Sky Fairies

[billythewiz]

"Sky Fairies" is term that has been used, and objected to, a few times in recent posts. I'd like to comment on that.

The observant amongst you will have noticed that I live in Guildford. Guildford isn't famous for many things, but it is famous for this scene from The Omen.

Any one who has ever travelled to Guildford at night, from the north on the A3 or from the west on the A31, or on the train from Waterloo, will know that the first noticeable things you will see, glowing golden in the night sky is this. Take a closer look at what's purched up there.

So there you have it, a winged humanoid, perched high up in the sky, on the roof of a house of worship.

Now what was that you were saying about not ramming beliefs down other people's throats ?

[Phage]

I'm OK with it. I'm free to build my own black monolith complete with dragon if I had got my act together before the planning rules got so uptight.
I can always do a stone circle.

From my link in GD.

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."

[peterb]

I'd say it was a bit like constantly posting threads on a single topic to ram ones beliefs down everyone else's internet connection.

[TeePee]

Nice Bellamy salute!

But I'm OK with it. Aside from church architecture being impressive, consider it the same as any other corporation advertising their wares.

[TheAnimus]

Ultimately so long as they keep out of my life, and don't poison our achievements (throwing away theories such as evolution) its fine.

The issue is if you have a belief, you know on some level that their probably is no tooth fairy, that you then go and attack anything which helps understand why there is no need for a tooth fairy, and ultimately in this metaphore denounce the existance of the parents instead. When you have people doing that, its a big problem.

[Bunjiweb]

Err, I Don't 'Get' this post..

[jim]

If you want to have a rant, then go for it. If you're trying to start a thread in a discussion forum, it's fairly pointless.

[billythewiz]

There's an interesting recent article on the bbc about how much christian influence there is in our society. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17112688

Most of what they mention are just interesting curiosities. They steer clear of all the modern, insidious influences. Their involvement in schools and almost every other youth organization (scouts, brownies, boys brigade, etc.) Their influence in hospitals, the military, the judicial systems well as every level of government. When you list the areas out you realize that a list of things they aren't involved in might be a shorter list.

[Galant]

Christian Influence - ditch it - we'd all be better off without it.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3...rica-needs-god

Barnardos
YMCA centres
Habitat for Humanity
The Salvation Army
World Vision
Tear Fund
Boy Scouts
Shared Hope International
Free The Slaves
World Relief
The Samaritans
New Hope International
Stop the Traffick
Anti-Slavery Society
Samaritan's Purse
Compassion International
Food for the Poor
Wycliffe
Church World Service
Bread for the World
Operation Blessing International
Daughters of Cambodia
MAP International
Feed the Children
Lives Under Construction Boys Ranch
Medical Teams International
Globus Relief
The Children's Aid Society
Goodwill
Matthew 25 Ministries


Charles Loring Brace
William Wilberforce
George Mueller
Amy Carmichael
Eric Liddell
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
William Carey
Robert Raikes
George Washington Carver
Johann Sebastian Bach
Johannes Kepler

[TeePee]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3...rica-needs-god

So many problems.

Africa doesn't need god. The title is misleading.

What the article really says is that it may need charity and the charity it gets may be motivated by god.

Which, to an extent, is true.

The problem is that many of the problems in Africa are also motivated by god. From the recent troubles in Nigeria to the LRA to the Rwandan genocide.

Africa is many countries and has as many complexities.

[SeriousSam]

The last thing Africa needs is more "charity"... they have enough issues as it is without us artificially supporting their crippling overpopulation and perpetuating their "leaders" ability to subdugate their populations along tribal lines. We and they would be much better off if we let them sort their own mess out. Sadly though that won't happen because;

(a) They're another set of dupes waiting to be sold meaningly consumer tat so that we can keep propping up our unsustainable economies just that little bit longer.

and

(b) People have yet to shed themselves of such childish notions as "good" and "evil" and consequently are easily swayed by emotional rhetoric into believing that "doing nothing is a bad thing".

In regards to "sky faeries" then the issue is not whether a divine spark was involved in the creation or not... it is being arrogant enough to believe that we alone have a special place in all this and that following a made up set of rules will somehow net you some reward at the end.

[Galant]

Did you read the article?

"Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change."

[SeriousSam]

Did you read the article?

"Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change."

If you had read and comprehended my comment you would have realised that "providing the material means or even the knowhow" would be included in "letting them sort their own mess out". It is after all just another type of charity / exploitation, depending on how you look at it.

Oh and yes I did read the article. I just don't agree that fighting one set of delusions with another is the right approach. Especially when we are just as deluded as they are, but in different ways... blind leading the blind springs to mind.

[TeePee]

Another issue:

Your list of charities has a few problems. Wycliffe, for example is devoted to spreading religion, and nothing else. They don't feed the poor, or dig wells for clean water. What they do is translate bibles into native languages. Occasionally they will disguise this. You can 'help with healing on the Ivory Coast', when what they really do is 'use translated Scripture to help heal the wounds of trauma'.

Donations here won't actually help anyone. There are charities, including christain charities who are doing good things. I'm not convinced that much of it is successful on any but a short term local basis. There are plenty of people at home who would benefit far more from your money. Personally I donate to a local children's hospice.

Worldwide, promoting religion is an overall negative effect. The solution to poverty is a secular free society.

[Galant]

I'm well aware the Wycliffe spread the Gospel. So do many other charities here. It's you who apriori dismiss the value of that Gospel because you don't think it's true. The article is written by an atheist who, though he also does not believe in the truth of the Gospel, has yet seen a worth in it. So don'y just dismiss the gospel as worthless before you've considered it. Either way though, if you take a look at how Wycliffe work, you'll find that a lot of governments are happy to support them - even the Chinese government, because they teach and improve literacy in the nations in which they work. In some cases, they work for years to create a written language where none exist, giving ethnic groups their very own language for the first time, allowing it to be preserved, and then spending further years teaching those people how to read and write. Certainly they teach the Gospel, but no-one is forced to be a Christian. All of this is done with a very high view of human beings, a respectful one, and respectful of maintaining and working with culture. It is the work of men and women who wish to help other men and women, and part of that is sharing with others something that they themselves have found useful. Most of Wycliffe's workers serve on a voluntary basis. They make little money. What they are doing is giving years, sometimes their whole lives, working in far away places, learning unrecorded languages, creating written languages and dictionaries and teaching the people they work with to read and write. They do this with a genuine desire to help them and to share with them the good news that the workers themselves sincerely believe, all coming from a love for God and the people themselves.

You might disagree with the truths they believe, but I would have thought humans who might be wrong on a few points yet working to improve literacy, thereby giving people the chance to read and write, should be considered a good thing.

Or do you feel Christian beliefs are so evil that it is better to be illiterate than exposed to those beliefs?

[Galant]

If you had read and comprehended my comment you would have realised that "providing the material means or even the knowhow" would be included in "letting them sort their own mess out". It is after all just another type of charity / exploitation, depending on how you look at it.

Oh and yes I did read the article. I just don't agree that fighting one set of delusions with another is the right approach. Especially when we are just as deluded as they are, but in different ways... blind leading the blind springs to mind.

I do believe he is agreeing with you on all but one point - that the desire to help where it needed is a good thing. Many parts of Africa see much suffering. Injustices in government, cultures that make use of violence. The desire to help and free those suffering under oppression and violence is a good thing. A compassionate thing. He agrees that throwing money or aid at the problem is not the solution. What he is pointing out is simply his own repeated observation that the influence of Christianity in the places he visited has been a good thing - so much so that he himself advocates more of it.

The point here, in response to the OP's prior post, is that the complete removal of Christian influence would be a bad thing. As for the blind leading the blind, maybe so, but if we're all blind as you say, then surely all of us blind men have to do something. Indeed, it could be argued that this is one blind man telling another blind man where to find bread. Maybe that's what blind men should be doing - or else they'll all starve to death?