Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Alan Burns on February 06, 2024, 10:53:42 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI0zd47T3_8
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI0zd47T3_8
Seems like your standard homophobic misogynistic bullshit.
-
Unpleasant and utterly bonkers.
-
Unpleasant and utterly bonkers.
Nauseating shite more like..
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI0zd47T3_8
Brave? This dipshit is standing at an explicitly Christian establishment, the largest private university in the US by enrolment, in one of the most virulently Christian nations on the planet, and talking about how her sexuality isn't part of her nature? She thinks the world - in particular the US where she's speaking - is 'anti-Christian'? Who amongst the secular is suggesting that sexuality is nailed down as soon as you indicate any inclination away from 'hardcore-hetero'?
Homosexuality is not normal, she says - the observation of the behaviour in over a thousand species would seem to suggest that's bullshit.
Pagan spirituality is not kind or nice - sometimes. Sometimes Christian spirituality isn't, either. It's almost like spirituality is a trait exhibited by people, and some people are arseholes. Big shock.
Feminism is not good for the church - who said that it was? People - in particular feminists -have been calling out the inherent patriarchy and misogyny of both the church establishments and their teaching for decades, this is not news.
Transgenderism is normal - we're still establishing that, but the prevalent medical expertise seems to be in favour. It remains to be seen if society will prove that wrong, or catch up.
Modesty for women is outdated - no, the expectation that women have an obligation to be modest is outdated.
Even the title is misleading - 'Ex-gay, now Christian', as though the two were mutually exclusive, when she explicitly talks about gay Christians in her speech.
She's either deluded, or lying, but I don't see anything 'brave', there, about preaching exclusion, suppression and bullshit to a captive audience.
O.
-
I also note that you changed the thread title, Alan - from 'Ex-gay' to 'Professor Rosaria Butterfield': and I'm wondering why you did that.
Presumably you thought your original title was potentially homophobic, or insensitive, or undiplomatic or something. If that was your thinking, and you can of course enlighten me if you wish, then I'm wondering why you posted this video at all given its offensive content
If this is what you regard as positive Christianity then all I can say is thank fuck I'm not a Christian.
-
Your god is a small minded dickhead.
-
Alan
You cannot change your sexuality. You can deny it or try to suppress it. In a lot of cases where people do this, they suffer mental crises. It has affected this woman adversely as can be seen by the copious amounts of nonsense coming from her mouth.
She's a liar. By posting this you are either a liar or a gullible idiot.
Take your pick.
-
Oddly Wiki tells us that “Butterfield attended predominantly liberal Catholic schools” and also that her autobiography is called “The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor's Journey into the Christian Faith”.
One might think that a more apt title would be “The Secret Thoughts of a Not Particularly Unlikely Reversionist: An English Professor's Recidivism into the Christian Faith” or some such.
I find it hard to reconcile someone whose demeanour seems to be quite sweet with the unhinged bile she spouts. Noticeable too that even an audience of Christian students is parsimonious with its applause (at least for as much of it as I could watch without wanting to throw up) – even they seem to be thinking “whoa, this is pretty deranged stuff” at times.
-
Terrible but she was speaking to a room full of bigots.
-
What an awful woman.
-
Nauseating shite more like..
False dichotomy. It can be both "nauseating shite" and "unpleasant and utterly bonkers".
-
You cannot change your sexuality.
Some people are bisexual - famously Tom Robinson, writer of "Glad to be Gay". Perhaps this woman is and she perceives her attraction to women followed by attraction to a man as a change in her sexuality. I'm not going to gainsay her testimony about her personal experience.
That said, for the majority of gay people, attempts to change their sexuality are futile and potentially damaging.
-
"Powerful and brave", or similar words, when used by AB, mean "I agree with it".
-
"Powerful and brave", or similar words, when used by AB, mean "I agree with it".
To be fair, that's probably true of all of us when we use similar words, just not all of us agree with homophobia.
-
To be fair, that's probably true of all of us when we use similar words, just not all of us agree with homophobia.
That's a powerful and brave comment, NS.
-
I also note that you changed the thread title, Alan - from 'Ex-gay' to 'Professor Rosaria Butterfield': and I'm wondering why you did that.
Presumably you thought your original title was potentially homophobic, or insensitive, or undiplomatic or something. If that was your thinking, and you can of course enlighten me if you wish, then I'm wondering why you posted this video at all given its offensive content
If this is what you regard as positive Christianity then all I can say is thank fuck I'm not a Christian.
At the time I posted it I was not aware of her name and title.
After discovering her name in the small print I thought it more informative to offer her true identity if anyone wished to follow it up (as Bluehillside did).
It brought a predictable reaction from many on this forum, but I felt compelled to share it as a witness to the life God wants us to follow as opposed to the self centred lifestyles based on worldly values which lead us away from God's unconditional love.
-
At the time I posted it I was not aware of her name and title.
After discovering her name in the small print I thought it more informative to offer her true identity if anyone wished to follow it up (as Bluehillside did).
It brought a predictable reaction from many on this forum, but I felt compelled to share it as a witness to the life God wants us to follow as opposed to the self centred lifestyles based on worldly values which lead us away from God's unconditional love.
The notion of a god laying out out how humans should live their lives is a preposterous one. It's a convenient excuse for individuals to impose their own subjective moral codes onto others, all in the name of some higher power. The idea that there exists an all-knowing, all-powerful being who is deeply concerned with the minutiae of human behavior is both absurd and narcissistic.
-
At the time I posted it I was not aware of her name and title.
After discovering her name in the small print I thought it more informative to offer her true identity if anyone wished to follow it up (as Bluehillside did).
Doesn't fly, Alan: presumably in posting the video in the first place you anticipated that some might view it and, having seen it yourself, I'd have thought that if you felt any clarification was required you'd have dealt with that before you posted the link.
It brought a predictable reaction from many on this forum, but I felt compelled to share it as a witness to the life God wants us to follow as opposed to the self centred lifestyles based on worldly values which lead us away from God's unconditional love.
The only thing I witnessed was rampant and wrong-headed homophobia - I'm surprised that in your 'witnessing' you didn't spot this yourself. If this is an example of "God's unconditional love" are you really that surprised that some of us regard the sentiments expressed in this video as being no more than ignorant and prejudiced theobollocks?
-
The only thing I witnessed was rampant and wrong-headed homophobia - I'm surprised that in your 'witnessing' you didn't spot this yourself. If this is an example of "God's unconditional love" are you really that surprised that some of us regard the sentiments expressed in this video as being no more than ignorant and prejudiced theobollocks?
It is not easy being a Christian witness in this increasing secular society.
You will never personally understand our motivation until you have experienced God's unconditional love yourself - then you will want others to share it, because God's love motivates us to will the ultimate good of others.
-
It is not easy being a Christian witness in this increasing secular society.
You will never personally understand our motivation until you have experienced God's unconditional love yourself - then you will want others to share it, because God's love motivates us to will the ultimate good of others.
And you will never personally understand what it is like to be gay and have to read moronic platitudes issued from a position of complete ignorance.
-
It is not easy being a Christian witness in this increasing secular society.
You will never personally understand our motivation until you have experienced God's unconditional love yourself - then you will want others to share it, because God's love motivates us to will the ultimate good of others.
My heart bleeds for all the homophobes. Powerful and brave is what friends of mine were fighting for their right for their relationships to be regarded as equal and being spat on and beaten up while your church harboured paedophiles who had raped children.
-
My heart bleeds for all the homophobes. Powerful and brave is what friends of mine were fighting for their right for their relationships to be regarded as equal and being spat on and beaten up while your church harboured paedophiles who had raped children.
It's all ok though because God's love was motivating them!!!! ::)
-
It is not easy being a Christian witness in this increasing secular society.
Not all christians are homophobic AB - being a christian is a choice and being a homophobic christian is a further choice. If you choose those paths then it is a bit rich expecting sympathy from those who aren't homophobic.
-
Not all christians are homophobic AB - being a christian is a choice and being a homophobic christian is a further choice. If you choose those paths then it is a bit rich expecting sympathy from those who aren't homophobic.
Is it a 'free will' choice though?
-
You will never personally understand our motivation until you have experienced God's unconditional love yourself - then you will want others to share it, because God's love motivates us to will the ultimate good of others.
Patronising self-aggrandisement.
-
AB,
At the time I posted it I was not aware of her name and title.
After discovering her name in the small print I thought it more informative to offer her true identity if anyone wished to follow it up (as Bluehillside did).
It brought a predictable reaction from many on this forum, but I felt compelled to share it as a witness to the life God wants us to follow as opposed to the self centred lifestyles based on worldly values which lead us away from God's unconditional love.
You think your god wants us to lead a life of bigotry and intolerance toward some of His creation because of the nature He arranged for them to be born into?
I sometimes wonder whether if anyone ever produced any evidence for this supposed god such that I’d be forced to be a theist I wouldn’t also be an anti-theist – ie, “god exists, but what a morally bankrupt piece of shit He is”.
-
AB,
It is not easy being a Christian witness in this increasing secular society.
Cry me a river. Presumably what you actually mean here is something like “It is not easy being a Christian in this increasingly secular society that denies me the special privileges and rights I wish to arrogate to myself and to my blind faith beliefs”.
Does it really not occur to you that if you didn’t try to impose your unpleasant idiocies on others, then the secular society that actually protects your right to believe and to speak about those idiocies would have no interest in you at all?
You will never personally understand our motivation until you have experienced God's unconditional love yourself - then you will want others to share it, because God's love motivates us to will the ultimate good of others.
And you it seems will never understand that, until you can give those with whom you would share your beliefs some sound reasons to think you’re right, then they have every reason to tell you to keep your unpleasant nonsense to yourself.
-
It brought a predictable reaction from many on this forum, but I felt compelled to share it as a witness to the life God wants us to follow as opposed to the self centred lifestyles based on worldly values which lead us away from God's unconditional love.
What is more self centred than denying gay people the right to marry the person they love just because you don't like it?
-
It is not easy being a Christian witness in this increasing secular society.
It is a lot easier than it was being a Christian witness when Nero was looking for somebody to blame for the Great Fire of Rome.
Or being a Jewish witness in Christian England in the Middle Ages. Or being a Protestant witness in the reign of Bloody Mary, or a Catholic witness for a couple of centuries afterwards.
All you have to put up with is a bit of push back on internet forums. People with the wrong beliefs in theocracies frequently meet very sticky ends.
You will never personally understand our motivation until you have experienced God's unconditional love yourself - then you will want others to share it, because God's love motivates us to will the ultimate good of others.
I'm an ex-Christian. But I came to understand that my faith was intellectually bankrupt.
-
Is it a 'free will' choice though?
Ha ha. Let's not go there.
-
It is not easy being a Christian witness in this increasing secular society.
Because people tell you that you're wrong, and sometimes that you're discriminatory. I'll take that over the previous where it wasn't easy being gay because you were criminalised and ostracised by society.
You will never personally understand our motivation until you have experienced God's unconditional love yourself - then you will want others to share it, because God's love motivates us to will the ultimate good of others.
I can understand, I don't appreciate, perhaps. Similarly, I understand schizophrenic episodes without appreciating them.
O.
-
Is it a 'free will' choice though?
Not heading down that rabbit hole NS.
-
Dear Rosaria,
I know that you would probably resent or ignore this, but, nevertheless, I feel that perhaps you or your supporters may benefit from this advice.
In response to your video may I suggest that you try to show a little generosity of attitude towards people who just want to live their lives as they choose within a Christian framework and without harming others. I realise you are basically talking to other Christians, but, instead of trying to divide, wouldn't it be better to show humility before your God by showing respect towards others, even if you disagree with them. After all, they look upon themselves as truly Christian also.
Perhaps it would give you a genuine feeling of accomplishment if you tried to respect other people's sexual differences and showed a charitable approach towards them, rather than labelling them and their practices as sinful. Your whole approach doesn't really show you in a particularly good light, does it as you tend to come across as an extremely bigoted and harsh individual who has decided that your way is the only way for Christians?
-
Not heading down that rabbit hole NS.
If AB is correct about his free will being linked to his soul, then, on the basis of his support for this video, I would suggest that the location of his soul can be deduced as being somewhere in his nether regions, found by putting the letters 'AR' in front. ;)
-
AB,
Cry me a river. Presumably what you actually mean here is something like “It is not easy being a Christian in this increasingly secular society that denies me the special privileges and rights I wish to arrogate to myself and to my blind faith beliefs”.
Does it really not occur to you that if you didn’t try to impose your unpleasant idiocies on others, then the secular society that actually protects your right to believe and to speak about those idiocies would have no interest in you at all?
Sounds like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savior_complex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior
-
What is more self centred than denying gay people the right to marry the person they love just because you don't like it?
This is not about personal preferences.
My concern is the eternal salvation of our human souls.
-
This is not about personal preferences.
My concern is the eternal salvation of our human souls.
Because you worship a god that punishes people for loving each other. There are people of your faith who have touted that 'muscegenation' was evil for the same reasons. Just as they were/are racist, you are a homophobe.
-
This is not about personal preferences.
My concern is the eternal salvation of our human souls.
Then you are seriously misguided: a concern that people are valued and respected as individuals, and are not discriminated against based on the prejudices of others, would be a far greater value than your adherence to homophobic superstitions.
-
Because you worship a god that punishes people for loving each other. There are people of your faith who have touted that 'muscegenation' was evil for the same reasons. Just as they were/are racist, you are a homophobe.
There is no biblical justification for miscegenation
-
This is not about personal preferences.
Yes it is. Your personal preference is to interfere with other people's lives.
My concern is the eternal salvation of our human souls.
Concern yourself with the salvation of your own soul and let other people live their lives according to their conscience.
This is the problem I have with Christians like you. It's not that I think your beliefs are delusory (I do, but it's OK to disagree) but that you seek to make other people miserable as a consequence of your beliefs and yet you can't offer a shred of evidence for your "faith". They are not hurting you. Leave them alone.
-
There is no biblical justification for miscegenation
Other Christians would disagree. And since there is a biblical justification for rape and murder as well...
-
There is no biblical justification for miscegenation
Who gives a flying fuck about what people two to two and a half thousand years ago wrote. The biblical justification of slavery should be all you need to know that the Bible is not to be trusted on matters of morality.
-
Who gives a flying fuck about what people two to two and a half thousand years ago wrote. The biblical justification of slavery should be all you need to know that the Bible is not to be trusted on matters of morality.
Fallacy of modernity and genetic fallacy as well from this poster.
[/quote]
-
Fallacy of modernity and genetic fallacy as well from this poster.
You seem happy with slavery and homophobia
-
Who gives a flying fuck about what people two to two and a half thousand years ago wrote. The biblical justification of slavery should be all you need to know that the Bible is not to be trusted on matters of morality.
The morality upon which our western civilisation was built derives from the teachings of the Christian Bible.
-
AB,
The morality upon which our western civilisation was built derives from the teachings of the Christian Bible.
Depends what you mean by “derives from” but in any case, so what? “…the teachings of the Christian Bible” contain all manner of morally depraved injunctions and instructions that “Western civilisation(s)” have long since rejected. What makes you think that the homophobic parts in particular should be preserved in aspic for this purpose?
-
Fallacy of modernity and genetic fallacy as well from this poster.
Nope and nope. Try again.
O.
-
AB,
Depends what you mean by “derives from” but in any case, so what? “…the teachings of the Christian Bible” contain all manner of morally depraved injunctions and instructions that “Western civilisation(s)” have long since rejected. What makes you think that the homophobic parts in particular should be preserved in aspic for this purpose?
Evwee day, in evwee way we're getting better and better.
-
Fallacy of modernity and genetic fallacy as well from this poster.
Alan wants to judge our actions and behaviour by the moral standards of ancient people - people who endorsed slavery. Excuse me for not putting much value in Biblical morality.
-
Vlad,
Evwee day, in evwee way we're getting better and better.
Bit early to be on the sauce isn't it?
-
The morality upon which our western civilisation was built derives from the teachings of the Christian Bible.
Nobody cares. What they do care about is busy bodies like you sticking their noses into matters that don't concern them just because you've got this old book full of myths and nonsense that tells you you can. Stop it.
-
The morality upon which our western civilisation was built derives from the teachings of the Christian Bible.
Which approves of slavery, rape, and genocide.
-
Evwee day, in evwee way we're getting better and better.
Missing the time when you could own slaves. Must be tough having your support for homophobis called out
-
The morality upon which our western civilisation was built derives from the teachings of the Christian Bible.
Maybe - but these days some of the damage inflicted by Christianity is being undone and its influence is reducing in this part of the world (as we saw in relation to marriage legislation).
-
There is no biblical justification for miscegenation
I think you mean the opposite - that there is no biblical justification for opposing miscegenation.
-
Meanwhile in the real world away from your cosy fantasies Alan, a chance to look at what religion can do if it goes unchecked:
https://www.zawya.com/en/world/middle-east/13-sentenced-to-death-for-homosexuality-in-yemen-source-few6tnlh
Oh I know Islam is the source and you'll say Christianity is different, but your very insistence on preserving some kind of privileged prejudice speaks to how very dangerous religion is.
-
This is not about personal preferences.
My concern is the eternal salvation of our human souls.
If God doesn't like gays he wouldn't create gay souls in the first place, would he ? Seems you live in a bottomless pit of confusion; but hey, that's religion for you.
-
If God doesn't like gays he wouldn't create gay souls in the first place, would he ? Seems you live in a bottomless pit of confusion; but hey, that's religion for you.
God's love is unconditional.
God loves the sinner but not the sin.
We are all human, and we all have weaknesses - but we need to recognise our weaknesses and enlist God's help to cope with them in order to enter a full loving and richly rewarding relationship with God. It is sin which separates us from God's love.
-
AB,
God's love is unconditional.
And yet so often the supposed “teachings” of this supposed god would indicate the opposite of that, with real time harm done as a consequence to real people in the real world by those who would be validated by this idiocy.
God loves the sinner but not the sin.
And what kind of morally bankrupt piece of shit would decide that who some people go to bed with is “sinful”?
We are all human, and we all have weaknesses –
Whom our nature determines we should go to bed with isn’t a “weakness” ffs.
…but we need to recognise our weaknesses…
Not when they’re not weaknesses at all we don’t.
…and enlist God's help to cope with them in order to enter a full loving and richly rewarding relationship with God.
A clusterfuck of mindless blind faith assertions there…
It is sin which separates us from God's love.
Does anyone other than you actually believe this kind of ignorant shit to be true these days?
Seriously though?
-
God's love is unconditional.
God loves the sinner but not the sin.
We are all human, and we all have weaknesses - but we need to recognise our weaknesses and enlist God's help to cope with them in order to enter a full loving and richly rewarding relationship with God. It is sin which separates us from God's love.
Sounds very puritan, Alan, which reminds me of H L Mencken's definition of Puritanism; "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy".
-
Sounds very puritan, Alan, which reminds me of H L Mencken's definition of Puritanism; "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy".
The happiest people I know are fellow Christians.
-
The happiest people I know are fellow Christians.
Super - then perhaps they could leave others to enjoy their own happiness (provided their happiness is legal) without pontificating on areas that really are none of their business.
-
The happiest people I know are fellow Christians.
Happy homophobes are still homophobes.
-
Yay. These happy Christians donating money to Uganda to promote the killing of gay people. What a jolly jape, eh Alan?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/africa-us-christian-right-50m/
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
-
God's love is unconditional.
God loves the sinner but not the sin.
We are all human, and we all have weaknesses - but we need to recognise our weaknesses and enlist God's help to cope with them in order to enter a full loving and richly rewarding relationship with God. It is sin which separates us from God's love.
Which does not even attempt to address the unlogic of a God creating sinners and then blaming them for being sinful. Clearly this is down to God, not his creations, who have no say in their creation.
-
Which does not even attempt to address the unlogic of a God creating sinners and then blaming them for being sinful. Clearly this is down to God, not his creations, who have no say in their creation.
God gave us the gift of free will so that we could freely choose to accept Him - or reject Him.
-
God gave us the gift of free will so that we could freely choose to accept Him - or reject Him.
Does that include the free will to kill gay people? Are you accepting him or rejecting him by killing gay people?
Do you condemn Christian evangelicals putting funding into Africa to achieve these killings?
-
God gave us the gift of free will so that we could freely choose to accept Him - or reject Him.
And be homophobic or not.
-
Super - then perhaps they could leave others to enjoy their own happiness (provided their happiness is legal) without pontificating on areas that really are none of their business.
Our mission to spread the Good News is fundamental to share with others the reason for our existence.
-
Our mission to spread the Good News is fundamental to share with others the reason for our existence.
The 'good news' of your hatred of gay people.
-
Of the two topics being discussed it's not easy to weaponise
this feature of increasingly secular Britain
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/
-
Of the two topics being discussed it's not easy to weaponise
this feature of increasingly secular Britain
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/
Secularism, which as ever you misrepresent, doesn't gave a book that tells you how to beat slaves, and to kill homisexuals. You, as a Christian do, and you tout that book as a good thing. You worship hate.
-
God gave us the gift of free will so that we could freely choose to accept Him - or reject Him.
Which does not even attempt to address the unlogic of a God creating sinners and then blaming them for being sinful. As ever, all you do is sidestep the contradictions in your beliefs rather than addressing them.
-
Our mission to spread the Good News is fundamental to share with others the reason for our existence.
Perhaps you should keep it to yourselves - that you guys have caught something nasty doesn't mean the rest of us want it too.
-
Secularism, which as ever you misrepresent, doesn't gave a book that tells you how to beat slaves, and to kill homisexuals. You, as a Christian do, and you tout that book as a good thing. You worship hate.
It's happening under secularisms watch. Which would . We must examine, I think, whether a secular and non religious people tend to see this as a non issue because it cannnot be weaponised in the central concern of eliminating religion.
-
It's happening under secularisms watch. Which would . We must examine, I think, whether a secular and non religious people tend to see this as a non issue because it cannnot be weaponised in the central concern of eliminating religion.
So-called modern slavery exists, but it is a very different thing to the institutionalised and legal slavery of previous centuries. And modern slavery practices occur in countries across the world, not just in those that are broadly secular and/or have low levels of religious adherence. Indeed I think it is pretty easy to develop an argument that both modern slavery practices and more traditional slavery (yet it does still exist) are much more prevalent in countries with high levels of religious observance. Whether or not this is actually linked to religious practice and cultures can be debated, but there are certain types of modern slavery, such as forced and child marriage that do seem to have significant links to certain types of religious practice and norms.
-
It's happening under secularisms watch. Which would . We must examine, I think, whether a secular and non religious people tend to see this as a non issue because it cannnot be weaponised in the central concern of eliminating religion.
Then edit your book to get rid of the offensive bits instead of indulging in whataboutery: hang on though, some Christians take that old book literally, so you guys need to get your act together and do a bit of pruning.
So far as I can see nobody here is trying to eliminate religion, or Christianity specifically, although I have no objection to its continuing decline in the part of the world I live in.
-
God's love is unconditional.
Excellent.
So you don't need to concern yourself with interfering with other people's right to marry the person they love.
-
If God doesn't like gays he wouldn't create gay souls in the first place, would he ? Seems you live in a bottomless pit of confusion; but hey, that's religion for you.
Gay souls? I suppose that’s another description of defining people merely by where they like to put their “Hector”.
The idea of being merely a “straight” soul is horrifying.
-
Gay souls? I suppose that’s another description of defining people merely by where they like to put their “Hector”.
The idea of being merely a “straight” soul is horrifying.
And yet you tout a book that wants to kill gay people. Hypocrite!
-
It's happening under secularisms watch. Which would . We must examine, I think, whether a secular and non religious people tend to see this as a non issue because it cannnot be weaponised in the central concern of eliminating religion.
No, my central concern is that you tout a book that calls for gay people to be killed.
-
Then edit your book to get rid of the offensive bits instead of indulging in whataboutery: hang on though, some Christians take that old book literally, so you guys need to get your act together and do a bit of pruning.
So far as I can see nobody here is trying to eliminate religion, or Christianity specifically, although I have no objection to its continuing decline in the part of the world I live in.
Secularisation is the process of making society non religious is it not. What is that other than elimination. I know of one laddy here who is for the elimination of religion from the public space and another who dreams of the day when religion is no more. No names. No pack drill.
-
Missing the time when you could own slaves.....
-
Your point, caller?
-
AB,
God gave us the gift of free will so that we could freely choose to accept Him - or reject Him.
Yes, we know that’s your blind faith claim but you can’t choose your sexual preferences so if that’s this supposed god’s barrier to entry it’s a rigged game.
-
AB,
Our mission to spread the Good News is fundamental to share with others the reason for our existence.
And my “mission” is to insist that anyone who would presume such “Good News” justifies the claim with evidence and, when they can’t just as you can’t, to tell them and their evil beliefs to fuck off as far away from me and mine as they can.
-
Vlad,
It's happening under secularisms watch.
Happening “under the watch” of a society that’s trying to prevent it and happening in a society that actively mandates it are very different things.
We must examine, I think, whether a secular and non religious people tend to see this as a non issue because it cannnot be weaponised in the central concern of eliminating religion.
What on earth are you talking about? “Secular and non religious people” don’t see slavery as a “non-issue” at all.
-
Vlad,
Secularisation is the process of making society non religious is it not.
No. Secularism is merely the separation of church and state. Why do you struggle so to understand this?
What is that other than elimination.
Tolerance and indifference, obviously.
I know of one laddy here who is for the elimination of religion from the public space and another who dreams of the day when religion is no more. No names. No pack drill.
No you don’t. Freedom to speak the public square and specially privileged rights to government, to education, to the media etc are not the same thing. Again, why do you continually have to be corrected about this?
-
It is sin which separates us from God's love.
I think, from a strictly theological point of view, it is not sin which separates us from God's love; rather,, sin is separation from God's love.
-
Secularisation is the process of making society non religious is it not. What is that other than elimination.
Complete non-sense. All secularism is is a separation of the state/Government/public services etc and religion. You could have a completely secular in which 100% of the people are actively religious. And a secular state is one that is completely neutral on the basis of whether individuals are religious or not and if religious which religious they follow. So an inherent element of secularisation is freedom of religion and freedom from religion as the state cannot be neutral unless it supports both of those elements.
-
Gay souls? I suppose that’s another description of defining people merely by where they like to put their “Hector”.
It wouldn't be relevant, really, if your Big Boy's Book of Bedtime Stories didn't explicitly call out people as abominations based upon where they like to put their 'Hector'. It's a bit rich to defend religious homophobia by complaining other people identify their sexuality.
The idea of being merely a “straight” soul is horrifying.
Apart from you, who is suggesting that having a sexuality replaces having a personality?
Secularisation is the process of making society non religious is it not.
No, it's the process of removing religion from the halls of power. Separating religion and government and, to a lesser extent, religion and public convention.
What is that other than elimination.
Telling. The more secular a nation becomes, the less religious its population becomes, as though religion were either a tool for wielding power or significantly propped up by its infiltration of power. When it has to stand on its own merits it appears to wobble.
I know of one laddy here who is for the elimination of religion from the public space and another who dreams of the day when religion is no more.
And we have people here who are explicitly homophobic, people desperately trying to defend the Russian invasions of neighbouring nations, advocates of mystic-woo and one guy who sees antitheists EVERYWHERE.
It's almost likely we're a broad church. Except for the Church, bit, obviously.
O.
-
Does that include the free will to kill gay people? Are you accepting him or rejecting him by killing gay people?
Do you condemn Christian evangelicals putting funding into Africa to achieve these killings?
Of course I condemn the supporters and perpetrators of such atrocities
Just as I condemn the killing of Christians in Nigeria
https://www.barnabasaid.org/gb/news/islamists-kill-295-nigerian-christians-in-wave-of-christmas-attacks/
-
Of course I condemn the supporters and perpetrators of such atrocities
Just as I condemn the killing of Christians in Nigeria
https://www.barnabasaid.org/gb/news/islamists-kill-295-nigerian-christians-in-wave-of-christmas-attacks/
Religion seems to allow peole to commit all sorts of atrocities. Perhaps treating people as second class citizens because of your religious beliefs as you want to do isn't a great idea.
-
Super - then perhaps they could leave others to enjoy their own happiness (provided their happiness is legal) without pontificating on areas that really are none of their business.
All I am doing is witnessing to the message of the Christian bible on a Christian thread on a Religion and Ethics forum.
-
Religion seems to allow peole to commit all sorts of atrocities. Perhaps treating people as second class citizens because of your religious beliefs as you want to do isn't a great idea.
Mother Theresa said " I see Christ in every human being"
-
Mother Theresa said " I see Christ in every human being"
How irrelevant to you thinking Aruntraveller's relationship is evil!
-
All I am doing is witnessing to the message of the Christian bible on a Christian thread on a Religion and Ethics forum.
By being a homophobe
-
All I am doing is witnessing to the message of the Christian bible on a Christian thread on a Religion and Ethics forum.
This 'witnessing' word really pisses me off since what you actually mean is that you are defending Christianity, which is one sense is fine, but what isn't fine is that in doing so you are also defending the indefensible.
-
All I am doing is witnessing to the message of the Christian bible on a Christian thread on a Religion and Ethics forum.
which in this case is to uphold and promote the prejudices and discrimination against minorities that characterised earlier times. Far better would be to 'witness' to the value of reason, compassion and fairness imv.
-
By being a homophobe
So does distaste for homosexuality make one a homophobe?
-
So does distaste for homosexuality make one a homophobe?
Thinking that Aruntraveller's relationship is not worthy of respect makes AB a homophobe.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI0zd47T3_8
Very helpful, thanks for posting this Alan.
-
Thinking that Aruntraveller's relationship is not worthy of respect makes AB a homophobe.
So distaste for homosexuality doesn't make one a homophobe?
-
So distaste for homosexuality doesn't make one a homophobe?
Please define what you mean by 'distaste'?
-
Please define what you mean by 'distaste'?
well perhaps starting with sexual practice since some Churches are often OK with Gay clergy as long as a gay isn't practicing. I think they have the same position on adulterers and fornication.
-
well perhaps starting with sexual practice since some Churches are often OK with Gay clergy as long as a gay isn't practicing. I think they have the same position on adulterers and fornication.
Sorry, that's not a definition of 'distaste'. Not sure what it is at all.
-
Sorry, that's not a definition of 'distaste'. Not sure what it is at all.
You are right since an individual, who may after all be an atheist homophobe has no power to exercise their disapproval by stopping a gay person doing anything career wise. By distaste of sexual practice I mean, if an individual wouldn't engage in the practice because of feeling or taste...does that make them homophobic?
-
You are right since an individual, who may after all be an atheist homophobe has no power to exercise their disapproval by stopping a gay person doing anything career wise. By distaste of sexual practice I mean, if an individual wouldn't engage in the practice because of feeling or taste...does that make them homophobic?
No.
-
Vlad,
...By distaste of sexual practice I mean, if an individual wouldn't engage in the practice because of feeling or taste...does that make them homophobic?
No, but calling it a "sin" and "hating" it does.
-
Vlad,
No, but calling it a "sin" and "hating" it does.
Hang on...Hate could be the very feeling that prevents someone from taking part in the sexual activities in question and the nature of the distaste, so perhaps you are contradicting yourself.
Sin of course is a theological issue. So are you saying here homophobia is bad enough, but when theists do it, it’s doubly bad?
I think though your evident conversion to absolute morality is a positive.
-
Sin of course is a theological issue. So are you saying here homophobia is bad enough, but when theists do it, it’s doubly bad?
No. I think the point is that Christians profess to believe in an all-loving god but the ones that are homophobic are exactly as bigoted as non Christian homophobes and also extremely hypocritical.
-
Vlad,
Hang on...Hate could be the very feeling that prevents someone from taking part in the sexual activities in question and the nature of the distaste, so perhaps you are contradicting yourself.
No. I have a distaste for beetroot too, but I don’t use my distaste to label those who indulge in the stuff “sinful” or “morally disordered” and then judge their behaviour accordingly.
Sin of course is a theological issue. So are you saying here homophobia is bad enough, but when theists do it, it’s doubly bad?
It’s contemptible in both cases, but the difference is the hypocrisy of, say, an AB persuading himself too that his hateful bigotry is the enactment of a loving god’s instructions and is therefore unarguable.
I think though your evident conversion to absolute morality is a positive.
I did no such thing.
-
No. I think the point is that Christians profess to believe in an all-loving god but the ones that are homophobic are exactly as bigoted as non Christian homophobes and also extremely hypocritical.
To love everything leads to illogicality, so perhaps we should stear clear of the God of philosophical discussion.
I think then there is an antitheist's preferred God. The God of deranged swivel eyed wrath and a full biblical interpretation where God loves all people and hates whatever separates people from his love. What that is, of course is something each individual has to work out themselves.
-
So distaste for homosexuality doesn't make one a homophobe?
No, it doesn't. I find the idea of male homosexual sex distasteful (but not, curiously, lesbian sex), but I recognise that irrational gut reactions are no guide to morality, and am happy for men to love men, and women women. I also find the idea of eating raw eggs distasteful, but don't regard it as immoral.
-
Vlad,
To love everything leads to illogicality, so perhaps we should stear clear of the God of philosophical discussion.
By “we” presumably you mean theists here as it’s their claim?
I think then there is an antitheist's preferred God.
Presumably because of your fondness for straw men?
The God of deranged swivel eyed wrath and a full biblical interpretation where God loves all people and hates whatever separates people from his love.
These are some of the claims theists make about “god”, yes. So what though?
What that is, of course is something each individual has to work out themselves.
But only “individuals” who buy this god narrative. For the rest of us, there’s no more need to work this out for ourselves than there’s a need to work out for ourselves what Poseidon had for breakfast.
-
To love everything leads to illogicality
Agreed, by the "all loving god" is not a straw man that I invented; it's something that Christians invented.
, so perhaps we should stear clear of the God of philosophical discussion.
But you love philosophical discussion, or t last you love using the jargon, even if you don't understand it.
I think then there is an antitheist's preferred God. The God of deranged swivel eyed wrath and a full biblical interpretation where God loves all people and hates whatever separates people from his love. What that is, of course is something each individual has to work out themselves.
As I said, I didn't invent the all loving god, Christians did. That's why it is so hypocritical of some of them (note: I didn't ever claim all of you) to be so homophobic.
-
The God of deranged swivel eyed wrath and a full biblical interpretation where God loves all people and hates whatever separates people from his love.
Antitheists didn't invent that god either. It comes from the Bible which was written by theists.
-
Antitheists didn't invent that god either. It comes from the Bible which was written by theists.
No it comes from a bowdlerisation starting from the freethinkers, right up to the Noo atheists, fuelled by atheist urban mythmakers....IMHO.
-
No it comes from a bowdlerisation starting from the freethinkers, right up to the Noo atheists, fuelled by atheist urban mythmakers....IMHO.
Have you read any of the Old Testament? In it, the chief god wipes out almost all of humanity for being naughty. If that's not wrathful, what is?
-
Vlad,
No it comes from a bowdlerisation starting from the freethinkers, right up to the Noo atheists, fuelled by atheist urban mythmakers....IMHO.
Suggest you try actually reading the texts you deem to be "holy". They contain multiple (and often mutually contradictory) descriptions of "god". My experience of theists here and elsewhere is that the homophobes will select the homophobic bits as divine instruction, the nice ones will select the "Jesus meek and mild" bits and so on.
All that atheists do is to respond to these multiple god archetypes as they're presented – not make up our own.
-
No it comes from a bowdlerisation starting from the freethinkers, right up to the Noo atheists, fuelled by atheist urban mythmakers....IMHO.
Think you are the one bowdlerising your holy book. You worship rape.
-
Mother Theresa said " I see Christ in every human being"
But when she said 'Christ' she meant 'dollars'.
O.
-
well perhaps starting with sexual practice since some Churches are often OK with Gay clergy as long as a gay isn't practicing. I think they have the same position on adulterers and fornication.
Which sexual practice can gay people do that straight people can't? I mean, I can think of one or two, but in the main the sexual practices of gay people are also the sexual practices of at least some straight people.
O.
-
Think you are the one bowdlerising your holy book. You worship rape.
So I worship the part i’m trying to ignore? stumbling over your own hysterical rhetoric perhaps?
-
Have you read any of the Old Testament? In it, the chief god wipes out almost all of humanity for being naughty. If that's not wrathful, what is?
To me, Jeremy, it’s a story. A sobering one. I read the beginning where mankind is in perfect communion with God and then chosen courses of action by mankind mean he is dealing with an altogether different sort of person and set of circumstances.
I don’t as a Christian, take all my cues in considering theology from the OT, you do.
As we now know though global calamity and extinction is part of the lot of mankind and that can be brought about by humanity on it’s own head.
-
I don’t as a Christian, take all my cues in considering theology from the OT, you do.
Then why do you adopt a different approach to the NT - neither is any more believable.
-
Then why do you adopt a different approach to the NT - neither is any more believable.
Argument from incredulity.
The new testament has God incarnate...the Christ, Professor, do you think that might have something to do with it?
-
As we now know though global calamity and extinction is part of the lot of mankind and that can be brought about by humanity on it’s own head.
Quite.
I wish these heterosexuals would stop breeding.
Seems to me they are much more of a threat to the natural order of things than gay people.
-
Argument from incredulity.
The new testament has God incarnate...the Christ, Professor, do you think that might have something to do with it?
Circular argument - effectively the justification for believing it is ... err ... because you believe it.
And the OT also has god in it - indeed the very same god. Believing the OT but not the NT kind of makes sense but believing the NT but not the OT seems deeply faulty thinking to me as the NT claims make no sense without the OT god.
-
Quite.
I wish these heterosexuals would stop breeding.
Seems to me they are much more of a threat to the natural order of things than gay people.
I never thought I'd be giving the "talk" to a moderator of the RE forum but......Where do you think all the gay people come from?
-
To me, Jeremy, it’s a story.
Yes it is. But it is a story about your god and one that your predecessor Christians thought fit to be in the Bible.
A sobering one. I read the beginning where mankind is in perfect communion with God and then chosen courses of action by mankind mean he is dealing with an altogether different sort of person and set of circumstances.
In the story, he wiped out all of humanity, even the new born babies. He also wiped out almost all of the other life on Earth. What did the cats do to annoy God so much.
I don’t as a Christian, take all my cues in considering theology from the OT, you do.
But it's still there. It's still part of your Bible.
As we now know though global calamity and extinction is part of the lot of mankind and that can be brought about by humanity on it’s own head.
But it was God that brought the flood down on humanity's collective head.
It's not the only example of a wrathful god in your own holy book. There's the Egyptian plagues, the conquest of Canaan, the various wars that David indulged in, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you don't want outsiders portraying your god as a wrathfaul vengeful spiteful bastard, maybe you shouldn't have a holy book that portrays him as all of those things.
-
Vlad,
Argument from incredulity.
Not even close.
The new testament has God incarnate...the Christ, Professor, do you think that might have something to do with it?
So the OT tells us about a morally disgusting god. The NT then tells us that this morally disgusting god also sent his son to Earth to make a blood sacrifice so we could repent of the “sins” that result from how this morally disgusting god made us by abandoning our self-respect and "worshipping" the same morally disgusting god?
Well, if you really like that sort of thing I suppose…
-
Vlad,
I never thought I'd be giving the "talk" to a moderator of the RE forum but......Where do you think all the gay people come from?
Brighton.
-
So I worship the part i’m trying to ignore? stumbling over your own hysterical rhetoric perhaps?
Nope. You are the one that wants to cut bits out of your holy book i.e. bowdlerise it.
-
... What did the cats do to annoy God so much....
Look down on him
-
I never thought I'd be giving the "talk" to a moderator of the RE forum but......Where do you think all the gay people come from?
Well aware of it.
But you have to admit all this going forth and multiplying has left us in a bit of a pickle and that is all down to you lascivious heterosexuals.
-
Yes it is. But it is a story about your god and one that your predecessor Christians thought fit to be in the Bible.
In the story, he wiped out all of humanity, even the new born babies. He also wiped out almost all of the other life on Earth. What did the cats do to annoy God so much.
Well, as story we’d have to look for metaphor and hyperbole I suppose. I think I’m right about a large scale post ice age flood which didn’t wipe out everything.
Physical death is not the end, that’s also in the bible.
Having been given the privilege of physical existence of the sentient variety do we actually have the absolute right for that do be maintained by God? Not sure though I think the atheist narrative might be “There these people were just minding their own business when this God thing appeared and ceased their existence”. The bible of course though states that death is not the end. But it's still there. It's still part of your Bible.But it was God that brought the flood down on humanity's collective head.
It's not the only example of a wrathful god in your own holy book. There's the Egyptian plagues, the conquest of Canaan, the various wars that David indulged in, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you don't want outsiders portraying your god as a wrathfaul vengeful spiteful bastard, maybe you shouldn't have a holy book that portrays him as all of those things.
Yes there is judgment and penalty just as there is in any literature generated about and by any world view. What, for instance are the Humanists going to do with people who break there rules when they hold the majority world view? In the Old Testament miraculous judgement figures highly but over a long period. In the New Testament not so much so we are dealing with rare interventions by God over a long period of time... because God as it says in the bible is slow to retribution.
-
Vlad,
Not even close.
He can’t believe it and admits it
-
Well, as story we’d have to look for metaphor and hyperbole I suppose.
Why? If you're giving instructions to (even one 'special select chosen group' of) humanity on how to save their immortal souls, why make the instruction book cryptic? Why not give straight instructions?
I think I’m right about a large scale post ice age flood which didn’t wipe out everything.
The evidence doesn't suggest that you're right. Whilst there were a number of localised significant flooding events, there is no evidence for a singular massive post-ice age flooding event.
Physical death is not the end, that’s also in the bible.
But that contradicts the Baghavad Gita, which clearly indicates that we all get turned back out on the wheels of Karma. And they both contradict the Norse myths which say that the warriors get carted off to Valhalla. And then there's the Undying Lands where Gandalf and Frodo get to go, and don't get me started with Sto'Vo'Kor.
Having been given the privilege of physical existence of the sentient variety do we actually have the absolute right for that do be maintained by God?
Yes. You put people in the position where they could suffer, you have a moral duty to try to help them avoid that suffering. That's a duty on parents, it's a duty on employers, it's a duty on service providers, it's one of the underlying principles of civilised societies. Arguably, it's right there in 'love thy neighbour'...
Yes there is judgment and penalty just as there is in any literature generated about and by any world view.
But the punishments don't fit the crime, nor are they proportionate. Eternal punishment (of whatever variety) for a temporal crime is disproportionate. Death for being on the same planet as some people who didn't comply with arbitrary 'laws' on haircuts or sexual congress is unjustified, disproportionate and non-productive. That's even if you grant the notion of 'punishment' has validity against the intent of rehabilitation.
What, for instance are the Humanists going to do with people who break there rules when they hold the majority world view?
Try them and, if found guilty, determine what the most likely method of rehabilitating them is - if that's not viable, isolate them from the community so they can no longer harm people. Not, anywhere, in any way, shape or form, eradicate the entire populace of the Earth because of the actions of some (or even the majority). The idea of collective punishment is abhorrent when teaching primary children, it's even worse when it's lethal punishment for entire populations for things deemed 'wrong' on little to no justification.
In the Old Testament miraculous judgement figures highly but over a long period. In the New Testament not so much so we are dealing with rare interventions by God over a long period of time... because God as it says in the bible is slow to retribution.
Or, maybe, because people were less credulous and wanted to see evidence of these 'miraculous judgements' - and as the organisation of society improved and communication became improved so the ability to investigate these outlandish claims improved and suddenly the outlandish claims started to diminish...
O.
-
Vlad,
He can’t believe it and admits it
Wrong again. What he actually said was: "Then why do you adopt a different approach to the NT - neither is any more believable". Can you see where you went wrong here? Yes, he was questioning your different responses to the OT and the NT given that neither is more believable - or for that matter unbelievable - than the other one.
The argument from incredulity fallacy by the way is, "X stretches my personal credulity too far, therefore X is wrong" - a very different matter.
-
Why? If you're giving instructions to (even one 'special select chosen group' of) humanity on how to save their immortal souls, why make the instruction book cryptic? Why not give straight instructions?
The evidence doesn't suggest that you're right. Whilst there were a number of localised significant flooding events, there is no evidence for a singular massive post-ice age flooding event.
But that contradicts the Baghavad Gita, which clearly indicates that we all get turned back out on the wheels of Karma. And they both contradict the Norse myths which say that the warriors get carted off to Valhalla. And then there's the Undying Lands where Gandalf and Frodo get to go, and don't get me started with Sto'Vo'Kor.
Yes. You put people in the position where they could suffer, you have a moral duty to try to help them avoid that suffering. That's a duty on parents, it's a duty on employers, it's a duty on service providers, it's one of the underlying principles of civilised societies. Arguably, it's right there in 'love thy neighbour'...
But the punishments don't fit the crime, nor are they proportionate. Eternal punishment (of whatever variety) for a temporal crime is disproportionate. Death for being on the same planet as some people who didn't comply with arbitrary 'laws' on haircuts or sexual congress is unjustified, disproportionate and non-productive. That's even if you grant the notion of 'punishment' has validity against the intent of rehabilitation.
Try them and, if found guilty, determine what the most likely method of rehabilitating them is - if that's not viable, isolate them from the community so they can no longer harm people. Not, anywhere, in any way, shape or form, eradicate the entire populace of the Earth because of the actions of some (or even the majority). The idea of collective punishment is abhorrent when teaching primary children, it's even worse when it's lethal punishment for entire populations for things deemed 'wrong' on little to no justification.
Or, maybe, because people were less credulous and wanted to see evidence of these 'miraculous judgements' - and as the organisation of society improved and communication became improved so the ability to investigate these outlandish claims improved and suddenly the outlandish claims started to diminish...
O.
I think any discussion of Bhagavad Gita might be more appropriate on the Hindu board since it is non sequitur to a discussion on what the Bible “says” or doesn’t.
-
I think any discussion of Bhagavad Gita might be more appropriate on the Hindu board since it is non sequitur to a discussion on what the Bible “says” or doesn’t.
If the point were relevant to the content you'd be right, but if the point is about the plethora of magical stories, and which (if any) should be given any credence... not so much.
O.
-
Well, as story we’d have to look for metaphor and hyperbole I suppose. I think I’m right about a large scale post ice age flood which didn’t wipe out everything.
It's not a question of whether the story talks about real events out not. It is how your god is portrayed in your holy book. If you don't want people to draw the conclusion that he is a vicious vindictive bastard, you shouldn't have literature that says he is.
Physical death is not the end, that’s also in the bible.
Having been given the privilege of physical existence of the sentient variety do we actually have the absolute right for that do be maintained by God? Not sure though I think the atheist narrative might be “There these people were just minding their own business when this God thing appeared and ceased their existence”. The bible of course though states that death is not the end.
All the people God saw fit to murder are in heaven with him are they?
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. What he actually said was: "Then why do you adopt a different approach to the NT - neither is any more believable". Can you see where you went wrong here? Yes, he was questioning your different responses to the OT and the NT given that neither is more believable - or for that matter unbelievable - than the other one.
That quote was from me so perhaps I can elaborate. My point wasn't about whether I or Vlad actually believe in the OT claims or the NT claims, but about the double standards. Both are contained in ancient texts, both contain extraordinary claims, neither are backed up by any meaningful corroboratory independent evidence. So my point is why does Vlad accept the claims of the NT, but reject many of the claims of the OT - that seems to be rank double standards. But then Vlad let the cat out of the bag in reply 127 - Vlad believes in the NT because he ... err ... believes in it.
-
That quote was from me so perhaps I can elaborate. My point wasn't about whether I or Vlad actually believe in the OT claims or the NT claims, but about the double standards. Both are contained in ancient texts, both contain extraordinary claims, neither are backed up by any meaningful corroboratory independent evidence. So my point is why does Vlad accept the claims of the NT, but reject many of the claims of the OT - that seems to be rank double standards. But then Vlad let the cat out of the bag in reply 127 - Vlad believes in the NT because he ... err ... believes in it.
You gotta have faith
~ George Michael
-
Yes it is. But it is a story about your god and one that your predecessor Christians thought fit to be in the Bible.
In the story, he wiped out all of humanity, even the new born babies. He also wiped out almost all of the other life on Earth. What did the cats do to annoy God so much.
But it's still there. It's still part of your Bible.But it was God that brought the flood down on humanity's collective head.
It's not the only example of a wrathful god in your own holy book. There's the Egyptian plagues, the conquest of Canaan, the various wars that David indulged in, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you don't want outsiders portraying your god as a wrathfaul vengeful spiteful bastard, maybe you shouldn't have a holy book that portrays him as all of those things.
Mankind deserves immediate judgment just because of sin, but God preserved a faithful remnant through whom his Son would eventually be born, who would overcome sin and save all those who repent.
-
Mankind deserves immediate judgment just because of sin, but God preserved a faithful remnant through whom his Son would eventually be born, who would overcome sin and save all those who repent.
You worship a homophobic genocidal monster, no wonder you like Putin
-
*Wanders off thinking*
God missed a trick. He, or she, should really have made stupidity a sin.
-
Spud,
Mankind deserves immediate judgment just because of sin, but God preserved a faithful remnant through whom his Son would eventually be born, who would overcome sin and save all those who repent.
So a god made us the way we are, then set up a set of rules the transgression of which “He” called “sins”, then decided we should be “punished” for playing out our nature as “He” created it, then impregnated an underage Palestinian girl in order to create a son whom "He'd" already planned to die later in a brutal blood sacrifice - but to be dead only for a bit. And the "good news" is that, no matter how many of these “sins” we commit in the only life we observably have, provided we abandon our self-respect and genuflect to this man/god we get a free pass to “Heaven”. But people who live blameless lives and don't bend the knee don't get the same free pass. Or something.
Oh, and there’s no evidence for any of this.
And you actually believe this unhinged and morally repugnant drivel to be true?
Seriously though?
-
Mankind deserves immediate judgment just because of sin
What every single person except Noah and his family - even the new born babies? Also, what did all the animals do to deserve being wiped out?
-
Mankind deserves immediate judgment just because of sin, but God preserved a faithful remnant through whom his Son would eventually be born, who would overcome sin and save all those who repent.
What's 'sin'? A set of apparently arbitrary rules of conduct, devoid of any explicit justification even if there might be valid reasons for any individual rule. That's not morality, that's authoritarianism.
Breaches of these arbitrary rules is deemed to confer an hereditary guilt? Collective punishment, punishment for another's transgression, that's not morality or justice, that's barbarism.
If that's your foundation for your interpretation of Christianity, it's a hateful, despicable, morally unjustifiable stance.
O.
-
We know through epigenetics that our lifestyle and behavior can have dramatic effects on the life and health of future generations. Our good and responsible behavior rewards our offspring and our irresponsible life style can adversely affect our children up to 4 or 5 generations.
'I will bring the curse of a father's sins upon even the third and fourth generation of the children'.....
-
We know through epigenetics that our lifestyle and behavior can have dramatic effects on the life and health of future generations. Our good and responsible behavior rewards our offspring and our irresponsible life style can adversely affect our children up to 4 or 5 generations.
'I will bring the curse of a father's sins upon even the third and fourth generation of the children'.....
So Aruntraveller has an irresponsible lifestyle? I suppose you were the one that implied he was diseased so can't say I'm surprised at your homophobia.
-
Where did Aruntraveller come into this?! I am talking of epigenetics..... ::)
-
Our good and responsible behavior rewards our offspring and our irresponsible life style can adversely affect our children up to 4 or 5 generations.
Yes and no. Our behaviours and activities can have epigenetic effects on our offspring, but it's not tied to just those. Stress, toxic exposures, physical labour, illnesses - these aren't 'activities' or 'behaviours', they are things that happen to us. Impugning people's moral standing by suggesting that they are responsible for deleterious epigenetic effects, even if they could be reliably predicted, is nonsense.
'I will bring the curse of a father's sins upon even the third and fourth generation of the children'.....
Which returns us to the pseudo-morality of 'sin' in relation to an identified biological effect that is, at best, only tangentially tied to behaviour.
O.
-
But its not wrong to say that a irresponsible lifestyle could adversely affect the health and life of the offspring up to 5 generations.
-
Sriram,
But its not wrong to say that a irresponsible lifestyle could adversely affect the health and life of the offspring up to 5 generations.
Depends what you mean by "irresponsible", but in any case axiomatically there are no offspring from homosexual activity so what does this have to do with the Bible deeming it a "sin"?
-
But its not wrong to say that a irresponsible lifestyle could adversely affect the health and life of the offspring up to 5 generations.
It's disingenuous, at best. Any lifestyle choice could adversely affect the health and life of the offspring - whether any particular group does or doesn't consider it to be 'irresponsible' isn't the deciding factor. Eating a diet high in red meat has been linked to epigenetic effects, but so has eating a diet high in plant-based protein - there isn't any practical way to avoid epigenetic effects. Our research (perhaps understandably) focusses on what we consider to be deleterious effects, but it's equally plausible that some - or all - of these lifestyle choices will have beneficial effects as well.
And, at the same time, the overwhelming majority of epigenetic effects that we've identified are tied to environmental factors, not lifestyle choices - atmospheric pollution, water quality, childhood nutrition, radon exposure, the list goes on.
So the implications of the 'your lifestyle can have an epigenetic effect on your great-great-grandchildren' are misleading, if not technically inaccurate. And then to tie it in to religious bullshit like 'sin' is just to compound the problem.
O.
-
But its not wrong to say that a irresponsible lifestyle could adversely affect the health and life of the offspring up to 5 generations.
Are you saying Aruntraveller's lifestyle id 'irresponsible'?
-
So Aruntraveller has an irresponsible lifestyle?
Oh, I so do.
Only the other day I had 3 rather than my usual 2 chocolate biscuits.
And I crossed the road before the little green man came on.
Worst of all I watched 2 minutes of GB news (the batteries had gone in the remote).
-
Worst of all I watched 2 minutes of GB news (the batteries had gone in the remote).
At least your lifestyle appears to have resulted in a certain fortitude, I'm not sure I could stomach that much GB News in one sitting without needing a prolonged convalescence!
O.
-
But its not wrong to say that a irresponsible lifestyle could adversely affect the health and life of the offspring up to 5 generations.
As I have no children I'd say I'm in the clear on the whole "irresponsible lifestyle affecting offspring" thing. Phew, that's a relief.
I didn't know it was a thing. Every day is a school day.
(I mean I know smoking in pregnancy is a bad thing and could affect offspring obvs.)
-
Arun,
Oh, I so do.
Only the other day I had 3 rather than my usual 2 chocolate biscuits.
And I crossed the road before the little green man came on.
Worst of all I watched 2 minutes of GB news (the batteries had gone in the remote).
I bet you put the loo roll the wrong way round on the holder too. Heretic!
-
We know through epigenetics that our lifestyle and behavior can have dramatic effects on the life and health of future generations.
You are massively overstating the effect of epigenetics. The effect usually disappears after a couple of generations.
Our good and responsible behavior rewards our offspring and our irresponsible life style can adversely affect our children up to 4 or 5 generations.
'I will bring the curse of a father's sins upon even the third and fourth generation of the children'.....
Nonsense.
-
But its not wrong to say that a irresponsible lifestyle could adversely affect the health and life of the offspring up to 5 generations.
Yes it is.
-
Oh, I so do.
Only the other day I had 3 rather than my usual 2 chocolate biscuits.
And I crossed the road before the little green man came on.
Worst of all I watched 2 minutes of GB news (the batteries had gone in the remote).
I have friends who watch that occasionally. Since their politics are the antithesis of those promoted there, I think they must have masochistic tendencies.
-
I have friends who watch that occasionally. Since their politics are the antithesis of those promoted there, I think they must have masochistic tendencies.
Or perhaps they just like to laugh at Nadine Dorries. "Thick as mince."
-
Mankind deserves immediate judgment just because of sin, but God preserved a faithful remnant through whom his Son would eventually be born, who would overcome sin and save all those who repent.
St Paul said something different, contradictory, and equally repugnant and quite loopy:
" For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
Romans 11:32 NRSV
-
Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.
-
Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.
So do you think Aruntraveller's lifestyle is irresponsible?
-
Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.
That hinges on a narrow, rather anthropocentric concept of what constitutes a 'natural order'. If we look to the wider natural world, we find things are far more complex and nuanced than that.
-
Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.
That rather depends surely on which humans are doing the interpreting and on what other humans think of certain interpretations.
-
Sriram,
Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.
"Homo"sexual activity is seen across a wide range of species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Presumably therefore you would consider it to be part of the "natural order" too. Why then, according to your definition, call it a "sin"?
-
So do you think Aruntraveller's lifestyle is irresponsible?
I've no idea whether Sririam thinks that.
All I can say is that heterosexuality never seems to be subject to the same kind of blanket ignorance that is so often used by some about the "homosexual lifestyle"
Homosexuals like heterosexuals are not an homogenous group. The only thing that one homosexual definitely has in common with another is that they are attracted to the same sex. That is it.
Any use of pejorative terms applied to "homosexuals" based on a perceived lifestyle is a futile exercise. We are every bit as diverse as heterosexuals. As such a point of view about my lifestyle based on my being gay is not viable.
My homosexuality tells him next to nothing about my lifestyle except that I love men, and he is being stupid if he thinks it does. If he judges me on the fact that I love men then he is foolish because it is one of the less interesting facts about me. That goes for others on here who fail to use the brain cells they claim God has given them.
Sweet Jesus, I'm 67 and still explaining simple concepts to the hard of thinking.
-
Sriram,
"Homo"sexual activity is seen across a wide range of species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Presumably therefore you would consider it to be part of the "natural order" too. Why then, according to your definition, call it a "sin"?
I believe a very early paper by the zoologist Desmond Morris was entitled "Homosexuality in the Ten-spined Stickleback".
-
Sriram,
"Homo"sexual activity is seen across a wide range of species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Presumably therefore you would consider it to be part of the "natural order" too. Why then, according to your definition, call it a "sin"?
I think that Sriram is using 'natural order' in a more prescriptive sense than what happens in nature. His 'survival, reproduction, parenting' is his selected base axiom for what is moral. As with all such selected axioms, it is subjective despite attempts to dress it in the raiment of objectivity with a pretty, vacant term like 'natural order'.
-
Dicky,
I believe a very early paper by the zoologist Desmond Morris was entitled "Homosexuality in the Ten-spined Stickleback".
Bloody sticklebacks and their irresponsible lifestyles. Sinful! Sinful!
-
I don't know how the discussion suddenly became about homosexuality! That was furthest from my mind when I talked of sin. Many people in the West seem to be obsessed with homosexuality, positively or negatively. NS just likes to digress and take the discussion where he finds it convenient. ::)
-
I don't know how the discussion suddenly became about homosexuality! That was furthest from my mind when I talked of sin. Many people in the West seem to be obsessed with homosexuality, positively or negatively. NS just likes to digress and take the discussion where he finds it convenient. ::)
Because that's what the thread is about. I suggest you read it from the start.
-
I must admit I have not read the opening posts. My mistake. :-[
-
I must admit I have not read the opening posts. My mistake. :-[
-
Same to you,,,sir!
-
At any rate you people cannot justify something on the basis that it exists in the animal world. Cannibalism, killing rivals, killing the male after mating, killing offspring of rivals, eating ones own offspring, mating with siblings or offspring.... are all routine part of many species in the animal world. They are however not acceptable in human society.
The very idea of spirituality (as also civilized societies) is to move away from animal tendencies.... to control and regulate our impulses.
-
At any rate you people cannot justify something on the basis that it exists in the animal world. Cannibalism, killing rivals, killing the male after mating, killing offspring of rivals, eating ones own offspring, mating with siblings or offspring.... are all routine part of many species in the animal world. They are however not acceptable in human society.
The very idea of spirituality (as also civilized societies) is to move away from animal tendencies.... to control and regulate our impulses.
I think you are misreading people here. They were pointing out that if you were relying on the 'natural order', the phrase you introduced as a justification then homosexuality eas fine based on your approach. You probably want to start from scratch on this thread.
ETA Given you now know that the thread is about homisexuality, your post reads as if you are comparing it to cannibalism, and saying that society should be conyrolling Aruntraveller's lifestyle. It may be that this is just a hangover from your original mistake but underlines that you may want to state a clear position on the subject of the thread.
-
Sriram,
At any rate you people cannot justify something on the basis that it exists in the animal world.
“Your people” weren’t – you were. Here:
“Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.” (Reply 169)
If you think non-alignment with the “natural order” (whatever that means) should define what’s “sinful” then homosexuality isn’t sinful. Your test, your conclusion.
Cannibalism, killing rivals, killing the male after mating, killing offspring of rivals, eating ones own offspring, mating with siblings or offspring.... are all routine part of many species in the animal world. They are however not acceptable in human society.
Interesting set of comparisons with homosexuality you’ve made there. Why not instead say something like, “loving relationships, care for others, group responsibility are all part of many species in the animal world. They are moreover acceptable in the human world”?”
The very idea of spirituality (as also civilized societies) is to move away from animal tendencies.... to control and regulate our impulses.
“The very idea of spirituality” is incoherent – somethng you’ve repeated, if unwittingly, demonstrated here.
-
Sriram,
“Your people” weren’t – you were. Here:
“Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.” (Reply 169)
If you think non-alignment with the “natural order” (whatever that means) should define what’s “sinful” then homosexuality isn’t sinful. Your test, your conclusion.
Interesting set of comparisons with homosexuality you’ve made there. Why not instead say something like, “loving relationships, care for others, group responsibility are all part of many species in the animal world. They are moreover acceptable in the human world”?”
“The very idea of spirituality” is incoherent – somethng you’ve repeated, if unwittingly, demonstrated here.
Sriram did not realise the thread was.about homosexuality - see previous posts. I've suggested that hevneeds to start from scratch rather than reply to posts made by people in reply to him who had read the thread.
-
NS,
Sriram did not realise the thread was.about homosexuality - see previous posts. I've suggested that hevneeds to start from scratch rather than reply to posts made by people in reply to him who had read the thread.
Fair enough, though if he seriously wants to essay the idea that that which is "against the natural order" is thereby "sinful" then he exonerates homosexuality from that charge as much as he exonerates any other "natural order" behaviours.
-
NS,
Fair enough, though if he seriously wants to essay the idea that that which is "against the natural order" is thereby "sinful" then he exonerates homosexuality from that charge as much as he exonerates any other "natural order" behaviours.
As covered earlier, I don't think he's saying because something happens in nature that it's ok, so that seems to me a straw man. Given he didn't know the thread was about homosexuality, then as well as thinking he needs to start afresh with what he's trying to say that we should forget about his posting on the thread up till now.
-
I came upon this forum by tracking down a friend, Leonard James, with whom I had several years of exchanges on other forums. Leonard was openly gay, and I was openly Christian. In our exchanges we were able to acknowledge our differences and still build up a long lasting friendship. Leonard was able to recognise that my motives in sharing my Christian faith were a sincere attempt to share what I considered to be the Good News with others in order for them to reap the ultimate reward of eternal salvation. I failed to convince him, but we were still able to share our views in a way which enabled our friendship to grow. Leonard sympathised with some of the aggressive responses I received and warned me in a PM that I would be on a rough ride in sharing my Christian views on this forum - how right he was! A feel sure that Leonard is sadly missed by us all.
So to sum up - the point I am making is that I am not trying to win arguments or promote self righteousness - I am endeavouring to save souls. This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.
-
I came upon this forum by tracking down a friend, Leonard James, with whom I had several years of exchanges on other forums. Leonard was openly gay, and I was openly Christian. In our exchanges we were able to acknowledge our differences and still build up a long lasting friendship. Leonard was able to recognise that my motives in sharing my Christian faith were a sincere attempt to share what I considered to be the Good News with others in order for them to reap the ultimate reward of eternal salvation. I failed to convince him but we were still able to share our views in a way which enabled our friendship to grow. Leonard sympathised with some of the aggressive responses I received and warned me in a PM that I would be on a rough ride in sharing my Christian views on this forum - how right he was! Leonard is sadly missed by us all.
So to sum up - the point I am making is that I am not trying to win arguments or promote self righteousness - I am endeavouring to save souls. This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.
And Christians who opposed mixed race marriages said the same.
-
And Christians who opposed mixed race marriages said the same.
I am not aware of any such "Christians" - there is nothing in Christ's teaching to condone this.
-
So to sum up - the point I am making is that I am not trying to win arguments or promote self righteousness - I am endeavouring to save souls. This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.
Your endeavour is irrational, however. If God has got something against gay souls, then he wouldn't make them that way in the first place. It is a hopeless mission to 'save' people from being what they are; no good can come of this.
-
I am not aware of any such "Christians" - there is nothing in Christ's teaching to condone this.
Haven't seen a no true Scotsman fallacy so perfectly done for a while.
-
A feel sure that Leonard is sadly missed by us all.
On that point we are agreed!
-
This endeavour should not be considered to be homophobic as my aim is for the ultimate good of others.
What do you consider is for the ultimate good of homosexuals?
PS I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but we know all about the paving involved and where it leads.
-
Your endeavour is irrational, however. If God has got something against gay souls, then he wouldn't make them that way in the first place. It is a hopeless mission to 'save' people from being what they are; no good can come of this.
We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin. If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
-
he reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin
gay people can get married now. Hadn't you heard?
-
Personally I think too much is being made of homosexuality. As far as I am concerned...its neither here nor there. I am a Hindu and we don't have any specific opinion on homosexuals. Life is about karma (action) and its consequences....and I accept that.
As far as sin and natural order is concerned we have to look at it only from a human angle. Sin is specific to humans. Animals do not sin. Sin comes in only if we can control and regulate our thoughts and actions but we choose not to.
If we keep justifying our actions in terms of animal life we will not remain civilized let along progress spiritually. That is what I meant by referring to cannibalism, killing rivals, killing babies, eating offspring etc.
-
We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin. If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
A loving God would not lead us into temptation in the first place. Is the father who tries to lure his son into a life of crime being a good father ?
-
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
Or rather - referring to anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance of what Jesus is alleged to have said and done: a point that I think applies to all these "Jesus tells us/reminds us" claims.
You are lumbering under the illusion that what the NT claims surrounding Jesus is both certain historical fact and is also authoritative: it is neither.
-
Personally I think too much is being made of homosexuality. As far as I am concerned...its neither here nor there. I am a Hindu and we don't have any specific opinion on homosexuals. Life is about karma (action) and its consequences....and I accept that.
As far as sin and natural order is concerned we have to look at it only from a human angle. Sin is specific to humans. Animals do not sin. Sin comes in only if we can control and regulate our thoughts and actions but we choose not to.
If we keep justifying our actions in terms of animal life we will not remain civilized let along progress spiritually. That is what I meant by referring to cannibalism, killing rivals, killing babies, eating offspring etc.
Why are you repeating the straw man argument about justifying actions based on animal life?
And once again this reads as if you are saying homosexuality is the equivalent of cannibalism. Again this may be because having posted without reading the thread, you have ended up confusing everyone, including yourself, but you don't appear to be reading the replies pointing out your misreadings either.
-
We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin. If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
Do you support same sex civil marriage?
-
....It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin. If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love....
Interesting! So, as I am completely unaware of your supposed God's love and certainly feel no need of your supposed God's salvation, could it be therefore that I was 'born perfect' after all? This does seem to be the logic of what you are saying. My wife, of course, would totally disagree that I was 'born perfect'. How little does she know! :D ;)
-
We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
Unconditional?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin.
Kind of stupid of God to design us that way.
If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.
Was Jesus aware of God's love? Was Jesus perfect?
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
That story is a fairly late interpolation. It was probably inserted into the Gospel of John in the fourth or fifth century.
-
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
You are implying that the views of Atkins confer some kind of greater authority than the views of anyone else. They don't - she is entitled to her homophobic views as long as they don't stray into the territory of discriminating against gay people. But we are just as entitled to hold different view and to completely ignore her views and/or treat them with disdain. And quoting Jesus - i.e. referring to some completely unsubstantiated ancient text confers absolutely zero additional weight to her views.
-
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
I guess for those that sign up to your brand of sky fairyness then them's the club rules. This is a Christian topic so am guessing you only think this applies to your club members. For the rest of is its just sex outside marriage which is a personal choice between consenting adults. It's mostly fun/emotional but most of all, its just part of the human existance.
-
I guess for those that sign up to your brand of sky fairyness then them's the club rules. This is a Christian topic so am guessing you only think this applies to your club members. For the rest of is its just sex outside marriage which is a personal choice between consenting adults. It's mostly fun/emotional but most of all, its just part of the human existance.
I think Alan's very clear that he thinks the rules apply tl everyone, and he's here tl save us all while worshipping a god that created child leukemia but finds his contact lens.
-
I think Alan's very clear that he thinks the rules apply tl everyone
He'd be wrong then, obvs.
-
He'd be wrong then, obvs.
Well, I think he's wrong but I'm not sure it can be stated as an obvious fact. Just as he can't show that he's correct.
-
Well, I think he's wrong but I'm not sure it can be stated as an obvious fact. Just as he can't show that he's correct.
Yes, it's an obvious fact. The Christian religion is based on tenets that are incoherent. It is obvious that nobody who doesn't subscribe to it has to adhere to its rules.
-
Yes, it's an obvious fact. The Christian religion is based on tenets that are incoherent. It is obvious that nobody who doesn't subscribe to it has to adhere to its rules.
if there is a psychopathic god that is deeply interested in what people do sexually, then the rules apply in the sense that it can do what it likes to apply them.
-
Yes, it's an obvious fact. The Christian religion is based on tenets that are incoherent. It is obvious that nobody who doesn't subscribe to it has to adhere to its rules.
Never been a Christian so Obviously doen't apply to me. I usually adhere to the club rules I follow though i.e. climbing club. Don't think there's much crossover with the Chtistian club rules.
-
Never been a Christian so Obviously doen't apply to me. I usually adhere to the club rules I follow though i.e. climbing club. Don't think there's much crossover with the Chtistian club rules.
And yet if some all powerful entity wants to ignore your choice because it's a weird nutjob, the rules would apply to you.
-
We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin. If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.
I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".
Anne Atkins is an appalling old bigot, whose pseudo-sophisticated style just makes her ludicrous as well.
-
Anne Atkins is an appalling old bigot, whose louche, pseudo=sophisticated style just makes her ludicrous as well.
And like the RC church isn't too keen on reporting paedophiles.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/my-friend-the-paedophile-why-didn-t-agony-aunt-anne-atkins-report-what-she-knows-8220159.html
-
And yet if some all powerful entity wants to ignore your choice because it's a weird nutjob, the rules would apply to you.
There isn't one.
-
There isn't one.
You think.
-
Maybe the emphasis on heterosexuality by religions is a natural selection process by which reproductive phenotypes are promoted and non reproductive phenotypes are discouraged........
After all, religions are only promoting reproduction and parental responsibilities. Nothing wrong with that!
-
if there is a psychopathic god that is deeply interested in what people do sexually, then the rules apply in the sense that it can do what it likes to apply them.
And if the World is flat we could fall off the edge of it.
-
And if the World is flat we could fall off the edge of it.
No, that's a category mistake. We can demonstrate the world isn't flat. We can't do the same with god claims. That said, it means that those who make them can't demonstrate any reason to believe them. In addition, you can point out that different claims they make about their 'god' are inconsistent.
-
Maybe the emphasis on heterosexuality by religions is a natural selection process by which reproductive phenotypes are promoted and non reproductive phenotypes are discouraged........
After all, religions are only promoting reproduction and parental responsibilities. Nothing wrong with that!
This reads like a restatement of your use of the 'appeal to nature' fallacy which when the logical conclusions of that were pointed out you disavowed.
In addition it's, at best, disingenous tl describe the attempts of some religious people to have homosexuals treated as second class citizens including criminalising homosexual activity as 'encouraging heterosexuality'.
-
No, that's a category mistake.
No that's obfuscatory bollocks.
The point is that nothing is completely certain in this world but some things are so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty.
We can demonstrate the world isn't flat.
We can demonstrate that the Christian god and Christian ideology are incoherent concepts.
-
No that's obfuscatory bollocks.
The point is that nothing is completely certain in this world but some things are so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty.
We can demonstrate that the Christian god and Christian ideology are incoherent concepts.
I agree that it makes no essential difference to how we acy but accuracy in terms of discourse is not 'obfuscatory bollocks'.
-
I agree that it makes no essential difference to how we acy but accuracy in terms of discourse is not 'obfuscatory bollocks'.
No, but your "category error" nonsense was just obfuscatory bollocks.
-
No, but your "category error" nonsense was just obfuscatory bollocks.
No, it isn't. Treating supernatural claims as the same as natural ones just leads to logicsl errors.
-
No, it isn't. Treating supernatural claims as the same as natural ones just leads to logicsl errors.
I think it is a little more complicated than that.
Many 'supernatural' claims are in reality supposedly manifested in natural effects. So the supernatural impacts on the natural. So the claim is that Jesus was physically alive, then physically dead and then physically alive again. Those are natural claims, albeit with a claimed supernatural cause.
There are many other similar examples across religions. And realistically a supernatural action that has no impact on the natural world would be completely undetectable anyhow so indistinguishable from no supernatural action.
-
I think it is a little more complicated than that.
Many 'supernatural' claims are in reality supposedly manifested in natural effects. So the supernatural impacts on the natural. So the claim is that Jesus was physically alive, then physically dead and then physically alive again. Those are natural claims, albeit with a claimed supernatural cause.
There are many other similar examples across religions. And realistically a supernatural action that has no impact on the natural world would be completely undetectable anyhow so indistinguishable from no supernatural action.
To an extent, yes. If the claim has a natural element you csn check whether that is true in natural terms. Even if we were to find though that Jesus was alive, dead, and then alive again as natural claims, then you still have nothing that validates any supernatural claims of causes.
-
You athiests need to agree on you're viewpoint otherwise you'll have religious people believing atheists aren't of one opinion about stuff.
-
No, it isn't. Treating supernatural claims as the same as natural ones just leads to logicsl errors.
No it doesn't.
You are using the same sophistry as Vlad does when he claims the leprechaun analogy doesn't work.
-
You athiests need to agree on you're viewpoint otherwise you'll have religious people believing atheists aren't of one opinion about stuff.
I don't mind them believing that, because it's true. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is their lack of belief in deities.
-
No it doesn't.
You are using the same sophistry as Vlad does when he claims the leprechaun analogy doesn't work.
No, it's only by using this that the leprechaun analogy does work. Any supernatural claim to cause is as valid as any other precisely because they aren't related to anything real.
-
You athiests need to agree on you're viewpoint otherwise you'll have religious people believing atheists aren't of one opinion about stuff.
I will email Commander Dawkins for instructions.
-
Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.
It could be, but traditionally it hasn't been. It's been seen as failure to comply with a temporally fashionable subset of a collection of arbitrary bronze-age in-group identifying behaviours portrayed with moral overtones but devoid of any moral justifications.
Even if sin were to be depicted as 'anything which goes against the natural order' that would include shoes but, on the current evidence, wouldn't include homosexuality which is seen across a huge swathe of the animal kingdom.
O.
-
gay people can get married now. Hadn't you heard?
The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.
-
The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.
This is civil marriage though. Do you support same sex civil marriage.
Oh and there are Christians who disagree with you anout same sex marriage in the church, just as there were those who as Christians opposed mixed race marriages.
-
You are implying that the views of Atkins confer some kind of greater authority than the views of anyone else. They don't - she is entitled to her homophobic views as long as they don't stray into the territory of discriminating against gay people. But we are just as entitled to hold different view and to completely ignore her views and/or treat them with disdain. And quoting Jesus - i.e. referring to some completely unsubstantiated ancient text confers absolutely zero additional weight to her views.
Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.
I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings. I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God. So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.
-
Anne Atkins the woman who didn't report a paedophile that she knew about because he was a friend of the family and it didn't occur to her to report him.
Can I just ask you to stop and think about that one for a minute Alan?
Now tell me why I should listen to her about any moral issue, let alone one that concerns my personal life.
-
Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.
I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings. I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God. So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.
Quoting an authority on morality only makes sense if you claim you are authoritative enough to judge it as valid. But as both Aruntraveller and I have pointed out Atkins, just like the RC Church, didn't report a paedophile/s.
-
I think it is a little more complicated than that.
Many 'supernatural' claims are in reality supposedly manifested in natural effects. So the supernatural impacts on the natural. So the claim is that Jesus was physically alive, then physically dead and then physically alive again. Those are natural claims, albeit with a claimed supernatural cause.
There are many other similar examples across religions. And realistically a supernatural action that has no impact on the natural world would be completely undetectable anyhow so indistinguishable from no supernatural action.
I'm afraid it's even more complicated than that Professor since explanations for nature itself invariably fall into the supernatural,, unnatural, extranatural and even the "Has no explanation" suggestion isn't that natural, if you think about it.
-
Vlad,
I'm afraid it's even more complicated than that Professor since explanations for nature itself invariably fall into the supernatural,, unnatural, extranatural and even the "Has no explanation" suggestion isn't that natural, if you think about it.
No they don't. Actual explanations for "nature itself" are only naturalistic in character. Absent any means of verification, anything else is just incoherent guessing.
-
AB,
I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings. I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God. So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.
But it's a rigged game isn't it. Your religion says sex outside marriage is a sin, but it also says that same sex couples can't be married. What then are same sex couples supposed to do – take up knitting instead?
-
The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.
Cultures had ceremonies, and social status, for recognising life-long commitments before the Old Testament was communicated to their area, and included in different places all manner of relationships. Christianity - and the Abrahamic religions more broadly - do not have a claim on the concept. That we have adopted the word 'marriage' for those socially acknowledged relationships is an artefact of Christianity's place in history, but doesn't need to be any sort of restriction on our future.
If you want to be beholden to the 'Christian marriage' definition, that's your choice, but you don't get to make it for everyone else.
O.
-
The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.
Then we just ignore the bible as being an artefact from antiquity that no longer has the social force it once had: and that really is 'good news', Alan.
-
Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.
You mean the text where Jesus is clearly referring to Adam and Eve? "From the first, He made them male and female"? Do me a favour, guv'.
P.S.
Oh, I see; perhaps she only quoted the spurious text about the woman caught in adultery. As Jeremy pointed out, this isn't in any manuscript till centuries after Jesus' time. However, its painting Jesus as forgiving shows that the fabricators had latched on to one of Jesus' recognised characteristics.
-
Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.
If she was merely stating that there is text in the NT that says X or says Y, then fair enough. But that isn't what she is doing - she is clearly providing her own endorsement of those views, in which case that becomes her own personal opinion, just as if she had rejected those views which would also reflect her opinion.
-
No that's obfuscatory bollocks.
The point is that nothing is completely certain in this world but some things are so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty.
We can demonstrate that the Christian god and Christian ideology are incoherent concepts.
No, Nearly Sane is correct. If, as you seem to suggest, Christianity is one of those "things that is so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty", then the religion would not still have the overwhelmingly powerful influence in the world that it has, and we wouldn't have been arguing against it on this board for years. If you are particularly referring to NS's suggestion of a psychopathic deity who created us to cause us pain and can do what the hell he likes, then that suggestion is just as plausible as Christianity, and likewise, unprovable. That such as suggestion is "easy to discount" has to be considered in the context that such a belief was at least half of Gnosticism, which was a powerful rival of Christianity at the beginning, and has had its courageous adherents throughout the centuries. The get-out clause for Gnosticism was that beyond the evil creator god of the material world was the pure and good world of the spirit to which humans could escape eventually. That to me is equally unprovable, but some how makes a bit more sense than Christianity.
I hasten to add, I haven't entertained Gnosticism as a likely possibility for at least thirty years, and have been muddling along with my IGnosticism well enough
-
No, Nearly Sane is correct. If, as you seem to suggest, Christianity is one of those "things that is so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty", then the religion would not still have the overwhelmingly powerful influence in the world that it has, and we wouldn't have been arguing against it on this board for years. If you are particularly referring to NS's suggestion of a psychopathic deity who created us to cause us pain and can do what the hell he likes, then that suggestion is just as plausible as Christianity, and likewise, unprovable. That such as suggestion is "easy to discount" has to be considered in the context that such a belief was at least half of Gnosticism, which was a powerful rival of Christianity at the beginning, and has had its courageous adherents throughout the centuries. The get-out clause for Gnosticism was that beyond the evil creator god of the material world was the pure and good world of the spirit to which humans could escape eventually. That to me is equally unprovable, but some how makes a bit more sense than Christianity.
I hasten to add, I haven't entertained Gnosticism as a likely possibility for at least thirty years, and have been muddling along with my IGnosticism well enough
To be fair, as I said to jeremyp, I don't think in the vast majority of cases it makes any difference to behaviour. I act as if my idea of the nutter god is certainly untrue - I'm not sure what I could do differently. Where it is significant is in discussion, as you indicate, in that talking of the supernatural as if it is the same as the natural gives it a power that it doesn't deserve.
-
I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings. I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God. So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.
It isn't just offence though is it AB - you are actively trying to deny very fundamental basic human rights to a group of people. And those people actually exist and your attempts to deny them those rights (which were successful in the UK until recently and remain successful in other countries still) causes more than just offence, it causes actual harm through denial of rights to those people.
And all to placate a god that there is no credible evidence even exists.
-
Quoting an authority on morality only makes sense if you claim you are authoritative enough to judge it as valid. But as both Aruntraveller and I have pointed out Atkins, just like the RC Church, didn't report a paedophile/s.
The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ. There is no higher authority.
-
Then we just ignore the bible as being an artefact from antiquity that no longer has the social force it once had: and that really is 'good news', Alan.
The choice to ignore is yours to make, Gordon. Because God gives you the freedom to do so through the power of your human soul.
Others have chosen differently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=har4itYxlBg
-
The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ. There is no higher authority.
You have been told twice now that the text cited occurs in none of the earliest manuscripts. This has been accepted for over 100 years now by most serious scholars:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery&ved=2ahUKEwjyq9eewriEAxVMU0EAHTleAJUQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw05I9GILcLqg2BS0BjOKhuC
And even if this were not the case, there is no reason to have implicit trust in the veracity of any ancient text as being divinely authorative just because another dodgily translated text from another part of the collection (The Epistles) tells you that you should. Or just because your Church says the same.
-
The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ. There is no higher authority.
It would appear that I'm to take both those statements on your authority
-
No.
I would move that any distaste or dislike of any aspect of homosexuality constitutes homophobia.
What seems to be happening is that posters are considering their level of dislike and moving the boundaries of homophobia so they fall outside it.
What then do you say constitutes homophobia?
-
I would move that any distaste or dislike of any aspect of homosexuality constitutes homophobia.
What seems to be happening is that posters are considering their level of dislike and moving the boundaries of homophobia so they fall outside it.
What then do you say constitutes homophobia?
I don't believe that is what you think.
-
The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ. There is no higher authority.
The authority being quoted by you involves the alleged and unsubstantiated "word of Jesus Christ".
So the above description is more like it: you're over-reaching again, Alan, since while you may personally accept what the NT says about Jesus on the basis of your personal faith alone, what you cannot do is mitigate the risks of mistakes or lies which, in my view, compromise all these 'Jesus says' presumptions to the extent that they cannot be taken seriously as documented history (before we even get to the supernatural nonsense).
There is no higher authority
It can't be supremely authoritative if someone like me can just dismiss this "word of Jesus Christ" without consequences and where, in the context of this thread, changes to marriage legislation in various legislatures no longer adhere with what you mistakenly, and fondly, regard as being authoritative - if any 'authority' isn't considered to be binding then it isn't really 'authoritative' at all.
Plus I'm fairly sure that neither you, nor Christianity at large, has the authority to dictate what is deemed to be authoritative.
-
I don't believe that is what you think.
I think that is because you have departed from the plain meaning of "phobia".
Having taken that step it's then possible to label people as it suits don't you think
-
I think that is because you have departed from the plain meaning of "phobia".
Having taken that step it's then possible to label people as it suits don't you think
No, I don't believe that is what you think because I think you are as so often on here lying. I don't believe that you think that not participating in homosexual activity because it isn't to your taste is homophobic, else you are stating that your not being a Muslim makes you an Islamophobe. I also don't believe you that you are not aware of the meaning of homophobia in current usage. Your alsi wring about the 'plain meaning' of phobia beung something you don't want to do
I think you are trying to play inept verbal games to distract from the suffering of gay and lesbian people because fellow members of your religion want them treated as second class citizens. I'm not sure if it is more tedious than it is distasteful.
-
No, I don't believe that is what you think because I think you are as so often on here lying. I don't believe that you think that not participating in homosexual activity because it isn't to your taste is homophobic, else you are stating that your not being a Muslim makes you an Islamophobe. I also don't believe you that you are not aware of the meaning of homophobia in current usage. Your alsi wring about the 'plain meaning' of phobia beung something you don't want to do
I think you are trying to play inept verbal games to distract from the suffering of gay and lesbian people because fellow members of your religion want them treated as second class citizens. I'm not sure if it is more tedious than it is distasteful.
And still no commitment to a definition of homophobia.
-
The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.
Fortunately, the Bible is not the law. There's no reason to pay attention to anything it says.
-
Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.
She was quoting from a passage in the New Testament that was added at least two hundred, probably three hundred years after the death of Jesus. It's a fake, a forgery.
-
No, Nearly Sane is correct.
No he isn't. He's talking nonsense to peddle a pedantic point of view.
If, as you seem to suggest, Christianity is one of those "things that is so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty", then the religion would not still have the overwhelmingly powerful influence in the world that it has,
So lets add ad populum to the list of fallacies that are raining down on this thread.
-
The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ. There is no higher authority.
What is being quoted is scripture. The allegation is that this is, to one extent or another (it's not consistent), is the 'word of Jesus', depending on which branch of the Abrahamic faith you accept that's a greater or lesser or authority, but that fails to appreciate that arguments from authority are logically flawed. It's not enough that Jesus, God, Tiny Tiim or the Tooth Fairy says 'this is what should be', they have just as much need to support their assertions as anyone else, or they can be dismissed on the same basis.
You're all invested in your 'God given free will' Alan, try using it. WHY is this a problem? That you and Professor Butterfield think Jesus said it was problematic isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for a behaviour without a justification.
I would move that any distaste or dislike of any aspect of homosexuality constitutes homophobia.
OK.
What seems to be happening is that posters are considering their level of dislike and moving the boundaries of homophobia so they fall outside it.
No, what's happening is you're conflating a lack of personal interest in taking part in homosexuality with some sort of active disapproval of the existence of homosexuality because, it appears, the best argument you can manage is 'we're terrible, but you're terrible with us, so that's somehow OK.'
What then do you say constitutes homophobia?
Behaviour based on the idea that there's an argument against allowing gay people to be gay people free of judgement, restriction, shaming or additional social or legal hoops to jump through.
O.
-
No he isn't. He's talking nonsense to peddle a pedantic point of view.
So lets add ad populum to the list of fallacies that are raining down on this thread.
I await you showing how supernatural claims are not like natural claims is nonsense. You seen to think that pointing this out gives them some form of validity when it's precisely the opposite.
Also DU isn't saying that because lots of people are religious that it's true. So you've misunderstood him.
-
And still no commitment to a definition of homophobia.
Anti-gay prejudice. What's the problem?
-
What is being quoted is scripture. The allegation is that this is, to one extent or another (it's not consistent), is the 'word of Jesus', depending on which branch of the Abrahamic faith you accept that's a greater or lesser or authority, but that fails to appreciate that arguments from authority are logically flawed. It's not enough that Jesus, God, Tiny Tiim or the Tooth Fairy says 'this is what should be', they have just as much need to support their assertions as anyone else, or they can be dismissed on the same basis.
You're all invested in your 'God given free will' Alan, try using it. WHY is this a problem? That you and Professor Butterfield think Jesus said it was problematic isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for a behaviour without a justification.
OK.
No, what's happening is you're conflating a lack of personal interest in taking part in homosexuality with some sort of active disapproval of the existence of homosexuality because, it appears, the best argument you can manage is 'we're terrible, but you're terrible with us, so that's somehow OK.'
Behaviour based on the idea that there's an argument against allowing gay people to be gay people free of judgement, restriction, shaming or additional social or legal hoops to jump through.
O.
Oh there we go again, something merely being the lack of interest or belief, rather than a dislike or distaste....
Firstly, own the distaste or dislike
Secondly , personal disinterest in it...maybe. Until it can be weaponised to stick one on Christianity.
-
Oh there we go again, something merely being the lack of interest or belief, rather than a dislike or distaste....
I have no personal interest in the BDSM lifestyle, I have no problem with others partaking if that's what they wish. It's a disinterest in personal involvement, not a distaste for other's activities.
Firstly, own the distaste or dislike
No distaste or dislike to own. Are we perhaps projecting a little, here?
Secondly , personal disinterest in it...maybe. Until it can be weaponised to stick one on Christianity.
Yes, because it's the straight-but-disinterested with an established history of trying to deny Christianity access to social institutions like marriage, isn't it? Oh, wait, no, that's not what happened.
O.
-
I believe a very early paper by the zoologist Desmond Morris was entitled "Homosexuality in the Ten-spined Stickleback".
Interesting, I can't recall any edict, bulla, epistle or homily denouncing gay stickleback.
-
Interesting, I can't recall any edict, bulla, epistle or homily denouncing gay stickleback.
The Catholic line is that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law". Numerous papers have documented homosexual activity in over a thousand species fundamentally countering that assertion.
O.
-
I will email Commander Dawkins for instructions.
Glad to hear it. See you at the secret club meeting.
-
I don't mind them believing that, because it's true. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is their lack of belief in deities.
How dare you. You are barred from the athiest global cabal.
-
The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.
Club rule again. The rest of us can marry who we want as defined by the marriage act.
-
The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ. There is no higher authority.
What about these gods then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity)
-
Interesting, I can't recall any edict, bulla, epistle or homily denouncing gay stickleback.
Keep up at the back there! The conversation at this point had swerved to Sriram going on about "the Natural Order".
-
The Catholic line is that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law". Numerous papers have documented homosexual activity in over a thousand species fundamentally countering that assertion.
O.
It doesn't. Natural law does not equal anything that hapoens in nature. That said, natural law is a posh hand wave of 'stuff I like and dislike'
-
The Catholic line is that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law". Numerous papers have documented homosexual activity in over a thousand species fundamentally countering that assertion.
O.
To which the Catholics might reply that while it is found in other species and therefore it is natural for them, it isn't natural for humans.
Over to you.
-
Vlad,
I would move that any distaste or dislike of any aspect of homosexuality constitutes homophobia.
What seems to be happening is that posters are considering their level of dislike and moving the boundaries of homophobia so they fall outside it.
What then do you say constitutes homophobia?
You can “move” anything you like, but the “No” still stands.
Again: I have a distaste for beetroot, but I’m also indifferent to those who indulge their taste for the stuff. That doesn’t make me “beetroot-eater-phobic” though.
Clear now?
-
To which the Catholics might reply that while it is found in other species and therefore it is natural for them, it isn't natural for humans.
Over to you.
Well, since we've switched back to Catholicism, what is the 'natural' justification for celibacy?
-
To which the Catholics might reply that while it is found in other species and therefore it is natural for them, it isn't natural for humans.
Sounds like special pleading to me - so it would be straight back with 'why is it un-natural in one species but not in another?. Onus on those making the claim (that something natural in one species isn't in another species) to justify that claim.
-
Vlad,
You can “move” anything you like, but the “No” still stands.
Again: I have a distaste for beetroot, but I’m also indifferent to those who indulge their taste for the stuff. That doesn’t make me “beetroot-eater-phobic” though.
Clear now?
Yes....You don't like Beetroot.
-
Vlad,
Yes....You don't like Beetroot.
You missed the next part - and the point. I don't like beetroot, AND... that does NOT therefore make me beetroot-eater-phobic.
Surely that's clear now isn't it?
-
Sounds like special pleading to me - so it would be straight back with 'why is it un-natural in one species but not in another?. Onus on those making the claim (that something natural in one species isn't in another species) to justify that claim.
It could be special pleading but they could come back and quote arthropod species that kill and bite the heads of their sexual partners, something natural for them but reprehensible for us. It's not then just that the Catholic answer doesn't stack up but Outriders doesn't seem to either.
-
Well, since we've switched back to Catholicism, what is the 'natural' justification for celibacy?
Not a Catholic Dicky but you've just set up my comedic reply..."Fuck all".
-
To which the Catholics might reply that while it is found in other species and therefore it is natural for them, it isn't natural for humans.
Over to you.
To which the response would be - on what basis do you consider us to be different? If we aren't using the entirety of the rest of nature as a guide to what is 'natural law', what are we using?
It could be special pleading but they could come back and quote arthropod species that kill and bite the heads of their sexual partners, something natural for them but reprehensible for us.
Violence is not 'unnatural' for humans, it's something that we've developed social and moral rules against. Indeed, huge swathes of 'natural' activity would appear to be socially 'off-limits'.
O.
-
To which the Catholics might reply that while it is found in other species and therefore it is natural for them, it isn't natural for humans.
Over to you.
I'm here to tell you it is.
Over to you.
-
I'm here to tell you it is.
Over to you.
Nope, You've made the positive assertion so it stays with you. All I'm saying is that Outrider's reasoning is faulty.
-
No he isn't. He's talking nonsense to peddle a pedantic point of view.
So lets add ad populum to the list of fallacies that are raining down on this thread.
It's nothing to do with pedantry. He remains correct. Sometimes it's good to go back to basics to remind ourselves of certain matters. In this case, Thomas Henry Huxley's classic and indeed original words about Agnosticism: "Humankind can have no knowledge, except of phenomena". The phenomenal world is all that we can know. There are various claims made about the supernatural world, but we can never know that they are true. Most persistent religious beliefs arise because of certain observations about the natural world. NS's suggestion that the world could have been made by a psychopathic nutjob has formed the basis of certain religions and arises from the very obvious fact that the world is replete with undeserved suffering, (and the God of some of the OT is depicted as behaving as if he were the said deranged sadistic monster - and so does some of the NT). The basis of Gnosticism depends on such perceptions. Christianity's response to the world's suffering is that we're being tested here, and that those who "play by the rules of the game" will have everything made good for them. None of these beliefs can ever be proved . They are supernatural claims, and are on a completely separate level from those made about the phenomenal world. As such, your conflating NS's hypothetical suggestion (in which he does not believe) with the idea of that the earth is flat is demonstrably in error. We can prove the world is not flat; we can prove that the moon is not made of green cheese, and we can prove that little boys are not made of slugs and snails and puppy dogs' tails.
As for your comments about the ad populum fallacy: I had suspected as I was typing my post that some inattentive reader might accuse me of falling into that. I did not suspect that the said inattentive reader would be you.
-
Vlad,
Nope, You've made the positive assertion so it stays with you. All I'm saying is that Outrider's reasoning is faulty.
You don't get just to say it - you need to demonstrate it. What failure in reasoning do you think you've found?
-
Nope, You've made the positive assertion so it stays with you. All I'm saying is that Outrider's reasoning is faulty.
Oh sorry. I see your mistake.
You hadn't realised I was quoting from the gospel of Trentvoyager.
Therein the Rev. Edgar Wield makes it clear that far from being unnatural it is a natural variation of sexuality witnessed throughout the animal kingdom, of which homo sapiens are members, of course.
It is also understood from his writings that there is no compulsion for everyone to take part, so if you wish to refrain you can so do.
In other words you do not have to worship at the priapic altar.
Those who do wish to worship at said altar should be free from persecution, discrimination and threats of violence either physical or non-physical and free to pursue their concupiscent ways.
The very act of concupiscence is, of course, a full homage to heterosexuals who worship at an altogether more lascivious altar and as has been shown in the gospel according to St. Monibot are in danger of snuffing out the very life they create by their licentious acts of breeding.
-
Oh sorry. I see your mistake.
You hadn't realised I was quoting from the gospel of Trentvoyager.
Therein the Rev. Edgar Wield makes it clear that far from being unnatural it is a natural variation of sexuality witnessed throughout the animal kingdom, of which homo sapiens are members, of course.
It is also understood from his writings that there is no compulsion for everyone to take part, so if you wish to refrain you can so do.
In other words you do not have to worship at the priapic altar.
Those who do wish to worship at said altar should be free from persecution, discrimination and threats of violence either physical or non-physical and free to pursue their concupiscent ways.
The very act of concupiscence is, of course, a full homage to heterosexuals who worship at an altogether more lascivious altar and as has been shown in the gospel according to St. Monibot are in danger of snuffing out the very life they create by their licentious acts of breeding.
I think you are continuing what is known as the naturalistic fallacy whereby one appeals to that seen in nature to explain human behaviour. What undermines it are the behaviours and traits and characteristics observed in nature not seen in human behaviour...in short Trent, it's bollocks as is most talk of some kind of natural order.
I tend to take the Grainger approach to the matter.
-
Oh sorry. I see your mistake.
You hadn't realised I was quoting from the gospel of Trentvoyager.
Therein the Rev. Edgar Wield makes it clear that far from being unnatural it is a natural variation of sexuality witnessed throughout the animal kingdom, of which homo sapiens are members, of course.
It is also understood from his writings that there is no compulsion for everyone to take part, so if you wish to refrain you can so do.
In other words you do not have to worship at the priapic altar.
Those who do wish to worship at said altar should be free from persecution, discrimination and threats of violence either physical or non-physical and free to pursue their concupiscent ways.
The very act of concupiscence is, of course, a full homage to heterosexuals who worship at an altogether more lascivious altar and as has been shown in the gospel according to St. Monibot are in danger of snuffing out the very life they create by their licentious acts of breeding.
The Fat Man agrees
-
I think you are continuing what is known as the naturalistic fallacy whereby one appeals to that seen in nature to explain human behaviour. What undermines it are the behaviours and traits and characteristics observed in nature not seen in human behaviour...in short Trent, it's bollocks as is most talk of some kind of natural order.
I tend to take the Grainger approach to the matter.
The naturalustic fallacy is not the same as the appeal to nature fallacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
-
The naturalustic fallacy is not the same as the appeal to nature fallacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
You are right, My mistake.
-
You are right, My mistake.
And Aruntraveller isn't using either. I think this is similar to the mistake earlier when Sriram appeared to be using the appeal to nature fallacy but wasn't, and then thought people pointing out the flaws in the appeal to nature fallacy were actually using it.
In mentioning the phrase 'natural law' people seem to have taken it as the appeal to nature, it isn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
When they are pointing out the fallacy, you then take it as if they are making it. They aren't.
Natural law is, in full technical terms, stinking pish.
-
I think you are continuing what is known as the naturalistic fallacy whereby one appeals to that seen in nature to explain human behaviour.
Nay lad.
It is the gospel.
It must be true.
You aren't allowed to question it or disagree.
Them's the rulez. We saw them laid down earlier by the Rt. Hon AB of this parish. Example:
The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.
-
Nay lad.
It is the gospel.
It must be true.
You aren't allowed to question it or disagree.
Them's the rulez. We saw them laid down earlier by the Rt. Hon AB of this parish. Example:
Is there a Four Yorkshiremen of The Apocalypse sketch?
Burn in 'ell for a' eternity, lad?
Luxury
-
And Aruntraveller isn't using either. I think this is similar to the mistake earlier when Sriram appeared to be using the appeal to nature fallacy but wasn't, and then thought people pointing out the flaws in the appeal to nature fallacy were actually using it.
In mentioning the phrase 'natural law' people seem to have taken it as the appeal to nature, it isn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
When they are pointing out the fallacy, you then take it as if they are making it. They aren't.
Natural law is, in full technical terms, stinking pish.
No, there's a definite appeal to nature here,from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.
I agree that "natural law" probably is bollocks and the term "natural" seems to be a movable feast.
-
No, there's a definite appeal to nature here,from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.
I agree that "natural law" probably is bollocks and the term "natural" seems to be a movable feast.
I won't have this blasphemy.
It is in the gospel. It is non-negotiable.
-
I think you are continuing what is known as the naturalistic fallacy whereby one appeals to that seen in nature to explain human behaviour.
If the Catholic church makes the argument that homosexuality is in some way 'unnatural', how does showing that it's in fact something that occurs broadly in the natural world 'the naturalistic fallacy'? It's not making a claim to justify an assertion, it's countering a claim by showing that what it says is invalid.
What undermines it are the behaviours and traits and characteristics observed in nature not seen in human behaviour...
Migration? Hibernation? What behaviours and traits in nature that humanity doesn't display have a bearing on whether homosexuality is part of a normal diversity of sexual behaviour within homo sapiens?
in short Trent, it's bollocks as is most talk of some kind of natural order.
Again, you've failed to make an actual argument, and just tried to assert that you're right.
I tend to take the Grainger approach to the matter.
From their website (https://corporate.graingerplc.co.uk/investors/governance/approach-risk), the Grainger approach seems to be "Our risk management framework is designed to identify the principal risks to our business and ensure that they are being appropriately monitored, suitable controls are in place and the required actions have clear ownership and accountability." I don't see the relevance.
-
I won't have this blasphemy.
It is in the gospel. It is non-negotiable.
That would be an ecumenical matter.
-
Vlad,
No, there's a definite appeal to nature here,from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.
I agree that "natural law" probably is bollocks and the term "natural" seems to be a movable feast.
You have it arse-backwards still. Some here have implied that homosexuality is a “sin” because it’s “unnatural”. Assuming that “unnatural” means “happens in nature”, then the Prof et al have merely pointed out that same sex activity happens in many species – ie, it’s demonstrably “natural”.
This isn’t an appeal to nature at all – it’s just the falsification of a bad idea that some homophobes attempt to justify their homophobia.
PS Any news yet on whether you now grasp that a distaste for something doesn’t also make you phobic about it?
-
No, there's a definite appeal to nature here,from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.
I agree that "natural law" probably is bollocks and the term "natural" seems to be a movable feast.
No, you're not thinking it through. They thought that in using the term 'natural law' which you don't believe you were using an appeal to nature fallacy. One of the ways of pounting that out is by saying that things that are natural are opposee by the person who committed the fallacy. Which they did.
Of course, if might help discussiin if people didn't make arguments that they think are 'bollicks' and appear to have no understanding of.
-
If the Catholic church makes the argument that homosexuality is in some way 'unnatural', how does showing that it's in fact something that occurs broadly in the natural world 'the naturalistic fallacy'? It's not making a claim to justify an assertion, it's countering a claim by showing that what it says is invalid.
If you are saying that no appeal to the natural world can be used to justify behaviour or the opposite I agree
Again, you've failed to make an actual argument, and just tried to assert that you're right.
I'm asserting that we can't appeal to the natural world to say what is good or bad , for reasons I've previously outlined. In short science does not give us any clues of what is moral and what isn't
From their website (https://corporate.graingerplc.co.uk/investors/governance/approach-risk), the Grainger approach seems to be "Our risk management framework is designed to identify the principal risks to our business and ensure that they are being appropriately monitored, suitable controls are in place and the required actions have clear ownership and accountability." I don't see the relevance.
Wrong Grainger I'm afraid. I'm talking of Mr Grainger of Grace Brothers department who on the subject of sexuality famously stated that "What you do with your pussy Mrs Slocombe is no concern of mine".
-
Vlad,
You have it arse-backwards still. Some here have implied that homosexuality is a “sin” because it’s “unnatural”. Assuming that “unnatural” means “happens in nature”, then the Prof et al have merely pointed out that same sex activity happens in many species – ie, it’s demonstrably “natural”.
This isn’t an appeal to nature at all – it’s just the falsification of a bad idea that some homophobes attempt to justify their homophobia.
PS Any news yet on whether you now grasp that a distaste for something doesn’t also make you phobic about it?
I don't think the Catholic church is thinking of a natural order in the same sense you might be.
It sees it as the created order where morality is part of the creation of man and his fall rather than mankind being merely an evolved ape and just a kit of inherited parts.
-
Vlad,
I don't think the Catholic church is thinking of a natural order in the same sense you might be.
It sees it as the created order where morality is part of the creation of man and his fall rather than mankind being merely an evolved ape and just a kit of inherited parts.
Whoosh!
Try reading what I actually explained to you rather than straw manning me about what the Catholic church may or may not think.
-
Vlad,
Whoosh!
Try reading what I actually explained to you rather than straw manning me about what the Catholic church may or may not think.
In one sense Vlad's post is valid, when he posted about the RC Church and natural law (which he now says he thinks is bollocks), posters replied as if it was an appeal to nature fallacy. It isn't, and I pointed that out to Outrider at the time.
Vlad then made the same mistake as Sroram earlier in reading replies pointing out the issues with the appeal to nature as if they were an appeal to nature. He continues to make the mistake.
-
If you are saying that no appeal to the natural world can be used to justify behaviour or the opposite I agree
Don't tell us, tell the Catholic Church, and associated Christians, who complain that homosexuality is 'unnatural'.
In short science does not give us any clues of what is moral and what isn't
Neither does religion, typically - lists of arbitrary rules aren't a clue to morality even on the occasions when the coincide.
Wrong Grainger I'm afraid. I'm talking of Mr Grainger of Grace Brothers department who on the subject of sexuality famously stated that "What you do with your pussy Mrs Slocombe is no concern of mine".
Again, something you should probably advise the homophobic elements of Christianity (and other religious affiliations) about.
O.
-
NS,
In one sense Vlad's post is valid, when he posted about the RC Church and natural law (which he now says he thinks is bollocks), posters replied as if it was an appeal to nature fallacy. It isn't, and I pointed that out to Outrider at the time.
Vlad then made the same mistake as Sroram earlier in reading replies pointing out the issues with the appeal to nature as if they were an appeal to nature. He continues to make the mistake.
But Vlad's statement that I was responding to was this one:
“No, there's a definite appeal to nature here, from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.” (Reply 300)
The Prof, Outy and Arunt weren’t making an appeal to nature at all so far as I can see.
-
Don't tell us, tell the Catholic Church, and associated Christians, who complain that homosexuality is 'unnatural'.
So I'll be telling catholics and you'll be telling the non religious who complain that homosexuality is unnatural.
Again, something you should probably advise the homophobic elements of Christianity (and other religious affiliations) about.
O.
The priority is for everyone to get saved.
-
Vlad,
So I'll be telling catholics and you'll be telling the non religious who complain that homosexuality is unnatural.
Who might they be then?
The priority is for everyone to get saved.
That's not "the" priority – it's just a priority for those whose blind faith it is.
-
NS,
But Vlad's statement that I was responding to was this one:
“No, there's a definite appeal to nature here, from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.” (Reply 300)
The Prof, Outy and Arunt weren’t making an appeal to nature at all so far as I can see.
Yes, and that's covered by me saying they weren't making an appeal to nature but responding, mistakenly, to what they thought was an appeal to nature with Vlad's raising of 'natural law'.
-
So I'll be telling catholics and you'll be telling the non religious who complain that homosexuality is unnatural.
That's fair. I suspect I'll be finished before you...
The priority is for everyone to get saved.
From the punishment the all-loving god has for those who disobey the arbitrary rules that conflict with the natures he apparently gave them? I think the priority should be to, at a minimum, get a more coherent idea of what a god might actually want if one existed.
O.
-
NS,
But Vlad's statement that I was responding to was this one:
“No, there's a definite appeal to nature here, from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.” (Reply 300)
The Prof, Outy and Arunt weren’t making an appeal to nature at all so far as I can see.
Can't speak for the others but I certainly wasn't making an appeal to nature. My comment on the matter was as follows (reply 16826):
'Sounds like special pleading to me - so it would be straight back with 'why is it un-natural in one species but not in another?. Onus on those making the claim (that something natural in one species isn't in another species) to justify that claim.'
So if I was making any appeal it was:
An appeal against special pleading and
An appeal to the principle that the onus is on the person making a claim to justify that claim.
-
Can't speak for the others but I certainly wasn't making an appeal to nature. My comment on the matter was as follows (reply 16826):
'Sounds like special pleading to me - so it would be straight back with 'why is it un-natural in one species but not in another?. Onus on those making the claim (that something natural in one species isn't in another species) to justify that claim.'
So if I was making any appeal it was:
An appeal against special pleading and
An appeal to the principle that the onus is on the person making a claim to justify that claim.
As I attempted to suggest earlier there are different definitions of the term "natural" in play here. To the Catholic the natural order is that morality applies only to humans so other species behaviours are irrelevent and amoral rather than immoral.
To the naturalist, morality is basically irrelevent since they are just talking about behaviours. The naturalists difficulty is the association of the word natural with common and majority behaviour.
Then there is the appeal to nature where goodness or otherwise
of behaviouri s based on whether the behaviour is observed and/ or commonly observed in other species. Purveyors of protomorality IMHO cannot avoid the appeal to nature
-
I await you showing how supernatural claims are not like natural claims is nonsense.
Why would I? That's not the point.
The Christian god is logically incoherent. It cannot exist whether supernatural or not.
Also DU isn't saying that because lots of people are religious that it's true. So you've misunderstood him.
No. He's saying it's not logically incoherent (i.e. it's a possibility we can't rule out) because lots of people believe it to be true.
-
As I attempted to suggest earlier there are different definitions of the term "natural" in play here. To the Catholic the natural order is that morality applies only to humans so other species behaviours are irrelevent and amoral rather than immoral.
So it's a parallel definition of 'natural' just like their parallel definition of morality (sin), because why use language normally when you can keep your own 'special' dictionary and claim that you're therefore infallible whilst making deliberately vague statements in an attempt to justify dreadful institutional homophobia (and misogyny and, historically, racism).
To the naturalist, morality is basically irrelevent since they are just talking about behaviours.
I don't know about 'naturalist', that's more a field of study. To Deontologists the behaviour is not that significant in a moral sense, it's the intention behind it.
The naturalists difficulty is the association of the word natural with common and majority behaviour.
No, the problem here is that Catholicism is trying to redefine 'natural' to exclude the entirety of the rest of nature and claim, without justification, some sort of human exceptionalism that makes us different in quality rather then merely in scale.
Then there is the appeal to nature where goodness or otherwise
Which no-one was making. No-one was saying that it's moral because other creatures do it, they were saying the Catholic stance is in error because can't qualify it as 'unnatural' when it's so prevalent in nature.
O.
-
The naturalists difficulty is the association of the word natural with common and majority behaviour.
Nope - you are confusing uncommon with unnatural - they are completely different things.
And I think if there is anyone that confuses the two then it tends to be those from a religious perspective who often seem to equate a trait which is rare (uncommon) with being unnatural (it isn't necessarily) and immoral.
By constrast I think naturalists are completely comfortable that 'natural' means something that occurs in nature (with unnatural being something that doesn't occur in nature), with uncommon being a completely different thing, specifically the prevalence of the trait in nature.
-
Nope - you are confusing uncommon with unnatural - they are completely different things.
Indeed. It's not like the human race and religions haven't got form for this sort of prejudice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_against_left-handed_people
(Left handed gay person here)
-
Very sinister!
-
So it's a parallel definition of 'natural' just like their parallel definition of morality (sin), because why use language normally when you can keep your own 'special' dictionary and claim that you're therefore infallible whilst making deliberately vague statements in an attempt to justify dreadful institutional homophobia (and misogyny and, historically, racism).
...
O.
I am not a great defender of the RC Church but the tetm natural law isn't about that. In part the confusion is Vlad's presenting badly an idea that he thinks is bollocks, and appears not to understand, which wad taken wrongly by uou amongst others as being an appeal to nature (which ot isn't, though it is bollocks).
-
Why would I? That's not the point.
The Christian god is logically incoherent. It cannot exist whether supernatural or not.
No. He's saying it's not logically incoherent (i.e. it's a possibility we can't rule out) because lots of people believe it to be true.
Why would you? Well since it's the point I've been making which you called nonsense, it would seem better than the straw man you've made.
And that applies to your misinterpretation of DU as well.
-
So it's a parallel definition of 'natural' just like their parallel definition of morality (sin), because why use language normally when you can keep your own 'special' dictionary and claim that you're therefore infallible whilst making deliberately vague statements in an attempt to justify dreadful institutional homophobia (and misogyny and, historically, racism).
I don't know about 'naturalist', that's more a field of study. To Deontologists the behaviour is not that significant in a moral sense, it's the intention behind it.
No, the problem here is that Catholicism is trying to redefine 'natural' to exclude the entirety of the rest of nature and claim, without justification, some sort of human exceptionalism that makes us different in quality rather then merely in scale.
Which no-one was making. No-one was saying that it's moral because other creatures do it, they were saying the Catholic stance is in error because can't qualify it as 'unnatural' when it's so prevalent in nature.
O.
I'm afraid Catholic definitions of nature and morality were around centuries before scientism barged in like a great "twat" declaring imperialistic rights to words.
It's quite simple atheist chums, accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning and stop confusing them.
-
Vlad,
I'm afraid Catholic definitions of nature and morality were around centuries before scientism barged in like a great "twat" declaring imperialistic rights to words.
Scientism - even if anyone here actually argued for it - did no such thing.
It's quite simple atheist chums, accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning...
Yes, but that doesn't give you licence to invent any personal meaning you like and then to use it as a straw man to make your point.
By "bicycle saddles" I actually mean "daffodils". Is the description "Vlad is well-known for sniffing bicycle saddles" therefore ok with you?
Why not?
...and stop confusing them.
The only one here who confuses the terms he attemtps (either unwittingly or wilfully) appears to be you.
-
I'm afraid Catholic definitions of nature and morality were around centuries before scientism barged in like a great "twat" declaring imperialistic rights to words.
And language moves on - if you're going to make the argument now, you need to use the language of the day. If your mission to save souls today, talking to people like they were mediaeval peasants isn't going to be very effective.
It's quite simple atheist chums, accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning and stop confusing them.
It's quite simple, Catholic recidivists. Accept that language moves on and stop acting like it's still the middle-ages... in fact, in general, stop pretending like it's the middle-ages, but particularly with the language.
O.
-
And language moves on - if you're going to make the argument now, you need to use the language of the day. If your mission to save souls today, talking to people like they were mediaeval peasants isn't going to be very effective.
An assumption that seems to be rooted in the fallacy of modernity and linguistic totalitarianism. The same language and concepts are still being used as professional language in the fields of theology and philosophy. Concepts don't automatically have a sell by date like cheese. Only giving people concepts they can understand is patronising guff. Science shouldn't dumb down and neither should other fields.
Religion on the other hand is not totally dependent on the intellectual acquisition of facts or concepts. Which brings us to the totalitarian pseudo ownership of language claimed by scientism, an example par excellence being the appropriation of the term nothing by new atheist scientists like Krauss., who claimed that what people were referring to in the past was an airless vacuum. He failed to realise that philosophers were actually talking about the absence of anything one could think of or possibly think of. That still remains a current philosophical concept.
-
Vlad,
Scientism - even if anyone here actually argued for it - did no such thing.
Yes, but that doesn't give you licence to invent any personal meaning you like and then to use it as a straw man to make your point.
By "bicycle saddles" I actually mean "daffodils". Is the description "Vlad is well-known for sniffing bicycle saddles" therefore ok with you?
Why not?
The only one here who confuses the terms he attemtps (either unwittingly or wilfully) appears to be you.
More projection here than a chain of Imax cinemas
-
An assumption that seems to be rooted in the fallacy of modernity and linguistic totalitarianism.
You're cleaving to an antiquated definition, I'm pointing out that if you want to be understood you have to use language as people use it - if either of us is a 'linguistic totalitarian', it's not me.
The same language and concepts are still being used as professional language in the fields of theology and philosophy.
But these communications aren't being put out for the benefit of theologists and philosophers, they're being put out to the laity.
Concepts don't automatically have a sell by date like cheese.
The point is, though, that if you still call it 'cyse' rather than cheese no-one's going to know you're talking about cheese because that's no longer current usage.
Only giving people concepts they can understand is patronising guff.
You're confusing concepts and the language used to convey them. Whether the concept is outdated is an open question, but whether the language is outdated really isn't.
Science shouldn't dumb down and neither should other fields.
There's a reason your archenemy, Professor Dawkins, held the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science - is there an ecumenical equivalent?
Religion on the other hand is not totally dependent on the intellectual acquisition of facts or concepts.
Quite. The evidence suggests it's dependent on the lack of intellectual acquisition.
Which brings us to the totalitarian pseudo ownership of language claimed by scientism, an example par excellence being the appropriation of the term nothing by new atheist scientists like Krauss., who claimed that what people were referring to in the past was an airless vacuum.
When you talk to people that's what they think 'nothing' is, typically. That's not linguistic totalitarianism, that's understanding current usage.
He failed to realise that philosophers were actually talking about the absence of anything one could think of or possibly think of.
I suspect he didn't forget, he didn't care - he wasn't writing for philosophers, he was writing for the general public. His scientific papers spell out what he means in more technical language because that's the appropriate language for that format.
O.
-
Vlad,
An assumption that seems to be rooted in the fallacy of modernity and linguistic totalitarianism. The same language and concepts are still being used as professional language in the fields of theology and philosophy. Concepts don't automatically have a sell by date like cheese.
More drivel. Concepts may not, but language can do. Unless you communicate using language and meanings that are understandable in ordinary dialogue to the other party discussion is impossible. It’s no use for example describing someone as “nice” and intending the meaning as Chaucer would have understood it (ie that the person is a right bastard) unless you also share your anachronistic (or, in your case, often just plain wrong – see your personal re-definition of "methodological naturalism" for example) versions of the meanings you intend.
Only giving people concepts they can understand is patronising guff. Science shouldn't dumb down and neither should other fields.
No-ones suggesting dumbing down. What you’re being told instead though is that wilful or ignorant obscurantism is the enemy of dialogue, not its friend.
Religion on the other hand is not totally dependent on the intellectual acquisition of facts or concepts.
Yes – it relies on a great deal of guessing that it gussies up with the term “faith” too.
Which brings us to the totalitarian pseudo ownership of language claimed by scientism,…
No it doesn’t, and you should stop lying about that. “Scientism” (even if anyone actually argued for it) has nothing to say about linguistics.
…an example par excellence being the appropriation of the term nothing by new atheist scientists like Krauss., who claimed that what people were referring to in the past was an airless vacuum. He failed to realise that philosophers were actually talking about the absence of anything one could think of or possibly think of. That still remains a current philosophical concept.
Wrong again. What he actually did was to write for a non-specialist audience using terms and meanings in common usage. There’s no “totalitarianism” there at all, despite your continued abuse of that term.
-
Vlad,
More projection here than a chain of Imax cinemas
That’s very Trumpian. No matter how well reasoned and evidenced the corrections of your multiple mistakes you’re given, rather than deal with the problem by engaging with it you just accuse the person schooling you of your own mistakes with no reasoning or evidence of your own at all while you scurry away ready to return another day with exactly the same mistakes.
What do you get from this behaviour?
-
I'll just leave this here for no particular reason:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/28/humpback-whales-sex-photographed-homosexual-behavior
-
Arun,
I'll just leave this here for no particular reason:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/28/humpback-whales-sex-photographed-homosexual-behavior
Yes I saw that. Apparently when they decoded their whale songs they were show tunes too!
(Look, can I just apologise sincerely for that disgraceful barely joke that ignorantly reduced same sex participants to a lazy cliche when I actually don't doubt for one moment that both whales were complex and nuanced beings about whom far more interesting things can be said than their musical preferences? I'm a work in progress. What can I say?)
-
Another profound testimony from a Gay man who met Jesus - deeply moving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMLoCduHgx4
I refer you to my reply number 6 on this thread
-
I refer you to my reply number 6 on this thread
NS,
I have just removed this post because I discovered another video with almost identical dialogue but with a different voice and using a different name for his partner - suggesting it may be a fake, so my apologies for that.
-
NS,
I have just removed this post because I discovered another video with almost identical dialogue but with a different voice and using a different name for his partner - suggesting it may be a fake, so my apologies for that.
Kudos for your honesty, Alan.