Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Rhiannon on January 15, 2016, 08:42:00 AM
-
Surely this sorry shower deserves to be in its death throes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35318392
-
Too little too late.
-
I think, here in the UK anyway, they are already on the way out even if their presumed newsworthiness by the likes of the BBC outweighs their relevance to, and influence on, society at large.
This is also further confirmation that some elements within organised Christianity are intrinsically homophobic.
-
One iinteresting quote from your source, Rhi:
The meeting in Canterbury, which started on Monday and brings together 39 Anglican primates . . .
almost seems that they are referring to 39 monkeys. Quite appropriate in view of the sentiments expressed by the Bishops.
-
Too little too late.
Ad_O
Your comment, while predictable, is "too little"!
What, precisely, is "too little", and, equally precisely, why is it "too late" and "too late" for what?
-
I think, here in the UK anyway, they are already on the way out even if their presumed newsworthiness by the likes of the BBC outweighs their relevance to, and influence on, society at large.
This is also further confirmation that some elements within organised Christianity are intrinsically homophobic.
But then we already knew this did we not?
Why does it not surprise me that the Ugandan representative was the first to hitch up his skirts and bog-off home in a huff!
-
I think, here in the UK anyway, they are already on the way out even if their presumed newsworthiness by the likes of the BBC outweighs their relevance to, and influence on, society at large.
This is also further confirmation that some elements within organised Christianity are intrinsically homophobic.
For as long as there is an established church anywhere in the UK this is newsworthy.
There are a lot of Anglicans who will be disappointed by this. I know both clergy and laity who have left the church because of its homophobia. They are either going to lose many more members or there will be a breakaway within the CofE.
I've said it before but I left the church long before I lost my faith, because as a parent I felt it wasn't fit to be allowed anywhere near my
-
Surely this sorry shower deserves to be in its death throes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35318392
Quite agree, the sooner the ECUSA shrivel up and die, the better.
-
This is also further confirmation that some elements within organised Christianity are intrinsically homophobic.
Sorry, Gordon, there is homophobia and a belief that same-sex relationships are wrong, perhaps even bad for society. They are very different; not synonymous.
-
Quite agree, the sooner the ECUSA shrivel up and die, the better.
So homophobic Hope!
If this is your attitude I am amzed that you continue to use a forum, this one, that has openly gay and, possibly, also lesbian members.
-
One iinteresting quote from your source, Rhi:
almost seems that they are referring to 39 monkeys. Quite appropriate in view of the sentiments expressed by the Bishops.
Oddly enough, the definition of 'primate' in the Oxford Dictionary makes no mention of monkeys, Matt. Perhaps that suggests that your last remark suits you better. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/primate
-
Sorry, Gordon, there is homophobia and a belief that same-sex relationships are wrong, perhaps even bad for society. They are very different; not synonymous.
The worst possible kind of lying, Hope, is lying to yourself. in this case lying to yourself to justify excluding people who believe in exactly the same religion as you on the basis of their disagreement on one single matter. It is the fact that it is the matter of homosexuality that makes this an overt act of homophobia and wrapping it up in pretty paper does not and will not ever change that.
-
Ad_O
Your comment, while predictable, is "too little"!
What, precisely, is "too little", and, equally precisely, why is it "too late" and "too late" for what?
As far as the Anglican communion is concerned it let the cat out of the bag long ago. It's impossible to put back in. First it was women priests, now this. Why has it taken thirteen years? From an Orthodox perspective the Anglicans are beyond hope unless they completely and utterly repent of all their errors.
-
So homophobic Hope!
Well, I'd rather be true to my beliefs that hide them.
If this is your attitude I am amzed that you continue to use a forum, this one, that has openly gay and, possibly, also lesbian members.
Well, as has been said about you before, I'm amazed that you continue to use a forum, this one, that has openly Christian and other non-Pagan members. I enjoy debate, and especially when it deals with issues close to my heart.
-
Oddly enough, the definition of 'primate' in the Oxford Dictionary makes no mention of monkeys, Matt. Perhaps that suggests that your last remark suits you better. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/primate
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/primate = a mammal of an order INCLUDING monkeys, apes and humans!
And strangely enough homosexual behaviour has also been observed between some of said monkey and apes as well as humans.
-
Quite agree, the sooner the ECUSA shrivel up and die, the better.
The story isn't about the Episcopalian Church, but about rest of the Anglican Communion demonstrating what a bunch of intolerant, ignorant and/or cowardly wankers they are. Thank goodness that Anglicanism in the UK is shrinking into nothingness.
-
As far as the Anglican communion is concerned it let the cat out of the bag long ago. It's impossible to put back in. First it was women priests, now this. Why has it taken thirteen years? From an Orthodox perspective the Anglicans are beyond hope unless they completely and utterly repent of all their errors.
Well, they seem to have repented of their unScriptural attitude to women, ad-o, and they seem to have stuck to Scriptural attitudes regarding sexuality. Which other errors do they need to address?
-
As far as the Anglican communion is concerned it let the cat out of the bag long ago. It's impossible to put back in. First it was women priests, now this. Why has it taken thirteen years? From an Orthodox perspective the Anglicans are beyond hope unless they completely and utterly repent of all their errors.
Dinosaur! Your are living outside your era and should try to find a time-machine to send you back about four hundred years into the past to when your opinions were the vogue and humanity had not yet outgrown them.
Which it now has!
-
The story isn't about the Episcopalian Church, but about rest of the Anglican Communion demonstrating what a bunch of intolerant, ignorant and/or cowardly wankers they are. Thank goodness that Anglicanism in the UK is shrinking into nothingness.
No, Rhi, the story is about the Anglican Communion disciplining an element of itself that has been warned, on the same issue, on a number of occasions in the past. ECUSA have chosen to ignore those warnings.
-
Well, they seem to have repented of their unScriptural attitude to women, ad-o, and they seem to have stuck to Scriptural attitudes regarding sexuality. Which other errors do they need to address?
Women clergy are unscriptual. Then there is all its Protestant errors.
-
Dinosaur! Your are living outside your era and should try to find a time-machine to send you back about four hundred years into the past to when your opinions were the vogue and humanity had not yet outgrown them.
Which it now has!
Sorry Matt, which era would that be? As far as I'm aware, the era we are in is 'Anno Domine'; in other words, the era of Christ. As Christ taught, his teachings are for all humanity and for all time.
-
Dinosaur! Your are living outside your era and should try to find a time-machine to send you back about four hundred years into the past to when your opinions were the vogue and humanity had not yet outgrown them.
Which it now has!
Oy maybe you should just sod off! The faith is still kept in some places, but not in the Anglican communion.
-
Sorry, Gordon, there is homophobia and a belief that same-sex relationships are wrong, perhaps even bad for society. They are very different; not synonymous.
What you personally think about homosexuality being 'wrong' is just a matter of opinion (yours, not mine).
However, when Christian organisations try to use their assumed authority and influence: and especially the CofE given its privileged and protected status here in the UK, to seek to prevent socially progressive legislation within a democracy to remove discrimination based on sexuality that they disapprove of, then they are quite correctly deemed to be homophobic. Thankfully they didn't get in the way of progress, but they shamefully had to be ring-fenced as a special case in order to isolate them from having to consider adopting a more enlightened and respectful approach to people (including some of their own members and fellow Christians).
Still we have to look on the bright side, since this type of discriminatory conduct will just hasten their overdue demise.
-
Sorry Matt, which era would that be? As far as I'm aware, the era we are in is 'Anno Domine'; in other words, the era of Christ. As Christ taught, his teachings are for all humanity and for all time.
That would be you opinion, Hope: nothing more and nothing less, and also wrong since quite clearly 'all humanity' don't agree with your grandiose presumption.
-
ECUSA have chosen to ignore those warnings.
Then they should be applauded.
-
Sorry Matt, which era would that be? As far as I'm aware, the era we are in is 'Anno Domine'; in other words, the era of Christ. As Christ taught, his teachings are for all humanity and for all time.
So you consider that because it is "Anno Domini" all religions except Christianity are to kow-tow to what Christianity says?
"Anno Domini" is just a way of designating a period o time, nothing more.
Get this and get it good - Christians are rapidly becoming a world-wide minority and views like yours are acceleratring its decline.
-
Oy maybe you should just sod off! The faith is still kept in some places, but not in the Anglican communion.
Your comments are contradictory to your avatar which shows two men kissing!
-
Then they should be applauded.
Hear! Hear!
-
It's also worth noting that the thread title is actually incorrect. ECUSA has not been excluded, but barred from Anglican decision-making bodies for a period of 3 years (http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx - see Para 7). Furthermore, it has not been barred on the grounds of gay bishops - there are gay bishops within the Church of England and several other Anglican Provinces. The meeting had been called to debate the Anglican approach to the on-going issue of gay marriage and the meeting stated that changes in ECUSA's Canon on marriage 'represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.' (Para 2 from the website referred to above)
-
Your comments are contradictory to your avatar which shows two men kissing!
And two men kissing doesn't automatically mean that they are homosexual, Matt. Kissing like this is often cultually normal - both male/male and female/female.
-
Your comments are contradictory to your avatar which shows two men kissing!
Not at all. The Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other with a holy kiss, the two apostles who were spiritual brothers a d preached the gospel in Rome together.
-
It's also worth noting that the thread title is actually incorrect. ECUSA has not been excluded, but barred from Anglican decision-making bodies for a period of 3 years (http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx - see Para 7). Furthermore, it has not been barred on the grounds of gay bishops - there are gay bishops within the Church of England and several other Anglican Provinces. The meeting had been called to debate the Anglican approach to the on-going issue of gay marriage and the meeting stated that changes in ECUSA's Canon on marriage 'represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.' (Para 2 from the website referred to above)
This does not justify the Anglican homophobia it merely reinforces its attachment to it.
-
Not at all. The Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other with a holy kiss, the two apostles who were spiritual brothers a d preached the gospel in Rome together.
So it is OK for two men to have a snog as long as it is between two saints? As long as the snog is holy (small "h" I notice!).
Two men wearing dresses!
-
No small wonder that virtually 50% of the UK doesn't have anything to do with religions, faiths nor any of these kind of beliefs, they're so pointless all of them, hurry up and die all of them, these pathetic beliefs.
It's the business of the so called gay people no one else, why does anybody want to know about other normal peaceable people in this way, why this need to categorise people that are happy living their lives in their own peaceable way/
ippy
-
It's also worth noting that the thread title is actually incorrect. ECUSA has not been excluded, but barred from Anglican decision-making bodies for a period of 3 years (http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx - see Para 7). Furthermore, it has not been barred on the grounds of gay bishops - there are gay bishops within the Church of England and several other Anglican Provinces. The meeting had been called to debate the Anglican approach to the on-going issue of gay marriage and the meeting stated that changes in ECUSA's Canon on marriage 'represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.' (Para 2 from the website referred to above)
No it isn't incorrect. 'Excluded' and 'barred' mean the same thing; the title box doesn't allow room for explaining what they have been excluded from but the link given does.
-
Sorry, Gordon, there is homophobia and a belief that same-sex relationships are wrong, perhaps even bad for society.
On what basis? There are innumerable same-sex relationships and have been since ... well, since for ever for all practical intents and purposes so if they're "bad for society" there should be evidence for this assertion. What/where is it?
Is it hiding with the "good reasons" why "homosexuality has been viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" for which you allegedly had two A4 pages of notes, supposedly written up and posted by you but which nobody else can ever remember seeing and can't be found in a search?
-
So you consider that because it is "Anno Domini" all religions except Christianity are to kow-tow to what Christianity says?
Never said anything about anyone kow-towing to anyone else; just pointing out that Christ's teachings are for all humanity and for all time.
Get this and get it good - Christians are rapidly becoming a world-wide minority and views like yours are acceleratring its decline.
Oddly enough, Matt, Christianity remains the largest global religion - something like 30% of the population. Unaffiliated, which includes secular/non-religious/agnostics/atheists are about 17%. Neo-Pagans make up about 0.01% (2012 figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations). As for "views like yours are acceleratring its decline", the figures from Christian sources suggest that it is the evangelical views that I can be said to hold which are slowing the decline of Christianity in Europe.
-
Oddly enough, Matt, Christianity remains the largest global religion - something like 30% of the population. Unaffiliated, which includes secular/non-religious/agnostics/atheists are about 17%. Neo-Pagans make up about 0.01% (2012 figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations). As for "views like yours are acceleratring its decline", the figures from Christian sources suggest that it is the evangelical views that I can be said to hold which are slowing the decline of Christianity in Europe.
You do realise, of course, that absolutely none of this in any way contradicts Owly's statement?
-
No it isn't incorrect. 'Excluded' and 'barred' mean the same thing; the title box doesn't allow room for explaining what they have been excluded from but the link given does.
To exclude someone is to stop them being invcolved in anything to do with an organisation; barring is generally used to refer to partial exclusions. As for the link given, it makes several mistakes, when one looks at the actual statement on the Anglican Communion website that I've linked to.
-
You do realise, of course, that absolutely none of this in any way contradicts Owly's statement?
Well, if you want to regard figures that pretty well diametrically oppose Matt's statement as non-contradictory, that's up to you.
-
Well, if you want to regard figures that pretty well diametrically oppose Matt's statement as non-contradictory, that's up to you.
Which figures?
-
To exclude someone is to stop them being invcolved in anything to do with an organisation; barring is generally used to refer to partial exclusions. As for the link given, it makes several mistakes, when one looks at the actual statement on the Anglican Communion website that I've linked to.
If I'm barred from a pub that doesn't mean I'm allowed in to play pool. Stop the smoke and mirrors - we can all see through it.
-
This does not justify the Anglican homophobia it merely reinforces its attachment to it.
Rather than reinforcing an attachment to homophobia, it reinforces the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. If that's homophobia, then you seem to be adding yet another meaning to the existing diversity of meanings of the term.
Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.
-
Which figures?
The wikipedia figures I quoted.
-
Never said anything about anyone kow-towing to anyone else; just pointing out that Christ's teachings are for all humanity and for all time.
So you keep asserting, which is as I said earlier is grandiose presumption on your (and Christianity's) part: and wrong since Christianity doesn't speak for me (and no doubt others too).
I don't want to be considered a member of your club even by default, and nor does your club have any claim over me.
-
The wikipedia figures I quoted.
... and which don't actually refute Owly's statement.
Oh dear. I see I'm going to have to hold your hold and walk you through this one, one baby step at a time ::)
-
Surely this sorry shower deserves to be in its death throes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35318392
What a wasted opportunity.
It should have been the other way around - to embrace fairness and equality (and the US Episcopal Church who are taking a lead in this respect) and to exclude those parts of the Anglican communion that refuse to accept that people should be treated equally regardless of their sexuality.
Here was an opportunity for the Anglican leadership to show some moral leadership - they have failed abysmally. History will not look kindly on this shameful moment.
-
Rather than reinforcing an attachment to homophobia, it reinforces the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. If that's homophobia, then you seem to be adding yet another meaning to the existing diversity of meanings of the term.
Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.
Bollocks. Nobody is telling you that your relationship is a sin and will exclude you from both the church and from God. That this has come as a result of 'prayer' is nauseating in the extreme, but let's face it, it gives the self-righteous a lovely puffed- up 'doing God's will' moment to get off on.
-
Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.
A majority of which group? Not this society in general as there was stonking majority support for equal marriage.
To be honest, if a few swivel-eyed cranks want to bleat and bitch and whine about supposedly feeling "pain" because an inclusive and tolerant measure is made law, going against their petty, narrow-minded and very definitely wrong-side-of-society-culture-and-history idiot beliefs, bollocks to them. It's only the high-pitched whine of a small child who didn't get its way, after all.
-
It looks as if they have caved in to the African churches, who may have been threatening to split, unless the US church was suspended. Some of these African churches seem to support imprisonment for gays, and it makes me wonder how much further this might go - over women priests, for example, or divorced people. The African tail is wagging the dog - and the conservatives are winning.
-
Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.
But they aren't actually affected by it are they, unlike gay people who are suffering discrimination.
It is a bit like equating the 'pain' felt by racists if discrimination against black people is made unlawful, with the 'pain' felt by black people if discrimination is permitted.
-
It looks as if they have caved in to the African churches, who may have been threatening to split, unless the US church was suspended. Some of these African churches seem to support imprisonment for gays, and it makes me wonder how much further this might go - over women priests, for example, or divorced people. The African tail is wagging the dog - and the conservatives are winning.
Exactly - it should have been the African churches threatened with ejection unless they accept equality and fairness.
And the ABofC claims to be a moral leader - what complete nonsense, and frankly what moral cowardice.
-
Exactly - it should have been the African churches threatened with ejection unless they accept equality and fairness.
And the ABofC claims to be a moral leader - what complete nonsense, and frankly what moral cowardice.
Only according to the spirit of the age but we all know that's whimsical.
-
Only according to the spirit of the age but we all know that's whimsical.
No we don't - any more than equality for people regardless of gender is a whim, or equality regardless of race. I am very, very confident that in 100 or 200 years time we will look back in horror at how we used to treat gay people, just as we do now at how we used to treat black people and women 100 or 200 years ago.
You (and others like you) are the equivalent of those railing against ridding the world of discrimination against women or black people. There will always be those on the wrong side of a moral argument - and history won't look kindly on them. And history won't look kindly on those such as you and Hope railing against allowing individuals equality regardless of their sexuality.
The moral train is moving very fast on this at the moment (just as there were times in history when it moved fast on racial or gender discrimination), so either get on board, or get out of the way.
-
Brilliant post Prof. Diddy - the final paragraph especially.
-
Exactly - it should have been the African churches threatened with ejection unless they accept equality and fairness.
And the ABofC claims to be a moral leader - what complete nonsense, and frankly what moral cowardice.
It's interesting that this didn't happen over women priests or remarriage of divorced people. Here, there was an agreement to disagree. But I suppose the African churches are strongly homophobic, some of the African bishops appearing to support jail for gays, and so on, so they threatened to split over this, unless the Piskies were suspended. I wonder if Welby has realized how this presents the Anglican brand - as thoroughly reactionary?
It also seems to make church government pointless, for example, synods and so on.
-
Glad to see homophobia alive and kicking Ad-o and Hope.
I feel your pain at not being allowed to discriminate.
How you must suffer.
Meanwhile gay people continue to suffer in Uganda (and indeed across much of Africa) with the explicit support given by Church leaders.
http://www.mambaonline.com/2014/01/31/african-bishops-wont-compromise-on-gays/
And as we have also seen violence by the mob feeling justified in behaving thus because of the Church's stance.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/15/mob-attacks-allegedgaysinnigeriancapital.html
How proud, humane and decent you must feel by supporting what look to me like murderous, homophobic, cheer-leading thugs.
-
Only according to the spirit of the age but we all know that's whimsical.
But intolerance is 'Holy' and eternal, right...
O.
-
Oddly enough, the definition of 'primate' in the Oxford Dictionary makes no mention of monkeys, Matt. Perhaps that suggests that your last remark suits you better. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/primate
I believe that Sir Solly Zuckerman's zoological magnum opus was originally called "The Sexual Life of Primates". However, for fear that the public might think this was all about the love-life of lusty bishops, this was changed to "The Sexual Life of Monkeys and Apes".
-
Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?
-
Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?
Why would anyone with a shred of decency?
-
Why would anyone with a shred of decency?
Good point. I suppose if you are in a gay-friendly church, you can argue that you are fighting back against bigotry, but after a while, it wears a bit thin. It's a bit like joining the Tory part to fight for feminism.
-
Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?
I've often wondered about the strength of the attraction of Anglicanism - even over the question of women priests. Of course, I thoroughly approve of women, gays, trans etc being Anglican priests, bishops or whatever, but why does it have to be Anglicanism? (It sure isn't going to be Catholicism or Orthodox or any of the fundamentalisms, I know) But there are other ways of being a Christian, in organisations which are not so hung-up on these matters. Maybe it's the sense of tradition and ritual that means so much, but in a branch of Christianity, whose birth came from the politics of compromise in many ways, I wonder why people think being an Anglican is the best way of being a Christian.
-
I've often wondered about the strength of the attraction of Anglicanism - even over the question of women priests. Of course, I thoroughly approve of women, gays, trans etc being Anglican priests, bishops or whatever, but why does it have to be Anglicanism? (It sure isn't going to be Catholicism or Orthodox or any of the fundamentalisms, I know) But here are other ways of being a Christian, in organisations which are not so hung-up on these matters. Maybe it's the sense of tradition and ritual that means so much, but in a branch of Christianity, whose birth came from the politics of compromise in many ways, I wonder why people think being an Anglican is the best way of being a Christian.
It's a complex thing, isn't it? Partly to do with Englishness, I suppose, and tradition, and the beautiful churches, and the sense that Anglicanism is a via media. Plus 'I could never be a Catholic'.
In my village in Norfolk, there is a whopping great church in the main street. Where I live in London, there is a whopping great church round the corner, where all the yuppies go.
-
Matty,
How about you hop on your broom and fly over to the Middle East and tell the hundreds of millions of men that they are gay cause they kiss each other when meeting? You really are off your handle today.
You are having one of your tantrums and going after Hope like you do every day calling him nasty names as usual. And this is really weird because you are the fella that ranted against the immigrant make up of your little area.
Now the Economist mag arrived on Monday and it just so happens it has an article about your Englican thingy. I write Englican because I once heard my dad say that.
The Church of England Resurrection?
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21685473-parts-established-church-are-learning-their-immigrant-brethren-resurrection
-
Glad to see homophobia alive and kicking Ad-o and Hope.
I feel your pain at not being allowed to discriminate.
How you must suffer.
Meanwhile gay people continue to suffer in Uganda (and indeed across much of Africa) with the explicit support given by Church leaders.
http://www.mambaonline.com/2014/01/31/african-bishops-wont-compromise-on-gays/
And as we have also seen violence by the mob feeling justified in behaving thus because of the Church's stance.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/15/mob-attacks-allegedgaysinnigeriancapital.html
How proud, humane and decent you must feel by supporting what look to me like murderous, homophobic, cheer-leading thugs.
Zzzz!
-
But intolerance is 'Holy' and eternal, right...
O.
Intolerance of sin? Damn right!
-
I've often wondered about the strength of the attraction of Anglicanism - even over the question of women priests. Of course, I thoroughly approve of women, gays, trans etc being Anglican priests, bishops or whatever, but why does it have to be Anglicanism? (It sure isn't going to be Catholicism or Orthodox or any of the fundamentalisms, I know) But there are other ways of being a Christian, in organisations which are not so hung-up on these matters. Maybe it's the sense of tradition and ritual that means so much, but in a branch of Christianity, whose birth came from the politics of compromise in many ways, I wonder why people think being an Anglican is the best way of being a Christian.
It's not quite so easy. The last I knew the only church to offer full equality is the Unitarians, but they are thin on the ground. The Society of Friends also offer full equality but they are a Meeting, not a church. And neither offer one of the big attractions of Anglicanism - weekly Communion.
Methodism might be a reasonable option I guess.
-
I was friends with a rector in central London, who was himself gay, so this seemed to solve the problem, except of course, for homophobes! But he was a one-off, an amazingly charismatic and entertaining guy. But I think the Bishop of London was a conservative, so there you are, up against it.
-
Intolerance of sin? Damn right!
As I said previously - either get on the moral train or get out of the way because it has a momentum that you can't stop.
Don't forget that back in the day there were people who opposed abolition of slavery - often on religious grounds - history sees their views as abhorrent and offensive. And history will see your views in exactly the same way. You are defending the indefensible.
-
It's not quite so easy. The last I knew the only church to offer full equality is the Unitarians, but they are thin on the ground. The Society of Friends also offer full equality but they are a Meeting, not a church. And neither offer one of the big attractions of Anglicanism - weekly Communion.
Methodism might be a reasonable option I guess.
That's what immediately came to mind when 'women priests' was the big issue a few decades back. You're right - there aren't that many 'liberal' options. However, in questions of theology the Episcopalian and British Anglicanism have moved so far from anything the African Anglicans appear to believe, it's probably high time all concerned admitted that these separate factions are as different as chalk and cheese, and work out some means of going their separate ways - which would mean Canterbury acknowledging the greater common beliefs of the Episcopalians rather than what has appeared to have happened.
-
I believe that Sir Solly Zuckerman's zoological magnum opus was originally called "The Sexual Life of Primates". However, for fear that the public might think this was all about the love-life of lusty bishops, this was changed to "The Sexual Life of Monkeys and Apes".
LOVL!
-
I was friends with a rector in central London, who was himself gay, so this seemed to solve the problem, except of course, for homophobes! But he was a one-off, an amazingly charismatic and entertaining guy. But I think the Bishop of London was a conservative, so there you are, up against it.
But that Bishop of London was surely not so conservative as certain African bishops? Odd that prior to the arrival of Christianity in Africa, there seemed to be a lot more tolerance of these matters (as far as I know).
-
Good point. I suppose if you are in a gay-friendly church, you can argue that you are fighting back against bigotry, but after a while, it wears a bit thin. It's a bit like joining the Tory part to fight for feminism.
Or, as someone put it yonks ago - fighting for peace is about as much use as fucking for virginity!
-
Yes, individual churches can be good - my old pp was a master of tolerance - but he still had to swear obedience to his bishop, including on the gay issue. When I joined the church in my early twenties it was known to accommodate all - the 'broad church' - and it was known that if you wanted to get a gay relationship blessed certain priests would do it - indeed certain priests had their own relationships blessed. The Jeffrey John debacle changed the church into a conservative shell in which the fear of loss of power (which is why Canterbury ties itself in knots to please Africa) matters more than justice, equality and love.
-
Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?
As much as they are a bunch of lily livered moral cowards who will undoubtedly rue this day as a shameful moment when they failed to grasp the moral high ground and sided with the wrong side, at least they are discussing it.
Don't forget that many other christian churches - catholic, orthodox, many of the evangelical churches aren't even prepared to have the debate, so mired in immoral dogma that they can't even recognise a moral wrong if it slapped them around the face.
-
The terrible thing is that they are discussing it because they used to be more tolerant, not less.
-
Bollocks. Nobody is telling you that your relationship is a sin and will exclude you from both the church and from God. That this has come as a result of 'prayer' is nauseating in the extreme, but let's face it, it gives the self-righteous a lovely puffed- up 'doing God's will' moment to get off on.
Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this. it doesn't mean that they feel excluded. I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.
-
Yes, individual churches can be good - my old pp was a master of tolerance - but he still had to swear obedience to his bishop, including on the gay issue. When I joined the church in my early twenties it was known to accommodate all - the 'broad church' - and it was known that if you wanted to get a gay relationship blessed certain priests would do it - indeed certain priests had their own relationships blessed. The Jeffrey John debacle changed the church into a conservative shell in which the fear of loss of power (which is why Canterbury ties itself in knots to please Africa) matters more than justice, equality and love.
Very close to where my cousin lives in the South West there were two churches about five miles apart - when the support or condemn gays argy-bargey started the congregations of the two churches just did a swop - thgose from the "no gays" church swapped with the "no gays" from the "gays are OK" church and peace still reigns there.
-
Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this. it doesn't mean that they feel excluded.
I think that is for the people who are the target of the 'telling off about their relationships' to say whether they feel excluded or not, not the church nor you or I. Wouldn't you agree Hope.
-
Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this. it doesn't mean that they feel excluded. I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.
No. More like a dislike of twattishness, one that I certainly share.
-
Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this. it doesn't mean that they feel excluded. I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.
Sarcasm does not become you but it is to be expected from you.
I think it is the Anglicans that are suffering the guilty consciences.
-
Oddly enough, Rhi, the Church of England and many other denominations regard a variety of relationships and other behaviours to be wrong, and tell them this. it doesn't mean that they feel excluded. I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.
Bullshit, and you know it.
The guilt exists only in the slime you've allowed to accumulate around your beliefs about homosexuality. I know you are incapable if feeling it but the guilt lies wholly with you and those who think like you.
-
Very close to where my cousin lives in the South West there were two churches about five miles apart - when the support or condemn gays argy-bargey started the congregations of the two churches just did a swop - thgose from the "no gays" church swapped with the "no gays" from the "gays are OK" church and peace still reigns there.
But isn't that a bit of a cop out - the same muddled approach that suggests that women Bishops are fine, but it is also fine for individual parishioners to demand not to be under the authority of a woman bishop.
You either believe in equality or you don't - kind of claiming you do while putting in place practices which suggest exactly the opposite really won't do.
-
But isn't that a bit of a cop out - the same muddled approach that suggests that women Bishops are fine, but it is also fine for individual parishioners to demand not to be under the authority of a woman bishop.
You either believe in equality or you don't - kind of claiming you do while putting in place practices which suggest exactly the opposite really won't do.
Historically fudging was what Anglicanism was good at - it meant all could find a home there. Not any more.
-
But isn't that a bit of a cop out - the same muddled approach that suggests that women Bishops are fine, but it is also fine for individual parishioners to demand not to be under the authority of a woman bishop.
You either believe in equality or you don't - kind of claiming you do while putting in place practices which suggest exactly the opposite really won't do.
Yeah, but they are at peace within their groups but disgree between their parishes.
-
I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.
I'm trying to work out if you are being deliberately offensive, or does it come naturally to you and your Christian compatriots!
-
I wonder whether the feeling that homosexuals claim to have is actually a guilty conscience.
Guilty conscience about what Hope?!?
That's a bit like suggesting that in places where christians are discriminated against that their claims of feeling excluded by those societies represents a guilty conscience as they really know that christianity is actually wrong.
Is that what you think about christians objecting about being subject to discrimination in, for example, china Hope.
-
There goes Davey on his "moral train". Choo, choo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVQJuswq8IA
-
I know some Piskies who wish they would just get kicked out, so they could stop discussing it. In the US, it is settled, gay people can get married, the TEC ordains and marries gay people, so why don't the other Anglicans leave them alone to get on with it. They are being asked to conform to others' cultural norms!
-
There goes Davey on his "moral train". Choo, choo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVQJuswq8IA
At least he understands what morality is.
-
As much as they are a bunch of lily livered moral cowards who will undoubtedly rue this day as a shameful moment when they failed to grasp the moral high ground and sided with the wrong side, at least they are discussing it.
Don't forget that many other christian churches - catholic, orthodox, many of the evangelical churches aren't even prepared to have the debate, so mired in immoral dogma that they can't even recognise a moral wrong if it slapped them around the face.
PD, most denominations have been having debates on this issue for almost as long as I've been alive; certainly long before it became a hot topic within society as a whole. For some it went hand-in-hand with debates about cohabitation; for others it has been a stand-alone issue.
Following the government's decision to redefine the meaning of the word marriage, every denomination has had to debate the issue. Each has been required to come to a decision as to their position in regards to the new legislation and whether or not they would hold gay weddings. In some cases, where the denomination isn't run by a central board, as is the case with Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Methodism, each congregation has been asked to debate it themselves. I suspect that not every single congregation did, but many such congregations I know of, did.
I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.
-
At least he understands what morality is.
No, he understands what he understands morality to be.
-
I know some Piskies who wish they would just get kicked out, so they could stop discussing it. In the US, it is settled, gay people can get married, the TEC ordains and marries gay people, so why don't the other Anglicans leave them alone to get on with it. They are being asked to conform to others' cultural norms!
The problem is somewhat more complex than that, wiggs. The ECUSA what to remain within the communion so as to continue to have some influence on decisions the whole makes.
-
PD, most denominations have been having debates on this issue for almost as long as I've been alive; certainly long before it became a hot topic within society as a whole. For some it went hand-in-hand with debates about cohabitation; for others it has been a stand-alone issue.
Following the government's decision to redefine the meaning of the word marriage, every denomination has had to debate the issue. Each has been required to come to a decision as to their position in regards to the new legislation and whether or not they would hold gay weddings. In some cases, where the denomination isn't run by a central board, as is the case with Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Methodism, each congregation has been asked to debate it themselves. I suspect that not every single congregation did, but many such congregations I know of, did.
I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.
If the church thinks that the moral high ground is where it resides it is deluded in its arrogance.
-
Sarcasm does not become you but it is to be expected from you.
I think it is the Anglicans that are suffering the guilty consciences.
What sarcasm, Matt? As for the guilty feelings, why don't others who are told that what they are doing is unscriptural make the same fuss?
-
Dearie me, that 'moral high ground' phrase is beginning to look a bit thin. In fact, it looks like the man who had so many holes in this clothes that people couldn't see them.
-
I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.
The church couldn't grasp the moral high ground with a compass, an Ordnance Survey map and stout walking boots.
I agree that they won't rue being left by the side of the road - as the latest set of attendance figures released just a few days ago demonstrates, no doubt they'll enjoy the splendid isolation of being a gaggle of utterly irrelevant chuckleheads with a power base of fewer and fewer and fewer by the year.
-
Following the government's decision to redefine the meaning of the word marriage
Government hasn't redefined 'the meaning of the word marriage' it has simply extended the scope of couples who are able to get married.
And even if it had done (which it hasn't) it is perfectly entitled so to do as marriage is, and always has been, a legal concept and in a civil context it is government who are custodians of changes to the law, and legal definitions.
And it's not just for civil marriage that is fundamentally a legal concept, it is to in religious marriage too. Even had an 'official' chat with a canon lawyer about the canon law that defines marriage within a christian church - nope, well I have.
-
If the church thinks that the moral high ground is where it resides it is deluded in its arrogance.
No more arrogant than the likes of PD, yourself and several others here who believe that the moral high ground is where you reside, Rhi. I'll accept that the situational moral high ground may be where you reside, but then, it could shift its location at any time. Will you shift your moral stance to match any such a shift, or will you have the guts to hold out for what you believe to be right?
-
I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.
You are using a fallacious argument from authority again, Hope, which is quite ironic really when you consider that at least here in the UK the recent SSM legislation confirms that, and despite all the noise you guys made, your church has no authority any more.
We have moved on, and you guys are now excess baggage that we don't actually need (and never did) - but you've yet to understand this.
-
I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.
I agree - which is why it is a shame that they are so clearly failing to grasp the moral high ground, but siding with those on the absolute wrong side of the moral argument.
The church currently is the equivalent of those in the 1830s who failed to come out unequivocally in favour of the abolition of slavery, and sided with those who wanted to support its retention.
And that's how they will be seen by history.
-
I'll accept that the situational moral high ground may be where you reside
Is. Not 'may be.' Is.
but then, it could shift its location at any time.
There's about as much likelihood of that as of your learning what a logical fallacy is and ceasing to deploy them. The traffic here is one way only.
-
No more arrogant than the likes of PD, yourself and several others here who believe that the moral high ground is where you reside, Rhi. I'll accept that the situational moral high ground may be where you reside, but then, it could shift its location at any time. Will you shift your moral stance to match any such a shift, or will you have the guts to hold out for what you believe to be right?
Hope - simply try to change the object of your discrimination and ask the question again as to who has the moral high ground.
Do you think it is correct that black people should be discriminated against, not be allowed to marry, should be treated as second class citizens, not allowed to benefit from equal access to societal norms and structures.
I'm sure (or at least I hope) that you'd find that notion abhorrent, totally unacceptable and immoral.
Why then do you fail to recognise that it is just as abhorrent, unacceptable and immoral to discriminate against people because of their sexuality.
-
Government hasn't redefined 'the meaning of the word marriage' it has simply extended the scope of couples who are able to get married.
The meaning of marriage has been in relation to realtionships between men and women for centuries, PD. It is only within the last 40 or so years that any society has allowed marriage between 2 people of the same sex.
And even if it had done (which it hasn't) it is perfectly entitled so to do as marriage is, and always has been, a legal concept and in a civil context it is government who are custodians of changes to the law, and legal definitions.
Marriage has been a religious ceremony far longer than it has been a civil one insofar as most socoeties used to be religious as much as civil. As a result, a secular government can only change definitions to a degree.
And it's not just for civil marriage that is fundamentally a legal concept, it is to in religious marriage too. Even had an 'official' chat with a canon lawyer about the canon law that defines marriage within a christian church - nope, well I have.
Likewise; I've also discussed the matter with theologians. Canon law is dependent on theology, rather than the other way round.
-
The meaning of marriage has been in relation to realtionships between men and women for centuries, PD. It is only within the last 40 or so years that any society has allowed marriage between 2 people of the same sex.
Yup. It's done and dusted, kippers and custard now so suck it up and move on to something important. Your ilk just come across as a tiny clique of sore losers.
-
Davey,
Wow, being for traditional marriage is like supporting slavery back in the days of yore? You are really grasping and too bad, so sad, there's nothing there for you to grasp. Is being pro life like those who were against women having the right to vote?
-
What sarcasm, Matt? As for the guilty feelings, why don't others who are told that what they are doing is unscriptural make the same fuss?
Because they are not refused the services of the church because they have tattoos, wear leather, mixed fabrics etc etc etc?
It is the Church making such a public fuss that has brought approbation upon themwselves
-
The meaning of marriage has been in relation to realtionships between men and women for centuries, PD. It is only within the last 40 or so years that any society has allowed marriage between 2 people of the same sex.
For centuries there were other restrictions on the nature of the couples who were allowed to marry (in this and other countries) - e.g. not married before, even if divorced, restrictions on class or race of people allowed to marry.
There have been many cases before where government has chosen to extend the scope of those who can benefit from marriage - did you think all of those were redefinitions?
Marriage has been a religious ceremony far longer than it has been a civil one insofar as most socoeties used to be religious as much as civil.
No it hasn't - we've been through this at length before. Most of the ancient civilisations that we have good information about (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) saw marriage as fundamentally a civil legal contract - sure they might have been ritualistic religious elements in the ceremony but the key was the civil contract between those getting married. Indeed the early christian church wasn't really interested in the concept of marriage at all and left it to the prevailing legacy Roman civil structure.
As a result, a secular government can only change definitions to a degree.
It can change married as it sees fit, within its democratic mandate, and indeed is the only organisation that can do so in the UK. Don't forget that there is no valid marriage unless that marriage is conducted in accordance with the civil law. If you 'marry' in some religious ceremony that doesn't align with the civil law you aren't married.
-
As I said previously - either get on the moral train or get out of the way because it has a momentum that you can't stop.
Don't forget that back in the day there were people who opposed abolition of slavery - often on religious grounds - history sees their views as abhorrent and offensive. And history will see your views in exactly the same way. You are defending the indefensible.
The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing, the same morals which has no regard for life (abortion and euthanasia).
-
The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing.
Proving you right on this subject is way way beyond your deity!
-
Dear Wigs,
Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?
Exactly, in my efforts to understand homosexuality, to try and understand why I have homophobic feelings, I see something quite amazing, they have fought their corner in the most peaceful way imaginable.
If I was a member of this Anglican Church I would be welcoming them with open arms, they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.
Christians can be very stupid sometimes.
Gonnagle.
-
The day of the Lord will prove us right.
Oh dear. The "wait till your father gets home" strategy, and from somebody of your age too.
-
Davey,
Wow, being for traditional marriage is like supporting slavery back in the days of yore? You are really grasping and too bad, so sad, there's nothing there for you to grasp. Is being pro life like those who were against women having the right to vote?
Being in favour of denying some people the basic human right of being allowed to get married simply because those people are homosexual and want to marry someone of the same gender is indeed an affront to basic human rights and to morality.
And don't forget that the key point about slavery isn't the maltreatment - it was the affront to basic human rights in being owned as property. So a slave who was treated exceptionally well, never physically harmed etc still had their basic human rights denied.
There are many things we will look back on shamefully (and some we already do) - so we look back with shame on our past treatment of black people (whether through slavery or otherwise discrimination), we look back shamefully on our treatment of woman (denial of the vote, not being paid the same as men etc). We will look back with similar shame on who we treated gay people in due course.
-
The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing, the same morals which has no regard for life (abortion and euthanasia).
Well until that day comes - not holding my breath - we will get along with pushing forward basic morality associated with equality and fairness thank you very much.
Your attitude is a bit like the playground bully when the other kids tell him to stop being horrible to the kid who is different. His response being - I want to be horrible to him, I have the right to be horrible to him and just you wait till my even more horrible big imaginary friend turns up.
Grow up AO.
-
If I was a member of this Anglican Church I would be welcoming them with open arms, they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.
Christians can be very stupid sometimes.
Gonnagle.
Not sure that what I've seen and heard from some gay rights campaigners can be described as tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc, Gonners. Nor would I describe what I have seen and heard from some opposed to them as anything other than tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc. Furthermore, I can think of many congregations who have tried to welcome such folk with open arms only to be told that that can only occur by the congregations publically acknowledging that gay relationships are no different to monogamous heterosexual ones.
I call that blackmail.
-
The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing, the same morals which has no regard for life (abortion and euthanasia).
I wouldn't go as far as that, ad_o. There are, of course, many secular people who hold to perfectly good moral standards. OK, often they have been informed by religious thinking in the past, or decide that such moral standards are the ones they want to adhere to - without suggesting that they are 'religious' morals.
-
Proving you right on this subject is way way beyond your deity!
Only if ad-o's deity isn't God, Matt.
-
Not sure that what I've seen and heard from some gay rights campaigners can be described as tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc, Gonners. Nor would I describe what I have seen and heard from some opposed to them as anything other than tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc. Furthermore, I can think of many congregations who have tried to welcome such folk with open arms only to be told that that can only occur by the congregations publically acknowledging that gay relationships are no different to monogamous heterosexual ones.
I call that blackmail.
I call that yet more bullshit.
-
Well until that day comes - not holding my breath - we will get along with pushing forward basic morality associated with equality and fairness thank you very much.
Your attitude is a bit like the playground bully when the other kids tell him to stop being horrible to the kid who is different. His response being - I want to be horrible to him, I have the right to be horrible to him and just you wait till my even more horrible big imaginary friend turns up.
Grow up AO.
Spot on, as usual.
-
Furthermore, I can think of many congregations who have tried to welcome such folk with open arms only to be told that that can only occur by the congregations publically acknowledging that gay relationships are no different to monogamous heterosexual ones.
I call that blackmail.
I call that civilised tolerance and respect for others in a society that isn't wedded to the social attitudes of antiquity as interpreted by theological so-called authorities: and until some of you guys understand this you will continue to behave like the intolerant homophobes it seems that some of you are.
You could learn a lot from the likes of Gonnagle.
-
I wouldn't go as far as that, ad_o. There are, of course, many secular people who hold to perfectly good moral standards.
Which are what, according to you?
-
For centuries there were other restrictions on the nature of the couples who were allowed to marry (in this and other countries) - e.g. not married before, even if divorced, restrictions on class or race of people allowed to marry.
There have been many cases before where government has chosen to extend the scope of those who can benefit from marriage - did you think all of those were redefinitions?
Of course not, because none of them changed the fundamental equation that is marriage: 1 man - 1 woman.
No it hasn't - we've been through this at length before. Most of the ancient civilisations that we have good information about (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) saw marriage as fundamentally a civil legal contract - sure they might have been ritualistic religious elements in the ceremony but the key was the civil contract between those getting married. Indeed the early christian church wasn't really interested in the concept of marriage at all and left it to the prevailing legacy Roman civil structure.
I've read and heard many of the posts/debates/etc. that have covered ths issue over the last few decades, yet have rarely seen any evidence that even remotely suggested that the civil came before the religious.
It can change married as it sees fit, within its democratic mandate, and indeed is the only organisation that can do so in the UK.
OK, I'll accept that it can change civil marriage as it sees fit, but as it had no democratic mandate to so in the first place, that becomes a moot argument. (Remember that the foundations for the change were laid under the Coalition which had no such mandate)
-
I wouldn't go as far as that, ad_o. There are, of course, many secular people who hold to perfectly good moral standards. OK, often they have been informed by religious thinking in the past, or decide that such moral standards are the ones they want to adhere to - without suggesting that they are 'religious' morals.
You're kidding: right - its 1st April already: right?
Don't be silly.
-
Dear Wigs,
Exactly, in my efforts to understand homosexuality, to try and understand why I have homophobic feelings, I see something quite amazing, they have fought their corner in the most peaceful way imaginable.
If I was a member of this Anglican Church I would be welcoming them with open arms, they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.
Christians can be very stupid sometimes.
Gonnagle.
'they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.'
So does this post from you, Gonners.
-
Of course not, because none of them changed the fundamental equation that is marriage: 1 man - 1 woman.
There's nothing fundamental about it. Governments have changed it; in fact, more and more of them.
-
I see Chris Bryant has quit the C of E, probably not the last.
-
They haven't changed it that much. It's just become 1 person who loves someone + 1 person who loves them back.
-
OK, I'll accept that it can change civil marriage as it sees fit, but as it had no democratic mandate to so in the first place, that becomes a moot argument. (Remember that the foundations for the change were laid under the Coalition which had no such mandate)
The proposals to provide equal marriage were officially supported by the Tory party, the Labour party, the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid, the Greens etc etc - so by parties that won every single seat in Britain (note not Northern Ireland which is the one place that doesn't have equal marriage) in the 2010 election, i.e. the one prior to the introduction of the change to the law. And those parties won the support of over 95% of the vote in that election. So that's a pretty huge mandate I would have thought.
But our government doesn't work on the basis of a kind of referendum style mandate, but every way you look at it there is massive, massive legitimate mandate for equal marriage. Don't forget the every proper polling on the issue showed strong majority support.
But there is another point - governments have a mandate, under their human rights obligations, to extend human rights and support equality and eradicate discrimination even were that to be in support of a minority whose human rights are infringed, when a majority might oppose. If that majority didn't like the change they can kick out the government and reverse the law. Flat chance of that happening of course because without doubt the change to the law is overwhelmingly popular and supported.
-
They haven't changed it that much. It's just become 1 person who loves someone + 1 person who loves them back.
Yep - it really is no more complicated than that
-
... governments have a mandate, under their human rights obligations, to extend human rights and support equality and eradicate discrimination even were that to be in support of a minority whose human rights are infringed, when a majority might oppose. If that majority didn't like the change they can kick out the government and reverse the law. Flat chance of that happening of course because without doubt the change to the law is overwhelmingly popular and supported.
Beat me to it - that's just what I was going to say. The UK was one of the (many) countries which voted in favour of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shortly after the war.
-
Of course not, because none of them changed the fundamental equation that is marriage: 1 man - 1 woman.
That isn't 'fundamental' merely conventional in many cases, but certainly not all. There are plenty of examples (indeed most are religiously justified) where marriage can be 1 man - many women, i.e. polygamy. To my mind that is much further from the 'fundamentals' of marriage than two people in a loving consensus relationship wishing to commit to each other publicly and legally.
All sorts of jurisdictions put restrictions on who can and cannot marry - changing those restrictions isn't a 'redefinition of marriage' merely just what it says - tightening or loosening the restrictions.
-
That isn't 'fundamental' merely conventional in many cases, but certainly not all.
Hope seems to think that 'fundamental' is another word for merely 'old.' It isn't.
-
As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.
-
As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.
Neither do most Anglicans.
-
As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.
No. And for precisely and exactly that very reason, they don't get a say in how the government makes laws, right? And yet they try to influence it to their ends all the same.
-
There's nothing fundamental about it. Governments have changed it; in fact, more and more of them.
The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.
-
The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.
I'll run that through the VladBullshitAutomatron and see if it can extract any sense out of it.
-
As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.
But the religious lobbies thought that they should be able to veto government changes to who could get married in civil ceremonies, by claiming (completely erroneously) that married was somehow 'owned' by religion.
-
I'll run that through the VladBullshitAutomatron and see if it can extract any sense out of it.
Not even technology can help your depth of ignorance.
-
The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.
The change to the law was passed by parliament (both houses) who last time I looked were far more likely to be religious and less likely to be secular humanists that the wider population.
There was no deputation of 'secular humanists'. Is is really beyond your comprehension that most people in the UK think that extending married to include gay couples is a good and moral thing to do and that includes all sorts of people who wouldn't describe themselves as secular humanists.
-
Not even technology can help your depth of ignorance.
Says the man who is to clear English what Churchill was to Woodbines.
-
The change to the law was passed by parliament (both houses) who last time I looked were far more likely to be religious and less likely to be secular humanists that the wider population.
There was no deputation of 'secular humanists'. Is is really beyond your comprehension that most people in the UK think that extending married to include gay couples is a good and moral thing to do and that includes all sorts of people who wouldn't describe themselves as secular humanists.
I'm sorry but as many here are a forum antitheist I have to suspect motives.
A recently created moral issue/concern such as should the definition of marriage be changed has no obvious right to be considered a moral claim does it....Antitheists have yet to demonstrate it is more than a disingenuous antitheist ruse to knock the church and to demonstrate that their new found ''gay Anglican friends'' are not in fact imaginary.
-
The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.
Whenever will you spend a little time to study what secularism's all about Vlad?
You still haven't got it, why do you think secularists want to stop anyone having and practicing their chosen religion? When you find out why, could you let me know how and why we want to do this only I know a lot of secularists and I don't know any Stalinists.
ippy
-
I'm sorry but as many here are a forum antitheist I have to suspect motives.
A recently created moral issue/concern such as should the definition of marriage be changed has no obvious right to be considered a moral claim does it....Antitheists have yet to demonstrate it is more than a disingenuous antitheist ruse to knock the church and to demonstrate that their new found ''gay Anglican friends'' are not in fact imaginary.
Non- imaginary gay Anglicans.
http://changingattitude.org.uk
-
Says the man who is to clear English what Churchill was to Woodbines.
Can I help it if your only exposure to the English language is Philosophical materialist Monthly Incorporating The Onanist Gazette?
-
Neither do most Anglicans.
This is their POV.
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/homosexuality.aspx
You could all write to them but I'm not sure that's going to have much impact, but you never know.
Being " of the world" most of us would just be ignored.
I'm more interested in what we could practically do?
Probably most of us don't even go, even to be a voice in the background.
I'm inclined to think as long as the law of the land is fair and doesn't discriminate the battles won.
But I suppose it doesn't take into account gay Christians who get hurt by it.
Part of me thinks you won't change them ( the people in the church making the decision) by disapproving because the bible says the world morally will go to pot.......and people will fall away from the church. ( scoffers and all that)
So provided the law stays fair towards gay people, I'm inclined to leave be.
You can't really dictate to a followers of a religion what to think, from outside, they have to get there on their own.
The most we can do is to protect common law so it protects gay people regardless of what a religious group thinks.
Obviously if we have freedom of thought it opens it up to thoughts we don't like.
-
Zzzz!
That's the sum total of your thoughts for people murdered because they are gay - or even because they are suspected of being gay.
As I say, decent and humane.
-
Non- imaginary gay Anglicans.
http://changingattitude.org.uk
I know there are gay Anglicans....The question is can axe grinding antitheists and antichristian pagans be friends with Anglicans? After all they can hardly be said to extend the hand of friendship around here.
-
I know there are gay Anglicans....The question is can axe grinding antitheists and antichristian pagans be friends with Anglicans? After all they can hardly be said to extend the hand of friendship around here.
Well, yes. One of my closest friend's an Anglican. But then I'm not anti- Christian, just anti bigotry.
-
That's the sum total of your thoughts for people murdered because they are gay - or even because they are suspected of being gay.
As I say, decent and humane.
Who said I condoned murder? But this just shows the weakness of your arguments, that you associate condemnation of homosexusl acts with mudering homosexuals. Maybe I should start equating homosexuality with paedophilia.
-
I know there are gay Anglicans....The question is can axe grinding antitheists and antichristian pagans be friends with Anglicans? After all they can hardly be said to extend the hand of friendship around here.
Well this gay atheist is friends with some gay Anglicans and many more heterosexual ones.
I'm not sure where I fall on the Vlad continuum when it comes to all the axe grinding paganism - although in the past I have come across grinding pagans but that is perhaps another story.
-
Who said I condoned murder? But this just shows the weakness of your arguments, that you associate condemnation of homosexusl acts with mudering homosexuals. Maybe I should start equating homosexuality with paedophilia.
So you categorically condemn the archbishops in Africa who are currently supporting the laws that are leading to the murder of gay (and other "mistaken for gay") people?
-
Whenever will you spend a little time to study what secularism's all about Vlad?
You still haven't got it, why do you think secularists want to stop anyone having and practicing their chosen religion? When you find out why, could you let me know how and why we want to do this only I know a lot of secularists and I don't know any Stalinists.
ippy
I'm not talking about secularism Ippy but secular humanism. It is because you insist on them being the same as each other that leaves the way open for a nasty bit of antitheism to pollute the mix. Thus secularists begin to think of secular humanism as having the superior moral view, rather than being prepared to be informed by people of religion. In that respect a secular humanist society ends up with as many ayatollahs or inquisitors or witchfinder generals as any theocracy................
-
- although in the past I have come across grinding pagans but that is perhaps another story.
;D
-
Thus secularists begin to think of secular humanism as having the superior moral view, rather than being prepared to be informed by people of religion.
Just how are these 'people of religion' more qualified than, say, someone who isn't a person of religion?
-
;D
Just because Rhiannon has a bunny avatar ;)
Oops! The grinding pagans bit didn't come out ;D
-
Just because Rhiannon has a bunny avatar ;)
Oops! The grinding pagans bit didn't come out ;D
That's a shocking thing to say.
Clearly it's a hare.
-
That's a shocking thing to say.
Clearly it's a hare.
Oops! Sorry :D
🌹
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/justin-welby-says-sorry-to-lgbti-community-for-hurt-caused-by-church
-
I'm sorry but as many here are a forum antitheist I have to suspect motives.
A recently created moral issue/concern such as should the definition of marriage be changed has no obvious right to be considered a moral claim does it....Antitheists have yet to demonstrate it is more than a disingenuous antitheist ruse to knock the church and to demonstrate that their new found ''gay Anglican friends'' are not in fact imaginary.
Well frankly I can't make head nor tail of the bulk of this post. Are you trying to say something in which case perhaps some clearer English would help.
But on the final bit.
Well my gay Anglican friends aren't new found - there is one couple in particular I have been friends with for nigh on 10 years. Both very active Anglicans - first in a civil partnership then got married last summer.
I must admit I'm never talked to them directly about the conflict between the official views of their religion and their personal views. I know from many of their 'shares' and 'posts' on Facebook that there is a considerable conflict and I can't imagine how difficult it must be to be openly gay and a member of an organisation that so clearly doesn't want you to have full equality with heterosexual people. Must be very hard.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/justin-welby-says-sorry-to-lgbti-community-for-hurt-caused-by-church
You shall be judged by your deeds not your words. I hardly think a few mealy mouthed words are going to counter the deeds - namely sidelining the US episcopal church with its more enlightened views and shacking up with the African churches with their hard line bigotry.
Sad.
-
Just how are these 'people of religion' more qualified than, say, someone who isn't a person of religion?
Why do you think they are not qualified at all?
How can someone who believes the prime motivation for human existence is Darwinian not become a social Darwinian,
or a materialist avoid the descent into acquisitive materialism?
-
You shall be judged by your deeds not your words. I hardly think a few mealy mouthed words are going to counter the deeds - namely sidelining the US episcopal church with its more enlightened views and shacking up with the African churches with their hard line bigotry.
Sad.
This all started with Rowan Williams selling out Jeffrey John in order to maintain the Anglican Communion. As soon as that happened the African bishops knew they were in the ascendency.
I didn't understand what Williams did then, and I still don't.
-
Who said I condoned murder? But this just shows the weakness of your arguments, that you associate condemnation of homosexusl acts with mudering homosexuals. Maybe I should start equating homosexuality with paedophilia.
Nobody would be surprised.
-
How can someone who believes the prime motivation for human existence is Darwinian not become a social Darwinian
Can you point to anybody who actually believes this? No, you can't, because you're committing the howling category error of mistaking a fact (human existence comes about through a biochemical process that some rather behind-the-times people call Darwinian) for a belief about the purpose of individual lives. The is of human biological evolution does not lead to any ought. Which is not to say that beliefs about the latter are not held, because they are, but on the whole anybody who ties a belief system to evolutionary biology tends not to understand evolution very well (or at all); rather that such stances are chosen for quite different reasons, not because there's a line from evolution to them. There isn't. You can't get there from here.
or a materialist avoid the descent into acquisitive materialism?
Aaaaaaaaaaand there we go again - conflating a philosophical view (matter-energy is all there is) with a behaviour built upon entirely different foundations.
Speaking of acquisitive materialism, have you ever seen the Vatican?
0/10.
-
This all started with Rowan Williams selling out Jeffrey John in order to maintain the Anglican Communion. As soon as that happened the African bishops knew they were in the ascendency.
I didn't understand what Williams did then, and I still don't.
He was an honourable, decent but torn man backed into a corner, I think, and chose the unity-at-any-price route. It was a principled decision, but a temporising and a short-sighted one that - perhaps deliberately, perhaps not - averted its eyes from what seemed to be looming on the horizon.
-
He was an honourable, decent but torn man backed into a corner, I think, and chose the unity-at-any-price route.
And that exactly why I don't understand - because he is a very decent man - better than the church deserved.
-
Nobody would be surprised.
I stopped taking you seriously long ago.
-
I stopped taking you seriously long ago.
I'm gutted.
Oh, wait, no I'm not.
-
I stopped taking you seriously long ago.
I still think you're a bigot.
-
I still think you're a bigot.
You should get him on Jews and Judaism, your eyebrows will be on the back of your head.
-
So you categorically condemn the archbishops in Africa who are currently supporting the laws that are leading to the murder of gay (and other "mistaken for gay") people?
You've come to a false conclusion again. I don't believe in the death penalty. Apart from that, laws don't cause people to attack gays.
-
And that exactly why I don't understand - because he is a very decent man - better than the church deserved.
Fully agree. But as the big cheese at the time he saw no other option than to maintain overall unity at the expense of - let's be blunt - decency and morality, knowing how much clout Africa has.
-
You've come to a false conclusion again. I don't believe in the death penalty. Apart from that, laws don't cause people to attack gays.
The laws stem from the climate of bigotry and prejudice rather than vice versa. The one feeds into and gives rise to the other. In a social climate where it's seen as legitimate and permissible and even praiseworthy to attack gay people both verbally and literally/physically in the vilest of ways, how difficult do you think it is to pass laws denying them their civil and human rights? Look up 'Nuremburg Laws.' (Yes, yes, I know about Godwin ...).
-
You've come to a false conclusion again. I don't believe in the death penalty. Apart from that, laws don't cause people to attack gays.
Laws may not cause it - but they sure as heck encourage it. As does some of the preaching that occurs in some African states.
So do you categorically condemn the archbishops in Arica who support these laws which are helping to incite the murder of gay and people mistaken for gays?
-
If that's the case, homosexuality leads to paedophila, otherwise hiw do you account for the number of dirty old gay men with barely legal loves? They started when they were illegal. Groomed!
-
If that's the case, homosexuality leads to paedophila, otherwise hiw do you account for the number of dirty old gay men with barely legal loves? They started when they were illegal. Groomed!
Put down the alcohol.
-
Stay classy!
Go fuck yourself S Wigston Magna
-
You really need to watch it, ad-o. Some of your posts lately are making you sound like a bit of a wanker.
-
If that's the case, homosexuality leads to paedophila, otherwise hiw do you account for the number of dirty old gay men with barely legal loves? They started when they were illegal.
This shouldn't need saying but it appears to be necessary. Homosexuality and paedophilia have only one thing in common and that's that both are descriptive of facets of human sexual behaviour. What "number of dirty old gay men with barely legal loves"? What (or who) on earth are you supposed to be referring to?
-
If that's the case, homosexuality leads to paedophila, otherwise hiw do you account for the number of dirty old gay men with barely legal loves? They started when they were illegal. Groomed!
So do you categorically condemn the archbishops in Africa who support these laws which are helping to incite the murder of gay and people mistaken for gays?
-
Someone's been sniffing the barmaid's apron this evening ... ::)
-
Put down the alcohol.
And the computer.
-
Someone's been sniffing the barmaid's apron this evening ... ::)
Long dark nights in Finland tha knows.
-
Long dark nights in Finland tha knows.
And nary a flash of reindeer ankle.
-
So do you categorically condemn the archbishops in Africa who support these laws which are helping to incite the murder of gay and people mistaken for gays?
Laws don't incite people to commit violence against anyone, which is why I support the Russisn laws, for instance. Violence against gays are a different issue, not the fault of the laws. Any law which has the death penalty I am against.
-
Long dark nights in Finland tha knows.
Long dark winter nights cheer me up. Rapeugees don't like them.
-
Long dark nights in Finland tha knows.
Not as dark as Leicester though.
-
Long dark winter nights cheer me up. Rapeugees don't like them.
Funny that you talk about the rights of women to feel safe and yet call me a cunt. But maybe being shut up in your bedroom so many miles away makes you feel brave. Same with the homophobic and anti-Semitic shit you come out with.
-
Go fuck yourself S Wigston Magna
Little village in Leicestershire. I've been there. Never been to San Diego though.
I assume you and ad_o are drinking the same furniture polish or oven cleaner tonight?
-
Little village in Leicestershire. I've been there. Never been to San Diego though.
I've been to Paradise.....
-
Laws don't incite people to commit violence against anyone, which is why I support the Russisn laws, for instance. Violence against gays are a different issue, not the fault of the laws. Any law which has the death penalty I am against.
Clearly the rise of violence against gay people in Russia and parts of Africa have nothing to do with the prejudicial laws passed. It's all merely coincidence in your mind?
So let's get down to basics - do you oppose violence against gay people?
-
Little village in Leicestershire. I've been there. Never been to San Diego though.
I assume you and ad_o are drinking the same furniture polish or oven cleaner tonight?
I'd rather drink polish than try to shine turds with it like your good self Shaker.
-
Looks like you have been.
-
Long dark winter nights cheer me up. Rapeugees don't like them.
The obvious pain you are in, while making your lashing out unsurprising, in no way begins to excuse your behaviour. I could try to show some sympathy but I don't see that it will benefit. Quite seriously, walk away from the computer, put down the beer, go and play some pool. You are currently embarrassing your supposed beliefs, and yourself.
-
The obvious pain you are in, while making your lashing out unsurprising, in no way begins to excuse your behaviour. I could try to show some sympathy but I don't see that it will benefit. Quite seriously, walk away from the computer, put down the beer, go and play some pool. You are currently embarrassing your supposed beliefs, and yourself.
Sound (and wise) advice.
-
Sound (and wise) advice.
Seconded.
-
Clearly the rise of violence against gay people in Russia and parts of Africa have nothing to do with the prejudicial laws passed. It's all merely coincidence in your mind?
So let's get down to basics - do you oppose violence against gay people?
I oppose violence against all people.
-
I still think you're a bigot.
Lady Rhi
You only THINK he is a bigot? I thought that you were far too intelligent to only THINK he was/is!
-
Matty,
I still haven't forgotten your bigoted rant against the immigrant make up of your community.
-
For as long as there is an established church anywhere in the UK this is newsworthy.
There are a lot of Anglicans who will be disappointed by this. I know both clergy and laity who have left the church because of its homophobia. They are either going to lose many more members or there will be a breakaway within the CofE.
Where in Christianity or any religion does it teach that being homosexual is part of faith?
Where does paganism uphold and teach that you must be homosexual or even bi-sexual to be a pagan.
Sexuality is not a religious issue. However being a Christian like any other belief is about a set of tenets which central to the core beliefs.
If Christianity states that Homosexuality is WRONG... how can you make it right?
Does that mean everyone who is heterosexual are homophobic because they do not want or believe sex with another person of the same sex is right for them or wanted by them?
The same applies to Christians. It is not a conscious choice they make. Christianity is about Christ and using your bodies to Gods glory. You cannot be a true Christian born of Spirit and Truth and live a life which does not comply with those beliefs.
But you can be a Christian and a heterosexual and know that something not right for you is not something which makes us behave badly towards those who do.
Too long people have used the homophobia card to make something offensive which isn't.
You sometimes have to accept the choices you make can exclude you from other ways you would have chose in in life.
Being heterosexual, does not mean you are homophobic, not should it be forced onto heterosexuals that their sexual preference is wrong. No more than it is right to be one or the other alone.
What you cannot do is keep forcing onto others what they do not believe is right for them.
We all live together in this world. The truth is that you cannot be homosexual and actually love God if taking part in fornication.
Fornication which includes sexual acts between men and women not married to each other. So sexual sin is not just about sexuality. It is about sexual acts outside the union as allowed by the faiths.
So sin and fornication is about all sexualities and if the faith says it is not allowed. How can anyone heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual claim they are a true believer.
I abstain because of my beliefs... Not perfect by any means but sometimes we can't fight what our hearts tell us.
I personally, have never slept around and never wanted to. I believe sex is special and our bodies whatever we think of them are not for using by anyone.
We all have to fess up. Fess-up to the fact we cannot call ourselves part of something we refuse to follow.
So someone explain to me how someone who does not follow the rules is really part of that organisation.
Can a man be a homosexual and call himself one, if he only sleeps with women?
Can a man call himself an heterosexual if he sleeps with both men and women?
Can anyone call themselves a Christian if they do not fit in.... It might be the 12th hour when we realise something would be wrong to do. But our consciences sometimes makes us realise that we have to be sincere and we have to faithful to our beliefs.
Which means putting God ahead of our own wants and needs.
I am sick of the fact people have become blind sided to reality.
-
I am sick of the fact people have become blind sided to reality.
And I am sick of the fact that backward thinking minds still take as gospel the stupid stuff that was invented by primitive tribes who knew no better.
-
And I am sick of the fact that backward thinking minds still take as gospel the stupid stuff that was invented by primitive tribes who knew no better.
In your opinion.
-
We are only talking about one small aspect of the church, allowing homosexuals to become bishops.
Lots of people, including my ordinated female friend don't think women should be bishops.
She says the role is better suited to men.
It might well be that many people are excluded from being bishops, perhaps because of divorce or perhaps they have had an affair. Or maybe they are just controversial in some way.
Like it or not certain things fall outside the core principals of the church. Family and family values plays an important role.
In most cases many people in church overlook things or are accepting of things, that might exclude someone from being a bishop.
So what the laity will accept in some situations, it won't in others.
The thing about the bishop though ( more so than any other role ) is that he administers and lays on hands and ministers to those ministering to the laity.
As this puts it.
. He is responsible for teaching, governing, and sanctifying the faithful of his diocese, sharing these duties with the priests and deacons who serve under him.
Now, you can't be a bishop if the way you live runs contrary to whatever they decide the core principals of the church are.
So if you have an affair you lose your job ( and that applies to vicars too)
The people at the top when they make a decision think they are responsible for the consequences in the laity below.
I don't think it is that they are homophobic, but more that the role the bishop plays in the church, it's important that he represents the core beliefs of the church and is not controversial in any way.
He is in effect passing on the Holy Spirit to those below him, that's why he lays his hands on the person when ordinating them.
It's also the reason Women find it hard to become bishops.
It's because those below them don't think they have the authority to do so.
That's the thing about bishops and their role.
It doesn't just effect the bishop, if effects the whole church, because when you first become a Christian, the bishop comes. So it even effects a new Christian.
If people, for whatever reason, don't believe the authority of the bishop, to do what he does then the whole church becomes diluted and somewhat less.
It doesn't matter if the reason is because they are a woman, has had a past affair and is divorced, or is a practicing homosexual or is in some other way, controversial.
That's how I see it.
They felt they weren't acting in the best interests of the rest of the church by taking a step that the congregations weren't ready for, and wasn't very clearly biblical.
Homosexuality is controversial, at least where the bible is concerned. Some say it was referring to certain aspects of something that happened and that the bible isn't referring to homosexuality generally, others argue differently.
They needed to feel they could argue a case for it.
Because they would have had to argue their case for it or the African churches would have broken away ( and they are growing ATM)
It's the congregations that pay their wages.
It's the congregations that can change things.
But it's often the most religious and those that are against it, that put the most in the coffers.
Some at the church I went to, put in 10% of their earnings.
It's people like that, that get involved have the most say in church policy.
The one I went to was Methodist / c of e.
It came up in conversation once with the vicar.
The Methodist minister was ok with the idea of gay priests as long as they weren't practicing.
I think it's the role of the bishop that is causing an issue.
-
And I am sick of the fact that backward thinking minds still take as gospel the stupid stuff that was invented by primitive tribes who knew no better.
My take on that is: They didn't have the number of diversionary toys and games, had more time for reflection, less noise and were less neotenised. What we need to remember is that probably there was as now a high level of actual agnosticism.
Oh and no forums on which to show off.
-
In your opinion.
Quite! Which is better than following the opinion of somebody else's mind like sheep.
We have the ability to take the good advice and discard the nonsense.
-
Quite! Which is better than following the opinion of somebody else's mind like sheep.
We have the ability to take the good advice and discard the nonsense.
I find your human/subhuman divide rather troubling Len.
-
Too little too late.
Who cares?
If their "church" collapses then many of their members will be a position to hear the true message more clearly than before.
-
I find your human/subhuman divide rather troubling Len.
You have a curious and ineradicable "gift" for seeing what isn't there.
Len at no point used the term "subhuman." Only you did so.
-
If their "church" collapses then many of their members will be a position to hear the true message more clearly than before.
Why the "scare" "quotes"?
-
Why the "scare" "quotes"?
Because the Orthodox Church does not recognize Anglicanism as a true church.
-
Because the Orthodox Church does not recognize Anglicanism as a true church.
Oh, the same old shite, then - we're the one true church, you're not. No, we are. No you're not, we are. I'm the one true church and so is my wife.
The usual balls.
-
Oh, the same old shite, then - we're the one true church, you're not. No, we are. No you're not, we are. I'm the one true church and so is my wife.
The usual balls.
No, because we are right :D
-
No, because we are right :D
Sure you are.
-
Who cares?
If their "church" collapses then many of their members will be a position to hear the true message more clearly than before.
True.
-
Dear Humph,
Nah! you are wrong but you are not alone, CoE, CoS, RC, their Churchianity is destroying Christianity, but it is not all doom and gloom, honest Christians ( not real Christians, not true Christians, whatever they are ) are seeing through the nonsense of established Churches and the really good part is that the honest Christian are members of these established Churches, change from within.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/the.name.of.god.is.mercy.pope.francis.takes.on.critics.in.new.book/76228.htm
A small step, baby step but a step in the right direction.
Gonnagle.
-
Francis is a horrible modernist. He is part of the problem, a prime example of the West's departure from the faith of the Apostles.
-
Dear ad o,
Who loves ya baby, well I do old son but did you read the link, a return to the Gospels, that is the four Gospels, the life and teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Christ trumps your Apostles.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ad o,
Who loves ya baby, well I do old son but did you read the link, a return to the Gospels, that is the four Gospels, the life and teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Christ trumps your Apostles.
Gonnagle.
The faith of the Apostles comes straight from Christ. Keep your false dichotomies if you wish. Francis isn't about mercy but fake humbleness and validation of sin.
-
The faith of the Apostles comes straight from Christ. Keep your false dichotomies if you wish. Francis isn't about mercy but fake humbleness and validation of sin.
In your opinion!
-
Dear ad o,
Fair enough old son, agree to disagree but did you read this bit
He describes them as "men who live attached to the letter of the law but who neglect love; men who only know how to close doors and draw boundaries".
Neglect Love, close the doors, draw boundaries, one day you might have to answer to a higher power than your little Church.
Matthew 25:37-40
Gonnagle.
-
The faith of the Apostles comes straight from Christ. Keep your false dichotomies if you wish. Francis isn't about mercy but fake humbleness and validation of sin.
Honestly Ad_O, I have never before seen a man at the bottom of such a deep hole with verical siders to it who is still digging!
For an intelligent man you are shoiwing a surprising lack of intelligence, either that or you are totally blind to what people are posting here.
It should be abundantly clear after over 200 posts that you are in a minority of one in this matter, not even Christians agree with you!
Open your eyes, the eyes that, supposedly, your god gave you, use the brain that your god, supposedly, gave you and realise that you are making yourself look a total and complete homophobic and religious bigot.
-
I don't need your approval or that of an apostate world. As the Apostle St. Peter said, we should obey God before men.
-
In your opinion.
So you don't think Leonard's opinion about his own feelings is necessarily correct?
-
We are only talking about one small aspect of the church, allowing homosexuals to become bishops.
So why are so many of the bishops getting their knickers in a twist about it then?
Lots of people, including my ordinated female friend don't think women should be bishops.
So what? We are talking about gay bishops, not female bishops.
She says the role is better suited to men.
In what way are men intrinsically better at being bishops than women?
-
You have a curious and ineradicable "gift" for seeing what isn't there.
Len at no point used the term "subhuman." Only you did so.
He is talking about sheep. Apparently the well worn cliché of comparing people who just follow the crowd to sheep now means they are subhuman in Vlad's excuse for a mind. Of course it's all dependent on perspective. If the only thing left to eat on earth was grass, we would all be regretting our sub sheep digestive systems.
-
Because the Orthodox Church does not recognize Anglicanism as a true church.
Wow. What a bunch of wankers they are.
-
No, because we are right :D
No. You're all a bunch of fucking knobs.
The people of the religion of the "God of Love" can find nothing better to do than accuse each other of not being the right sort of Christians. Why do you have so much hatred for each other?
-
Wow. What a bunch of wankers they are.
That is considered something which should be confessed to a priest. It don't mean a one way ticket to the hot place.
-
He is talking about sheep. Apparently the well worn cliché of comparing people who just follow the crowd to sheep now means they are subhuman in Vlad's excuse for a mind. Of course it's all dependent on perspective. If the only thing left to eat on earth was grass, we would all be regretting our sub sheep digestive systems.
And like parts of the digestive system....you are full of shit.
-
No. You're all a bunch of fucking knobs.
That's ok if it's with your wife.
The people of the religion of the "God of Love" can find nothing better to do than accuse each other of not being the right sort of Christians. Why do you have so much hatred for each other?
We don't hate 'em, we just think that they are wrong.
-
That is considered something which should be confessed to a priest. It don't mean a one way ticket to the hot place.
Confessed to a child molester? No thanks.
-
Confessed to a child molester? No thanks.
I am Orthodox not RC.
-
We don't hate 'em, we just think that they are wrong.
The not hating bit is an improvement, I admit - five hundred years ago being the wrong sort of Christian would have been a one-way ticket to being turned into crispy duck minus the cucumber, spring onions and hoi sin sauce.
There's still no escape from the "I'm Spartacus" school of theism, though.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
The people of the religion of the "God of Love" can find nothing better to do than accuse each other of not being the right sort of Christians. Why do you have so much hatred for each other?
As Vlad says,
that would be an ecumenical matter.
:P
Gonnagle.
-
The not hating bit is an improvement, I admit - five hundred years ago being the wrong sort of Christian would have been a one-way ticket to being turned into crispy duck minus the cucumber, spring onions and hoi sin sauce.
There's still no escape from the "I'm Spartacus" school of theism, though.
Again, why are you saying all that to an Orthodox Christian? It is post-schism Rome, not Constantinople, that is guilty.
-
Again, why are you saying all that to an Orthodox Christian?
Because they're every bit as liable to come out with that particularly fatuous brand of twattery as anybody else, as Humph demonstrated earlier.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
As Vlad says,
:P
Gonnagle.
LOL
-
There's still no escape from the "I'm Spartacus" school of theism, though.
I wondered which school you followed. ;)
-
I wondered which school you followed. ;)
I don't - hence the a- prefix in atheism. But many theists seem to, monotheists especially - examples on this very thread today, but they're all over the place.
-
I don't - hence the a- prefix in atheism. But many theists seem to, monotheists especially - examples on this very thread today, but they're all over the place.
Sorry, Shakes, I thought you were saying that atheism can be said to have a variety of 'denominations'.
-
Sorry, Shakes, I thought you were saying that atheism can be said to have a variety of 'denominations'.
No, the misunderstanding was all yours.
-
Leo,
"primitive tribes"? Thank God you are no historian. No, the fact is the Bible was not written by primitives. They happened to be as hip and happening as any peoples of that time. Now Leo, you were born long ago and so I will now have to look at your posts and declare them written by a primitive.
So congratulations and you're welcome.
I couldn't care less about the turmoil the liberal Englicans find themselves in. That liberal church needs to die. The United Church of Canada, the liberal, of liberal churches, is dying and that's a good thing. You know they actually have an atheist minister. What an absolute joke and thank God my grandparents walked out on it shortly after it was formed.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/atheist-united-church-minister-fights-review-that-could-lead-to-firing-1.2503623
-
As far as the Anglican communion is concerned it let the cat out of the bag long ago. It's impossible to put back in. First it was women priests, now this. Why has it taken thirteen years? From an Orthodox perspective the Anglicans are beyond hope unless they completely and utterly repent of all their errors.
I am usually reluctant to talk about the Anglican Church as I am not an Anglican, however I am moved to say that, on the whole, they seem to do a pretty good job. They are a secure fixture for many people and a broad church where there is something for everyone.
I'm surprised about this issue - I'd have thought the CofE would leave the Episcopalians alone. There have always been gay clergy - more in the Anglican communion than anywhere else. Being gay does not stop a person being a good minister! Anyone who objects is way out of date, it's ridiculous. It is also not their business.
-
I'm not talking about secularism Ippy but secular humanism. It is because you insist on them being the same as each other that leaves the way open for a nasty bit of antitheism to pollute the mix. Thus secularists begin to think of secular humanism as having the superior moral view, rather than being prepared to be informed by people of religion. In that respect a secular humanist society ends up with as many ayatollahs or inquisitors or witchfinder generals as any theocracy................
Secular humanists don't want to stop religiously inclined people continuing with their usual religious practices, we only want to see the end of all religious privillages.
Tell me Vlad what exactly is wrong with that; freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Speaking for myself I think it would be entirely wrong to stop anyone practicing their religion, I do think all of the religions are potty but over all harmless, unfortunatly for your lot the really bad nutters get the headlines.
ippy
-
Intolerance of sin? Damn right!
How senseless.
ippy
-
Secular humanists don't want to stop religiously inclined people continuing with their usual religious practices, we only want to see the end of all religious privillages.
Tell me Vlad what exactly is wrong with that; freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Speaking for myself I think it would be entirely wrong to stop anyone practicing their religion, I do think all of the religions are potty but over all harmless, unfortunatly for your lot the really bad nutters get the headlines.
ippy
I feel you are sloganeering..........a bit. It all hinges IMHO on this business of Freedom from religion and how it sits with freedom of expression and speech.......after all anti theists thought that Jerry Springer the Opera should have been immune from dissent.
-
Vladdy,
It all hinges IMHO on this business of Freedom from religion and how it sits with freedom of expression and speech....
It sits with it perfectly well provided you don't confuse the right to speak with the right to be listened to.
-
after all anti theists thought that Jerry Springer the Opera should have been immune from dissent.
This is actually a lie on your part, Vlad. Or a monumental piece of misunderstanding on the sort of scale that only you can come up with. I don't see any other options as there are no alternative explanations as to how you can be quite this wrong.
Name an "antitheist" who thought that JS:TO should have been immune from dissent. Any one. You won't be able to but you can't say you weren't offered the opportunity.
I, on the other hand, can find you any number of names of theists - largely, though not exclusively, Christians - who thought that it should have been immune from being performed, i.e. denied free artistic expression and free speech.
-
Shakes,
This is actually a lie on your part, Vlad. Or a monumental piece of misunderstanding on the sort of scale that only you can come up with. I don't see any other options as there are no alternative explanations as to how you can be quite this wrong.
Name an "antitheist" who thought that JS:TO should have been immune from dissent. Any one. You won't be able to but you can't say you weren't offered the opportunity.
I, on the other hand, can find you any number of names of theists - largely, though not exclusively, Christians - who thought that it should have been imune from being performed, i.e. denied free artistic expression and free speech.
Vladdy telling porkies? No, surely not?!?!?!? Say it ain't so Shakes, say it ain't so...
Do you know, I genuinely can't tell whether he's so pathologically dishonest that he doesn't even know he's doing it, or whether his endless stream of mendacity is deliberately done but he just doesn't care every time he's caught out.
Very odd.
-
Secular humanists don't want to stop religiously inclined people continuing with their usual religious practices, we only want to see the end of all religious privillages.
So,in view of the topic of this thread, are you saying that secular humanists are quite happy to allow some religious (and some non-religious) people to believe that homosexual relationships are 1) wrong, and 2) bad for society?
-
How senseless.
ippy
No more senseless than the intolerance of law-breaking, by society.
-
So,in view of the topic of this thread, are you saying that secular humanists are quite happy to allow some religious (and some non-religious) people to believe that homosexual relationships are 1) wrong, and 2) bad for society?
Sure.
Since there's zero evidence for these beliefs just like the other set of entirely unevidenced beliefs that the first lot of beliefs are typically founded on, we'll just continue to point and laugh at them for the tiny (and ever-diminishing) rabble of pitiable bigoted cranks that they are, same as usual.
-
The not hating bit is an improvement, I admit - five hundred years ago being the wrong sort of Christian would have been a one-way ticket to being turned into crispy duck minus the cucumber, spring onions and hoi sin sauce.
Shakes, I think that the 'hating' bit came in long after the original teaching. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened - but could that have been 'imported' into a faith (be that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc) by human thinking? Could it have been imported by what could be seen as then contemporary humanist thought?
-
Sure.
Since there's zero evidence for these beliefs just like the other set of entirely unevidenced beliefs that the first lot of beliefs are typically founded on, we'll just continue to point and laugh at them for the tiny (and ever-diminishing) rabble of pitiable bigoted cranks that they are, same as usual.
So typical of you to use the 'no-evidence' card when you can't even produce evidence to support your own stance - on so many issues, Shakes.
-
Sure.
Since there's zero evidence for these beliefs just like the other set of entirely unevidenced beliefs that the first lot of beliefs are typically founded on, we'll just continue to point and laugh at them for the tiny (and ever-diminishing) rabble of pitiable bigoted cranks that they are, same as usual.
The only caveat on that being that they stop being quite so funny once their bigotry fucks up other people's lives.
-
Hoppity,
So,in view of the topic of this thread, are you saying that secular humanists are quite happy to allow some religious (and some non-religious) people to believe that homosexual relationships are 1) wrong, and 2) bad for society?
It’s got nothing to do with “secular humanists” specifically, but it depends what you mean by “happy”.
I at least am not “happy” with the ignorant and intolerant content of their bigotry, but I am “happy” that they have the right to say and think whatever they want.
-
So typical of you to use the 'no-evidence' card when you can't even produce evidence to support your own stance
It's your belief that same-sex relationships are (1) wrong and (2) bad for society - that's your assertion, not mine, so it's up to you to back it up. It's not my belief, partly because there's zero evidence for either belief (wrong/bad for society - the first is merely an opinion and one that I don't share because I don't buy into its ultimate pseudo-basis, and in the latter case there's good evidence soundly refuting it) but largely because it's a dim-witted, ugly, narrow-minded and mean-spirited stance to take. Since I'm not the one making the assertion, and you are, the burden of proof falls squarely on you.
on so many issues, Shakes.
And yet you won't be able to name a single one of them when asked to do so, will you?
-
So you don't think Leonard's opinion about his own feelings is necessarily correct?
I'm sure they are, but sometimes people forget their feelings are not fact. ;)
-
I'm sure they are, but sometimes people forget their feelings are not fact. ;)
Something that should be put on a scrolling banner in 72-point Palatino Linotype on the front page of this forum.
-
Rose,
I'm sure they are, but sometimes people forget their feelings are not fact.
That's theology dealt with then.
What shall we talk about now?
-
Fully agree. But as the big cheese at the time he saw no other option than to maintain overall unity at the expense of - let's be blunt - decency and morality, knowing how much clout Africa has.
Those of us who were involved with the liberal wing of the church at the time expected that Williams would hold out given that he initiated the situation through his approval of Jeffrey John's appointment. Whether he underestimated the African and Australian influence and homophobia I have no idea but I believe he thought a fudge deal could be done as with women priests that would keep everyone happy. I think the feeling at the time was that Williams was the best hope for LGBT Anglicans to gain full acceptance and equality, especially within the CofE, and given the numbers that left and are still leaving I suspect that the liberal wing of the Church will be all but dead within a few years.
-
I feel you are sloganeering..........a bit. It all hinges IMHO on this business of Freedom from religion and how it sits with freedom of expression and speech.......after all anti theists thought that Jerry Springer the Opera should have been immune from dissent.
Don't tell me Vlad, you're still not getting it, (secular humanism)?
It's worrying, do you drive on the roads anywhere?
ippy
-
I find your human/subhuman divide rather troubling Len.
I should worry! Your inability to read what's written is renowned.
-
I should worry! Your inability to read what's written is renowned.
Back of the net!
-
So,in view of the topic of this thread, are you saying that secular humanists are quite happy to allow some religious (and some non-religious) people to believe that homosexual relationships are 1) wrong, and 2) bad for society?
" are you saying that secular humanists are quite happy to allow some religious (and some non-religious) people to believe that homosexual relationships are 1) wrong, and 2) bad for society"?
Well Hope I hope you can always say and think anything you like, that's within the law of course, it's just that I wonder why whenever this particular subject comes up, it gives me the impression that you are unable to think for yourself and you go into some sort of blind mental shutdown and give no end of responses that would make the most ignorant of morons extremely proud of you.
Your views on this are contemptible Hope. please don't take the bother to address me about this subject anymore I would rather you didn't; have a chat with that other moron that agrees with you.
ippy
-
I'm sure they are, but sometimes people forget their feelings are not fact. ;)
Like you Rose very often.
ippy
-
Leo,
"primitive tribes"? Thank God you are no historian. No, the fact is the Bible was not written by primitives.
Oh gawd, another one who can't read what is written! I didn't say the stories were written by primitive tribes. I understand that the stories of the OT were invented by primitive tribes long before they were written down. Is that not true?
-
Oh gawd, another one who can't read what is written! I didn't say the stories were written by primitive tribes. I understand that the stories of the OT were invented by primitive tribes long before they were written down. Is that not true?
Depends on what you mean by 'primitive', Len. They, like the Assyrians, Egyptians and Babylonians amongst whom they lived at various times, had complex social structures that would, in many ways, pass muster today.
-
Depends on what you mean by 'primitive', Len. They, like the Assyrians, Egyptians and Babylonians amongst whom they lived at various times, had complex social structures that would, in many ways, pass muster today.
"Pass muster" in what sense exactly how, please?
-
"Pass muster" in what sense exactly how, please?
- family structures that are supportive and protective of children
- education processes
- family structures where the elderly are respected and perhaps even venerated
- legal systems that have complex forms
and that's just 4 examples.
-
- family structures that are supportive and protective of children
- education processes
- family structures where the elderly are respected and perhaps even venerated
- legal systems that have complex forms
and that's just 4 examples.
Every single one of which of those occur today, vastly more so than they have ever done before in human history, in vastly more sophisticated forms. No need to hark back to your favourite source, something something something or other thousands of years ago for which we have at the very best tenuous documentary evidence from fragmentary sources; they're right here, happening and going on now in (literally) countless homes across the globe, not in theory or in prospect but in actuality this very second.
The salient difference is that "primitive" by definition refers to an earlier state/stage of development than that which by implication exists at time of writing.
"Pass muster" is a phrase which entails passing/exceeding a prior arbitrary degree of acceptability (a "muster" which must be "passed"). I see that you've failed to substantiate this. I'm not amazed.
-
Shakes, I think that the 'hating' bit came in long after the original teaching. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened - but could that have been 'imported' into a faith (be that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc) by human thinking? Could it have been imported by what could be seen as then contemporary humanist thought?
What is humanist about heaping faggots of wood against the feet of a human being in order to kill them by being burnt alive because they didn't believe the correct things, please?
-
What is humanist about heaping faggots of wood against the feet of a human being in order to kill them by being burnt alive because they didn't believe the correct things, please?
OK, answer me this question: what is Christian about "heaping faggots of wood against the feet of a human being in order to kill them by being burnt alive because they didn't believe the correct things"? Whilst the atheist Soviet and Maoist authorities may not have used faggots and fire, they used incarcaration, torture and often death on those "who ... didn't believe the correct things".
Are you saying that the teachings of Marx and Engels, on which these regimes were based, included these as standard?
I am not suggesting that the Church should not be judged on what it has done over time - and of course that will include both positive and negative things; but should the faith itself be judged by the deeds of those who claim to adhere to it?
-
OK, answer me this question
Why? Can't you answer the question I put to you about your supposed belief system, instead of posing an irrelevant question about a belief system I do not hold?
-
Why? Can't you answer the question I put to you about your supposed belief system, instead of posing an irrelevant question about a belief system I do not hold?
It is not an irrelevant question about a philosophical system that you don't hold, Shakes. You have often placed yourself in the atheist camp - and of course, Marxism is an atheist 'understanding'. You may not claim to be a Marxist, but I'm using it as an example of the overall philosophy you hold to. My question was 'does the horrific actions of some atheist authorities over the centuries invalidate the underlying philosophical principles that those regimes were based on?"
Yes or No?
Once you answer that, you'll find that you've answered your own question.
-
It is not an irrelevant question about a philosophical system that you don't hold, Shakes. You have often placed yourself in the atheist camp - and of course, Marxism is an atheist 'understanding'. You may not claim to be a Marxist
As it happens I do.
but I'm using it as an example of the overall philosophy you hold to.
Which "overall philosophy" do I hold to?
-
Simples - you are an atheist - ergo you are a Marxist philosophical materialist.
-
Simples - you are an atheist - ergo you are a Marxist philosophical materialist.
Vlad? Vlad? Is that you?
-
No its still Trent - but I'm feeling a little funny - so I'd better get on stage before it wears off.
-
- family structures that are supportive and protective of children
- education processes
- family structures where the elderly are respected and perhaps even venerated
- legal systems that have complex forms
and that's just 4 examples.
Also
- slavery
- a penchant for invading other societies' territories and committing genocide
- treating women as possessions
-
Shakes,
Vladdy telling porkies? No, surely not?!?!?!? Say it ain't so Shakes, say it ain't so...
Shaker:it's llies,Lavinia ,LIES, LIES!!!!!!!
Hillside:oh eugenia I think I'm getting an attack of the vapours.
-
Don't tell me Vlad, you're still not getting it, (secular humanism)?
It's worrying, do you drive on the roads anywhere?
ippy
I suspect it is you who confuse secular humanism with secularism......you and the NSS and BHA. Do you see your self for instance as an atheist member of the secular movement or do you see the secular movement as atheist?
It all hinges on what you mean by Freedom from religion.....and so far you have shied away from answering that.
-
Dear Trent,
No its still Trent - but I'm feeling a little funny - so I'd better get on stage before it wears off.
:P :P
Gonnagle.
-
I suspect it is you who confuse secular humanism with secularism......you and the NSS and BHA. Do you see your self for instance as an atheist member of the secular movement or do you see the secular movement as atheist?
It all hinges on what you mean by Freedom from religion.....and so far you have shied away from answering that.
Well I haven't shied away from answering you about what I mean about freedom from religion but then most people would be able to understand that when I said we need to bring an end to all forms of religious privillege, that the effect of this would enable choice to either take up religion or not, without any more pressure from any one group than any other.
What part of that is it that you seem unable to understand?
And by the way there are shed loads of religious believers that are secularists as well, there are a number of humanists that are religious believers too, not that there are any figures to say how many humanists are religionists too, I would think there are fewer religionsts with any connection to humanism, than there are religionists that go along with with the secularist pov.
If that's not simple enough for you Vlad, well?
I see myself as a non-religious person call me an atheist if you must, I wont be loosing any sleep if you continue to do so.
ippy
-
Well I haven't shied away from answering you about what I mean about freedom from religion but then most people would be able to understand that when I said we need to bring an end to all forms of religious privillege, that the effect of this would enable choice to either take up religion or not, without any more pressure from any one group than any other.
What part of that is it that you seem unable to understand?
And by the way there are shed loads of religious believers that are secularists as well, there are a number of humanists that are religious believers too, not that there are any figures to say how many humanists are religionists too, I would think there are fewer religionsts with any connection to humanism, than there are religionists that go along with with the secularist pov.
If that's not simple enough for you Vlad, well?
I see myself as a non-religious person call me an atheist if you must, I wont be loosing any sleep if you continue to do so.
ippy
Well thank you for that.
Perhaps freedom of religion, freedom from religion is a lousy, contradictory slogan.
My own take is this? Religions should have the same freedoms as say unelected hereditary lords in terms of being in the House of Lords, they should have the same freedoms as an ice cream salesman in terms of access and advertising themselves in your street, religions should have the same access as a Conservative peer running a carpet company to sponsoring school education.
To argue that they should have less is special pleading.
-
Well thank you for that.
Perhaps freedom of religion, freedom from religion is a lousy, contradictory slogan.
Nothing remotely contradictory about it.
Freedom of religion means the freedom for adherents of a religion to practise said religion within the limits of the law.
Freedom from religion means that those who are not adherents of said religion are not expected to observe, abide by or be inconvenienced by the rules of a club of which they're not members.
-
Including freedom from having our children 'educated' as though religion were fact unless we specifically choose to opt into it.
-
Well thank you for that.
Perhaps freedom of religion, freedom from religion is a lousy, contradictory slogan.
My own take is this? Religions should have the same freedoms as say unelected hereditary lords in terms of being in the House of Lords, they should have the same freedoms as an ice cream salesman in terms of access and advertising themselves in your street, religions should have the same access as a Conservative peer running a carpet company to sponsoring school education.
To argue that they should have less is special pleading.
Vlad you've said the same as me, using your words a different way around up until you finished your post off with " To argue that they should have less is special pleading", I've never said anything other than, religious or non-religious, we should all have a level playing field, so you didn't get that lot from anything I've said, why say it Vlad, no one on the forum has argued that?
ippy
-
Including freedom from having our children 'educated' as though religion were fact unless we specifically choose to opt into it.
No, that should never be an option. Teaching children that beliefs are facts is to mislead them.
-
Freedom of religion means the freedom for adherents of a religion to practise said religion within the limits of the law.
I'm not sure that the 'within the limits of the law' bit is quite true. For instance, under a previous Nepalese Constitution (and poosibly under the new one),people were not allowed to change religion from that of their father. Over a period of time (in the 60s and 70s) a large number of Christians were arrested under the terms of this law. Initially, they were simply arrested and exied to another part of the country - with minimal involvement of the courts. In the mid-70s, 3 generations of men from a leading Christian family were arrested and properly charged, meaning that they, at least, would see the inside of a courtroom. When faced with the charges, the grandfather - whose father had been a Buddhist - pleaded guilty, only to be told that (as his father hadn't been a Hindu) nothing would be done. His son and grandsons, however, pleaded innocent, on the grounds that they were following the religion of their father. It came to light, at this stage, that they had been beaten by the police in an attempt to get them to renounce Christianity and 'returm' to Hinduism. They had refused on the grounds that 1) their ancestors hadn't been Hindus so they couldn't 'return' to it and 2) that if they did become hindus, they would actually be breaking the very law that they had been arrested and charged under!! Few, if any, laws are worded in ways that actually result in what they had been designed for; even court decisions that create precedent can change the lawmakers' original intentions.
Freedom from religion means that those who are not adherents of said religion are not expected to observe, abide by or be inconvenienced by the rules of a club of which they're not members.
The corollary of this is that religious people are equally "not expected to observe, abide by or be inconvenienced by the rules of a club of which they're not members" - so legislation that runs counter to their beliefs isn't necessarily binding on them. The majority of religious people choose to adhere to the majority of secular laws because those laws reflect their religious beliefs; however, there are some such laws that don't reflect their beliefs, so they oppose them, disobeying them in the last resort.
-
No, that should never be an option. Teaching children that beliefs are facts is to mislead them.
In which case, why are we teaching them science? After all, science is only a set of ideas that fit a human construct, and are therefore deemed to be facts when they may well not be.
-
In which case, why are we teaching them science? After all, science is only a set of ideas that fit a human construct, and are therefore deemed to be facts when they may well not be.
Evidence, Hope, evidence.
-
In which case, why are we teaching them science? After all, science is only a set of ideas that fit a human construct, and are therefore deemed to be facts when they may well not be.
We accept them as facts because the evidence points that way. God beliefs lack any evidence.
-
No, that should never be an option. Teaching children that beliefs are facts is to mislead them.
You can't expect the religious to teach children that beliefs aren't fact. But it should not creep into everyday education.
-
You can't expect the religious to teach children that beliefs aren't fact. But it should not creep into everyday education.
Yes, true, but they can be educated to see that unless there is evidence, beliefs are not facts, no matter what their parents tell them.
-
Yes, true, but they can be educated to see that beliefs are not facts, no matter what their parents tell them.
Often easier said than done, alas.
-
Often easier said than done, alas.
True, but that should not prevent us trying.
-
Evidence, Hope, evidence.
That's easy, Shakes. Everything that science is based on has been observed and interpreted by human beings. Where is the independent confirmation of anything?
-
Yes, true, but they can be educated to see that unless there is evidence, beliefs are not facts, no matter what their parents tell them.
IME the difference between belief and fact, along with related topics such as subjective and objective truth, is hardly touched on in schools.
A different subject for a different day perhaps.
-
That's easy, Shakes. Everything that science is based on has been observed and interpreted by human beings.
Yes, of course.
Where is the independent confirmation of anything?
Ever heard of the scientific method?
-
IME the difference between belief and fact, along with related topics such as subjective and objective truth, is hardly touched on in schools.
You would then run into the problem that occasionally occurs here whereby no-one would be allowed to suggest that science is no more than a human construct based on human observations and interpretations, and that it is little more than a belief system that is useful to humanity.
-
Ever heard of the scientific method?
Yes, I've heard of it. Ever heard of anything scientific that hasn't been moderated through a human being? Subjective doesn't quite do the issue justice.
-
You would then run into the problem that occasionally occurs here whereby no-one would be allowed to suggest that science is no more than a human construct based on human observations and interpretations, and that it is little more than a belief system that is useful to humanity.
Don't be ridiculous, Hope, we're talking about kids being taught basic critical thinking skills.
-
Yes, I've heard of it. Ever heard of anything scientific that hasn't been moderated through a human being? Subjective doesn't quite do the issue justice.
It isn't subjective - that's why the method has some of the features that it does, particularly shareability, repeatability (sometimes) and anonymous peer review.
-
Don't be ridiculous, Hope, we're talking about kids being taught basic critical thinking skills.
Something long overdue and of which there's a great need.
-
Dear Rhiannon, Shaker and Leonard,
But what do you replace religious education with, it is vitally important.
From the moment our kids wake up in the morning till the time they go to sleep our kids are bombarded with bullshit, the perfect body, the must have trainers, the latest fashion accessories, we have obesity in young kids, we have kids suffering from anorexia.
Instead of simply stating, beliefs are not facts, religion should not be taught in schools, what do you replace it with, what are your answers to greed, gluttony, envy, jealousy, pride ( what's the other two :o ) these are vitally important subjects that should be discussed in schools from a very early age.
Me and Leonard had a similar discussion about a week ago, he mentioned that spanish kids are taught citizenship, I looked it up, British kids have something similar, but it hardly touches on what Christians call sins and anyway, it is an add on, it is an also, it does not top English and Arithmetic, where are your answers to our children's problems, you won't find them in arithmetic and you certainly won't find them in I before E except after C.
Gonnagle.
-
Vlad you've said the same as me, using your words a different way around up until you finished your post off with " To argue that they should have less is special pleading", I've never said anything other than, religious or non-religious, we should all have a level playing field, so you didn't get that lot from anything I've said, why say it Vlad, no one on the forum has argued that?
ippy
I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.
To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.
-
Something long overdue and of which there's a great need.
British youth are brought up to criticise though.......except themselves of course.
That is one huge mother of a national parental failing.
-
You would then run into the problem that occasionally occurs here whereby no-one would be allowed to suggest that science is no more than a human construct based on human observations and interpretations, and that it is little more than a belief system that is useful to humanity.
It's not simply a belief system, since it is based on observations, which are used to make hypotheses, which can be checked, and also produce predictions, also tested. We don't teach kids scientific stuff as part of a philosophical education, well, not normally, but as something practical, and also which shows the amazing aspects of the universe. It is also something shared universally.
-
It's not simply a belief system, since it is based on observations, which are used to make hypotheses, which can be checked, and also produce predictions, also tested. We don't teach kids scientific stuff as part of a philosophical education, well, not normally, but as something practical, and also which shows the amazing aspects of the universe. It is also something shared universally.
But it is still based on purely human understanding. There is no independent (external to humanity) confirmation of what human scientists understand. Everything depends on observations, hypotheses and predictions that are checked and established by humans.
-
But it is still based on purely human understanding. There is no independent (external to humanity) confirmation of what human scientists understand.
Because there's zero evidence of anything "external" to humanity, whatever that's even supposed to mean. Science is a human endeavour.
Everything depends on observations, hypotheses and predictions that are checked and established by humans.
Yes. It's called science.
-
Because there's zero evidence of anything "external" to humanity, whatever that's even supposed to mean.
In your opinion, but not in that of billions of other people.
Yes. It's called science.
Sorry, Shakes, science can't be the proof for itself.
-
In your opinion, but not in that of billions of other people.
Argumentum ad populum/numerum. I knew you'd have to slip a logical fallacy in there somewhere or other.
Sorry, Shakes, science can't the proof for itself.
What?
-
#307 Gonners, of course religion should be taught about in schools. But alongside critical thinking and making clear the distinction between belief and fact.
The most worrying failure I've seen regarding this arose because of the fashion for reaching by theme at primary age. All three of my kids were taught about The Creation as a theme - RS was the Bible story, art was God making the universe in six days, and the science part was the solar system. When one if my kids put her hand up and said that some people believed in the big bang theory (her words) she was shut up as she'd gone off script.
You also do our young people a disservice. All those things you mention were problems when I was a child and the religious education I had back then didn't prevent them. Today's young people are ready to act when they are moved by something - only this week my local paper has a feature on a young man who organised a collection of emergency supplies through social media and drove to hem up to flood victims in York. I see much to admire in today's young.
-
In your opinion, but not in that of billions of other people.
Sorry, Shakes, science can't the proof for itself.
Aye well billions of flies think shit tastes great.
The last sentence makes no sense to me even if i insert the word i think is missing.
-
Aye well billions of flies think shit tastes great.
Hope probably prefers your rather more forthright version - he gets very antsy about terminology in non-English languages even when it's the correct terminology.
-
Dear Rhiannon, Shaker and Leonard,
But what do you replace religious education with, it is vitally important.
From the moment our kids wake up in the morning till the time they go to sleep our kids are bombarded with bullshit, the perfect body, the must have trainers, the latest fashion accessories, we have obesity in young kids, we have kids suffering from anorexia.
Instead of simply stating, beliefs are not facts, religion should not be taught in schools, what do you replace it with, what are your answers to greed, gluttony, envy, jealousy, pride ( what's the other two :o ) these are vitally important subjects that should be discussed in schools from a very early age.
Me and Leonard had a similar discussion about a week ago, he mentioned that spanish kids are taught citizenship, I looked it up, British kids have something similar, but it hardly touches on what Christians call sins and anyway, it is an add on, it is an also, it does not top English and Arithmetic, where are your answers to our children's problems, you won't find them in arithmetic and you certainly won't find them in I before E except after C.
Gonnagle.
You don't REPLACE it, it's an integral part of history and that's where it should take its place.
Simon has just been reading me the chapter of 'The Human Universe' by Brian Cox where he points out that the scientific method is the best.
And a note to Hope here: Read the book, 'The Human Universe'
-
Argumentum ad populum/numerum. I knew you'd have to slip a logical fallacy in there somewhere or other.
No, neither of those fallacies, Shakes. You have expressed your opinion, I stated that there are billions who have a different opinion. At no point did I say that numbers (or lack of them) proved that either position was correct. Your reference to the fallacy concept would seem to suggest that you think that the numbers do prove correctness.
What?
As I am sure you are aware, you cannot - in law - be the evidence for something you have done (or not done). Nor can science be the evidence for itself.
-
You don't REPLACE it, it's an integral part of history and that's where it should take its place.
It is also still an integral part of a sizeable majority of the world's population.
Simon has just been reading me the chapter of 'The Human Universe' by Brian Cox where he points out that the scientific method is the best.
Good to see a scientist pointing out that science is the best. Where is the objectivity in this point?
And a note to Hope here: Read the book, 'The Human Universe'
I've read extracts which I found interesting but they, at least, never gave any indication as to why I should regard Cox's opinions as sacrosanct.
-
No, neither of those fallacies, Shakes. You have expressed your opinion, I stated that there are billions who have a different opinion.
And that is utterly irrelevant. You know what opinions are like, don't you?
At no point did I say that numbers (or lack of them) proved that either position was correct.
So why mention it? Why even bother to raise the point that billions of people hold a certain opinion? Certainly it is a fact, but it tells us precisely nothing, nada, zip, zilch about whether the content of their belief is true. That being the case, why raise the non-issue of numbers?
The vast majority of the world's scientists - millions upon millions of men and women - accept that biological evolution has taken place and still does. That fact is relevant not because of the numbers but because of their position as professionals able to evaluate empirical evidence.
Your reference to the fallacy concept would seem to suggest that you think that the numbers do prove correctness.
Nope.
As I am sure you are aware, you cannot - in law - be the evidence for something you have done (or not done). Nor can science be the evidence for itself.
The validity of the scientific endeavour is shown by its successes. It works, in other words, in telling us about the stuff of the world and how it works. Nothing else does.
-
It is also still an integral part of a sizeable majority of the world's population.
But this is irrelevant, isn't it?
-
Dear Rhiannon,
The important word in your post is should.
I see ( personally ) a void, nothing to replace religious teaching, not the loaves and fishes, not the creation myth, the do unto others, the turn the other cheek ( I would personally love to watch kids discuss that one, I think we would have plenty of, oh you bloody well think so from the kids, I struggle with that one ) the serving your fellow man, the do not judge.
And I see our Susan jumping in with another should but then maybe she is right, history could be a great place to teach morals and ethics, learn from our past mistakes.
But I am talking about teaching our kids from a very early age, loving your fellowman is way more important than English and Arithmetic.
I would never do our kids a disservice, I point the finger fairly and squarely at my generation, hell! I voted Thatcher in, for that I am truly sorry.
Gonnagle.
-
But Gonners, who was to blame for my generation being screwed up? My parents? Who screwed them up? It's never-ending. But I tell you this: when it comes to teaching selflessness, kindness and empathy schools can only do so much; it is what a child learns from the cradle in their family and community that shapes that rather than anything picked up through education.
-
No, neither of those fallacies, Shakes. You have expressed your opinion, I stated that there are billions who have a different opinion. At no point did I say that numbers (or lack of them) proved that either position was correct. Your reference to the fallacy concept would seem to suggest that you think that the numbers do prove correctness.
As I am sure you are aware, you cannot - in law - be the evidence for something you have done (or not done). Nor can science be the evidence for itself.
Probably the only religious sect in the World that gets close to claiming a billion people having the same opinion about religious truths is th Catholic Church that claims a billion followers although I suspect its figures are inflated
Take a typical Catholic belief: transubstantiation. Christians cannot agree amongst themselves if it is true or not and there is no way to verify or falsify it. Compare that to general relativity. You won't find many scientists who do not think it is an accurate model of gravity. Furthermore if you doubt it, you can read the literature and find experiments that you can repeat to verify it.
Frankly your posts on here are duplicitous lies. Either that or your ignorance of science is so appalling that you really should shut up about it.
-
Dear Rhiannon, Shaker and Leonard,
But what do you replace religious education with, it is vitally important.
From the moment our kids wake up in the morning till the time they go to sleep our kids are bombarded with bullshit, the perfect body, the must have trainers, the latest fashion accessories, we have obesity in young kids, we have kids suffering from anorexia.
Instead of simply stating, beliefs are not facts, religion should not be taught in schools, what do you replace it with, what are your answers to greed, gluttony, envy, jealousy, pride ( what's the other two :o ) these are vitally important subjects that should be discussed in schools from a very early age.
Me and Leonard had a similar discussion about a week ago, he mentioned that spanish kids are taught citizenship, I looked it up, British kids have something similar, but it hardly touches on what Christians call sins and anyway, it is an add on, it is an also, it does not top English and Arithmetic, where are your answers to our children's problems, you won't find them in arithmetic and you certainly won't find them in I before E except after C.
Gonnagle.
Absolutely, Gonners! Morality should be at the forefront of children's education ... preferably from infancy. Without it society would fall apart.
-
But it is still based on purely human understanding. There is no independent (external to humanity) confirmation of what human scientists understand. Everything depends on observations, hypotheses and predictions that are checked and established by humans.
So you are saying that we should get rid of science? I don't think that you would seriously suggest that, because, as you know, science works. It works because it is empirical, and provisional, and it is capable of changing, if the data change.
Talking of the 'purely human' is absurd. If you think that science is suspect for that reason, I suggest that you immediately give up all the appliances which science has made possible, including computers, phones, fridges, cookers, and TVs, and so on. Are you ready to make this sacrifice?
-
Hope,
Good to see a scientist pointing out that science is the best. Where is the objectivity in this point?
Oh dear. The objectivity is what you get when you test the claims. Let's say that "the scientist" tells us that if you jump out of a tenth storey window you'll hit the deck shortly thereafter; the theist says that a god will float you gently to the ground; the leprechaunist says that you'll ride a magic rainbow to a pot of gold, the etc etc.
All we need do then is to have someone jump out of the window and to observe the results. And if a sample of one isn't enough to be reasonably sure, then have 99 more people do it. Eventually one of the possible conjectures will be deemed to be a fact, and for most common-or-garden purposes we call that "objective".
Now that's not to say that the truth thus arrived at isn't probabilistic - how would we know whether on the bajillionth jump someone wouldn't float sideways for example? - but it is to say that science is objectively enough "the best" compared with the alternatives, for which there's no validating feedback at all.
-
Vlunderer,
I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.
To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.
As ever, you have it backwards. We expressly do not have, say, children educated at Marxist-Leninist schools, or at Maoist schools, or at schools rooted in any other dogmatic ideological frame of reference...
...except that is for religious schools.
For some reason that special privilege is afforded only to one type of ideology. Remove the faith schools and only then would we have equal treatment.
-
Vlunderer,
As ever, you have it backwards. We expressly do not have, say, children educated at Marxist-Leninist schools, or at Maoist schools, or at schools rooted in any other dogmatic ideological frame of reference...
...except that is for religious schools.
For some reason that special privilege is afforded only to one type of ideology. Remove the faith schools and only then would we have equal treatment.
Exactly - why Vlad can't see that is beyond me.
I can undress and that someone might think it reasonable for religions to have a special privilege to allow them to run state funded schools according to their own belief system, while other ideologies aren't afforded that privilege (I'd disagree of course). But I cannot see how anyone can fail to recognise that it is a special privilege.
-
Vlunderer,
As ever, you have it backwards. We expressly do not have, say, children educated at Marxist-Leninist schools, or at Maoist schools, or at schools rooted in any other dogmatic ideological frame of reference...
...except that is for religious schools.
For some reason that special privilege is afforded only to one type of ideology. Remove the faith schools and only then would we have equal treatment.
It's time to raise the curtain, it's time to light the lights.........
Oh dear.......if a conservative peer who runs a carpet warehouse chain has the freedom to run a chain of schools then it is special pleading to say that a religion cannot run a school. AC Grayling and his atheist colleagues established a university and as far as I know are free to open a state financed school. It is therefore special pleading to prevent a religion running a school.
These facts render your post what it is........a pile of Dingos Kidneys.
-
Vlunderer,
It's time to raise the curtain, it's time to light the lights.........
Oh dear.......if a conservative peer who runs a carpet warehouse chain has the freedom to run a chain of schools then it is special pleading to say that a religion cannot run a school. AC Grayling and his atheist colleagues established a university and as far as I know are free to open a state financed school. It is therefore special pleading to prevent a religion running a school.
These facts render your post what it is........a pile of Dingos Kidneys.
Wow - when you do stupid, there are no half measures are there?
The butt-clenchingly obvious point that passes you by entirely is that it's the content of the education that matters here. Whether a tory peer, a chartered surveyor or a parrot trainer happens to fund the school is neither here nor there - the special privilege uniquely afforded to the religious is that the get to teach the content of their ideologies and dogmas to the students, whereas none of the others would be allowed to.
And that's special pleading.
Enjoy your kidneys.
-
Take a typical Catholic belief: transubstantiation. Christians cannot agree amongst themselves if it is true or not and there is no way to verify or falsify it.
Don't talk nonsense! It is very simple to verify it it!
Take the chalice and the plate from the priest immediately after he has changed it and test the contents to see they are human blood and flesh or not!
I am offering big odds that, one, they will not be and two, that the priest will fight to the death rather than let you have trhe material in order to check it!
-
Vlunderer,
Wow - when you do stupid, there are no half measures are there?
The butt-clenchingly obvious point that passes you by entirely is that it's the content of the education that matters here. Whether a tory peer, a chartered surveyor or a parrot trainer happens to fund the school is neither here nor there - the special privilege uniquely afforded to the religious is that the get to teach the content of their ideologies and dogmas to the students, whereas none of the others would be allowed to.
And that's special pleading.
Enjoy your kidneys.
I think you'll find the sponsor of an academy or the governing body of a free school can input into the curriculum.
-
Vlunderer,
I think you'll find the sponsor of an academy or the governing body of a free school can input into the curriculum.
I think you'll find that - with the sole exception of religious beliefs - no sponsor can have the curriculum teach whatever ideology he happens to have. Academies have more freedom than non-academies, but the content of the curriculum is still fairly tightly defined.
Are you seriously suggesting that a school could teach Maoism if the sponsor happened to be a Maoist?
Now how about creationism?
Do you get it now?
How were the kidneys?
-
Don't talk nonsense! It is very simple to verify it it!
Take the chalice and the plate from the priest immediately after he has changed it and test the contents to see they are human blood and flesh or not!
I am offering big odds that, one, they will not be and two, that the priest will fight to the death rather than let you have trhe material in order to check it!
I don't know how you as a non Catholic can post that.
However, in all seriousness, they would claim that it does change but that scientific means are not capable of detecting the change.
-
Vlunderer,
I think you'll find that - with the sole exception of religious beliefs - no sponsor can have the curriculum teach whatever ideology he happens to have. Academies have more freedom than non-academies, but the content of the curriculum is still fairly tightly defined.
Are you seriously suggesting that a school could teach Maoism if the sponsor happened to be a Maoist?
Now how about creationism?
Do you get it now?
How were the kidneys?
I know that you prefer wild and extreme exemplars not usually based in fact hillside but a schools ethos is reflected in the curriculum. I've just been looking at documentation for Consett college where a sponsor is committed to a " Business Ethos" for the school.......A business ethos ............If a sponsor is free to establish a business ethos then it is special pleading to prevent a religious ethos or a communist ethos for that matter.
-
Vlunderer,
I know that you prefer wild and extreme exemplars not usually based in fact hillside...
You know no such thing because it isn't true. Why bother with yet more porkies - its just tiresome these days...
... but a schools ethos is reflected in the curriculum. I've just been looking at documentation for Consett college where a sponsor is committed to a " Business Ethos" for the school.......A business ethos ............If a sponsor is free to establish a business ethos then it is special pleading to prevent a religious ethos or a communist ethos for that matter.
Oh dear. A "business ethos" is just a particular approach based still on the national curriculum - presumably it emphasises, say, economics rather than some other subjects. What it isn't though is the replacement of the curriculum with an ideology that happens to be the personal faith of the sponsor.
If ever someone tried that with, say, a Marxist-Leninist curriculum they'd be stopped. Yet a creationist agenda (a more meaningful comparison) seems to be fine and dandy.
Surely it's sinking in now isn't it?
-
Vlunderer,
You know no such thing because it isn't true. Why bother with yet more porkies - its just tiresome these days...
Oh dear. A "business ethos" is just a particular approach based still on the national curriculum - presumably it emphasises, say, economics rather than some other subjects. What it isn't though is the replacement of the curriculum with an ideology that happens to be the personal faith of the sponsor.
If ever someone tried that with, say, a Marxist-Leninist curriculum they'd be stopped. Yet a creationist agenda (a more meaningful comparison) seems to be fine and dandy.
Surely it's sinking in now isn't it?
It's special pleading all the way down with you isn't it. An ethos of a school is a foundation for the pupils life.If a business ethos is permissible then not allowing a religious ethos is special pleading.
We directly know that Marxist Leninist experiments failed and all tended to become oppressive. I guess that's why they are not encouraged.
Christianity is compariible with business in that while there have been excesses through both, business and Christianity need not tend that way.
I don't suppose there is any objection toward a secular humanist ethos. Therefore to prevent a religious ethos is special pleading.
-
Vlunderer,
It's special pleading all the way down with you isn't it.
The only special pleading here is the special pleading you're allowing religious schools that isn't allowed to other ideologies.
An ethos of a school is a foundation for the pupils life.If a business ethos is permissible then not allowing a religious ethos is special pleading.
Oh dear. An ethos is fine – teaching as facts, say, creationism isn't an ethos at all though - it's the wholesale introduction of an ideology replete with its own "facts".
We directly know that Marxist Leninist experiments failed and all tended to become oppressive. I guess that's why they are not encouraged.
As opposed to the well-known success stories that is theocracies?
Either way, that isn't the reason at all. No-one says, "you can't teach Marxist-Leninism because that's been tried and failed". What they do say though is that you cannot just teach ideologies in place of the facts and methods of the national curriculum - unless that is that ideology happens to be a religious one
Christianity is compariible with business in that while there have been excesses through both, business and Christianity need not tend that way.
Utter bullsihit - religion entails faith and dogma, and so it's much more akin to political ideologies. "Business" on the other hand concerns real world practices and processes.
I don't suppose there is any objection toward a secular humanist ethos. Therefore to prevent a religious ethos is special pleading.
As ever, you confuse the absence of something with the presence of something. What exactly do you think a "secular humanist" approach would entail that's in any way comparable with a religious one?
Good grief!
-
Dear Rhiannon,
But Gonners, who was to blame for my generation being screwed up? My parents? Who screwed them up? It's never-ending. But I tell you this: when it comes to teaching selflessness, kindness and empathy schools can only do so much; it is what a child learns from the cradle in their family and community that shapes that rather than anything picked up through education.
Ah well!! here's the thing ( well apart from the fact that I am slightly pissed ) in a discussion many moons ago when I stood up for Aristotle and Plato, I was told that they wanted the child taken from their parents at a early age, well the gist was that parents were unfit to teach the child, and I see something like that happening in todays society.
Parents will move house, will lie, will cheat to have their kids in the best education, the gentry will talk about Oxford and Cambridge, my question is, who are the best educators of a childs morals his/her ethics.
Gonnagle.
PS: good thread, as always lots of unanswered questions.
-
Vlunderer,
The only special pleading here is the special pleading you're allowing religious schools that isn't allowed to other ideologies.
Oh dear. An ethos is fine – teaching as facts, say, creationism isn't an ethos at all though - it's the wholesale introduction of an ideology replete with its own "facts".
As opposed to the well-known success stories that is theocracies?
Either way, that isn't the reason at all. No-one says, "you can't teach Marxist-Leninism because that's been tried and failed". What they do say though is that you cannot just teach ideologies in place of the facts and methods of the national curriculum - unless that is that ideology happens to be a religious one
Utter bullsihit - religion entails faith and dogma, and so it's much more akin to political ideologies. "Business" on the other hand concerns real world practices and processes.
As ever, you confuse the absence of something with the presence of something. What exactly do you think a "secular humanist" approach would entail that's in any way comparable with a religious one?
Good grief!
I knew it would eventually come down to your opinionated anti religious attitude. I intuited that you had thrown the towel in and what you really want to say was that you believe that Christianity is comparible to Maoism. That is another argument.
What I think of a secular humanist curriculum is that if it can dissociate itself from the excesses of the NSS and BHA then I have no problem. It certainly has the freedom to run a school.
-
I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.
To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.
Now you really have gone off of the rails vlad, you'll never get secularism, it looks like it's beyond you to be able to understand the aims of secularism, if you had the slightest idea of what secularism is all about you wouldn't write any posts like the one I'm replying to.
ippy
-
AC Grayling and his atheist colleagues established a university ...
Three points:
1. This is a university - we aren't talking about universities, we are talking about state funded schools. You do understand the difference.
2. The New College of the Humanities is a liberal arts university - it isn't a secular humanist university. Don't forget that Grayling is first and foremost an academic philosopher. And it hasn't been set up by 'atheists' but has a range of religions and none in its founding faculty - so last time I looked Zeinab Badawi and Howard Jacobson just to give a couple of examples weren't prominent atheists.
3. The New College of the Humanities is a private institution - it doesn't receive state funding. The debate here is about state funded schools. I have no issue with people setting up religious schools without state funding, providing they meet the existing criteria for registration as schools.
-
But this is irrelevant, isn't it?
Not in the context of the series of posts that this is the latest in. After all, in order to be able to understand what is happening across the globe today, we have to look at the various issues that impact on hman behaviour - today - not merely historically. Therefore we need to teach about religion in the same way that we have to teach about science (unfortunately, that is pretty much all that happens in modern science lessons), about language, about maths/history/geography/music/etc.
-
I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.
To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.
Actually, Vlad, 'if religion had the same rights as those (you) mentioned', there wouldn't be only CofE bishops in the House of Lords, as Lords Spiritual. There would be leaders of other Anglican groupings, and other Christian denominations such as RC, Baptist, Methodist; as well as Muslim imams, Hindu and Jewish priests, Pagan representatives, leaders of the BHA, etc.
-
Vlunderer,
I knew it would eventually come down to your opinionated anti religious attitude. I intuited that you had thrown the towel in and what you really want to say was that you believe that Christianity is comparible to Maoism. That is another argument.
Oh dear. Yet again, you confuse “ethos” with content. Ethos is the character of a culture or community expressed through its attitudes and behaviours. Thus a school could have a business-orientated ethos by focusing more on some subjects that others.
Content on the other hand involves introducing your own facts – like “god”, “resurrection”, “hell” etc which only the religious are allowed to do.
Why is this simple difference so difficult for you to grasp?
What I think of a secular humanist curriculum is that if it can dissociate itself from the excesses of the NSS and BHA then I have no problem. It certainly has the freedom to run a school.
No doubt you’ll be able to provide us with some examples of these supposed “excesses” then?
Would you like your towel back?
-
Vlunderer,
Oh dear. Yet again, you confuse “ethos” with content. Ethos is the character of a culture or community expressed through its attitudes and behaviours. Thus a school could have a business-orientated ethos by focusing more on some subjects that others.
Content on the other hand involves introducing your own facts – like “god”, “resurrection”, “hell” etc which only the religious are allowed to do.
Why is this simple difference so difficult for you to grasp?
No doubt you’ll be able to provide us with some examples of these supposed “excesses” then?
Would you like your towel back?
In an education setting ethos is part of the content. It is the extracurricular part of the education but it can also be part of the curriculum. Pupils in a school with a business ethos will be encourage to run and operate business units within that school and may well put aside special days for that.
-
In an education setting ethos is part of the content. It is the extracurricular part of the education but it can also be part of the curriculum. Pupils in a school with a business ethos will be encourage to run and operate business units within that school and may well put aside special days for that.
Pupils do that in all sorts of schools (they certainly are encouraged to do that in the one my kids go to and there are 'curriculum enhancement days' set aside to provide tome) whether or not the school has a 'business ethos' - indeed I'm not sure I can think of a school that describes itself as having a 'business ethos'.
My school certainly doesn't consider itself to have a 'business ethos' - whatever that means.
-
Pupils do that in all sorts of schools (they certainly are encouraged to do that in the one my kids go to and there are 'curriculum enhancement days' set aside to provide tome) whether or not the school has a 'business ethos' - indeed I'm not sure I can think of a school that describes itself as having a 'business ethos'.
My school certainly doesn't consider itself to have a 'business ethos' - whatever that means.
Consett Academy.
-
Consett Academy.
Really
http://www.consett-academy.org.uk/13/principles-vision-values
In which case I would have expected them to mentioned their 'business ethos' in their statement of principles, vision and values, yet not a mention of 'business'. Seems their core principles are 'Inclusion, Progression and Excellence'.
Try again Vlad.
-
Really
http://www.consett-academy.org.uk/13/principles-vision-values
In which case I would have expected them to mentioned their 'business ethos' in their statement of principles, vision and values, yet not a mention of 'business'. Seems their core principles are 'Inclusion, Progression and Excellence'.
Try again Vlad.
Sorry, I have the document details on my Ipad where they talk about the sponsors commitment to the business ethos.
In terms of school ethos you might find link this interesting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creating-a-military-ethos-in-academies-and-free-schools
Any secularist therefore truly wanting a level playing field then should not baulk at a religious ethos.
-
In terms of school ethos you might find link this interesting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creating-a-military-ethos-in-academies-and-free-schools
Any secularist therefore truly wanting a level playing field then should not baulk at a religious ethos.
Why? Secularism is about not priveleging one particular religious viewpoint, it has nothing to say about militarism, or the virtues of military discipline and methods within education. That's not to say it's not a valid topic for discussion, I'm just curious as to how you think it fits with secularism?
O.
-
Sorry, I have the document details on my Ipad where they talk about the sponsors commitment to the business ethos.
Well I think we would all rather prefer to rely on the public statement of the ethos of a school which is on its official website, rather than a 'document on your iPad'. :o
In terms of school ethos you might find link this interesting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creating-a-military-ethos-in-academies-and-free-schools
Any secularist therefore truly wanting a level playing field then should not baulk at a religious ethos.
Three years out of date - widely derided when released and, I believe, quietly dropped.
But even were this to happen it would in now way be equivalent to a faith school. To be so the school would need to be formally run by the military but funded but the state (there is no suggestion of this), would likely require the head and other senior staff to be members of the military (no suggestion of that), to narrow the relevant curriculum only to cover the military (no suggestion of that), to restrict and prioritise admissions to children of the military (no suggestion of that) and to have remit to ensure that children are brought up to be in the military as adults (no suggestion of that), to have lessons in genuine military practice - such as operating firearms and weapons (no suggestions of that).
In reality the notion of a 'military ethos' in this context is merely publicity seeking and actually really means a level of struck discipline and confidence, plus also a notion that ex military personnel may be able to reskill to enter education.
It is really no different to the well established programmes where football teams become involved in educational activities, but again they aren't running state schools.
So, as ever Vlad, wrong again - try harder next time.
-
Vlunderer,
In an education setting ethos is part of the content. It is the extracurricular part of the education but it can also be part of the curriculum. Pupils in a school with a business ethos will be encourage to run and operate business units within that school and may well put aside special days for that.
Still not getting it then. You can educate children according your own ethos; you cannot though educate children according to your own facts - unless that is you're religious.
-
Still not getting it then. You can educate children according your own ethos; you cannot though educate children according to your own facts - unless that is you're religious.
Science and scientists make a pretty good effort at teaching its own 'facts', bhs - or at least they did in all the schools I studied and taught at.
-
Hope,
Science and scientists make a pretty good effort at teaching its own 'facts', bhs - or at least they did in all the schools I studied and taught at.
Quite. Now see whether you can work out the difference between a fact in science and a fact in religion.
-
Hope,
Quite. Now see whether you can work out the difference between a fact in science and a fact in religion.
Oh! That one is simple - a fact in science is a FACT; a fact in religion is a fiction sometimes put forward as a fact instead of as an item of faith.
-
Owls,
Oh! That one is simple - a fact in science is a FACT; a fact in religion is a fiction sometimes put forward as a fact instead of as an item of faith.
Dammit man, you've ruined it! Were you the kind of kid who shouted "it's up your sleeve" when the magician made the rabbit disappear?
Oh well. Hope - can you see where you went wrong now?
-
Owls,
Dammit man, you've ruined it! Were you the kind of kid who shouted "it's up your sleeve" when the magician made the rabbit disappear?
Oh well. Hope - can you see where you went wrong now?
I'm afraid even this incurable optimist has to be pessimistic about that!
-
Science and scientists make a pretty good effort at teaching its own 'facts', bhs - or at least they did in all the schools I studied and taught at.
Facts are concepts etc that are based on very strong evidence, and science (and scientists) is in the business of basing their theories etc on strong evidence so if science suggests something as fact (not that they are likely to use that term) then you can be pretty confident that is what it is.
That is a world away from 'opinion' which is typically not based on strong evidence but may be a subjective view or an assertion yet to be proven to stand up to evidential scrutiny.
So if a scientist says that the earth rotates around the sun once every 365 days (within a margin of error) that is based on evidence and it is reasonable to describe it as a fact.
If a theologian (or RE teacher) say that Jesus was resurrected that is not based on any credible evidence and it would be completely inappropriate to describe that as a fact. An opinion, a belief fine, but not a fact.
-
Well I think we would all rather prefer to rely on the public statement of the ethos of a school which is on its official website, rather than a 'document on your iPad'. :o
Three years out of date - widely derided when released and, I believe, quietly dropped.
But even were this to happen it would in now way be equivalent to a faith school. To be so the school would need to be formally run by the military but funded but the state (there is no suggestion of this), would likely require the head and other senior staff to be members of the military (no suggestion of that), to narrow the relevant curriculum only to cover the military (no suggestion of that), to restrict and prioritise admissions to children of the military (no suggestion of that) and to have remit to ensure that children are brought up to be in the military as adults (no suggestion of that), to have lessons in genuine military practice - such as operating firearms and weapons (no suggestions of that).
In reality the notion of a 'military ethos' in this context is merely publicity seeking and actually really means a level of struck discipline and confidence, plus also a notion that ex military personnel may be able to reskill to enter education.
It is really no different to the well established programmes where football teams become involved in educational activities, but again they aren't running state schools.
So, as ever Vlad, wrong again - try harder next time.
Oh dear I suppose I will just have to console myself with the FACT of hundreds of church sponsored schools with a Christian ethos.
-
Why? Secularism is about not priveleging one particular religious viewpoint, it has nothing to say about militarism, or the virtues of military discipline and methods within education. That's not to say it's not a valid topic for discussion, I'm just curious as to how you think it fits with secularism?
O.
Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.
-
Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.
Because those with a military ethos do NOT try, blatantly, to browbeat and threaten people into becoming militarists.
They don't tell prople that they will go to Hell and into the Hellfire if the disobey military rules, the glasshouse, maybe, but not Hellfire.
-
Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.
No, accepting or rejecting a military influence in schools would be done on its own merits. Secularism is the position that, in the absence of any way to validate any religious claim, they can't be taken on their merits - individual liberty suggests that people are free to follow them if they choose, but it's not for the state to enforce them on someone else, or be party to that being done.
It's not that militarism doesn't get judged on its own merits, it's that religion has already been judged on the merits it doesn't have.
O.
-
Oh dear I suppose I will just have to console myself with the FACT of hundreds of church sponsored schools with a Christian ethos.
Currently ...
-
Vlunderer,
Yes but it's all special pleading that a religious ethos is somehow different from other ethoses.
Write this down 100 times until it sinks in:
Ethos and facts are not the same thing
Ethos and facts are not the same thing
Ethos and fa...
Lots of special interest groups can teach in line with an ethos; only the religious can teach their own facts.
-
Hope,
Quite. Now see whether you can work out the difference between a fact in science and a fact in religion.
One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.
-
One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.
Everything we can conceive of, know we can't conceive of or can talk about is by definition based on human experience so that really isn't saying very much. Now try the really important difference.
-
One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.
Nope - one is based on objective and repeatable evidence.
The other is a subjective opinion that doesn't stand up to objective testing. Nothing wrong with opinions, provided they are recognised as such and not confused with facts.
-
Nope - one is based on objective and repeatable evidence.
Which i, necessarily based on human experience - unless you know of a non-human scientist.
The other is a subjective opinion that doesn't stand up to objective testing. Nothing wrong with opinions, provided they are recognised as such and not confused with facts.
I'm not suggesting that science and scientific detail isn't valuable and important, but it is still something that we have no 'external' corroboration of; it is all moderated by human experience.
-
Which i, necessarily based on human experience - unless you know of a non-human scientist.
I am talking about science not scientists - there are plenty of examples where the objective and repeatable evidence that is the basis of scientific 'facts' are generated through non human analysis. Indeed in most cases measurement devices that aren't subject to the vagaries of human subjectivity are much preferred in the generation of data.
I'm not suggesting that science and scientific detail isn't valuable and important, but it is still something that we have no 'external' corroboration of; it is all moderated by human experience.
No they aren't - see above.
Scientific 'facts' were facts well before humans evolved (even though we might not have been present to recognise them as so) and they will remain so long after we are gone. That the earth moved around the sun every (give or take) 365 days was just as much fact millions of years ago, prior to humans evolving and if all humans suddenly vanished tomorrow that 'fact' would remain.
I don't think you really understand the difference between objective and subjective evidence Hope.
-
Hope,
One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.
Doesn't help you: one provides its facts based on objective data with a method to test them; the other provides facts based on its opinions.
It's simple enough isn't it?
-
Which i, necessarily based on human experience - unless you know of a non-human scientist.
I'm not suggesting that science and scientific detail isn't valuable and important, but it is still something that we have no 'external' corroboration of; it is all moderated by human experience.
Well, you are getting close to nihilism, i.e. that all experiences are equal. This is clearly not correct. For example, you could cite alien abduction, and you could cite the theory of gravity. Which one would you find useful if you were on the space station and wanted to return to earth?
-
Hope,
Doesn't help you: one provides its facts based on objective data with a method to test them; the other provides facts based on its opinions.
It's simple enough isn't it?
'Objective data' moderated through a single lens isn't automatically 'objective'. Remember, scientific findings are always explained through science itself - not through some other independent means. That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers.
-
Well, you are getting close to nihilism, i.e. that all experiences are equal. This is clearly not correct. For example, you could cite alien abduction, and you could cite the theory of gravity. Which one would you find useful if you were on the space station and wanted to return to earth?
Well, I can think of somethoing beyond those two that I'd find useful if I wanted to get back to earth in a decent time period.
-
Well, I can think of somethoing beyond those two that I'd find useful if I wanted to get back to earth in a decent time period.
That doesn't answer the question. I would suggest that the theory of gravity would be crucial to getting back to earth in one piece, alien abduction would not be.
-
That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers.
Lock the thread Gordon, we have a winner!
-
Hope,
'Objective data' moderated through a single lens isn't automatically 'objective'. Remember, scientific findings are always explained through science itself - not through some other independent means. That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers.
Fantastic stupidity there Hoppity, just fantastic. So science is very little different from religion is it - tell me, if someone dear to you were to be diagnosed with cancer, would you send her to an oncologist for chemotherapy or to a Hopi Indian for some burning sage leaves?
Surely even you can at least dimly grasp the qualitative difference between "light travels at 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum" and, "dragons fly at 200 mph" can't you?
Can't you?
-
Scientific 'facts' were facts well before humans evolved (even though we might not have been present to recognise them as so) and they will remain so long after we are gone. That the earth moved around the sun every (give or take) 365 days was just as much fact millions of years ago, prior to humans evolving and if all humans suddenly vanished tomorrow that 'fact' would remain.
And it is another fact that the Christian Church denied this fact to the point of executing those who dared to state that it was not, as the Church demaded that everyone believe, the other way round!
-
'Objective data' moderated through a single lens isn't automatically 'objective'. Remember, scientific findings are always explained through science itself - not through some other independent means.
Science comes with a methodology that allows the gathering, classification and gathering of evidence, along with testable hypothesis and theories, and also a disciplined approach to making conclusions - it doesn't need any secondary 'independent means', although I'd be interested to know what you mean by this. In contrast religion has nothing that is even remotely comparable, which is why it is beyond reason and rationality.
That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers.
This again demonstrates, along with your deplorable statement on the CP/SSM thread, that you are both utterly clueless and hopelessly misguided.
-
Science comes with a methodology that allows the gathering, classification and gathering of evidence, along with testable hypothesis and theories, and also a disciplined approach to making conclusions - it doesn't need any secondary 'independent means', although I'd be interested to know what you mean by this.
Since he keeps wittering on about an "external" factor, I assume he means that we can't really ever know anything to be the case unless God says so ::)
-
Since he keeps wittering on about an "external" factor, I assume he means that we can't really ever know anything to be the case unless God says so ::)
So, if my Goddess tells me that Hope is a hopeless wanker, it must be true?
-
Owls,
So, if my Goddess tells me that Hope is a hopeless wanker, it must be true?
Apparently - that's as good as science he says!
-
One is based on human experience, the other is based on ... human experience.
One is based on observations of the real World, the other is based on people making things up. I grant that both of these are human experiences, but there is a fundamental difference.
-
Owls,
Apparently - that's as good as science he says!
So he is a hopelessly unscientific wanker?
-
Owls,
So he is a hopelessly unscientific wanker?
Well...
-
'Objective data' moderated through a single lens isn't automatically 'objective'.
The data is objective, because it's measured by equipment that is not subject to opinion. The interpretation - the information - is perhaps subjective, but that data itself is not.
Remember, scientific findings are always explained through science itself - not through some other independent means.
Tautologies demonstrate nothing - of course scientific findings are always explained through science, that's what makes them scientific findings. Otherwise they'd be meaningless. They are explained through a tested and refined methodology, something that religion lacks, which brings us on to...
That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers.
Utter, utter shite. As has been repeatedly and exhaustively explained, science does not rest on faith, but on trust. On the repeatedly validated and demonstrated principle that reality is consistent in its behaviour, and that having repeatedly observed that consistent behaviour and constructed a model based upon it, you can make predictions which can the be tested to further validate the model. This is science. This is a methodology.
Faith is claiming in the absence of phenomena, or in defiance of the phenomena. It's the polar opposite of science.
Scientism - Vlad's eternally misrepresented 'Philosophical Materialism' - could be a faith position, if the presumption initially is 'that which can be measured is all there is', but it could also be a provisional conclusion from the fact that science works, and continues to work, whereas no other philosophies have an accompanying and validating methodology.
O.
-
'Objective data' moderated through a single lens isn't automatically 'objective'. Remember, scientific findings are always explained through science itself - not through some other independent means. That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers.
You have stated that you were a teacher, Hope!
I truly hope (no pun intended) that you did not teach science - if you did - goddess help your students!
-
Scientism - Vlad's eternally misrepresented 'Philosophical Materialism' - could be a faith position, if the presumption initially is 'that which can be measured is all there is', but it could also be a provisional conclusion from the fact that science works, and continues to work, whereas no other philosophies have an accompanying and validating methodology.
So far you have failed to show how you get from science works to the conclusion that matter is all there is.
Science works is the conclusion.......but hey, so does Brobat shithouse cleaner.
-
Vlunderer,
So far you have failed to show how you get from science works to the conclusion that matter is all there is.
Science works is the conclusion.......but hey, so does Brobat shithouse cleaner.
Presumably because "the conclusion that matter is all there is" is just your straw man. Why would anyone want to "get" there when it's just a definition you've invented to prop up a spurious argument about "philosophical materialism" rather than something anyone actually claims?
-
Vlunderer,
Presumably because "the conclusion that matter is all there is" is just your straw man. Why would anyone want to "get" there when it's just a definition you've invented to prop up a spurious argument about "philosophical materialism" rather than something anyone actually claims?
you have failed to read what Outrider is proposing.
Science works and that's it. That does not support any further speculation.
Have a nice day and so glad you have dropped materialism.
-
Vlunderer,
you have failed to read what Outrider is proposing.
Science works and that's it. That does not support any further speculation.
Have a nice day and so glad you have dropped materialism.
It seems that I have and you haven't. Yes science works and that's all science claims to do. That's why materialism confines itself to the conclusion that the material is that which is reliably accessible and susceptible to a method of validation. The rest is all your invention to support a hopeless argument.
Glad you've seen the light now and become a materialist at last.
-
So far you have failed to show how you get from science works to the conclusion that matter is all there is.
I haven't gone from 'science works' to 'therefore that's all there is'. I've gone from 'science works' and validates the idea that material is therefore justified, coupled with you have no methodology to validate anything else to 'we'll work on material as if it were all there were until you can come up with something else'.
Science doesn't disprove the immaterial. Your lack of any reason to suppose the immaterial means that we can discount it and work with what we can demonstrate until you find a methodology.
Science works is the conclusion.......but hey, so does Brobat shithouse cleaner.
Tellingly, though, it does so because of chemistry, not prayer.
O.
-
I haven't gone from 'science works' to 'therefore that's all there is'. I've gone from 'science works' and validates the idea that material is therefore justified, coupled with you have no methodology to validate anything else to 'we'll work on material as if it were all there were until you can come up with something else'.
Science doesn't disprove the immaterial. Your lack of any reason to suppose the immaterial means that we can discount it and work with what we can demonstrate until you find a methodology.
Tellingly, though, it does so because of chemistry, not prayer.
O.
That's a chemistry given to us by the uncaused cause.
-
I truly hope (no pun intended) that you did not teach science - if you did - goddess help your students!
Why? I know of some extremely good RE teachers who are atheists. One of the best arguments for climate change I ever heard in a classroom was given by someone I know disagreed with the concept. You seem to think that teachers teach their own opinions - perhaps that is what your teachers did?
Incidentally, just to set your mind at rest, and as I've said on a number of occasions over the years, I originally qualified as an English teacher, studying RE and Drama as additional subjects at teaching college. About 10 years after I first qualified I added Teaching English as a Foreign Language to my portfolio. In the latter capacity, I have often been involved in teaching science in secondary schools - either as support teacher in mainstream classrooms, or on a one2one basis when I've been asked to extract a pupil and give them intensive support work following the syllabus that the class they should have been in were following (usually, this involved an intensive 2-4 week process whereby I would teach the student or a small group of them a limited number of subjects in order that they learned the vocab and language of those subjects and got somewhat closer to the level that the mainstream group were already at.)
-
Of course after all, it's not as if it was a 'real' marriage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35368067
-
One of the best arguments for climate change I ever heard in a classroom was given by someone I know disagreed with the concept. You seem to think that teachers teach their own opinions - perhaps that is what your teachers did?
In which case you are completely misunderstanding science (yet again).
Scientists do not base their scientific conclusions on their subjective opinions - they base them on objective scientific evidence. So a science teacher who says 'in my opinion climate change is true' or 'in my opinion climate change is false' is a poor teacher - they should be saying 'lets look at the objective scientific evidence and consider whether that evidence is consistent with their being climate change' - next if we conclude there is climate change (i.e. significant alterations in, for example, global temperature over the past 100 years) then lets look further at the objective scientific evidence to try to understand what might be causing that climate change.
By the way the worst approach is someone who selectively uses evidence merely as a tool to justify their own prejudged opinion.
-
In which case you are completely misunderstanding science (yet again).
The guy I referred to is a scientist who was speaking to a group pg Yera 11 students.
Scientists do not base their scientific conclusions on their subjective opinions - they base them on objective scientific evidence.
I'm glad that you agree with what i was saying in my post, PD. If you re-read the post concerned, you'll see that it was in response to a post from Matt who seemed to imply that he thought that teachers taught according to their personal opinions.
By the way the worst approach is someone who selectively uses evidence merely as a tool to justify their own prejudged opinion.
Couldn't agree more.
-
That's a chemistry given to us by the uncaused cause.
'Given'? That suggests a deliberate act, so I'd have to say no.
I'd say the chemisty that was an emergent property of the universe, and that the universe could be a part of an infinite reality which negates the concept of an initial cause.
O.
-
Hope,
ncidentally, just to set your mind at rest, and as I've said on a number of occasions over the years, I originally qualified as an English teacher, studying RE and Drama as additional subjects at teaching college. About 10 years after I first qualified I added Teaching English as a Foreign Language to my portfolio. In the latter capacity, I have often been involved in teaching science in secondary schools - either as support teacher in mainstream classrooms, or on a one2one basis when I've been asked to extract a pupil and give them intensive support work following the syllabus that the class they should have been in were following (usually, this involved an intensive 2-4 week process whereby I would teach the student or a small group of them a limited number of subjects in order that they learned the vocab and language of those subjects and got somewhat closer to the level that the mainstream group were already at.)
This from someone who (apparently with a straight facts) also said:
That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers.
That doesn't set my mind at rest at all - rather I find it genuinely disturbing that someone who thinks as you do was allowed to teach science at all, let alone to children. If it was up to me I'd have had you and that irresponsible idiocy out of the classroom so fast your plimsolls wouldn't have touched the lino.
-
Hope,
This from someone who (apparently with a straight facts) also said:
That doesn't set my mind at rest at all - rather I find it genuinely disturbing that someone who thinks as you do was allowed to teach science at all, let alone to children. If it was up to me I'd have had you and that irresponsible idiocy out of the classroom so fast your plimsolls wouldn't have touched the lino.
And therein lies the problem; a good teacher doesn't allow their personal opinions to interfere with their teaching - whatever that subject might be. As I said in my earlier post, one of the best RE teachers I've come across was an atheist.
It is why this place is rather different to a school.
Furthermore, teaching the concepts and vocabulary of a subject, as I was, tends not to involve opinion. I begin to think that some here can't tell a good teacher from a bad one.
-
Hope,
And therein lies the problem; a good teacher doesn't allow their personal opinions to interfere with their teaching - whatever that subject might be. As I said in my earlier post, one of the best RE teachers I've come across was an atheist.
It is why this place is rather different to a school.
Furthermore, teaching the concepts and vocabulary of a subject, as I was, tends not to involve opinion. I begin to think that some here can't tell a good teacher from a bad one.
If asked the question about science facts and religious facts a teacher replied, "That is why science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers" he'd be a bad teacher.
No ifs, no buts.
How would you have answered?
-
How would you have answered?
Have never been asked that queston before, even in debates like this, but I'd probably say that both are based on ideas and experiences that people have had, and ideas and experiences of boths sorts have been shown to be wrong at various times over history.
-
Have never been asked that queston before, even in debates like this, but I'd probably say that both are based on ideas and experiences that people have had, and ideas and experiences of boths sorts have been shown to be wrong at various times over history.
So the method for showing religious ideas to be wrong is?
-
So the method for showing religious ideas to be wrong is?
Whether they fit the original teaching of that faith, is one way. Another is to see whether those original teachings match anything within reality - and I and many others do. I'm not saying that scientific ideas don't - but we know that there are historical examples of sceintific ideas that have been shown to be wrong - without even having to do complex experiments. A flat earth, for instance.
-
Hope.
Have never been asked that queston before, even in debates like this, but I'd probably say that both are based on ideas and experiences that people have had, and ideas and experiences of boths sorts have been shown to be wrong at various times over history.
So you'd have been a bad teacher then.
Fair enough.
-
Whether they fit the original teaching of that faith, is one way.
This is an ill-concealed argument from antiquity, and gives rise to the question as to what is the methodology for determining whether the original teaching is true, since if the foundation is false, everything else piled upon it is undermined.
-
Hope.
So you'd have been a bad teacher then.
Fair enough.
A Teacher's life is one of inevitable sacrifice Hope therefore has that.
He will have moved the life of many on other wise he would not have survived in teaching....he has that too.
I understand you have a collection of motorcycles.
-
A Teacher's life is one of inevitable sacrifice Hope therefore has that.
He will have moved the life of many on other wise he would not have survived in teaching....he has that too.
Sentimental bollocks, as you would have said if an "anti-theist" had written it.
-
Sentimental bollocks, as you would have said if an "anti-theist" had written it.
As one of life's spectators...........how would you know?
-
Vlunderer,
A Teacher's life is one of inevitable sacrifice Hope therefore has that.
He will have moved the life of many on other wise he would not have survived in teaching....he has that too.
He may or may not have had those things. Depressingly, he may also though have produced pupils who actually believed that
"...science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers".
And that's a hideous thought.
-
Whether they fit the original teaching of that faith, is one way. Another is to see whether those original teachings match anything within reality - and I and many others do. I'm not saying that scientific ideas don't - but we know that there are historical examples of sceintific ideas that have been shown to be wrong - without even having to do complex experiments. A flat earth, for instance.
you have already declared reality to be opinion, it's not mediated through anything else other than human experience, same for the concept of original teaching. Your position on science means you have destroyed any validation as mere opinion.
-
Vlunderer,
He may or may not have had those things. Depressingly, he may also though have produced pupils who actually believed that
"...science is very little different from religion - it depends, as you like to accuse religion, on someone's faith in it as the source of all answers".
And that's a hideous thought.
It certainly is.
-
Hope.
So you'd have been a bad teacher then.
Fair enough.
Not really, unless by 'bad teacher' you mean someone who doesn't express personal opinions and doesn't claim more for something than it can support.
-
This is an ill-concealed argument from antiquity, and gives rise to the question as to what is the methodology for determining whether the original teaching is true, since if the foundation is false, everything else piled upon it is undermined.
No it isn't Shaker. It's equivalent exists in science whereby a discovery that i so far outside the norms that are understood by scientists, doubt is cast on it until such time as a repeat experiment concurs with the findings. Similarly, if the historical foundation of scientific understanding is flawed, so are many other things in the field of science.
-
No it isn't Shaker.
Yes it is.
It's equivalent exists in science whereby a discovery that i so far outside the norms that are understood by scientists, doubt is cast on it until such time as a repeat experiment concurs with the findings.
That's right - that's science for you; provisional results based on testable, shareable phenomena, repeatable experiments, a well thought out methodology demonstrated to work and empirical evidence. Where's the equivalent in religion?
-
That's right - that's science for you; provisional results based on testable, shareable phenomena, repeatable experiments, a well thought out methodology demonstrated to work and empirical evidence. Where's the equivalent in religion?
Of course, you then have scientists who look at the same evidence as others but come to different conclusions.
-
Of course, you then have scientists who look at the same evidence as others but come to different conclusions.
True. They're in a minority usually because they have a conflict of interests, a conflict between the scientific method and some other, prior ideological commitment - it could be a political one, as with Trofim Lysenko for example, or a religious one, as in the tiny number of accredited scientists who are creationists or evolution-deniers of some other stripe, who prostitute hard science because of their religious beliefs.
-
True. They're in a minority usually because they have a conflict of interests, a conflict between the scientific method and some other, prior ideological commitment - it could be a political one, as with Trofim Lysenko for example, or a religious one, as in the tiny number of accredited scientists who are creationists or evolution-deniers of some other stripe, who prostitute hard science because of their religious beliefs.
History has seen plenty of scientists who have held conflicting opinions based on very different reasons than those listed above. In some cases it has been to do with the fact that the new discovery has contradicted existing scientific knowledge, in other cases it has occurred because other, similar experiments have produced different results thus casting doubt on both sets of results. It happens, Shakes. Science isn't as simplistic as you seem to want everyone to understand.
-
History has seen plenty of scientists who have held conflicting opinions based on very different reasons than those listed above. In some cases it has been to do with the fact that the new discovery has contradicted existing scientific knowledge, in other cases it has occurred because other, similar experiments have produced different results thus casting doubt on both sets of results.
Which is a strength in the scientific method, where new evidence, underpinned by sound methodology, may contradict earlier assumptions and force their revision. Religion has nothing comparable, especially since it is dependent on fallacious arguments from tradition and authority, such as we often see played out in posts in this Forum.
It happens, Shakes. Science isn't as simplistic as you seem to want everyone to understand.
Who has said that that science is simplistic? So, apart from this being a straw man it seems like another attempt of yours to falsely portray science as being as vacuous as religious dogma.
-
Dear me,
It's that "ist" bit, atheist, religionist, scientist, teacherist ( what! ) the human bit.
Gonnagle.
-
Hope,
History has seen plenty of scientists who have held conflicting opinions based on very different reasons than those listed above.
If there have been such "scientists", then their opinions were not scientific ones.
In some cases it has been to do with the fact that the new discovery has contradicted existing scientific knowledge, in other cases it has occurred because other, similar experiments have produced different results thus casting doubt on both sets of results. It happens, Shakes. Science isn't as simplistic as you seem to want everyone to understand.
No-one says it is "simplistic", but we do say that science is a method as well as a collection of facts. If new findings contradict previous ones or similar experiments produce different results then the people involved can go back to the scientific method to figure out which has the model that best fits the available data. Of course new and different findings occur all the time - that's why people do science rather than pack up and go home on the basis that it's all sewn up already.
Now compare that with the "facts" of religion - no evidence, no logic, no method for verification, no anything except for opinions (and often certain and unchangeable opinions at that). And when two opinions conflict, as there's no method to arbitrate then the protagonists have schisms, and often go to war after that.
However much you want to go nuclear - "ok, I'm guessing but so are you" - to cover the poverty of support for religious "facts", you're still flat wrong to claim equivalence because science has a method to support it but religion does not. That is, they are fundamentally and qualitatively different things and not in any respect in the same epistemic category.
And if you failed to make that difference clear to your pupils, then you were a bad teacher.
-
Reminds me of that old saying, how would you know that you're wrong? Scientists establish that via observations, which don't match predictions. Obvious example: the idea of phlogiston (a fire-like element), became suspect when experiments demonstrated that some metals gained mass, when burned, whereas phlogiston theory predicts a loss. This led to the discovery of oxygen (Lavoisier).
-
Hi Wiggs,
Reminds me of that old saying, how would you know that you're wrong? Scientists establish that via observations, which don't match predictions. Obvious example: the idea of phlogiston (a fire-like element), became suspect when experiments demonstrated that some metals gained mass, when burned, whereas phlogiston theory predicts a loss. This led to the discovery of oxygen (Lavoisier).
Quite. How I wonder would Hope propose that conjectures like "soul" or "Satan" could be falsified?
-
Reminds me of that old saying, how would you know that you're wrong? Scientists establish that via observations, which don't match predictions. Obvious example: the idea of phlogiston (a fire-like element), became suspect when experiments demonstrated that some metals gained mass, when burned, whereas phlogiston theory predicts a loss. This led to the discovery of oxygen (Lavoisier).
Except the ideas of Feyerabend are trickling down slowly and have lit a glimmering synapse with Hope and ilk, and lacking any real grasp of quite how disastrous this is for all of their own ideas, they shout out ' Science is just opinion! Ha!' And then whimper as the relativism burns up objectivity, revelation and method and spits them out on a desert of nothing, no-one, and nowhimper.
-
Hi Wiggs,
Quite. How I wonder would Hope propose that conjectures like "soul" or "Satan" could be falsified?
I hardly think he cares ...
-
NS,
Except the ideas of Feyerabend are trickling down slowly and have lit a glimmering synapse with Hope and ilk, and lacking any real grasp of quite how disastrous this is for all of their own ideas, they shout out ' Science is just opinion! Ha!' And then whimper as the relativism burns up objectivity, revelation and method and spits them out on a desert of nothing, no-one, and nowhimper.
Nicely put. Hope, Vlad et al seem to be oblivious to the problem of threatening to launch a nuclear device when they live in the next village along. Even allowing for the stupidity of just ignoring the probabilistic epistemology of materialism, why on earth they'd think, "OK I'm guessing but so are you" helps them is beyond me.
-
Even allowing for the stupidity of just ignoring the probabilistic epistemology of materialism,
That's got to be worth a fair few points in a game of Scrabble. The words seem sound even though the combination is made up.
-
No. You're all a bunch of fucking knobs.
The people of the religion of the "God of Love" can find nothing better to do than accuse each other of not being the right sort of Christians. Why do you have so much hatred for each other?
The true Church had one high priest Jesus Christ. The true Church is born of Spirit and Truth.
It has no Country or denomination in reality...
John 4.
20.Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
True worship and knowing God is not about a place or a country and denomination.
Salvation is for all, first the Jew and then Gentile.
It is a church where the temple is now the body of the person and where God dwells with them.
Your sexuality and a person are not the church by denominations.
A believer and a child of God does as Christ did. He had no sexual relations outside marriage. He had no homosexual relationships because under the teachings of the Prophets men cannot marry each other the same for women.
In truth a believer does as Christ did not as man does.
You cannot have a sexual relationship outside marriage if a Christian and it might be the death hour when you realise but the Christian will walk away rather than hurt God. It is hard for anyone to understand that God wants us to love him and others.
Truth does not change.
-
Confessed to a child molester? No thanks.
Christians confess to one another the confessions is a thing made up by the Roman Catholic Church so they could nosey at what is going on in their parish. Whilst true believers confess their sins to one another they can simply confess to God and be forgiven.
So you see you without faith see it from a purely human prospective. In reality the priest/vicar are NO different to any other believer in Gods eyes. Because God is not a respector of persons. The priest or vicar has no higher standing with God than any other human. Taking holy orders is man made. There is no difference in the Spirit for believers...
-
Whilst true believers confess their sins to one another they can simply confess to God and be forgiven.
Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.
-
Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.
I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.
-
I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.
Well, that is a singularly juvenile belief, for which there is no evidence. When you do something to somebody else's detriment, that is the person you need to ask forgiveness from, since he/she is the prejudiced one.
-
I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.
I hope you're going to leave the Assertatron as you found it when you're done with it today.
-
I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.
And you can never establish that to be the case.
At least science provides evidence and answers, not mere unsubstantiated (and unhelpful) assertions.
And besides, how do you know it is your god that is 'the morality' and not any one of the thousands of other purported gods. It could just as easily be Thor, or Vishnu etc etc that defines morality according to your argument.
Of course the reality is that morality is a product of society, even if society choses to imply it is via one of the thousands of gods that societies over the centuries have created.
-
And you can never establish that to be the case.
At least science provides evidence and answers, not mere unsubstantiated (and unhelpful) assertions.
And besides, how do you know it is your god that is 'the morality' and not any one of the thousands of other purported gods. It could just as easily be Thor, or Vishnu etc etc that defines morality according to your argument.
Of course the reality is that morality is a product of society, even if society choses to imply it is via one of the thousands of gods that societies over the centuries have created.
The morality is the morality isn't it. if it is God then it is every bodies God since every person is touched by it.
If one of the little g gods falls short of the job spec then they are not a candidate are they?
Science is good at what it does. To extend it to be the thing which absolutely describe all of reality is more in the way of a commitment I would have thought.
-
The morality is the morality isn't it. if it is God then it is every bodies God since every person is touched by it.
If one of the little g gods falls short of the job spec then they are not a candidate are they?
There you go again with your unsubstantiated assumptions.
You are assuming that there must be one god, but that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely (or unlikely) that there are many gods. Further you are assuming that this 'one' god must be your 'one' god - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods might not be the one you think exists. Finally you make the last assumption that this god will have the morality you take to be true - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods may have a completely different morality (for example being perfectly happy with gay relationships) or indeed might consider morality to be nothing to do with them, but left to society.
Poor arguing, as ever.
-
There you go again with your unsubstantiated assumptions.
You are assuming that there must be one god, but that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely (or unlikely) that there are many gods. Further you are assuming that this 'one' god must be your 'one' god - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods might not be the one you think exists. Finally you make the last assumption that this god will have the morality you take to be true - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods may have a completely different morality (for example being perfectly happy with gay relationships) or indeed might consider morality to be nothing to do with them, but left to society.
Poor arguing, as ever.
When on here Davey. I never expect people to accept assumptions. In free debate...something you seem to have issues with...any idea should be able to be put. It is up to others to accept or reject.
So here is the idea.....science does not yield or even observe morality since it only observes behaviour and yet we still have the issue of morality. Since it is beyond natural explanations it is supernatural.
No moralities are completely different Davey.
In philosophy most assumptions are unsubstantiated in the sense you wish things to be substantiated.
in the true freethinkers book any ideas are to be received without silencing from the intellectually totalitarian I think you will agree.
-
Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.
And don't forget forgiving oneself. This concept of never ending sin doesn't do much for self-acceptance really.
-
When on here Davey. I never expect people to accept assumptions.
Then why do you continually make unsubstantiated assumptions and then base your (very poor) arguments around those assumptions - usually via a classic circular argument.
-
Then why do you continually make unsubstantiated assumptions and then base your (very poor) arguments around those assumptions - usually via a classic circular argument.
All you are getting from me is an idea based on the question of morality which has no apparent answer or explanation in science. That is substantiated because science merely observes behaviour and has nothing to say on morality.
All I put to you is an idea with grounds for it. End of.
-
With morality - behaviour which enables our species to co-operate and survive, whichever title you give it - we would have become extinct way, way back.
-
All you are getting from me is an idea based on the question of morality which has no apparent answer or explanation in science. That is substantiated because science merely observes behaviour and has nothing to say on morality.
All I put to you is an idea with grounds for it. End of.
I have said regularly and explicitly that morality is a construct of society, not a construct of science.
-
So here is the idea.....science does not yield or even observe morality since it only observes behaviour and yet we still have the issue of morality. Since it is beyond natural explanations it is supernatural.
No moralities are completely different Davey.
In philosophy most assumptions are unsubstantiated in the sense you wish things to be substantiated.
There you go again.
The unsubstantiated assumptions you are making aren't that morality isn't science - I'd fully agree - morality isn't a objective thing but a subjective thing based on society.
But you try to objectivise it - by firstly assuming it is supernatural - it isn't - it is a construct of society which is very much part of the natural world. You might as well claim that political opinion is 'supernatural' - you seem to fail to understand that human behaviours, opinions and views on morality and other issues are part of the natural world, not supernatural.
And secondly by trying to objectivise it on the basis that it is objectively what your (purported) god says it is. This is a totally unsubstantiated assumption and one that one one who believes in any deity can claim. And the argument is equally weak in every case.
-
The true Church had one high priest Jesus Christ. The true Church is born of Spirit and Truth.
It has no Country or denomination in reality...
John 4.
20.Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
True worship and knowing God is not about a place or a country and denomination.
Salvation is for all, first the Jew and then Gentile.
It is a church where the temple is now the body of the person and where God dwells with them.
Your sexuality and a person are not the church by denominations.
A believer and a child of God does as Christ did. He had no sexual relations outside marriage. He had no homosexual relationships because under the teachings of the Prophets men cannot marry each other the same for women.
In truth a believer does as Christ did not as man does.
You cannot have a sexual relationship outside marriage if a Christian and it might be the death hour when you realise but the Christian will walk away rather than hurt God. It is hard for anyone to understand that God wants us to love him and others.
Truth does not change.
Holy Jesus Fucking Christ - you're as bad as Ad_O!
Deluded!
-
Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.
They go to god - get forgiven and go out and do it again - go to god - ad infinitum!
-
The morality is the morality isn't it. if it is God then it is every bodies God since every person is touched by it.
If one of the little g gods falls short of the job spec then they are not a candidate are they?
Science is good at what it does. To extend it to be the thing which absolutely describe all of reality is more in the way of a commitment I would have thought.
And just who decides which gods have the small g and which the capital?
-
There you go again.
The unsubstantiated assumptions you are making aren't that morality isn't science - I'd fully agree - morality isn't a objective thing but a subjective thing based on society.
But you try to objectivise it - by firstly assuming it is supernatural - it isn't - it is a construct of society which is very much part of the natural world. You might as well claim that political opinion is 'supernatural' - you seem to fail to understand that human behaviours, opinions and views on morality and other issues are part of the natural world, not supernatural.
And secondly by trying to objectivise it on the basis that it is objectively what your (purported) god says it is. This is a totally unsubstantiated assumption and one that one one who believes in any deity can claim. And the argument is equally weak in every case.
If morality is a construct of society then a good scientist should have nothing to do with it.
-
And just who decides which gods have the small g and which the capital?
The Grammar Police of course..........and if you get arrested you could face Capital punishment.
-
The Grammar Police of course..........and if you get arrested you could face Capital punishment.
Too funny you! NOT!
-
If morality is a construct of society then a good scientist should have nothing to do with it.
Why - a good scientist is able to have opinions and view just the same as anyone else.
What a good scientist shouldn't do is to try to objective morality - rather to recognise that is is subjective and a construct of society.
And guess what, scientists are just as much part of that society as anyone else, theologians included, and have just as much right, and just as much authority to engage in the debate about the nature of that societally-driven and subjective morality.
-
Whether they fit the original teaching of that faith, is one way.
Well, that was what the 'Higher Criticism' was all about - it was bad enough trying to get decent translations of the collection of writings known as 'The Bible' (the Lower Criticism), but to actually get to the original source material was a matter of intensive scholarship, and not all the scholars have agreed. I don't suppose they ever will agree. However, the methodology of science proceeds with rather surer steps.
-
This is an ill-concealed argument from antiquity, and gives rise to the question as to what is the methodology for determining whether the original teaching is true, since if the foundation is false, everything else piled upon it is undermined.
And that ultimately does indeed epitomise the difference between religion and science. Even if there were some sure-fast method to determine "What Jesus really said", ultimately his starting point was one of faith.
-
The morality is the morality isn't it. if it is God then it is every bodies God since every person is touched by it.
And that morality (or rather 'moralities') is mediated by words, and the words differ - depending on which religion you subscribe to, and in the case of Christianity, which parts of the Bible you read and how you interpret them, and how much trust you put in the interpretations of the Church Fathers.
If you're arguing that God touches us through our conscience, and this in turn is a source of absolute morality, well, I offer you the Yorkshire Ripper.
-
Dear Me,
The Grammar Police of course..........and if you get arrested you could face Capital punishment.
Come on, that's funny ;D ;D
Very Tim Vine.
Q: What do you call a blond with a brain? A: A golden retriever.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonnagle
Q - What do you call a brunette betwen two blonds?
A - An interpreter
-
Matty,
You are using my "too funny you"
Big hug for you buddy. Now have a cookie!
Oh, and what's with the blonde jokes?
http://theinvisiblegorilla.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/image001.jpg
-
Matty,
You are using my "too funny you"
Big hug for you buddy. Now have a cookie!
Oh, and what's with the blonde jokes?
http://theinvisiblegorilla.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/image001.jpg
You complain on another thread that Shaker posts to have a go at Hope - all you ever post for is to have a go at me. POT KETTLE BLACK
-
Not true, only when you are being silly, hypocritical, or not thinking before you post. Unfortunately that's a good portion of the time, but that's your problem. You will not go unchallenged around here Matty, now grab a spine.
-
Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.
Sin for Christians is not really about wronging others.?????
You can sin without it being against another person????
-
I guess what the atheists do not want to acknowledge is the fact that they too believe mistreating someone is wrong.
But they ignore that fact when it comes to God being mistreated or wronged.
The bible tells us we all need Christ... but no one really listens...
When it is too late who will save you?
-
Sin for Christians is not really about wronging others.?????
No? Then it should be if your "God" is a god of love.
You can sin without it being against another person????
Indeed! Actions which damage the environment are also wrong, and should be restricted to the absolutely necessary.
-
But they ignore that fact when it comes to God being mistreated or wronged.
Missing the point about atheists.
We can't consider it wrong to mistreat a non-existent deity.
You do see that?
-
The true Church had one high priest Jesus Christ. The true Church is born of Spirit and Truth.
It has no Country or denomination in reality...
John 4.
20.Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
True worship and knowing God is not about a place or a country and denomination.
Salvation is for all, first the Jew and then Gentile.
It is a church where the temple is now the body of the person and where God dwells with them.
Your sexuality and a person are not the church by denominations.
A believer and a child of God does as Christ did. He had no sexual relations outside marriage. He had no homosexual relationships because under the teachings of the Prophets men cannot marry each other the same for women.
In truth a believer does as Christ did not as man does.
You cannot have a sexual relationship outside marriage if a Christian and it might be the death hour when you realise but the Christian will walk away rather than hurt God. It is hard for anyone to understand that God wants us to love him and others.
Truth does not change.
About twenty assertions in this one Sass.
ippy
-
Christians confess to one another the confessions is a thing made up by the Roman Catholic Church so they could nosey at what is going on in their parish. Whilst true believers confess their sins to one another they can simply confess to God and be forgiven.
So you see you without faith see it from a purely human prospective. In reality the priest/vicar are NO different to any other believer in Gods eyes. Because God is not a respector of persons. The priest or vicar has no higher standing with God than any other human. Taking holy orders is man made. There is no difference in the Spirit for believers...
Bit better than the last one Sass only 5 in this one
ippy
-
Dear Me,
Come on, that's funny ;D ;D
Very Tim Vine.
Gonnagle.
Two blonds walked into a building, you'd have thought one of them would have seen it?
ippy
-
Sin for Christians is not really about wronging others.?????
You can sin without it being against another person????
2
ippy
-
I guess what the atheists do not want to acknowledge is the fact that they too believe mistreating someone is wrong.
But they ignore that fact when it comes to God being mistreated or wronged.
The bible tells us we all need Christ... but no one really listens...
When it is too late who will save you?
5
ippy
-
Sin for Christians is not really about wronging others.?????
You can sin without it being against another person????
2
ippy
-
2
ippy
What's with the numbers ? Ippy ???
Is it marks out of 5 ? 10?
-
What's with the numbers ? Ippy ???
Is it marks out of 5 ? 10?
The number of Sassy assumptions/assertions in the post so marked?
-
We can't consider it wrong to mistreat a non-existent deity.
Can one mistreat a non-existent entity? If you can't consider it wrong to do so, that entity must exist!!
-
Can one mistreat a non-existent entity? If you can't consider it wrong to do so, that entity must exist!!
Your post is like a Little Jack Horner post when you are shouting out 'Look, I've got a plum on my thumb!' And people are muttering 'Poor boy, thinks shite is fruit'
-
Your post is like a Little Jack Horner post when you are shouting out 'Look, I've got a plum on my thumb!' And people are muttering 'Poor boy, thinks shite is fruit'
I was just surprisd that one could even 'consider' doing anything to a non-existent entity. After all, to do some thing to something else involves a 'something else' existing.
-
I was just surprisd that one could even 'consider' doing anything to a non-existent entity. After all, to do some thing to something else involves a 'something else' existing.
Which is why Trent said we couldn't consider it wrong - because it was not a consideration. And there was Little Hope Horner in his corner about to chow on the plum that was shite.
-
Can one mistreat a non-existent entity? If you can't consider it wrong to do so, that entity must exist!!
I think that it is a case of mistreating those who chose to follow the dictates of a non-existent entity - an entity that demands utter loyalty or utter destruction.
-
Which is why Trent said we couldn't consider it wrong - because it was not a consideration.
In which case why the involvement of 'wrong', NS? If its not a consideration, there is no right or wrong associated with the concept. You seem to have tried to be too clever for your own good.
-
In which case why the involvement of 'wrong', NS? If its not a consideration, there is no right or wrong associated with the concept. You seem to have tried to be too clever for your own good.
It is wrong to make the effort to consider it because it isn't a consideration. Not trying to be clever, that was you. Just understanding English as she is spoke.
-
In which case why the involvement of 'wrong', NS? If its not a consideration, there is no right or wrong associated with the concept. You seem to have tried to be too clever for your own good.
A trait that you, Hope, have demonstrated on more occasions than I can count and will, without a shadow of doubt, contiunue to do ad absurdam, ad nauseam.
-
I mentioned the "wrongness" issue because Sassy raised it.
I was, as NS has pointed out, saying that I can't consider it wrong because I consider the deity non-existent.
I don't quite know why this was even an issue for you Hope.
-
I don't quite know why this was even an issue for you Hope.
Just couldn't quite undersdtand the logic behind the comment, as so much of what you said required an object to make sense, an object that you don't even regard as an object.
-
Just couldn't quite undersdtand the logic behind the comment, as so much of what you said required an object to make sense, an object that you don't even regard as an object.
Are you trying to convince us that you are a really good English teacher or something?
You may well be - but you are not so good at being a conversationalist.
My meaning was perfectly clear - I have to ask myself why you feel it necessary to pick up on my fairly standard use of English - yet you leave the mangled wreckage of that same language that is Sassy's posting quite untouched.
It's almost like you have an agenda.
-
It's almost like you have an agenda.
"Almost", "like" , "it's".
3 unnecessary words there? :-\
-
Just couldn't quite undersdtand the logic behind the comment, as so much of what you said required an object to make sense, an object that you don't even regard as an object.
So if someone said ''it is wrong to spend time talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it doesn't exist' that would mean they thought it did? No, of course not, and that you are maintaining this use of language that you wouldn't in other cases, is because you thought to yourself as you read trent's post 'Oh, I can make a really clever remark here, and hug my knees with excitememt', not noticing that it was based on your own bias that lead you to a misreafing
Now that it has been pointed out, you could graciously admit you were wrong but no, you want to keep digging, and are now committed to lying about English usage, making you look like the boy who knew his plum was shite, but has to eat it all up, going 'Yum, Yum, Yum'.
-
So if someone said ''it is wrong to spend time talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it doesn't exist' that would mean they thought it did? No, of course not, and that you are maintaining this use of language that you wouldn't in other cases, is because you thought to yourself as you read trent's post 'Oh, I can make a really clever remark here, and hug my knees with excitememt', not noticing that it was based on your own bias that lead you to a misreafing
MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English. I will do the same here.
-
MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English. I will do the same here.
Whoops.
-
It's almost like you have an agenda.
Like Seb comments in a subsequent post, there are 3 unnecessary words in this sentence, and a 4th that could be read as 'we' rather than 'you'. Your agenda is to emphasise the fact that you regard the concept of deity as either non-existant or obsolete; mine is to refute that emphasis.
-
Your agenda is to emphasise the fact that you regard the concept of deity as either non-existant or obsolete; mine is to refute that emphasis.
Best of luck with that.
(Of course you meant rebut rather than refute, but even there it doesn't make much sense - but we'll have to let one pass as the wrongness is piling up alarmingly already).
-
MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English. I will do the same here.
Except given the meaning is perfectly clear, it isn't clumsy English. Indeed it needs to be read clumsily to put the construction you put on it.
-
Like Seb comments in a subsequent post, there are 3 unnecessary words in this sentence, and a 4th that could be read as 'we' rather than 'you'. Your agenda is to emphasise the fact that you regard the concept of deity as either non-existant or obsolete; mine is to refute that emphasis.
Good to see you admit your bias in reading that lead you to misrepresent trent's sentence. BTW you have done it again with the first sentence in the above post.
-
Good to see you admit your bias in reading that lead you to misrepresent trent's sentence. BTW you have done it again with the first sentence in the above post.
I'd be worried if people here didn't have an agenda to their argumentation, NS; it would mean that that argumentation was pointless.
-
I'd be worried if people here didn't have an agenda to their argumentation, NS; it would mean that that argumentation was pointless.
And when it affects how they interpret normal English, as it did with you in this case, it can be pointed out.
You have a habit of trying to do 'a-ha' posts which rely on taking a specific more obscure reading of a post rather than the obvious one. It does your 'argumentation' no favours.
-
MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English. I will do the same here.
So why do you not do it with Sass's numerous clumsy posts.
That would be nothing to do with not wishing to discredit other Christians would it? ::)
-
So why do you not do it with Sass's numerous clumsy posts.
That would be nothing to do with not wishing to discredit other Christians would it? ::)
Of course it is! Birds of a feather flock together ... and there is honour even among thieves.
-
So why do you not do it with Sass's numerous clumsy posts.
That would be nothing to do with not wishing to discredit other Christians would it? ::)
It would take up more time than it's worth to correct Sassenglish.
-
No? Then it should be if your "God" is a god of love.
If you got it, then you would understand... Christians DON'T wrong others because they love their neighbour.
I think it is amusing you say you were once a Christian yet don't understand the basic and most important teaching of Christianity...
Indeed! Actions which damage the environment are also wrong, and should be restricted to the absolutely necessary.
Again, you lack in the Christian teachings of truth. :(
-
If you got it, then you would understand... Christians DON'T wrong others because they love their neighbour.
I think it is amusing you say you were once a Christian yet don't understand the basic and most important teaching of Christianity...
Again, you lack in the Christian teachings of truth. :(
Sass you are so hypocritical, most of your posts are not only total garbage, they are hardly full of loving kindness either! :o
-
If you got it, then you would understand... Christians DON'T wrong others because they love their neighbour.
I think it is amusing you say you were once a Christian yet don't understand the basic and most important teaching of Christianity...
Again, you lack in the Christian teachings of truth. :(
I should have learned by now that posting to you is a complete waste of time, Sass! But there's no fool like and old fool. :(
-
And when it affects how they interpret normal English, as it did with you in this case, it can be pointed out.
You have a habit of trying to do 'a-ha' posts which rely on taking a specific more obscure reading of a post rather than the obvious one. It does your 'argumentation' no favours.
N S he's a bit of a specialist in and particularly likes quoting out of context as well, you may have noticed?
ippy
-
N S he's a bit of a specialist in and particularly likes quoting out of context as well, you may have noticed?
ippy
So posts the expert ;)