It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Because it's not a debate among believers. And it's not a religious debate as much as a debate about religion and religions. Nobody here debates whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation is the right nature of Communion, or whether Mary remained a Virgin after Jesus's birth.
From my experiences in this thread, that was the sagest advice they could have taught you. I must remember that one.
Well it could be worthy of debate within context. But unlike the universe of Blade Runner, religions claim to tell tangible truths that influence and explain reality. Blade Runner fans don't go that far. Doesn't mean studying the texts isn't interesting.
I would imagine extremists see it as a combination of both those things.
I believe in Islam the penalty for apostasy is death. So Muslim's who leave their religion behind are very brave indeed. Especially when so called 'moderate' Muslim's agree with the penalty....
It's kinder that way. That's the sort of nice chaps they are.
A woman fighting to stop doctors ending life support treatment for her sick 11-month-old son has told a judge that God should decide when he dies.
No, it's down to the judge in these sorts of cases. It is her child though, so I can of course understand how she feels.
I said these decisions are made by judges, and as a lawyer of sorts, I'm glad that they get to decide.
Sorry? You're glad that judges get to decide that science can keep a boy alive when otherwise he'd die? Surely you aren't questioning God's right and wisdom to kill children?
Once you cross the line from reason to faith you give up the option to criticise the all powerful, all loving creator don't you?
I guess that goes to show just how "fool-proof" religion is. Something good happens? It's because you prayed, it was God's will, he meant for it to happen for you! Young kids dying in a cold hospital bed? War, famine, disease, and rape? Well it's part of his plan, obviously.
That's just the way it is here on Earth. God provided men and women of intellect to decide on such matters, namely judges in courts of law. There were, just the same, judges in Biblical times too. There's even a book called Judges in the Bible! I myself see no conflict with having a faith and believing tin the rule of law. Many judges are conservative people with a faith. Shock horror! Perhaps that surprises you? That's too bad. It limits the imagination.
Not in the least just depresses me.
Surely if God in his infinite wisdom has chosen to give a kid cancer it is blasphemous hubris for mankind to have the temerity to intervene with their puny 'science'?
At least people who are happy to deny medical treatment and let their kids die according to God's masterplan are true to their beliefs.
Is that meant to be a bad thing? Science always changes because we discover more about the world, create new tech, etc. Religion doesn't change as much as it should because too many people are commited to following books written thousands of years ago in a much darker, less enlightened, less civilised world to the letter.
I'm not religious myself but using it as a vague spiritual guide as someone said a few pages back, I think that's fine. If someone is on their deathbed and takes comfort in believing they'll be moving on to heaven I wouldn't want to begrudge them that. But what isn't cool is fundamentalists who let it cloud their basic sense of human decency and even go as far as to try and affect the rest of us (this could range from blowing up infidels to actively campaigning against gay marriage, abortion, etc on religious grounds).
So you're a fan of science when it comes to saving your life just not when it comes to plate tectonics that make a mockery of your little book?
I didn't say that. I agreed on the plate tectonics point. I leave the 'making a mockery' thing to you, old chap.
Care to support the latest statement with any data to back it up? It depends of the discipline of course but I understand a majority is actually atheist.
As for science and religion working together name one scientific progress caused by religious faith.
Christian Scientists for a start.
Hasn't all scientific progress been down to an urge to rail against and attempt to disprove the Bible? At least according to the Athiests in this thread. So, there's too many to count.
Oh dear.
The opening paragraph of the Christian Science wiki:
'Christian Science is a set of beliefs and practices belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements.[n 2] It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her book Science and Health (1875) that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone. The book became Christian Science's central text, along with the Bible, and by 2001 had sold over nine million copies.'
As scientific texts go this is clearly on a par with Newton's Principia and Darwin's On The Origin Of Species.
I knew a chap who was Muslim that lived in Tunisia, he was more relaxed about his faith he would occasionally drink Alcohol and was not keen on women covering up. On occasion he would beat himself up for going against rules of his faith, ultimately he was very fearful of his God. I remember on one occasion he was struggling with Ramadan literally exhausted as he had a very physical job, though he refused to eat during the day when it was obvious he was unwell.