Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Rhiannon on April 18, 2017, 10:30:35 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39623071
Good to see.
-
Wait until the debate and then see what happens.
-
The debate will not settle it. Should any deliverance be passed, it will go to the Presbyteries under the Barrier Act for approval. Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law. My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk.
-
It will be encouraging if the CofS do progress this. The report on Radio Scotland this morning said the Scottish Episcopalians were going down the same path and that this could have an impact of the CofE/Anglicans in general.
However, it may be too little to late to halt the decline in Scotland bearing in mind the results of the study noted on the BBC the other day: below that link is the link to the study itself, by a Christian consultancy, which notes that currently only 7.2 % of people in Scotland are churchgoers and that this is projected to reduce to 5.3% by 2025.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39613631
http://www.brierleyconsultancy.com/scottish-church-census
-
Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law.
My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk.
Howw anachronistic, people with prejudices. The church needs to enter the 21st century (rather like the monarchy woke up to the 20th). I expect you will take a stand and leave your presbytery if the law is changed, a courageous move.
-
Wait until the debate and then see what happens.
At lest the debate is happening.
-
The debate will not settle it. Should any deliverance be passed, it will go to the Presbyteries under the Barrier Act for approval. Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law. My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk.
Which is as it should be, freedom of conscience on both sides, something the CofE is too afraid of.
-
Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law. My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk. Howw anachronistic, people with prejudices. The church needs to enter the 21st century (rather like the monarchy woke up to the 20th). I expect you will take a stand and leave your presbytery if the law is changed, a courageous move.
- Those of us who will leave the Kirk - forsaking our vows at ordination - will do so with sadness. Many ministers will give up their income, those in training for the Ordained Local Ministry such as myself will cease such training, with reluctance and a heavy heart, but standing on the Gospel. The Kirk is already short of parish ministers - this will exacerbate the situation, as many parish ministers, readers and elders will leave if this deliverance is passed. Nlot only that, around a dozen congregations have left in thepast few years, some to join the Free Church, others to become independent congregations. Should this deliverance pass, many more congregations will leave. The Free Church is growing - withouth renegade CofS members; an increase in membership will no doubt continue that expansion. That would not be my chosen patjh, but I must go somewhere.
-
-
Those of us who will leave the Kirk - forsaking our vows at ordination - will do so with sadness.
Many ministers will give up their income, those in training for the Ordained Local Ministry such as myself will cease such training, with reluctance and a heavy heart, but standing on the Fospel.
Those who have been forced from the church over decades because they believe in love, in live and let live, or because they want to be free to love those that they love in the way in which they have been created to be have also had to give up so much. Maybe they won't have to any more.
-
Those who have been forced from the church over decades because they believe in love, in live and let live, or because they want to be free to love those that they love in the way in which they have been created to be have also had to give up so much. Maybe they won't have to any more.
-
II believe in love, Rhi.
I have never denied homosexual love, nor do I do so now.
However any reading of the Scripture - which, according to Kirk speak, is the "Supreme rule for faith and life' leads me to accept that marriage for the Christian can only be between a man and a woman.
This is not to denegrate civil partnerships, secular marriage or other formats in any way; simply that the Church can only marry males to females.
-
If the law changes, the Church of Scotland will be able to marry same sex couples. As I understand it, marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland.
-
If the law changes, the Church of Scotland will be able to marry same sex couples. As I understand it, marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland.
-
The Church of Scotland, according to its Articles Declaratory of 1929, is subject to its'own discipline and interpretation of Scripture - of which it alone should be arbiter, free from state interferance.
Likewise, it will not interfere with the state in any way.
Unlike the Cof E, we are a national, not an established, church.
The state cannot legislate on Kirk affairs.
-
I know that & wasn't thinking of the State, but of the Church of Scotland laws being changed.
-
-
II believe in love, Rhi.
I have never denied homosexual love, nor do I do so now.
However any reading of the Scripture - which, according to Kirk speak, is the "Supreme rule for faith and life' leads me to accept that marriage for the Christian can only be between a man and a woman.
This is not to denegrate civil partnerships, secular marriage or other formats in any way; simply that the Church can only marry males to females.
That makes no sense. Either god's laws on sin apply to all or nobody.
-
That makes no sense. Either god's laws on sin apply to all or nobody.
-
Though we believe that marriage should be between man and woman (the position at present), we also believe we should not interfere in the lives of those who do not share that position.
For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.
-
For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.
Missionary?
I'll get me coat.
-
Though we believe that marriage should be between man and woman (the position at present), we also believe we should not interfere in the lives of those who do not share that position.
For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.
Debatable, Christians vary in their opinions on this matter.
From the link posted in the first post, members of the CofS vary too.
"These range from the traditionalist opinion based on the view that biblical writers condemned same-sex acts meaning the Church had to forbid it to more “inclusive arguments” that the writing was made in “cultural contexts very different from our own and referred to individual acts rather than committed and faithful people willing to enshrine their relationships in vows before God.”
-
Anchs,
II believe in love, Rhi.
I have never denied homosexual love, nor do I do so now.
However any reading of the Scripture - which, according to Kirk speak, is the "Supreme rule for faith and life' leads me to accept that marriage for the Christian can only be between a man and a woman.
This is not to denegrate civil partnerships, secular marriage or other formats in any way; simply that the Church can only marry males to females.
Just out of interest do you think every other part of Scripture to be "the supreme rule" too, or are you selective about that?
-
-
Though we believe that marriage should be between man and woman (the position at present), we also believe we should not interfere in the lives of those who do not share that position.
For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.
But other Christians disagree. It seems fair to allow both your beliefs and those who believe that gay marriage is ok, surely? Or do you believe that you have the monopoly on rightness here?
-
I am simply stating the position of the General Assembly of the CofS, and that's been the stated position for years now. For once, I happen to agree with it - which, given the Kirk's GA, is somewhat of a rare event. I've been a commissioner to three Assemblies, and an observer to a further two. I normally take a can of paint with me when I go, as watching it drying is usually a nice diversion.
-
Anchs,
I am simply stating the position of the General Assembly of the CofS, and that's been the stated position for years now. For once, I happen to agree with it - which, given the Kirk's GA, is somewhat of a rare event. I've been a commissioner to three Assemblies, and an observer to a further two. I normally take a can of paint with me when I go, as watching it drying is usually a nice diversion.
No doubt, but I'm interested in the rationale for this position. What I see as a general principle is that folks cite scriptural support for the biases they happen to have, and are indifferent to or flout the bits of Scripture they're relaxed about or actively disagree with. It's basically confirmation bias - rather than a one size fits all set of "supreme" rules (which would at least be consistent), rather it's a "select the bits that validate what you believe anyway" buffet of moral rules and injunctions.
-
I've never yet seen any scripture which allows marriage between people of the same sex, BHS. The NT makes it clear that - for the Christian - marriage can only really be between man and woman, and sex outside that bond is simply wrong. The Kirk got itself tied in a knot over a legal question regarding a minister in a same sex marriage - and ruled - in its' usual fence-sitting way - that in future, any ordained person named before a Presbytery who enters a same sex marriage after ordination shall be subject to the discipline of the presbytery in which they work. That basically means presbytery sits as a court of law and tries them. Tedious, anachronistic, I know - but that's presbyterianism for you.
-
Anchs,
I've never yet seen any scripture which allows marriage between people of the same sex, BHS. The NT makes it clear that - for the Christian - marriage can only really be between man and woman, and sex outside that bond is simply wrong. The Kirk got itself tied in a knot over a legal question regarding a minister in a same sex marriage - and ruled - in its' usual fence-sitting way - that in future, any ordained person named before a Presbytery who enters a same sex marriage after ordination shall be subject to the discipline of the presbytery in which they work. That basically means presbytery sits as a court of law and tries them. Tedious, anachronistic, I know - but that's presbyterianism for you.
You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.
The point here is that you’ve looked for scriptural authority for something of which you disapprove already (equal marriage), but turned a blind eye to the same “supreme rules” about other matters.
How then is this anything other than confirmation bias, and what use is a supposedly inerrant book of rules if it turns out that it’s more like a "pick what you fancy" buffet?
-
Anchs,
You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.
The point here is that you’ve looked for scriptural authority for something of which you disapprove already (equal marriage), but turned a blind eye to the same “supreme rules” about other matters.
How then is this anything other than confirmation bias, and what use is a supposedly inerrant book of rules if it turns out that it’s more like a "pick what you fancy" buffet?
It isn't in scripture for the reason that it is a brand spanking new idea.
Where to take it next though......weapon for antitheists? shibboleth to catch people out who do not look like they are really celebrating it, perhaps?......Secular Humanists....it's over to you.
-
Vlad,
It isn't in scripture for the reason that it is a brand spanking new idea.
What is?
Where to take it next though......weapon for antitheists? shibboleth to catch people out who do not look like they are really celebrating it, perhaps?......Secular Humanists....it's over to you.
Are you trying to communicate something here or just leaning on the random word generator?
-
Anchs,
You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.
This is the sort of uninformed tripe that you can get away with in this age of ignorance.
Christians have the New Testament I know about New Atheisms allergy to this but Peter had a vision which meant that he went along with the idea that non jewish Christians didn't have to follow jewish dietary rules.
I don't expect thanks for putting you straight on this since your post, in my humble opinion, appeals to the Red Necks in the gallery.
-
Vlad,
This is the sort of uninformed tripe that you can get away with in this age of ignorance.
Ah, the old "I'll use insult when I have no argument to support me" ploy eh?
Christians have the New Testament I know about New Atheisms allergy to this but Peter had a vision which meant that he went along with the idea that non jewish Christians didn't have to follow jewish dietary rules.
That's nice. And where does the "equal marriage is a no-no" stuff to which Anchs refers come from?
I don't expect thanks for putting you straight on this since your post, in my humble opinion, appeals to the Red Necks in the gallery.
Just as well as you've done no such thing and, as always, your opinion on the matter turns out to be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
-
That's nice. And where does the "equal marriage is a no-no" stuff to which Anchs refers come from?
Because in the Gospel according to St. Matthew our Lord tells us how God intended marriage to be from the beginning saying amongst other things that "he who made man from the beginning made them male and female etc."
-
ad,
Because in the Gospel according to St. Matthew our Lord tells us how God intended marriage to be from the beginning saying amongst other things that "he who made man from the beginning made them male and female etc."
And presumably because of Leviticus too. Leaving aside for now the reification of "our Lord tells us", how though does the exegesis of any of these texts work if not for confirmation bias? What criteria in other words would you apply to select the bits to use as validation for your position, the bits to ignore, and the bits to flout?
-
Our Lord is quite clear and leaves no room for doubt. Male and female he created them. End of.
-
Anchs,
You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.
The point here is that you’ve looked for scriptural authority for something of which you disapprove already (equal marriage), but turned a blind eye to the same “supreme rules” about other matters.
How then is this anything other than confirmation bias, and what use is a supposedly inerrant book of rules if it turns out that it’s more like a "pick what you fancy" buffet?
-
Who mentioned prawn sarnies (or wool and cotton shirts, for that matter)
We've just celebrated Easter - part of which is the institution of the 'New Covenant' - meaning that, while we note the stuff in Leviticus, we are not bound by it.
On the other hand, there are certain references to marriage in the NT - bioth in the Gospels and Pauline letters - which do mention the topic - in each case, a male-female bond - anf emphasise this as the norm for those walking the Christian path.
-
And yet you conveniently forget the part about not judging.
What about me as a divorcee? Jesus was pretty explicit when it came to being against divorce. Unlike marriage equality which he didn't seem unduly taxed by.
-
And yet you conveniently forget the part about not judging.
What about me as a divorcee? Jesus was pretty explicit when it came to being against divorce. Unlike marriage equality which he didn't seem unduly taxed by.
-
I'm not judging anyone. We all fall short of God's glory.
As I posted, Scripture is part of the Kirk's "Supreme rule for faith and life" - sometimes we break the rules. The Kirk, however should not try to change them.
-
-
I'm not judging anyone. We all fall short of God's glory.
As I posted, Scripture is part of the Kirk's "Supreme rule for faith and life" - sometimes we break the rules. The Kirk, however should not try to change them.
What does the Kirk teach about divorce?
-
I'm not judging anyone. We all fall short of God's glory.
Yes but do married, sexually active heterosexuals fall short of God's glory on the grounds that they are heterosexual?
You see that is always the problem I have had with the idea that we 'all fall short' or we are 'all sinners' type of argument.
You do not apply equivalence to heterosexual and homosexual relationships - instead another equivalence is drawn for homosexuals; usually with thieves or rapists or on occasions paedophiles.
But I have never, ever heard the argument that heterosexual of the sort I outlined above are sinners. Not once. And that is why it is bigoted thinking, I have no doubt in my mind that you are not bigoted, but it is thinking that is guided by bigotry.
-
ad,
Our Lord is quite clear and leaves no room for doubt. Male and female he created them. End of.
I don't doubt that you believe that what you call "Our Lord" did that, presumably because it's written in a book. The question though concerned all the other rules and injunctions in the NT too, and specifically how you apply the exegesis necessary to decide which are "supreme" rules, which are kinda optional, and which you can flout entirely. If not for using your own biases and opinions to do the selecting, then what?
And while we're about it, as equal marriage has been lawful for a few years now and, so far as I can tell, the collapse of society hasn't happened as the result, could t be that this "Lord" of your was wrong about that in any case?
-
Yes but do married, sexually active heterosexuals fall short of God's glory on the grounds that they are heterosexual?
You see that is always the problem I have had with the idea that we 'all fall short' or we are 'all sinners' type of argument.
You do not apply equivalence to heterosexual and homosexual relationships - instead another equivalence is drawn for homosexuals; usually with thieves or rapists or on occasions paedophiles.
But I have never, ever heard the argument that heterosexual of the sort I outlined above are sinners. Not once. And that is why it is bigoted thinking, I have no doubt in my mind that you are not bigoted, but it is thinking that is guided by bigotry.
TV,
I think the answer to your question is that homosexual relationships go against God's created order for men and women - he made us male and female as ad_o pointed out.
-
TV,
I think the answer to your question is that homosexual relationships go against God's created order for men and women - he made us male and female as ad_o pointed out.
Which just means your god, as you conceive it, is a bigot.
-
ad,
I don't doubt that you believe that what you call "Our Lord" did that, presumably because it's written in a book. The question though concerned all the other rules and injunctions in the NT too, and specifically how you apply the exegesis necessary to decide which are "supreme" rules, which are kinda optional, and which you can flout entirely. If not for using your own biases and opinions to do the selecting, then what?
And while we're about it, as equal marriage has been lawful for a few years now and, so far as I can tell, the collapse of society hasn't happened as the result, could t be that this "Lord" of your was wrong about that in any case?
How did the apostolic church decide which Levitical laws still applied to the new Gentile believers, in Acts 15?
Jim Jordan makes the case that the laws in Leviticus 17-18 apply not just to the priestly nation of Israel but also to any Gentile living among them. Whereas the laws about food etc only applied to Israelites. A careful reading of the text of Leviticus does support this.
-
The Law is dead. It was nalied to the cross with our Lord, as the Apostle says. Not even Jewish Christians are required to follow it, indeed, they shouldn't.
-
TV,
I think the answer to your question is that homosexual relationships go against God's created order for men and women - he made us male and female as ad_o pointed out.
Why does God making people male and female mean that there can't be same sex relationships?
-
The Law is dead. It was nalied to the cross with our Lord, as the Apostle says. Not even Jewish Christians are required to follow it, indeed, they shouldn't.
Indeed, but when the laws in Leviticus 17-18 was written they applied to the Gentiles as well which means that they apply to all people for all time
-
The rest of the Levitical laws were temporary, being outward symbols of inner holiness. Their purpose was to set Israel apart from the other nations - in the sense that the other nations would see their outer purity and become aware of the need for inner purity. When Christ came he fulfilled the promise to Abram that all nations would be blessed. So the laws concerning ritual purity needed to be scrapped so that they would not hinder the Gentiles from receiving this blessing.
-
Indeed, but when the laws in Leviticus 17-18 was written they applied to the Gentiles as well which means that they apply to all people for all time
Are you saying, Spud, that I am bound by Leviticus 17 - 18?
-
Indeed, but when the laws in Leviticus 17-18 was written they applied to the Gentiles as well which means that they apply to all people for all time
How silly!
-
What does the Kirk teach about divorce?
-
Standard Christian doctrine - that marriage is a serious commitment, not to be taken lightly; that divorce is a last resort - and that it's frowned upon unless there is irretrievable breakdown - as in adultery or some other criminal activity.
There are no sanctions, no barring from sacraments or anything of the sort.
-
Yes but do married, sexually active heterosexuals fall short of God's glory on the grounds that they are heterosexual?
You see that is always the problem I have had with the idea that we 'all fall short' or we are 'all sinners' type of argument.
You do not apply equivalence to heterosexual and homosexual relationships - instead another equivalence is drawn for homosexuals; usually with thieves or rapists or on occasions paedophiles.
But I have never, ever heard the argument that heterosexual of the sort I outlined above are sinners. Not once. And that is why it is bigoted thinking, I have no doubt in my mind that you are not bigoted, but it is thinking that is guided by bigotry.
-
Sorry, TV, but I can only argue from my interpretation of the NT Scriptures - and they say that, for those commited to Christ, marriage is between a man and a woman and UI can't see any get-out clause.
The key words there being 'for the Christian'.
That's why I have no issues with gay secular marriage.
-
-
Sorry, TV, but I can only argue from my interpretation of the NT Scriptures - and they say that, for those commited to Christ, marriage is between a man and a woman and UI can't see any get-out clause.
The key words there being 'for the Christian'.
That's why I have no issues with gay secular marriage.
And because you can't see any get out clause you are therefore backing religious bigotry.
What about the gay Christian? It doesn't matter for a cold-hearted atheist like me - but what about your fellow Christians?
Can you not see that you are indulging in judgment where none should apply. Goodness me, Christians have changed their minds over other issues down the centuries.
I know from previous chats on this issue that you are not bigoted but I cannot for the life of me see how you can face in two different directions at the same time which is essentially what your position currently is.
It's as if you have erected a box around your religion and said those rules apply within the religion - but you then accept the rules applied outwith in the secular world. How can that be correct?
I don't understand how you can put up with the cognitive dissonance that you seem to bear.
-
Are you saying, Spud, that I am bound by Leviticus 17 - 18?
According to the Bible these laws are universal (the obvious one being no adultery) but not everyone would agree, thus in a democracy like ours you would not be legally 'bound' by them.
-
According to the Bible these laws are universal (the obvious one being no adultery) but not everyone would agree, thus in a democracy like ours you would not be legally 'bound' by them.
Since these biblical laws aren't legal here in the UK - adultery isn't illegal - so I can't be legally bound by them in any event. As such I'm free to ignore them, and since you note we live in a democracy would you agree that society at large is free to ignore them too?
-
Since these biblical laws aren't legal here in the UK - adultery isn't illegal - so I can't be legally bound by them in any event. As such I'm free to ignore them, and since you note we live in a democracy would you agree that society at large is free to ignore them too?
As long as you don't start ramming your views down our throats* you can ignore what you want.
* including stupid and suspect inquisitions like ''Do you think homosexuality is a sin?'' ''Are you really happy about gay marriage? and other examples of crypto emotional and intellectual fascism like that.
-
As long as you don't start ramming your views down our throats* you can ignore what you want.
* including stupid and suspect inquisitions like ''Do you think homosexuality is a sin?'' ''Are you really happy about gay marriage? and other examples of crypto emotional and intellectual fascism like that.
Crypto-fascist... ah, the young Lister lives and breathes...
-
As long as you don't start ramming your views down our throats* you can ignore what you want.
I don't, since asking reasonable questions seems, well, reasonable. I intend to ignore stuff that I think needn't be taken seriously.
* including stupid and suspect inquisitions like ''Do you think homosexuality is a sin?'' ''Are you really happy about gay marriage? and other examples of crypto emotional and intellectual fascism like that.
These seem like perfectly reasonable questions to me.
P.S. you seem to be ranting again.
-
These seem like perfectly reasonable questions to me.
They are...for emotional and intellectual fascism.
-
They are...for emotional and intellectual fascism.
To use your own question, in what way is asking anyone 'Are you really happy about gay marriage?' a problem?
-
he made us male and female as ad_o pointed out.
Except that the real world proves that to be blatantly false.
-
The Law is dead. It was nalied to the cross with our Lord, as the Apostle says. Not even Jewish Christians are required to follow it, indeed, they shouldn't.
Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law. Your assertion makes him a liar.
-
To use your own question, in what way is asking anyone 'Are you really happy about gay marriage?' a problem?
Because of the rhetorical agenda of the twats who ask stuff like that...As demonstrated when one tells these shit stirring bar stewards to get a life.
-
Because of the rhetorical agenda of the twats who ask stuff like that...As demonstrated when one tells these shit stirring bar stewards to get a life.
And if the person asking the question is a gay Christian 'twat'?
-
And if the person asking the question is a gay Christian 'twat'?
He'd still be a twat.
-
He'd still be a twat.
Seems to me you're more than a tad uncomfortable about being asked a reasonable question - and ''Are you really happy about gay marriage?' is a reasonable question given it it already legal in most of the UK.
Perhaps the problem is that you find the question inconvenient.
-
Seems to me you're more than a tad uncomfortable about being asked a reasonable question - and ''Are you really happy about gay marriage?' is a reasonable question given it it already legal in most of the UK.
Perhaps the problem is that you find the question inconvenient.
I have outlined my position...as far as you are concerned..... in full.
Stop shit stirring.
-
I have outlined my position...as far as you are concerned..... in full.
Stop shit stirring.
Asking the question that you yourself noted earlier: and a reasonable question too, is not shit-stirring.
That it makes you uncomfortable is a separate matter.
-
Asking the question that you yourself noted earlier: and a reasonable question too, is not shit-stirring.
That it makes you uncomfortable is a separate matter.
You have no idea how comfortable or uncomfortable I feel or am. Like many other things it is all in your head.
-
You have no idea how comfortable or uncomfortable I feel or am. Like many other things it is all in your head.
Then perhaps you should answer the question you yourself posed earlier: given the legislative changes and the amount of discussion we've had here I can't imagine you don't have an easy answer to hand, and if not then explain why you find the question to be contentious.
-
He'd still be a twat.
When you converted to Christianity did you lose your ability to empathise or have you always been like that?
-
Then perhaps you should answer the question you yourself posed earlier: given the legislative changes and the amount of discussion we've had here I can't imagine you don't have an easy answer to hand, and if not then explain why you find the question to be contentious.
let me repeat I have outlined my position.
let me put this to you.
Interrogator
Are you happy at gay marriages?
Interrogated
Yes I'm ok about that
Interrogator
But are you really happy?
Interrogated
Yes
Interrogator
But would you go to a gay wedding?
Interrogated
Yes
But would you be prepared to throw confetti?
You see how ridiculous it is starting all this when you didn't need to know what they thought in the first place.
-
let me repeat I have outlined my position.
let me put this to you.
Interrogator
Are you happy at gay marriages?
Interrogated
Yes I'm ok about that
Interrogator
But are you really happy?
Interrogated
Yes
Interrogator
But would you go to a gay wedding?
Interrogated
Yes
But would you be prepared to throw confetti?
You see how ridiculous it is starting all this when you didn't need to know what they thought in the first place.
Excellent: so your are comfortable with gay marriage: but then in your #50 you said that the question 'Are you really happy about gay marriage' was an example of 'stupid and suspect inquisitions' that were instances of 'crypto emotional and intellectual fascism'.
So it seems that your outrage isn't with the content of the question but that the question is being asked at all, which seems like an over-reaction to a perfectly reasonable question.
-
Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law. Your assertion makes him a liar.
Not at all.
-
To be fair to you Vlad, despite your countless misrepresentations, relentless abuse of language, and weird paranoia about “antitheists” (when usually what you actually mean is “atheists”) the one issue on which you’ve consistently been on the side of the angels (as it were) is homosexuality. Good for you.
Here’s the thing though. Like some others here you believe in something you call “God”, and you believe that this god’s various doings and rules are inerrantly written in some books. Now some Christians here seem to be pretty certain that these “supreme” rules prohibit equal marriage, or indeed indulging in the love that dare not speak it’s name at all. You though take a contrary position.
From a theological perspective, what then makes you right and them wrong?
PS That’s just a question by the way, not an interrogation.
-
Dear Knickers in a Twist,
Oh look!! Another homosexual thread, first off, I care not a jot what the religion of Churchianity tells me, I care what Christ tells me ( that is the four Gospels, the rest is add on ).
Now I would care what the Church was saying if they were going to debate Homophobia, if they were going to ask, how can we as Christians stop the bullying, rape, torture and killing of Gods children, how can we change that mindset.
Now if you are truly a believer, if you believe in God ( no matter which name you choose ) do you honestly think in the great scheme of things he cares what two grown adults get up to behind closed doors, or do you think Our Lord weeps at world poverty, greed, war, and the seemingly ( for me ) culture of me me me.
My opinion ( not that any other Christian cares ) invite all into your Church, with no buts or pointing of fingers, strike any reference that leads to hatred from your Holy book, the God I worship wants his children to love one another, that's it, end of.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Knickers in a Twist,
Oh look!! Another homosexual thread, first off, I care not a jot what the religion of Churchianity tells me, I care what Christ tells me ( that is the four Gospels, the rest is add on ).
Now I would care what the Church was saying if they were going to debate Homophobia, if they were going to ask, how can we as Christians stop the bullying, rape, torture and killing of Gods children, how can we change that mindset.
Now if you are truly a believer, if you believe in God ( no matter which name you choose ) do you honestly think in the great scheme of things he cares what two grown adults get up to behind closed doors, or do you think Our Lord weeps at world poverty, greed, war, and the seemingly ( for me ) culture of me me me.
My opinion ( not that any other Christian cares ) invite all into your Church, with no buts or pointing of fingers, strike any reference that leads to hatred from your Holy book, the God I worship wants his children to love one another, that's it, end of.
Gonnagle.
Because you are nice, you believe in a nice god, and your god unsurprisingly agrees with you and your moral values.
Other Christians read the same book who may not be so nice, and guess what, the god they believe in agrees with them.
You construct your own god.
-
Ok, so next question for Vlad:
Are you happy with how your church treats gay people and marriage equality?
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Why are you even asking that question, the man has answered it, albeit in Vlads own very peculiar way.
Dear Berational,
You construct your own god.
Or God has constructed me, well actually, more a work in progress, good thing he has infinite patience. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners,
Oh look!! Another homosexual thread, first off, I care not a jot what the religion of Churchianity tells me, I care what Christ tells me ( that is the four Gospels, the rest is add on ).
Now I would care what the Church was saying if they were going to debate Homophobia, if they were going to ask, how can we as Christians stop the bullying, rape, torture and killing of Gods children, how can we change that mindset.
Now if you are truly a believer, if you believe in God ( no matter which name you choose ) do you honestly think in the great scheme of things he cares what two grown adults get up to behind closed doors, or do you think Our Lord weeps at world poverty, greed, war, and the seemingly ( for me ) culture of me me me.
My opinion ( not that any other Christian cares ) invite all into your Church, with no buts or pointing of fingers, strike any reference that leads to hatred from your Holy book, the God I worship wants his children to love one another, that's it, end of.
Well maybe you and ad and his ilk should take it out in the car park or something. (And on a technicality, can there be a "behind closed doors" out of sight of an omnipresent god in any case?)
Anyways, you're an exemplar I think of a nice guy who's taken the nice bits from some "holy" books and decided that they're the bits "God" really meant; others though take the contrary view by reference to exactly the same books. Now if you take out the woo and treat these books as an early and sometimes crude attempt at moral philosophy, that's fine - these things can be discussed and debated as new arguments emerge. When the protagonists all think that these books accurately record the rules of an omniscient god though (however internally contradictory those words may be) then instead they select and then entrench their selections: "I know I'm right because God agrees wth me".
As BR says, from the outside it all looks like projection masquerading as the disinterested observance of objective rules. And the problem with that is that, once they're entrenched, positions will atrophy - they cannot by definition become amenable to new and more robust reasoning.
And that in my rarely humble opinion is a bad thing.
-
Dear Blue,
Well maybe you and ad and his ilk should take it out in the car park or something.
I have done so, on many an occasion on here, but I will do it my way, I am not jaded enough to think there is no hope, little steps, if I can make other Christians at least think about the points I make, but we are a very diverse lot, and I am not big headed enough to think I am a 100% right.
Anyways, you're an exemplar I think of a nice guy who's taken the nice bits from a "holy" book and decided that they're the bits "God" really meant;
Well you and Berational may be right, I could be just picking up on all the good bits, for me, but I think what I am doing is trying to find the truth ( yes I could be deluding myself ).
But I think I am a bit more open about what I am trying to find, I hold no allegiance to any Church, I can wander off and find wisdom in any religion, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, hell even Atheism ( steady ) but Christianity is my home, I always return home.
So you can call me deluded, or that my confirmation bias is in overdrive, but I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonnagle - "I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think".
Hear hear!
-
Gonners,
I have done so, on many an occasion on here, but I will do it my way, I am not jaded enough to think there is no hope, little steps, if I can make other Christians at least think about the points I make, but we are a very diverse lot, and I am not big headed enough to think I am a 100% right.
Why do I keep getting the image here of Alan Bates and Oliver Reed wrestling naked in “Women in Love”?
(Incidentally, it’s an interesting position to believe yourself to be 100% right about the statement “God” but less than 100% certain about what this god thinks or wants. If you accept you could be wrong about the latter, what’s the point of believing in the former?)
Well you and Berational may be right, I could be just picking up on all the good bits, for me, but I think what I am doing is trying to find the truth ( yes I could be deluding myself ).
With respect, what I think you’re finding is validation for your truth. Thing is though, so are ad, Spud etc.
But I think I am a bit more open about what I am trying to find, I hold no allegiance to any Church, I can wander off and find wisdom in any religion, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, hell even Atheism ( steady ) but Christianity is my home, I always return home.
Oi! You seem to have omitted bluehillsideism! >:(
“Home” is informative here – the faith you encountered (or some might say, that got to you) first.
So you can call me deluded…
Heaven forfend! “Honestly mistaken” is as far as I’d dare venture there.
…or that my confirmation bias is in overdrive…
Perhaps. It certainly appears that your “world view” (copyright: Sword of the Irrational) is to be open-hearted and generous, and that the bits of a book you think to be holy that reflect that appeal to you most therefore. The risk I think though is to reverse that process by thinking that the book itself provides your morality rather than just selectively mirrors it.
…but I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think.
And I wish you well in the venture.
-
Gonnagle - "I will search for the truth my way, and not because some Church tells me this is how you should think". Hear hear!
- One of the reasons I've stuck with the Kirk through thick and thin overthirty years is that it does not impose belief on anyone. However, those seeking ordination or being 'set apart' as readers are asked, as part of their commitment, to subscribe to the 'formula' - a simple declaration of faith in the central doctrine of the CofS and the governance by presbyterian priinciples (that last bit took a bit of teeth grinding on my part.) Those not seeking ordination don't have to agree with anyjhing they hear from the pulpit....though if they were committed to Christ, surely they would subscribe to the central doctrine of the denomination of their choice?
-
I do understand that Anchorman. You either abide by the basic tenets (as far as you can), or get out. That's one of the reasons why I (& it seems Gonnagle too),cannot commit myself to a church though I like a lot about many churches.
I'm sure you find all that difficult at times but it is the same in lots of 'callings'. The rules cannot be bent for individuals.
Things may change in the CofS in the future.
-
Dear Blue,
Perhaps. It certainly appears that your “world view” (copyright: Sword of the Irrational) is to be open-hearted and generous, and that the bits of a book you think to be holy that reflect that appeal to you most therefore. The risk I think though is to reverse that process by thinking that the book itself provides your morality rather than just selectively mirrors it.
My World view, I struggle with that term, but I suppose my world view is somewhere between Karen Armstrong and Christianity, the first gives me a broader context to examine the second, Karen is no fan of Christianity but her credentials when it comes to theology and its history are second to none.
It was that good lady who gave me a starting point to examine the Gospels, The first and second greatest Commandments, although she did not attribute this to Our Lord but some Rabbi who was asked to recite the whole of the Torah standing on one foot, his answer was, Love thy Neighbour, the rest is just add on.
So that is where I start when examining the Gospels or any other part of the Holy Bible, or anyone else's Holy book, if I read the Gospels and it does not marry with the second Greatest Commandment I chuck it out, why? because Our Lord tells me to.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jim,
- One of the reasons I've stuck with the Kirk through thick and thin overthirty years is that it does not impose belief on anyone. However, those seeking ordination or being 'set apart' as readers are asked, as part of their commitment, to subscribe to the 'formula' - a simple declaration of faith in the central doctrine of the CofS and the governance by presbyterian priinciples (that last bit took a bit of teeth grinding on my part.) Those not seeking ordination don't have to agree with anyjhing they hear from the pulpit....though if they were committed to Christ, surely they would subscribe to the central doctrine of the denomination of their choice?
One of the main reasons I don't go about beating my fellow Christians over the head ( well maybe the Fundamentals ) is that I see the great work the Churches do, without them this country would be in a right state, the CoE, CoS, Salvation army, Barnado's are out on the streets helping the less fortunate, without them our health service would go belly up, of course the Church does not shout this from the roof tops and its detractors kind of gloss over this very noble work.
So more power to you Jim and to your Church but you have a long road ahead to fully encompass all of Gods children.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
My World view, I struggle with that term…
So would anyone daft enough to think it’s a reliable guide to objective truths, but in the sense of “how I feel about things” it’s OK I think.
…but I suppose my world view is somewhere between Karen Armstrong and Christianity, the first gives me a broader context to examine the second, Karen is no fan of Christianity but her credentials when it comes to theology and its history are second to none.
I’ll take your word for that. I have to say though that when I’ve heard her on t’wireless I’ve felt the need to throw something hard when she’s made unsustainable jumps in reasoning.
It was that good lady who gave me a starting point to examine the Gospels, The first and second greatest Commandments, although she did not attribute this to Our Lord but some Rabbi who was asked to recite the whole of the Torah standing on one foot, his answer was, Love thy Neighbour, the rest is just add on.
Sounds like the Golden Rule to me, which is fine. Reciprocal altruism is an evolutionarily advantageous strategy, so it’s hardly a surprise that our and other species practice it.
So that is where I start when examining the Gospels or any other part of the Holy Bible, or anyone else's Holy book, if I read the Gospels and it does not marry with the second Greatest Commandment I chuck it out, why?
Dunno.
… because Our Lord tells me to.
NOOOOO! You do yourself a disservice here. You’re bringing your character to the table here – you’re “God” for this purpose. You don’t need to be told that at all, and that you’ve found something in a book that corroborates what you think anyway is nice but unnecessary.
-
Dear Blue,
I’ll take your word for that. I have to say though that when I’ve heard her on t’wireless I’ve felt the need to throw something hard when she’s made unsustainable jumps in reasoning.
Fair enough, but when the UN or world dignitaries seek her out to ask her advice on all things theological, then I would think that is evidence she knows a thing or two, add to that the big guns of atheism, the more vocal, the celebs, Vlads pal being one in question refuse to debate with her, you could say they can't be bothered, but the evidence points to the effect, Karen would run rings round them.
I would go further and ask any atheist to at least try one of her books, two small ones come to mind, A Short History of Myth and In The Beginning, A New Interpretation of Genesis, your good self could devour both in a afternoon, no preaching involved in any of those books, just reason backed up by fact.
NOOOOO! You do yourself a disservice here. You’re bringing your character to the table here – you’re “God” for this purpose. You don’t need to be told that at all, and that you’ve found something in a book that corroborates what you think anyway is nice but unnecessary.
I am a Christian, it's how I work, something else you don't know, two things sustain me in life, my faith and my sense of humour, both very precious.
Gonnagle.
-
For me the Church is necessary. It's ark without which we all drown in the flood.
-
For me the Church is necessary. It's ark without which we all drown in the flood.
What does that mean?
-
What does that mean?
That the Church with its sacraments is necessary for salvation.
-
That the Church with its sacraments is necessary for salvation.
How silly! :o
-
How silly! :o
Why?
-
Gonners,
Fair enough, but when the UN or world dignitaries seek her out to ask her advice on all things theological, then I would think that is evidence she knows a thing or two, add to that the big guns of atheism, the more vocal, the celebs, Vlads pal being one in question refuse to debate with her, you could say they can't be bothered, but the evidence points to the effect, Karen would run rings round them.
Depends what the debate would be about I guess. If it's "who knows more facts about the Bible" or some such, you could well be right – though as an aside I have to say that often it's the "new" atheists who seem to know more of the content of the holy books than the theists they debate. On the other hand, if they wanted to go to the premises on which religious beliefs rest then on the basis of what I've heard her say I'm not so sure she'd have much to bring to the table.
I would go further and ask any atheist to at least try one of her books, two small ones come to mind, A Short History of Myth and In The Beginning, A New Interpretation of Genesis, your good self could devour both in a afternoon, no preaching involved in any of those books, just reason backed up by fact.
Well perhaps I should. Is there perhaps something online she's written that would precis the basic arguments do you know?
I am a Christian, it's how I work, something else you don't know, two things sustain me in life, my faith and my sense of humour, both very precious.
Actually I did infer that at least, and inasmuch as these things "sustain" you that's no-one's business but your own. I merely suggest though that you don't need to be "told" by a deity how to behave well. You do that all on your own, as I hope do I.
-
ad,
Why?
Presumably because there's there's no cogent logic to suggest that there is such a thing as "salvation", let alone that any particular faith tradition has access to the right procedures and supplications to get you there. If you want to believe that nonetheless as a matter of personal faith, that's no-one's business but your own. When you assert it as a truth for others though then you fall at the first hurdle of reification.
-
ad,
Presumably because there's there's no cogent logic to suggest that there is such a thing as "salvation", let alone that any particular faith tradition has access to the right procedures and supplications to get you there. If you want to believe that nonetheless as a matter of personal faith, that's no-one's business but your own. When you assert it as a truth for others though then you fall at the first hurdle of reification.
I suspect that's not what Floo meant at all.
-
ad,
I suspect that's not what Floo meant at all.
Well, there's no way for either of us to tell. If you're only interested though in why Floo specifically thinks it silly rather than why others might then I guess you'll have to wait for her to share her thinking.
-
Why?
The idea that Church and sacraments could save anyone from anything!
-
Here’s the thing though. Like some others here you believe in something you call “God”, and you believe that this god’s various doings and rules are inerrantly written in some books. Now some Christians here seem to be pretty certain that these “supreme” rules prohibit equal marriage, or indeed indulging in the love that dare not speak it’s name at all. You though take a contrary position.
From a theological perspective, what then makes you right and them wrong?
Mr B
That's fair and probably deserves more than our usual ''Gunfight at the OK corral'' type exchange.
Straight off though I'm thinking this. Couldn't the same question be asked of someone like yourself, who has a deep understanding and commitment to the term and sentiments of ''equal marriage'', and another atheist who doesn't.
-
Dear Blue,
Depends what the debate would be about I guess. If it's "who knows more facts about the Bible" or some such, you could well be right – though as an aside I have to say that often it's the "new" atheists who seem to know more of the content of the holy books than the theists they debate. On the other hand, if they wanted to go to the premises on which religious beliefs rest then on the basis of what I've heard her say I'm not so sure she'd have much to bring to the table.
Bible, Quran, The Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib ( I hope I have them spelt properly ) she studies all religions in depth, all her books are backed up by in depth research.
On the other hand, if they wanted to go to the premises on which religious beliefs rest then on the basis of what I've heard her say I'm not so sure she'd have much to bring to the table.
She will take you on a journey from when man first started showing signs of believing in a afterlife and why, she is not out to convert, just educate.
Well perhaps I should. Is there perhaps something online she's written that would precis the basic arguments do you know?
Well I can help on one of her arguments, The Myth, do you have a favourite book of fiction, but that book must take you out of yourself, must make you think deeply about the human condition, must make you reflect.
Gonnagle.
-
I suspect that's not what Floo meant at all.
I suspect the same but you don't seem to have very well thought out intelligent arguments so it's the pot calling the kettle.
-
Vlad,
That's fair and probably deserves more than our usual ''Gunfight at the OK corral'' type exchange.
Straight off though I'm thinking this. Couldn't the same question be asked of someone like yourself, who has a deep understanding and commitment to the term and sentiments of ''equal marriage'', and another atheist who doesn't.
First, all that would give you is a tu quoque – it deflects from the question rather than engages with it.
Second though, no: however deep my commitment to equality, I’m quite open at least to the possibility that one day someone may come up with an argument that makes me change my mind about that. By contrast, if I think an omniscient god has had his instructions on the matter accurately recorded in a book, on what basis could I apply mere logic to falsify “Him”?
That’s the point. You and other think that divine, inerrant rules are written in a book yet you come up with opposite positions on the same question. As your rationale (“faith”) is the same though, where do you go from there?
-
The idea that Church and sacraments could save anyone from anything!
If you believe Christ, at least, then yes. I am the way etc and John 3 and 6 concerning baptism and the eucharist.
-
Gonners,
Bible, Quran, The Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib ( I hope I have them spelt properly ) she studies all religions in depth, all her books are backed up by in depth research.
No doubt, but what you’re describing here is a sort of very good RE teacher. Dawkins, Dennett et al would have no problem with that. Indeed they’re all for teaching about religious beliefs as important socio-cultural phenomena. That though says nothing about whether the claims of any of these books and faiths are actually true
She will take you on a journey from when man first started showing signs of believing in a afterlife and why, she is not out to convert, just educate.
Again, no doubt. And an interesting journey it would be too.
Well I can help on one of her arguments, The Myth, do you have a favourite book of fiction, but that book must take you out of yourself, must make you think deeply about the human condition, must make you reflect.
I can think of several. None of them though make claims of objective facts about the world in the way the religious texts tend to. Why then do you think them to be analogous?
-
ad,
If you believe Christ, at least, then yes. I am the way etc and John 3 and 6 concerning baptism and the eucharist.
Yes, and if you believe instead in any other explanatory narrative provided by the religious tradition to which you happen to be most enculturated that too makes perfect sense to you. Where it falls apart though is when those with beliefs of this kind (ie, "faith" beliefs) overreach and assert them to be true for other people as well. To make that case they'd have to start with a logical path from assertion to epistemic truth – which so far so I know no theist has managed to do.
-
ad,
Yes, and if you believe instead in any other explanatory narrative provided by the religious tradition to which you happen to be most enculturated that too makes perfect sense to you. Where it falls apart though is when those with beliefs of this kind (ie, "faith" beliefs) overreach and assert them to be true for other people as well. To make that case they'd have to start with a logical path from assertion to epistemic truth – which so far so I know no theist has managed to do.
Well then, seeing as you don't believe in hell it shouldn't bother you.
-
ad,
Well then, seeing as you don't believe in hell it shouldn't bother you.
It doesn't. What does bother me though is the behaviours of some who think their personal truths are true for others too - by discriminating against gay people for example – because that affects more generally the society in which I live.
-
If you believe Christ, at least, then yes. I am the way etc and John 3 and 6 concerning baptism and the eucharist.
Believing in something like that will save you is no better than touching wood!
-
Vlad,
First, all that would give you is a tu quoque – it deflects from the question rather than engages with it.
Second though, no: however deep my commitment to equality, I’m quite open at least to the possibility that one day someone may come up with an argument that makes me change my mind about that. By contrast, if I think an omniscient god has had his instructions on the matter accurately recorded in a book, on what basis could I apply mere logic to falsify “Him”?
That’s the point. You and other think that divine, inerrant rules are written in a book yet you come up with opposite positions on the same question. As your rationale (“faith”) is the same though, where do you go from there?
can't quite see it in terms of a tu cocque. I'm just getting you to see that you may just have the answer to your own questions.
For example you are prepared to admit, you could be wrong and yet you have categorised me as someone who has an absolute cast iron conviction that I am right on this.
As stated before, this issue is a recent development and I wonder if we shouldn't have a bit of the Ho chi Min attitude as toward the French Revolution.
On another but related issue I took you as a bit of an expert on equal marriage but you seem to merely relegate it to a subset of equality.
-
Dear Blue,
No doubt, but what you’re describing here is a sort of very good RE teacher. Dawkins, Dennett et al would have no problem with that. Indeed they’re all for teaching about religious beliefs as important socio-cultural phenomena. That though says nothing about whether the claims of any of these books and faiths are actually true
No sorry, more much more, she quotes and uses all the main philosophers, and she helps her reader understand what the philosopher was trying to convey, from Confucius through to Kant, she has a in depth knowledge of not only R&E but also the human condition, she would lose Dawkins easily, as for Dennett, well someone somewhere will one day explain what all the fuss is about that man, and if push comes to the shove I much prefer Dawkins, in fact as I type this, Dawkins and Armstrong have one thing in common they are both accessible, Karen Armstrong's true intelligence lies in the fact she knows her subject intimately, and can translate it for every level.
I can think of several. None of them though make claims of objective facts about the world in the way the religious texts tend to. Why then do you think them to be analogous?
Objective facts!! Now what has that to do with the price of fish, go on give me your favourite, your very favourite, the one that made you really think about the human condition.
Gonnagle.
-
ad,
It doesn't. What does bother me though is the behaviours of some who think their personal truths are true for others too - by discriminating against gay people for example – because that affects more generally the society in which I live.
Who the Church marries or not is no business of yours.
-
Who the Church marries or not is no business of yours.
It is everyone's business if the church thinks it has the right to have a voice in society.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Why are you even asking that question, the man has answered it, albeit in Vlads own very peculiar way.
Has he? Where? I understand he's cool with secular gay marriage, not sure what he thinks about the church's stance on it.
This is a subject with personal meaning for me as it is why I left the church long before I lost my faith. I was involved in the local synod and the political back biting and infighting from both traditionalists and liberals was pathetic and saddening at the same time. Faith and love were fucked. The gay issue (sex, celibacy and marriage) is one of justice and love it is true, but it also exposes the wider divisions, nastiness and spite in an organisation that once served god and now serves itself. I took my family away from to because it wasn't a fit place in which to raise them. 'Another gay story' will happen again and again because of the pain, hate and spite that riddles the church.
-
You're well out of it Rhiannon. Me too.
Constant wrangling, round in circles, same old, same old, never getting anywhere....
same happens here on 'Searching for God'. Does head in, don't know why they don't give it a rest.
(Synod House had two good restaurants, one cafe/bistro style & one posh)
-
It is everyone's business if the church thinks it has the right to have a voice in society.
Of course it has a right, especially in a democracy. It speaks for a large chunck of society, unless you're arguing that members of the Church become non-citizens.
-
Of course it has a right, especially in a democracy. It speaks for a large chunck of society, unless you're arguing that members of the Church become non-citizens.
In which case people have the right to know what the church does and to criticise if it behaves unjustly or in a way that damages society.
-
In which case people have the right to know what the church does and to criticise if it behaves unjustly or in a way that damages society.
Plus the fact the church gets an extra say in the uk as part of the House of Lords.
The church has got where it has today on lots of its stances, by listening to changing and challenging voices.
-
Plus the fact the church gets an extra say in the uk as part of the House of Lords. The church has got where it has today on lots of its stances, by listening to changing and challenging voices.
- Haud the bus..... The CofE might have a say in the running of the disunited kingdom....though it shouldn't habe any seats in the coffin dodgers house anyway. The Church of Scotland - the Kirk - is an entirely different kettle of fish. It has no connection with the organisation, structure or established status of the CofE. And nor should we have!
-
Vlad,
can't quite see it in terms of a tu cocque.
It’s spelled “tu quoque”, and it’s exactly what you did. Look it up.
I'm just getting you to see that you may just have the answer to your own questions.
No, you’re just avoiding the question.
For example you are prepared to admit, you could be wrong and yet you have categorised me as someone who has an absolute cast iron conviction that I am right on this.
Depends what you mean by “on this”. If you means your position re homosexuality, I’ve said no such thing; if you mean “God”, then yes.
As stated before, this issue is a recent development and I wonder if we shouldn't have a bit of the Ho chi Min attitude as toward the French Revolution.
It was Zhou Enlai (not Mao Zedong as popularly thought, and certainly not Ho Chi Minh), and “the issue” isn’t recent in any case. Presumably the authors of the NT were thinking about it some 2,000 years ago, and the authors of the OT before that.
On another but related issue I took you as a bit of an expert on equal marriage but you seem to merely relegate it to a subset of equality.
It is a “sub-set” in the sense that it’s one example of a larger principle.
Anyways, back to the question you avoided: if you think some books record the wishes of an omniscient god and that on a specific issue they validate your position but someone else thinks the same thing but finds validation for the opposite position in the same books, as both of you rely on “faith” what makes you right and him wrong?
-
Gonners,
No sorry, more much more, she quotes and uses all the main philosophers, and she helps her reader understand what the philosopher was trying to convey, from Confucius through to Kant, she has a in depth knowledge of not only R&E but also the human condition…
But that is a very good RE teacher!
…she would lose Dawkins easily…
“Lose” at what though? Her detailed memory of various “holy” texts? Could be.
The arguments some attempt to suggest that the content of these books is factually true? Seems unlikely.
…as for Dennett, well someone somewhere will one day explain what all the fuss is about that man, and if push comes to the shove I much prefer Dawkins, in fact as I type this, Dawkins and Armstrong have one thing in common they are both accessible, Karen Armstrong's true intelligence lies in the fact she knows her subject intimately, and can translate it for every level.
No doubt, but Dennett is accessible too. Try his recent appearance on Radio 4’s “The Life Scientific” for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4
Objective facts!! Now what has that to do with the price of fish, go on give me your favourite, your very favourite, the one that made you really think about the human condition.
Happy to if you want me to, but it has everything to do with the price of fish. If religious texts help you think about the human condition then well and good. When they assert factual truths that cannot be shown to be the case with logic or evidence though (eg, “God”) then in that respect they are at least mistaken.
-
ad,
Who the Church marries or not is no business of yours.
Yes it is so long as it’s the established church – it reaches into the lives of others in the legislature, in education, in access by right to the media etc. That means that its pronouncements have an authority in the public mind, albeit an undeserved one. Essentially: “If a bishop thinks it’s ok to discriminate against gay people, then it’s fine for me to do the same thing in my life too”.
If the church disestablished though and became a sort of private members’ club akin to the Flat Earth Society, then what they said and did would indeed be no business of mine.
-
ad,
Yes it is so long as it’s the established church – it reaches into the lives of others in the legislature, in education, in access by right to the media etc. That means that its pronouncements have an authority in the public mind, albeit an undeserved one. Essentially: “If a bishop thinks it’s ok to discriminate against gay people, then it’s fine for me to do the same thing in my life too”.
If the church disestablished though and became a sort of private members’ club akin to the Flat Earth Society, then what they said and did would indeed be no business of mine.
I'm not sure I agree, the Catholic church isn't established but nevertheless various archbishops pop up on the news, as does the Pope. Religion doesn't happen behind closed doors, it gets taken into the workplace, schools, the pub. It is our business if they treat people unfairly and discriminate.
-
I'm not sure I agree, the Catholic church isn't established but nevertheless various archbishops pop up on the news, as does the Pope. Religion doesn't happen behind closed doors, it gets taken into the workplace, schools, the pub. It is our business if they treat people unfairly and discriminate.
Us and Them eh, that's sinister............... also the workplace, schools, the pub etc are places of secular homophobia.
For instance the penchant of young people for prefacing the unsatisfactory with the word Gay cannot be laid at the door of any church... This is after all a secular society.
-
Gonners,
But that is a very good RE teacher!
“Lose” at what though? Her detailed memory of various “holy” texts? Could be.
The arguments some attempt to suggest that the content of these books is factually true? Seems unlikely.
No doubt, but Dennett is accessible too. Try his recent appearance on Radio 4’s “The Life Scientific” for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4
Happy to if you want me to, but it has everything to do with the price of fish. If religious texts help you think about the human condition then well and good. When they assert factual truths that cannot be shown to be the case with logic or evidence though (eg, “God”) then in that respect they are at least mistaken.
Another ''science is not atheism'' piece , Hillside?
If science does not equal atheism why are you contrasting science with religion?
-
Us and Them eh, that's sinister............... also the workplace, schools, the pub etc are places of secular homophobia.
For instance the penchant of young people for prefacing the unsatisfactory with the word Gay cannot be laid at the door of any church... This is after all a secular society.
Solence the Chuech, eh?
-
Solence the Chuech, eh?
Been at the communion wine, you sound sloshed?
-
Us and Them eh, that's sinister............... also the workplace, schools, the pub etc are places of secular homophobia.
For instance the penchant of young people for prefacing the unsatisfactory with the word Gay cannot be laid at the door of any church... This is after all a secular society.
If you give yourself a label that sets you apart as a child of God then you set yourself aside from the rest of society. I find church sinister in some ways, yes.
You are right about homophobia in all aspects of society. Yet I've never met a group of people less hung up about sexuality and sexual identity than my kids and their peers, they are growing up in a world where difference doesn't matter. Your loving church just flags it up all over the place, no better way to control than divide and rule. And I dislike your prejudice against the young, but then what else should I have expected? After all, the young tend to be unbelievers, and as far as you are concerned that's all wrong because they don't know they need saving.
-
Been at the communion wine, you sound sloshed?
Sausage fingers.
-
If you give yourself a label that sets you apart as a child of God then you set yourself aside from the rest of society. I find church sinister in some ways, yes.
You are right about homophobia in all aspects of society. Yet I've never met a group of people less hung up about sexuality and sexual identity than my kids and their peers, they are growing up in a world where difference doesn't matter. Your loving church just flags it up all over the place, no better way to control than divide and rule. And I dislike your prejudice against the young, but then what else should I have expected? After all, the young tend to be unbelievers, and as far as you are concerned that's all wrong because they don't know they need saving.
You what?
-
Rhi,
I'm not sure I agree, the Catholic church isn't established but nevertheless various archbishops pop up on the news, as does the Pope. Religion doesn't happen behind closed doors, it gets taken into the workplace, schools, the pub. It is our business if they treat people unfairly and discriminate.
ad referred to "the church" rather than to the Catholic church specifically, but I think we're on the same page nonetheless.
-
Vlad,
Us and Them eh, that's sinister............... also the workplace, schools, the pub etc are places of secular homophobia.
For instance the penchant of young people for prefacing the unsatisfactory with the word Gay cannot be laid at the door of any church... This is after all a secular society.
Endorsed by an establishment organisation with the authority that comes from its status in society. That's the point: if the church can discriminate against gay people, then hey, what's the big deal if someone does it in their private life?
Contemptible innit.
-
Vlad,
Another ''science is not atheism'' piece , Hillside?
What's your thinking here - that if you tell the same lie that I do think science does equal atheism often enough eventually someone will believe it? That you'll believe it?
What?
Either way, that's not what my post was about at all.
If science does not equal atheism why are you contrasting science with religion?
I didn't.
-
Rhi,
ad referred to "the church" rather than to the Catholic church specifically, but I think we're on the same page nonetheless.
Ad-o only recognises the Orthodox Church.
I think we are pretty much in agreement on this; my point was that even if the CofE was disestablished the various denominations still have influence and while that is the case then what they do is the business of society as a whole.
-
Rhi,
Ad-o only recognises the Orthodox Church.
I think we are pretty much in agreement on this; my point was that even if the CofE was disestablished the various denominations still have influence and while that is the case then what they do is the business of society as a whole.
And therein lies the problem with privileging the beliefs of the religious over just guessing. The moment we allow that their "faith" means they actually know something then who's to say what they don't know? Discriminating against gay people? Yeah, why not - after all they have "faith" don't they?
-
Rhi,
And therein lies the problem with privileging the beliefs of the religious over just guessing. The moment we allow that their "faith" means they actually know something then who's to say what they don't know? Discriminating against gay people? Yeah, why not - after all they have "faith" don't they?
Yes, and it's a very intoxicating message when the bloke down the pub or the nice lady from accounts tells you how to be saved. And then if they helpfully point out the wrongness of gay relationships, in a very loving way of course, they must be right...
-
Rhi,
Yes, and it's a very intoxicating message when the bloke down the pub or the nice lady from accounts tells you how to be saved. And then if they helpfully point out the wrongness of gay relationships, in a very loving way of course, they must be right...
Quite. Is there anything more sanctimoniously bullshitty than, "hate the sin, love the sinner" I wonder? How fucking dare they.
-
ad,
Incidentally, I've just noticed your tag line: "Rationalism leads to Protestantism leads to atheism.".
Let's hope so eh?
-
Yes, and it's a very intoxicating message when the bloke down the pub or the nice lady from accounts tells you how to be saved. And then if they helpfully point out the wrongness of gay relationships, in a very loving way of course, they must be right...
Nice lady from accounts would not be allowed to say such things at work. Strictly verboten.
-
Robinson,
Nice lady from accounts would not be allowed to say such things at work. Strictly verboten.
I know. She'd still be the bigger "sinner" though in my rarely humble opinion.
-
ad,
Incidentally, I've just noticed your tag line: "Rationalism leads to Protestantism leads to atheism.".
Let's hope so eh?
No need to hope. It's already the case, ever since the Reformation.
-
ad,
No need to hope. It's already the case.
Sadly, not yet it isn't. Eventually maybe it'll be a last man standing situation: secular survival or nuclear armageddon likely triggered by religious wing nuts convinced they're right because that's their "faith".
-
ad,
Sadly, not yet it isn't. Eventually maybe it'll be a last man standing situation: secular survival or nuclear armageddon likely triggered by religious wing nuts convinced they're right because that's their "faith".
They happen to be Protestants with their raptures etc.
-
Nice lady from accounts would not be allowed to say such things at work. Strictly verboten.
Depends on when and where (over a nice sandwich from Pret, maybe? How about inviting the office junior over for dinner with the family?) and whether the person being evangelised objected - not all do.
-
They happen to be Protestants with their raptures etc.
And Putin?
-
Rhi,
Quite. Is there anything more sanctimoniously bullshitty than, "hate the sin, love the sinner" I wonder? How fucking dare they.
Yep, always thought this whatever side of the fence I was on.
-
And Putin?
He's trying to prevent WWIII. NATO is the problem.
-
He's trying to prevent WWIII. NATO is the problem.
Because they are Protestants?
-
Because they are Protestants?
Mainly. But that's not quite what I meant.
-
Depends on when and where (over a nice sandwich from Pret, maybe? How about inviting the office junior over for dinner with the family?) and whether the person being evangelised objected - not all do.
That's a point, hasn't been allowed in the workplace for years (which is right in my opinion), out of work hours is different. You're right that not everyone would object, they might like discussing religion like wot we do here.
-
He's trying to prevent WWIII. NATO is the problem.
YE GODS! :o
-
That's a point, hasn't been allowed in the workplace for years (which is right in my opinion), out of work hours is different. You're right that not everyone would object, they might like discussing religion like wot we do here.
And some are open to evangelising and some are vulnerable to it. But that's a whole other thread....
-
Dear Blue, ( Happy St Georges Day )
Happy to if you want me to, but it has everything to do with the price of fish. If religious texts help you think about the human condition then well and good. When they assert factual truths that cannot be shown to be the case with logic or evidence though (eg, “God”) then in that respect they are at least mistaken.
Tell you what old son ( and I say this tongue in cheek ) you would make a bloody great politician.
Anyway lets recap for the children, I am trying to explain a little about where Karen Armstrong is coming from regarding the subject of Myth, so for the third ( and final ) time, please give me your favourite all time fictional book, the one that left you thinking, God I never thought of that, or, the one that took you out of yourself, the one that made you look at life a little differently, the one that made you ponder on life, love and whatsitallabout.
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners,
Tell you what old son ( and I say this tongue in cheek ) you would make a bloody great politician.
How very dare you Sir! ;)
Anyway lets recap for the children, I am trying to explain a little about where Karen Armstrong is coming from regarding the subject of Myth, so for the third ( and final ) time, please give me your favourite all time fictional book, the one that left you thinking, God I never thought of that, or, the one that took you out of yourself, the one that made you look at life a little differently, the one that made you ponder on life, love and whatsitallabout.
Well, first up the books that had that affect weren't non-fiction at all. I remember reading "On Liberty" as a teenager for example, and thinking "now this makes perfect sense to me". Still does in fact. It's a bit like skiing lessons (work with me here): the first one (or few) have a huge effect, and, no matter how many you have after that those further lessons change you in ways that are incremental in comparison.
Something like that anyway.
As for fiction, again funnily enough the books I would describe that way were all ones I first read early on. Here are some of them though:
To Kill a Mockingbird
Strait is the Gate
East of Eden
Brave New World
The Great Gatsby
One Hundred Years of Solitude
Flaubert's Parrot
1984
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
The Scarlet Letter
Under the Volcano (dear god what that book did to me as a young teenager!)
Earthly Powers (my desert island pick)
I've also found Douglas Dunn's collection of poems written after the death of his wife Elegies to have reached out to me over the years.
Mind you, ask me tomorrow and the list will be completely different of course. I claim nothing for any of these books by the way, other than that they happened to collide with my journey through life in ways that have stayed with me.
Will that do?
-
Not at all.
You deny that Jesus said he came not to abolish the law or that you said the law was dead?
-
gonnagle
As you may recall, I read quite a few of Karen Armstrong's books and at the time made a point of listening when she was broadcasting. She certainly presented a very much more realistic view of what probably happened in the time of Christianity's beginnings. I have expressed my views on her writings, but I'll join in again here I think to say that I waited in vain for her to come down clearly on one side of the fence, but she had obviously decided to take a disinterested stance about whether God existed, , especially as she had most decidedly moved well away from her RC upbringing.
In the end, I think that she has never stepped right outside God belief and, therefore, her opinions can never be those of someone who sees things from a non-belief point of view, whereas those who have stepped completely away can.
-
You deny that Jesus said he came not to abolish the law or that you said the law was dead?
You obviously do not understand the words of Christ, much like the Jews. Christ
-
You obviously do not understand the words of Christ, much like the Jews. Christ
Maybe Jesus didn't do such a good job if most people didn't understand what he was on about. The Jews are still awaiting their promised Messiah.
-
The Jews are still awaiting their promised Messiah.
They missed the boat, I'm afraid. They plotted against and killed him.
-
They missed the boat, I'm afraid. They plotted against and killed him.
-
The act was carried out by Romans.
The responsibility was and is ours.
-
-
The act was carried out by Romans.
The responsibility was and is ours.
St. Peter and St. Stephen contradict you.
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain"
"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers"
-
Context, dear boy, context. The audience these Christians were addressing were Jews or those on the edges of Judaism. Who nailed the Lord to that Cross, pray? Not Jews - unless you have some hidden knowledge verging on Gnosticism that the Romans who tried and condemned Him, and nailed Him to that Cross underwent some hidden snip? And since Paul makes it abundanytly clear that ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and that Christ died for our sins, then all who sinned are in some way responsible for Him dying on that Cross. Remember when Paul wrote "Christ died for our sins" to the believers in Corinth, that infant congregation was a mixed community of Jews and non Jewish converts. So the 'our' was meant, not only for the Jews, burt for everyone else.
-
Context, dear boy, context. The audience these Christians were addressing were Jews or those on the edges of Judaism. Who nailed the Lord to that Cross, pray? Not Jews - unless you have some hidden knowledge verging on Gnosticism that the Romans who tried and condemned Him, and nailed Him to that Cross underwent some hidden snip? And since Paul makes it abundanytly clear that ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and that Christ died for our sins, then all who sinned are in some way responsible for Him dying on that Cross. Remember when Paul wrote "Christ died for our sins" to the believers in Corinth, that infant congregation was a mixed community of Jews and non Jewish converts. So the 'our' was meant, not only for the Jews, burt for everyone else.
Nope. That's just modern ecumenist fluff, designed to gloss over the clear words of St. Peter and St. Stephen.
-
Ah, Ok =- so Paul was wrong, then? Fair enough. Strange kind of interpretation. Were those who made it sniffing strange insence at the time?
-
Ah, Ok =- so Paul was wrong, then? Fair enough. Strange kind of interpretation. Were those who made it sniffing strange insence at the time?
The Apostle says we have all sinned, yes, I never denied that. That has nothing to do with original statement concerning the Jews plotting against and killing their own Messiah and God. That is why they were "cut off" as the Apostle puts it and why the Temple was destroyed etc.
-
The Apostle says we have all sinned, yes, I never denied that. That has nothing to do with original statement concerning the Jews plotting against and killing their own Messiah and God. That is why they were "cut off" as the Apostle puts it and why the Temple was destroyed etc.
No, that was the Romans again.
-
They missed the boat, I'm afraid. They plotted against and killed him.
Jesus was no sort of Messiah or deity he wouldn't be a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, if that were the case.
-
Jesus was no sort of Messiah or deity he wouldn't be a rotted corpse somewhere in the Middle East, if that were the case.
-
Er/........
Would you like to review your statement - and provide evidence which will substantiate it, Floo?
-
No, that was the Romans again.
You obviously haven't read the Gospels have you. In it the Jews plot against Jesus to have him put to death. Really, having read them I find it impossible to come to any other conclusion. The Church thought that too.
-
-
Er/........
Would you like to review your statement - and provide evidence which will substantiate it, Floo?
It is for you to provide evidence to support your illogical belief, but of course you can't because there is none.
-
It is for you to provide evidence to support your illogical belief, but of course you can't because there is none.
No, Anchorman was replying to your post saying that Jesus was a rotted corose. The burden of proif falks on the person making the positive claim. In this case that was you.
-
No, Anchorman was replying to your post saying that Jesus was a rotted corose. The burden of proif falks on the person making the positive claim. In this case that was you.
No it is the people who claim he resurrected who have to prove Jesus did so, as they can't, my claim he is a rotted corpse is more logical, as they didn't cremate people in those days, I don't think!
-
Maybe Jesus didn't do such a good job if most people didn't understand what he was on about. The Jews are still awaiting their promised Messiah.
Not all Jews, some Jews. There are those who believe the Messiah (not Jesus) has come & revere a person who walked this earth, now dead. There are Jews who don't believe in the coming of a Messiah at all because their interpretation of scriptures is different. You cannot generalise about Judaism.
-
No it is the people who claim he resurrected who have to prove Jesus did so, as they can't, my claim he is a rotted corpse is more logical, as they didn't cremate people in those days, I don't think!
No. You are using induction and the argument by personal incredulity here for your positive claim.
-
It is for you to provide evidence to support your illogical belief, but of course you can't because there is none.
-
You made a statement, Floo.
Without substantiating it, it is meaningless.
-
NS,
No. You are using induction and the argument by personal incredulity here for your positive claim.
Hmmm. I'm aware of the burden of proof issue, but perhaps there's some nuance here. Science uses sigma certainty for example - a 5 Sigma event means that the probability of your finding being "true" is 3x10-7 (three times ten to the minus seven). Thus if the Higgs-Boson does not exist, the data from CERN would need to be at least as extreme as the data they observed. On this level of certainty the Higgs-Boson is referred to as a "fact".
This probability is equivalent to running the experiment around 3.5 million times. We can also "run the experiment" of looking at what happened when 3.5 million people died, and also obtain 5 Sigma certainty that they stayed dead. Is it so unreasonable then to call "dead people stay dead" a fact too, provided no absolutism is involved?
-
NS,
Hmmm. I'm aware of the burden of proof issue, but perhaps there's some nuance here. Science uses sigma certainty for example - a 5 Sigma event means that the probability of your finding being "true" is 3x10-7 (three times ten to the minus seven). Thus if the Higgs-Boson does not exist, the data from CERN would need to be at least as extreme as the data they observed. On this level of certainty the Higgs-Boson is referred to as a "fact".
This probability is equivalent to running the experiment around 3.5 million times. We can also "run the experiment" of looking at what happened when 3.5 million people died, and also obtain 5 Sigma certainty that they stayed dead. Is it so unreasonable then to call "dead people stay dead" a fact too, provided no absolutism is involved?
Yes, in the case of the specific claim that Jesus is a rotted corpse. I really don't understand why you want to use double standards as regards positove statements, or ignore the problems of inductiin for specific claims, or give a pass to arguments from personal incredulity for those claims you seem more sympathetic to.
-
NS,
Yes, in the case of the specific claim that Jesus is a rotted corpse. I really don't understand why you want to use double standards as regards positove statements, or ignore the problems of inductiin for specific claims, or give a pass to arguments from personal incredulity for those claims you seem more sympathetic to.
I was just trying a line of argument - as much to see how it sounded to my ears as anything. I wasn't looking to start an argument. The question was simply, is the statement "Jesus is dead" (Floo's claim) any less certain than, say, "the Higgs-Boson is exists" is all.
-
Not all Jews, some Jews. There are those who believe the Messiah (not Jesus) has come & revere a person who walked this earth, now dead. There are Jews who don't believe in the coming of a Messiah at all because their interpretation of scriptures is different. You cannot generalise about Judaism.
-
With you there.
A couple of years back, a friend of mine, a Messianic Jew, invited me to celebrate Passover with himself and some members of his congregation.
A great night was had by all.
Typical Jewish Passover ceremonial, except that the last cup - the cup reserved, undrunk, for the Messiah, became the cup we used in communion - very moving evocation of the events of that Thursday before Good Friday.
Whilst maintaining their Jewish heritage, they nevertheless accept Yeshua as Messiah, Lord - and God.
-
NS,
I was just trying a line of argument - as much to see how it sounded to my ears as anything. I wasn't looking to start an argument. The question was simply, is the statement "Jesus is dead" (Floo's claim) any less certain than, say, "the Higgs-Boson is exists" is all.
And the answer to that is yes since the Higgs is a generic testable claim, whereas the Jesus claim is a specific non testable one. Essentially Floo's claim is more comparable to 'There are no black swans'
-
NS,
And the answer to that is yes since the Higgs is a generic testable claim, whereas the Jesus claim is a specific non testable one. Essentially Floo's claim is more comparable to 'There are no black swans'
Is it? The Higgs-Boson is testable in the way I described. You could also examine 3.5m deaths and find that every one of them stayed dead.
How then is the certainty value of the two statements different? Isn't "there isn't a Higgs-Boson" also equivalent to "there are no black swans" only with bigger data? Would't both "Higgs-Boson" and "dead people stay dead" be statements of equivalent probability if there was the same number of experiments with the same results to test each claim?
-
NS,
Is it? The Higgs-Boson is testable in the way I described. You could also examine 3.5m deaths and find that every one of them stayed dead.
How then is the certainty value of the two statements different? Isn't "there isn't a Higgs-Boson" also equivalent to "there are no black swans" only with bigger data? Aren't both "Higgs-Boson" and "dead people stay dead" statements of equivalent probability given the same number of experiments with the same results to test the claims?
no, the existence of the Higgs Boson is testabke for. When it is shown to happen, it is shown ti exists. The equivalebt claim would be thete are black swans. When one is found the claim is evidenced. No matter how many swans you look at the claim there are no black swans, a positive claim isn't evidenced because of the problems of induction. The claim works the same as 'yoy cannot show Jesus isn't a rotren corpse, therefore he is a rotten corpse' ans we all know what that is.
-
NS,
no, the existence of the Higgs Boson is testabke for. When it is shown to happen, it is shown ti exists. The equivalebt claim would be thete are black swans. When one is found the claim is evidenced. No matter how many swans you look at the claim there are no black swans, a positive claim isn't evidenced because of the problems of induction. The claim works the same as 'yoy cannot show Jesus isn't a rotren corpse, therefore he is a rotten corpse' ans we all know what that is.
How is it "shown to have happened" though? Isn't what happened that experiments were run with results consistent with the hypothesis and for which alternative explanations were so unlikely that the Higgs-Boson theory became a 5 Sigma event, and so is called a "fact"? What conceptually at least would be the difference between that and disinterring dead people 3.5 million times and concluding on the same basis that "dead people don't come alive again" is a fact of equivalent status?
I'm quite prepared to accept that I don't properly understand the significance of sigma certainty, but it still seems pretty analogous to me.
-
My take on this is that Floo can't assert that Jesus is a rotted corpse without expecting challenge because there's no evidence of that. It's not the same as saying that 'dead people stay dead'. In order to be able to say that *Jesus* is dead we'd need to prove that Jesus was in fact alive at one point. And he still might not be a rotted corpse - cremation aside he could have been mummified, either intentionally or by the environment. And his resting place might not be the Middle East.
-
NS,
How is it "shown to have happened" though? Isn't what happened that experiments were run with results consistent with the hypothesis and for which alternative explanations were so unlikely that the Higgs-Boson theory became a 5 Sigma event, and so is called a "fact"? What conceptually at least would be the difference between that and disinterring dead people 3.5 million times and concluding on the same basis that "dead people don't come alive again" is a fact of equivalent status?
I'm quite prepared to accept that I don't properly understand the significance of sigma certainty, but it still seems pretty analogous to me.
Which is how science works in terms of testing. It's not how specific history claims work.
-
NS,
Is it? The Higgs-Boson is testable in the way I described. You could also examine 3.5m deaths and find that every one of them stayed dead.
How then is the certainty value of the two statements different? Isn't "there isn't a Higgs-Boson" also equivalent to "there are no black swans" only with bigger data? Would't both "Higgs-Boson" and "dead people stay dead" be statements of equivalent probability if there was the same number of experiments with the same results to test each claim?
Flaming 'eck and from a laddy who swears blind that he never suggests science equals atheism.
-
My take on this is that Floo can't assert that Jesus is a rotted corpse without expecting challenge because there's no evidence of that. It's not the same as saying that 'dead people stay dead'. In order to be able to say that *Jesus* is dead we'd need to prove that Jesus was in fact alive at one point. And he still might not be a rotted corpse - cremation aside he could have been mummified, either intentionally or by the environment. And his resting place might not be the Middle East.
OK I accept that point.
-
gonnagle
As you may recall, I read quite a few of Karen Armstrong's books and at the time made a point of listening when she was broadcasting. She certainly presented a very much more realistic view of what probably happened in the time of Christianity's beginnings. I have expressed my views on her writings, but I'll join in again here I think to say that I waited in vain for her to come down clearly on one side of the fence, but she had obviously decided to take a disinterested stance about whether God existed, , especially as she had most decidedly moved well away from her RC upbringing.
In the end, I think that she has never stepped right outside God belief and, therefore, her opinions can never be those of someone who sees things from a non-belief point of view, whereas those who have stepped completely away can.
Yes but you've stepped into the pavement turd of New Atheism and subsequently reek of it.
-
Dear Blue,
Boy!! you read a load of rubbish :P :P :P kiddin! old friend, kiddin!
Your book list sounds to me like, I should read more, but then I read avidly, if I have nothing to read I will read the back of a cornflake packet.
Anyway, down to business, and your first choice is a cracker, a wonderful Myth, my favourite book ( Sane and Gordon will be around to give you a big Mod Kiss ) "To Kill a Mockingbird".
I could be here all night, just let me check supplies, whisky, check, glass, check, I shall begin. ::)
Let me see, a book written through a childs eye, now that could make you stop and ponder, to see the world through a childs eye, should we all stop and look at the world through a childs eye.
So this is the beginning of the Myth, everything is sweet and rosy in Maycomb county, sun is shining, and Scout is waiting for new adventures, but unknown to Scout all around her are hunger, greed, racism, rape, and mans inhumanity to man.
This book is very powerful, it is why it is always, and always will be in the top ten, it is explosive, and why it is a wonderful and powerful Myth.
And this is Armstrong's point, a Myth is not a true story, no fact, although it may be based on some actual event, it is a story to make you think, to take you away, to make you think about mans inhumanity to man.
Armstrong in her books ask for more of these, more writing to take us out of our mundane, more books, poetry, to make us all think about our place on this planet.
So let me conclude with a Christian Myth, or a Judaism myth, Adam and Eve, a story of walking away from God, a story of original sin, or a story of man waking up.
Gonnagle.
-
Which is how science works in terms of testing. It's not how specific history claims work.
There is also the thing that people currently are killed unjustly or in someone else's place from time to time - as is claimed with Jesus - and they stay dead. Some of those who become martyrs are motivated by making atonement for bad things they've done. But we don't know what happens when someone lives a truly good life, never does anything wrong, so that death just doesn't seem the right ending for them.
-
How can science test that, is what I'm getting at.
-
There is also the thing that people currently are killed unjustly or in someone else's place from time to time - as is claimed with Jesus - and they stay dead. Some of those who become martyrs are motivated by making atonement for bad things they've done. But we don't know what happens when someone lives a truly good life, never does anything wrong, so that death just doesn't seem the right ending for them.
So?
-
NS,
Which is how science works in terms of testing. It's not how specific history claims work.
Try this:
Hypothesis 1: Higgs-Boson
Experiment: Large Hadron Collider
Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?
If "yes": Higgs-Boson therefore a 5-Sigma theory.
Hypothesis 2: Dead people stay dead
Experiment: Disinter lots of graves
Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?
If "yes": "Dead people stay dead" therefore a 5-Sigma theory.
What conceptually at least is the difference? Isn't the clue in the word "burden" in the phrase "burden of proof"? "Burden" doesn't mean something like, "impossible to be wrong" but rather, "this is probabilistically correct beyond any reasonable doubt". The Higgs-Boson has 5-Sigma certainty, but no-one claims that it's technically impossible that there's another explanation for the results even though the burden of proof for it is comfortably satisfied. That is, the black swan risk would apply equally to "Higgs-Boson" and to "dead people stay dead" given the same experimental parameters wouldn't they?.
-
Vlad,
Flaming 'eck and from a laddy who swears blind that he never suggests science equals atheism.
Yes. This has got nothing to do with "science = atheism" - it's just a thought experiment in logic (and terminology).
-
NS,
Try this:
Hypothesis 1: Higgs-Boson
Experiment: Large Hadron Collider
Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?
If "yes": Higgs-Boson therefore a 5-Sigma theory.
Hypothesis 2: Dead people stay dead
Experiment: Disinter lots of graves
Measure: Do results confirm to the hypothesis with a p-value of 3x10-7 (about 1 in 3.5 million) or better?
If "yes": "Dead people stay dead" therefore a 5-Sigma theory.
What conceptually at least is the difference? Isn't the clue in the word "burden" in the phrase "burden of proof"? "Burden" doesn't mean something like, "impossible to be wrong" but rather, "this is probabilistically correct beyond any reasonable doubt". The Higgs-Boson has 5-Sigma certainty, but no-one claims that it's technically impossible that there's another explanation for the results even though the burden of proof for it is comfortably satisfied. That is, the black swan risk would apply equally to "Higgs-Boson" and to "dead people stay dead" given the same experimental parameters wouldn't they?.
Except the proposition is not Dead people stay dead. The statement from Floo is that an individual called Jesus is a rotting corpse and that this shows they are not the Messiah of some religion. That's the claim you have to evidence and using generic claims as above falls into the problem of induction.
-
Vlad,
Yes. This has got nothing to do with "science = atheism" - it's just a thought experiment in logic (and terminology).
Indeed, Vlad is, as ever, happy not to just miss the point but make one up from his bumper bundle of misrepresentations.
-
NS,
Except the proposition is not Dead people stay dead. The statement from Floo is that an individual called Jesus is a rotting corpse and that this shows they are not the Messiah of some religion. That's the claim you have to evidence and using generic claims as above falls into the problem of induction.
I know, but isn't the statement, "Jesus is a rotting corpse" (or, less colourfully, "Jesus is dead") just a sub-set of the general statement "dead people stay dead" though? The statement, "mammals give birth to live young" applies even if the claim was just, "dolphins give birth to live young". If the statement re mammals in general has 5-sigma certainty, then so it does for dolphins.
The escape clause incidentally would presumably be to argue that Jesus isn't a sub-set of "people" because he is/was a man-god, so any degree of certainty about what happens to people post mortem is irrelevant. Which would bring us back to the dead end of, "it's magic innit."
-
NS,
I know, but isn't the statement, "Jesus is a rotting corpse" (or, less colourfully, "Jesus is dead") just a sub-set of the general statement "dead people stay dead" though? The statement, "mammals give birth to live young" applies even if the claim was just, "dolphins give birth to live young". If the statement re mammals in general has 5-sigma certainty, then so it does for dolphins.
The escape clause incidentally would presumably be to argue that Jesus isn't a sub-set of "people" because he is/was a man-god, so any degree of certainty about what happens to people post mortem is irrelevant. Which would bring us back to the dead end of, "it's magic innit?"
No, it's not a subset because it uses induction to apply to an individual claim. It's circular in that it states the initial claim of others is untrue because they can't be true. It also being a specific claim needs evidence for it, not a set of inductive reasoning.
-
Dear Blue,
https://understandinguncertainty.org/explaining-5-sigma-higgs-how-well-did-they-do
You statistical pedant :P :P
And please don't try to explain ( well unless you can do it in one short sentence ) I am sure I will bump into 5 sigma certainty again in my travels through science and its wonderful achievements.
Gonnagle.
-
So?
So, that is a key factor because part of the claim is, he didn't stay dead because he hadn't sinned. "All dead people stay dead" applies to people who have sinned, and floo's claim is no different to saying that Caesar Augustus is a corpse in the middle East or wherever. So i think she would be correct except that she doesn't take the above factor into account, which is the mistake.
-
So, that is a key factor because part of the claim is, he didn't stay dead because he hadn't sinned. "All dead people stay dead" applies to people who have sinned, and floo's claim is no different to saying that Caesar Augustus is a corpse in the middle East or wherever. So i think she would be correct except that she doesn't take the above factor into account, which is the mistake.
So you only go to heaven if you haven't done anything wrong? Therefore none of us are going skywards as none of us are perfect, including Jesus who was a flawed like the rest of us, that much is clear from the gospel accounts of his actions.
-
NS,
No, it's not a subset because it uses induction to apply to an individual claim.
Yes it does, but aren’t the two inextricably bound? “Evolution is true” is a general statement deductively obtained from exhaustive testing; “there isn’t a rabbit fossil in the precambrian layers” is an individual claim inductively obtained.
If the latter were to be not true though, nor could be the former - the specific borrows from the method that validates the general. A rabbit fossil in the precambrian cannot be true without destroying the certainty point that validates evolution.
It's circular in that it states the initial claim of others is untrue because they can't be true.
To be circular there’d be no reason to accept the premise unless you also accepted the conclusion, essentially: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true” with nothing outside that loop independently to validate either position. Here though the potential for circularity is broken by the sigma certainty method applied to one of them.
It also being a specific claim needs evidence for it, not a set of inductive reasoning.
Why? If I looked at the data of (say) 3.5 million excavated graves and found every dead person still to be dead, the probability of observing that outcome were the statement “dead people stay dead” not to be true would be insignificant. That is, the confidence level from a 5 sigma point means that the chances of something other than “dead people stay dead” explaining the results can be discounted. And that's the burden of proof right there.
I’m no statistician (as you can tell) but that makes sense to me.
-
Dear Floo,
Me and you are going to the big bad fire, nevermind I think you are allowed to bring your own toasting fork, ah the romance!! me and you toasting our bread beside a big open fire, Heaven!! oh sorry Hell!! ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Floo,
Me and you are going to the big bad fire, nevermind I think you are allowed to bring your own toasting fork, ah the romance!! me and you toasting our bread beside a big open fire, Heaven!! oh sorry Hell!! ;)
Gonnagle.
Don't forget your asbestos clothing, I have mine stashed away. Mind you, my insides must be well protected against the fires of hell as I have inhaled plenty of asbestos dust as a kid when my father was sawing it up; I even liked to eat it as well! :o
-
So, that is a key factor because part of the claim is, he didn't stay dead because he hadn't sinned. "All dead people stay dead" applies to people who have sinned, and floo's claim is no different to saying that Caesar Augustus is a corpse in the middle East or wherever. So i think she would be correct except that she doesn't take the above factor into account, which is the mistake.
This piles Pelion upon Ossa and instead of doing any justifying makes your case worse. This now means you have made a claim that those who are without sin don't stay dead. First of all, that makes Floo's claim irrelevant because you have just made a positive claim, so from your position you have the burden of proof. Worse now you have three claims, 1, that Jesus didn't stay dead, and 2,that this was because he didn't sin, and 3, people without sin don't stay dead. Even worse than that since we are talking about a factual claim in history, and history is studied in a methodological naturalist manner, your claim is nonsensical in that methodology, 'sin' being a non naturalistic concept.
So, in summary you now have three claims to justify and also need to provide a methodology to evaluate part of them and Floo's claim is irrelevant to your position as you have made positive claims of your own which until you provide your methodology is meaningless.
-
Dear Floo,
You do know that you are a bit weird, not like all the really sensible posters on our little forum :o :o :P ;)
Gonnagle.
-
I saw an interview where Sean Carrol explained that no detector had actually 'seen' a Higgs Boson nor would it ever.
The analogy he gave (which explained it to me was). Imagine you have coin, and you think think that one side of the coin weighs
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a gram more than the other. You could then calculate statistically if you tossed it, how much more often the heavier side would come down, and the only way to test if would be to toss to coin billions billions and billions of times. You never weigh the coin but can statistically determine that you are correct.
He explained, that is what the collider does.
I stupidly thought they did it lots of time because they were elusive, but now and again they 'saw' one. This is not what happened.
So the Higgs is statistically 'true' according to the model.
-
Dear Floo,
You do know that you are a bit weird, not like all the really sensible posters on our little forum :o :o :P ;)
Gonnagle.
My family have been telling me that all my life. My kids are saving up to send me on a one way holiday to Mars! ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi again Gonners,
Boy!! you read a load of rubbish kiddin! old friend, kiddin!
Your book list sounds to me like, I should read more, but then I read avidly, if I have nothing to read I will read the back of a cornflake packet.
Anyway, down to business, and your first choice is a cracker, a wonderful Myth, my favourite book ( Sane and Gordon will be around to give you a big Mod Kiss ) "To Kill a Mockingbird".
I could be here all night, just let me check supplies, whisky, check, glass, check, I shall begin.
Looking forward to it!
Let me see, a book written through a childs eye, now that could make you stop and ponder, to see the world through a childs eye, should we all stop and look at the world through a childs eye.
Depends: child-like good; childish bad!
So this is the beginning of the Myth, everything is sweet and rosy in Maycomb county, sun is shining, and Scout is waiting for new adventures, but unknown to Scout all around her are hunger, greed, racism, rape, and mans inhumanity to man.
This book is very powerful, it is why it is always, and always will be in the top ten, it is explosive, and why it is a wonderful and powerful Myth.
You’re using “myth” in an idiosyncratic way here. Normally it means something like, “a traditional story involving supernatural beings” or similar, but TKaM is a story that (for me at least) opened my eyes to aspects of the human experience that changed the way I view the world. As a young person at the time, I like to think it made me a better person at least by a little bit.
And this is Armstrong's point, a Myth is not a true story, no fact, although it may be based on some actual event, it is a story to make you think, to take you away, to make you think about mans inhumanity to man.
Which is fine so far as it goes. TKaM could though have been a true story with no diminution of its effect – it makes no difference either way. Religious “holy” texts on the other hand tend to care very much about whether or not the events they claim as facts (a resurrection for example) actually happened.
Armstrong in her books ask for more of these, more writing to take us out of our mundane, more books, poetry, to make us all think about our place on this planet.
So let me conclude with a Christian Myth, or a Judaism myth, Adam and Eve, a story of walking away from God, a story of original sin, or a story of man waking up.
And if those narratives are meaningful to you, fine and dandy. What you can’t do though is to use them to assert to children that homosexuality is a “sin”, that a man-god was alive then dead then alive again, that “God” is etc. All these matters would take a lot more than myth to establish their bona fides.
-
BR,
I saw an interview where Sean Carrol explained that no detector had actually 'seen' a Higgs Boson nor would it ever.
The analogy he gave (which explained it to me was). Imagine you have coin, and you think think that one side of the coin weighs
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a gram more than the other. You could then calculate statistically if you tossed it, how much more often the heavier side would come down, and the only way to test if would be to toss to coin billions billions and billions of times. You never weigh the coin but can statistically determine that you are correct.
He explained, that is what the collider does.
I stupidly thought they did it lots of time because they were elusive, but now and again they 'saw' one. This is not what happened.
So the Higgs is statistically 'true' according to the model.
That's an important point. Sigma certainty doesn't care about the explanatory hypothesis (Hiigs-Boson etc) but rather about the data, and specifically about the likelihood of chance producing the same result.
-
BR,
That's an important point. Sigma certainty doesn't care about the explanatory hypothesis (Hiigs-Boson etc) but rather about the data, and specifically about the likelihood of chance producing the same result.
Yes you remind me in the same interview, they saw a spike in the data which excited them, but with more data the spike went away, and was just a statistical anomaly.
-
Dear Blue,
Normally it means something like
I think you want the word modern not normally, anyway I am now off to the Dentist, I would like to thank the forum for taking my mind off of that thought, I hate the Dentist, don't know why, it is never as bad as I first thought ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Ain't this gone all boring. Zzzzz!
-
ad,
Ain't this gone all boring. Zzzzz!
Yeah, I'm with you old son - all that reason and logic and stuff. Who needs it eh? Let's get back to the un-argued assertions and party likes it's 1599 eh?
Woo-hoo!
-
packet.
Anyway, down to business, and your first choice is a cracker, a wonderful Myth, my favourite book ( Sane and Gordon will be around to give you a big Mod Kiss ) "To Kill a Mockingbird".
However, it seems that the author had second thoughts, and has re-written it, implying that racism is okay, and makes the lawyer Atticus Finch something of a racist himself.
I haven't read the second version, so I don't know whether I'm misrepresenting her present position, but this was more or less what I heard on Radio 4.
-
Dear Dicky,
No my friend, sorry but the author had written through the eyes of a grown up Scout "Go set a Watchman" where she challenges her father on the methods he employed, her father ( put simply ) another time when he knew he was up against rampant racism, his methods, he had to tread very carefully.
But it could be another great Myth, this is where I ask old Blue about his word "Normally" ancient Myth ( according to Armstrong ) can be revised, revisited, adapted, added too, which it was and has been done down through the centuries.
Adam and Eve, was a story told to think about how we think about our beginnings, St Augustine changed it to original Sin, there are many other examples, Confucius changing how we thought about the Worship of Ancestors.
The point being that Myth had a very direct purpose, or sorry "Mythos" as opposed to "Logos" Myth asked what are we all about, logic asks, is the planet flat or round.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Dicky,
No my friend, sorry but the author had written through the eyes of a grown up Scout "Go set a Watchman" where she challenges her father on the methods he employed, her father ( put simply ) another time when he knew he was up against rampant racism, his methods, he had to tread very carefully.
But it could be another great Myth, this is where I ask old Blue about his word "Normally" ancient Myth ( according to Armstrong ) can be revised, revisited, adapted, added too, which it was and has been done down through the centuries.
Adam and Eve, was a story told to think about how we think about our beginnings, St Augustine changed it to original Sin, there are many other examples, Confucius changing how we thought about the Worship of Ancestors.
The point being that Myth had a very direct purpose, or sorry "Mythos" as opposed to "Logos" Myth asked what are we all about, logic asks, is the planet flat or round.
Gonnagle.
More of a miss than a myth Gonners.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
really!! I await the the findings of the court, if the court proves against I will plead insanity, "there ain't no Sanity Clause"
Gonnagle.
-
I like coming her because it means I get to talk with people who are as sane as I am.
-
The point being that Myth had a very direct purpose, or sorry "Mythos" as opposed to "Logos" Myth asked what are we all about, logic asks, is the planet flat or round.
Gonnagle.
Righto, Gonners - I need to read the new book.
Re - Mythos and Logos - well, so Karen Armstrong says. She states directly that the ancient knew exactly which kind of thought or writing they were dealing with. I'm not so sure that everything was quite as conscious as that, given the variety of types of philosophy offered by the ancient Greeks. And as regards biblical matters - there's still a lot of debate over the meaning of Genesis 1 - poem, myth or literal account? (since many scholars think it was written by the 'Priestly' author, that cove was extremely precise in his prescriptions e.g. Leviticus) Has our Karen been more specific? Did she cite writers who used both forms of expression, and the means by which we can tell they knew what form of thought processes they were using?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39623071
Good to see.
Why is it good to see?
I see nothing wrong with any establishment not lying or pretending that marriage can be between two men or two women.
They are selling a lie. I believe same sex couples should be protected so what they build together cannot be taken away from each other but why lie?