Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on February 10, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
-
deleted
-
In my 68 years on this planet I have come across some Christians, in reality and on forums, who make my skin crawl. They are the ones who are extremist in their portrayal of the faith when trying to force it down the throats of others with threats if they don't get 'saved'! I personally know a number who were oh so holy when trying to convert others, yet their personal lives didn't stand up to scrutiny. If their version of god exists does it condone them cheating on their partners, or having business dealing, which are nothing short of fraudulent? Added to that bigotry is often rife among their number when it comes to racism, homophobia and looking down on those who are mentally disabled. I was more than shocked, when on another forum a so called 'Christian' who had been giving it large about their faith, had stated in their profile they were a member of the American Nazi Party! >:( When I challenged them about this incongruity, they stated that Nazis were good people! :o
I can only think that Christians, whose behaviour is reprehensible, believe in the 'once saved, always saved', mantra, which ensures them a place in heaven whatever they do after conversion! ::)
Fortunately for me I know some very decent Christians too, like my own three girls. :)
What do other posters think of the Christians who drag the faith through the sewer?
The BBC's look how normal it is to be a Christian mantra put out at every opportunity they can without making it too obvious, they never miss, makes my skin crawl, when you think of how much power they have, the subtlety of how they do it it's impressive.
Regards ippy
-
The BBC's look how normal it is to be a Christian mantra put out at every opportunity they can without making it too obvious, they never miss, makes my skin crawl, when you think of how much power they have, the subtlety of how they do it it's impressive.
Regards ippy
And your evidence for this?
-
In my 68 years on this planet I have come across some Christians, in reality and on forums, who make my skin crawl. They are the ones who are extremist in their portrayal of the faith when trying to force it down the throats of others with threats if they don't get 'saved'! I personally know a number who were oh so holy when trying to convert others, yet their personal lives didn't stand up to scrutiny. If their version of god exists does it condone them cheating on their partners, or having business dealing, which are nothing short of fraudulent? Added to that bigotry is often rife among their number when it comes to racism, homophobia and looking down on those who are mentally disabled. I was more than shocked, when on another forum a so called 'Christian' who had been giving it large about their faith, had stated in their profile they were a member of the American Nazi Party! >:( When I challenged them about this incongruity, they stated that Nazis were good people! :o
I can only think that Christians, whose behaviour is reprehensible, believe in the 'once saved, always saved', mantra, which ensures them a place in heaven whatever they do after conversion! ::)
Fortunately for me I know some very decent Christians too, like my own three girls. :)
What do other posters think of the Christians who drag the faith through the sewer?
We did have a few less pleasant types on the old board, Gigantic Freddie comes to mind,
but so far as I know we have never had anybody who fits those descriptions on this board. I presume that you mean the likes of Jimmy Swaggert? I do not consider him to be a Christian at all, at the very best he offers conjurors tricks & at the worst he seems to be a liar, a hypocrite, and a cheat. I would have thought that being a member of any Nazi Party is incompatible with Christianity!
-
The BBC's look how normal it is to be a Christian mantra put out at every opportunity they can without making it too obvious, they never miss, makes my skin crawl, when you think of how much power they have, the subtlety of how they do it it's impressive.
Regards ippy
Ippy, that is not what LR is talking about!
-
The people across the pond seem to be much more tolerant of the extremes of Christianity than most of us would be here in the UK. ::) Wasn't Hitler supposed to have been a Christian?
I don't personally know anybody who considers Hitler, or Stalin, to have been Christians, although some do allege it from time to time.
-
Ippy, that is not what LR is talking about!
The title of the O P's 'Christians who make my skin crawl!'.
Regards ippy
-
I could be wrong, but I read somewhere that Hitler was a Christian and considered he was doing the faith a favour by riding the world of Jews! >:(
TBH that is like me suddenly announcing that I am descended from a lost tribe & that I am a real Israelite rather than those of the Judah/Benjamin merged tribes.
You can call yourself what you like, but I don't know anybody who would consider Hitler to be a Christian. Yes there might be some neo nazi shitheads who would take that view, but I do not consider them to be Christians either.
-
The title of the O P's 'Christians who make my skin crawl!'.
Regards ippy
May I remind you of the who part, Ippy.
-
I could be wrong, but I read somewhere that Hitler was a Christian and considered he was doing the faith a favour by riding the world of Jews! >:(
You are wrong. Hitler was, like many, baptised into a Christian faith but his 'religion', if you can call it that, consisted of various superstitions, folklore and the occult. No doubt he considered the world would be better off without Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled and others.
I too haven't seen anything from the BBC or elsewhere about portraying Christians in any light. One is hard pushed to find anything religious on television, not that I want to watch it but a while ago a Christian poster said something about religious programmes that are 'out there' if only I look; all I've found scrolling freeview is TBN which I think is an American channel, on late at night or early hours. I haven't watched it. Don't have SKY, there may be more on that but I wouldn't know.
Returning to the op, I believe that anyone who uses a religion in order to promote something bad (such as abuse of the vulnerable or hate-full politics such as LR outlined), is committing the unforgiveable sin. It's an outrage.
-
Sadly Christianity is rife with superstition!
Floo, Christianity is a religion! What do you expect?
-
My apologies LR, I should have used your current name.
-
You are wrong. Hitler was, like many, baptised into a Christian faith but his 'religion', if you can call it that, consisted of various superstitions, folklore and the occult.
Sounds more like Himmler to me. I wouldn't consider Hitler a Christian.
-
He certainly wasn't. There's more to being a Christian than nominalism. Plenty of people have been baptised as infants or children - even married in church - and wouldn't consider themselves Christian.
Hitler had his own ideology.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
-
Thank You, an interesting read.
This is not pleasant reading, but posters may find the following to be of interest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg
-
What is the point of the thread? There are people who call themselves Christians who behave badly. So what?
-
One could ask the same about some of your threads too, my dear.
So no answer?
-
One could say, 'so what', about many threads on this forum. Forums are there for people to have their say, no one is forced to interact if they don't wish to.
And again no answer. It's your thread, what do you think is the point of raising it?
-
I am currently reading a novel about a TV evangelist who cons his gullible victims into funding his lavish life style. Unfortunately that is played out in real life too. I remember hearing about one of their ilk who tried to get people to fund the cost of an executive jet so he could spread his garbage far and wide! I doubt there are any poverty stricken scam merchants of this sort. They seem to breed them in the US, I can't think offhand of any here in the UK.
So let's see
Someone who's British.
Someone who is evangelical about what they believe and say's so on TV.
Sells loads of books to people wanting to drink it in.
Goes over the world spreading his beliefs,
-
So let's see
Someone who's British.
Someone who is evangelical about what they believe and say's so on TV.
Sells loads of books to people wanting to drink it in.
Goes over the world spreading his beliefs,
Ehhhhhhhh?
-
Ehhhhhhhh?
Vlad is saying that Dawkins is like a TV evangelist
-
Vlad is saying that Dawkins is like a TV evangelist
I never mentioned him.
-
I never mentioned him.
It's obvious given your obsession.
-
Vlad is saying that Dawkins is like a TV evangelist
Hmmmmmmmmmm!
-
What is the point of the thread? There are people who call themselves Christians who behave badly. So what?
I was just thinking exactly the same as I read this thread (for the first time): there are also probably politicians, crown-green bowlers, lorry drivers, macrame enthusiasts and people who enjoy the music of Mozart who behave badly too - as you say, so what, and why Christians get a special mention in this regard in this OP beats me!
-
Jacob Rees Mogg. I think some thing about him if I'm honest.
-
I was just thinking exactly the same as I read this thread (for the first time): there are also probably politicians, crown-green bowlers, lorry drivers, macrame enthusiasts and people who enjoy the music of Mozart who behave badly too - as you say, so what, and why Christians get a special mention in this regard in this OP beats me!
Because this is the Christian board!
-
Because this is the Christian board!
So it is, but it isn't an anti-Christian board: you expressed a personal point of view in relation to some Christians but you've haven't explained how your personal objections in relation to some Christians differs from any similar objections that might be applied to any other group by anyone else.
As such it seems like all you are really saying is that you personally find some Christians to be distasteful, which is no more than a Marmite observation.
-
The people across the pond seem to be much more tolerant of the extremes of Christianity than most of us would be here in the UK. ::) The Landover Baptist Church sewer rats, for instance.
Wasn't Hitler supposed to have been a Christian?
I think you mean Westboro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church
-
So it is, but it isn't an anti-Christian board: you expressed a personal point of view in relation to some Christians but you've haven't explained how your personal objections in relation to some Christians differs from any similar objections that might be applied to any other group by anyone else.
As such it seems like all you are really saying is that you personally find some Christians to be distasteful, which is no more than a Marmite observation.
I am NOT anti-Christian, even though I am an agnostic. As I have stated, of course not all Christians are bad people, there are quite a number for whom I have a lot of respect. As Christianity is supposed to stand for something good, I was pointing out that the Christians who try to force their faith down the throats of other people, whilst behaving in a reprehensible manner themselves, are bringing the whole faith into disrepute.
This is a particular beef of mine, sorry if I am getting up the noses of others. Please feel free to remove this thread.
-
I find describing people as sewer rats distasteful.
-
I find describing people as sewer rats distasteful.
Considering how the Landover Baptist mob have behaved, I think that description was polite.
-
Considering how the Landover Baptist mob have behaved, I think that description was polite.
You don’t mean Landover.
-
Considering how the Landover Baptist mob have behaved, I think that description was polite.
As already pointed out I think you mean Westboro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church
-
Considering how the Landover Baptist mob have behaved, I think that description was polite.
LR - the Landover Baptist Church is a spoof of fundamentalist Christianity.
Do you mean Westboro?
-
You don’t mean Landover.
Sorry I am more senile than I realised today, APOLOGIES. :o :-[ I meant Westboro.
-
Hi Gordon,
LR - the Landover Baptist Church is a spoof of fundamentalist Christianity.
How on earth would you go about spoofing something that's beyond parody?
-
Hi Gordon,
How on earth would you go about spoofing something that's beyond parody?
They've done quite a good job - some of it is hilarious.
They also offer useful advice: such as this for Christian men about to go on a date.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0701/dating.html
-
So no answer?
Does there have to be a point?
-
You don’t mean Landover.
It's a spoof website. You've been had.
-
It's a spoof website. You've been had.
Rhiannon hadn't been - that was why she was pointing out that LR didn't/shouldn't mean Landover
-
Rhiannon hadn't been - that was why she was pointing out that Floo didn't/shouldn't mean Landover
Oops! My mistake. I meant LR, but quoted Rhiannon instead. Sorry!
-
Actually what makes my “skin crawl” is people who act from positions of certainty, about anything. As there’s no known logical path to it (because there’s no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown that would falsify you) certainty requires faith or dogma.
And the claims of faith/dogma aren’t investigable, so aren’t falsification apt. All they offer is, “take my word for it” which means that epistemically they’re no better than guessing.
And faith/dogma is often the province of religion (though by no means exclusively so).
And lots of religious people are Christians (though of course other religions are available).
And sometimes those Christians are fundamentalists (though by no means all of them).
And they’re the ones who make my skin crawl. Non-fundamentalists who privilege faith over guessing seem to me to provide cover for the fundies, but I just look askance at them rather than experience dermatological discomfort.
-
Actually what makes my “skin crawl” is people who act from positions of certainty, about anything. As there’s no logical path to it (because there’s no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown that would falsify you) certainty requires faith or dogma.
And the claims of faith/dogma aren’t investigable, so aren’t falsification apt. All they offer is, “take my word for it” which means that epistemically they’re no better than guessing.
And faith/dogma is often the province of religion (though by no means exclusively so).
And lots of religious people are Christians (though of course other religions are available).
And sometimes those Christians are fundamentalists (though by no means all of them).
And they’re the ones who make my skin crawl. Non-fundamentalists who privilege faith over guessing seem to me to provide cover for the fundies, but I just look askance at them rather than experience dermatological discomfort.
Unknown unknowns? Isn't the term unknown sufficient here? I think you may have stumbled on something we have to take as seriously as say an atheist takes a possible God seriously.
Secondly. I don't think any Christian here would have you take their word for it rather than you seek and find for yourself. IMHO that's a strawman you have there
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
-
Certainty only bothers me when it’s judgemental and affects others. If I’m certain the earth is flat it hurts nobody. If I’m certain that I can judge people because I don’t like who they are or due to certain aspects of their lifestyle then I am polluting society with my bigotry. That’s not exclusively a religious thing.
-
Hi Rhi,
Certainty only bothers me when it’s judgemental and affects others. If I’m certain the earth is flat it hurts nobody. If I’m certain that I can judge people because I don’t like who they are or due to certain aspects of their lifestyle then I am polluting society with my bigotry.
I agree. That's why I said, "people who act from positions of certainty...". It's the "act" bit that's the point.
That’s not exclusively a religious thing.
Indeed, as I said several times.
-
Unknown unknowns? Isn't the term unknown sufficient here? I think you may have stumbled on something we have to take as seriously as say an atheist takes a possible God seriously.
Secondly. I don't think any Christian here would have you take their word for it rather than you seek and find for yourself. IMHO that's a strawman you have there
'Unknown unknowns' is a well-established expression, notably used by the US politician Donald Rumsfeld who said:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/donald_rumsfeld_148142
-
Hi Gordon,
'Unknown unknowns' is a well-established expression, notably used by the US politician Donald Rumsfeld who said:
It's just Vlad amusing himself as only he can. See my Reply 57.
-
Hi Rhi,
I agree. That's why I said, "people who act from positions of certainty...". It's the "act" bit that's the point.
Indeed, as I said several times.
But I’m not sure you were distinguishing between those who are certain that Jesus wants them for s unbeam (essentially benign) with those who believe (for example) that god hates gays. I really don’t mind how potty someone’s certainty is, so long as they don’t use it to hurt or exploit others.
-
Rhi,
But I’m not sure you were distinguishing between those who are certain that Jesus wants them for s unbeam (essentially benign) with those who believe (for example) that god hates gays. I really don’t mind how potty someone’s certainty is, so long as they don’t use it to hurt or exploit others.
Well, it was my intention to do that - that's why I put the "act from" in there - specifically to distinguish between the two.
-
Rhi,
Well, it was my intention to do that - that's why I put the "act from" in there - specifically to distinguish between the two.
Fair enough. :)
-
Following on from the teaser on the Christians who don't make my skin crawl! thread ...
That Christians just cannot help making sure that you are in no doubt that they are an active Christian.
So to bastardise the quote:
'How do you know someone is a churchgoing Christian.
...
Because they will tell you'.
Point being there is nothing more annoying than someone so obviously making sure you know that they are a churchgoing Christian, however inappropriate the context or situation. The whole point being to ensure you know how 'good' they are. Problem is that for many people whether or not you choose to go to church is a matter of personal choice and has no effect on perception of being a good person or otherwise. It is a 'yes, fine, why are you telling me this' moment.
If you want to go to church, fine by me, if you choose not too, equally fine by me - just don't try to make out that you choice makes you a better or worse person.
-
Some Christians appear to look upon their faith as a fire insurance policy, once they take it out they are 'saved' for all eternity, even if they behave badly. There seems to be no logic to that take on faith, merely wishful thinking.
I'm wondering if moral relativity might not also amount to an insurance policy.
-
I'm wondering if moral relativity might not also amount to an insurance policy.
Insurance policy against what?
-
Some Christians appear to look upon their faith as a fire insurance policy, once they take it out they are 'saved' for all eternity, even if they behave badly. There seems to be no logic to that take on faith, merely wishful thinking.
Straw man. You've invented a kind of Christian who doesn't exist in order to have a pop at Christianity. What you describe is antinomianism, which is a specific heresy.
-
I haven't invented them unfortunately. The ones who believe in the, 'once saved always saved', dogma are the Christians I am talking about, I have met in person quite a number of them including family members, now dead.
That seems less an insurance policy and more a license to do as they will.
The baptism of infants was an insurance policy of a kind though.
-
I haven't invented them unfortunately. The ones who believe in the, 'once saved always saved', dogma are the Christians I am talking about, I have met in person quite a number of them including family members, now dead.
"Once saved, always saved" is not the same thing as thinking you can behave how you like with impunity. The former is Calvinism, which is a major strand within Christianity (though one that I reject); the latter is antinomianism, which is a heresy.
-
The Christians I have met, who believed in that nonsense, didn't behave well. They cheated on their partners and their business dealings left a lot to be desired!
Then they were antinomians (or just hypocrites), and not Christians.
-
Then they were antinomians (or just hypocrites), and not Christians.
Does it matter what label is attached to them or under what heding they should be filed? Of course not. What is of concern is their behaviour.
What makes me despair are the leaders of world religions who claimn they have a truth about something supernatural. They are the emperors with no clothes. The world will eventually make them back down - the sciences, technology, the total ack of falsifiability of any such supernatural whatever, all these will be realised as the knowledge which can be relied upon to be more reliable and able to produce results, however many stumbles they, being humans, may make along the way.
Those religions' world leaders wearing their huge metaphorical blinkers are holding back millions of not billions from understanding and realising the full HUMAN potential of us all. ALL progress, all words, thoughts and deeds have been from human minds and bodies. not a single one has been influenced by, affected by, or acted upon by anything supernatural. (And yes, I know there is the vanishingly small possibility that one may turn up one day, but it hasn't done so yet.)
All gods and all imagined spirits, entities, etc which are claimed by some to exist are ideas formed in human brains.
The people mentioned here do not make my skin crawl, they should educate themselves, put up or shut up, stop spending so much time holding back a truly secular world.
Right, I've had my say, now I'll go and do the washing up! That will not, however, mollify my feelings.
#75 Well said, Little Roses.
-
Then they were antinomians (or just hypocrites), and not Christians.
Not true Scotsmen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) either...
-
So you say, but they considered themselves Christians. Christianity covers a multitude of doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, anyone can call themselves a Christian. Christianity was created by Paul, I suspect if that chap hadn't been such a prolific writer, few would have heard of Jesus. I think he would be very surprised to discover what has been attributed to him, if he came back from the dead. I am of the opinion the gospel writers, who put pen to paper well after he died, had over active imaginations when creating the stories about him.
There are alternative epistles to those of Paul! The epistle of James being one that comes to mind, its message is quite different to the Pauline epistles. There is also NT apocrypha, try the "Apocalypse of Peter" an alternative to the Revelation to John.
-
Not true Scotsmen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) either...
I am aware of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and this isn't it. There are tests of belief as to whether someone is a Christian. If they think that, being saved, they can sin to their heart's content, they are antinomians, and thus not orthodox Christians. The same applies to, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses: it's nothing to do with their moral stature; JWs are Arians, and therefore not orthodox Christians. There is a clear divide.
-
There are tests of belief as to whether someone is a Christian.
Yes, many versions of them that different groups, all calling themselves 'Christians', disagree about.
If they think that, being saved, they can sin to their heart's content, they are antinomians, and thus not orthodox Christians.
You didn't mention 'orthodox' before. Are you claiming that the Orthodox Churches are the only true Christians?
-
Yes, many versions of them that different groups, all calling themselves 'Christians', disagree about.
You didn't mention 'orthodox' before. Are you claiming that the Orthodox Churches are the only true Christians?
I think SteveH is using orthodox in its ordinary sebse here.
-
Orthodox with a small 'o', not the same as 'the Orthodox Church', or Churches.
Dictionary says:-
1.following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice.
2.of the ordinary or usual type.
-
Orthodox with a small 'o', not the same as 'the Orthodox Church', or Churches.
Dictionary says:-
1.following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice.
2.of the ordinary or usual type.
Yes - it was a genuine question I was asking. The problem with orthodox as in the definition you give, is deciding on "generally accepted rules or beliefs" for Christianity.
-
Yes, many versions of them that different groups, all calling themselves 'Christians', disagree about.
You didn't mention 'orthodox' before. Are you claiming that the Orthodox Churches are the only true Christians?
I am Orthodox, not orthodox. :)
-
And YES we are the only true Christians :)
-
And YES we are the only true Christians :)
Bollocks
-
The Nicene creed is generally considered the best test. If you can go along with it (perhaps treating most of it as metaphorical, as I do) you are an orthodox (small o) Christian. If not, not.
-
Bollocks
There's only one way to settle this.....
-
Pistols at dawn! ;D
What's Dawn done to deserve that?
-
The Nicene creed is generally considered the best test. If you can go along with it (perhaps treating most of it as metaphorical, as I do) you are an orthodox (small o) Christian. If not, not.
Interesting idea. Could you go through it, pointing out how it can be taken metaphorically? I could, clenching my teeth, :) just about manage the first line bbut 'maker of heaven and earth'?
-
Pistols at dawn! ;D
Sort of guessing the Harry Hill reference just whooshes by you?
-
Sort of guessing the Harry Hill reference just whooshes by you?
https://youtu.be/Np6gyUb0E7o
-
https://youtu.be/Np6gyUb0E7o
Thanks SteveH. LR is the High Court judge of cultural references.
-
Harry Hill?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hill
-
https://guernseypress.com/news/2018/02/18/vicar-of-baghdad-receives-sign-from-god-and-visits-alderney/
I have just seen this on the Guernsey Press website, and my skin is beginning to itch. I bet Alderney is really excited, NOT.
Oh dear! I just hope the atheists of Alderney will turn out in force to protest!! That's if there are any of course!! There must be one or two...!
-
Oh dear! I just hope the atheists of Alderney will turn out in force to protest!! That's if there are any of course!! There must be one or two...!
Look in the fleshpots of St Anne (twinned with Las Vegas)
-
Interesting idea. Could you go through it, pointing out how it can be taken metaphorically? I could, clenching my teeth, :) just about manage the first line bbut 'maker of heaven and earth'?
We "make" heaven and earth by giving it meaning. Admittedly, that's a bit far-fetched, but it floats my boat.
-
We "make" heaven and earth by giving it meaning. Admittedly, that's a bit far-fetched, but it floats my boat.
I don't know about far-fetched, sounds rather superficial to me.
I think an examination of the Nicene Creed might be interesting.
-
I sure there are. I have never been to Alderney, although I have flown over it many times when visiting my home island of Guernsey.
I've sent an e-mail to Alderney Info for info re Humanist or atheist groups in Alderney!!
-
Oh dear! I just hope the atheists of Alderney will turn out in force to protest!! That's if there are any of course!! There must be one or two...!
What would that look like I wonder?
-
I've sent an e-mail to Alderney Info for info re Humanist or atheist groups in Alderney!!
Don't you think the Lord Dawkins has this in hand and will grant special dispensation for some local sealife to rapidly mutate into hard arsed strong atheists?
-
We "make" heaven and earth by giving it meaning. Admittedly, that's a bit far-fetched, but it floats my boat.
It isn’t far fetched to me. Of course I don’t see this in a Christian context, but as Sartre said, it is up to us to give a meaning. I have no problem with heaven being a sunny Sunday afternoon with good coffee and birdsong, if that’s the meaning that I give it. Without me making them my heaven they are just sun, coffee, birds, existing without judgement.
-
Humph,
And YES we are the only true Christians :)
That's very funny. Has there aver been a Christian who didn't think his group were the only true Christians?
-
It isn’t far fetched to me. Of course I don’t see this in a Christian context, but as Sartre said, it is up to us to give a meaning.
where does he think one starts?
-
Humph,
That's very funny. Has there aver been a Christian who didn't think his group were the only true Christians?
That would be an ecumenical matter......
-
Humph,
That's very funny. Has there aver been a Christian who didn't think his group were the only true Christians?
Yes - all the liberal ones. I'm a liberal anglican, but I accept Catholics, Orthodox, non-conformists, happy-clappys, bells-and-smells merchants, and others as fellow-Christians, even though I have disagreements over non-essentials with some of them.
-
Oh dear! I just hope the atheists of Alderney will turn out in force to protest!! That's if there are any of course!! There must be one or two...!
Alderney is not "one of the smallest of the Channel Islands which hardly anybody has heard of", I would have thought that title would go to somewhere such as Jethou?
-
Yes - all the liberal ones. I'm a liberal anglican, but I accept Catholics, Orthodox, non-conformists, happy-clappys, bells-and-smells merchants, and others as fellow-Christians, even though I have disagreements over non-essentials with some of them.
What about Unitarians?
-
SteveH,
Yes - all the liberal ones. I'm a liberal anglican, but I accept Catholics, Orthodox, non-conformists, happy-clappys, bells-and-smells merchants, and others as fellow-Christians, even though I have disagreements over non-essentials with some of them.
So which of them are the "only true" ones in your opinion? (And if it's not your group, why not join the one you think is the "true" one?)
-
SteveH,
So which of them are the "only true" ones in your opinion? (And if it's not your group, why not join the one you think is the "true" one?)
What on earth are you on about? I'd've thought my earlier post was clear enough. Which group of atheists do you consider to be the only true ones?
-
Speaking as a former liberal Christian, my take was that all were welcome to expressing their truth as they saw fit. Along with some amusement at the denominations that still divided us into sheep and goats. Oh, and I was an Anglican universalist.
-
SteveH,
What on earth are you on about? I'd've thought my earlier post was clear enough.
I'm talking about the tendency of religious types to call their branch, group, sect, sub-sect, micro-sect etc the "only true" subscribers to a particular faith (think the Peoples' Front of Judea), and often too to condemn (or worse) the rest for getting it wrong. You know, Freud's "narcissism of small differences" and all that.
Which group of atheists do you consider to be the only true ones?
It's not a claim necessary for atheism.
-
SteveH,
I'm talking about the tendency of religious types to call their branch, group, sect, sub-sect, micro-sect etc the "only true" subscribers to a particular faith (think the Peoples' Front of Judea), and often too to condemn (or worse) the rest for getting it wrong. You know, Freud's "narcissism of small differences" and all that.
Reasonably liberal Christians, who are the majority, don't do that.
It's not a claim necessary for atheism.
Why not?
-
SteveH,
Reasonably liberal Christians, who are the majority, don't do that.
But lots of Christians do, and in any case presumably lots of those liberal ones do think they have it right (otherwise why be that way?) and, say, Fred Phelps' lot have it wrong.
Why not?
Because atheism isn't a positive claim about something. Rather it's just the finding that, so far at least, there are no cogent reasons to think that there are gods.
-
Because atheism isn't a positive claim about something. Rather it's just the finding that, so far at least, there are no cogent reasons to think that there are gods.
What is it about this statement that gives it a ring of half an argument?
-
SteveH,
But lots of Christians do, and in any case presumably lots of those liberal ones do think they have it right (otherwise why be that way?) and, say, Fred Phelps' lot have it wrong.
Of course liberal Christians think they have got it right, or they wouldn't think what they think, would they? I've already pointed ouit that blindingly obvious fact elsewhere today. The important thing is to be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.
-
Not the sort of 'entertainment' my husband and I enjoy.
Have you ever heard of anybody?
I am reminded of a gentleman who used to drink diluted blackcurrant juice in our (now closed) local pub. He had never heard of anybody either. He told me once, " I went to Ronnie Scotts last week, I heard some jazz, it was really nice". "To be honest, Denis", I replied, "I am not really a jazz fan, I do have one jazz CD, it is a Dave Brubeck compilation". "Hmm" replied Denis, "I've not heard of Dave Brubeck".
Denis must have been the only English speaking person on the planet who went into Ronnie Scotts who had never heard of Dave Brubeck.
Except perhaps for Floo.............?
-
What is it about this statement that gives it a ring of half an argument?
Your inability to understand.
-
Lihou is smaller than Jethou.
But do people actually live on Lihou? (I ask out of genuine interest).
-
Your inability to understand.
Meeeoooooowwwwwww.
It doesn't talk about cogent reasons to think that there aren't then?
-
Well I haven't for a start! I dislike music and my husband only likes classical music, he has no interest in any other.
So your husband dislikes composers such as Tchaikovsky?
-
Meeeoooooowwwwwww.
Couldn't resist... :)
It doesn't talk about cogent reasons to think that there aren't then?
Nor does it need to.
-
So your husband dislikes composers such as Tchaikovsky?
Tchaikovsky was not a classical composer? LR said her husband only likes classical.
-
Tchaikovsky was not a classical composer? LR said her husband only likes classical.
Tchaikovsky was a Romantic composer, not a Classical composer. A Classical composer would be of Beethoven's era.
-
Tchaikovsky was a Romantic composer, not a Classical composer. A Classical composer would be of Beethoven's era.
He was a classical composer from the Romantic era. There is also a Classical era of classical composition.
-
Thank you. You're right. However I'd imagine LR's husband would consider Tchaikovsky to be broadly classical unless he puts composers into groups. Heard on Classic FM often enough and written about in classical music magazines.
(LR for the record I don't care for Harry Hill one bit, don't see the point of him.)
-
Tchaikovsky was a Romantic composer, not a Classical composer. A Classical composer would be of Beethoven's era.
Beethoven was a romantic!
-
The broader meaning of "classical", as applied to music, and the usual meaning in everyday use, is "serious", as opposed to pop, jazz, rock, musicals, etc. The narrow meaning is as opposed to "romantic", by which definition Handel and Bach were classical, but Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Chopin were romantic.
-
Quite right Mr H and Beethoven was on the cusp of Classical/Romantic (he might well have been romantic tho', don't know much about his private life).
LR if you read back the last few posts you'll see we've been through Tchaikovsky as Classical and or Romantic.
-
What are you on about? Tchaikovsky is classical.
Oh dear.
-
The broader meaning of "classical", as applied to music, and the usual meaning in everyday use, is "serious", as opposed to pop, jazz, rock, musicals, etc. The narrow meaning is as opposed to "romantic", by which definition Handel and Bach were classical, but Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Chopin were romantic.
What about Schoenberg?
Or Vaughan Williams?
To describe either of the above as "classical" is IMHO like describing Soft Machine as "progressive rock" when they were fusion jazz.
-
What about Schoenberg?
Or Vaughan Williams?
To describe either of the above as "classical" is IMHO like describing Soft Machine as "progressive rock" when they were fusion jazz.
Were any of this lot Christians? Or make people's skin crawl?
-
http://bssm.net/
This lot are barking mad, imo.
So they use models with glow in the dark teeth & whom have visited a eyebrow parlour? You can meet types like that in your local mall.
-
Were any of this lot Christians? Or make people's skin crawl?
I think that they were both atheists.
There is a rather charming photo of an elderly Vaughan Williams with his arms around the shoulders of two young lady musicians, all three are smiling easily. One of the musicians was interviewed in her old age, she remarked that Vaughan Williams was likeable rather than formidable. Makes a pleasant change to recent allegations made in the entertainment field.
-
There is a rather charming photo of an elderly Vaughan Williams with his arms around the shoulders of two young lady musicians,
This one? He's not got his arms round their shoulders, though.
I found two copies of this when I googled. This version names the women as "Miss Ursula Wood and Mrs C. Day". The other version named the second woman as "C. Day Lewis"!
https://goo.gl/images/1qkPuU
-
This one? He's not got his arms round their shoulders, though.
I found two copies of this when I googled. This version names the women as "Miss Ursula Wood and Mrs C. Day". The other version named the second woman as "C. Day Lewis"!
https://goo.gl/images/1qkPuU
Ursula Wood was Mrs Vaughan Williams (No 2)
-
Ralph Vaughan Williams was the atheist composer who edited/complied The English Hymnal.
-
The broader meaning of "classical", as applied to music, and the usual meaning in everyday use, is "serious", as opposed to pop, jazz, rock, musicals, etc. The narrow meaning is as opposed to "romantic", by which definition Handel and Bach were classical, but Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Chopin were romantic.
Bach and Handel predate "classical". Most people would describe them as "baroque". Classical is Haydn and Mozart.
I believe the usage of "classical" to describe European art music - the sense used by Floo - developed perhaps 100 years or so ago when the gramophone record industry was developing. It was the term used by the industry to identify the appropriate market segment.
-
Ralph Vaughan Williams was the atheist composer who edited/complied The English Hymnal.
Point of order:
Vaughan Williams considered himself an atheist in his earlier life but tended to describe himself as a cheerful agnostic later.
Interesting that he composed a huge amount of sacred music - presumably happily taking the money for the commissions while not actually believing the words in his compositions. I think John Rutter, the kind of modern day equivalent (less good as a composer but no less prolific in sacred choral music terms) is the same - also non religious, yet his career is defined (more so than Vaughan Williams) by his sacred music output.
-
Point of clarification:
Ralph Vaughan Williams was in his early 30s when he edited The English Hymnal - he was an atheist then.
By the way (derail apology) - VW does not make my skin crawl. In my musical hierarchy he is but a step behind Edward Elgar and (only just) in front of William Walton.
-
Point of clarification:
Ralph Vaughan Williams was in his early 30s when he edited The English Hymnal - he was an atheist then.
By the way (derail apology) - VW does not make my skin crawl. In my musical hierarchy he is but a step behind Edward Elgar and (only just) in front of William Walton.
Not sure exactly when his (not exactly revelatory) shift from atheism to agnosticism occurred - all I know is he was atheist when at school. You must have some additional info.
Regarding Vaughan Williams, Elgar and Walton, I'd put Vaughan Williams at the top of the pile - I much prefer his work to Elgar's although I know rather less of Walton's work, except the famous ones. I like Vaughan Williams' involvement of folk music and songs in his music. I'm a great fan of his songs and small choral pieces (many of which I have sung). And as much as it has become a hackney'd cliche of ClassicFM-type offerings 'The Lark Ascending' remains sublime.
-
When I listen to Elgar, I hear what it's like to be me. I hear the uncertainties, the passions, the dreams, the attempts ... it's difficult to explain, but it is music which is inside me. Mark Elder called Elgar "the English Mahler". I find Elgar's treatment of the orchestra to be remarkable. He learned orchestration by playing second violin in Midland orchestras, by studying scores and by knowing about the basics of playing of just about every instrument in the orchestra (one of the benefits of growing up in a family which owned a music shop). He received no formal musical education - what you hear is pure Elgar.
I heard VW 5 a year or so ago. Wonderful piece - superbly handled by John Wilson - but it struck me as being intense rather than passionate. The same concert included Elgar's Sea Pictures. Nowhere in the VW symphony, though, is the darkness found in the Elgar.
I love the music of both composers - but Elgar a little more.
-
thank goodness you are not judgemental like some non believers...lol
-
Not sure exactly when his (not exactly revelatory) shift from atheism to agnosticism occurred - all I know is he was atheist when at school. You must have some additional info.
Regarding Vaughan Williams, Elgar and Walton, I'd put Vaughan Williams at the top of the pile - I much prefer his work to Elgar's although I know rather less of Walton's work, except the famous ones. I like Vaughan Williams' involvement of folk music and songs in his music. I'm a great fan of his songs and small choral pieces (many of which I have sung). And as much as it has become a hackney'd cliche of ClassicFM-type offerings 'The Lark Ascending' remains sublime.
Agree so much with regards to RVW, if there is a heaven then Tge Lark Ascending will be playing on a loop. I’m no expert on classical music whatsoever but that is one piece where I’ve found it worth hunting out recordings by different soloists... it gets interpreted in different ways.
That said his arrangement of the folk song Dives and Lazarus is my favourite piece by him - makes me grieve for something lost, only I don’t know what.
-
thank goodness you are not judgemental like some non believers...lol
that was aimed at the opening statement by the way..
-
that was aimed at the opening statement by the way..
LR has many admirable qualities, subtlety in her pronouncements does not rank amongst them ;)
-
I say what I think, however as I have stated many times I have no problem with moderate Christians like my own three girls.
I think that was what I was trying to convey. :P
Subtlety isn't every posters strong point.
-
Subtlety doesn't always get the point across, imo.
Indeed not, horses for courses and all that.
-
I don’t like classifying people, it’s more certain behaviours and views that get to me.
I was reading something about a high ranking Orange Order member who went against one of their central beliefs to attend his daughter’s marriage to another woman. Every statement by fellow members that I read was supportive of putting family before beliefs. I think sometimes we get confused between what people say and do and who they really are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43196048
-
I say what I think, however as I have stated many times I have no problem with moderate Christians like my own three girls.
"Moderate"?
By whose definition?
-
I don’t like classifying people, it’s more certain behaviours and views that get to me.
I was reading something about a high ranking Orange Order member who went against one of their central beliefs to attend his daughter’s marriage to another woman. Every statement by fellow members that I read was supportive of putting family before beliefs. I think sometimes we get confused between what people say and do and who they really are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43196048
AB's obdurate approach is stunningly ridiculous ... ... in my strongly held opinion!
-
LR has many admirable qualities, subtlety in her pronouncements does not rank amongst them ;)
I gathered that ..lol
-
Welby.
ippy
-
I hadn't noticed that subtlety was your forte either! ;D
lol I tend to say what I think, what you see is what you get... Not always the most popular way though...
-
I don’t like classifying people, it’s more certain behaviours and views that get to me. I was reading something about a high ranking Orange Order member who went against one of their central beliefs to attend his daughter’s marriage to another woman. Every statement by fellow members that I read was supportive of putting family before beliefs. I think sometimes we get confused between what people say and do and who they really are. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43196048
Gordon Bennett..... Did you HAVE to bring the OO into it? I was having a nice cup of coffee as I read it. Now I'll have to wipe my keyboard.
-
My definition of a moderate Christian is one who doesn't force their faith down the throats of others, or claim something is a fact when it is only a belief.
Ah.....
"My definition......"
'Nuff said.....
-
lol I tend to say what I think, what you see is what you get... Not always the most popular way though...
Nor indeed the best or wisest. A modicum of hypocrisy oils the wheels of civilised discourse, as somebody-or-other said. I never trust people who make a big virtue of plain-spokenness and what they call "honesty", by which they mean - hypocritically, by a delicious irony - rudeness. I am aware that I can be rather rude on occasion - I've been suspended from here a few times as a result - but I don't make a virtue of it, and in my defence I think I had a lot of provocation from one poster, and put up with it for a long time before losing my rag.
-
Ah.....
"My definition......"
'Nuff said.....
To be fair whose definition is it likely to be?
-
The OSAS thread has been move to the faith sharing centre where one can't be as frank about a topic as one might wish to be.
The OSAS Christians are amongst the Christian extremists who make my skin crawl, many I have met in my life have behaved very badly indeed! Presumably because they reckoned nothing was going to stop them walking through the pearly gates. The pastor of the Pentecostal church I attended as a kid was an OSAS, as I have mentioned before he touched me inappropriately when I was 14. >:(
If god exists it is pretty sick if it only permits the so called 'saved' to get into heaven, however bad they are, yet everyone else is sent to hell even good, decent people! >:(
Complete, utter and probably wilful misunderstanding of OSAS (not that I believe it myself).
-
And what is your personal understanding of it? I know for a FACT many Christians, who believe in that dogma, do believe they will get to heaven once they are saved, even if they don't lead a good life.
As I see religion you have to go in at the root and as there's no, zero viable evidence to support it, the house of cards syndrome, until these believers find some evidence that would make space to expand their arguments, religious belief is a non-runner.
I see Welby is feeling a bit sick, more than likely because he can't think of a credible excuse, a bit like when you see some of these criminals crying their eyes out, not because they're sorry about what they have done, more crying their eyes out because they got caught.
Regards ippy
-
I didn't know Welby was unwell. What's wrong with him?
Agree that he probably doesn't believe in the OSAS doctrine.
-
As I see religion you have to go in at the root and as there's no, zero viable evidence to support it, the house of cards syndrome, until these believers find some evidence that would make space to expand their arguments, religious belief is a non-runner.
I see Welby is feeling a bit sick, more than likely because he can't think of a credible excuse, a bit like when you see some of these criminals crying their eyes out, not because they're sorry about what they have done, more crying their eyes out because they got caught.
Regards ippy
Welby was quoted as talking (presumably in a sermon on Sunday) about children in poverty and what a terrible thing this was. I did not, however, hear him offer to release any of the large sums of the CofE's money to help.
-
I didn't know Welby was unwell. What's wrong with him?
Agree that he probably doesn't believe in the OSAS doctrine.
Welby was saying the other day, I can't quote him verbatim, that the abuse of young children and even worse the covering up of the same, it made him feel sick.
Just think how much worse the guilt it would be for him if he was a catholic, they've an almost endless list of shame compared to the still shady past of his lot.
Regards ippy
-
Welby was quoted as talking (presumably in a sermon on Sunday) about children in poverty and what a terrible thing this was. I did not, however, hear him offer to release any of the large sums of the CofE's money to help.
To be fair, I doubt whether Welby has such authority.
-
He was on the One Show this evening, I only caught the end of it. Wish I'd seen it all, seemed quite humourous.
-
He was on the One Show this evening, I only caught the end of it. Wish I'd seen it all, seemed quite humourous.
Anything involving religion invokes that saying "You've got to laugh, haven't you"?
Regards ippy
-
Anything involving religion invokes that saying "You've got to laugh, haven't you"?
Regards ippy
So why do so many of us think that to be untrue?