»

[delboy]

Being the laziest nation on earth the majority of UK residents love nothing better than dusting serious issues under the carpet, most are too busy being bothered by what's happening in the X factor or strictly come dancing....

[Le Stu]

Originally Posted by delboy

Being the laziest nation on earth the majority of UK residents love nothing better than dusting serious issues under the carpet, most are too busy being bothered by what's happening in the X factor or strictly come dancing....

Well, if Nick can't dance, there's a chance he can sing!

That would be awesome.

[The Kernel Loaf]

Donno if it has been posted already:

YouTube - Cassetteboy vs Nick Griffin vs Question Time

[KimyReizeger]

Griffin is now asking the BBC for increased coverage come next election. According to The Times, 22% of people would now 'seriously consider' voting BNP.

Seems that the bear-pit tactics failed. I already feel accustomed to Nick Griffin's face, as I'm sure many now are, which seems a good starting point for anyone clamouring for power.

[jon]

Originally Posted by Dave

Now who's being condescending? I think it's a very fair comparison, and I think you realise it too. I haven't quoted the Bible anywhere in this discussion, although I have read it, studied it and understood it. There's no confusion on my part.



Where did I say that? I'm not talking about understanding religion, I'm talking about understanding the Bible. They are two very different things.



What are you using it as a "source" for, exactly?



I agree. You'll find more glossing done by the fundamentalists who use the Bible (or the Koran) for their own political and social ends than ordinary mainstream Christians or Muslims. Fundamentalists have no interest in understanding God, they simply want to use Him as a weapon to achieve their own ends. I can't think of any moderate Christian of any denomination who glosses over any part of the New Testament.



Hmm, yeah, Catholics demonise the Virgin Mary. That's a new one on me...




Religion is fact. You can't deny it exists.

Faith is fact to those who have faith. This, in itself, is a fact.

My definition of the Word of God is very precise indeed, and it's one which most theologians would agree with. At no point in the Bible is God listed as the author, apart from in very specific examples where He is quoted verbatim.



It's a commonly used term. Ask any Jew...

Ok, before going any further I think it's fair to say that we are never going to agree on this. I suppose that's just the nature of atheism vs religion. I do appreciate your taking time to reply though.

Understanding Christianity without understanding the bible seems to me to be impossible. I see the distinction you're trying to make, but I don't think it works. I have yet to meet a Christian who doesn't base at least aspects of their faith on it, and I don't think religion without the bible can justifiably be termed Christianity.

As a historian, it would be remiss not to treat the bible as a source. It (and other religious works) is the source of so much physical and intellectual conflict over the centuries that not to view it as a source in a historical sense makes no sense. I should point out as well that I have also studied it, but as part of my history (rather than theology) degree.

"I can't think of any moderate Christian of any denomination who glosses over any part of the New Testament." But what about the more inconvenient aspects of the Old Testament?

You misunderstand me about the virgin Mary. She is not demonised precisely because she has not exercised her sexuality if you like, because she is a virgin. The bible somehow manages to remove the sex from Mary's pregnancy and, through Mary Magdalene, presents sex as a sordid, low thing for a woman. Woman in general (as oppose to the virgin Mary in particular) are subject to restrictive moral and social codes, a point made earlier in this thread. My point about the virgin birth ("Come on") was that surely no-one still gives credence to the concept? I'd certainly hope not.

Religion as a human construct is a fact. Its theological basis is absolutely the antithesis of fact. That's why they call it (blind) faith.

I never ever said that god wrote the bible. My original point was that it is a secondary source, in this instance meaning that it was written by humans (inherently fallible by most religious doctrines). If anyone today claimed the things that the gospels' authors claim, they'd likely be committed.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

It is interesting the extent to which the bible is a agglomeration of diverse sources, I'm shelving on the Theology floor sometimes, and there is a part of the OT that is Hebrew Love Poetry, Song of Songs I think. Even being an atheist, there are interesting and relevant cultural artifacts contained within, and large swathes of the OT are concerned with Law, Leviticus amongst others, as pointed out earlier by Dave. The thing is that these* books are very complex, and thus defy simplistic understanding, whether by fundamenatalists of religous or secular bent.

*the books of divine revelation ie; Torah, Bible, Qu'Ran.