20th October 2010

“If all the Anglican church, and indeed the wider Christian community, has to offer in the 21st century is bigotry, sectarianism and intolerance, then Richard Dawkins will not be the only one cheering religion’s downfall.”

Maddy Fry

11 Responses to “20th October 2010”

  1. John Says:

    So, what else is new or has changed about them bastards?

  2. opleaze............. Says:

    oh, come come !! that’s not ALL they offer !! let’s not forget…

    lying, child molestation, buckets of guilt, meaningless rituals,

    and the ever-popular, brain-damaging and neurosis inducing

    SUNDAY SCHOOL !!!!!!

  3. teddy.......... Says:

    hey dont forget CONFESSION ! look at all the good THAT does !!!!

  4. tech Says:

    Do the Anglicans have confession? Well I confess my sins to my God,and know and have reassurance that I am forgiven.Telling my sin to a priest does not make any sense to me.I’m taught in the scriptures that there is only one mediator between God and man.He is Christ Jesus.

  5. Eric Says:

    Confession is a joke. While I agree its good to acknowledge your faults and errors and especially attempt to resolve them or at minimum learn from them, you should probably seek resolution from the persons you slighted rather than god. You could do both if it makes you feel better.

    The Hitch has this to say about forgiveness

    When asked which of Jesus’ teachings he believed to be evil, Hitchens responded that the “concept of vicarious redemption is a disgusting and immoral doctrine.” He went on to say that the “moral rot of Christianity is vicarious forgiveness.”

    There’s a great video of him explaining the logical problems with it.

    Apparently you have the option of confession with the Anglicans or you can just do it yourself.

  6. tech Says:

    Eric for record I do both when I needed to. I also like to say that I practice what I preach. None Of Jesus’s teachings were evil. Jesus was once asked how many times should one forgive his brother ‘seven times’ and he answered no ‘seventy times seven’.Confessing your sin and forgiving others is something that heals a person.

  7. Dan Says:

    I’m not sure that I’d agree that the supposed teachings of this guy Jesus of Nazareth were generally evil, but I’d certainly say they’re based on primitive beliefs (at best). And worth worshiping? Not at all. Barely worth respecting even. The guy believe he was divine for crying out loud – just insane.

  8. GreatEighthSin Says:

    No, Dan, not insane, selfish. When you place yourself at a higher ground than others, you are only putting a place value higher than everyone around you. Granted, tell me how a guy can be divine when he had only chosen three out of three boxes as a newborn baby. How does a newborn baby even chose boxes? You ever seen the motor skills of a newborn? They can’t even grasp your pinky very well, let alone crawl over and pick up a box. Oh, then there’s that big disappearing act from birth to teenager, then another disappearing act from teenager to adulthood. I guess God’s greatest gift had to “grow” into his “powers”?

  9. Dan Says:

    Certainly, but maybe not selfish to a degree greater than that of the majority of people would be (given the opportunity to be selfish, that is). But to think that you’re a god or even a demi-god? That’s put-him-in-a-straightjacket insane.

  10. Atheist MC Says:

    I don’t think there is any evidence for a historical Jesus. It is possible a real person got conflated with the mythical Christ. But all the evidence suggests that Christianity is really just another pagan god/man cult that got blown out of proportion, or rather existed at an opportune time for expansion.

  11. GreatEighthSin Says:

    Yup, outside the bible, there is no physical evidence to support Jesus actually even existing. The book was not written in his hand but by others who offered absolutely no substance of themselves. There are no artifacts, no markings, no ledgers, no nothing of Jesus’s existence, and for a man of that great importance to the community in that time to not have evidence is rather conspicuous and weak.