its right because the bible says so - so using that argument then by default Scarlet has to agree that capital punishment should be used for adultery, sleeping with your fathers wife, sleeping with your daughter in law, marrying a mother and a daughter, and having sex with an animal
Leviticus 20.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
Trouble is scarlet uses the argument that its in the bible so must be obeyed - when it suits his argument - but then uses the context argument to wiggle out of why all laws set down in the Bible are not to be obeyed
I think we should start a trhread listing all the questions scarlets has been asked and give him a chance to answer
Scarlet claims in that capital punishment should be used if someone murders someone and says its right because the bible says so - so using that argument then by default Scarlet has to agree that capital punishment should be used for adultery, sleeping with your fathers wife, sleeping with your daughter in law, marrying a mother and a daughter, and having sex with an animal
Leviticus 20.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
Trouble is scarlet uses the argument that its in the bible so must be obeyed - when it suits his argument - but then uses the context argument to wiggle out of why all laws set down in the Bible are not to be obeyed
I think we should start a trhread listing all the questions scarlets has been asked and give him a chance to answer
I think it would be quite a long thread. Might be a laugh though
I think there are about 3 standard answers to your post:
1. It's all about context. Atheists love to twist scripture to suit their ends.
2. Hitler was an evolutionist
3. Burn in hell for all eternity you heathen
QUOTE (jackster1 @ Mar 14 2008, 11:31 AM)
I think we should start a trhread listing all the questions scarlets has been asked and give him a chance to answer
Agreed!!! Nor do we need to bump it as we can just add questions to it as time goes by!
EDIT: Done!
QUOTE (ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere @ Mar 14 2008, 01:08 PM)
I think it would be quite a long thread. Might be a laugh though
I think there are about 3 standard answers to your post:
1. It's all about context. Atheists love to twist scripture to suit their ends.
2. Hitler was an evolutionist
3. Burn in hell for all eternity you heathen
I think there are about 3 standard answers to your post:
1. It's all about context. Atheists love to twist scripture to suit their ends.
2. Hitler was an evolutionist
3. Burn in hell for all eternity you heathen
LOL Scarlet can't use these arguments on me - as I am in possession of a get out of hell free card
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 14 2008, 01:47 PM)
Agreed!!! Nor do we need to bump it as we can just add questions to it as time goes by!
EDIT: Done!
EDIT: Done!
question added
I don't think the individual would really notice much difference between living under Roman Law and Anglo-saxon codes, in the West. Now Islamic Law would be different.
Attention has been drawn to the endless proliferation of law and government intrusion into our private life. Governments have bribed their way into power by endless promises to the electorate to solve this and that problem. We are living a cushy pipedream - if/when there is a financial crash the sham will be revealed. There simply won't be the resources around for the Government to provide services and so on.
Scarlett I think over relies on the OT in her posts. There are two things to note. First the OT didn't do the Jews much good, they rejected their prophets and Christ - I don't get the Protestant urge to revive the old ways. Secondly, RC and Protestants use Anselm's theology and are very much focused on death, suffering,punishment (Remember Mel Gibson's film). This isn't the only theology.
Lastly a factual point. The link between religious ascetism and healing isn't only a pagan phenomenon. The Christians have continued it to the present day. What were monastic herb gardens for? Even today there are sects of RC nuns and others who run terminal care hospices and hospitals. The Salvation army put their beliefs into practical action by running hostels for the homeless and so on.
Even if the Christian Faith is fake (not my belief) at least they did some good. I think there are atheists and Buddhists, who are better people than I'll ever be. The sermon endeth...
Attention has been drawn to the endless proliferation of law and government intrusion into our private life. Governments have bribed their way into power by endless promises to the electorate to solve this and that problem. We are living a cushy pipedream - if/when there is a financial crash the sham will be revealed. There simply won't be the resources around for the Government to provide services and so on.
Scarlett I think over relies on the OT in her posts. There are two things to note. First the OT didn't do the Jews much good, they rejected their prophets and Christ - I don't get the Protestant urge to revive the old ways. Secondly, RC and Protestants use Anselm's theology and are very much focused on death, suffering,punishment (Remember Mel Gibson's film). This isn't the only theology.
Lastly a factual point. The link between religious ascetism and healing isn't only a pagan phenomenon. The Christians have continued it to the present day. What were monastic herb gardens for? Even today there are sects of RC nuns and others who run terminal care hospices and hospitals. The Salvation army put their beliefs into practical action by running hostels for the homeless and so on.
Even if the Christian Faith is fake (not my belief) at least they did some good. I think there are atheists and Buddhists, who are better people than I'll ever be. The sermon endeth...
All the worlds religions are being snuffed out as the NWO see any large organisation as a threat and whilst i'm not religious i do think these religions should be left alone and let the people themselves decide if they want to be a part of it.
to me religion as in the rubish we are told is more a virus for the brain than anything else and can be much more harmfull than drinking too much or smoking but people are free to decide for themselves.
to me religion as in the rubish we are told is more a virus for the brain than anything else and can be much more harmfull than drinking too much or smoking but people are free to decide for themselves.
Some of that website Scarlets quoted from has a good approach to trying to find the real meanings intented by the writers of the bible
I wonder if Scarlets believes most of the stuff on that site as she seems to believe in a real hell but THEY DISAGREE
They have an analysis of the biblical 'hell' and not surprisingly found there is not evidence to support the existence of a place called hell which is used for eternal torment (the notion we now tend to have of hell has been invented since the bible was written)
You need to go thru their menu to find the write-ups:
http://devoted.to/truth
Also they find that the soul is not immortal according to the bible
And they find that there's nothing forbidding masturbation!
But they have some backward stuff on there also. Like claiming bananas are the 'atheists nightmare' because they were specifically 'designed' for human use!
I wonder if Scarlets believes most of the stuff on that site as she seems to believe in a real hell but THEY DISAGREE
They have an analysis of the biblical 'hell' and not surprisingly found there is not evidence to support the existence of a place called hell which is used for eternal torment (the notion we now tend to have of hell has been invented since the bible was written)
You need to go thru their menu to find the write-ups:
http://devoted.to/truth
Also they find that the soul is not immortal according to the bible
And they find that there's nothing forbidding masturbation!
But they have some backward stuff on there also. Like claiming bananas are the 'atheists nightmare' because they were specifically 'designed' for human use!
They have an analysis of the biblical 'hell' and not surprisingly found there is not evidence to support the existence of a place called hell which is used for eternal torment (the notion we now tend to have of hell has been invented since the bible was written.
I have come across 3 ideas of what hell really means.
1)"standard issue" hell = fire, torment, devils & so on. Relates closely to the text of the bible and has very graphic imagery and is just right for keeping people on the straight and narrow. Problem is - how could a God who loves mankind permit eternal torment?. Seems contradictory doesn't it ?
2)a place/state whereby the soul who has rejected God, experiences distress but nevertheless eventually comes back to be with God and enjoys eternal life with him. Remember the prodigal son story? Problem is - Free Will?
3)God's love underlies all creation, therefore without this love then the created wouldn't exist. With me? A soul that rejects Gods love will eventually cease to exist. Therefore, to reject God is really to reject existence itself.
Obviously, 2 and 3 are very theological and wouldn't really inspire anybody much. I couldn't imagine an Ian Paisley figure having a good rant about 2 or 3.
I am aware of the contradictions of 1 and it fits in very well with Roman Catholicism/Protestantism, so am doubtful whether this is the Truth. My vote would go for 2 - as it is closer to the idea of the Church' purpose being about forgiveness and closing the gap between mankind and God. It fits in better with Orthodox theology than the first idea.
I have come across 3 ideas of what hell really means.
1)"standard issue" hell = fire, torment, devils & so on. Relates closely to the text of the bible and has very graphic imagery and is just right for keeping people on the straight and narrow. Problem is - how could a God who loves mankind permit eternal torment?. Seems contradictory doesn't it ?
2)a place/state whereby the soul who has rejected God, experiences distress but nevertheless eventually comes back to be with God and enjoys eternal life with him. Remember the prodigal son story? Problem is - Free Will?
3)God's love underlies all creation, therefore without this love then the created wouldn't exist. With me? A soul that rejects Gods love will eventually cease to exist. Therefore, to reject God is really to reject existence itself.
Obviously, 2 and 3 are very theological and wouldn't really inspire anybody much. I couldn't imagine an Ian Paisley figure having a good rant about 2 or 3.
I am aware of the contradictions of 1 and it fits in very well with Roman Catholicism/Protestantism, so am doubtful whether this is the Truth. My vote would go for 2 - as it is closer to the idea of the Church' purpose being about forgiveness and closing the gap between mankind and God. It fits in better with Orthodox theology than the first idea.
IMO, if we all feared Xenu, the world would be a happier, more moral place.
QUOTE (Pacific State @ Mar 16 2008, 10:20 AM)
IMO, if we all feared Xenu, the world would be a happier, more moral place.
I say we worship Baal, care for a holy war?
QUOTE (peepers @ Mar 16 2008, 12:07 AM)
Some of that website Scarlets quoted from has a good approach to trying to find the real meanings intented by the writers of the bible
I wonder if Scarlets believes most of the stuff on that site as she seems to believe in a real hell but THEY DISAGREE
I wonder if Scarlets believes most of the stuff on that site as she seems to believe in a real hell but THEY DISAGREE
You mean Scarlets is cherry-picking anything from anywhere to supports his / her / it's views and not looking at the whole context??
QUOTE (Justice @ Mar 15 2008, 09:59 AM)
to me religion as in the rubish we are told is more a virus for the brain than anything else and can be much more harmfull than drinking too much or smoking but people are free to decide for themselves.
absolute rubbish
just in Wales, a recent study found that faith adds £100m net to the economy
projecting across UK this would amount to about £2bn
so if you atheists think faith is so harmful and want to get rid of it, explain where you will find the £2bn from? will the atheists be stumping up that bill? how much does atheism add to our economy?
you guys are so brainwashed by the tripe of dawkins etc. that you are blinded by his articulate ignorance
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:05 PM)
absolute rubbish
just in Wales, a recent study found that faith adds £100m net to the economy
projecting across UK this would amount to about £2bn
so if you atheists think faith is so harmful and want to get rid of it, explain where you will find the £2bn from? will the atheists be stumping up that bill? how much does atheism add to our economy?
you guys are so brainwashed by the tripe of dawkins etc. that you are blinded by his articulate ignorance
just in Wales, a recent study found that faith adds £100m net to the economy
projecting across UK this would amount to about £2bn
so if you atheists think faith is so harmful and want to get rid of it, explain where you will find the £2bn from? will the atheists be stumping up that bill? how much does atheism add to our economy?
you guys are so brainwashed by the tripe of dawkins etc. that you are blinded by his articulate ignorance
I'd imagine that Atheism adds quite a bit. I mean there's abortions, drugs, ******** sex manuals, copies of Dawkins' books etc. It's all got to add up.
QUOTE (orthoanglo @ Mar 16 2008, 09:39 AM)
They have an analysis of the biblical 'hell' and not surprisingly found there is not evidence to support the existence of a place called hell which is used for eternal torment (the notion we now tend to have of hell has been invented since the bible was written.
I have come across 3 ideas of what hell really means.
1)"standard issue" hell = fire, torment, devils & so on. Relates closely to the text of the bible and has very graphic imagery and is just right for keeping people on the straight and narrow. Problem is - how could a God who loves mankind permit eternal torment?. Seems contradictory doesn't it ?
2)a place/state whereby the soul who has rejected God, experiences distress but nevertheless eventually comes back to be with God and enjoys eternal life with him. Remember the prodigal son story? Problem is - Free Will?
3)God's love underlies all creation, therefore without this love then the created wouldn't exist. With me? A soul that rejects Gods love will eventually cease to exist. Therefore, to reject God is really to reject existence itself.
Obviously, 2 and 3 are very theological and wouldn't really inspire anybody much. I couldn't imagine an Ian Paisley figure having a good rant about 2 or 3.
I am aware of the contradictions of 1 and it fits in very well with Roman Catholicism/Protestantism, so am doubtful whether this is the Truth. My vote would go for 2 - as it is closer to the idea of the Church' purpose being about forgiveness and closing the gap between mankind and God. It fits in better with Orthodox theology than the first idea.
I have come across 3 ideas of what hell really means.
1)"standard issue" hell = fire, torment, devils & so on. Relates closely to the text of the bible and has very graphic imagery and is just right for keeping people on the straight and narrow. Problem is - how could a God who loves mankind permit eternal torment?. Seems contradictory doesn't it ?
2)a place/state whereby the soul who has rejected God, experiences distress but nevertheless eventually comes back to be with God and enjoys eternal life with him. Remember the prodigal son story? Problem is - Free Will?
3)God's love underlies all creation, therefore without this love then the created wouldn't exist. With me? A soul that rejects Gods love will eventually cease to exist. Therefore, to reject God is really to reject existence itself.
Obviously, 2 and 3 are very theological and wouldn't really inspire anybody much. I couldn't imagine an Ian Paisley figure having a good rant about 2 or 3.
I am aware of the contradictions of 1 and it fits in very well with Roman Catholicism/Protestantism, so am doubtful whether this is the Truth. My vote would go for 2 - as it is closer to the idea of the Church' purpose being about forgiveness and closing the gap between mankind and God. It fits in better with Orthodox theology than the first idea.
nonsense
go and read David Pawson's "Road to hell" for an in-depth study on the topic of hell
or find his video on youtube regarding the final facts about hell
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:05 PM)
absolute rubbish
just in Wales, a recent study found that faith adds £100m net to the economy
projecting across UK this would amount to about £2bn
so if you atheists think faith is so harmful and want to get rid of it, explain where you will find the £2bn from? will the atheists be stumping up that bill? how much does atheism add to our economy?
you guys are so brainwashed by the tripe of dawkins etc. that you are blinded by his articulate ignorance
just in Wales, a recent study found that faith adds £100m net to the economy
projecting across UK this would amount to about £2bn
so if you atheists think faith is so harmful and want to get rid of it, explain where you will find the £2bn from? will the atheists be stumping up that bill? how much does atheism add to our economy?
you guys are so brainwashed by the tripe of dawkins etc. that you are blinded by his articulate ignorance
The more I think about this arguement the more bizarre it sounds. I mean MEW adds billions into the UK economy every year. Is this a good thing now? I thought Christianity was supposed to be about more that material wealth as well.
atheists ignore the evidence of +£2bn plus other huge benefits to our society from faith
this is how atheists operate- they do not take a balanced approach to the evidence, as they want to spin it that faith is harmful, which the evidence does not support whatsoever.
this is how atheists operate- they do not take a balanced approach to the evidence, as they want to spin it that faith is harmful, which the evidence does not support whatsoever.
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:08 PM)
nonsense
go and read David Pawson's "Road to hell" for an in-depth study on the topic of hell
or find his video on youtube regarding the final facts about hell
go and read David Pawson's "Road to hell" for an in-depth study on the topic of hell
or find his video on youtube regarding the final facts about hell
Could you summerise the book's findings for us?
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:10 PM)
atheists ignore the evidence of +£2bn plus other huge benefits to our society from faith
this is how atheists operate- they do not take a balanced approach to the evidence, as they want to spin it that faith is harmful, which the evidence does not support whatsoever.
this is how atheists operate- they do not take a balanced approach to the evidence, as they want to spin it that faith is harmful, which the evidence does not support whatsoever.
Scarlets, I'd be willing to bet that porn contributes more to annual GDP than this. Alcahol certainly does. Are porn and alcahol good things now?
QUOTE (ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere @ Mar 17 2008, 04:10 PM)
The more I think about this arguement the more bizarre it sounds. I mean MEW adds billions into the UK economy every year. Is this a good thing now? I thought Christianity was supposed to be about more that material wealth as well.
it's an argument you don't want to hear as it destroys the myths and lies you guys perpetuate that religion is a harmful virus on our society
it is not, neither fiscally or otherwise. It is a good thing for our society, it encourages the improvement of man and society. It also helps to keep us free from atheistic governments who would give us no freedom.
if people/society took more notice of God's commandments we would save billions, since people would be more law-abiding and have better morals hence massive savings from security, criminal justice system, social workers etc.
the more I think about it, the more bizarre and stupid the atheist arguments that society woudl be better off without faith are, their naive and selfish ideas fly in the face of the evidence
QUOTE (ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere @ Mar 17 2008, 04:12 PM)
Scarlets, I'd be willing to bet that porn contributes more to annual GDP than this. Alcahol certainly does. Are porn and alcahol good things now?
you just can't accept that your arguments have been quashed, can you?
you're not advocating the removal of porn or alcohol, you want the removal of faith, so stop being a hypocrit
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:14 PM)
it's an argument you don't want to hear as it destroys the myths and lies you guys perpetuate that religion is a harmful virus on our society
it is not, neither fiscally or otherwise. It is a good thing for our society, it encourages the improvement of man and society. It also helps to keep us free from atheistic governments who would give us no freedom.
if people/society took more notice of God's commandments we would save billions, since people would be more law-abiding and have better morals hence massive savings from security, criminal justice system, social workers etc.
the more I think about it, the more bizarre and stupid the atheist arguments that society woudl be better off without faith are, their naive and selfish ideas fly in the face of the evidence
it is not, neither fiscally or otherwise. It is a good thing for our society, it encourages the improvement of man and society. It also helps to keep us free from atheistic governments who would give us no freedom.
if people/society took more notice of God's commandments we would save billions, since people would be more law-abiding and have better morals hence massive savings from security, criminal justice system, social workers etc.
the more I think about it, the more bizarre and stupid the atheist arguments that society woudl be better off without faith are, their naive and selfish ideas fly in the face of the evidence
Scarlets, I'm not an atheist. You do know that, don't you?
The point I was trying to make is that contribution to GDP is not necessarily a useful indicator of something's beneficial effects. Would you agree with this?
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:15 PM)
you just can't accept that your arguments have been quashed, can you?
you're not advocating the removal of porn or alcohol, you want the removal of faith, so stop being a hypocrit
you're not advocating the removal of porn or alcohol, you want the removal of faith, so stop being a hypocrit
Oh my goodness no.
People can have faith in whatever they like as far as I'm concerned. If you come onto a forum and start trying to start debates about your faith then don't expect me to agree with you.
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:05 PM)
absolute rubbish
just in Wales, a recent study found that faith adds £100m net to the economy
projecting across UK this would amount to about £2bn
so if you atheists think faith is so harmful and want to get rid of it, explain where you will find the £2bn from? will the atheists be stumping up that bill? how much does atheism add to our economy?
you guys are so brainwashed by the tripe of dawkins etc. that you are blinded by his articulate ignorance
just in Wales, a recent study found that faith adds £100m net to the economy
projecting across UK this would amount to about £2bn
so if you atheists think faith is so harmful and want to get rid of it, explain where you will find the £2bn from? will the atheists be stumping up that bill? how much does atheism add to our economy?
you guys are so brainwashed by the tripe of dawkins etc. that you are blinded by his articulate ignorance
WTF are you on about???
Please provide links and details as to how it adds £100m net to the economy. And is this money just being diverted from elsewhere? And why should atheists suddenly have to find £2bn?
But I agree that xtianity should be seen as a business. It sells hope of an after life in the same way that the lottery sells the hope of getting rich one day. The odds of either coming true are negligable. The church should be taxed like any other business.
QUOTE (ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere @ Mar 17 2008, 04:17 PM)
Scarlets, I'm not an atheist. You do know that, don't you?
The point I was trying to make is that contribution to GDP is not necessarily a useful indicator of something's beneficial effects. Would you agree with this?
The point I was trying to make is that contribution to GDP is not necessarily a useful indicator of something's beneficial effects. Would you agree with this?
which is why no one is arguing that faith is only good for contribution to GDP, it benefits society in so many ways including GDP, yet ignorant dawkins fans want it removed so they can live their selfish immoral life with no guilt
QUOTE (ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere @ Mar 17 2008, 04:11 PM)
Could you summerise the book's findings for us?
Hah! I've been trying to get scarlets to fairly summarise any one person's argument on here for ages as evidence that he / she / it understands what is being said. All scarlets can do is copy and paste material from other websites.
I have yet to see any understanding of what has been said.
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 17 2008, 04:22 PM)
Hah! I've been trying to get scarlets to fairly summarise any one person's argument on here for ages as evidence that he / she / it understands what is being said. All scarlets can do is copy and paste material from other websites.
I have yet to see any understanding of what has been said.
I have yet to see any understanding of what has been said.
what an arrogant request
you can't win the argument so you must resort to these stupid ways
you are making a good case for keeping academics skint
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:20 PM)
which is why no one is arguing that faith is only good for contribution to GDP, it benefits society in so many ways including GDP, yet ignorant dawkins fans want it removed so they can live their selfish immoral life with no guilt
Is that aimed at me? I've never actually read any of Dawkins' books you know.
Why would fans of Richard Dawkins feel guilty?
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:23 PM)
what an arrogant request
you can't win the argument so you must resort to these stupid ways
you are making a good case for keeping academics skint
you can't win the argument so you must resort to these stupid ways
you are making a good case for keeping academics skint
Scarlets, a serious question for you. Why do you keep coming onto forums like this and posting this stuff? I've never seen a single person actualloy agree with you and you certainly don't seem to be winning any converts to Christianity. Why do you bother? Do you enjoy the abuse or something?
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:23 PM)
what an arrogant request
you can't win the argument so you must resort to these stupid ways
you are making a good case for keeping academics skint
you can't win the argument so you must resort to these stupid ways
you are making a good case for keeping academics skint
So why don't you just humour me and shut me up for good? Go on, fairly summarise one person's argument in any of these religious threads to show that you understand what has been said.
Any person except yourself, any thread. It's not hard if you understand what has been said. What do you have to lose?
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 17 2008, 04:26 PM)
So why don't you just humour me and shut me up for good? Go on, fairly summarise one person's argument in any of these religious threads to show that you understand what has been said.
Any person except yourself, any thread. It's not hard if you understand what has been said. What do you have to lose?
Any person except yourself, any thread. It's not hard if you understand what has been said. What do you have to lose?
there is no need for me to summarise anyone else's arguments at all, clearly you have no idea about debate and this is an ad hominem attack because you decide to show zero respect for anyone who disagrees and exposes the rubbish you believe in
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:33 PM)
there is no need for me to summarise anyone else's arguments at all, clearly you have no idea about debate and this is an ad hominem attack because you decide to show zero respect for anyone who disagrees and exposes the rubbish you believe in
Could you summarise David Pawson's "Road to hell" for me instead then? I'd really like to know.
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 04:33 PM)
there is no need for me to summarise anyone else's arguments at all,
But why not humour me? You spend all this time and effort saying why you don't need to, yet it would be far less hassle to just humour me and shut me up. You would also show people that you do understand what is being said and then you would not have to worry about any ad hominem attacks.
By continuing on as you are we can only be left with the conclusion that you do not understand what people are trying to say to you.
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 17 2008, 04:44 PM)
But why not humour me? You spend all this time and effort saying why you don't need to, yet it would be far less hassle to just humour me and shut me up. You would also show people that you do understand what is being said and then you would not have to worry about any ad hominem attacks.
By continuing on as you are we can only be left with the conclusion that you do not understand what people are trying to say to you.
By continuing on as you are we can only be left with the conclusion that you do not understand what people are trying to say to you.
you are playing these ad hominem games because that's all you've got, you've been shown wanting and out of your depth each time the debate kicks off
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 05:41 PM)
you are playing these ad hominem games because that's all you've got, you've been shown wanting and out of your depth each time the debate kicks off
No I am playing ad hominem games because they are fun and you are an obnoxious gimp-troll that keeps coming back for more abuse. But you didn't answer my question as to why you don't just humour me and shut me up.
Do you actually understand people's arguments? If not, why should we both talking to you?
A gimp-troll chat-bot? Sounds like it could be someone's PhD project!
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 17 2008, 06:12 PM)
No I am playing ad hominem games because they are fun and you are an obnoxious gimp-troll that keeps coming back for more abuse. But you didn't answer my question as to why you don't just humour me and shut me up.
Do you actually understand people's arguments? If not, why should we both talking to you?
Do you actually understand people's arguments? If not, why should we both talking to you?
ok so you admit ad hominem, you are indeed shameless
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 17 2008, 06:16 PM)
ok so you admit ad hominem, you are indeed shameless
Yes, I know, I should be ashamed of making fun of the afflicted ...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.