Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

RobertKK wrote: »

No, they used it to mean Jew, a person of Jewish faith given the perceived power and influence the Nazis believed the Jews had in society.

While I don't think you can religion didn't come into it, it was clearly largely based on perceived ethnicity rather than the holding of jewish beliefs. See wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Ideology_and_scale

Anyone with three or four Jewish grandparents was to be exterminated without exception. In other genocides, people were able to escape death by converting to another religion or in some other way assimilating. This option was not available to the Jews of occupied Europe,[28] unless their grandparents had converted before 18 January 1871. All persons of recent Jewish ancestry were to be exterminated in lands controlled by Germany.[29]

If it was primarily about beliefs, the beliefs of your grandparents would not be relevant.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

LOL. You want us to investigate dark matter by studiously avoiding logic... so we can just say we know what it is now. It's a fish.

“Anything that thinks logically can be fooled by something else that thinks at least as logically as it does.”
- Douglas Adams - The Hitchhikers Trilogy

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

This shows how little people know. Churches really struggle to get funds together to pay for their upkeep. Parishes are reliant on donations for the most part to fix roofs, heat the churches etc. Parishes have to be self sufficient there is no funding coming from outside.

I know that myself, but that wasn't my point at all. Get money and fix the roof, just don't also take money and get a gold-plated roof.

Zaph wrote: »

Gay Byrne looks like someone p*ssed in his cornflakes when Fry gave his answer. If you're not prepared to hear answers you don't like, then don't ask the question.

I don't see why having a grimace on your face really means anything about not being prepared. If he said something to criticise Stephen Fry then sure I'd see your point. Life is full of examples of people asking questions and getting uncomfortable answers, so what if he looks dismayed. Looking like someone pissed in his cornflakes, that's a stretch.

danrua01 wrote: »

Surely, some are spectacular, but what for they represent, shouldn't they put it to good use? It just seems to be that it goes against the whole "eye of a needle" thing.

They are tools for communicating a person's feeling of god. If you go into the likes of notre dam it is awe inspiring. It does fill you with this sense of something great. They are a perfect representation of what the people are trying to communicate. They are works of art in their own right and for that reason I think they're pretty much perfect, well the good ones are but even the most basic ones seem to be good at communicating atmosphere and emotion.

I don't think they relate to the "eye of the needle" saying because they are public works of art. I think any person should be able to appreciate them they are fantastic achievements made by real people, they belong to human heritage.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

You will pay a lot more heavily if the church pulls all their property from use due to people pushing for the removal of teaching the catholic faith in schools. After all it would be ridiculous to if it wasn't taught in a catholic school owned by the church.

That's a lot of new schools that would have to be built....

Well we could have done a trade for letting them off the hook for all the abuse compo.

Don't worry, they will be bankrupt here in a few years, so we can snap them up cheap.

Hard to generate much gate receipts when primary school science class debunks much of your faith.

ScumLord wrote: »

While we do now the Christianity would have been instrumental in developing the education system in Ireland. Christianity did spark the initial drive to educate people on the island.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't start building our own schools. We should gradually replace those Catholic schools. It doesn't make sense for a country to depend on a charity organisation (charity in that's how they get their daily income) to fund our schools. What if the Catholic church ran into funding problems and couldn't afford to contribute to our education system?

Yes, agreed. But I think that the church got just as much out of that as it put back in.

It was probably the largest landowner in the state at a time when we were dirt poor, and had more than its fair share of influence in political, educational and health matters. We are still trying to undo some of that influence.

It has also had the state supporting RC education for how many years now, as well as building lots of the school buildings currently in use.

So I think they have been well compensated for any services rendered.

ScumLord wrote: »

They are tools for communicating a person's feeling of god. If you go into the likes of notre dam it is awe inspiring. It does fill you with this sense of something great. They are a perfect representation of what the people are trying to communicate. They are works of art in their own right and for that reason I think they're pretty much perfect, well the good ones are but even the most basic ones seem to be good at communicating atmosphere and emotion.

I don't think they relate to the "eye of the needle" saying because they are public works of art. I think any person should be able to appreciate them they are fantastic achievements made by real people, they belong to human heritage.

Hmmm, I still disagree. You shouldn't need a man-made thing to feel the presence of your faith, but that's fine. Don't you think it would be money better spent to help people who need it, and wouldn't it set a much better image?

ScumLord wrote: »

How the church wants to spend it's money is up to them. I'd be disappointed, in fact I am disappointed by the current lack of impressive churches. I can appreciate the buildings, they've been a driving force behind human architectural achievements over the past thousand years and there's been some stunning buildings created. To be fair religion has inspired people to create some of the greatest art in history.

Meh.

When I see the magnificent churches and old buildings in places like Paris or London, I always find myself thinking about where the wealth for such splendour came from at a when time when most had nothing.

Usually off the backs of the peasantry, or plundered from other countries and peoples. So I am personally happy to pass on splendid old buildings here myself.

Terrlock wrote: »

This topic isn't really around belief in God, it's around confronting God.

Stephen Fry will drastically change his mind when he finally does get to confront God or more God confronts him.

No one has to prove God's existence, Everyone knows that God does exist, but many simply deny it in unrighteousness and God gives them over to their own delusions.

To try and prove to someone that God exists, is making the person the Judge and putting God on trial.

Why is there suffering and evil in this world? That is answered in scripture very well.

Lol.

Terrlock wrote: »

No one has to prove God's existence, Everyone knows that God does exist, but many simply deny it in unrighteousness and God gives them over to their own delusions

What self indulgent nonsense. Everyone doesn't just believe in god, we wouldn't be having this conversation if that was the case.

floggg wrote: »

Yes, agreed. But I think that the church got just as much out of that as it put back in.

The church became obscenely powerful as a result of spreading christianity but back then it was a good package. Christians would show up, would often teach you how to read and write, offered a medical service, connection to the European continent and more, fantastic stories, loads of merchandise. It would have been hugely appealing to Irish people at the time.

danrua01 wrote: »

Hmmm, I still disagree. You shouldn't need a man-made thing to feel the presence of your faith, but that's fine. Don't you think it would be money better spent to help people who need it, and wouldn't it set a much better image?

You don't need the great big church, it's fan art basically.

floggg wrote: »

Meh.

When I see the magnificent churches and old buildings in places like Paris or London, I always find myself thinking about where the wealth for such splendour came from at a when time when most had nothing.

Usually off the backs of the peasantry, or plundered from other countries and peoples. So I am personally happy to pass on splendid old buildings here myself.

It was par for the course at the time, human societies were just more violent back then, you can't really judge them by todays standards because the fact is if you were born back then you'd be just as bad as them.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The same could be said of virtually anything. Do you look into your smart phone and picture the dead hands of those suffering as result of conflict minerals? What about slave labour in the factory that makes components.

Yes.

Sometimes it does trouble me that I choose to use smart phones and laptops knowing that my demand is fueling conflict in the Congo.

Same goes for clothes.

Like most humans though I tend to only feel guilty about these things when confronted with them. Huge **** off buildings are quite confronting!

Also, I am not talking just about churches - when I see massive palaces and such I have the same reaction.