@joe1205 Has there ever been a Baptist minister who said he didn't believe in God? There was once a C of E bishop who said he didn't. A couple of months later, a cathedral 76 miles away got struck by lightning. Members of the Church of England said that was God's retribution. Which I thought was a distespectful comment on God's aim.
In a way this harkens back to a televised discussion about religion, in which Stephen took part, and a bishop (I believe) said something like, "We (i.e. the church) aren't here to tell people how to live," and Stephen cut him off saying, "Then what are you FOR? What are you FOR?"
@marnanel Most religions don't just involve worship though. They usually offer guidelines on how to live a good life. Like Sikhs are taught to serve the community, Buddhists are told not to kill things, Catholics are required to feel guilty about everything, etc.
@@Benjiesbeenbetter.True. But saying "then what are you for?" means you can't think of anything else they might be for. Besides, "telling people what to do" is ambiguous between "telling our followers what to do" and "telling everyone what to do", and the meaning of Stephen Fry's reaction depends on which way the bishop meant it (in context).
@@marnaneltrue enough, but consider for instance that the bible talks about the morality of having an abortion, a matter that we understand as political discourse today. Religion is linked with statecraft, and if you look into the bible and everything it says you'll see that it presents some arguments for what are held as the right ways to behave and the right ways to run a nation.
The marriage thing Was important.... but it was more ferocious petulance over South America being "Given" to Spain and Portugal (despite the English being almost as vital for exploration) entirely, that pissed him off and pushed him over that edge to varying degrees of Protestantism.
@@MrJimheerenapparently the real ones. Henry never got divorced even once. He got his marriages annulled. The Protestant church already had a following in England. The wife that got Henry to Create the Church of England was Anne Boleyn. She became the second annulment and the first to lose her head. There were no divorces in the royal family until Charles and Diana.
@@nancyholcombe8030 Well they couldn't really call it a "divorce" could they? But in every meaning of the word, he divorced them. They were married for some time and even had children, and then he "annulled" both marriages. And if anyone really thought of it as an annulment they would not have accepted either Mary or Elizabeth as Queens, seeing as they would, ergo, be illegitimate. But they did.
Stephan is just bringing up the fact that the church of England is inconsistent with what it openly declares. And it annoys him how they try and pretend they aren't completely changing their policies and doctrines when they obviously do every decade to fit with the changing times. Everyone's entitled to change their opinion, but they shouldn't try to say their opinions haven't changed
Him and me both. You don't have to like us, it's OK, we aren't Stalin. Though looking at that face fungus he's cultivating he might be turning into Marx.
He's an atheist.... so I think he is sceptical, critical and disappointed by all those crazy religious cults that create and peddle their divisive, subjugating and nonsensical master and minion BS!
@@jamesonrosen1773not really. If you claim “our word is backed by divine law”, where in that statement is there room for the idea that you’re in any way wrong?
@@NeonPixels81 perhaps i am confused as to the point. My understanding was that it was directed at frys logic. I get the feeling i might be wrong in that assumption.
@@jamesonrosen1773 I guess I misunderstood then also: I thought your comment was saying the church constantly changes their tune then says its "divine revelation", and the other commenter was saying that's a straw man...when in fact that's exactly what happens.
With a fickle friend you have to worry about if you will be backstabbed or not, with an enemy you know you are going to be backstabbed, so you are able to prepare for the inevitable backstabbing
@@AceCrickey Nooooooo please go watch Blackadder Season 4 I’m begging you 🥲 Fry played the role of a British WW1 General under the command of Sir Douglas Hague in the series. My grandpa always made me watch the show with him, good times.
Probably not. I guess you could find quite a few denominations that hold an idea somewhere along the lines that the physical universe is reality and god exists outside of this physical universe and therefore is not real as it is not in reality, but this is not a statement on existence outside of reality.
@@g33xzi11a yes you definitely can. Not sure if this is a mostly Brit comment section, but my monthly meeting (Hicksite Quaker) allows anyone to come and join us in our worship and we allow all names and ideas of god or the inner light here. I can’t speak for other monthly meetings but a Muslim can be a Quaker just as much as a Christian can who can be just as much as a Quaker as an atheist, in my meeting. There’s also the UU (Unitarian Universalist) church as well.
I mean you literally have to define reality, define god, and then work around that. Is he in the same existence of reality as us? Likely not. For all we know, though, he could BE existence. If real simply means true or existent in some sense, including celestially, then I’d say signs point almost exclusively to yes on this point
@@StAmander Quick legitimate question here: Could an actual polytheist be a Quaker? Can the inner light be made of many different beings? Do the Quakers even have an official stance on this matter?
Sounds like you were designed to worship - but you are just worshipping the wrong person. Read what Jesus said and did - *now that is worthy of worship* Have you ever read Matthew, Mark. Luke or John?
I'm an atheist who was raised as an Anglican in rural East Texas. I feel nothing but warm fondness for my religious upbringing. It provided a rational buffer between me and the fanatical fundamentalist crazies all around me when I was a school kid.
That’s quite a morally objective view for an atheist. How does one have a “rational buffer” in a world view that doesn’t believe in any non-subjective rationality? Unless of course that rationality is built of elevating your subjective opinion to the place of rationality.
@@baumholderh8425 My early Sunday school classes at the little parish of St. William Laud introduced me to Plato and Aristotle, and an introduction to ethics. Typical Episcopal church in the US -- much ceremony and spectacle, little religion.
@@thomasbell7033 I definitely did not mix up the words rationality and morality 🤪. Ignore my comment I miss read your comment and thought you were claiming moral superiority. Gosh I need sleep lol
@@baumholderh8425 As one who is constantly going back and deleting his hasty comments, believe me, it's okay. You did have me Googling "morally objective" to see if there was another meaning I wasn't aware of. Sweet dreams, mate.
You have Anglicans in Texas? I thought everyone in Texas was a member of one of those "Amerochristian" churches (I don't know the denominations, but you know the ones that involve stereotypical right wing politics with religion)
You absolutely are and we duly envy you. You might not know, but shows like A Bit of Fry and Laurie, Fry's appearances in Black Adder, his readings of Harry Potter books and, particularly for me---I'm a programmer, his involvement in free software movement overreach the UK immensely. I'm an atheist as well (like majority of people in my country of the Czech Republic) and I have very similar, if not even more critical, attitude towards churches. Especially the Catholic Church; I loved Fry's take on it in the debate of whether it's a positive or negative power in the world. I'm not a member of the LGBTQ+, but I'm a very liberally minded person and I find all major churches to be horrendously wrong in their notion of morality---to the point I doubt they really know what it is.
Historical Evidence for the Son of God Jesus Christ and his Ressurection: Flavius Josephus 1st Century Historian - Testified of Jesus Christs Existance and Ressurection Tacitus, Roman Historian wrote between 115 - 117ad - Testified of Jesus Christ's Existence. Jewish Biblical Literature, Tanakh Period 70-200ad Sanhedrin 43a - Testified Jesus Christ Existed and Death.
@@ayoolukoga9829 So if I write in my diary tomorrow that I’m positive that I’ve seen a pig fly, will that become “historical evidence” of flying pigs in a couple of thousand years? Mate, you should stop reading old books from the times when people knew nothing. Try, for a change, a book written by somebody who can actually make things work-like the people who built power plants and rockets that can take you to other planets and develop materials that have the properties they _predicted_ they’ll have… What do we call them? Scientists. BTW, none of them will be impressed by your “historical evidence” and neither am I.
I wipe my buttox with the holy ghost, been doing it for 20 years, grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. Youre not special, you are just another person, you just didn't grow up mentally. Santa isn't real either fyi
@Yimello haha. My goodness. One wonders what the world would.look like in that scenario. Just a modicum of a sense of history and one realises how weird it would be. No person hood. No individual sanctity. No rule of law. No democracy etc etc etc. Just survival of the fittest ... and the will to power.
I wipe my buttox with the holy ghost, been doing it for 20 years, grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. Youre not special, you are just another person, you just didn't grow up mentally. Santa isn't real either fyi
They don't just change their morality, they change their core Christian beliefs to suit the age they live in. By doing that, they are really denying the existance of God.
@@avae5343 “God” is whatever you imagine it to be it seems. Who says God is a right-wing ideologue with an axe to grind against so-called middle class English priests? I don’t remember that being in the Bible 😂
@@TrueEnglishMan01 God is obviously not whatever you want him or her or it to be. For instance you’re not describing God if you claim someone else created him or her or it.
" They change their morality every decade " . It's called being a hypocrite . They've done what they thought they needed to do in order to survive and they've adapted . Where they previously opposed and hindered , they now fawningly concede . All it's done is highlight their desperation to cling to existence and the Church is dying , nontheless .
All organisations change their morality. Facts come to light which force them to modify their stances. But underlying ideas such as the golden rule never change. Channel 4 and Stephen Fry are never going to be an objective source of perspective on this matter.
@@rosiefay7283 Its hypocritical because they say the bible is the word of god and God is all knowing, but then they change their views to go against the bible.
@@rosiefay7283 So what did they base their previous opinions on ? It would be Scripture . If they now " repudiate " a stance which is based on a Scripture they hold as inviolable and which they still espouse , because that stance is no longer convenient or tenable for them , that is hypocrisy .
Historical Evidence for the Son of God Jesus Christ and his Ressurection: Flavius Josephus 1st Century Historian - Testified of Jesus Christs Existance and Ressurection Tacitus, Roman Historian wrote between 115 - 117ad - Testified of Jesus Christ's Existence. Jewish Biblical Literature, Tanakh Period 70-200ad Sanhedrin 43a - Testified Jesus Christ Existed and Death. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
It's an absolute morality that's always changing. This sort of thing is why I didn't stay a theist, my brain couldn't handle all the mental gymnastics that's required to believe it.
Exactly - if there's any genuinely benign higher authority worth exhalting anyway, they'd judge us on how well we lived our lives regardless of how strictly we obeyed the theocrats of the time
The only logically consistent and intellectually honest path for any religious people is basically just to either ignore the church as an institution outright. There basically has to be a seperation between the church and religion for anything to make sense, so the obvious question is “why don’t I just skip the middle man (the church)”
@@mikeboyd-og2ut The church is also an institution of corrupt men influenced by petty political interests of the day. It's perfectly reasonable to draw a similar conclusion to people like luther and the puritans
The church may change its worldview, but Jesus Christ stays the same. God wrote the law on our hearts and he will never change. He is the same today, yesterday and forever. Don’t let the church distort your view on God because they don’t actually represent him
@InChristWeTrust999 Jesus drowned all the sinful babies and foetuses, then had a change of heart and sacrificed himself (temporarily) to forgive our sins? Right.
Historical Evidence for the Son of God Jesus Christ and his Ressurection: Flavius Josephus 1st Century Historian - Testified of Jesus Christs Existance and Ressurection Tacitus, Roman Historian wrote between 115 - 117ad - Testified of Jesus Christ's Existence. Jewish Biblical Literature, Tanakh Period 70-200ad Sanhedrin 43a - Testified Jesus Christ Existed and Death. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
The English Reformation was started by John Wycliffe in the 14th century long before king Henry VIII was even born, all he did was push it over the line.
The typical response to this would be something like “of course absolute morality still exists, but it is in God’s domain, and this we are always going to be getting things wrong because we’re imperfect”. The problem with this is, if there’s some perfect ideal somewhere out there in the ether, but we have no access to it and will never be able to understand it, be affected by it, or even establish that it exists, then why bother thinking about it at all? Better to pursue the best morality we can based on the well being of conscious creatures than to invoke unfalsifiable concepts which are conspicuously constructed such that life would be no different if in fact it doesn’t exist?
Mr Fry seems to deny that within the Church of England there are multiple factions and a great diversity of convictions. Conservative-evangelical and Anglo-catholic anglicans are pretty clear and consistent on what they believe, it is only liberals like Welby that cause such confusion
Historical Evidence for the Son of God Jesus Christ and his Ressurection: Flavius Josephus 1st Century Historian - Testified of Jesus Christs Existance and Ressurection Tacitus, Roman Historian wrote between 115 - 117ad - Testified of Jesus Christ's Existence. Jewish Biblical Literature, Tanakh Period 70-200ad Sanhedrin 43a - Testified Jesus Christ Existed and Death. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
That is not what is happening. They change their view on things because of pressures from society. It isn't simply one day they want to be moral and the next they decide it doesn't matter.
It's not limited to the church of England. Many churches/religions change their moralities over time, especially if it suits their needs.....and this includes the parishioners. I would go so far as to say that both churches/religions and the parishioners/worshipers utilize morality to basically say: Do what we say, not what we actually do.
The great attraction of the C of E and its colonial derivatives is that you don't have to be a true believer to be a member. There's a good proportion of even the clergy, at all levels, who don't believe in the actual existence of God, nor of the fundamental truth of the Bible and treat both as a kind of spiritual allegory.
“Good proportion” “Don’t believe in the actual existence” Citation please!! Look up fallacy of false equivalence. Your equating allegorical and metaphorical, that is literary genre with non belief. This is logically fallacious!! First and foremost the core of Christianity lies in the idea that the concept “GOD” is intangible, inexplicable and is a mystery and that Christs message of peace and love is purely persuasive and never coercive. It’s an invitation to love not an invitation to judge. Christs message was always a proposal not an unfair and unattainable imposition!! The fundamental nature of [MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM/GOD] is first and foremost a mystery. This also happens to be the first tenet of the Orthodox Church (Ware 1979, p. 11). Reference: Ware, K. (1979), The Orthodox Way, (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press)
The Church has some principles, and if you don't like them, it has some others. Once a religion gets into this state, where it's permanently on the backfoot, trying to explain how things it says now are still technically the same as the things they said 10-15-20-100 years ago... maybe it's time to give up and go full-time into raffles.
@@Neb-uj4xt I am for restoring the Church, if possible. Its leaders and members must stand up for what they believe and be firm. Otherwise clowns like him will continue to make fun of it.
He’s absolutely right. If you only believe in part of the Bible don’t believe in any of it. If you believe some of it is wrong what’s to say what you think it got right actually is? If you believe in an all powerful all knowing God… do you really think he’s going to change his mind about doctrine because society does?
I disagree with Stephen though, I do believe in a pretty much objective morality. Good and bad. It's not just relative. I am not religious at all. But morality is, at the very least, evolved amongst the human race. We evolved this sense of morality because I suppose, by and large, it was beneficial to do so. It's not just a gift from the Bible. In fact it frightens me when Christians ask I can have any sense of morality without the Bible. They have no idea of morality, only rules. I don't think they even truly know what morality is. The main thing is, there are some acts so evil, I can not even begin to sympathize with the idea that all morality is relative.
@@PiousMoltarIf we ever become culturally homogenous with perfect information transfer then it could be conceivable that morality could be objective at that point. Before that point I think it'd be impossible to make the case.
Steven is correct; The synod follows the mood of the zeitgeist as opposed to a strict set of values as strict values don’t put bums on seats and money on plates.
“Money on plates” CRINGE atheism in full effect!! Sorry but the fact is that the high priests of “new atheism” make a six figure sum selling certainty to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists. That’s beyond ironic and absurd!!
@@georgedoyle2487 my comment wasn’t even about atheism, it was about the capriciousness of organised religion and its response to the vicissitudes of modern worship trends. Before you jump on the old ‘cringe’ bandwagon I suggest you read and fully understand the point which people are making instead of being eager to compose vociferous responses.
@@TheWishp “it was about the capriciousness of organised religion and its response to the vicissitudes of modern worship trends.” “Before you jump on the old 'cringe' bandwagon I suggest you read and fully understand” “Instead of being eager to compose vociferous responses” SMOKESCREEN!! Look up [Trivial Objections Fallacy]. You could have just simply said “I still hate people who don’t share my materialistic, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction even when they have the integrity to admit they’re wrong and actually change”. Sorry but facts ignore ideology!! And the fact is that it’s very ironic and absurd listening to over privileged celebrity atheists using the sophistry that they learned at Cambridge to stereotype less privileged people as “CAPRICIOUS” just because they get a little bit of hope and joy from the possibility of an ultimate force for good in the universe!! It’s very ironic and absurd listening to a celebrity atheist who actually makes a six figure sum selling certainty to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists whining about other people being inconsistent. Steven Fry constantly whines about Christians being inconsistent from the comfort of his 2.5 million Hampstead home and net worth of £40 million pounds right? Which makes your “BUMS ON SEATS AND MONEY ON PLATES” quip hilarious and comedy gold if it wasn’t so absurd and spiteful!! You and Steven Fry “doth protest too much, methinks”. The fact is that it has everything to do with materialism and celebrity atheism. Steven Fry is actually an outspoken celebrity atheist and an empiricist who constantly complains about dogma when the fact is that scientism and materialism of the gaps is itself a dogma and is the greatest secular fairytale ever told. Look up Humes guillotine and the famous essay by W. Quine [The Two Dogmas of Empiricism!! Have you even read Nietzsche, Wittgenstein or Camus? You seriously haven’t done your homework buddy!! Nietzsche would turn in his grave in scorn at celebrity atheism. Sorry but the fact is that when you lie, stereotype, straw man and malign Christ and freedom of religious expression you are not raging against the MACHINE, you’re raging FOR THE MACHINE. Furthermore, demonising monotheists, that is demonising your political opponents by pretending that they are all a “MASSIVE PROBLEM” and that they are all greedy, “CAPRICIOUS” and dangerous is an ancient propaganda tool that’s been used by everyone from Communist dictators, to serial killers to the Nazis, to the Soviet Unions anti religious hate propaganda machine. “Death is the solution to all problems, no man no problem.” - (Joseph Stalin). “HAIL SCIENCE”
@@TheWishp “it was about the capriciousness of organised religion and its response to the vicissitudes of modern worship trends.” “Before you jump on the old 'cringe' bandwagon I suggest you read and fully understand” “Instead of being eager to compose vociferous responses” SMOKESCREEN!! Look up [Trivial Objections Fallacy]. You could have just simply said “I still hate people who don’t share my materialistic, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction even when they have the integrity to admit they’re wrong and actually change”. Sorry but facts ignore ideology!! And the fact is that it’s very ironic and absurd listening to over privileged celebrity atheists using the sophistry that they learned at Cambridge to stereotype less privileged people as “CAPRICIOUS” just because they get a little bit of hope and joy from the possibility of an ultimate force for good in the universe. It’s very ironic and absurd listening to a celebrity atheist who actually makes a six figure sum selling certainty to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists whining about other people being inconsistent. Steven Fry constantly whines about Christians being inconsistent from the comfort of his 2.5 million Hampstead home and net worth of £40 million right? Which makes your “BUMS ON SEATS AND MONEY ON PLATES” quip hilarious and comedy gold if it wasn’t so absurd and spiteful!! You and Steven Fry “doth protest too much, methinks”. The fact is that it has everything to do with materialism and celebrity atheism. Steven Fry is actually an outspoken celebrity atheist and an empiricist who constantly complains about dogma when the fact is that scientism and materialism of the gaps is itself a dogma and is the greatest secular fairytale ever told. Look up Humes guillotine and the famous essay by W. Quine [The Two Dogmas of Empiricism!! Have you even read Nietzsche, Wittgenstein or Camus? You seriously haven’t done your homework buddy!! Nietzsche would turn in his grave in scorn at celebrity atheism. Sorry but the fact is that when you lie, stereotype, straw man and malign Christ and freedom of religious expression you are not raging against the MACHINE, you’re raging FOR THE MACHINE. Furthermore, demonising monotheists, that is demonising your political opponents by pretending that they are all a “MASSIVE PROBLEM” and that they are all greedy, “CAPRICIOUS” and dangerous is an ancient propaganda tool that’s been used by everyone from Communist dictators, to serial killers to the Nazis, to the Soviet Unions anti religious hate propaganda machine. “Death is the solution to all problems, no man no problem.” - (Joseph Stalin). “HAIL SCIENCE”
@@TheWishp “it was about the capriciousness of organised religion and its response to the vicissitudes of modern worship trends.” “Before you jump on the old 'cringe' bandwagon I suggest you read and fully understand” “Instead of being eager to compose vociferous responses” SMOKESCREEN!! Look up [Trivial Objections Fallacy]. You could have just simply said “I still hate people who don’t share my materialistic, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction even when they have the integrity to admit they’re wrong and actually change”. Sorry but facts ignore ideology!! And the fact is that it’s very ironic and absurd listening to over privileged celebrity atheists using the sophistry that they learned at Cambridge to stereotype less privileged people as “CAPRICIOUS” just because they get a little bit of hope and joy from the possibility of an ultimate force for good in the universe. It’s very ironic and absurd listening to a celebrity atheist who actually makes a six figure sum selling certainty to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists whining about other people being inconsistent. Steven Fry constantly whines about Christians being inconsistent from the comfort of his 2.5 million Hampstead home and net worth of £40 million right? Which makes your “BUMS ON SEATS AND MONEY ON PLATES” quip hilarious and comedy gold if it wasn’t so absurd and spiteful!! You and Steven Fry “doth protest too much, methinks”. The fact is that it has everything to do with materialism and celebrity atheism. Steven Fry is actually an outspoken celebrity atheist and an empiricist who constantly complains about dogma when the fact is that scientism and materialism of the gaps is itself a dogma and is the greatest secular fairytale ever told. Look up Humes guillotine and the famous essay by W. Quine [The Two Dogmas of Empiricism!! Have you even read Nietzsche, Wittgenstein or Camus? You seriously haven’t done your homework buddy!! Nietzsche would turn in his grave in scorn at celebrity atheism. Sorry but the fact is that when you lie, stereotype, straw man and malign Christ and freedom of religious expression you are not raging against the MACHINE, you’re raging FOR THE MACHINE. Furthermore, demonising monotheists, that is demonising your political opponents by pretending that they are all a “MASSIVE PROBLEM” and that they are all greedy, “CAPRICIOUS” and dangerous is an ancient propaganda tool that’s been used by everyone from Communist dictators, to serial killers to the Nazis, to the Soviet Unions anti religious hate propaganda machine. “Death is the solution to all problems, no man no problem.” - (Joseph Stalin). “HAIL SCIENCE”
@@jelleludolfslavery isn't that bad, I would embrace it again. That's why I believe the west needs to embrace Islam, Europe is too far gone and so too is Christianity. We need barbarism, savagery and patriarchy again and Islam can bring that to us
Not feeling very bright today? Smile and remember . . . There are grown adults who actually believe that two penguins walked all the way from Antarcitca to the Middle East to get aboard an ark built by a 500 year old man.
Apart from at that time, the land was most likely one mass; penguins possibly didn't even exist at that point, and in any case, if they did, God is in control, so why would they have to walk? And if they did walk, why couldn't they travel that distance? And 'two by two' comes from a nursery rhyme and not the bible and humans lived much much longer at that time. The percentage of brain we use nowadays is extremely low. Since we used to live much longer, we'd have to use more of our brains, so that'd explain why we have so much dormant brain at this point. You've seen the pyramids, haven't you? A practically impossible feat at the time, or so it would seem, and yet there they stand. We lived longer and used much more of our brains. God. God is God. God is ineffable, that is literally the point. Things that seem impossible to us are not impossible to him.
@@tsundereyoongi3869 You couldn't be more wrong but I won't waste my time correcting your errors because you won't listen. It's just Unbelievable how the religious act superior to me because they have faith. Faith is NOT a virtue, it's the Glorification of Voluntary Ignorance.
2 Timothy 4:3 KJV - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
You can’t help but love him 😵😂!!! He speaks the truth every time he opens his well educated mouth . I still think he’s most interesting person this country has produced !!! I’d give anything for him and Miriam Margolyes to come for tea 😵😵😂😂👍🏽👍🏽. …. Truth fest over a pot of tea !
that's why the CoE is the best. It's the Oliver Wendell Holmes church ("It is the merit of the common law that it decides the case first and determines the principle afterwards.")
As for as I know the Church of England never supported slavery, it just reoccurred in the 16th century but the British nevertheless became the world's biggest advocate against slavery of which most slave institutions around the world had been abolished thanks in part to the British.
The Church of England admitted one year ago that it profited handsomely from the slave trade in the 18th century. When slavery was abolished, 96 Anglican clergy were compensated for their losses. I.e. They owned slaves or worked for slave owners and claimed on their behalf.
It’s not what the Church of England says, it’s what God says. The church may change with the wind, but Jesus is “the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
Yes, Jesus is exactly as he was when he was created. Those people who wrote the bible were marketing geniuses. Two thousand years later and they have billions of people conned.
Possibly why I have never fully left the Catholic church. I may disagree with a lot of what the Catholic church stands for but at least it stands for something and doesn't care if that something isn't popular.
Muslims live rent free in your head 😂 Try that in India, Uganda or another illiberal Christian-majority country and see where it gets you. Poland & Russia have blasphemy laws for which you can be jailed for years. Russia locks up atheist bloggers even. A fatwa is just a subjective Islamic ruling on any matter btw, like a papal decree. They’re only legally binding in some theocratic states & certainly not in secular Muslim-majority countries. Nice generalisation tho 👍
Historical Evidence for the Son of God Jesus Christ and his Ressurection: Flavius Josephus 1st Century Historian - Testified of Jesus Christs Existance and Ressurection Tacitus, Roman Historian wrote between 115 - 117ad - Testified of Jesus Christ's Existence. Jewish Biblical Literature, Tanakh Period 70-200ad Sanhedrin 43a - Testified Jesus Christ Existed and Death. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
He's absolutely right though - insane as they are, essentially the only honest, authentic religious people are fundamentalists of whatever colour. Abhor them as I do, at least they're walking their talk.
“He’s absolutely right” Oh the irony!! He’s a relativist and a moral subjectivist isn’t he? So how can he be “ABSOLUTELY” right about anything if it’s relative and subjective lol. You just totally and utterly contradicted yourself. A moral subjectivist/relativist pontificating on morals and what others ought to absolutely believe is absolutely PRICELESS!!
Well said, Stephen, I am a Brit having lived in the USA for over 50 years. I love the USA AND HAVE MANY DEAR FRIENDS BUT NOTHING WILL TURN YOU OFF RELIGION THAN TO LIVE IN THE USA. I also am a DEVOUT ATHEIST yet like you I have a warm spot in my heart for the C of E. It was probably attending Assembly at school. There is something magical about communal singing ESPECIALLY SINGING HYMNS. I remember so well the Head Master announcing the hymn number from Songs of Praise and a whispers shot around the Hall “ It’s Jerusalem”. We sang that wonderful hymn with everything we could summon up, there was no mouthing of the words as was the case with other BORING HYMNS.
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes” Is that “ABSOLUTELY” true??? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted your self!! That’s actually an “ABSOLUTE” truth claim buddy. You just totally and utterly contradicted yourself!! The fact is that by the same token your own argument makes you a SITH LORD right? GOTCHA!! The irony and the absurdity is that this quote from Yoda about the Sith lords dealing in absolutes is taken completely out of context. The double irony is that it’s constantly shared by atheist edge lords on RU-vid who actually believe that we are all absolutely nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES right? The irony and the absurdity is that Yoda’s quote is constantly mischaracterised as if it’s an absolute defeater for the belief in an afterlife right? But master Yoda actually teaches that the rejection of the DARK SIDE leads to an eternal afterlife with the force!! This is an absolute, universal truth claim isn’t it? Are you for real? BEING ONE WITH THE FORCE when you die is a metaphor for transcending to heaven isn’t it? And the “FORCE” itself is a meta- metaphor for God because the ultimate FORCE is everywhere and permeates all of reality doesn’t it? This is literally what “GOD” means!! George Lucas even admitted that the [Force ghosts] are a metaphor for heaven. Sorry but anyone who makes a truth claim is dealing in metaphysics, that is dealing in ABSOLUTES and universals, that is transcendental categories. Otherwise it’s nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, arbitrary subjective word games isn’t it? For example: The fact is that raping and murdering a child for fun is clearly ABSOLUTELY, objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective opinion, not just an arbitrary subjective preference right? It’s not relative!! Only Palpatine or a Sith Lord would claim that the rape and murder of an innocent child isn’t absolutely evil and is just relative and is just an arbitrary subjective taste!! Try again nihilist!!
Only a Sith deals in absolutes” Is that “ABSOLUTELY” true??? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted your self!! That’s actually an “ABSOLUTE” truth claim buddy. You just totally and utterly contradicted yourself!! The fact is that by the same token your own argument makes you a SITH LORD right? GOTCHA!! The irony and the absurdity is that this quote from Yoda about the Sith lords dealing in “absolutes” is taken completely out of context. The double irony is that it’s constantly shared by atheist edge lords on RU-vid who actually believe that we are all “absolutely” nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES right? The irony and the absurdity is that Yoda’s quote is constantly mischaracterised as if it’s an “absolute” defeater for the belief in an afterlife right? But master Yoda actually teaches that the rejection of the DARK SIDE leads to an eternal afterlife with the force!! This is an absolute, universal truth claim isn’t it? Which would make Yoda a Sith if we followed your skewered “logic”!! Are you for real? BEING ONE WITH THE ABSOLUTENESS OF THE FORCE when you die is a metaphor for transcending to heaven isn’t it? And the “FORCE” itself is a meta- metaphor for the absolute/God because the ultimate FORCE is everywhere and permeates all of reality doesn’t it? This is literally what GOODNESS AND “GOD” means, the absolute lol. George Lucas even admitted that the [Force ghosts] are a metaphor for heaven right? Sorry but anyone who makes a truth claim is dealing in metaphysics, that is dealing in absolutes and universals, that is appealing to transcendental categories. Otherwise it’s nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, arbitrary subjective word games isn’t it? For example: The fact is that raping and murdering a child for fun is clearly ABSOLUTELY, objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective opinion, not just an arbitrary subjective preference right? It’s not relative!! Only Palpatine or a Sith Lord would claim that the rape and murder of an innocent child isn’t ABSOLUTELY evil and is just relative and is just an arbitrary subjective taste right? Try again nihilist!!
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes” The irony and the absurdity is that this appeal to “only a Sith deals in absolutes” has completely taken master Yoda out of context because pretty much everyone who is GOOD in Star Wars deals in ABSOLUTES throughout the whole story right? For example: Master Yoda; “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” This is clearly an ABSOLUTE, universal truth claim isn’t it? Han Solo: “NEVER tell me the odds" Leia: "Help me, Obi Wan - you're my ONLY hope" Another set of ABSOLUTE truth claims right? Admiral Ackbar: "We have NO CHOICE General Calrissian!! Our cruisers CAN'T repel firepower of that magnitude!" Mace Windu: "Protect the senator at ALL COSTS." Qui Gon Jinn: "There's ALWAYS a bigger fish." - Chewie: "Arrrrrrrghhh” Ewoks: "Coatee-cha tu yub nub!” Sorry to break it to you buddy but all of the GOOD characters in the Star Wars saga clearly deal in ABSOLUTE truth claims. Equally, the fact is that if you subscribe to TRUTH itself, that is if you subscribe to value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, mathematics or morality you are subscribing to an ABSOLUTE, universal objective truth. For example: 2+2 = 4 is absolute. Raping and murdering a child for fun is ABSOLUTELY evil!! Theres no argument about it as this is a no brainer. This is just how basic logic and objective morality works!! Equally, just because there are nuances and progress regarding how we implement morality it does not logically follow that it’s subjective or relative. In the same way that progress in logic and mathematics doesn’t mean that 2+2=4 is relative/subjective!! The proof of ABSOLUTES and UNIVERSALS Is in their denial. The proof of absolutes and universals contained in analytical philosophy, that is the proof of objective morality and logic and rationality itself is in its denial!! “Philosophy always buries its undertakers." Indeed, you can't get away from philosophy. It's like logic. To deny it is to use it.” C. S. Lewis famously wrote. I rest my case!!
I heard "absolute morality" and made a silly quote from Star Wars. I didn't expect an essay as a reply lol. It wasn't meant to be deep, just a silly quote. Have a nice day buddy
@@seanvti “Just a silly quote” Exactly!! So silly I forgot to laugh ha ha!! Did you hear the one about the overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur who thought he was nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE who shares half their DNA with BANANAS? He was a right NUT job as he thought that APE “ABSOLUTELY” have magical value because APE say APE have magical value!! He was a right FRUIT AND NUT CAKE as he wasted his “finite” life ironically proselytising about ultimately meaningless, fatalistic, nihilistic word games. And he thought that “he” wasn’t objectively real either as “he” thought that “he” was just a subjective, arbitrary, social construct, an arbitrary cultural relativist, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six!! Nothing more substantive than the ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities!! That is nothing more substantive than the brains [USER ILLUSION OF SELF], a determined machine, a chemical P zombie, that is nothing more substantive than a chemical and biological meat robot right? That is nothing more substantive than a “MONKEY” BRAIN IN A VAT. The ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of pond slime evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order right? Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! That is nothing more substantive than the ultimately meaningless science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over right? a JOKE on the universe with the illusion of consciousness/free will, that is the illusion of the “RATIONAL AND MORAL HIGH GROUND” LOL. He went BANANAS in the end!! Drum role!! Kerching!! Applause!! [GOTCHA!!] 9!! Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
It is always strange when atheists criticize religion for not being the scary boogeyman they claim all religions are. A church changing their moral stance about things like gay people is perfectly in line with a general morality of loving others as yourself. The fact is sometimes people, including churches, get it wrong and need to change.
As always and as an American, thank you for showing us our flaws, mistakes and outright wrongs as a nation and how to grow and learn from them as well as find a better way for ALL people. As Hancock once said “ you deserve better. I will be better”
Well in terms of science, it doesn’t exist because it’s not something that science can measure It could be compared to money where it only exists because everyone agrees it exists But I do personally believe that morality exists despite these small thought pieces on the nature of “what is morality”
Morality is a social convention. It obviously doesn't exist. As a convention it varies depending on time and place. What is moral in one place at that time isn't in another place and/or another time. So yeah, ofc morality is relative. And yeah, ofc god doesn't exist.
I really hope this live for a long long time. We need people like him. Maybe more then ever now. I love just listening to his voice. I never liked Harry Potter books, but I listened them on audio books, just because of him. Stay healthy good sir,and please please please,never change!
true, but like the problem isn't that their morals change over time. It's good to change your mind as you learn more things. I just wish people would realize that. So much needless hate and aggression in the world is because people who are wrong value sticking to your guns over curiosity and kindness
The changing of their morality isn't what's wrong. But they have to pretend that's not what they're doing because they claim their moral stances come from an omniscient and omnipotent god. You can't claim to be communicating God's authority to the masses and also be changing it as society changes. The problem isn't that their morality is relative. The problem is that they lie about this in order to lord their views over the unbeliever. Both the church and the unbeliever use relativistic morality, but only the unbeliever tells the truth about that.
