Campaign: Atheist Bus
21.10.08 | Ariane |
Atheism, Atheist Bus Campaign, Donation, Donations, Fundraising, Humour, London Buses, Richard Dawkins, Slogan, Thank You
** We reached the total at 1006 BST (GMT+1) on 21st October, just over 10 hours after launch – thank you so much to everyone who contributed! If you haven’t donated yet and would like to then please do – we are now aiming to launch a full advertising campaign across the UK! **
The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today, Tuesday October 21. With your support, we hope to raise £5,500 to run 30 buses across the capital for four weeks with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Donate online now!
Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, is officially supporting the Atheist Bus Campaign, and has generously agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we reach the full amount – enough for a much bigger campaign. Our campaign partner, the British Humanist Association, will be administering all donations.
With your help, we can brighten people’s days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves.
As Richard Dawkins says: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion.”
856 Responses to “Campaign: Atheist Bus”
Pages: « 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 … 18 » Show All
Pages: « 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 … 18 » Show All
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:52
Using a less extreme example, catholicism vs. church of england vs. methodists vs. jehova’s witnesses. Who’s right there? Each denomination has their own idea of what god wants of his followers. Why has god given each group of christians different messages and who is right?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:16
For some of those you mention there’s very little difference (Catholicism vs Church of England for instance) and for others, the difference is so wide as to mean they’re simply not Christians (Jehovah’s Witnesses). I know it’s a Dawk site requirement to lower case God and all groups of believers but alistair, how do you like being lower-cased? Bad spelling however, is just silly!
God hasn’t given different groups different messages. In the case of Christian denominations where there actually is a difference – Catholics and Methodists for instance, neither would like my saying so, possibly, but it’s simply a matter of emphasis.
Debbie
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:34
Hi Debbie,
I dont agree on your capital G argument. This highlights the difference in our arguments ….and the difference in ‘common and proper’ nouns. A word can work both as a common and proper noun. A common noun, ‘gods’ denotes all deities that humans believe in, wheras ‘God’ refers to the monotheistic god that you believe in.
I use ‘god’ as I am also directing my comments at Hindu etc followers who believe in a range of gods. You use ‘God’ because its your opinion that there is only supernatural being. We’ve spoken before here that Christians and non-believers share the idea of disbelief. You dont believe in Ganesh – the hindu god. I dont believe in your god or Ganesh.
I’m very glad to hear to accept evolution. In that case, our differences are quite small, yet deep. The dangerous problem is Christians who feel the voices they hear or ancient books they read overrides the weight of evidence of modern day science. I take it you feel evolution can sit alongside belief. I would suggest thats a great start.
Once you begin to accept evidence that challenges faith, you begin to have rational debate. For example, do you believe in transubstantion? ie that the communion wafer transforms into the body of Jesus? Do you believe in miracles? Once you take a position of why you believe in things ie evidence – its very difficult to continue with these ideas.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:29
@Eoin, who said “Once you begin to accept evidence that challenges faith, you begin to have rational debate. For example, do you believe in transubstantion? ie that the communion wafer transforms into the body of Jesus? Do you believe in miracles? Once you take a position of why you believe in things ie evidence – its very difficult to continue with these ideas.”
I find it very strange that everyone assumed I was a young earth creationist. Most Christians actually accept evolution, quite happily.
I don’t believe in transubstantiation, I am not a Catholic! But I do believe in miracles. I’ve experienced some of them.
There are different kinds of evidence, and face it, the evidence for evolution isn’t watertight. There are many problems with it, and I accept it in spite of these things.
Debbie
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:44
Hey Debbie,
Well, its great youre not a young earth creationist – youre a great example for other believers. However, many christians globally are. Outside of Christianity, there are even more in Islam. Its simply dangerous.
However, you move on and say some interesting things.
“I don’t believe in transubstantiation, I am not a Catholic! But I do believe in miracles. I’ve experienced some of them.”
Why dont you believe in transubstatiation? I find this fasinating. When believers state what they dont believe. We share disbelief
However, you then lose credibility – youve experienced miracles? Is your ‘experience’ evidence? No, its not. I’m sure you have seen people prayed for and then healed. ‘SEEING’ these things is not evidence. We’ve discussed this before on here. ‘SEEING’ something is not evidence – I can’t say it enough. You need rigourous, competitive (other people do the same investigation), published research using a validated method. Its very hard to do this for things like pray. So far, there is no study based evidence. Only what you claim youve ’seen’.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:20
I have never had the experience of seeing anyone prayed for and healed (though other people I trust, have). When I said I’d seen miracles, I meant I’ve experienced one or two.. and no, I don’t want to go into too much, or to be honest, any detail..
I know from h2g2, that atheists don’t accept anyone’s word for their own experience, and I ask why not? There are some things for which someone’s word simply has to be enough..
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:31
Hey debbie,
this is good -we’re getting to the heart of this….
“There are some things for which someone’s word simply has to be enough..”
Absolutely not. I cant stress this enough. You may believe you have seen something ie a miracle. However, seeing is not enough. What if you were simply mistaken or tricked? (Do you believe in magic?) Whose word do we accept? What if you had very low self-esteem and had a longing to believe in something ie you needed to believe in miracles? What if you were dying and dearly hoped for a cure? Of course you would believe whatever gave hope. Crystals, herbs etc are all believed by really ill people because it gives hope.
We must follow the evidence used in economics, history and science, finance, etc We need data. We need to question what was seen. Is the witness reliable? Are they of sound mind? Did other people see this? etc etc.
So, absolutely absolutely not – seeing something or someones word is 100% NOT enough.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:35
oh and if you want to find out what non-believers think – dont look on h2g2 – ask me or any other non-believer! Just as I can learn exactly what you believe – you can do the same. Thats why this is interesting
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:32
Hi Debbie,
Haven’t had a chance before now to get back to you on a couple of things …
I really don’t see people being abusive. I don’t think asking Phil or Werner to justify their beliefs is abusive, although I have gently mocked a few things both of them have written.
Maybe it’s my use of the term ‘indoctrination’ to describe your beliefs that offended you? (I didn’t use ‘brainwashing’) I stick by that term – you do ascribe to a doctrine. Maybe it was the word ‘heretic’? Just look at N. Ireland. It was only a few years ago that the Rev Ian Paisley (Anglican) stood up in the European Parliament and breated Pope John Paul – calling him the Anti-Christ.
Regarding Dawkins, I prefer his scientific literature, rather than his god stuff. I certainly didn’t need Dawkins to reach my views on religion, which I did when I was a kid. Having said that, I do agree with his sentiments – especially about the rise of evangelism, and the fact that religion needs to get started on children at an early age.
One other thing – you used the term KJV. I assume you mean King James Version here – is that right?. To be honest, I have no idea what bible I was indoctrinated with. How many versions are there? Seriously, I had no idea that they were fundamentally different. They all have Genesis in them, don’t they?
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:54
Paul N – The Authorised King James Version of the bible was the English translation which began to unlock the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on the masses who couldn’t understand Latin (although it wasn’t the first English translation) as it was adopted by the Church of England as the official translation.
Looking at the varied source texts and the opportunity for misinterpretation, it’s amazing to me that anyone can refer to the bible as any kind of authority given the massive potential for errors. There are so many versions of the bible, it doesn’t seem to make sense to refer to “the bible”. Maybe we should start using the term “a bible” instead?
The Wikipedia article about this is very useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:57
Hi all, (Hi Debbie – welcome!!)
Paul N: you say about Richard Dawkins…
“I do agree with his sentiments – especially about the rise of evangelism, and the fact that religion needs to get started on children at an early age.”
Remember our previous posts about people I know who were not raised in a Christian home, didn’t ever go to church, didn’t even know who Jesus was supposed to be etc… BUT, they encountered God and came to know him..?
You see, religion is from man – but faith and relationship with God is not. God doesn’t need to indoctrinate over many years to win your soul or to prove he is real.
I am a little concerned about peoples fixation with the use of perfect english on these postings. God is not concerned about where you put your apostrophies and how you spell!! I would like to think I can see past that and care about the person who is putting their views and beliefs across. Maybe we could post in text, wot do u fink..?
On to the differences in what we may or may not believe as Christians. I also have no problem with how the world began – was it a literal 7 days..? Who knows..? During those 7 days were things created in a Big Bang..? Who knows..? During those 7 days did man evolve..? Who knows..? You see, Genesis was written to the jews as a simple explanation to help them understand how the world began. They didn’t have modern science to help them understand, so if the creation story is just an allegory it doesn’t rock my faith one bit.
However the world began and however long it took – God did it!!
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 13:27
Hi Phil,
I’m afraid is rather difficult to ascertain what it is that you believe. I asked you earlier whether you believed that Adam and Eve actually existed and you had no qualifications then.
Looking back I see you say “Paul N, the Trinity, Adam and Eve, Moses, walking on the water etc are all central parts of the bible“. Also you pointed me to this link http://www.gotquestions.org/tree-knowledge-good-evil.html
You have changed your views since this then.
@Debbie, this is my evidence of indoctrination: “However the world began and however long it took – God did it!!”
@RedCitrus – Thanks for the sp on KJV! But, just to confirm, Genesis is in all of the versions, I take it.
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 13:47
Hi Paul N,
I have not changed my views… it seems you are desparate to try and prove that just because some Christians might believe slightly different things to others must make God not real!! God is God, we are humans with little intellegence, we understand things differently, we interperate things differently, but that doesn’t give you a good enough argument to prove God isn’t real!!
One thing I know for sure is that God longs for you to turn to him, to put aside your human reasoning and to take the step of faith in accepting his love for you.
We could argue about religion, the bible, evolution etc etc for many weeks, months, or years… but the important thing here is that God is real and he loves you. Simple..? It takes faith – not causal proof. I hope and pray that one day yours and others eyes would be opened to the reality and truth of God.
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:04
Phil,
You would like us to believe what you believe – otherwise you wouldn’t say -”One thing I know for sure is that God longs for you to turn to him, to put aside your human reasoning and to take the step of faith in accepting his love for you.” and wouldn’t try posing your earlier challenge.
But in order to understand I have to have a clear idea of what you mean, no? But it’s like trying to herd cats getting a straight answer to a straight question from you.
No sign of desperation here. Exasperation, maybe!
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:19
Hey Guys – and welcome to Debbie! sorry -i’ve been extremely busy the last couple of days…
Debbie – you have to excuse eoin (#555 & 557) if it’s not written on a piece of paper by an ‘independant verifier’ than it can’t be possible and it’s absolutely absurd…he doesn’t even believe his own eyes.
Paul N – you say ‘good thing you live in the UK’ Guess what – i live in South Africa. Yes – AFRICA You know how many reliqions we have here? We have 11 official languages for crying out loud! People kill in the name of religion. They make a mockery of everything i believe and hold dear by what they do – and the message to the world is ‘this is what christians do.” that makes my job of spreading the good news so much more difficult -because – “if that’s what a christian does – i want no part of it” It’s not about being a catholic or methodist or protestant. My Bible is my only authority. i don’t believe anything that comes out of my pastor’s mouth – i listen to him and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me – i read The Word and i become more knowledgeable about the truth. I don’t call myself a protestant or methodist or whatever! I call myself a Disciple of Jesus Christ. I have a message that i need to get out to whomever wants to listen – YES EVEN YOU – but through what ‘christians’ do, i am faced with people like you.
Don’t you believe – or don’t you WANT to believe – knowing that believing will completely turn your world around and rip you out of your comfort zone….
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:39
Hi Werner!! Well said!!
Paul N, you said:
“But in order to understand I have to have a clear idea of what you mean, no?”
How clear does it have to be..?
The one true God who created you – loves you and wants to know you!!
Take the step of faith and accept his love.
Seek and you will find…
close your mind and you won’t.
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:58
Phil,
It’s pointless trying to discuss anything if you revert to meaningless phrases like “Seek and you will find…close your mind and you won’t.“.
Seek what? Find what? Any time I ask you a specific question I get different answers.
Debbie says the bible is allegorical, Werner says it’s not and, I’m afraid to say, you seem to sway one way and then the other.
Who do I believe?
Paul N
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 16:05
Paul N said:
“Debbie says the bible is allegorical, Werner says it’s not and, I’m afraid to say, you seem to sway one way and then the other.”
I think you will find Debbie was only talking about Adam and Eve..? She doesn’t say the whole bible is allegorical. You really are desparate to try and play us off against one another in your bid to disprove God’s existance. Debbie, Werner, and Myself all agree that God is real, that he made you, loves you, and wants to be in relationship with you.
I am not swaying one way and then the other – I have my feet on solid ground – the truth!
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 16:34
Phil,
Disproving god’s existence? That’s as futile as trying to prove the contrary. You’ve got me mixed up with someone else.
I’m questioning your statements and trying to ascertain what, exactly, it is that you believe.
I do not question your sincerity with which you hold your beliefs, but I’m entitled to question your belief. If it contradicts another devout Christian’s views I think I’m entitled to point that out too.
As far as Debbie’s concerned, I think it’s probably better for her to say whether she considers the bible is allegorical as a whole – I thought that, from her recent posts, she did. Maybe I’m wrong.
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 18:55
Hi Phil,
I’ve noticed a theme coming through in your posts. Your emphasis is on stating your absolute conviction that your particular god loves us. However, you dont really go into how you “know” this. In terms of psychology, I think this is really interesting. You obviously focus much more on what your belief system can do for others (admirable) but not on why you hold this belief system (not admirable at all)
Its important because all the stuff you say gets ignored after a while …. I demand causal proof. Doubting Thomas? You bet – best character in the bible.
So, you claim your god loves us? How did you find out this information, exactly? Is it a feeling you get? Or do you hear a voice when you pray? Be as detailed as you can.
We all know you want to tell us your god loves us – youve done that – please, dont go over old ground.Now, explain how you know this to be the case.
We can then listen to your evidence and examine it. Are you a Christian born and bred? Or are you ‘born again’?
March 4th, 2009 at 0:30
Phil
I’m intrigued as to your definition of “truth” to which you constantly refer. You seem to accept the presence of a god who created the world. Is this where your “truth” ends? Do you not feel compelled to question this truth?
I am an atheist; however, I would be prepared to accept the existence of a god (or ghosts, or UFOs, or fairies) were I presented with convincing evidence of their existence.
Even presented with irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god, I would still have questions. If god exists, who created him? If he loves us, why is he so cruel to us?
Does your “truth” allow you to ask such difficult questions, or do you simply ignore them and accept that you’ll never know? that they are part of some greater truth to which you’ll never be party?
There are too many logical arguments against the existence of a god to make his existence a satisfactory conclusion.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:08
@Eoin, 557, who said:
“. You may believe you have seen something ie a miracle. However, seeing is not enough.”
It wasn’t sometjhing I saw, it was something that happened to me, and there’s no question of my having been tricked.
“(Do you believe in magic?)”
I take it you mean stage magic, prestidigitation. Of course I believe in it, but I know it isn’t magic.
“So, absolutely absolutely not – seeing something or someones word is 100% NOT enough”
You accept the word of your parents as to where you were born, surely? All our lives we accept the word of other people as to events, places and people of which we have no direct experience. I accepted the word of my much older cousin that our Grandmother who died before I was born, had grey hair, never left the house and drank copious amounts of milk stout brought her by her sister, when she was elderly.
Does your scepticism of other peoples’ word extend to everything, or just things that are out of the ordinary?
DLK
March 4th, 2009 at 2:19
Great post, thanks for the info
March 4th, 2009 at 2:24
@Paul N, who said: “One other thing – you used the term KJV. I assume you mean King James Version here – is that right?. To be honest, I have no idea what bible I was indoctrinated with. How many versions are there? Seriously, I had no idea that they were fundamentally different. They all have Genesis in them, don’t they?”
Yes, I mean the King James Version. That’s where I think I have the advantage of you, in not being brought up Christian, I haven’t had to “un-learn” the King James Version. As you know, it was published in 1611, and because it was based no on documents close to the originals, but on other previous translations, it’s not the best by any means. There are dozens of other newer and more reliable translations, both linguistically and historically. I remember years ago, quoting the NT to an American woman on h2g2 – and using the KJV, telling her “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10.34) – she took entirely the wrong meaning, and assumed I was saying that God doesn’t care about people. In fact (as newer translations make clear), I was saying “God doesn’t play favourites”. Because the KJV uses idioms from 1611, it can be quite incomprehensible and not only to Americans!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&verse=34&version=9&context=verse
Contrast: The Contemporary English version
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:34;&version=46;
which says : “Now I am certain that God treats all people alike”.
Deb
March 4th, 2009 at 2:46
Excuse me gentlemen, I don’t want to get muddled, but I am doing C-&-P or I’ll be here all day!
“@RedCitrus – Thanks for the sp on KJV! But, just to confirm, Genesis is in all of the
versions, I take it.”
Yes, Genesis is in all of the versions…
———————————————-
“@Paul N 567, who said : “Debbie says the bible is allegorical, Werner says it’s not and, I’m afraid to say, you seem to sway one way and then the other.”
Just to be clear, I do not say the Bible is allegorical! I think parts of it are. The Bible comprises 66 books, and covers history, poetry, literature and other narrative and correspondence. It would be amazing if parts of it were not allegorical. You should read C S Lewis on the subject – as he says, he was very familiar with many different types of narrative, and recognised these different types in the Bible,
Deb
——————————————————
March 4th, 2009 at 7:47
Ok – Paul N you want to know exactly what we believe (# 569) – And I’ll quote the lyrics of a song that pretty much wraps is up!
“I believe in God the Father, the Almighty Maker of Heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ His only begotten son. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate who was crucified and dead and buried. I believe that He who suffered was crucified buried and dead where He descended into hades and on the third day He rose again. He ascended into Heaven where He sits at God’s mighty right hand, and I believe that He is returning to judge those alive and dead and the sons of man. I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, I believe in the resurrection and I believe in a life that never ends.”
This is what I believe. This is the framework under which many other things can be written. Through the ages however, most “Christian” denominations have chosen what they believe and what to discard. And because of this you have friction and ‘fighting’ even inside the church. As I have said in previous posts – you cannot choose one part that’s applicable and ignore the rest. If you choose one part of the bible that applies to you – the whole bible applies to you. As for the little bits in between like ‘transubstantiation” and “Baptism” that is up to the individual to decide, while allowing the Holy Spirit to teach him/her, what is truth and what is dogma.
Comment # 571 – “then we hy is he so cruel to us” I will try to explain as best I can – however I doubt that you’d understand – because you dismiss the idea of a God so surely you dismiss the idea of Satan as well.
GOD DOES NOT PUNISH – regardless of what the old testament says – Jesus paid the price for all our sins so that we may be ‘holy and blameless’ in God’s sight. God said ‘I will think of your sins no more’ – so there it is – GOD DOES NOT PUNISH. HOWEVER – when we sin, we open doors for Satan in our lives, we give him free reign to enter into certain areas of our lives. God allows it because we sinned (again). And here comes the awesome part – as soon as a person confesses his/her sin openly to God and repents from it – satan no longer has an open door – God shuts the door!!! He does not want us to suffer.
Hope this clarifies…?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:41
Hey Debbie, Phil
Just caught your posts – and we’re really getting to the heart of the matter. Why we believe what you believe.
“You accept the word of your parents as to where you were born, surely?”
Great example. You give many other examples too. Looking at the example of where I was born can be verified by a number of people and say a birth certificate. Personally, I dont know what you guys think, but then trust comes into it. A number of people tell me an event happened and I will consider their word. I will weigh it up.
There are two differences with miracles. First is that the ‘word’ that people give is DIFFERENT. You may have experienced something that helped you – however NOONE else did – we cant verify it. With my birthplace example I am able to verify it.
Second is the SCALE of what is being proposed. If my parents tells me where I was born in Europe, I will listen. However, lets say they tell my I was born on a far away planet?!! I will be sceptical and have questions – even though they give their word. Heres the rule….
Incredible claims require incredible evidence.
Simple. So, yes I’m sure you give your word that a miracle happened to you – that the laws of nature were broken. That is too big of an event to accept on your word. Simply TELLING me not enough.
Phil, this also applies to you. Simply “telling” us you have found the truth is NOT enough. Watch, I can do what you do too….
“Phil, I have the truth!! There are no gods – you are not loved. However, its ok – you dont need any gods to be loved! You have everything you need in your mind Its the truth!! I KNOW it…..”
See? Now, wouldnt you ask me how I “know” this?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:43
ah sorry that line at the top of my last post was meant to be “why we believe what we believe”
soz
March 6th, 2009 at 18:41
Hi all,
Thought this story might be of interest …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7926694.stm
I suppose the question will arise: Is a Catholic archbishop really a Christian?
Paul
March 6th, 2009 at 19:24
There are so many things wrong with this story it would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
“He said the excommunication would not apply to the child because of her age, but would affect all those who ensured the abortion was carried out.”
So the girl is not to be excommunicated because of her age, yet the twins that she’s carrying will go to hell? Yeah, nice one.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=28801106&CFTOKEN=22928496
March 6th, 2009 at 20:48
Hi,
RedCitrus did you read the whole article you are basically claims that the aborted twins will go to hell..?
You obviously missed the conclusion at the bottom which stated…
” Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).
103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.135 Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.”
Maybe you should have read the whole article…
Anyway, I didn’t think you believed in Hell..? Strange that you mention it when it suits your argument..! Are you pro abortion then..? So if these unborn babies are not real people then why would they go to heaven or hell..? Why would you care..?
I agree this is a very sad and tragic story, and by the sounds of it the doctors etc maybe did the right thing.
Phil.
March 6th, 2009 at 22:25
This just goes to show the evil that mainstream religions get away with. I couldnt care less if the writers of this ‘article’ believe a child would be saved or not. Its plain sick. And yes, tragic though it is – I do with having the right to abortion. Banning would be the wrong way to go.
What really comes out from this is the damage the writers of this article could do to young children. Imagine, telling a young child they will only be ’saved’ by baptism. Its the work of a sick mind. Religion at its absolute worst.
March 6th, 2009 at 22:49
eoin… I didn’t see where it suggested that these people would “tell a young child they will only be ’saved’ by baptism.”..?
No tradition or good deed can bring us into relationship with God and grant us eternal life. The only way is through Christ who died for us so we could know God. We need to turn from our unbelief, seek God and accept Jesus as our saviour.
I don’t personally do the infant baptism thing (those people who I know who have had their kids done – are not church goers anyway!! But think it is the right thing to do for some reason..?). Most of my church friends have their kids dedicated which is basically a way to say thank you to God for their child and promising to God and those present to try and bring up their child in a loving, caring family.
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:07
Phil,
I could not possibly disagree more. I find it really difficult that you defend defend these kind of ideas. The article states…..
“The idea of limbo, which the church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation.”
So, they are saying that ‘pastors’ have reflected on the idea of limbo and they believe that unbaptised kids are in fact ’saved’. Well, yipee! Arent we grateful for that? I think these is appalling ideas. Imagine telling a grieving mother that youve thought about it, and feel her child who has just died, will in fact get to heaven. This is not just a bad idea – its morally wrong.
I will be quite happy to keep my future children as far away from religion until theyre adults. I’ll show them all the thousands of religions that humans have believed and let them think.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:01
eoin… you assume much..!
I haven’t said anywhere that I agree or disagree with the Catholic’s Stance on this… I just thought it was important to counter RedCitrus’s post making out that the Catholic Church think the unborn twins would go to hell – when actually they conclude that they go to heaven.
Do you know what happens to Children when they die..? No, I don’t know either. BUT I know that God is a loving and mercyful God and will always do what is right. Surely knowing or believing your Child has gone to heaven (or a better place) with God is better than thinking they are just rotting into the ground..?
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:07
Sorry Phil, but you do know what happens to children when they die. They die, same as older people.
I’ve re-weighted your last sentence to read:
Surely *thinking* your child has gone to heaven (or a better place) with God is better than *knowing* they are just rotting into the ground..?
I would agree with this statement (as opposed to yours). Thinking something nice is better than knowing something nasty.
Making out the nice thing is true when you know otherwise is just fantasy.
Paul.
PS Referring back to that dreadful story in Brazil – did anyone else notice that, of all the people heading off to hell and/or limbo, according to Christian doctrine, the perpetrator wasn’t included. He’s alright – all he has to do is repent.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:25
Phil
I’m neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. I’m pro-choice.
You know as well as I do that doing away with “The Limbo of Infants” (nice term) is a relatively recent declaration. For hundreds of years the Catholic Church has been telling mothers whose children die before baptism that their offspring will spend eternity in limbo. The Pope instructed his minions to find a theological escape route from this disgusting claim once it became clear that the CC was losing followers across the developing world where the infant mortality rate was so high. Particularly as the church is partly responsible through its abhorrent banning of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa.
Doesn’t say much for so-called Papal infallibility, does it?
March 7th, 2009 at 12:36
RedCitrus said…
“You know as well as I do that doing away with “The Limbo of Infants” (nice term) is a relatively recent declaration.”
Actually, no I didn’t know that… Please remember I am not a Catholic – So I don’t know every new or recent declaration of theirs.
RedCitrus also said:
“Particularly as the (CATHOLIC) church is partly responsible through its abhorrent banning of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa.”
Yes I agree that the Catholic Church has caused a massive problem with this. Sex is designed for marriage – but if you are going to do it anyway then do it safely!!!! Reduce the spread of aids and unwanted pregnancy – use a condom – or even better – wait till you are married!!
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 13:34
Phil said “Sex is designed for marriage”.
Sex is for procreation. And it ain’t designed.
Phil also said “Reduce the spread of aids and unwanted pregnancy – use a condom – or even better – wait till you are married!!”
Marriage doesn’t prevent Aids.
It’s all complete drivel, but have a read of this:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
March 7th, 2009 at 13:54
RedCitrus… Please read my posts properly.
I didn’t say that Marriage will prevent aids!!
So – teaching safe sex (condoms) and waiting for the right partner rather than just having casual sex is in your opinion “drivel”..? Hmm…
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 15:53
Teaching safe sex is absolutely the right thing to teach. Waiting for the “right” partner? Who knows who the right partner is. I’m still trying to find her! If I was an abstaining christian, I could have been fighting natural urges all my life.
March 7th, 2009 at 22:03
Phil, did you actually read the article? It’s nothing to do with sex (you’ve got sex on the brain!), it’s an illustration of the Catholic Church’s ridiculous attempt to reverse centuries of doctrine regarding the so-called Limbo of Infants. For example (please try to keep up):
“The church’s hope for these infants’ salvation reflects a growing awareness of God’s mercy, the commission said. But the issue is not simple, because appreciation for divine mercy must be reconciled with fundamental church teachings about original sin and about the necessity of baptism for salvation…
“It must be clearly acknowledged that the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die”.
Which is not a lot of comfort, then.
It looks like it wasn’t just the bonkers Brazilian bishop who’s morally bankrupt – surprise, surprise – the Vatican has lent him its support:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7930380.stm
Back to your earlier point.
Casual sex is like skydiving. Not advisable without the necessary safety equipment, but it can be a lot of fun.
Both casual sex and marriage are possible, just as long as they’re done in the correct order.
March 7th, 2009 at 23:45
Phil,
you said….
” I haven’t said anywhere that I agree or disagree with the Catholic’s Stance on this… ”
Exactly!!. Its your silence I find totally wrong. I know youre not Catholic. So, come on – is their position morally right or wrong?
March 8th, 2009 at 3:41
“579
Paul N Says:
March 6th, 2009 at 18:41
Hi all,
Thought this story might be of interest …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7926694.stm
I suppose the question will arise: Is a Catholic archbishop really a Christian?”
The answer is : “Yes, of course”.
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 3:54
“@589
RedCitrus Says:
March 7th, 2009 at 13:34
Phil said “Sex is designed for marriage”.
Sex is for procreation. And it ain’t designed.
Phil also said “Reduce the spread of aids and unwanted pregnancy – use a condom – or even better – wait till you are married!!”
Marriage doesn’t prevent Aids.”
Er, yes it does, if both partners are faithful, and if they’re not going to be, why on earth would they bother marrying in the first place? It’s well -known that gay ‘marriages’ are always ‘open’ (i.e., unfaithful) and so it’s a very good question why they bother marrying. But like it or not, faithful straight marriages do prevent AIDS, if it’s sexually transmitted… Surely everyone remembers the researcher at the World Health Organisation who was fired a few years back for revealing the inconvenient truth that most sub-Saharan cases of AIDS are actually spread by re-using medical needles and inadequately-supplied health systems, and nothing at all with condoms and/or their lack? The logic of that particular accusation has always astounded me. IF most Africans were Catholic (and they’re not), and IF they refuse to listen to the church when it says “be faithful to your spouse”, then why on earth would they listen to the church when it says ‘don’t use condoms’? (I was actually thrown off an atheist site for making that point, even though months later, I saw one of the loudest, angriest atheists concede that particular point! People of reason, my left foot!
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 10:07
Deb,
I notice you didn’t comment on the article. Do you think it’s right that the abortion went ahead?
And do you really think the the drivel in the link that Phil posted has anything to do with real life?
Whilst these bishops swan around in their robes and silly hats, debating the nuances in various ancient texts of dubious origin, doctors have saved the girls life.
Science or religion – I know which one I choose.
Paul.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:13
Debbie said “It’s well -known that gay ‘marriages’ are always ‘open’ (i.e., unfaithful) and so it’s a very good question why they bother marrying.”
What complete and utter tosh. Utter tripe. Debbie, the 1980s called and asked for their cliche back.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:39
Debbie,
This forum is for debate – you comments are insulting to an entire community. Its homophobia in its purest form and is not acceptable. I have seen many religious communities encourage homophobia, while many attending church, and also many clergy are gay. This applies to both catholic and protestant churches.
Over your lifetime, it is quite possible that you will be in a church service involving gay clergy – how do you think they would feel with your views?
March 8th, 2009 at 12:45
Debbie, you’re completely right. In the same way that it’s well known that all Catholic priests are paedophiles.
You seem to have a very simplistic world view, which may well sit with your naive beliefs but which does not bear any resemblance to reality.
March 8th, 2009 at 14:19
Debbie,
I’ve got to say I was disappointed to read your comment about gay marriages. Your (mostly) reasonable arguments (that I disagree with) have been completely undone by that one statement. You keep saying how you’ve been kicked off X many atheist forums because of X, Y, Z. If I ran an atheist forum and you made a comment like above, I’d do exactly the same.
How can you POSSIBLY say “It’s well -known that gay ‘marriages’ are always ‘open’ (i.e., unfaithful)”? Seriously. How can you say that? Have you interviewed and spoken to ALL gay couples? Your claim is completely and utterly unfounded and there is absolutely no way you can back up such a ridiculous statement.