Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on July 19, 2021, 12:05:58 PM
-
Australian Humanists have a new leader. British born Ms Nicholl.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/meet-the-humanists-you-dont-have-to-be-christian-to-think-of-yourself-as-a-good-person.
Something out of place here. Do Christians think of themselves as the good guys....or do they think of themselves as sinners n need of Jesus? Since you cannot have it both ways, then Ms Nicholl seems to be regurgitating a humanist urban myth based on an oft repeated misconception.
This of course then renders any claim of having an enforced and continuous experience at the hands of christianity by people who espouse the notion of christians as people who think they are good, doubtful.
-
Australian Humanists have a new leader. British born Ms Nicholl.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/meet-the-humanists-you-dont-have-to-be-christian-to-think-of-yourself-as-a-good-person.
Something out of place here. Do Christians think of themselves as the good guys....or do they think of themselves as sinners n need of Jesus? Since you cannot have it both ways, then Ms Nicholl seems to be regurgitating a humanist urban myth based on an oft repeated misconception.
This of course then renders any claim of having an enforced and continuous experience at the hands of christianity by people who espouse the notion of christians as people who think they are good, doubtful.
I think you're conflating your/the theological interpretation of scripture and creed that Christians should think of themselves as sinners in search of redemption and/or grace (a short paraphrasing, I appreciate there's probably more to it than that), with the practical reality that, in many places in the world, the nominally Christian 'establishment' see itself as the embodiment of moral authority with the remit to inform the rest of the world how they should live their lives.
It's not universal, but it's common enough that surely it shouldn't come as a surprise to you - I'm not Australian, so I don't know if it's particularly prevalent over there.
O.
-
I think you're conflating your/the theological interpretation of scripture and creed that Christians should think of themselves as sinners in search of redemption and/or grace (a short paraphrasing, I appreciate there's probably more to it than that), with the practical reality that, in many places in the world, the nominally Christian 'establishment' see itself as the embodiment of moral authority with the remit to inform the rest of the world how they should live their lives.
It's not universal, but it's common enough that surely it shouldn't come as a surprise to you - I'm not Australian, so I don't know if it's particularly prevalent over there.
O.
No. Her pitch is you don't have to be a Christian to think of yourself as a good person.
When I became a Christian I became aware of a few such myths that I fooled myself into thinking were true.
Others included having religion rammed down my throat and Christians were odd and possibly psychotic, that Christians were Brain-washed (as deeply held by the oaf tendency in atheism) and archaic ( held by the fallacy of modernity tendency).
I had lots of varied local connections during my time spent in an English new town as a child, teenager and young man but never met anybody who had had a domineering religious upbringing. But have come across a few on message boards who claim intense dogmatic exposure to Christianity but then show ignorance of Christian dogma but hold the popular misconceptions of people with little exposure. This is one of the key notes of CS Lewis' christian writings.
-
No. Her pitch is you don't have to be a Christian to think of yourself as a good person.
I'd agree with her. Do you? I'm aware of sections of the Christian faith that don't - in particular I'm thinking of some of the more Christian Nationalist strains in the US, and the Christian authoritarian movements that appear to be growing in places like Russia, Hungary and Poland. I don't know if Australia is in a similar position, but it sounds as though she might think that - I'm inferring that, I've not had the chance to read anything she's put out, yet.
When I became a Christian I became aware of a few such myths that I fooled myself into thinking were true. Others included having religion rammed down my throat and Christians were odd and possibly psychotic, that Christians were Brain-washed (as deeply held by the oaf tendency in atheism) and archaic ( held by the fallacy of modernity tendency).
Oh boy. Christianity isn't monolothic, I think you'd agree with that. Unfortunately, some of the more vocal elements of it are the more self-righteous, obnoxious and self-gratifying. Many Christians are effectively 'brainwashed' - what other explanation can there be for the continuation in large numbers of Young Earth Creationists and Biblical literalism? As to whether Christianity is 'archaic'... it is, at the very least, a typically conservative set of institutions, resisting the social progress time and time again. Whether that makes it archaic, anachronistic or otherwise is probably a reflection of whether you think it is fundamentally true or not.
I had lots of varied local connections during my time spent in an English new town as a child, teenager and young man but never met anybody who had had a domineering religious upbringing.
Right. The Church of England has been gradually neutered by the calming effect of rational society in the UK, the Church of Scotland gradually the same, to the point where I'm assured no-one has a heart attack of a shop opens on a Sunday in Stornaway any more. In places where Christianity hasn't been civilised, though, in places like Russia and the US and much of sub-Saharan Africa, that's not the case. Again, perhaps she's worried about this becoming the case in Australia?
But have come across a few on message boards who claim intense dogmatic exposure to Christianity but then show ignorance of Christian dogma but hold the popular misconceptions of people with little exposure.
You have espoused, at times, a more subtle interpretation of Christian teaching than the worst elements; but you and your ilk aren't the worry, the less informed, less subtle, more bombastic Christian blowhards are. Those interpretations are out there and are weaponised by those with a Christian axe to grind.
This is one of the key notes of CS Lewis' christian writings.
And how many Christian nationalists do you think have studied Lewis' musings on faith and theology? How many of those who have do you think the Australian Humanist Society are worried about?
O.
-
No. Her pitch is you don't have to be a Christian to think of yourself as a good person.
When I became a Christian I became aware of a few such myths that I fooled myself into thinking were true.
You mean it's your opinion that you do have to be a Christian to think of yourself as a good person?
Funny that. I thought it was the modus operandi of Christianity to make you think you are a bad person and the only way to fix that is through Jesus Christ. What else is all that original sin bullshit for?
-
You mean it's your opinion that you do have to be a Christian to think of yourself as a good person?
Funny that. I thought it was the modus operandi of Christianity to make you think you are a bad person and the only way to fix that is through Jesus Christ. What else is all that original sin bullshit for?
It was my unthinking opinion. An automatic reflex when the topic of Christianity came up.
It ignores the person and mission of Jesus.
-
I'd agree with her. Do you? I'm aware of sections of the Christian faith that don't - in particular I'm thinking of some of the more Christian Nationalist strains in the US, and the Christian authoritarian movements that appear to be growing in places like Russia, Hungary and Poland. I don't know if Australia is in a similar position, but it sounds as though she might think that - I'm inferring that, I've not had the chance to read anything she's put out, yet.
Oh boy. Christianity isn't monolothic, I think you'd agree with that. Unfortunately, some of the more vocal elements of it are the more self-righteous, obnoxious and self-gratifying. Many Christians are effectively 'brainwashed' - what other explanation can there be for the continuation in large numbers of Young Earth Creationists and Biblical literalism? As to whether Christianity is 'archaic'... it is, at the very least, a typically conservative set of institutions, resisting the social progress time and time again. Whether that makes it archaic, anachronistic or otherwise is probably a reflection of whether you think it is fundamentally true or not.
Right. The Church of England has been gradually neutered by the calming effect of rational society in the UK, the Church of Scotland gradually the same, to the point where I'm assured no-one has a heart attack of a shop opens on a Sunday in Stornaway any more. In places where Christianity hasn't been civilised, though, in places like Russia and the US and much of sub-Saharan Africa, that's not the case. Again, perhaps she's worried about this becoming the case in Australia?
You have espoused, at times, a more subtle interpretation of Christian teaching than the worst elements; but you and your ilk aren't the worry, the less informed, less subtle, more bombastic Christian blowhards are. Those interpretations are out there and are weaponised by those with a Christian axe to grind.
And how many Christian nationalists do you think have studied Lewis' musings on faith and theology? How many of those who have do you think the Australian Humanist Society are worried about?
O.
I don't agree that Christians started the idea that Christians comprise the totality of good people.
That is a fabrication and idea unthinking acquired by atheist and agnostic communities.
As for the calming effect of English society. What neutered that I wonder.
In increasingly secular England there is decreasing calm. From it's mayhem junkie Prime minister and Government down to the lowlight citizen shoving a firework up his own arse.
-
I don't agree that Christians started the idea that Christians comprise the totality of good people.
But that isn't the claim. The claim is that you cannot be a good person unless you are a Christian. And that view is highly embedded and is fundamental to the whole notion of original sin - that you are effectively 'bad' but you can be redeemed if you are Christian. And if you have that view subconsciously running through you like the word 'Blackpool' in a stick of rock, then it isn't surprising that a casually arrogant and dismissive mindset arises which sees good and Christian as synonymous - or rather that you cannot be good unless you are Christian.
And that view has had pretty horrific consequences throughout history for indigenous non-christian peoples.
-
In increasingly secular England there is decreasing calm.
I don't think you can base an argument on a couple of years and a single country.
Look at countries that are at the top of the pile of countries considered the best places to live, those that look after their populations best and are leading in supporting the development of the rest of the world, those that have embraced sustainability and their responsibilities towards climate change and you will notice something. They are disproportionately democratic secular countries, with freedom of religion, but with a high proportion of the population who have chosen not to be religious.
-
Do Christians think of themselves as the good guys....or do they think of themselves as sinners n need of Jesus?
But that isn't how it works is it - the concept of christianity isn't that just christians are sinners and in need of Jesus, but that everyone is a sinner (christian or otherwise) who can only be redeemed through Jesus.
Looked at in this way it is an easy step to see two classes of people - sinners not on the road to redemption (non christians) and sinners on the road to redemption (Christians), hence seeing seeing both christians as inherently better than others (as they've woken up to the need for redemption) and patronising evangelism and proselytism (you need saving and the only way to be saved is to agree with us).
-
Jesus no more perfect than the rest of us if the gospel accounts have any credence.
-
I don't agree that Christians started the idea that Christians comprise the totality of good people.
You think someone other than Christians was making the suggestion that only by being Christian could you be a good person? Who is it that you think was doing it? Regardless of who started it, it's certainly a view that's held in some sections of the Christian world todya.
That is a fabrication and idea unthinking acquired by atheist and agnostic communities.
Really? https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/can-we-be-good-without-god/ (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/can-we-be-good-without-god/) This guy seems to think that it's not a fabrication, he's espousing it in public. I don't know if you've heard of Dr William Lane Craig? Or this guy https://www.solas-cpc.org/can-we-be-good-without-god/ (https://www.solas-cpc.org/can-we-be-good-without-god/).
As for the calming effect of English society. What neutered that I wonder.
In increasingly secular England there is decreasing calm. From it's mayhem junkie Prime minister and Government down to the lowlight citizen shoving a firework up his own arse.
By comparison with the tranquility of the more significantly religious USA? Or the peace of the more significantly religious middle-east? Or with the happiness of the significantly less religious Denmark? Which of those would you like to benchmark against?
O.
-
Countries where religion of any sort rules the roost are not pleasant places in which to live, imo.
-
Countries where religion of any sort rules the roost are not pleasant places in which to live, imo.
Neither are many that have been ruled by atheists.
-
By comparison with the tranquility of the more significantly religious USA? Or the peace of the more significantly religious middle-east? Or with the happiness of the significantly less religious Denmark? Which of those would you like to benchmark against?
O.
I freely admit that Christianity as a collective has gone badly wrong in America in a way that caused me to spend many weeks spiritually soul searching. Because of what has happened there the witness of all christianity is tainted.
But, of course what is happening there is wrong and the warnings and prophetic truth of a church greviously misled is scriptural.
Oh to be in Denmark.
With regards secularised countries we are living in one which is secularising at a very impressive rate yet can hardly be said to be more happy or less evil. In fact all the terrible traits adopted by a sector of the church in America seem to have been adopted more enthusiastically by British people than americans.
-
Neither are many that have been ruled by atheists.
True - although in most cases the driving ideology is authoritarian marxism. I cannot think of a country where the prevailing ruling ideology is atheism, in other words an atheocracy. And it is obvious why if you think about it.
There are, of course, many countries whose prevailing ruling ideology is religious, i.e. a theocracy and as Roses points out those aren't pleasant places to live.
-
True - although in most cases the driving ideology is authoritarian marxism. I cannot think of a country where the prevailing ruling ideology is atheism, in other words an atheocracy. And it is obvious why if you think about it.
There are, of course, many countries whose prevailing ruling ideology is religious, i.e. a theocracy and as Roses points out those aren't pleasant places to live.
If one takes the words of Jesus ''My kingdom is not of this earth'' to heart then one has to question the concept of a theocracy.
-
I freely admit that Christianity as a collective has gone badly wrong in America in a way that caused me to spend many weeks spiritually soul searching. Because of what has happened there the witness of all christianity is tainted. But, of course what is happening there is wrong and the warnings and prophetic truth of a church greviously misled is scriptural.
I don't like that brand of Christianity, probably for a mixture of similar and different reasons to you, but I can't out and out state that it's 'wrong' Christianity - they have scriptural references to support their stances, they have a position on which elements are to be interpreted literally and which figuratively which are, presumably, different to your take, but there's no absolute reference to determine which is more wrong than the other.
With regards secularised countries we are living in one which is secularising at a very impressive rate yet can hardly be said to be more happy or less evil.
Then when it was more religious? You mean when homosexuality was criminalised, and teen mothers were conscripted into giving their children away, women knew their place and we didn't have 'uppity blacks' walking around like they were our equals? Or further back, with the rotten boroughs supporting the influence of the 'divinely mandated' gentry and the church propping up the establishment in keeping the downtrodden poor but worthy?
In fact all the terrible traits adopted by a sector of the church in America seem to have been adopted more enthusiastically by British people than americans.
Such as?
O.
-
Religion doesn't necessarily make someone a better person, it can make them much worse if they are extremist in their views.
-
I don't like that brand of Christianity, probably for a mixture of similar and different reasons to you, but I can't out and out state that it's 'wrong' Christianity - they have scriptural references to support their stances,
But it's clear that they have been choosing segments and ignoring others, that many are grifters and that they have sought to add to the bible particularly the prosperity gospel and the new apostolic reformation.
Their focus and yours is on the old testament. For you and them these are the real christians as was the sparsely populated westbrook church, when Bad old Fred Phelps served as the architype for every swivel eyed antitheist.
When Christians not associated with this crowd were lamenting. Atheists would have been rejoicing
Then when it was more religious? You mean when homosexuality was criminalised, and teen mothers were conscripted into giving their children away, women knew their place and we didn't have 'uppity blacks' walking around like they were our equals? Or further back, with the rotten boroughs supporting the influence of the 'divinely mandated' gentry and the church propping up the establishment in keeping the downtrodden poor but worthy?
Such as?
O.
I can't recall such an immoral administration and such a dictatorial leader so beloved by so many voters in such a secular country today who have managed by their continued support to achieve brexit and 150,000 deaths from a deliberately impoverished public health. Having said that Welby, Nicholls and Mirvis are conspicuous by their silence IMV.
In America, we only heard about white american christianity of a certain stripe. From atheists, the wrongs of the white Christian nationalist church and from white christian nationalists how God endorsed their churches and approach.
Black Christians were forgotten about, let down by the white nationalist church and those atheists seeking to say ''this is christianity'' America awoke from their nightmare and voted Trump out Secular Britain can be assured of putting conservative right wingers in perpetuum.
What you have to remember is that capitalism is an idea which springs from the enlightenment so beloved by atheist thinkers.
-
I can't recall such an immoral administration and such a dictatorial leader so beloved by so many voters in such a secular country today who have managed by their continued support to achieve brexit and 150,000 deaths from a deliberately impoverished public health. Having said that Welby, Nicholls and Mirvis are conspicuous by their silence IMV.
Keep that bloody knee still.
Firstly Johnson isn't beloved by so many voters. I don't know how many times I have to say this UK governments are seldom reflective of the make up of the voters.
In other words how is an 80-seat majority with just 44% of the votes a "democratic choice"?
The dysfunctional and undemocratic FPTP is a democracy theatre. It looks like democracy, because people make a cross on a piece of paper, but it's undemocratic by design.
Until that changes you can rant all you want about capitalism/secularism and the rights and wrongs thereof, but it won't make one iota of difference. You are tilting at fucking windmills.
-
Keep that bloody knee still.
Firstly Johnson isn't beloved by so many voters. I don't know how many times I have to say this UK governments are seldom reflective of the make up of the voters.
In other words how is an 80-seat majority with just 44% of the votes a "democratic choice"?
The dysfunctional and undemocratic FPTP is a democracy theatre. It looks like democracy, because people make a cross on a piece of paper, but it's undemocratic by design.
Until that changes you can rant all you want about capitalism/secularism and the rights and wrongs thereof, but it won't make one iota of difference. You are tilting at fucking windmills.
I'm sorry but we had the opportunity to change the voting system.....and didn't. Reason, love of money. Context, increasing secularism.
-
If one takes the words of Jesus ''My kingdom is not of this earth'' to heart then one has to question the concept of a theocracy.
I suggest you take that up with the numerous christian theocratic regimes that have existed over the centuries.
-
I'm sorry but we had the opportunity to change the voting system.....and didn't. Reason, love of money. Context, increasing secularism.
Eh - what planet are you on Vlad, you really do need a bit of help.
Are you trying to claim that the reason people voted against AV was because of secularism :o
-
But it's clear that they have been choosing segments and ignoring others, that many are grifters and that they have sought to add to the bible particularly the prosperity gospel and the new apostolic reformation.
And all of that can levelled at any segment of Christianity, they all pick and choose which elements they're going to abide by and which are 'figurative' and they all have their justifications, and some of them are grifters whilst others no doubt are genuine believers.
Their focus and yours is on the old testament.
My focus is on reality. I find it amusing that Christians believe that the all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful deity so massively changed their outlook between the original and the sequel, but my focus isn't on either in any absolute sense. I bring it up regularly with Christians because it's a pretty damning example of what a ridiculous idea it is to presume that both works were written by the same perfectly moral being.
For you and them these are the real christians as was the sparsely populated westbrook church, when Bad old Fred Phelps served as the architype for every swivel eyed antitheist.
You're all 'real' Christians, so long as you believe in it and it motivates what you do. Christianity isn't some perfect interpretation of the book or the stories to which you're all aspiring, it's the sum of the output of the people who think that's their goal.
When Christians not associated with this crowd were lamenting. Atheists would have been rejoicing I can't recall such an immoral administration and such a dictatorial leader so beloved by so many voters in such a secular country today who have managed by their continued support to achieve brexit and 150,000 deaths from a deliberately impoverished public health.
I voted against Brexit myself, but I'm not sure where the religious element - Christian or otherwise - comes into it.
Having said that Welby, Nicholls and Mirvis are conspicuous by their silence IMV.
I'd be tempted to say that I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say, but I suppose it can't be any less-reasoned or less-informed than current government policy on the topic.
In America, we only heard about white american christianity of a certain stripe. From atheists, the wrongs of the white Christian nationalist church and from white christian nationalists how God endorsed their churches and approach.
Perhaps, but it's not just the external view in which they're disproportionately represented; they're a significant portion of the solid base that elected Trump, that are enacting various theocratically motivated healthcare restrictions on women at the same time as they push racially motivated electoral restrictions. They are the mainstream religious view in America, even if they aren't in the majority, because if they aren't the plurality of the people then they're certainly representing the bulk of the money.
Black Christians were forgotten about, let down by the white nationalist church and those atheists seeking to say ''this is christianity'' America awoke from their nightmare and voted Trump out Secular Britain can be assured of putting conservative right wingers in perpetuum.
Yeah, those Christians voting for that Christianity and that theocratic spread of regulations, that was all the atheists... The atheists are pointing out that is the reality of Christian America, not because they created it but because it's being targetted at them, amongst others.
What you have to remember is that capitalism is an idea which springs from the enlightenment so beloved by atheist thinkers.
And it's led to technical and engineering wonders, and yet we still have theocrats taking the proceeds of it and turning it upon the 'different' in the name of their special version of tribalism. Religion isn't the only bad play in town, but it's one of the most deep-rooted, pernicious and hard to eradicate. But we're slowly winning.
O.
-
Then when it was more religious? You mean when homosexuality was criminalised, and teen mothers were conscripted into giving their children away, women knew their place and we didn't have 'uppity blacks' walking around like they were our equals? Or further back, with the rotten boroughs supporting the influence of the 'divinely mandated' gentry and the church propping up the establishment in keeping the downtrodden poor but worthy?
Indeed - we are a very long way from being perfect in the UK. Not even close.
But if you look at how the UK has progressed over the past 150 years during which religion has been losing its power, losing its adherents and secularism has been slowly increasing then the trend has definitely been an improving one. Are you really claiming that late 20thC/early 21stC Britain is worse than mid early/mid20thC or mid/late 19thC?
-
I'm sorry but we had the opportunity to change the voting system.....and didn't. Reason, love of money. Context, increasing secularism.
Love of money? No, Conservative love of power - you know, the Church of England when they aren't praying.
Active Christians are still significantly more likely to vote Conservative, members of other religions more likely to vote Labour, non-believers roughly evenly split between Labour and the Lib Dems, with the highest proportion Green voters also likely to be non-believers.
So, within the context of 'increasing secularism', the non-believer friendly Liberal Democrats put forwards various proposals for single transferrable vote or some other form of proportional representation, and the Christian-friendly Tories gave us a referendum on FTP vs AV, neither of which are proportional.
But it's that damn secularisation that did it.
O.
-
Indeed - we are a very long way from being perfect in the UK. Not even close.
Maybe but we seem to be going backwards at an alarming rate
But if you look at how the UK has progressed over the past 150 years during which religion has been losing its power, losing its adherents and secularism has been slowly increasing then the trend has definitely been an improving one. Are you really claiming that late 20thC/early 21stC Britain is worse than mid early/mid20thC or mid/late 19thC?
It is worse than the mid 20th century.
Progress through secularism and enlightenment is a crock. You have fooled yourself into believing in it unthinkingly.
If it is right to put progress at the door of decreasing religion then it is meet and indeed right to put obvious regress at the door of increasing secularisation.
-
Maybe but we seem to be going backwards at an alarming rateIt is worse than the mid 20th century.
Gay rights don't appear to be going anywhere, and we're progressing on to coming to a collective understanding of how we're going to accommodate trans-rights. Women have more freedom than they ever have had, and issues of particular concern to them - domestic violence, how we frame gender in public depictions - are increasingly being considered by organisations and individuals. We appear to have slowed a little on our understanding of how people with disabilities can be given the freedom to fully join in with every day life, but we've not gone backwards on it. There's been a vocal backlash on racial equality, recently, but that backlash has been because institutions that previously turned a blind eye are no longer doing so.
No, we're not going backwards at all. It's slow, at times, it can feel like bashing your head against a wall, but we're still becoming a kinder, more open, more welcoming society, even when we take our eye off the ball and let the likes of Brexiteers shoot us in the collective foot.
Progress through secularism and enlightenment is a crock.
Because they've made the world worse how? How has giving equal protection to all religions and none been problematic? How has a pursuit of evidence-based learning and well-being for all resulted in an overall decline of society?
You have fooled yourself into believing in it unthinkingly.
Or you're lashing out at the competition because it's chipping away at the few remaining boundaries of what religion considers to be its province?
If it is right to put progress at the door of decreasing religion then it is meet and indeed right to put obvious regress at the door of increasing secularisation.
I think it's right to put progress at the door of the Enlightenment; that the consequence of that is to see that the bastions of the older eras that still rail against the coming of the light, full of sound and fury but increasingly signifying absolutely nothing of consequence has led to secularisation in the first instance, and to the perhaps inevitable end of religion as a mainstream concept at some point. Not yet, I don't think we're ready for it just yet, but the day is coming.
O.
-
Gay rights don't appear to be going anywhere, and we're progressing on to coming to a collective understanding of how we're going to accommodate trans-rights. Women have more freedom than they ever have had, and issues of particular concern to them - domestic violence, how we frame gender in public depictions - are increasingly being considered by organisations and individuals. We appear to have slowed a little on our understanding of how people with disabilities can be given the freedom to fully join in with every day life, but we've not gone backwards on it. There's been a vocal backlash on racial equality, recently, but that backlash has been because institutions that previously turned a blind eye are no longer doing so.
No, we're not going backwards at all. It's slow, at times, it can feel like bashing your head against a wall, but we're still becoming a kinder, more open, more welcoming society, even when we take our eye off the ball and let the likes of Brexiteers shoot us in the collective foot.
Because they've made the world worse how? How has giving equal protection to all religions and none been problematic? How has a pursuit of evidence-based learning and well-being for all resulted in an overall decline of society?
Or you're lashing out at the competition because it's chipping away at the few remaining boundaries of what religion considers to be its province?
I think it's right to put progress at the door of the Enlightenment; that the consequence of that is to see that the bastions of the older eras that still rail against the coming of the light, full of sound and fury but increasingly signifying absolutely nothing of consequence has led to secularisation in the first instance, and to the perhaps inevitable end of religion as a mainstream concept at some point. Not yet, I don't think we're ready for it just yet, but the day is coming.
O.
I disagree with almost everything you've said and i'll raise you two. Climate change and species extinctions.
-
I disagree with almost everything you've said and i'll raise you two. Climate change and species extinctions.
You don't think equality is a good thing? You think we should still be in religiously-differentiated tribal states warring with each other over who has the better sky-fairy, or who is the more chosen special tribe? You don't think things are better now than, say, fifty or three-hundred years ago for women, the disabled, gay people, the trans community... What hole do you live in?
Climate change is a significant issue, I'd agree, probably the most pressing issue of current times, and arguably the product of the riches the enlightenment has given us; I'm not in the camp that we can combat it purely with potential future technological developments, although I think they'll play a part, but I would suggest that the Enlightenment is going to be of more use to us in responding to it than religion. The most significant contribution to the climate debate I've noted has been Christians saying that it's all blown out of proportion because God gave Noah a rainbow and promised not to do it again...
As to species extinctions - they've increased significantly in recent years, and (much like climate change) dwarf natural examples from history in terms of speed and possibly extent. However, whislt they're an indicator of other problems (most obviously climate change) and a reduction in biodiversity is a potential hazard for the adaptability of ecosystems in the future... extinction of species is a natural part of the lifecycle. It's sad, at one level, and it needs to be monitored, but it's not a problem in the same sense as climate change, racism or holy wars.
O.
-
I'm sorry but we had the opportunity to change the voting system.....and didn't. Reason, love of money. Context, increasing secularism.
Bollocks.
Context: A badly presented choice of the worst option available because the LD's were so in love with their place at the top table. Also a population that is to some extent apathetic and also uneducated in politics.
And the result was decided on only a 42.2% turnout. Like Australia we should have compulsory voting, even if it means having a "None of the Above" box.
Absolutely sweet FA to do with secularism.
-
Bollocks. The
Context: A badly presented choice of the worst option available because the LD's were so in love with their place at the top table. Also a population that is to some extent apathetic and also uneducated in politics.
And the result was decided on only a 42.2% turnout. Like Australia we should have compulsory voting, even if it means having a "None of the Above" box.
Absolutely sweet FA to do with secularism.
Here we go again, progress is due to secularism. Anything goes wrong, nothing to do with us ,guv.
-
Here we go again, progress is due to secularism. Anything goes wrong, nothing to do with us ,guv.
Progress is not due to secularisation... secularisation is progress.
O.
-
Here we go again, progress is due to secularism. Anything goes wrong, nothing to do with us ,guv.
Next time you change your name perhaps you could choose something more quixotic.
Where did I say progress was due to secularism?
I don't think secularism has a great deal to do with our warped parliamentary system. And neither do I think religion has.
I could just as easily turn that statement round to fit you. Anything goes wrong and it's all do with secularism, nothing to do with religion.
I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't really do nuance.
-
Next time you change your name perhaps you could choose something more quixotic.
Where did I say progress was due to secularism?
I don't think secularism has a great deal to do with our warped parliamentary system. And neither do I think religion has.
I could just as easily turn that statement round to fit you. Anything goes wrong and it's all do with secularism, nothing to do with religion.
I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't really do nuance.
I’ve freely admitted the damage done to America and Christianity by a section of American Christians.
That is the sort of thing which will be remembered for decades or centuries.
That has been happening for centuries in Christianity and a bad name garnered by a few can leave a taint.
I offer no excuses for The Christian nationalist church.
On the other hand, increased Christianity did improve the Roman Empire which was rife with death for entertainments sake and sadistic sexual excess and exploitation, which has tainted Sex ever since.
-
Progress is not due to secularisation... secularisation is progress.
O.
The definition of progress you are using is a myth.
Secularisation clearly isn't so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.
-
The definition of progress you are using is a myth.
Secularisation clearly isn't so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.
Why is secularism not progress Vlad.
Secularism is about government being neutral with regard to religion - neither favouring nor discriminating against regardless of whether an individual is religious or not religious. It is akin to government being neutral with regard to race (neither favouring not discriminating against regardless of whether an individual is of a particular race). It is akin to government being neutral with regard to sex (neither favouring not discriminating against regardless of whether an individual is of a one sex or the other).
Vlad - do you see a move toward governments being neutral with regard to race or sex as being progress compared to decades ago where they legally permitted discrimination on the grounds of race and sex? If so, why is it not progress to move in the same direction with religion (i.e. secularism).
-
The definition of progress you are using is a myth.
Secularisation clearly isn't so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.
Secularism means not fining people who fail to attend church on Sunday and not hanging drawing and quartering Catholic priests who celebrate the Catholic mass.
I'd say that's progress. What do you think it is?
-
The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.
-
The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.
So you think a society where RCs were burned alive is better than a secular one. Good to know.
-
The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.
That's your view and you are perfectly entitled to it.
My view is different and I am also perfectly entitled to me view. Secularism means that the government and the state do not take a side, are neutral in the disagreement of views that we have and protect both of us in terms of our rights to hold those views.
Why exactly is that a problem AB unless you think that your views should be privileged over mine?
-
So you think a society where RCs were burned alive is better than a secular one. Good to know.
Indeed - AB doesn't seem to realise that secularism is just as much about protecting adherents of one religion/denomination over those of another religion/denomination as it is about protecting the religious over the non religious and vice versa.
Seems there are a lot of religious people who don't think a level playing field is fair over one tipped in their favour, but are the first to cry foul if they perceive a non level playing field tipped against them (albeit usually that involves approaches to level the playing filed by removing special privileges for religions and religious people).
-
The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.
That might be because this 'aim' you mention is nonsensical, since there is no evidence for 'souls', and since the arguments offered for 'souls', such as by yourself, are fallacious and/or incoherent.
I don't think that secular society is in 'conflict' with the Christian faith: I think it is more the case that secular society doesn't much care about ancient religious superstitions nor sees a need to take them seriously.
-
So you think a society where RCs were burned alive is better than a secular one. Good to know.
Such actions are in direct conflict with the Christian message of the New Testament.
The last command of Jesus was "Love one another as I have loved you"
-
That's your view and you are perfectly entitled to it.
My view is different and I am also perfectly entitled to me view. Secularism means that the government and the state do not take a side, are neutral in the disagreement of views that we have and protect both of us in terms of our rights to hold those views.
Why exactly is that a problem AB unless you think that your views should be privileged over mine?
What you deem to be "my views" do not come from me. I am only a messenger.
I am merely re affirming the Good News of salvation given to us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You are perfectly entitled to espouse your own views, just as I am entitled to point out the danger of how they may conflict with the ultimate goal of achieving eternal salvation.
-
What you deem to be "my views" do not come from me. I am only a messenger.
But we can both play that game - I can claim that my views do not come from me, but from evidence.
I am merely re affirming the Good News of salvation given to us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I am merely reaffirming the position that is based on objective evidence.
You are perfectly entitled to espouse your own views, just as I am entitled to point out the danger of how they may conflict with the ultimate goal of achieving eternal salvation.
You are perfectly entitled to espouse your own views, just as I am entitled to point out the danger of a delusional approach which has no evidence base to back it up.
But the willy waggling 'my argument is better than your argument' isn't the point I was making. My point was whether you were comfortable that the state should preference one of our views over the other (noting they might not preference the view individually we hold) or whether the state should respect our rights to hold the views we do but remain neutral themselves and not preference either view through affording special privileges to you or I on the basis of the views we hold.
-
But the willy waggling 'my argument is better than your argument' isn't the point I was making. My point was whether you were comfortable that the state should preference one of our views over the other (noting they might not preference the view individually we hold) or whether the state should respect our rights to hold the views we do but remain neutral themselves and not preference either view through affording special privileges to you or I on the basis of the views we hold.
I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith. We can't both be right. However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true. It is more than a matter of life or death.
-
I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith. We can't both be right. However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true. It is more than a matter of life or death.
It really is terribly sad to watch someone who is capable of rational and logical thought say things that are so obviously illogical and irrational; it is the true horror of religion.
The very fact that you describe your faith as 'unshakable' makes it irrational. Any belief that you hold that cannot be shaken by new evidence cannot be based on rationality. And then we have the real horror of the fact that you think that your god would create a world in which merely having the wrong belief can be "more than a matter of life or death" - such a god would be an evil, cruel, unjust, and barbaric monster, and yet you worship it (which is a whole new layer of irrationality, no reasonable and sane being would even want worship).
A basically capable human mind utterly crippled by blind, unreasoning faith.
-
I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith. We can't both be right. However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true. It is more than a matter of life or death.
Always lovely when a Christian actually argues they worship a prick god
-
Such actions are in direct conflict with the Christian message of the New Testament.
The last command of Jesus was "Love one another as I have loved you"
and yet the people who did it used your god to justify it. Anazing how worthless that god is.
-
I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith. We can't both be right. However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true. It is more than a matter of life or death.
Oh dear, oh dear - the old threatening approach. See me quiver.
AB - do you not think I've heard of Pascal's wager. Don't your think I've done the calculation and recognised it for the busted flush it is.
Problem for you is there are many, many more possible scenarios than 'no god' vs 'christian god' and I can claim the entire territory of the 'no god' possibly, while you can only claim a tiny proportion of 'there is a god' territory. And when you recognise the whole spectrum of possibilities, then plenty of those outcomes are more favourable to me than you.
So if I am right then the outcome is neutral albeit you have wasted your life worshiping a non existent god.
Sure if you are right then you are hunky dory and I'm in trouble.
But remember there are literally thousands of gods purported to exist so if there is a god there is no guarantee that it is the christian god. Indeed it is likely that it isn't. So if there is a god, but not the christian god then we are both in trouble if that if they are vengeful and require worship or damnation.
But perhaps the god that may exist isn't interested in whether it is worshiped, but takes a hugely dim view of worshiping false gods - fine for me, bad news for you.
Or a god which isn't interested in whether it is worshiped but is interested in what you do with you life. So all that wasted time worshiping some other non existent god isn't going to look good for you compared to my much better use of time.
etc etc.
So I'd suggest there are just as many scenarios in which you are in big trouble as I am (probably more) - sadly you don't seem to have thought through these alternative scenarios so blinkered in you view are you.
-
Oh dear, oh dear - the old threatening approach. See me quiver.
AB - do you not think I've heard of Pascal's wager. Don't your think I've done the calculation and recognised it for the busted flush it is.
Problem for you is there are many, many more possible scenarios than 'no god' vs 'christian god' and I can claim the entire territory of the 'no god' possibly, while you can only claim a tiny proportion of 'there is a god' territory. And when you recognise the whole spectrum of possibilities, then plenty of those outcomes are more favourable to me than you.
So if I am right then the outcome is neutral albeit you have wasted your life worshiping a non existent god.
Sure if you are right then you are hunky dory and I'm in trouble.
But remember there are literally thousands of gods purported to exist so if there is a god there is no guarantee that it is the christian god. Indeed it is likely that it isn't. So if there is a god, but not the christian god then we are both in trouble if that if they are vengeful and require worship or damnation.
But perhaps the god that may exist isn't interested in whether it is worshiped, but takes a hugely dim view of worshiping false gods - fine for me, bad news for you.
Or a god which isn't interested in whether it is worshiped but is interested in what you do with you life. So all that wasted time worshiping some other non existent god isn't going to look good for you compared to my much better use of time.
etc etc.
So I'd suggest there are just as many scenarios in which you are in big trouble as I am (probably more) - sadly you don't seem to have thought through these alternative scenarios so blinkered in you view are you.
I fully understand your views as taken from outside the Christian faith.
You can't possibly imagine how all these arguments will disappear into oblivion if you were to encounter the reality of God's love in your life.
Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?
-
Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?
Your absolute certainty is not something to be proud of. As I said before, it's a symptom of irrationality.
-
Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?
In principle, I wouldn't want to be.
Bertrand Russell offered some useful advice on this in his Liberal Decalogue: where his first point is "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
-
The definition of progress you are using is a myth.
So if progress isn't 'things getting better for people' what is it?
Secularisation clearly isn't (progress) so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.
Established religion in the UK has been consistently homophobic, tribal, misogynistic. In other countries it can add consistently anti-science as well. Removing the excessive influence of any single example of that to afford multiple voices a say in society is progress. Or do you think that we shouldn't be listening to a range of voices and ensuring that no one religious stance has an overt influence?
O.
-
You can't possibly imagine how all these arguments will disappear into oblivion if you were to encounter the reality of God's love in your life.
And you cannot possibly imagine how your beliefs will disappear into oblivion if:
a) There is no god and no afterlife so your beliefs will disappear when you die.
b) When you discover there is a god, but not the christian god, and you realise you've been worshiping a non-existent god all along. Now you'd better hope that god is benevolent and not vengeful and concerned by you worshiping a false god all your life.
-
Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?
To have unshakable certain in something for which there is zero evidence doesn't seem to be a very sensible position to take AB.
But just because you have unshakable certainty (just as many other people do for completely different gods) doesn't mean you are right.
My view is that I have never seen any credible evidence for the existence of any god or gods. Under those circumstances I do not believe in their existence and choose to live my life on that basis. Hence I am atheist on the matter of belief in god/gods. However I cannot be certain and I do not know that god/gods do not exist (hence I am also agnostic with regard to knowledge.
However if credible evidence were to appear for the existence of god/gods then I will, of course, change my mind.
How about you AB - if credible evidence arose that there was a god but that god was Vishnu, rather than the god you worship, would you change your mind?
-
In principle, I wouldn't want to be.
Bertrand Russell offered some useful advice on this in his Liberal Decalogue: where his first point is "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
I would think about the 'Fools Paradise'
-
I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith. We can't both be right. However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true. It is more than a matter of life or death.
I am sure you are sincere about your take on faith, however you can't prove god exists anymore than than I can prove it doesn't. If the consequences of rejecting the faith are dire, god would be a very unpleasant entity making its existence a matter of belief without proving it to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. The deeds attributed to god in the OT and NT don't do it any favours, imo.
-
Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?
That you see this as a viable argument indicates the depth of the problem, here.
No, I absolutely cannot be as certain, because I accept the limitations of the human condition, the provisional nature of both scientific enquiry and the nature of understanding based as it is on a subjective awareness. You appear to have a level of confidence in your belief that is in no way a reflection of the quality of the evidence supporting it; you are, to an extent, immune to reason.
Your position is, definitionally, irrational,
O.
-
Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?
In my case, the answer to that is no. But contrary to your opinion, to admit the possibility that I might be wrong is a strength, not a weakness.
-
AB,
Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?
Leaving aside for now that being certain about anything is a very foolish position to take – how would eliminate even the possibility of being wrong? – you’re also being inconsistent here. Sometimes you claim to be certain, but at other times (usually when your attempts at justifying arguments have collapsed completely) instead you disingenuously try the, “I’m only posting this idea as a possibility” line.
Perhaps if you picked either position and then stuck with it your reasoning would at least be consistently wrong rather than inconsistently so?
-
So if progress isn't 'things getting better for people' what is it?
Established religion in the UK has been consistently homophobic, tribal, misogynistic. In other countries it can add consistently anti-science as well. Removing the excessive influence of any single example of that to afford multiple voices a say in society is progress. Or do you think that we shouldn't be listening to a range of voices and ensuring that no one religious stance has an overt influence?
O.
I think many of the charges you are laying should be be laid at the door of non established churches namely prosperity gospel mega churches joined by politics and a shared interested in money making. Of course having an axe to grind allows you to completely disregard the downsides of the enlightenment, laissez faire, marketisation, global warming, pollution, unsustainable use of resources and the good side of established religion in moderation of the wilder aspects of personal religion and the parenting of humanism. American humanism put up a fine riposte against The misogyny of high profile atheists and scientific academics.UK humanism and Australian humanism, not such encouraging
Offspring from Christianity e.g. Nicholls misleading bollocks.
-
I think many of the charges you are laying should be be laid at the door of non established churches namely prosperity gospel mega churches joined by politics and a shared interested in money making.
Outrider will no doubt answer for himself. However two of the tings he mentioned were homophobia and misogyny. And on these the two largest 'established' churches in the UK (CofE and RCC) are guilty as charged. Both churches believe that homosexuality is wrong and clearly discriminate against gay people. And both churches also discriminate against women. The RCC more significantly and overtly in effectively reserving all the most senior positions of influence for men. However the CofE isn't blameless - let's not forget that is is pretty recently that the CofE allowed women bishops and if you scratch below the surface there isn't equality are congregations are allowed to object to a woman bishop in a manner they aren't for a man.
So rather than try to divert attention to the non established churches as you call them, let's focus on the main denominations whose current position on equality for gay people and women is woeful in comparison with most law-abiding companies, charities etc in the UK.
-
Outrider will no doubt answer for himself. However two of the tings he mentioned were homophobia and misogyny. And on these the two largest 'established' churches in the UK (CofE and RCC) are guilty as charged. Both churches believe that homosexuality is wrong and clearly discriminate against gay people. And both churches also discriminate against women. The RCC more significantly and overtly in effectively reserving all the most senior positions of influence for men. However the CofE isn't blameless - let's not forget that is is pretty recently that the CofE allowed women bishops and if you scratch below the surface there isn't equality are congregations are allowed to object to a woman bishop in a manner they aren't for a man.
So rather than try to divert attention to the non established churches as you call them, let's focus on the main denominations whose current position on equality for gay people and women is woeful in comparison with most law-abiding companies, charities etc in the UK.
As far as I know no church or clergy have been charged with homophobia in the UK or found guilty. How could they. You are indulging in wankfantasy.
But supposing the debate was reopened. Homophobia would have to be studied. I see no fear of homosexuality, again, wank fantasy. The case then the complaint is an equalities issue. Now absolute equality cannot be assured there are differences and I believe it is the difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage that renders the idea of a gender neutral marriage with less of a claim to the title holy matrimony. Firstly the claim is very recent and how it has come about needs an explanation beyond a particular interpretation of the term equal rights. Secondly the only information we have on the holy is from scripture which defines holy matrimony as gender important.
There is therefore the risk here that gender neutral marriages are not going to have the same status with god no matter how hard people try to make them holy.
And that brings us to the Hillside angle. God himself is homophobic. Well, why would God be phobic? Relationships are a gift and the nature and potential of any relationship is ultimately weighed by God.
Let me add another group for whom holy matrimony is not on offer... single people who have the gift of a certain freedom of being they would not have if married. Holy matrimony is not for them.
Nuns and priests have a form of marriage to God. That doesn’t mean that us marrieds are less equal then them in the distribution of God’s love and neither are those who do not fall under the rubric of gender important matrimony.
Gender neutral marriages exist already but I would certainly be very interested to know about how and why the very recent demands for holy gender neutral marriages arose, seemingly from nowhere.Particularly when the murky hand of atheism is present in it.
-
As far as I know no church or clergy have been charged with homophobia in the UK or found guilty. How could they. You are indulging in wankfantasy.
But supposing the debate was reopened. Homophobia would have to be studied. I see no fear of homosexuality, again, wank fantasy. The case then the complaint is an equalities issue. Now absolute equality cannot be assured there are differences and I believe it is the difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage that renders the idea of a gender neutral marriage with less of a claim to the title holy matrimony. Firstly the claim is very recent and how it has come about needs an explanation beyond a particular interpretation of the term equal rights. Secondly the only information we have on the holy is from scripture which defines holy matrimony as gender important.
There is therefore the risk here that gender neutral marriages are not going to have the same status with god no matter how hard people try to make them holy.
And that brings us to the Hillside angle. God himself is homophobic. Well, why would God be phobic? Relationships are a gift and the nature and potential of any relationship is ultimately weighed by God.
Let me add another group for whom holy matrimony is not on offer... single people who have the gift of a certain freedom of being they would not have if married. Holy matrimony is not for them.
Nuns and priests have a form of marriage to God. That doesn’t mean that us marrieds are less equal then them in the distribution of God’s love and neither are those who do not fall under the rubric of gender important matrimony.
Gender neutral marriages exist already but I would certainly be very interested to know about how and why the very recent demands for holy gender neutral marriages arose, seemingly from nowhere.Particularly when the murky hand of atheism is present in it.
None of which addresses a core issue that you keep avoiding: should a same-sex couple who are both committed and practicing Christians wish to have a 'holy' wedding you, along with various Christian denominations, are prepared to deny them that on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic and discriminatory.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
As far as I know no church or clergy have been charged with homophobia in the UK or found guilty. How could they. You are indulging in wankfantasy.
You cannot be charged with a homophobic offence when you're protected by special exemptions in the equalities legislation.
You’ve been corrected on this already.
But supposing the debate was reopened. Homophobia would have to be studied. I see no fear of homosexuality, again, wank fantasy.
You don’t have to have fear for a practice to be homophobic (though arguably the culture your church validates that leads to young men being beaten up on the street does).
You’ve been corrected on this already.
The case then the complaint is an equalities issue. Now absolute equality cannot be assured there are differences and I believe it is the difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage that renders the idea of a gender neutral marriage with less of a claim to the title holy matrimony.
Your beliefs about “holy” matrimony are neither here nor there. Either it’s offered equally, or it’s offered only on a discriminatory basis.
You’ve been corrected on this already.
Firstly the claim is very recent and how it has come about needs an explanation beyond a particular interpretation of the term equal rights.
Anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, ani-slavery etc were all at one time very recent. How homophobia has come about is neither here nor there – if it exists now, then it exists now.
You’ve been corrected on this already.
Secondly the only information we have on the holy is from scripture which defines holy matrimony as gender important.
That’s just an argument for a homophobic scripture, which doesn’t help you.
You’ve been corrected on this already.
There is therefore the risk here that gender neutral marriages are not going to have the same status with god no matter how hard people try to make them holy.
You cannot have an unqualified guess (“god”) as your premise. I may as well argue that black people should sit only at the back of the bus because that’s what leprechauns want.
You’ve been corrected on this already.
And that brings us to the Hillside angle. God himself is homophobic.
No, “Hillside’s angle” as that the god story you espouse is homophobic.
You’ve been corrected on this already.
Well, why would God be phobic? Relationships are a gift and the nature and potential of any relationship is ultimately weighed by God.
The god story would be homophobic because the people who wrote it came from less enlightened times (see also “god's” support for slavery etc).
You’ve been corrected on this already.
Let me add another group for whom holy matrimony is not on offer... single people who have the gift of a certain freedom of being they would not have if married. Holy matrimony is not for them.
You’ve really lost it now. You need more than one person to marry – you do understand that right?
Nuns and priests have a form of marriage to God. That doesn’t mean that us marrieds are less equal then them in the distribution of God’s love and neither are those who do not fall under the rubric of gender important matrimony.
Nuns think themselves to be “brides of Christ”, therefore not as single at all. You do know that right?
Gender neutral marriages exist already but I would certainly be very interested to know about how and why the very recent demands for holy gender neutral marriages arose, seemingly from nowhere.Particularly when the murky hand of atheism is present in it.
If you’re interested in something, do some research on it.
Back to the point though: you espouse a god story and associated real world practices that meet the definition for homophobia. You seem to think that’s a good thing – I on the other hand think it’s contemptible.
-
None of which addresses a core issue that you keep avoiding: should a same-sex couple who are both committed and practicing Christians wish to have a 'holy' wedding you, along with various Christian denominations, are prepared to deny them that on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic and discriminatory.
No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual and his wife were to want holy matrimony and they were commited and practicing christians, and I was a clergyman and licensed. I would marry them. So it is nothing to do with their sexuality but that gender neutral marriage does not yet come under my rubric of holy matrimony and wouldn't until or the occasion of me being changed by revelation or discernment. I think you can see I have dismantled therefore the charge of homophobia as you present it
-
VtH,
No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual and his wife were to want holy matrimony and they were commited and practicing christians, and I was a clergyman and licensed. I would marry them. So it is nothing to do with their sexuality but that gender neutral marriage does not yet come under my rubric of holy matrimony and wouldn't until or the occasion of me being changed by revelation or discernment. I think you can see I have dismantled therefore the charge of homophobia as you present it
Bizarre reply. If any gay person wanted to marry someone of the same sex and you were their cleric, then you would refuse them. That's the homophobia part.
Try to remember this before you deflect off topic again.
-
No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual ...
Tom Robinson at one time may have indicated that he was gay, but he is bisexual and indeed he has indicated that he was always bisexual ...
... and his wife
As this point proves.
But actually the church discriminates against bisexual people as well as homosexual people as the church will marry a bisexual person provided their chosen spouse is of the opposite sex, but refuse to if their chosen spouse is of the same sex.
-
No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual and his wife were to want holy matrimony and they were commited and practicing christians, and I was a clergyman and licensed. I would marry them. So it is nothing to do with their sexuality but that gender neutral marriage does not yet come under my rubric of holy matrimony and wouldn't until or the occasion of me being changed by revelation or discernment. I think you can see I have dismantled therefore the charge of homophobia as you present it
The only thing that is being 'dismantled' are your laughable attempts to defend the indefensible.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
You cannot be charged with a homophobic offence when you're protected by special exemptions in the equalities legislation.
Just like you can't get charged for wearing a loud shirt during the hours of darkness or smelling of foreign food. Your point is....?
You don’t have to have fear for a practice to be homophobic
and who decided that the literal meaning phobia of homosexuality be scrapped altogether and replaced by a flexible meaning( see Stonewalls changing definitions )(though arguably the culture your church validates that leads to young men being beaten up on the street does).
I'm not sure the atheist's wankfantasy of hordes of churchgoers piling out of evensong to hunt down gays is consistent with an ever increasing secular society Hillside. You might have to explain what you have in mind here.
Your beliefs about “holy” matrimony are neither here nor there.
That makes two of us Either it’s offered equally, or it’s offered only on a discriminatory basis.
since that's your view it is neither here nor there.
Anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, ani-slavery etc were all at one time very recent.
I completely disagree How homophobia has come about is neither here nor there – if it exists now, then it exists now.
Homophobia may have been around forever. That it is found in western non churched people, i.e. popular thuggery I would say IS due to fear of the different, fear of contracting homosexuality, fear of the myths surrounding it, and the taint roman aristocracy put on homosexuality which lingered for centuries and realisation of ancient dogma by violent people. Opposition to the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony is very recent
[/quote]
-
VtH,
Bizarre reply. If any gay person wanted to marry someone of the same sex and you were their cleric, then you would refuse them. That's the homophobia part.
Which of your suitcase full of definitions, which is deliberately lacking the plain meaning version of homophobia, are you referring to? In fact if you come back prematurely on this i'll know you are making it up as you go along.
[/quote]
-
Tom Robinson at one time may have indicated that he was gay, but he is bisexual and indeed he has indicated that he was always bisexual ...
But you are making the ridiculous assertion here that Robinson or anyone in his position somehow leaves his homosexuality at the door of the church when he or she seriously undertakes Holy matrimony. That is arrant nonsense on your part.
-
You seem to think that’s a good thing – I on the other hand think it’s contemptible.
I don't believe I have said whether it is a good thing or not a good thing, but it is a God thing. I can see there is a difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage (which I believe must in many ways be an easier prospect) and the term holy matrimony is at least a delineator term.
In terms of contemptible ? what is it which is contemptible? My attitude which you have puffed into me breaking into a mogul feast with cossack dancing when I'm with like minded individuals? or God?
If God , my advice as always is ....take it up with him.
-
I don't believe I have said whether it is a good thing or not a good thing, but it is a God thing.
But we don't know that gods - and regardless of whether god does or does not exist the decision to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality is taken by people as part of religious organisations. Those people have a choice and can make a decision not to discriminate. If they choose to discriminate then those people (including adherents such as yourself Vlad) 'own' those decisions and need to be held to account for them. Trying to pretend it is nothing to do with you, but just about god is cowardly and an untenable position.
-
But you are making the ridiculous assertion here that Robinson or anyone in his position somehow leaves his homosexuality at the door of the church when he or she seriously undertakes Holy matrimony. That is arrant nonsense on your part.
No - my argument is very clear and understandable.
If Tom Robinson were heterosexual he could choose any potential female spouse and the church would be willing to offer a marriage service to that couple.
However regardless of whether Robinson is homosexual or bisexual he is treated less favourably by the church on the basis of his sexuality (the definition of discrimination).
So if he is homosexual and therefore choosing a potential male spouse, the church wont marry them.
If bisexual the church will only marry them if his choice of spouse is female, but not if male.
The issues is one of discrimination - now we know that because the church has an opt-out this isn't unlawful discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less.
-
But we don't know that gods - and regardless of whether god does or does not exist the decision to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality is taken by people as part of religious organisations.
Motivated entirely by the belief that any mouthing of the words may be but an empty gesture albeit a state construct to tick the boxes of a hegemonic view of equality.
-
Motivated entirely by the belief that any mouthing of the words may be but an empty gesture albeit a state construct to tick the boxes of a hegemonic view of equality.
What?
-
No - my argument is very clear and understandable.
If Tom Robinson were heterosexual he could choose any potential female spouse and the church would be willing to offer a marriage service to that couple.
However regardless of whether Robinson is homosexual or bisexual he is treated less favourably by the church on the basis of his sexuality (the definition of discrimination).
So if he is homosexual and therefore choosing a potential male spouse, the church wont marry them.
If bisexual the church will only marry them if his choice of spouse is female, but not if male.
The issues is one of discrimination - now we know that because the church has an opt-out this isn't unlawful discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less.
Is discrimination always a bad thing.I would say it is an evolved thing which aids our survival and as with everything else is capable of perversion.
The fact that a Tom Robinson can receive holy matrimony effectively ends the argument of discrimination according to sexuality. I realise that must come as a blow to the swivel eyed......... and that is it.
Should the church be marrying every couple of different gender....I'm not sure about that I would hope there would be discernment in marriage classes to minimise the risk of a marriage that would likely fail due to propensity to adultery and other things.
-
Is discrimination always a bad thing.
So you are accepting that your church is discriminatory, merely that in your view that is a good thing.
-
The fact that a Tom Robinson can receive holy matrimony effectively ends the argument of discrimination according to sexuality.
No it doesn't. He is being treated less favourably by the church on the basis of his sexuality - that is discrimination.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Just like you can't get charged for wearing a loud shirt during the hours of darkness or smelling of foreign food. Your point is....?
None of which require special exemptions in law to permit certain institutions to act disgustingly with impunity.
My point was that your attempted point about clerics not being prosecuted for their homophopic activities was a crock - they can’t be prosecuted because the law protects them (but not other homophobes).
and who decided that the literal meaning phobia of homosexuality be scrapped altogether and replaced by a flexible meaning( see Stonewalls changing definitions )
It never was “the literal meaning” – something you’ve been corrected on several times now. I think your homophobia is awful – who decided that the literal meaning of that word (“full of awe”) should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a flexible meaning?
You basic ignorance of philology is showing here.
I'm not sure the atheist's wankfantasy of hordes of churchgoers piling out of evensong to hunt down gays is consistent with an ever increasing secular society Hillside. You might have to explain what you have in mind here.
More lying doesn’t help you here. While it is true that religious people of all types have often used their faith beliefs to justify the most appalling behaviour, you have no argument against the homophobic thug who pleads, “but if the church gets special permission to be homophobic, what’s so bad about my homophobia then?”. What would you as a cleric say – “I know old son, you’re on the right lines (after all, god says so), but maybe just tone it down a bit next time? How about a light duffing up rather than putting the boot in for example?”.
Really?
That makes two of us
I haven’t said otherwise. Does this mean you’ll stop lying about that then?
since that's your view it is neither here nor there.
Utter fuckwittery. Of course it’s here or there – the superstitions you attach to the type of service you’d offer to straight people but deny to gay people is the only part that’s neither here nor there.
Do try to keep up.
I completely disagree
You can’t – try looking up the history of these things. It’s simple enough to do.
Homophobia may have been around forever. That it is found in western non churched people, i.e. popular thuggery I would say IS due to fear of the different, fear of contracting homosexuality, fear of the myths surrounding it, and the taint roman aristocracy put on homosexuality which lingered for centuries and realisation of ancient dogma by violent people. Opposition to the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony is very recent
True or not, it’s still irrelevant. You espouse a homophobic god story and the homophobic practices of the church that carries out the rules contained in that story. That makes you a homophobe.
Not pretty is it?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
None of which require special exemptions in law to permit certain institutions to act disgustingly with impunity.
My point was that your attempted point about clerics not being prosecuted for their homophopic activities was a crock - they can’t be prosecuted because the law protects them (but not other homophobes).
It never was “the literal meaning” – something you’ve been corrected on several times now. I think your homophobia is awful – who decided that the literal meaning of that word (“full of awe”) should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a flexible meaning?
You basic ignorance of philology is showing here.
More lying doesn’t help you here. While it is true that religious people of all types have often used their faith beliefs to justify the most appalling behaviour, you have no argument against the homophobic thug who pleads, “but if the church gets special permission to be homophobic, what’s so bad about my homophobia then?”. What would you as a cleric say – “I know old son, you’re on the right lines (after all, god says so), but maybe just tone it down a bit next time? How about a light duffing up rather than putting the boot in for example?”.
Really?
I haven’t said otherwise. Does this mean you’ll stop lying about that then?
Utter fuckwittery. Of course it’s here or there – the superstitions you attach to the type of service you’d offer to straight people but deny to gay people is the only part that’s neither here nor there.
Do try to keep up.
You can’t – try looking up the history of these things. It’s simple enough to do.
True or not, it’s still irrelevant. You espouse a homophobic god story and the homophobic practices of the church that carries out the rules contained in that story. That makes you a homophobe.
Not pretty is it?
Not the plain meaning? Presumably it is since the prime motivators of homophobia is thought to be fear of contracting homosexuality or fear of disruption of the social order. Where are you pulling your prime definition from, aside that great lexicological cornucopia, your rectum?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
I don't believe I have said whether it is a good thing or not a good thing, but it is a God thing. I can see there is a difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage (which I believe must in many ways be an easier prospect) and the term holy matrimony is at least a delineator term.
In terms of contemptible ? what is it which is contemptible? My attitude which you have puffed into me breaking into a mogul feast with cossack dancing when I'm with like minded individuals? or God?
If God , my advice as always is ....take it up with him.
Your semi-literacy has always made it difficult for you to communicate, but I had assumed that you could read and, to some degree at least, comprehend. It seems not though. Would there be any point in correcting you again therefore on your reification screw up here?
If you want to try the, “OK my god is a homophobe but He knows best so you’d better take it up with Him” schtick yet again I could equally be the racist B&B owner who says, “but leprechauns know everything, they don’t like black people, therefore I’ll put a “No dogs, no Irish, No blacks” sign in my window and if you don’t like it you can take it up with the leprechauns”.
Does anything strike you as problematic with that argument?
Anything at all?
I’ll set out for you your espousal of homophobia once again:
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, but that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.
4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.
In what possible way is that you not saying that your homophobic god story and your church’s homophobic practices are “a good thing”?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Not the plain meaning? Presumably it is since the prime motivators of homophobia is thought to be fear of contracting homosexuality or fear of disruption of the social order. Where are you pulling your prime definition from, aside that great lexicological cornucopia, your rectum?
It never was "the plain meaning", and it certainly isn't now. Your cocktail of ignorance and arrogance is becoming toxic now.
-
AB,
Leaving aside for now that being certain about anything is a very foolish position to take – how would eliminate even the possibility of being wrong? – you’re also being inconsistent here. Sometimes you claim to be certain, but at other times (usually when your attempts at justifying arguments have collapsed completely) instead you disingenuously try the, “I’m only posting this idea as a possibility” line.
Perhaps if you picked either position and then stuck with it your reasoning would at least be consistently wrong rather than inconsistently so?
My certainty is not based upon the evidence I can portray with mere words. To understand my certainty, you would have to enter my conscious mind and experience the indescribable nature of having a relationship with God. In this I feel totally at one with St Paul:
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord
-
AB,
My certainty is not based upon the evidence I can portray with mere words. To understand my certainty, you would have to enter my conscious mind and experience the indescribable nature of having a relationship with God. In this I feel totally at one with St Paul:
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord
First, you've missed the point about the mistake of pitching your tent on "I'm certain".
Second, plenty of other people who have believed in countless other faith stories have been jut as certain of their beliefs as you are of yours. Unless you can "enter their conscious minds" too, how do you know that they're all wrong and you are right?
Third, what you're describing is just a conviction. Unless you can finally produce an argument to justify it, that's al it is though. Any fantasy will do for this purpose - all you need for certainty is to be convinced of it.
Even for you this is a poor effort Alan.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
It never was "the plain meaning", and it certainly isn't now. Your cocktail of ignorance and arrogance is becoming toxic now.
Toxic? what are you talking about. First you are saying that what I have to say is neither here nor there and a few posts later it's toxic. I'm afraid my view this time happens to be enshrined in law if both the law and my view were to change in neither case would that be down to you and your force of personality.
I have made that clear.
-
VtH,
Toxic? what are you talking about. First you are saying that what I have to say is neither here nor there and a few posts later it's toxic.
What do you get from this kind of unremitting lying? Does it excite you in some way? What I actually said of course is that the magical properties you attach to one type of service are neither here nor there. What is here or there though is whether the service is offered on an equal or on a discriminatory basis.
This isn’t hard to grasp, or at least it shouldn’t be.
I'm afraid my view this times happens to be enshrined in law if both the law and my view were to change in neither case would that be down to you and your force of personality.
Yes I know the homophobic exceptions are enshrined in law, just as it used to be the case that racist B&B owners could put signs in their windows because their right to racist behaviour was enshrined in law too.
You seem to think that special permission in law for certain institutions to be homophobic is a good thing. I don’t.
I have made that clear.
You have: you’ve made clear that you're a homophobe, and pleased to be one too.
-
VtH,
What do you get from this kind of unremitting lying? Does it excite you in some way? What I actually said of course is that the magical properties you attach to one type of service are neither here nor there. What is here or there though is whether the service is offered on an equal or on a discriminatory basis.
This isn’t hard to grasp, or at least it shouldn’t be.
Yes I know the homophobic exceptions are enshrined in law, just as it used to be the case that racist B&B owners could put signs in their windows because their right to racist behaviour was enshrined in law too.
You seem to think that special permission in law for certain institutions to be homophobic is a good thing. I don’t.
You have: you’ve made clear that you're a homophobe, and pleased to be one too.
As far as I know they are only known as the homophobic exceptions in your circles Hillside. Perhaps you ought to consider why racism is presently against the law but provision of holy matrimony to those described in scripture as it happening between is not.
This is because racism is universally seen as wrong even by the bad boys of Brexit, that is why they do it. Holy matrimony is a different thing any point of view on it may not be universal.
Explain why some like myself support Gay civil marriage but take a different line over holy matrimony without resorting to Christophobic caricature.
-
As far as I know they are only known as the homophobic exceptions in your circles Hillside. Perhaps you ought to consider why racism is presently against the law but provision of holy matrimony to those described in scripture as it happening between is not.
That will be because the UK government shamefully allowed exceptions in the case of religious organisations.
This is because racism is universally seen as wrong even by the bad boys of Brexit, that is why they do it. Holy matrimony is a different thing any point of view on it may not be universal.
Views on almost anything may not be "universal" but that doesn't mean that nothing is legislated for, or against, unless absolutely everyone agrees on a position first: sometimes a consensus that 'x' should be allowed, or disallowed, overrides any objections - hence same-sex marriage is now legal in the UK despite opposition from some (but not all) sections of Christianity.
Explain why some like myself support Gay civil marriage but take a different line over holy matrimony without resorting to Christophobic caricature.
Perhaps you should be explaining yourself, Vlad, rather than asking others to do it for you. My guess is, when it comes to your precious Christianity, that you and certain other elements within Christianity are intrinsically homophobic based largely on fallacious arguments from authority and tradition (along with an added dash of reification).
By the way, I don't think you ever answered my question regarding why a same-sex couple who were committed and practicing Christians should be denied access to this 'holy matrimony'.
-
That will be because the UK government shamefully allowed exceptions in the case of religious organisations.
Views on almost anything may not be "universal" but that doesn't mean that nothing is legislated for, or against, unless absolutely everyone agrees on a position first: sometimes a consensus that 'x' should be allowed, or disallowed, overrides any objections - hence same-sex marriage is now legal in the UK despite opposition from some (but not all) sections of Christianity.
Perhaps you should be explaining yourself, Vlad, rather than asking others to do it for you. My guess is, when it comes to your precious Christianity, that you and certain other elements within Christianity are intrinsically homophobic based largely on fallacious arguments from authority and tradition (along with an added dash of reification).
By the way, I don't think you ever answered my question regarding why a same-sex couple who were committed and practicing Christians should be denied access to this 'holy matrimony'.
What is intrinsically fallacious about saying God is personally involved in holy matrimony?
Before going on about proving God or that’s just your feeling, remember that feeling that this is bad like racism is in the same category. Just a feeling. You think putting God first is absolutely wrong, well welcome to the world of absolute morality although I am sure you’ll be back arguing otherwise.
Not all refusals to include are wrong.
Your task is to show that someone who holds the scriptural view of holy matrimony is morally bad using only reason and to show that somebody who says there is no real data so far to show that they must change the scriptural definition of holy matrimony, is the equivalent of a homophobic murderer. Something suggested by at least one chap on this forum.
Regarding same sex couples who are committed Christians and who are approaching holy matrimony.
I have said this before, they are in a position I may never be in. This makes them as I have said before better placed than I. They and their priest would I expect take this up with God if the priest belongs to a church where this is given to his disgression. If the couple proceed and find later that they have changed their view or ecclesiology I would imagine they would repent.
As I have said they are better placed than I because of their situation.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
As far as I know they are only known as the homophobic exceptions in your circles Hillside.
Then, as so often, “so far as you know” is woefully inadequate. The definition of homophobia includes discrimination of the ground of same-sex orientation. This type of discrimination is generally unlawful by virtue of the Equalities Act 2010. The same Act though also include special exemptions for religious institutions. Thus the church is protected by “homophobic exceptions” as you put it.
This shouldn’t be hard for you to grasp, it really shouldn’t. Even for you.
Perhaps you ought to consider why racism is presently against the law but provision of holy matrimony to those described in scripture as it happening between is not.
Why? There are no special protections about racism for religious institutions because none of them (or at least none of the mainstream ones) espouse racist beliefs. If your church did say “there’s a god who thinks black people are inferior” though presumably they’d have special protections for their racism just as they do for their homophobia.
This is becauset racism is universally seen as wrong even by the bad boys of Brexit, that is why they do it. Holy matrimony is a different thing any point of view on it may not be universal.
No it isn’t. It’s because your church hasn’t ask for special exemptions to allow it to carry out racist practices.
Explain why some like myself support Gay civil marriage but take a different line over holy matrimony without resorting to Christophobic caricature.
I have done several times now. Here it is again. I suggest you actually read it this time, try at least to comprehend it, and actually respond to it rather than deflect into yet another logical dog’s breakfast:
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.
4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.
That makes you a homophobe.
Do you get it now?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
What is intrinsically fallacious about saying God is personally involved in holy matrimony?
1. You have no coherent definition of “God”.
2. You cannot demonstrate that this supposed god exists at all.
3. You cannot demonstrate that this supposed god thinks as you suppose it does.
Oh, and even if you found some way to deal with all that, still all you’d be left with is a homophobic god.
It’s not a good look is it?
Before going on about proving God or that’s just your feeling, remember that feeling that this is bad like racism is in the same category. Just a feeling. You think putting God first is absolutely wrong, well welcome to the world of absolute morality although I am sure you’ll be back arguing otherwise.
Wrong again. “God” is an objective claim of fact; moral questions are judgments and opinions about how to behave. You’ve made a basic category error here.
Not all refusals to include are wrong.
Gibberish.
Your task is to show that someone who holds the scriptural view of holy matrimony is morally bad using only reason and to show that somebody who says there is no real data so far to show that they must change the scriptural definition of holy matrimony, is the equivalent of a homophobic murderer. Something suggested by at least one chap on this forum.
Shifting of the burden of proof, straw man and false accusation. You’ve managed the trifecta of fallacies here.
Regarding same sex couples who are committed Christians and who are approaching holy matrimony.
I have said this before, they are in a position I may never be in. This makes them as I have said before better placed than I. They and their priest would I expect take this up with God if the priest belongs to a church where this is given to his disgression. If the couple proceed and find later that they have changed their view or ecclesiology I would imagine they would repent.
As I have said they are better placed than I because of their situation.
Irrelevant.
Once again:
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.
4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.
That makes you a homophobe.
Do you get it now?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Then, as so often, “so far as you know” is woefully inadequate. The definition of homophobia includes discrimination of the ground of same-sex orientation. This type of discrimination is generally unlawful by virtue of the Equalities Act 2010. The same Act though also include special exemptions for religious institutions. Thus the church is protected by “homophobic exceptions” as you put it.
Are they actually referred to as the homophobic exemptions. If not, then sadly for you the term is arsepull
Why? There are no special protections about racism for religious institutions because none of them (or at least none of the mainstream ones) espouse racist beliefs. If your church did say “there’s a god who thinks black people are inferior” though presumably they’d have special protections for their racism just as they do for their homophobia.
Atheist masochististic wankfantasy.
No it isn’t. It’s because your church hasn’t ask for special exemptions to allow it to carry out racist practices.
The idea of the church asking for it is atheist wanketc..........
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.
No it is open to gay people...who wish to marry people of the opposite sex.So you are incorrect, wrong, mistaken, in error, short of the mark, not the full ticket.
I think the thing is that if the church is told what to do by the state. It becomes a state church and those have an unhappy history.
I rather think that the government you have in mind would actually constitute an antitheist government. Mercifully in reality the world is not so dramatic.
-
No it is open to gay people...who wish to marry people of the opposite sex.So you are incorrect, wrong, mistaken, in error, short of the mark, not the full ticket.
If this is the best you can do then give up, Vlad: it would be funny if it wasn't so unpleasantly pathetic.
-
Vlad just can't help himself. ::)
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Are they actually referred to as the homophobic exemptions. If not, then sadly for you the term is arsepull
By people who understand what these terms mean, yes. Moreover, I’ve explained to you several times now what these terms do mean so just collapsing into expletives doesn’t get you out of that hole.
Atheist masochististic wankfantasy.
So no argument then. Funny that.
What makes you think that the Government of the day would have denied racist exemptions had the church asked for them given that they so cravenly kowtowed on the homophobic exemptions they were asked for?
The idea of the church asking for it is atheist wanketc..........
You never have understood the meaning of the word “analogy” have you.
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.
No it is open to gay people...who wish to marry people of the opposite sex.So you are incorrect, wrong, mistaken, in error, short of the mark, not the full ticket.
No, you are: for equality the service has to be open to all without special conditions attached. You may as well say that the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s with flakes in to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets instead) can’t be antisemitic because he will sell them the 99s, but only on condition that they pretend not to be Jewish.
Can you finally see where you’ve gone wrong again here?
I think the thing is that if the church is told what to do by the state. It becomes a state church and those have an unhappy history.
It already is “the state” (ie, established) church and you’ve missed the point. What governments tell people to do via legislation is meant to everyone to comply with. The outlier position is when special exemptions are given to selected groups so the same rules don’t apply to them.
I happen to think that homophobic exemptions from the equalities legislation granted to special interest groups on the grounds of faith is a bad thing for society as a whole. You it seems do not. That presumably is because you’re comfortable with your homophobia.
I rather think that the government you have in mind would actually constitute an antitheist government. Mercifully in reality the world is not so dramatic.
Then, as ever, you rather think wrongly. If you think it’s antitheist to refuse the church morally indefensible exemptions to equalities legislation that’s your privilege, but the cost is that you thereby paint yourself firmly into the homophobic corner too.
Shame on you.
Oh, and just to remind you – here once again is why you’re a homophobe (and I’ve even amended it slightly to address your latest pathetic deflection):
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people who wish to marry each other.
4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.
That makes you a homophobe.
Do you get it now?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
By people who understand what these terms mean, yes. Moreover, I’ve explained to you several times now what these terms do mean so just collapsing into expletives doesn’t get you out of that hole.
So no argument then. Funny that.
What makes you think that the Government of the day would have denied racist exemptions had the church asked for them given that they so cravenly kowtowed on the homophobic exemptions they were asked for?
You never have understood the meaning of the word “analogy” have you.
No, you are: for equality the service has to be open to all without special conditions attached. You may as well say that the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s with flakes in to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets instead) can’t be antisemitic because he will sell them the 99s, but only on condition that they pretend not to be Jewish.
Can you finally see where you’ve gone wrong again here?
It already is “the state” (ie, established) church and you’ve missed the point. What governments tell people to do via legislation is meant to everyone to comply with. The outlier position is when special exemptions are given to selected groups so the same rules don’t apply to them.
I happen to think that homophobic exemptions from the equalities legislation granted to special interest groups on the grounds of faith is a bad thing for society as a whole. You it seems do not. That presumably is because you’re comfortable with your homophobia.
Then, as ever, you rather think wrongly. If you think it’s antitheist to refuse the church morally indefensible exemptions to equalities legislation that’s your privilege, but the cost is that you thereby paint yourself firmly into the homophobic corner too.
Shame on you.
Oh, and just to remind you – here once again is why you’re a homophobe (and I’ve even amended it slightly to address your latest pathetic deflection):
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people who wish to marry each other.
4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.
That makes you a homophobe.
Do you get it now?
I thought there was a rule posting the same thing at the same person over and over again.......ah, well, when it suits eh?
That is hypnosis by the way.
Again what you are proposing Hillside is a society whereby we should not accept religion nor give it public forum but then you also want this church to do what the state tells it in doctrinal issues. That is a state church.
That makes you a totalitarian
Do you get it now?
-
Roses,
Vlad just can't help himself.
I do sometimes wonder whether decent and reasoning Christians (and there are plenty of them) who read Vlad’s efforts here head in hands at the reputational damage he does to their faith might actually conclude that he’s some kind of deep undercover anti-theist committed to wrecking their church from within.
Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury or someone like him should be alerted in case he finally succeeds?
-
Roses,
I do sometimes wonder whether decent and reasoning Christians (and there are plenty of them) who read Vlad’s efforts here head in hands at the reputational damage he does to their faith might actually conclude that he’s some kind of deep undercover anti-theist committed to wrecking their church from within.
Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury or someone like him should be alerted in case he finally succeeds?
Decent christians no doubt who shut the fuck up in the face of your atheist wankfantasies, I will give you this you treat all christians equally with the same disrespect.
Oh Oh Vlad is stopping me from reaching you Lord because he is being beastly and after all I was brought up to believe Christians were doormats, After all Lord, you old homophobe, it says in your old book. Ha Ha.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
I thought there was a rule posting the same thing at the same person over and over again.......ah, well, when it suits eh?
There may well be, but on the other hand when someone repeatedly asks for the explanation he’s already been given and then consistently ignores it what do you expect?
That is hypnosis by the way.
Gibberish.
Again what you are proposing Hillside is a society whereby we should not accept religion nor give it public forum but then you also want this church to do what the state tells it in doctrinal issues. That is a state church.
More lying doesn’t help you here either. As you well know (because I’ve told you, what, hundreds of times now?) what I’m actually opposed to is institutions given special privileges in the public square solely on the ground of their imaginary friends.
You won’t understand this, but so should you be. It happens (presumably) that you’re not gay, so the homophobic exemptions given to your church don’t bother you. Who’s to say though what innate characteristics you do have that potentially at least some faith group may one day want to discriminate against – who will stand up for you then given your indifference at the bigotry your church visits on gay people now?
That makes you a totalitarian
Only if you completely misunderstand what that word means.
Oh, and I see that as ever you’ve completely ignored the arguments that handed your arse to you in a sling once again. What does this dishonesty say about you do you think?
Yet again then, here’s why you’re a homophobe:
1. You think there’s something you call “god”.
2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.
3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people who wish to marry each other.
4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.
Finally address that or not as you wish, but the facts won’t change if you don’t.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Decent christians no doubt who shut the fuck up in the face of your atheist wankfantasies, I will give you this you treat all christians equally with the same disrespect.
Keep going – you’re making my point for me.
Oh Oh Vlad is stopping me from reaching you Lord because he is being beastly and after all I was brought up to believe Christians were doormats, After all Lord, you old homophobe, it says in your old book. Ha Ha.
Temper tantrums aren’t arguments.
As ever when you run out of road you resort to foot stamping. The International League of Super-Dastardly Undercover Ant-theists would be proud of you for doing their work so assiduously. Keep it up.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Hang on a minute, I’ve just noticed something:
Victorious
League of
Anti-theist
Double agents
Your cover has been blown old son. Still, I’ll say this for you – you had a good run.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Hang on a minute, I’ve just noticed something:
Victorious
League of
Anti-theist
Double agents
Your cover has been blown old son. Still, I’ll say this for you – you had a good run.
The prayer of Hillside
Lord, send us some new Christians, these ones are substandard.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
The prayer of Hillside
Lord, send us some new Christians, these ones are substandard.
I already have one of those thanks. It's a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel though - what I'd actually pray for is some Christians here capable of coherent reasoning. I don't suppose you know any do you? Maybe the non-homophobic wing of your church would be a good place to look?
-
I think many of the charges you are laying should be be laid at the door of non established churches namely prosperity gospel mega churches joined by politics and a shared interested in money making.
The Anglican community is still facing a schism over the issue of gay rights; the institutional misogyny of all the Abrahamic faiths is well established; the prosperity gospellers at least are honest about their money-grabbing, not like the Catholic Church and the likes of Mother Theresa... no, it's just about the fringe groups and the non-established churches at all.
Of course having an axe to grind allows you to completely disregard the downsides of the enlightenment, laissez faire, marketisation, global warming, pollution, unsustainable use of resources and...
Laissez-faire economics has been the background that has allowed the financing of the vast technological boom that has raised the overall human condition across the board; that it could be more equitably distributed is a failing, but it's one of politics (politics that, in a significant portion of the history of that laissez-faire economics has been significantly influenced by the major religions, and the need to pander to them).
Unsuitable use of what resources? Some have been misused, some wasted, others have been incredibly well utilised.
Global warming and pollution are an issue, yes, I've been quite accepting of that. It's an issue that an awful lot more people are facing with the possibility of educating themselves over, and being able to have their voices heard in courts over than would have been the case if the religions were still the majority influence.
...the good side of established religion in moderation of the wilder aspects of personal religion and the parenting of humanism.
Which are what, exactly?
American humanism put up a fine riposte against The misogyny of high profile atheists and scientific academics.UK humanism and Australian humanism, not such encouraging.
Individuals of any stripe can be problematic - is it the institutes that have been the problem? Have they failed to respond, have they perpetrated generations long cover-ups, have the overtly threatened and punished the victims of this mistreatment consistently? I suspect we both know the answer to that.
Offspring from Christianity e.g. Nicholls misleading bollocks.
Uh, what?
So, we're better educated, better nourished, better connected and healthier, as a world, than we ever were under the reins of religion... and whilst there are problems to be addressed, the age-old ones of warfare, misogyny, tribal violence and hate-crimes are down... but progress is a myth, and the Enlightenment hasn't brought us anything worthwhile?
O.
-
The Anglican community is still facing a schism over the issue of gay rights; the institutional misogyny of all the Abrahamic faiths is well established; the prosperity gospellers at least are honest about their money-grabbing, not like the Catholic Church and the likes of Mother Theresa... no, it's just about the fringe groups and the non-established churches at all.
Laissez-faire economics has been the background that has allowed the financing of the vast technological boom that has raised the overall human condition across the board; that it could be more equitably distributed is a failing, but it's one of politics (politics that, in a significant portion of the history of that laissez-faire economics has been significantly influenced by the major religions, and the need to pander to them).
Unsuitable use of what resources? Some have been misused, some wasted, others have been incredibly well utilised.
Global warming and pollution are an issue, yes, I've been quite accepting of that. It's an issue that an awful lot more people are facing with the possibility of educating themselves over, and being able to have their voices heard in courts over than would have been the case if the religions were still the majority influence.
Which are what, exactly?
Individuals of any stripe can be problematic - is it the institutes that have been the problem? Have they failed to respond, have they perpetrated generations long cover-ups, have the overtly threatened and punished the victims of this mistreatment consistently? I suspect we both know the answer to that.
Uh, what?
So, we're better educated, better nourished, better connected and healthier, as a world, than we ever were under the reins of religion... and whilst there are problems to be addressed, the age-old ones of warfare, misogyny, tribal violence and hate-crimes are down... but progress is a myth, and the Enlightenment hasn't brought us anything worthwhile?
O.
You have missed a fair few problems from your list greed, theft, corruption, adultery. A laissez fairer system existed and sent kids up chimneys, down pits and under machinery, an addiction to fossil fuels which has led to fossil fuels.
The c of E has put itself in jeopardy but gay rights will have to take it's place in the queue with what needs resolving.
-
The c of E has put itself in jeopardy but gay rights will have to take it's place in the queue with what needs resolving.
Can't see why the issue of 'holy matrimony' requires a long delay in a queue: all it needs, surely, is a policy change whereby the providers of the the 'holy' element are no longer seeking to deny it to same-sex couples, plus a quick amendment to the equalities legislation to remove the current shameful cop-out exemptions.
-
You have missed a fair few problems from your list greed, theft, corruption, adultery.
And there's been no evidence of any of those prior to the Enlightenment, right?
A laissez fairer system existed and sent kids up chimneys, down pits and under machinery, an addiction to fossil fuels which has led to fossil fuels.
And has now produced child-labour laws, and integrated the rights of children into a universal declaration of human rights, and produced a growing social welfare and health and safety understanding.
The c of E has put itself in jeopardy but gay rights will have to take it's place in the queue with what needs resolving.
That would be the Church of England with its £1billion a year income from its £8.7 billion endowment which rakes in £12million a year from the government to upkeep its buildings, whilst we're talking about 'greed'. The Church of England which only announced last year that it's going to divest its investments in fossil fuels, seeing as global warming and pollution are a problem. The Church of England which says it's going to divest from arms manufacturers, because it's only now worried about all those child soldiers that at least didn't have to go down the mines or up the chimneys. The Church of England which still tries to maintain a stranglehold on educational establishments because they're worried about the freedom of children to just be children...
O.
-
Can't see why the issue of 'holy matrimony' requires a long delay in a queue: all it needs, surely, is a policy change whereby the providers of the the 'holy' element are no longer seeking to deny it to same-sex couples,
The holy element as you call it is something christians have no control over, namely God. This is 'Boss' thinking on your part. The Church seeks God. (pious bit over) it's not seeking to deny or provide but to discern God's will.
-
And there's been no evidence of any of those prior to the Enlightenment, right?
But with the industrial revolution these come on an, er, industrial scale.
And has now produced child-labour laws, and integrated the rights of children into a universal declaration of human rights, and produced a growing social welfare and health and safety understanding.
This is a ''without all the squalor and misery of the industrial revolution we wouldn't now have these things'' argument. These things were brought in when we realised how bad the enlightenment was going not because it was going well. This is us coming to our senses over what had happened due to the enlightenment. Such a reaction isn't guaranteed.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
The holy element as you call it is something christians have no every control over, namely whether or not to espouse just one version of a God belief. This is 'Boss' thinking on your part. The Church seeks justifications for its homophobias by claiming a homophobic God. (pious bit over) it's not seeking to deny or provide but to discern God's will as written in a story they choose to believe as an article of faith.
FIFY
I've corrected you on your fondness for the fallacy of reification many times now - why then do you keep collapsing back into the same mistake?
-
That would be the Church of England with its £1billion a year income from its £8.7 billion endowment which rakes in £12million a year from the government to upkeep its buildings, whilst we're talking about 'greed'.
It goes way, way further than that - not only does the CofE get major handouts for upkeep of buildings, uniquely premises used for religious purposes are completely exempt from business rate - so much so that the buildings aren't even listed on rateable values listings of the Valuation Office agency. For other charities, in most cases they are still expected to pay 20% of the business rates, and if a part of the premises (e.g. a cafe in a museum) is considered to be a commercial venture then 100% rates has to be paid on that part of the space. Yet for churches, not only do they not pay a penny for their main premises they can run a cafe as a commercial venture and pay not a penny of business rates on that either.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
FIFY
I've corrected you on your fondness for the fallacy of reification many times now - why then do you keep collapsing back into the same mistake?
Clueless. That's your world Hillside, what is God a reification of, apart from everything you don't like so that's your reification.
The church is not just another organisation. The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.
-
But with the industrial revolution these come on an, er, industrial scale.
Is there any evidence that the rate is any higher? Or is it just that the Enlightenment has been successful at stopping people dying, so there are more people around?
This is a ''without all the squalor and misery of the industrial revolution we wouldn't now have these things'' argument.
As opposed to the 'religion is of great comfort to people in a world torn apart by religion' argument, you mean?
These things were brought in when we realised how bad the enlightenment was going not because it was going well.
You appear to be conflating the Industrial Age with the Englightenment; the Englightenment was a philosophical stage the gave us the likes of Hume and Locke, neither of whom was a figure of Industry or technology, but who wrote on ethics and morality and how to deal with those ideas in a world where it was obvious that religion had had its day.
This is us coming to our senses over what had happened due to the enlightenment. Such a reaction isn't guaranteed.
No, this is the continuation of the Enlightenment as we've moved from the Industrial Age, Technological Age, through the Digital Age, and, arguably, into the Information Age.
O.
-
The holy element as you call it is something christians have no control over, namely God.
Don't be silly: of course they do, where the obvious examples are the notable variations in Christian dogmas between Christian sects.
This is 'Boss' thinking on your part. The Church seeks God. (pious bit over) it's not seeking to deny or provide but to discern God's will.
Presumably reification is the fallacy du jour.
-
VtH,
Clueless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
That's your world Hillside, what is God a reification of, apart from everything you don't like so that's your reification.
Perhaps if you tried at least to look up what this word means before you screw it up again that would help. You take faith claims (“god” and what this supposed god supposedly wants) and reify them for your premise. It’s the same argument as me saying that leprechauns hate black people staying in B&Bs so it’s right that I put a “No blacks” sign in the window of my B&B, and if you don’t like it you’d better take it up with the leprechauns.
Surely at some dim level of comprehension even you can see the problem with using unqualified faith claims as your premises can’t you?
Can’t you?
The church is not just another organisation.
Yes it is, only it’s an organisation that’s given special privileges in the public square that are denied to other organisations so it can behave contemptibly without fear of prosecution.
The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.
So have most churches over the millennia too. This one can cling on more effectively because of the special privileges it enjoys (getting to kids in special schools before they’ve fully developed critical faculties of their own for example), but there’s no particular reason to think it won’t go the same way as the rest of them in due course.
-
Gordon,
Presumably reification is the fallacy du jour.
Sure seems to be. He’s determined to play a game of:
“1. Let’s pretend that I can give you a coherent definition of “god”;
2. Let’s also pretend that I’ve been able to demonstrate the existence of this supposed god; and
3. Let’s also pretend that I’ve been able to demonstrate a reliable way to know what this supposed god supposedly thinks and wants.
OK, so on that basis I can defend my homophobia on the ground that its divinely ordained.”
Just by way of some icing on the cake, he also seems to be oblivious to the problem that even if we did pretend all those things still all he’d be left with is a homophobic god.
When this is explained to him, rather than address the problem he has the quite astonishing brass neck to accuse the person who does the explaining of being “clueless”.
You couldn’t make it up, you really couldn’t. Oh wait, it’s Vlad – making shit up is all he has.
Oh well.
-
The church is not just another organisation.
'The' Church? Which singular church is that, the Presbyterians, RC, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Anglican, Latter Day Saints... the list goes on. Each of those churches is just another organisation, just like the various churches that came before them.
The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.
In much the same way, yes. Culture moves on, and institutions wither, die and are reborn.
O.
-
The church is not just another organisation. The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.
Churches are indeed just another organisation - one that must adhere to the laws of the land. Currently those laws allow them an opt out of Equalities legislation, but whether or not that remains in the years and decades to come is a matter, quite rightly, for the democratically elected government of the UK.
Much as some churches consider that they are above the law, and operate according to their own parallel legal system - it isn't true. Churches must adhere to the law.
-
VtH,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Perhaps if you tried at least to look up what this word means before you screw it up again that would help. You take faith claims (“god” and what this supposed god supposedly wants) and reify them for your premise. It’s the same argument as me saying that leprechauns hate black people staying in B&Bs so it’s right that I put a “No blacks” sign in the window of my B&B, and if you don’t like it you’d better take it up with the leprechauns.
Surely at some dim level of comprehension even you can see the problem with using unqualified faith claims as your premises can’t you?
Can’t you?
Yes it is, only it’s an organisation that’s given special privileges in the public square that are denied to other organisations so it can behave contemptibly without fear of prosecution.
So have most churches over the millennia too. This one can cling on more effectively because of the special privileges it enjoys (getting to kids in special schools before they’ve fully developed critical faculties of their own for example), but there’s no particular reason to think it won’t go the same way as the rest of them in due course.
The Dunning Kruger effect applied to religious experience. The religious experience is not to do with one's natural or acquired intellect Hillside although aspects of it manifest in knowledge and Wisdom(look it up).
Religious people have religious experience, antitheists dodge it.
-
Churches are indeed just another organisation - one that must adhere to the laws of the land. Currently those laws allow them an opt out of Equalities legislation, but whether or not that remains in the years and decades to come is a matter, quite rightly, for the democratically elected government of the UK.
Much as some churches consider that they are above the law, and operate according to their own parallel legal system - it isn't true. Churches must adhere to the law.
Churches will render to Caesar that which is Caeser's
-
Is there any evidence that the rate is any higher? Or is it just that the Enlightenment has been successful at stopping people dying, so there are more people around?
As opposed to the 'religion is of great comfort to people in a world torn apart by religion' argument, you mean?
You appear to be conflating the Industrial Age with the Englightenment; the Englightenment was a philosophical stage the gave us the likes of Hume and Locke, neither of whom was a figure of Industry or technology, but who wrote on ethics and morality and how to deal with those ideas in a world where it was obvious that religion had had its day.
No, this is the continuation of the Enlightenment as we've moved from the Industrial Age, Technological Age, through the Digital Age, and, arguably, into the Information Age.
O.
I am using Pinkerian definitions of the enlightenment and it's benefit as befits interlocutors of a screaming Pinkerian persuasion.
I'm afraid you are doing it again Outrider, accepting the good results of the Enlightenment and denying the bad.
-
Religious people have religious experience, antitheists dodge it.
You keep on making this absurd claim. Where is there the slightest hint of any evidence that anybody is dodging anything?
-
Churches will render to Caesar that which is Caeser's
Except that they get tax breaks as charities.
-
Except that they get tax breaks as charities.
Actually fundamentally I have no issue with all charities having the same tax breaks but there are a range of issues here.
First religious organisations are simply allowed to be charities simply because they are just that, religious organisations. They don't have to demonstrate any further benefit to society that other organisations need to do to be given charitable status.
Second, and linked to the above - religious organisations get tax breaks for everything they do, while many other charities will only get breaks on those activities deemed to be charitable, while other activities don't have that status.
Third - many churches get the status automatically without having to apply, register, provide paperwork to the charities commission (under the excepted charities rule). Non religious charities with turnover of over £5k must go through the registration process etc - if you are a church you are exempt from that paperwork unless your turnover is over £100k.
Finally the business rates issue I raised earlier - if you are a (non religious) charity you still are expected to pay 20% of the business rates on your premises, rising to 100% on commercial activities (e.g. cafe, shop etc). Churches are completely exempt from business rates and in most cases this includes space used for cafe, shop etc. The buildings aren't even on the list of eatable properties.
So I've no fundamental issue with religious organisations benefiting from charitable status, but there should be a level playing field with other charitable organisation.
-
You keep on making this absurd claim. Where is there the slightest hint of any evidence that anybody is dodging anything?
Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously. This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.
Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.
-
Except that they get tax breaks as charities.
Yes, but it was Caesar what gave them the tax breaks
-
Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously. This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.
Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.
I didn't ask for a description, I asked for evidence that anybody was dodging "religious experience".
-
Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously. This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.
Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.
This is just nonsense, and as ever you try to make your whole argument sound more complicated simply to hide the lack of substance behind it.
I don't believe in the existence of God (s). I can't dodge something I don't believe in. In the same way I don't dodge the idea of ghosts or the idea that Johnson is somehow a good PM. I don't believe it. You can try and persuade me that Johnson is a good PM or that ghosts exist, but I see no evidence for either of those things. Similarly, I see no evidence for God.
This is not a difficult fucking concept.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
The Dunning Kruger effect applied to religious experience. The religious experience is not to do with one's natural or acquired intellect Hillside although aspects of it manifest in knowledge and Wisdom(look it up).
I think you should. Look, I even gave you a link. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this case was you presuming to call someone “clueless” when that person understood the terms he was using and you didn’t. That was the “…people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability” part.
Religious people have religious experience, antitheists dodge it.
“Religious experiences” of Zeus, Horus, Neptune etc all count as genuine then do they? “Religious people” actually have “experiences” to which they attach various narrative explanations, generally those to which they happen to be most enculturated. You are a prime example of that. “Anti-theists” (by which you actually mean just “atheists”) just recognise that.
Oh, and as ever I see you’ve just ignored the other corrections I gave you.
Funny that.
-
Yes, but it was Caesar what gave them the tax breaks
So if 'Caesar' (in other words the government) decides to remove these tax breaks, or even to agree that they should be at the same level for other charities, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain the special privileges.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously.
Fuck me Vlad, that’s exactly all you’ve ever done since you first appeared here! What your interlocutors have always done on the other hand is to try to stop you from doing it and instead, finally, to try at least to address the endless problems you lying and evasions give you.
This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.
You should know!
Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.
So stop doing it then! What Trumpian exercise in re-writing reality do you even think you’re attempting here?
27 July 2021 – the day irony died.
-
Prof,
So if 'Caesar' (in other words the government) decides to remove these tax breaks, or even to agree that they should be at the same level for other charities, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain the special privileges.
More to the point here perhaps, if the gov't decides to remove the the homophobia exemptions from the equalities legislation, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain these special privileges?
-
The buildings aren't even on the list of eatable properties.
This is an interesting point. In the Church of England, each parish is a financially autonomous operation. Each parish is a separate charity with respect to the Charities Commission and is entirely responsible for managing its own income and expenses. My parents' church is over the £100k limit on income and so it is registered and has been since 2009. Its expenses currently slightly exceed its income which took a huge hit last year because of the pandemic (down from approx £130k to approx £105k). The charity is listed as owning no buildings or property. Why? Because the central CodE owns all the physical buildings. Even though my parents church parish does not own the building, which is a grade 1 listed building of historical importance, it is responsible for all the maintenance and upkeep.
I don't think it would be fair to ask them to pay rates on a property they don't own. The central CofE might be another matter.
-
I didn't ask for a description, I asked for evidence that anybody was dodging "religious experience".
Asking for evidence of experience? What evidence do you suppose experience leaves. Nice dodge but a bit obvious.
For to assent to someone else's experience you have to believe they are telling the truth. To believe that everybody who has one is lying is a bit of a giveaway that one is trying to avoid the issue.
Those who have experience dodging religious experience, Augustine, St Paul, Bunyan, HAV Williams , Calvin, The writer of Isaiah.
-
So if 'Caesar' (in other words the government) decides to remove these tax breaks, or even to agree that they should be at the same level for other charities, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain the special privileges.
Maybe do something in between being not given to hysteria like the New Atheist movement.
-
I am using Pinkerian definitions of the enlightenment and it's benefit as befits interlocutors of a screaming Pinkerian persuasion.
I think Pinker short-changes the problems presented by significant wealth inequality and is overly optimistic of our likelihood of using the tools available to us now to combat climate change before it has significant long-term effects, but broadly his view of the Englightenment seems to be (and I'm 'borrowing' someone else's quote here, but I don't recall who) 'a non-negotiable commitment to reason'. This has had effects and consequences, but it doesn't change the boundaries between the Enlightenment itself and some of the consequences of it, such as laissez-faire economic trends.
But then, if you're an ardent Gray-ite and philosophically opposed to the very concept of progress, then I suppose you wouldn't bother with distinctions around what causes the progress you don't want to accept and what constitutes the actual progress you don't want to believe is happening around you.
I'm afraid you are doing it again Outrider, accepting the good results of the Enlightenment and denying the bad.
So you keep saying, but I'm afraid I can't see the bit where I'm denying anything; I'm just drawing a different conclusion to you about what it represents. People live longer, are better educated, have more freedom, are healthier... the better off are better off, the worst off are better off, the median is higher, the average is higher... if that's not progress, what is it?
O.
-
Prof,
More to the point here perhaps, if the gov't decides to remove the the homophobia exemptions from the equalities legislation, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain these special privileges?
The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies. Holy matrimony for those who stick with scripture will go underground and then the ball will be in your court.
Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Asking for evidence of experience?
Er yes, obviously. Or are you proposing instead that we should just take people's words for it?
What evidence do you suppose experience leaves.
What evidence do you suppose my experience of leprechauns leaves?
Nice dodge but a bit obvious.
The only dodge here is you trying to shift the burden of proof, and yes it's very obvious.
For to assent to someone else's experience you have to believe they are telling the truth.
Wring again. What you actually have to believe is that they have good reasons for thinking they're telling the truth - which is where your various truth claims and assertions always collapse in a heap.
To believe that everybody who has one is lying is a bit of a giveaway that one is trying to avoid the issue.
It's also a straw man. No-one discounts the likelihood of honest wrongness. The fact of your dishonest wrongness doesn't remove the likelihood of others not being honestly wrong too.
Those who have experience dodging religious experience, Augustine, St Paul, Bunyan, HAV Williams , Calvin, The writer of Isaiah.
Plus the ancient Greeks, the Sumerians, the ancient Egyptians, the Norse, the Romans, the various Amazonian tribespeople, the ...
I'd stop digging if I were you. Really though.
-
Asking for evidence of experience?
That's not what I asked. I asked you to back up the claim that anybody was dodging "religious experience". I have no doubt that people have "religious experience".
To believe that everybody who has one is lying is a bit of a giveaway that one is trying to avoid the issue.
While it's quite possible some people are simply lying, it's far more likely that they are simply misinterpreting their experiences. In fact, since people draw contradictory conclusions from them, at least most people who have them are doing just that (if they're not lying).
And that's before we get to other experiences that people have. Do you believe that everybody who has experienced alien abductions, seen ghosts, believed in fortune tellers, think they've been cured by homoeopathy, and so on, are all interpreting their experiences correctly?
-
That's not what I asked. I asked you to back up the claim that anybody was dodging "religious experience". I have no doubt that people have "religious experience".
While it's quite possible some people are simply lying, it's far more likely that they are simply misinterpreting their experiences. In fact, since people draw contradictory conclusions from them, at least most people who have them are doing just that (if they're not lying).
And that's before we get to other experiences that people have. Do you believe that everybody who has experienced alien abductions, seen ghosts, believed in fortune tellers, think they've been cured by homoeopathy, and so on, are all interpreting their experiences correctly?
Again if it turns out that the people you think are misinterpreting there experiences are religious people then that in itself
smacks of religious experience dodging.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies.
First there’s no such thing as “the church” – what you actually mean here is the homophobic part of it that you espouse.
Second, you’ve just flipped from “render unto Caesar” to the opposite of that.
Third, if a gov’t is democratically elected with a mandate to remove the homophobic exemptions from your preferred part of your choice of church there is no “totalitarianism”.
Apart from all that though…
Holy matrimony for those who stick with scripture will go underground and then the ball will be in your court.
Like the racist B&B owners went underground you mean? Oh no, that didn’t happen did it…
Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.
You’re all over the place here. Why not decide which side of the fence you’re actually on and then stick with it?
-
Plus the ancient Greeks, the Sumerians, the ancient Egyptians, the Norse, the Romans, the various Amazonian tribespeople, the ...
Do they have accounts of Goddodging as well? Citations pleaaassse.
-
The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies.
Firstly we aren't talking about discrimination or persecution against churches but the provision of special privileges. Surely if churches don't want any state interference that should apply to special privileges too, which they should refuse as these are also state interference.
Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.
In reality it is cake and eat it - effectively more than happy to accept any special privileges from the state, but fight tooth and nail if anyone dares to suggest there should be a level playing field with other organisations. And try to remove a special privilege and you will see the huge organisation of religions swing into action, harnessing all their establishment links and the likes of the christian legal centre will be shouting 'persecution' in the loudest and shrillest of voices.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Do they have accounts of Goddodging as well? Citations pleaaassse.
I have your account for starters – you don’t believe in any of the gods they believed in. Why not? Why not just accept their accounts of experiences of Zeus, Odin, Horus etc at face value? After all that’s exactly what you expect others to do about your choice of god story.
And, as you’ve just ignored again the last set of corrections I gave you presumably you’ll apologise now for claiming that people who don’t just accept god stories at face value are accusing the people making them of being liars.
You will apologise won’t you?
Won’t you?
-
Maybe do something in between being not given to hysteria like the New Atheist movement.
Religious organisation are the epitome of hysteria if you dare to suggest a special privilege might be removed to create a level playing field.
Given that there are no special privileges afforded to people in the UK who don't believe in god then we have no idea how they might react if someone suggested that a (non existent) special privilege is removed. We could suggest an experiment to see what would happen but that would involve providing a special privilege in the first place and can you imagine the volume of shrill hysteria from the religious lobby were that to be suggested.
-
Vlad,
Again if it turns out that the people you think are misinterpreting there experiences are religious people then that in itself smacks of religious experience dodging.
No it doesn't.
-
Firstly we aren't talking about discrimination or persecution against churches but the provision of special privileges. Surely if churches don't want any state interference that should apply to special privileges too, which they should refuse as these are also state interference.
In reality it is cake and eat it - effectively more than happy to accept any special privileges from the state, but fight tooth and nail if anyone dares to suggest there should be a level playing field with other organisations. And try to remove a special privilege and you will see the huge organisation of religions swing into action, harnessing all their establishment links and the likes of the christian legal centre will be shouting 'persecution' in the loudest and shrillest of voices.
The state must do what it must do and will depart from church on the ground of morality especially where zeitgeist is the ruling factor.
So Law is changed to coerce churches to go through the motions of a holy matrimony. Please feel free to argue that you wouldn't just be going through the motions.
Churches and Clergy either go along. How would this be policed?
Churches and clergy perform such marriages but give couples a warning that God may not participate in accordance with state wishes. How would that be monitored?
Churches and Clergy refuse to carry out marriages altogether. How are you going to field social expectations on that one?
Churches and clergy then carry out underground holy matrimony services according to how they see it. What does the state do about that?
Churches and clergy openly carry out Holy matrimony in accordance with scripture. What are you going to do there?
If you have no answer to the questions a change in legislation. Why should I think you are serious about it?
-
Again if it turns out that the people you think are misinterpreting there experiences are religious people then that in itself
smacks of religious experience dodging.
Nope. It is (as I explained and you ignored) a simple and inescapable fact that at least most religious people are misinterpreting their experiences because the interpretations contradict each other.
Even if that weren't the case, would you say you are (for example) alien abduction experience dodging?
-
Nope. It is (as I explained and you ignored) a simple and inescapable fact that at least most religious people are misinterpreting their experiences because the interpretations contradict each other.
But not in the key respects and certainly not toward atheism
-
Churches and Clergy either go along. How would this be policed?
How would what be policed?
Churches and clergy perform such marriages but give couples a warning that God may not participate in accordance with state wishes. How would that be monitored?
Churches have no certainty that god is involved in any of their ceremonies. So if they are going to provide a warning in this instance why not in all the others.
Churches and Clergy refuse to carry out marriages altogether. How are you going to field social expectations on that one?
In exactly the same way that it occurs for many religions and denominations where their clergy aren't registrars. Couples would have a legal civil marriage followed by a religious ceremony (which has no legal status). That's what muslims, jewish people, hindus, buddhists etc and members of many christian denominations already do.
Churches and clergy then carry out underground holy matrimony services according to how they see it. What does the state do about that?
But if that was the case then the ceremonies wouldn't have any legal status - so they could do as they wished (within the confines of the law), provided they are clear that the couple would not be married unless they also have a civil marriage.
Churches and clergy openly carry out Holy matrimony in accordance with scripture. What are you going to do there?
If they were contravening the law then the church and the clergy might expect to be subject to the law in exactly the same manner as any other individual or organisation breaking the law.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
The state must do what it must do and will depart from church on the ground of morality especially where zeitgeist is the ruling factor.
So not totalitarianism after all then. Though so.
So Law is changed to coerce churches to go through the motions of a holy matrimony.
Another straw man. All that would happen would be that the homophobic exemptions in the equalities legislation would be removed. “The church” (ie, your homophobic part of it) wouldn’t be co-erced in to doing anything.
Please feel free to argue that you wouldn't just be going through the motions.
Gibberish.
Churches and Clergy either go along. How would this be policed?
In the same way that racist B&B owners were (and are) policed.
Churches and clergy perform such marriages but give couples a warning that God may not participate in accordance with state wishes. How would that be monitored?
Another straw man. If a gay couple sought a marriage service and were denied on the ground of their sexuality, the institution involved would no longer be safe from prosecution. Whether or not to prosecute would be a matter for the police. Same as for racist B&B owners.
Churches and Clergy refuse to carry out marriages altogether. How are you going to field social expectations on that one?
Not “church and clergy”, just the homophobic wing. Gay couples wanting “holy” matrimony could presumably just go to the non-homophobic part of the same church and clergy.
Churches and clergy then carry out underground holy matrimony services according to how they see it. What does the state do about that?
Same thing it would do if there were underground racist B&B businesses.
Churches and clergy openly carry out Holy matrimony in accordance with scripture. What are you going to do there?
See above.
If you have no answer to the questions a change in legislation. Why should I think you are serious about it?
I have.
-
How would what be policed?
Churches have no certainty that god is involved in any of their ceremonies. So if they are going to provide a warning in this instance why not in all the others.
In exactly the same way that it occurs for many religions and denominations where their clergy aren't registrars. Couples would have a legal civil marriage followed by a religious ceremony (which has no legal status). That's what muslims, jewish people, hindus, buddhists etc and members of many christian denominations already do.
But if that was the case then the ceremonies wouldn't have any legal status - so they could do as they wished (within the confines of the law), provided they are clear that the couple would not be married unless they also have a civil marriage.
If they were contravening the law then the church and the clergy might expect to be subject to the law in exactly the same manner as any other individual or organisation breaking the law.
How are you going to check up that clergy are sticking to the law?
Holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly. What you are saying is that you are prepared to tolerate a bit of that. Take it from me I think if forced to rethink holy matrimony there would be more heterosexual couples refused. Besides you are assuming a laxness where does your assumption come from.
You haven't answered the questions head on and so it is a good job the decision to change the law is not in your pervue.
Moreover if you are not able to face the consequences of what you want then I don't think you should be taken seriously
You are just dodging the deliberate shitstirrers, the sneaks, the clipes, the new atheist grassing up, the prison sentences and prison beatings and worse that potentially follow on from legislation.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
So not totalitarianism after all then. Though so.
Another straw man. All that would happen would be that the homophobic exemptions in the equalities legislation would be removed. “The church” (ie, your homophobic part of it) wouldn’t be co-erced in to doing anything.
Gibberish.
In the same way that racist B&B owners were (and are) policed.
Another straw man. If a gay couple sought a marriage service and were denied on the ground of their sexuality, the institution involved would no longer be safe from prosecution. Whether or not to prosecute would be a matter for the police. Same as for racist B&B owners.
Not “church and clergy”, just the homophobic wing. Gay couples wanting “holy” matrimony could presumably just go to the non-homophobic part of the same church and clergy.
Same thing it would do if there were underground racist B&B businesses.
See above.
I have.
Holy matrimony is not a business.
What would be your reaction to clergy telling committed and believing gay christians that they, the priest may be going through the motions? What would the legal reactions be........Don't tell me Hillside the same reaction to a racist B & B owner who says I'm going to give you a bed for the night but it may not actually be there.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
How are you going to check up that clergy are sticking to the law?
Fuck me, can you not read or something? If someone believed they’d been unlawfully discriminated against they could report it to the cops. Same with racist B&B owners.
Holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly. What you are saying is that you are prepared to tolerate a bit of that. Take it from me I think if forced to rethink holy matrimony there would be more heterosexual couples refused. Besides you are assuming a laxness where does your assumption come from.
No-one forcing a re-think of the “holy” matrimony service – keep is just as it is for all I care. Some of us though would prefer that it wasn’t offered only on a homophobic basis.
You haven't answered the questions head on and so it is a good job the decision to change the law is not in your pervue.
This from someone who has never answered any question ever? Blimey! Anyway the question has been answered many times here.
Moreover if you are not able to face the consequences of what you want then I don't think you should be taken seriously
The only people who couldn’t face the consequences of removing the legal protections for homophobic church practices would presumably be the homophobic part of the church.
So what?
You are just dodging the deliberate shitstirrers, the sneaks, the clipes, the new atheist grassing up, the prison sentences and prison beatings and worse that potentially follow on from legislation.
You’ve collapsed into vituperative incoherence again. Was removing the protections for racist B&B owners “dodging the deliberate shitstirrers, the sneaks, the clipes, the new (non-racist) grassing up, the prison sentences and prison beatings and worse that potentially follow on from legislation” in your alternate reality too then? Why not?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Holy matrimony is not a business.
Actually in some way it is, but it’s not relevant in any case. All that's relevant here is that it’s a service offered on a homophobic basis.
What would be your reaction to clergy telling committed and believing gay christians that they, the priest may be going through the motions?
The same as my reaction to racist B&B owners telling black guests that they were going through the motions too. So far as I’m aware that’s not unlawful, so I don’t suppose a homophobic cleric trying the same line would be unlawful either.
What would the legal reactions be........Don't tell me Hillside the same reaction to a racist B & B owner who says I'm going to give you a bed for the night but it may not actually be there.
You’ve fucked up again here. For the analogy to work you’d need a racist B&B owner who did provide the bed, but told the black guest he was still a racist.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Fuck me, can you not read or something? If someone believed they’d been unlawfully discriminated against they could report it to the cops. Same with racist B&B owners.
No-one forcing a re-think of the “holy” matrimony service – keep is just as it is for all I care. Some of us though would prefer that it wasn’t offered only on a homophobic basis.
Well that's bollocks from start to finish.
You want us to rethink the term Holy.
Some of us want? So what what is that makes you special or, and this is your point of failure more moral than anyone else.
You have a view of equality which says we must have it at all costs and we must be continually be searching out more and more situations where we must be ruthless. Some of us don't share that picture of equality. In fact the Law is shaped by such as I.....and not you.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Actually in some way it is, but it’s not relevant in any case. All that's relevant here is that it’s a service offered on a homophobic basis.
The same as my reaction to racist B&B owners telling black guests that they were going through the motions too. So far as I’m aware that’s not unlawful, so I don’t suppose a homophobic cleric trying the same line would be unlawful either.
You’ve fucked up again here. For the analogy to work you’d need a racist B&B owner who did provide the bed, but told the black guest he was still a racist.
No your analogy is shit, mine is better but but since you've bored away hundreds from this message board it no longer matters.
-
How are you going to check up that clergy are sticking to the law?
In the same manner as you check that lawyers, medics, teachers, civil registrars, B&B owners etc etc etc and members of the public are sticking to the law.
-
Holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly.
Marriage should not be taken lightly, but it sometime is regardless of whether it takes place in a civil or religious ceremony. I'm struggling to see why this is in the slightest bit relevant to the legal issues here.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Well that's bollocks from start to finish.
So no argument then.
You want us to rethink the term Holy.
Moe lying wont help you. You can define “holy” any way you like. I really, really don’t care what you think it means. I just think that whatever you think it is shouldn’t be offered on a homophobic basis.
Some of us want? So what what is that makes you special or, and this is your point of failure more moral than anyone else.
There was no claim of being special. I was just telling you that I would rather there were not homophobic exemptions in the legislation for the same reason that I would rather there are not racist exemptions in the legislation.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
You have a view of equality which says we must have it at all costs…
“At all costs” is pushing it, but I do think you should have quite exceptional circumstances to deviate from it yes. Why don’t you?
…and we must be continually be searching out more and more situations where we must be ruthless.
Are you feeling unwell or something? We have already “searched out situations” and found homophobia to be wrong. The problem is that there are special exemptions for the religious.
Some of us don't share that picture of equality.
As it’s largely a picture of your own invention that doesn’t surprise me.
In fact the Law is shaped by such as I.....and not you.
Er, not it isn’t. The law is “shaped” by governments representing the will of the people who voted them in. Sometimes these government allow unpleasant and retrograde measures, but I’m optimism that this I one will disappear over time as so many other “isms” have over the years.
-
Holy matrimony is not a business.
Equalities legislation doesn't just apply to businesses - it applies to all organisations providing goods or services to members of the public, including religious organisations. The CofE is an organisation just as much as any other and if I go them and ask whether they will marry me I am requesting a service which that organisation provides.
Why we know that they are de facto covered by the equalities legislation is because they need a specific legal opt out. Were they not covered de facto by the legislation no opt out would be necessary.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
No your analogy…
Be careful here – remember that you have no idea what the word “analogy” means…
…is shit,…
Still no argument then…
…mine is better…
I have no idea what you think your analogy is, but given your history here that seems unlikely.
…but but since you've bored away hundreds from this message board it no longer matters.
More incoherence. The “holy” matrimony service from one wing of your church is denied to some on the ground of an innate characteristic – namely sexual orientation. That’s why it’s homophobic. The racist B&B service was denied to some on the ground of another innate characteristic – colour. That’s why it was racist.
Can you see now why the analogy isn’t shit at all?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Be careful here – remember that you have no idea what the word “analogy” means…
Still no argument then…
I have no idea what you think your analogy is, but given your history here that seems unlikely.
More incoherence. The “holy” matrimony service from one wing of your church is denied to some on the ground of an innate characteristic – namely sexual orientation. That’s why it’s homophobic. The racist B&B service was denied to some on the ground of another innate characteristic – colour. That’s why it was racist.
Can you see now why the analogy isn’t shit at all?
No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex. It is a gender issue.....except, obviously, in your head.
-
No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex.
Tortuous or what.
You do know how pathetic and faintly odious that sounds?
Please tell me you realise what an absolute tit you've just made of yourself.
-
Tortuous or what.
You do know how pathetic and faintly odious that sounds?
Please tell me you realise what an absolute tit you've just made of yourself.
No, if the facility is there then it cannot be said not to be. Basic logic although I fear this topic is highly emotionally laden.
Any issues with God, take it up with God in any emotion you feel.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex. It is a gender issue.....except, obviously, in your head.
I’ve already dealt with that contemptible little lie. Would the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets) be not anti-semitic if he did sell them 99s but only provided they pretended to be not Jewish?
Go and give your head a wobble willlya.
-
The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies.
I'm pretty sure that, in your understanding of (*checks notes*) 'atheist wankfantasies'* that the churches wouldn't be state-controlled, they'd be shut down and turned into community centres and eclectic housing.
* shouldn't 'wankfantasies' be hyphenated? I mean a straw man argument is one thing, a straw man ramble another, but poorly grammaritisated straw men, that's just beyond the pale.
Holy matrimony for those who stick with scripture will go underground and then the ball will be in your court.
Oh, no.... anyway.
Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.
No, but marriage is.
O.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
I’ve already dealt with that contemptible little lie. Would the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets) be not anti-semitic if he did sell them 99s but only provided they pretended to be not Jewish?
Go and give your head a wobble willlya.
You are equating what one does with Hector with holy matrimony . Not sure that is meat or right to do.
Outside that I don't know what your issue is here. Are you making an argument that A gay person is more likely to commit adultery than a serial shagger who marries?
-
No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex. It is a gender issue.....except, obviously, in your head.
Firstly it isn't - it is clearly being denied on the grounds of sexual orientation.
But for the sake of arguments let's pander to your delusional notion a little. So let's assume it is being denied on the grounds of sex - in other words a person is being denied a marriage because of their sex, as this is the same as their spouse (while they'd not been denied had they been of the opposite sex). Well there are, of course, laws preventing discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex. So were the church to claim that their discrimination is on the basis of sex rather than sexuality, they'd still fall foul of the law - but in this case they don't have an opt out.
The discrimination is clearly on the basis of sexuality - if it were on sex then the church would be clearly open to prosecution on the basis of sex discrimination.
-
Firstly it isn't - it is clearly being denied on the grounds of sexual orientation.
But for the sake of arguments let's pander to your delusional notion a little. So let's assume it is being denied on the grounds of sex - in other words a person is being denied a marriage because of their sex, as this is the same as their spouse (while they'd not been denied had they been of the opposite sex). Well there are, of course, laws preventing discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex. So were the church to claim that their discrimination is on the basis of sex rather than sexuality, they'd still fall foul of the law - but in this case they don't have an opt out.
The discrimination is clearly on the basis of sexuality - if it were on sex then the church would be clearly open to prosecution on the basis of sex discrimination.
I wouldn't deny them a marriage but were I a clergyman I would not feel at present able to provide them with holy matrimony.
-
I'm pretty sure that, in your understanding of (*checks notes*) 'atheist wankfantasies'* that the churches wouldn't be state-controlled, they'd be shut down and turned into community centres and eclectic housing.
* shouldn't 'wankfantasies' be hyphenated? I mean a straw man argument is one thing, a straw man ramble another, but poorly grammaritisated straw men, that's just beyond the pale.
Oh, no.... anyway.
No, but marriage is.
O.
No, civil marriage is. Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars. It's the law you know.
-
No, if the facility is there then it cannot be said not to be. Basic logic although I fear this topic is highly emotionally laden.
Any issues with God, take it up with God in any emotion you feel.
As you appear to think that God is the only arbiter of emotions in this matter, best leave it up to him and not his minions on this earthly plane to make the decisions.
He does after all move in mysterious ways, a saying that when I was younger always used to put me in mind of Marcel Marceau.
Still, somewhere in an alternative gay universe there are straight men being told that they should marry other straight men to get around the all pervasive homosexuality of the place so that they can enter into Homo Matrimony.
Really you do post the most amazing bollocks sometimes.
-
* shouldn't 'wankfantasies' be hyphenated?
I don't know I'm not the one having them.
-
I wouldn't deny them a marriage but were I a clergyman I would not feel at present able to provide them with holy matrimony.
But there are, no doubt, plenty of clergy who feel differently and would be perfectly comfortable to conduct a marriage for a same sex couple. But they are banned from doing so by the church. Do you agree that they should be banned from so doing?
-
As you appear to think that God is the only arbiter of emotions in this matter, best leave it up to him and not his minions on this earthly plane to make the decisions.
He does after all move in mysterious ways, a saying that when I was younger always used to put me in mind of Marcel Marceau.
Still, somewhere in an alternative gay universe there are straight men being told that they should marry other straight men to get around the all pervasive homosexuality of the place so that they can enter into Homo Matrimony.
Really you do post the most amazing bollocks sometimes.
Not sometimes but most of the time, imo.
-
Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars.
Well we have no idea whether god exists, but vicars certainly do. Why should a vicar be banned from conducting a marriage for a same sex couple even if they are personally comfortable with this and presumably their feel god is too.
It's the law you know.
Except it isn't as the law isn't interested in holiness or god etc. It may be about some rules that an organisation sets out, but that isn't the law, nor can organisational rules over-ride the law of the land.
-
As you appear to think that God is the only arbiter of emotions in this matter, best leave it up to him and not his minions on this earthly plane to make the decisions.
He does after all move in mysterious ways, a saying that when I was younger always used to put me in mind of Marcel Marceau.
Nothing wrong with Marcel.
Still, somewhere in an alternative gay universe there are straight men being told that they should marry other straight men to get around the all pervasive homosexuality of the place so that they can enter into Homo Matrimony.
I can see that you are not aware of some of my thoughts on this exact matter. This actually sounds quite wonderful and pretty stress free.......and that's the point, it's the sort of cozy situation that does not particularly require any divine oomph or guidance.
Two affable chaps, probably pipe smokers, not interested in the messier aspect of the certain unpleasantries. What's not to like?
-
Well we have no idea whether god exists, but vicars certainly do. Why should a vicar be banned from conducting a marriage for a same sex couple even if they are personally comfortable with this and presumably their feel god is too.
It's not the churches policy the clergyman should have the balls to leave and go to a church that does.
-
VtH,
No, civil marriage is. Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars. It's the law you know.
As I've corrected you several times now about reifying faith claims for your premises I'm not sure i have the energy to do it again. Can we just agree that this basic mistake has been corrected and that the correction stands should you ever wish to address it?
Thanks.
-
It's not the churches policy the clergyman should have the balls to leave and go to a church that does.
Hmm - could that be construed as discrimination on the grounds of belief and constructive dismissal?
Perhaps the church should have the balls and respect (for both the clergy and gay couples) to allow those clergy who wish to conduct marriage for same sex couples to do so.
-
Vlad,
I wouldn't deny them a marriage but were I a homophobic clergyman I would not feel at present able to provide them with holy matrimony.
FIFY
-
No, civil marriage is.[/quote[
And, currently, church weddings qualify. If the church were drop its state function and just provide something between the participants and their idea of gods, I'd be fine with that, it would no longer be anything for me to give a crap about.
Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars. It's the law you know.
I do know. That's where the problem lies.
O.
-
I don't know I'm not the one having them.
Is anyone? Or is this another facet of your alleged horde of antitheists?
Either way, so far as I can see it's your neologism, so it's on you to set the standard for it, right?
O.
-
VtH,
As I've corrected you several times now about reifying faith claims for your premises I'm not sure i have the energy to do it again. Can we just agree that this basic mistake has been corrected and that the correction stands should you ever wish to address it?
Thanks.
Eh?
-
VtH,
Eh?
A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. What you do is take various faith statements ("god" etc) and reify them for your premises to support your conclusion that god doesn't want gay people to marry each other ("If you don't like my church's homophobia take it up with god" etc).
And the problem with that is that if you rely on reified faith claims for your premises you cannot deny any other faith claims used to support any other conclusions. Thus: "racist B&B owners are fine because that's the way the leprechauns want it. If you don't like it take it up with the leprechauns" etc is the same argument as yours.
Can you see now why it doesn't work?
-
Vlad,
That's your addition Hillside. Note your addition. Is the clergyman being homophobic or is he merely protecting the integrity of scripture and the language from nefarious new atheist piracy? We let the law decide that.....Oh...it has.
-
VtH,
A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. What you do is take various faith statements ("god" etc) and reify them for your premises to support your conclusion that god doesn't want gay people to marry each other ("If you don't like my church's homophobia take it up with god" etc).
And the problem with that is that if you rely on reified faith claims for your premises you cannot deny any other faith claims used to support any other conclusions. Thus: "racist B&B owners are fine because that's the way the leprechauns want it. If you don't like it take it up with the leprechauns" etc is the same argument as yours.
Can you see now why it doesn't work?
It's the reified bit I was ehing.
-
VtL,
That's your addition Hillside. Note your addition. Is the clergyman being homophobic or is he merely protecting the integrity of scripture and the language from nefarious new atheist piracy? We let the law decide that.....Oh...it has.
That's called a false binary - he'd be both (I'm ignoring the mad conspiracy stuff here).
-
VtL,
It's the reified bit I was ehing.
You jump straight from faith claim status to fact status, then deploy these newly-minted "facts" as your premises. That's the reification part.
-
Is the clergyman being homophobic or is he merely protecting the integrity of scripture and the language from nefarious new atheist piracy?
Can it not be both? If the scripture he's defending is homophobic it kind of has to be both or neither, really.
We let the law decide that.....Oh...it has.
We know, that's a significant part of the problem.
O.
-
Can it not be both? If the scripture he's defending is homophobic it kind of has to be both or neither, really.
Take it up with God or Andrew Peirce or Rupert Everett or other gays who think marriage is a heterosexual anachronism or even gay Christians who take holy matrimony literally.
-
Given that there are heterosexual people who think marriage is an anachronism, dragging Andrew Pierce in as some kind of winning argument just sounds desperate.
-
Given that there are heterosexual people who think marriage is an anachronism, dragging Andrew Pierce in as some kind of winning argument just sounds desperate.
Andrew Peirce and Rupert Everett account for two missing strings out of a thousand violins which began to play when gay marriage was legalised, one of which was mine.........although I thought the orchestra would then shut the fuck up. How wrong was I?
-
Take it up with God or Andrew Peirce or Rupert Everett or other gays who think marriage is a heterosexual anachronism or even gay Christians who take holy matrimony literally.
If God ever answers my call, I'll let you know. As to Andrew Pierce or Rupert Everett, they can make their own arguments and I'll take it up with them.
You, however, were the one suggesting that the choice was between scripture or homophobia, you still haven't explained how YOU rationalise that there's a difference. Do you think it could be both?
O.
-
If God ever answers my call, I'll let you know. As to Andrew Pierce or Rupert Everett, they can make their own arguments and I'll take it up with them.
You, however, were the one suggesting that the choice was between scripture or homophobia, you still haven't explained how YOU rationalise that there's a difference. Do you think it could be both?
O.
Well quite often people are aghast when I suggest they are antitheist and antireligionist and antichristian preferring instead to be just atheist tec despite regularly attacking religion and theists. They obviously see some distinction which allows them to say what they say and not identify with the phobia and -isms involved. I think someone who is just following scripture to the letter in the case of holy matrimony is far, far, far less likely to be motivated by homophobia than a person showing Dawkinsian disrespect for religious people is motivated by antitheism and antireligionism.
And also these antitheists, driven red eyed, by antitheism are the people who also fit the profile of word piracy and totalitarian linguistic revolution to meet their nefarious ends.
-
Well quite often people are aghast when I suggest they are antitheist and antireligionist and antichristian preferring instead to be just atheist tec despite regularly attacking religion and theists.
That's quite a bit to unpack, there... you can find problems with the various formal and informal institutions of religion whilst not intrinsically thinking that all religious observation should be banned or prohibited. I, personally, don't think the world would be worse off if religion just faded away, but I'm not in favour of actively suppressing it; at the same time, I can see any number of instances where it currently has entrenched advantages that can't be justified.
They obviously see some distinction which allows them to say what they say and not identify with the phobia and -isms involved.
On the contrary, I think describing at least some of the motivation as deriving from fear of the potential for harm that religion has is fully justified. What prevents it being 'theophobia' is the fact that phobias are unwarranted fears, and religion has a well-established track-record. And there is already an '-ism' for wanting to lever religion and religious institutions away from the positions of power and authority they retain from historical times - secularism.
I think someone who is just following scripture to the letter in the case of holy matrimony is far, far, far less likely to be motivated by homophobia than a person showing Dawkinsian disrespect for religious people is motivated by antitheism and antireligionism.
Except that, as we've established, the scripture itself is homophobic - by following it to the letter the are implementing that homophobia. Why is religion entitled to 'respect' from atheists but gay people aren't from churches?
And also these antitheists, driven red eyed, by antitheism are the people who also fit the profile of word piracy and totalitarian linguistic revolution to meet their nefarious ends.
Let's try to think of an institution that tried to implement laws regarding what language information could be conveyed in.... hmm....
O.