Charles Coulson was a mathematics professor at Oxford University as well as a Methodist church leader.
In his 1955 book "Science and Christian Belief" he wrote
"Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all."
Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
Charles Coulson was a mathematics professor at Oxford University as well as a Methodist church leader.
In his 1955 book "Science and Christian Belief" he wrote
"Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all."
Oooh, there's a few erroneous declarations about Christianity here!
Perhaps you would prefer Richard Dawkins' "interpretation".
He was the "Professor for Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford University from 1995 until 2008.
He is an atheist.
My definition of Christianity / Christian is a basic belief in the Holy Bible and Jesus.
I also think that science and religion should not be mutually exclusive.
i.e. creationism v evolution
Dawkins has said that feminism is "enormously important" and "a political movement that deserves to be supported".
I think even professors can get it terribly wrong. God is not a misogenist.
"Ladies and Gentlemen" .. welcome to the 21st. century.
Last edited:
I doubt either of us draw much from Dawkins' insistence that our religions are delusions
OK, but the axioms of one do not necessarily apply to the other. Dawkins' misunderstanding of the nature of God, for example, us based on the assumption than God must necessarily be an ubër-complex being – because 'sophisticated' organisms are complex. Big error, and undermines nearly all of his pronouncements on the nature of the Divine.
I endorse the equal rights of women in all spheres, not just politics.
Yes, an issue which our respective cultures and religions will, at some point, have to get to grips with. Shame on them that they haven't, so far.
I doubt either of us draw much from Dawkins' insistence that our religions are delusions
Quite
That's complicated. If we are not careful, we become 'communist' theists..
Take the classic problem .. one of money .. is it correct that men and women should all get the same wages for the same job?
..and does that mean that a man should not be any more responsible for his family financially, than his wife?
It's a minefield, imo .. goodbye "Ladies and Gentlemen"
Last edited:
Who do you mean?
I wasn't referring to anybody in particular..
I was just observing how the notion of feminism and its political correctness could be
detrimental to the relationship between men & women, and hence family life.
I am not suggesting that women should not have "equal rights" .. just pointing out that it is a complex topic.
Ok. Yes. I understand and I agree. The problem with these equality issues is the lunatic fringe and cancel culture take over, imo
Last edited:
Why should they not?
Are women less capable of taking responsibility?
Well, goodbye to that hackneyed patriarchal narrative, for sure.goodbye "Ladies and Gentlemen"
It's political, isn't it?
It requires legislation and a govt. body to police it.
They do have babies you know..
I personally think that they are better equipped than men to look after young children.
..and then we need more legislation to ensure they can take leave etc.
Forgive me for living in the past
I'm romantic really, you know. I believe that if men treated women fairly, they
wouldn't have to protest about men having "more".
Sounds interesting. What would the intersections be, between means of production, and faith in a god?
That would be a first step in the right direction, in my opinion.
It is not my place to tell other people in minute detail how to organise their personal lives, finances, etc.
How does it threaten you if my wife earns more money than me?
I suppose what I mean is that one's political views would be independent from
their religious beliefs. Islam is a middle way .. it is neither capitalist or communist.
It's nothing to do with being threatened .. it's about the responsibility of men towards women in general.
Traditionally, for many centuries, they have been the breadwinners.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
'What exists' (Brahman) has no properties that one expects from a God. It does not require worship, does not interfere in world's affairs in favor or against anyone, it does not judge or send anyone to heaven or hell, all that constitutes it is indestructible, everlasting, it has no messages for humans and no prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis, the usual monotheist paraphernalia.
21st Century has not yet come to many people of the world.
Last edited:
..21st Century has not yet come to many people of the world.
No .. not everybody .. but Mumbai, for example, has a population of around 23 million .. I feel sure that it has come there.
Not really. It only becomes political when the state is required to legislate to 'oblige' the populace to follow.
Take the latest scandal in the UK, of a 'rape culture' within the schools system ... now it's a political issue, but before that it is a societal issue. We should not need legislation to tell us it's wrong, and it's a by-product of a patriarchal and sometimes misogynist society that deems the sexualisation, and subsequent sexual harassment of young women as acceptable.
So they should be paid less, rewarded less? have their prospects limited? What about man taking responsibility for keeping the species going, or does that end when he rolls over and falls asleep?
That's because men are lazy and it's bloody hard work.
Ask that of your daughters, not me.Forgive me for living in the past
I don't think the fair treatment of women is romantic, and frankly, I think male notions of romance is very much part of the problem.
Last edited:
And yet look at the wealth disparity of Islamic states — very much a capitalist ideal, I'd say.
As equals, not property, and it should go both ways. Responsibility towards, not responsibility for.
And the wife-beaters, and the wife-murderers, and the rapists, and the child-groomers, and the human traffickers.
On the other hand, this same male identity undoubtedly fuels the machismo that sees so many young man killing themselves and each other.
The part of capitalism I more or less agree with is that of "market forces". It's a natural
phenomena of being in a community.
Somebody who employs others needs staff. They are the ones that should be deciding how much
an employee is worth.
It is not so much about "how much they can get away with" .. that only happens when there is
large unemployment .. and that applies equally to men as well as women.
Well, I can't see it being romantic to have your fiancee going on about how she is "the same" as you
If she is "the same", then a man no longer has to be a "Gentleman", and be more considerate towards Ladies..
..don't you see?
Well .. one has oil, and one has not?
Certainly not property, no. Our partners & families are a test. How do we treat them? We have to return to God alone.
He will judge between us all on the Day of Judgement.
@Thomas
Political correctness says that women NO LONGER have to obey their husbands.
Woman:
I N. take thee M. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.
The Ladies also used to wear shawls covering their modesty.
Political correctness says that women NO LONGER have to obey their husbands.
Woman:
I N. take thee M. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.
The Ladies also used to wear shawls covering their modesty.
OK, but 'market forces' gives rise to all manner of injustices – less than 1% of the population control almost half the entire global wealth ...
At one point I was looking to transfer my finances into a bank run on Moslem principles because I liked their ethical principles.
While 'render unto caesar' covers a multitude of sins, I'm not sure any religion endorses market forces when MF distorts the Golden Rule into "Do unto others as much as you can get away with."
Well I disagree, but then that's me.
Tell that to the Trade Union movement, or campaigners for justice and fair pay.
That's a shame ...Well, I can't see it being romantic to have your fiancee going on about how she is "the same" as you
Not at all.
The point is our current culture, for all its romantic idealism, is grossly and sometimes criminally inconsiderate towards the female of the species, in almost every aspect of its dealings...