Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Shaker on January 30, 2016, 02:03:52 PM
-
Not that support counts for much since it's a fait accompli, but for the first time more Anglicans are in favour of equal marriage than against it:
Of more than 1,500 Anglicans polled, 45% said same-sex marriage was right while 37% thought it was wrong.
The Yougov poll also indicates a large increase in support of same-sex marriage over the past three years.
The Church of England's official stance is that marriage can be only between a man and a woman.
Three years ago, a similar YouGov poll found 38% of Anglicans in support and 47% believing same-sex marriage to be wrong.
In the latest poll, support was highest among younger Anglicans, with at least half of those aged under 55 believing it was right and 72% of those aged 25-34 also in favour.
The lowest support rate was found in Anglican men aged over 55, with 24% backing same-sex marriage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447150
-
IME most lay Anglicans are a pretty tolerant bunch - the kinds of things they get hot under the collar about is swapping pews for chairs and changing the order of service. In the past many priests blessed same sex relationships and the anti-gay stance is more recent as a sop to the conservative south.
The problem is that those who do feel strongly on all sides are those who pack out the Deanery, Diocesan and General Synods. It only leads to division and conflict and isn't particularly effective at conveying the attitudes of most of those in the church membership.
-
IME most lay Anglicans are a pretty tolerant bunch - the kinds of things they get hot under the collar about is swapping pews for chairs and changing the order of service. In the past many priests blessed same sex relationships and the anti-gay stance is more recent as a sop to the conservative south.
The problem is that those who do feel strongly on all sides are those who pack out the Deanery, Diocesan and General Synods. It only leads to division and conflict and isn't particularly effective at conveying the attitudes of most of those in the church membership.
A bit on the news I caught briefly this morning said that as with society across the board, the greatest opposition comes from late middle-aged to elderly men - in other words, the very section of society predominantly leading the church.
The phrase 'cohort replacement' springs immediately to mind, of course.
-
At the senior clergy level, certainly.
-
Not that support counts for much since it's a fait accompli, but for the first time more Anglicans are in favour of equal marriage than against it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447150
I would have thought that it is more a case of those who oppose it have left the church.
-
I would have thought that it is more a case of those who oppose it have left the church.
No. Figures show that liberals are those leaving the church in the greatest numbers.
-
No. Figures show that liberals are those leaving the church in the greatest numbers.
Are they going anywhere in particular, or nowhere in particular?
-
Are they going anywhere in particular, or nowhere in particular?
I didn't see them at the antitheist shrine to Dawkins at Waterstones......
-
So what Shaker? I betcha most Catholics in the UK think it's just fine to kill preborn babies.
For twenty years I thought it was just fine to be a party animal, and doing all that that entails. My parents were against that, our church was against that and scripture is against that. I got it, eventually and came home.
-
Are they going anywhere in particular, or nowhere in particular?
As far as I'm aware most stop going altogether. There really aren't that many other options for those with a liberal outlook who still have a sacramental approach to worship.
-
So what Shaker? I betcha most Catholics in the UK think it's just fine to kill preborn babies.
I doubt if anybody thinks it's fine to kill babies of any sort.
I do know that most American Catholics support abortion rights and that's in a nation seriously deranged about abortion, so while I don't know of any facts and figures, I'd imagine that support for a woman's control over her own fertility is even higher in this country, as we tend to be a great deal more civilised, sophisticated and tolerant.
-
Moderator
Hello Everybody
We are not discussing abortion here. Thank you.
-
Moderator
Hello Everybody
We are not discussing abortion here. Thank you.
Indeed we were and are not - tell canoe, who drags it into every other discussion ::)
-
Back on topic: this shows up the recent shameful decision to sideline the Episcopalian church in an even poorer light than before, surely.
-
Back on topic: this shows up the recent shameful decision to sideline the Episcopalian church in an even poorer light than before, surely.
It does. The thing that works in the CofE's favour is that people keep going for personal
spiritual reasons rather than because they agree with the church's teachings.
-
IME most lay Anglicans are a pretty tolerant bunch - the kinds of things they get hot under the collar about is swapping pews for chairs and changing the order of service. In the past many priests blessed same sex relationships and the anti-gay stance is more recent as a sop to the conservative south.
I suspect that there are more gay-friendly CoE parishes in the south of England than in the north. In fact, I suspect that that applies to most denominations.
The problem is that those who do feel strongly on all sides are those who pack out the Deanery, Diocesan and General Synods. It only leads to division and conflict and isn't particularly effective at conveying the attitudes of most of those in the church membership.
Unfortunately, 'public' opinion doesn't necessarily inform doctrine. Take the issue of the resurrection: David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham back in 1984, was a firm believer that the resurrection was a theological concept rather than a historical event. There are many others, both lay and ordained, who believe that, but that isn't going to change the doctrine of the Church on the matter.
-
Back on topic: this shows up the recent shameful decision to sideline the Episcopalian church in an even poorer light than before, surely.
Why? Just because the members of an organisation believe something that goes against the principles of that organisation, does it mean that the organisation has to change to suit its members?
-
Why? Just because the members of an organisation believe something that goes against the principles of that organisation, does it mean that the organisation has to change to suit its members?
It did on women priests. And remarrying divorcees. And endorsing abortion in certain circumstances.
-
Why? Just because the members of an organisation believe something that goes against the principles of that organisation, does it mean that the organisation has to change to suit its members?
If it has any interest at all in holding onto them as members, yes.
As HWB rightly reminded us above we're not discussing abortion here, but this is another example of the situation that pertains to both abortion and contraception in Catholicism - most Catholics use some form of artificial birth control, and certainly in the USA, most Catholic women support abortion rights. This means that a majority of members of an organisation or a club (for want of a better word) choose to stay in that club despite strongly disagreeing with some of that club's rules. Same principle at work here; a majority of Anglicans support a form of marriage that their club disagrees with (and tried to prevent even for non-members, as is always the way).
When you have a large proportion of a membership in such stark disagreement with the rules of the club, there are several options. (1) is that they can leave and go nowhere else - Rhiannon has already mentioned this; (2) is that they can leave and join another club whose rules they like better, such as the exodus of disaffected types who converted to Catholicism when the C of E started to ordain women priests back in 1994; (3) is to stay and to try to change the rules of the club from the inside, which always has the potential for (4) the sort of splinter groups and breakaway sects and denominations that religions love which claim to follow the same rules and claim to have the same beliefs but actually don't.
The article doesn't make it clear whether the Anglicans surveyed support equal marriage in its civil form - nice of them for sure but neither here nor there as it's a reality and will remain so - or whether their support entails that they want to see same-sex marriages performed in their church. You'd need a more detailed poll for that.
-
The issue of abortion is relevant here because support from the CofE was important in order to get the abortion laws passed. The Synod voted to support abortion for victims of rape and incest; where the child will suffer because of health problems; where the child will die; or where the health or life of the mother is at risk. Although the CofE never envisaged this leading to abortion opening up for all women, it doesn't ask about or exclude women who have had terminations.
It can change its position on marriage equality too.
-
This to me is proof of the fact that the church generally follows what the cultural trends are. Less than a hundred years ago this would have been a real no-no for the church and yet now it is becoming the norm. What else in the distant passed has gone through a similar process and is now seen as upright Christian views. This is one of the reasons why I say that Christians can't really know what Christianity is as it has gone through so many cultural and conceptual revaluations through the ages that it is impossible to know what the original lot really thought.
-
Yes and no. You could argue that elements of the CofE were once more openly gay-friendly than they are allowed to be now, and st a time when that didn't reflect the views of society as a whole. The CofE used to be good at accommodating a wide range of perspectives in a way that it doesn't any more.
-
I suspect that there are more gay-friendly CoE parishes in the south of England than in the north. In fact, I suspect that that applies to most denominations.
I don't have much knowledge of the North of England, but certainly in the early to mid-nineties in Scotland I found it far more accommodating to gay people than the South coast where my parents lived - but then I was spending most of my time with other students in Glasgow and Edinburgh, so perhaps not representative.
Not saying for a moment that you're wrong, Hope, but what do you think might be the cause of that? Is it a working-class hangover sort of deal?
Unfortunately, 'public' opinion doesn't necessarily inform doctrine.
Even more unfortunately, neither does any sense of rational ethics or understanding of human psychology.
Take the issue of the resurrection: David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham back in 1984, was a firm believer that the resurrection was a theological concept rather than a historical event. There are many others, both lay and ordained, who believe that, but that isn't going to change the doctrine of the Church on the matter.
Nor is it apparently influenced by logic or reason...
O.
-
There was a Vicar on Five Live last night who kept saying that Jesus could not have made it more clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. No atheist on hand to pull him up on the fact that no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists. Also he sounded like a most intolerant, inflexible and humourless man.
-
There was a Vicar on Five Live last night who kept saying that Jesus could not have made it more clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. No atheist on hand to pull him up on the fact that no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists. Also he sounded like a most intolerant, inflexible and humourless man.
The written record they follow is the New Testament.
So to them, it is the written down record, of the words of Jesus.
However Jesus was never asked about, or commented on, homosexuality or same sex marriage.
So we can only assume what he thought, but we can never be sure.
Given that Jesus didn't always seem to agree with some of the interpretations of the
Jewish writings we can't be sure how he would have seen other individual bits.
-
However Jesus was never asked about, or commented on, homosexuality or same sex marriage.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
Because none of it was considered important enough to be written down.
So, as far as we know he didn't comment on it.
-
It did on women priests. And remarrying divorcees. And endorsing abortion in certain circumstances.
No, it didn't change its mind on the first two 'becase of its members', Rhi. It changed its mind as a result of a willingness to read the Biblical basis of the faith. It probably also reflected scholarship that - in the first example - pointed out that women had been involved in church leadership from the get-go, something that seems to have come to an end at about the same time as the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion, though it seems to have been becoming less common for some time prior to that.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1988/issue17/1706.html
Since abortion isn't dealt with in the New Testament and barely in the Old Testament there is less teaching to go on and therefore more interpretation of more general passages is needed. For me, my opposition to the current legislation is that there is no necessity for partners to discuss the issue with women being able to make their own decision alone. Clearly, there are many occasions when there is no 'partner', for whatever reason that might be. It is in these situations where the ethical concerns really cut in, as one needs to take into account the consensuality of the intercourse. Clearly in the case of rape, there is no argument that a woman ought to be able to abort the foetus (and I take my hat off to those who choose not to); in the case of consensual intercourse where the couple involved should know the potential consequences, I find the ability of both a man and a woman to disregard their respective burdens of responsibility to be a serious black mark against our society.
-
Because none of it was considered important enough to be written down.
So, as far as we know he didn't comment on it.
Ah! The argument from silence or something similar to it. However, Christ never was silent on the issue because he has spoken through the Church via the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.
-
Ah! The argument from silence or something similar to it. However, Christ never was silent on the issue because he has spoken through the Church via the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.
And I have a bridge that you might be interested in.
-
Ah! The argument from silence or something similar to it. However, Christ never was silent on the issue because he has spoken through the Church via the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.
Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.
IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.
There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.
-
There was a Vicar on Five Live last night who kept saying that Jesus could not have made it more clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. No atheist on hand to pull him up on the fact that no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists. Also he sounded like a most intolerant, inflexible and humourless man.
Susan, what evidence do you have for asserting that "no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists"? After all, the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't. If, by 'direct' you mean that there is no extant copy of material written in Jesus' own hand, you would probably have to discount just about every document dated before about 1200 on this argument. For instance, the earliest extant copy of Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallico' dates to the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia - several centuries later than the earliest extant copies of any of the New Testament documents. Furthermore, many of the Greek and Roman 'teachers', such as Socrates, probably didn't write stuff down themselves either, dictating their material to disciples or having it recorded 'after the event' by those same disciples.
-
Susan, what evidence do you have for asserting that "no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists"? After all, the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't.
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!
-
No, it didn't change its mind on the first two 'becase of its members', Rhi. It changed its mind as a result of a willingness to read the Biblical basis of the faith. It probably also reflected scholarship that - in the first example - pointed out that women had been involved in church leadership from the get-go, something that seems to have come to an end at about the same time as the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion, though it seems to have been becoming less common for some time prior to that.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1988/issue17/1706.html
Since abortion isn't dealt with in the New Testament and barely in the Old Testament there is less teaching to go on and therefore more interpretation of more general passages is needed. For me, my opposition to the current legislation is that there is no necessity for partners to discuss the issue with women being able to make their own decision alone. Clearly, there are many occasions when there is no 'partner', for whatever reason that might be. It is in these situations where the ethical concerns really cut in, as one needs to take into account the consensuality of the intercourse. Clearly in the case of rape, there is no argument that a woman ought to be able to abort the foetus (and I take my hat off to those who choose not to); in the case of consensual intercourse where the couple involved should know the potential consequences, I find the ability of both a man and a woman to disregard their respective burdens of responsibility to be a serious black mark against our society.
I'm sorry, Hope, but this is disingenuous on your part.
When the Church visited and eventually revised its positions on both female clergy and remarriage of divorcees, it did so because its membership demanded it. Yes, women priests can be justified through Biblical scholarship but so can the prohibition on them. Remarriage of divorcees is even more clear cut in terms of Biblical teaching. But as its membership realised that women would make pretty good priests and remarrying divorcees was actually a humane thing to do, so its position shifted.
This isn't a discussion about abortion so there isn't much there that is relevant, but nevertheless the CofE was opposed to it and revised its position. If it hadn't it's likely we would have had to wait far longer for legal abortion to become available.
-
Susan, what evidence do you have for asserting that "no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists"? After all, the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't. If, by 'direct' you mean that there is no extant copy of material written in Jesus' own hand, you would probably have to discount just about every document dated before about 1200 on this argument. For instance, the earliest extant copy of Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallico' dates to the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia - several centuries later than the earliest extant copies of any of the New Testament documents. Furthermore, many of the Greek and Roman 'teachers', such as Socrates, probably didn't write stuff down themselves either, dictating their material to disciples or having it recorded 'after the event' by those same disciples.
It's that l'il ol' negative proof fallacy again, isn't it? :)
May I remind you that Socrates is not credited with (a) being a god/supernatural/etc, and (b) starting a religion with or without a god?
-
It's that l'il ol' negative proof fallacy again, isn't it? :)
Well, fancy that ;D
-
Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.
The problem is with the English language, Rose. For us, 'church' can mean a single congregation or a large organisation.
On the other hand, Greek used two words - 'ekklesia' and 'kuriakos'. Interestingly, in secular usage, 'ekklesia' was used to refer to civic authorities and assemblies (Acts 19 has it used in 3 different verses, to refer to the assembly of craftsmen (v.31/41) and a civil court or council (v.39)
In other words, it means the gathering of people (in our case, followers of Jesus) in a single location. The early translators, for whatever reason, chose not to differentiate between the umbrella term, kuriakos, and the locational term.
IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.
Do you have eny evidence to back up that assertion?
There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.
Realistically, there is. It will depend on whether what this or that 'ekklesia' is teaching actually reflects what Jesus taught.
-
Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.
IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.
There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.
Here's what the Unitarians stand for.
https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/what-we-stand
-
It's that l'il ol' negative proof fallacy again, isn't it? :)
No, its simply asking for evidence in support of an assertion. I realise that you and Shaker like to use the claim, because it - in your minds - exempts you from having to actually answer the question.
May I remind you that Socrates is not credited with (a) being a god/supernatural/etc, and (b) starting a religion with or without a god?
And of what relevance is that to the debate? Are you saying that when you refer to 'direct' you aren't referring to material written in Jesus' own hand? Dictation was something that was quite common in those days, and in these days of computers and printed documents, we are probably getting close to the same issue, as we seldom have any public evidence as to who has written a political speech, or even a scientific treatise. After all, it is very easy to put someone else's name on a document if it will give it more clout, or put your own name on a document that has largely been researched and/or developed by an intern or student.
-
Dictation was something that was quite common in those days, and in these days of computers and printed documents, we are probably getting close to the same issue, as we seldom have any public evidence as to who has written a political speech, or even a scientific treatise. After all, it is very easy to put someone else's name on a document if it will give it more clout, or put your own name on a document that has largely been researched and/or developed by an intern or student.
I don't quite know why you are trying to undermine your own argument.
-
No, its simply asking for evidence in support of an assertion. I realise that you and Shaker like to use the claim, because it - in your minds - exempts you from having to actually answer the question.
No, the assertion is that the New Testament is in some way a reliable account of actual events. Until and unless you and yours have provided sufficient evidence to support that (hint: you haven't done that yet) it can be dismissed as merely an assertion.
O.
-
No, its simply asking for evidence in support of an assertion. I realise that you and Shaker like to use the claim, because it - in your minds - exempts you from having to actually answer the question.
Try not to show yourself up to be an even bigger clown than you already are. In #31 you wrote:
... the Gospels purport to be a written record, and no-one has yet provided any evidence to show that they aren't.
and that is an absolutely textbook example of the negative proof fallacy. You could scarcely construct a clearer or more obvious example of it than that. Either you are still unaware of this even now, having been told more times than I can remember by several different posters, or seemingly like Alan Burns you simply don't give a shit. It's either some sort of mental blockage you have which means you're unable to process being corrected on this failure of reasoning on your part, or it's sheer apathy. Perhaps it's a bruised ego at your reasoning capabilities being shown up so often as defective, or you're just not bothered about presenting a coherent argument. Either way, it's the negative proof fallacy. It was the negative proof fallacy the first time you used it, it has been the negative proof fallacy every one of the uncountable times you've used it ever since and it'll remain the negative proof fallacy every time you use it in future, as you will for either one of the two potential reasons just outlined. Your bleating and whining can't and won't change that.
-
Which church? There are thousands of them, they all say something different and all claim to be led by Jesus.
IMO they make it up to suit themselves, they imagine what he might have said.
There is no reason I should believe your church more than any other, that makes such claims.
It's quite easy once you know how and where to look. For a start you can discard Protestantism and all its various offshoots, including the one founded by a drunken German monk and the other founded by a randy English king, for they were not there from the beginning.
-
It's quite easy once you know how and where to look.
It doesn't seem to be that easy considering that some people skip from one to another and then another more often than they change their socks. And of course, every one of them is the one true church and the absolute truth.
Until the next one.
-
I'm sorry, Hope, but this is disingenuous on your part.
When the Church visited and eventually revised its positions on both female clergy and remarriage of divorcees, it did so because its membership demanded it.
Rhi, my father and many other Anglican clergy were arguing for women's ordination long before the people in the pews began to push for it; ironically, just about every vote on it over the years was lost on account of the House of Laity's failure to support it. One only has to look at the votes cast in the debate in 2012(?) where the Houses of Bishops and Clergy supported the motion and the House of Laity voted against it by, iirc, 3 votes.
Yes, women priests can be justified through Biblical scholarship but so can the prohibition on them.
There is nothing specific in the New Testament to support prohibition. True, there is Paul's personal opinion that women oughtn't to be in leadership in a couple of specific places - remember that all his material was written to specific congregations and their specific contexts, and only later were they passed around to other congregations who would probably not have had exactly the same contextual issues. That is why Pauline teaching has to be read in the light of Jesus' teaching and not the other way round.
Remarriage of divorcees is even more clear cut in terms of Biblical teaching. But as its membership realised that women would make pretty good priests and remarrying divorcees was actually a humane thing to do, so its position shifted.
Again, the issue of remarriage of divrcees was an issue of debate within the hierarchy of the church long before it became an issue with the laity. As I noted before, the change in both these topics came to the fore as a result of scholarly study long before they became common discussion points amongst the laity.
This isn't a discussion about abortion so there isn't much there that is relevant, but nevertheless the CofE was opposed to it and revised its position. If it hadn't it's likely we would have had to wait far longer for legal abortion to become available.
Without trying to extend the debate, I remember my father - in a debate he initiated after a Sunday lunch (something he did on a regular basis when I was a child and then a teenager) - pointed out that the problem the Church hierarchy seemed to have was that the legislation originally failed to discriminate between 'no-responsibility' pregnancy (on the woman's part) - as in rape, etc. - and pregnancy where the woman was as responsible as the man. They felt that this was a false amalgamation of ideas.
-
It's quite easy once you know how and where to look. For a start you can discard Protestantism and all its various offshoots, including the one founded by a drunken German monk and the other founded by a randy English king, for they were not there from the beginning.
I'm sure St Peter was there at the beginning of the story.
-
I'm sure St Peter was there at the beginning of the story.
As I recall, "In the beginning was The Word"...
... so Terry Christian, Katie Puckrick, Mark Lamarr and Amanda de Cadenet, surely?
O.
-
I'm sure St Peter was there at the beginning of the story.
Aye! What's your point?
-
As I recall, "In the beginning was The Word"...
... so Terry Christian, Katie Puckrick, Mark Lamarr and Amanda de Cadenet, surely?
O.
You forgot the fragrant Dani Behr ...
-
Rhi, my father and many other Anglican clergy were arguing for women's ordination long before the people in the pews began to push for it; ironically, just about every vote on it over the years was lost on account of the House of Laity's failure to support it. One only has to look at the votes cast in the debate in 2012(?) where the Houses of Bishops and Clergy supported the motion and the House of Laity voted against it by, iirc, 3 votes.
There is nothing specific in the New Testament to support prohibition. True, there is Paul's personal opinion that women oughtn't to be in leadership in a couple of specific places - remember that all his material was written to specific congregations and their specific contexts, and only later were they passed around to other congregations who would probably not have had exactly the same contextual issues. That is why Pauline teaching has to be read in the light of Jesus' teaching and not the other way round.
Again, the issue of remarriage of divrcees was an issue of debate within the hierarchy of the church long before it became an issue with the laity. As I noted before, the change in both these topics came to the fore as a result of scholarly study long before they became common discussion points amongst the laity.
Without trying to extend the debate, I remember my father - in a debate he initiated after a Sunday lunch (something he did on a regular basis when I was a child and then a teenager) - pointed out that the problem the Church hierarchy seemed to have was that the legislation originally failed to discriminate between 'no-responsibility' pregnancy (on the woman's part) - as in rape, etc. - and pregnancy where the woman was as responsible as the man. They felt that this was a false amalgamation of ideas.
Oh for goodness sake, Hope! Where did those women who wanted to be priests come from except the laity? It had to be the clergy that argued in their behalf but only once enough women stood up to be counted.
The same thing with remarriage and divorce - demand led to supply. The church doesn't waste it's time looking at issues unless it has to.
The problem that The CofE as a whole had finally with abortion was that unwittingly they gave the green light to universal abortion rights. Thank goodness that they did so, although some believe it is the memory of this that holds the church back from endorsing limited access to euthanasia.
-
The problem that The CofE as a whole had finally with abortion was that unwittingly they gave the green light to universal abortion rights. Thank goodness that they did so, although some believe it is the memory of this that holds the church back from endorsing limited access to euthanasia.
Would that really matter in 2016, though? The C of E not only didn't endorse but was squarely opposed to equal marriage. And yet here we are with equal marriage, thank goodness - so even if that thesis is correct, and it may very well be, I can't see that their endorsement or the lack thereof makes any difference to anything.
-
Aye! What's your point?
He's not the original boss of your church. He belongs to someone else as the first bishop - or Pope.
-
Try not to show yourself up to be an even bigger clown than you already are. In #31 you wrote:...
Shaker, it is you who is showing yourself up to be the clown. I intentionally used the term 'purport' because the Gospels are attempts by 4 different people to record Jesus' teaching and, as necessary, to explain what that teaching means. That claim was made by those authors, not by other people. It also shows that I am happy to enterytain the possibility that they are not waht the authers claimed for them - but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea. People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water. I have simply asked that Susan produces evidence to support her argument. I and others have asked you the same on a number of occasions, as we have of Floo and several others. All we have in response is 'it must be untrue because 1) similar ideas have been claimed by other faiths and/or 2) it flies in the face of scientific possibility.' The latter assumes that science is the sole arbiter of reality and you nor anyone else has been able to show that that is the case. The former assumes that 'similar' is synonymous with 'the same'
... and that is an absolutely textbook example of the negative proof fallacy.
If anyone here uses the -ve proof fallacy to its best, it is the likes of you who put basically use the 'it can't be true' claim without providing the evidence to support that claim.
-
The CofE used to be good at accommodating a wide range of perspectives in a way that it doesn't any more.
Do you think that's because all the liberal elements are leaving?
-
Would that really matter in 2016, though? The C of E not only didn't endorse but was squarely opposed to equal marriage. And yet here we are with equal marriage, thank goodness - so even if that thesis is correct, and it may very well be, I can't see that their endorsement or the lack thereof makes any difference to anything.
The church seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that they were always right in doing so?
Similarly, society seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that it was always right in doing so?
-
Would that really matter in 2016, though? The C of E not only didn't endorse but was squarely opposed to equal marriage. And yet here we are with equal marriage, thank goodness - so even if that thesis is correct, and it may very well be, I can't see that their endorsement or the lack thereof makes any difference to anything.
It matters only for as long as they have any say in the legislative process. It's becoming less relevant.
One thing that needs to be born in mind that a third of the CofE clergy are Evangelicals. This explains in part why the church as whole appears less tolerant than in the past.
Some interesting statistics here.
http://www.modernchurch.org.uk/news-blog/717-results-of-yougov-survey-of-anglican-clergy-released.html
-
Do you think that's because all the liberal elements are leaving?
Not all, but a lot are. Add to that the rise in the number of Evangelical clergy who now make up a third of the total - see previous post.
The church can't be changed by liberals from within, there aren't enough of them. It's a choice between supporting the church in all that it currently stands for or getting out.
-
I intentionally used the term 'purport' because the Gospels are attempts by 4 different people to record Jesus' teaching and, as necessary, to explain what that teaching means.
Well, the Gospels are an attempt by someone to document a story, an attempt by at least two, and probably three, others to rewrite it, with subsequents edits to all four pieces in order to suit the politics and philosophy of the time.
These four all blatantly contradict the earlier work they are alleged to be a sequel to, completely change the foundation of the central character's personality, almost as though they weren't actually based on anything real.
That claim was made by those authors, not by other people. It also shows that I am happy to enterytain the possibility that they are not waht the authers claimed for them - but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea.
That's because, as Christians, you are predisposed to ignore the obvious issues with accepting any tale of magic as 'history'.
People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water.
Yes, they have, because the Church was the institution with the political power and had the capacity to frame the debate as it chose. Now, in more enlightened times, we aren't given to just accepting fanciful claims.
All we have in response is 'it must be untrue because 1) similar ideas have been claimed by other faiths and/or 2) it flies in the face of scientific possibility.'
Two entirely valid points in their own right, however unnecessary given your inability to actually make your case in order for it to need refuting.
The latter assumes that science is the sole arbiter of reality and you nor anyone else has been able to show that that is the case.
No, it presumes that the scientific method is an incredibly well-validated system for deriving explanatory mechanisms for physical phenomena, and given that consistent performance you're going to need some exceptional justification for presuming that it's wrong in any given instance.
The former assumes that 'similar' is synonymous with 'the same'
You'd need to justify any differentiation qualitatively rather than quantitatively, and 'different book' doesn't change the fact that you have claims from an old book.
If anyone here uses the -ve proof fallacy to its best, it is the likes of you who put basically use the 'it can't be true' claim without providing the evidence to support that claim.
You make the claim, we don't have to accept it until and unless you can justify it. Any arguments or points made in excess of 'your claim is not adequately supported' are items for discussion, but unnecessary to the thrust of the point.
You claim 'God'. You fail to justify the claim 'God'. Therefore we have no reason to accept your claim 'God'. The burden of proof always falls on the claimant, and when it comes to religion the claimant is whomever claims a god.
O.
[/quote]
-
Shaker, it is you who is showing yourself up to be the clown.
Which one of us can't put fingers to keyboard without some form of logical fallacy? Clue: it's not me.
I intentionally used the term 'purport' because the Gospels are attempts by 4 different people to record Jesus' teaching and, as necessary, to explain what that teaching means. That claim was made by those authors, not by other people. It also shows that I am happy to enterytain the possibility that they are not waht the authers claimed for them - but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea. People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water.
Simply restating the negative proof fallacy in different words doesn't make it not-the-negative-proof-fallacy however much you seem to think it does.
I have simply asked that Susan produces evidence to support her argument. I and others have asked you the same on a number of occasions, as we have of Floo and several others. All we have in response is 'it must be untrue because 1) similar ideas have been claimed by other faiths and/or 2) it flies in the face of scientific possibility.' The latter assumes that science is the sole arbiter of reality and you nor anyone else has been able to show that that is the case.
Outrider has dealt with this twaddle more than ably, as is always his way, so his response can stand for mine. If you think there's an arbiter of reality other than science, feel free to provide a methodology for it.
But of course, you won't.
If anyone here uses the -ve proof fallacy to its best, it is the likes of you who put basically use the 'it can't be true' claim without providing the evidence to support that claim.
You've asserted this before and have been asked, many times, to provide a single instance of where I've employed the negative proof fallacy (which you once asserted I use even more than you - as though that was even possible). And you've never once done so. Ever. At all. Know why? I do, but I'll give you thirty minutes to work it out, and feel free to ask for more paper and crayons if you need them.
-
The church seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that they were always right in doing so?
Similarly, society seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that it was always right in doing so?
This actually has nothing whatever to do with my point, which was and is that the opinion of the C of E on anything makes no difference. Rhiannon has just said that it matters so long as it has a say in the legislative process, but it had a say in the legislative process with regard to equal marriage - it wanted to prohibit it for everyone across the board, not just members of its own club - and that came to naught, thankfully. Equal marriage we have.
-
He's not the original boss of your church. He belongs to someone else as the first bishop - or Pope.
As far as we are concerned, he is a Saint, and was the first Patriarch of Rome. They split from us, not the other way round, a thousand years later.
-
He's not the original boss of your church. He belongs to someone else as the first bishop - or Pope.
St. Peter was Orthodox, as was the whole West at the time. "Rome" as we know it today didn't exist until about the Great Schism when the bishop of Rome's head finally got too big for its mitre.
-
As HWB rightly reminded us above we're not discussing abortion here, but this is another example of the situation that pertains to both abortion and contraception in Catholicism - most Catholics use some form of artificial birth control, and certainly in the USA, most Catholic women support abortion rights. This means that a majority of members of an organisation or a club (for want of a better word) choose to stay in that club despite strongly disagreeing with some of that club's rules. Same principle at work here; a majority of Anglicans support a form of marriage that their club disagrees with (and tried to prevent even for non-members, as is always the way).
Not sure if anyone else has picked up on this, but there was also a sub-section of catholics within this poll, which was also supportive of equal marriage - indeed by a very slightly greater margin (46% to 35%) than for Anglicans.
-
As far as we are concerned, he is a Saint, and was the first Patriarch of Rome. They split from us, not the other way round, a thousand years later.
Oh dear. That's no better than the "It's not me, it's you" of bad melodramas ::)
-
As far as we are concerned, he is a Saint, and was the first Patriarch of Rome. They split from us, not the other way round, a thousand years later.
'As far as we are concerned'. They see it differently. Which doesn't matter until either of church claims to be the 'true' one.
-
'As far as we are concerned'. They see it differently. Which doesn't matter until either of church claims to be the 'true' one.
... which they all do.
-
... which they all do.
Factions within the same denomination, frequently.
-
- but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea. People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water.
Nope: nobody has to provide contrary evidence in order to refute your claims, such as by showing your reasoning to be fallacious, where if you are claiming evidence then the burden of proof is yours.
Please also advise on those issues that you regard as being 'evidence that doesn't hold water' since if these are simply refutations of your claims then this isn't the same thing as presenting contrary or alternative evidence/claims, and I'm not sure you recognise the difference.
-
Nope: nobody has to provide contrary evidence in order to refute your claims, such as by showing your reasoning to be fallacious, where if you are claiming evidence then the burden of proof is yours.
Please also advise on those issues that you regard as being 'evidence that doesn't hold water' since if these are simply refutations of your claims then this isn't the same thing as presenting contrary or alternative evidence/claims, and I'm not sure you recognise the difference.
Gordon, I agree that anyone has the right to refute other people's beliefs, but to do so properly one has to provide evidence that supports that refutation. Neither you, nor anyone else here has so far managed to do so.
As I've told Shaker, he and others - like you - make assertions about what could be called the universal pre-eminence of scientific thought. Whenever you are challenged on this, all you do is argue that it has to be the case. There is no concrete evidence to support your views.
-
Gordon, I agree that anyone has the right to refute other people's beliefs, but to do so properly one has to provide evidence that supports that refutation. Neither you, nor anyone else here has so far managed to do so.
There is nothing justified that requires refutation - you have assertions that we don't accept, and you've failed to adequately support them.
As I've told Shaker, he and others - like you - make assertions about what could be called the universal pre-eminence of scientific thought. Whenever you are challenged on this, all you do is argue that it has to be the case. There is no concrete evidence to support your views.
Science works. Science has a long, demonstrable history of working. There is nothing intrinsic to science that means it is the only means by which we can acquire knowledge, and indeed nothing in science that says there aren't other possibilities.
However, to date, no-one has actually presented any of those other possibilities with any sort of justification or validation. It's not the science is the only way to knowledge by definition, but that science is the best method currently available - where there is a conflict between science and other claims, in the absence of any sort of reliable support for other methods, we default to accepting the scientific view.
O.
-
Gordon, I agree that anyone has the right to refute other people's beliefs, but to do so properly one has to provide evidence that supports that refutation. Neither you, nor anyone else here has so far managed to do so.
Nope, the arguments/evidence can be refuted without contrary arguments/evidence, such as by exposing them as being fallacious in some way.
As I've told Shaker, he and others - like you - make assertions about what could be called the universal pre-eminence of scientific thought. Whenever you are challenged on this, all you do is argue that it has to be the case. There is no concrete evidence to support your views.
Science is the only reliable methodology that is currently available to us: do have you a comparable alternative?
-
Science is the only reliable methodology that is currently available to us: do have you a comparable alternative?
I wish you the very best of luck in getting an an answer to that one. You'll need it ;)
-
There is nothing justified that requires refutation - you have assertions that we don't accept, and you've failed to adequately support them.
Science works. Science has a long, demonstrable history of working. There is nothing intrinsic to science that means it is the only means by which we can acquire knowledge, and indeed nothing in science that says there aren't other possibilities.
However, to date, no-one has actually presented any of those other possibilities with any sort of justification or validation. It's not the science is the only way to knowledge by definition, but that science is the best method currently available - where there is a conflict between science and other claims, in the absence of any sort of reliable support for other methods, we default to accepting the scientific view.
Well, that's the second time that the big O has beaten me to the punch today.
There's your answer, Hope, and exactly the one that I would have given you. Best of luck in presenting us with any alternative methodology for being able to evaluate claims and being able to know stuff which isn't scientifically based. There may very well be such methodologies for all we know, but we keep asking for them and you keep ducking the issue and we're not content simply to guess.
Now of course this is nothing that you haven't heard before, more than once and from a variety of sources, but - as with your inability to grasp why the negative proof fallacy is a form of defective reasoning that shouldn't be used - for some reason this sort of thing has to be repeated and reiterated and at the end of it all with absolutely no sign that it has taken.
So it goes.
-
Well said as always, Outrider and Shaker, plus Gordon.
-
Here's what the Unitarians stand for.
https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/what-we-stand
Yes, I like them ;)
But I bet not all the Christians on here do......... 🌹
I bet ad o doesn't see them as being part of his 2000 year old church speaking for Jesus.
-
Yes, I like them ;)
Me too. Like some variants of Quakerism, like some variants of paganism, that strikes me as religion - if that's quite the word, and there's a whole big ol' can of worms in itself - at its best and a club worth joining.
I bet ad o doesn't see them as being part of his 2000 year old church speaking for Jesus.
Yes but he changes his one true faith and his absolute truth with the wind and he isn't the arbiter of anything.
-
Yes, I like them ;)
But I bet not all the Christians on here do......... 🌹
I bet ad o doesn't see them as being part of his 2000 year church speaking for Jesus.
No I do not. I wouldn't consider them Christian. At best they're not even Trinitarian (historically, at least) and at worst many today are more-or-less semi-pagan.
-
No I do not. I wouldn't consider them Christian. At best they're not even Trinitarian (historically, at least) and at worst many today are more-or-less semi-pagan.
And a vastly nicer bunch than you'll ever be because of it.
-
And a vastly nicer bunch than you'll ever be because of it.
On the contrary. At worst they're deceivers and at best fools who unwittingly do the devil's work. Either way they lead people to hell.
-
On the contrary. At worst they're deceivers and at best fools who unwittingly do the devil's work. Either way they lead people to hell.
Is this the same hell as the Catholic hell when Catholicism was according to you the one true faith and the final and absolute truth, or a different one this year?
-
Oh, very droll! Hell, eternal damnation. However, when it comes to things spiritual you couldn't tell the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer.
-
Is this the same hell as the Catholic hell when Catholicism was according to you the one true faith and the final and absolute truth, or a different one this year?
That was when he was deceived by the devil too.
-
Oh, very droll!
It wasn't meant to be droll, it was meant to be accurate. Which it was and is.
Hell, eternal damnation. However, when it comes to things spiritual you couldn't tell the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer.
If it was a straight choice between Liebfraumilch and the Tizer, chances are I'd probably go for the Tizer and get more enjoyment from it.
More importantly for your constant stream of assertions and claims and fallacies, however, is that I know bullshit when I come across it.
-
That was when he was deceived by the devil too.
Wouldn't be surprised.
No more surprised than I'll be when he moves on to his next authoritarian, dogmatic, do-your-thinking-for-you belief system and he's saying everything about Orthodoxy then as he says about Catholicism now. (Before your time, Rhi, but there's form, believe you me).
-
That was when he was deceived by the devil too.
That might very well be true for he is the father of lies.
-
That might very well be true for he is the father of lies.
No, that's Rupert Murdoch you're thinking of.
Easy mistake to make, I admit.
The obvious question then becomes: if you were deceived by the devil when an adherent of Catholicism, how can you be sure that you're not being deceived likewise now? Remember that while many here are not aware of your history of claiming one true thises and absolutely final thats, some of us have long memories ;)
-
Wouldn't be surprised.
No more surprised than I'll be when he moves on to his next authoritarian, dogmatic, do-your-thinking-for-you belief system and he's saying everything about Orthodoxy then as he says about Catholicism now.
Are you sure? You're committing some sort of logical fallacy by claiming there is a trend from a single event.
It seems that even unbelievers are prone to committing logical fallacies. I've already seen two on this thread. Who would have thought it? ::)
-
No, that's Rupert Murdoch you're thinking of.
Easy mistake to make, I admit.
The obvious question then becomes: if you were deceived by the devil when an adherent of Catholicism, how can you be sure that you're not being deceived likewise now? Remember that while many here are not aware of your history of claiming one true thises and absolutely final thats, some of us have long memories ;)
See above.
-
That might very well be true for he is the father of lies.
How long have you been Orthodox ad o ?
Apart from Catholic have you belonged to any other religions/ denominations?
🌹
-
Are you sure? You're committing some sort of logical fallacy by claiming there is a trend from a single event.
It seems that even unbelievers are prone to committing logical fallacies. I've already seen two on this thread. Who would have thought it? ::)
It's not a logical fallacy as I'm not falsely drawing a mistaken conclusion from a premise, even a sound premise.
I'm simply commenting upon your past (recent) history and saying that I least of all would be surprised if you were to move on to some other rigid and authoritarian dogma that tells you what and how to think and what to believe, as that seems to be your bag, instead of doing the hard yards for yourself which is often confusing, frequently frustrating but never anythig less than exciting and exhilarating.
Which are the two logical fallacies according to you, by the way?
-
It's not a logical fallacy as I'm not falsely drawing a mistaken conclusion from a premise, even a sound premise.
I'm simply commenting upon your past (recent) history and saying that I least of all would be surprised if you were to move on to some other rigid and authoritarian dogma that tells you what and how to think and what to believe, as that seems to be your bag, instead of doing the hard yards for yourself.
Which are the two logical fallacies according to you, by the way?
It's a logical fallacy to say there is a trend from a single event. But it seems even the oh so mighty Shaker willingly commits them when it suits him. Then he is the biggest hypocrite of them all. The second was an argument from silence.
-
Oh, very droll! Hell, eternal damnation. However, when it comes to things spiritual you couldn't tell the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer.
If you have enough, one of them makes you drunk ;D
Liebfraumilch seems to have some strange implications :o (German for Beloved lady's milk, in reference to the Virgin Mary)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebfraumilch
::)
-
It's a logical fallacy to say there is a trend from a single event.
I didn't say there was any such "trend" - I said that there is a past history of skipping from one belief system and one religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth to another belief system and another religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth. (You can't have two of them, you know). Don't even bother trying to deny that because I have at my disposal an awful lot of posts to prove it, as you know very well, which I can easily and quickly pull up for all to see, which you also know.
What I did do was to ask you a question (in #85) which you signally failed to answer, surprise surprise.
-
To be fair, Shaker, I don't think ad_o will jump ship. All other denominations gave up their antisemitism years ago.
-
To be fair, Shaker, I don't think ad_o will jump ship. All other denominations gave up their antisemitism years ago.
He may or he may not. I make no comment on that. My comment was to state the simple fact that there's a precedent, so jumping ship would not be without such a precedent.
Churchill crossed the floor of the Commons from Conservative to Liberal and back again - or was it the other way round? "I not only ratted but re-ratted," he's said to have said.
-
He may or he may not. I make no comment on that. My comment was to state the simple fact that there's a precedent.
I agree. Not sure where else he will find so appealing though, given his conspiracy theory anti Semitic rants elsewhere. Catholicism is becoming increasingly reconciled to Judaism, for example.
-
I didn't say there was any such "trend" - I said that there is a past history of skipping from one belief system and one religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth to another belief system and another religious denomination held to be the one true church and the repository of all, final, ultimate and absolute truth. (You can't have two of them, you know). Don't even bother trying to deny that because I have at my disposal an awful lot of posts to prove it, as you know very well, which I can easily and quickly pull up for all to see, which you also know.
What I did do was to ask you a question (in #85) which you signally failed to answer, surprise surprise.
When have I ever denied that I was a Roman Catholic or that I once thought modern Rome was the one Church? Never. What I deny is your snide suggestions.
-
When have I ever denied that I was a Roman Catholic or that I once thought modern Rome was the one Church? Never. What I deny is your snide suggestions.
I have never stated you have denied it at all, in any place at any time in any form whatever. Watch what you're doing with all that straw, it makes such a mess, especially when it gets wet.
It's a perfectly valid and legitimate point however that somebody who regards belief system/worldview A as the ultimate, final and absolute truth and then moves on and says exactly the same in every respect about belief system/worldview B would surprise no one when they move on again and wheel out all the same stuff about belief system/worldview C. Does that mean it's bound to happen? No. Does that mean it's possible? Hell yes, especially when you take into account the psychological reasons behind this sort of spiritual shopping.
-
I have never stated you have denied it at all, in any place at any time in any form whatever. Watch what you're doing with all that straw, it makes such a mess, especially when it gets wet.
It's a perfectly valid and legitimate point however that somebody who regards belief system/worldview A as the ultimate, final and absolute truth and then moves on and says exactly the same in every respect about belief system/worldview B would surprise no one when they move on again and wheel out all the same stuff about belief system/worldview C. Does that mean it's bound to happen? No. Does that mean it's possible? Hell yes, especially when you take into account the psychological reasons behind this sort of spiritual shopping.
As I said. If I ever leave Orthodoxy the only option left is atheism or something thereabout.
-
Churchill crossed the floor of the Commons from Conservative to Liberal and back again - or was it the other way round? "I not only ratted but re-ratted," he's said to have said.
I've googled this comment in relation to Churchill and have received no matches.
-
As I said. If I ever leave Orthodoxy the only option left is atheism or something thereabout.
How will you know that that isn't the devil's deception?
-
How will you know that that isn't the devil's deception?
It might well be.
-
It might well be.
So if the devil led you to Catholicism and could to atheism, how do you know he isn't leading you now?
-
To be fair, Shaker, I don't think ad_o will jump ship. All other denominations gave up their antisemitism years ago.
I wouldn't say that. Rather I'd say even Rome fell into the rank heresy of dspensationalism, but that's Vatican II for you, man. Peace! ::)
-
As I said. If I ever leave Orthodoxy the only option left is atheism or something thereabout.
Why is that the only option?
Oh, and by the way, lest you think that I believe there's something bad about changing one's mind; changing one's mind in the light of subsequent/later/better evidence is a strength. It shows a flexibility of mind, a willingness to be open-minded and to be persuaded by the strength of evidence which is fluid and malleable and in keeping with a constantly changing universe as we can best understand it by the best, that's to say, the most demonstrably and consistently reliable methods we have at our disposal.
The key word here, though, is evidence, which is why I italicised it. Merely going from one authoritarian and dogmatic belief system to another (and with minor, superficial differences at that) isn't changing one's mind in the light of better evidence because there's no evidence in play. It's simply swapping one authority that claims to do your thinking and believing on your behalf for another authority that claims to do your thnking and believing on your behalf. It might be religious, it might be political, but that way leads on to nightmares. No need to guess about this; there's no mystery here; we've seen it time and time and time again.
-
So if the devil led you to Catholicism and could to atheism, how do you know he isn't leading you now?
Good heavens! The key is knowing who Christ is.
-
I've googled this comment in relation to Churchill and have received no matches.
I Googled "Churchill ratted" and got several pages of results.
-
I wouldn't say that. Rather I'd say even Rome fell into the rank heresy of dspensationalism, but that's Vatican II for you, man. Peace! ::)
You do know that Vatican II sought reconciliation because of the part played by Catholicism in the Holocaust, right?
-
Good heavens! The key is knowing who Christ is.
The founder of Orthodoxy?
-
The founder of Orthodoxy?
Aye!
-
You do know that Vatican II sought reconciliation because of the part played by Catholicism in the Holocaust, right?
Reconciliation means heresy it's better to remain unreconciled. And exactly what role did Roman Catholicism play in the Holocaust anyway? Can such a thing even be demonstrated?
-
Reconciliation means heresy it's better to remain unreconciled. And exactly what role did Roman Catholicism play in the Holocaust anyway? Can such a thing even be demonstrated?
Yes. Not only can be, has been. Still, it's not your one true church and absolute and final truth this year; what do you care?
-
I Googled "Churchill ratted" and got several pages of results.
That's a very well-known story in Manchester, as Churchill was MP for Oldham for a while, as a Tory, but then he ratted and became a Liberal, and re-ratted in the 20s, I think, although not in Oldham.
-
That's a very well-known story in Manchester, as Churchill was MP for Oldham for a while, as a Tory, but then he ratted and became a Liberal, and re-ratted in the 20s, I think, although not in Oldham.
For a stocky chap he did trip the light fantastic across the floor, didn't he?
-
Yes. Not only can be, has been. Still, it's not your one true church and absolute and final truth this year; what do you care?
Are you referring to the myth of Hitler's pope or something completely different? If it's already been demonstrated then please go ahead and demonstrate it for us less enlightened.
-
Aye!
I made that up, ad_o. Just like your church did, funnily enough.
-
I made that up, ad_o. Just lime your church did, funnily enough.
Lime? Are you another old bow wow who don't know the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer?
-
Lime? Are you another old bow wow who don't know the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer?
Well, that's politer than the last thing you called me.
-
Are you referring to the myth of Hitler's pope or something completely different? If it's already been demonstrated then please go ahead and demonstrate it for us all for us less enlightened.
No I'm not (although Pacelli's anti-Semitic statements are a matter of historical record). I was thinking along the lines of Christian anti-Semitism generally and, with regard to WWII, the complicity of certain senior Catholic figures in helping sundry Nazis evade justice at the end of the war via the well-known "ratlines" - Alois Hudal being the best known.
-
No I'm not (although Pacelli's anti-Semitic statements are a matter of historical record). I was thinking along the lines of Christian anti-Semitism generally and, with regard to WWII, the complicity of certain senior Catholic figures in helping sundry Nazis evade justice at the end of the war via the well-known "ratlines" - Alois Hudal being the best known.
There were pagans and atheists who helped the Nazis, both before, during and after the war. Was that the fault of paganism and atheism?
-
Well, that's politer than the last thing you called me.
I can come up with a lot worse than before.
-
I can come up with a lot worse than before.
Why doesn't that surprise me?
-
There were pagans and atheists who helped the Nazis, both before, during and after the war. Was that the fault of paganism and atheism?
Nazi mysticism was based in worryingly large part on a bizarre and pretty well wholly mistaken misappropriation of Germanic paganism - a chaotic mish-mash of Spengler and Guido von List and what have you. What does this have to do with the complicity of Catholicism (especially) in the efforts to ensure that Nazi murderers evaded justice?
-
I can come up with a lot worse than before.
We're not questioning that you can; we're questioning why you would.
-
Nazi mysticism was based in worryingly large part on a bizarre and pretty well wholly mistaken misappropriation of Germanic paganism - a chaotic mish-mash of Spengler and Guido von List and what have you. What does this have to do with the complicity of Catholicism (especially) in the efforts to ensure that Nazi murderers evaded justice?
Nice avoidance! Now, would you care to demonstrate that it was Roman Catholicism per se which played a part in the Holocaust or just some of its followers, just as there were followers of other religions and none? You can't. It's been tried and failed miserably on every occasion.
-
Nice avoidance!
No, it's no avoidance.
Part of it is to do with why you're so interested given that you allege to claim to purport that this isn't your final spiritual home any more. Which it was once, apparently ::)
-
Moderator:
Enough of the insults please gents, since further escalation just isn't acceptable.
-
Well, proof positive that you've given up even a pretence of a rational conversation. Never mind; it was a fun evening while you were still pretending.
If you could drmonstrate your claim regarding Roman Catholicism per se and the Holocaust...but it's clear you're avoiding doing so, so forgive me if I refuse to take you seriously.
-
If you could drmonstrate your claim regarding Roman Catholicism per se and the Holocaust...but it's clear you're avoiding doing so, so forgive me if I refuse to take you seriously.
I don't understand what work the phrase "Roman Catholicism per se" is doing in this sentence.
If you want evidence of the long, wearisome and sorrowful history of anti-Semitism within Christianity, that's easily findable with a quick Google. I've already referred to this.
If you want evidence of Eugenio Pacelli's anti-Semitic sentiments, that's easily findable with a quick Google. I've already referred to this.
If you want evidence of the efforts of high-ranking Catholic figures is aiding and abetting Nazi war criminals to evade justice at the end of the Second World War, that's easily findable with a quick Google. I've already referred to this.
If you are under such a misapprehension as to think that I get all my information via a quick Google, no - I'm using these references as the quickest and nearest and easiest sources for you to uncover/discover the kind of information to which I'm referring with regard to Catholic complicity in genocide, genocide of Jews especially and particularly.
Not that this should matter to you this year, right?
-
Pius XII, despite being an ultramontane despot, had a pretty good record during WWII. "Hitler's pope" is a modern myth. There never has been inherent antisemitism within the Roman Church. Desiring the Jews to convert, believing the old covenant to be void (having been nailed to the cross with Christ Col. 2:14) and that the Church is the one true Israel of God Luke 20:9-16 does not amount to antisemitism. Yes, you will find Roman Catholics who were antisemitic, just as you will find pagans and atheists who were, but that's no more the fault of Roman Catholicism than paganism or atheism. Now get that through your thick skull or are you going to suddenly admit that atheism is directly responsible for the Holocaust? Oh please do! ::)
-
What do "arse" (sanctimonious or Christian, whatever), and "fuck off" have to do with:
"More Anglicans support equal marriage than oppose it"?
I agree that more Anglicans do support equal marriage than oppose it, ditto other Christian congregations though it is Anglicans who are the subject of this thread.
-
Moderator:
Good point, Brownie.
Therefore I'm going to remove the more contentious recent posts (from last evening onwards) in the hope that the thread recovers and if not, and there is any further friction at all, then it will be locked.
-
Good idea Mr Moderator but 'fraid it hasn't worked :)! On the other thread, which has five posts, I just got the following message: "The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you." Something has gone wrong.
Edit: Now it has disappeared. Methinks that perhaps that was the intention so I will say no more about it.
-
Good idea Mr Moderator but 'fraid it hasn't worked :)! On the other thread, which has five posts, I just got the following message: "The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you." Something has gone wrong.
Edit: Now it has disappeared. Methinks that perhaps that was the intention so I will say no more about it.
Moderator:
Yep - when posts are split they form a new thread on the same Board and you had tried to access this at the point this new thread very briefly appeared prior to it being moved out of view.
-
Oh, very droll! Hell, eternal damnation. However, when it comes to things spiritual you couldn't tell the difference between Liebfraumilch and a can of Tizer.
How does anyone? I can do a spectral analysis of liquids to see what different frequencies of light are reflected or refracted, I can do hydroscopy measurements to detect differences in density and viscosity, I can do various chemical tests to determine the different components of the two liquids, I can taste them... there are tests that can be done to decide the differences between Liebraumilch and Tizer.
How do you test spiritual claims to see what the difference is? How do you determine that the Orthodox Christian depiction of Hell is correct but the Greek depiction of Hades is incorrect?
O.
-
How does anyone? I can do a spectral analysis of liquids to see what different frequencies of light are reflected or refracted, I can do hydroscopy measurements to detect differences in density and viscosity, I can do various chemical tests to determine the different components of the two liquids, I can taste them... there are tests that can be done to decide the differences between Liebraumilch and Tizer.
How do you test spiritual claims to see what the difference is? How do you determine that the Orthodox Christian depiction of Hell is correct but the Greek depiction of Hades is incorrect?
O.
For those with eyes to see, one looks to the life of the Church and their is your evidence, by their fruits you shall know them.
-
For those with eyes to see, one looks to the life of the Church and their is your evidence, by their fruits you shall know them.
That's lovely, but none of the churches I know of have people from hell that you can talk to.
As to 'by their fruits you shall know them' I see international organisations with huge reserves of land and wealth telling their followers to seek humility and meekness as the way forward and castigated materialism...
Those with eyes to see what, exactly?
O.
-
For those with eyes to see, one looks to the life of the Church and their is your evidence, by their fruits you shall know them.
Does that include swearing at people on messageboards?
;)