Religion and Ethics Forum

I find them quite clear.
The 7th commandment forbids sex outside marriage.
And Jesus confirms that the sacrament of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Let's just examine that text at Matthew 17:12 a little more closely then:

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

It is quite clear in the first two instances that Jesus is referring quite literally to men without testicles: the first due to God's expert handiwork , the second due to the intervention of other individuals to remove the said appendages from the unfortunate individual. Both the first kind could equally adopt a 'psychological' state of being a eunuch, i.e. celibacy. That of course is how the text has been traditionally interpreted for the final instance. Why give two examples of literal lack of testicles and then expect his followers not to take him literally?
If you say that it quite obvious that a figurative meaning is implied, I then put it to you that expecting people to believe that the sacred Host is transformed into the literal body of Christ during the mass is a brass-necked example of double-think. Really trying to have your Jesus and eating him too.

Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.

Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.

Not having special privileges for religion is not favouring humanism or atheism. And given that no one has suggested doing so, then stop lying about what they say.

But not a simple of the 'secular' lords are appointed automatically on the basis of their position in another organisation. All need to be nominated, considered and if thought suitable, then appointed.

I have no issue with individuals who are Bishops (or indeed clergy in whatever church or other religious organisation) being nominated, assessed and appointed to the Lords, provided the process is that same as for everyone else.

The issue here is one of special privileges that are not (and realistically could not as we'd end up with a Lords with tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of members) be applied consistently to other organisations.

Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.

Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.

That's not what the article says.

The article says that an extra 50,000 pensioners will be put into relative poverty which is defined as having less than 60% of the median income.

Was going to make the same point.

People can drop into, or move out of, relative poverty on the basis of changes in national median income even if their financial position doesn't change one iota.

But there are further reasons why relative poverty is particularly unhelpful for people over 65 as it is calculated on 60% of total median income and doesn't take account of housing costs which are typically way, way less for the over 65s than younger groups. I've seen some recent data which shows that when housing costs are removed, then over 65s are the least likely age group to be in relative poverty.

But there are more factors - specifically deductions. Most age groups need to pay NI at source, while those over 65 don't so their effective tax rate is lower. Add to that that many of the younger age groups are now having further deductions at source for student loans and that's before you might add in costs of supporting children etc.

So matched income for income, over 65s will have much higher disposable income than other age groups and I would suspect that an over 65 person at the relative poverty threshold (the people that this article focusses on) is probably as wealthy (if not more) in terms of disposable income compared to someone in a younger age group on national median income.

That isn't to say that there aren't pensioners in genuine absolute poverty, but that using relative poverty is a particularly bad metric in this case.

And Again there are 1432 secular lords and MPs. Including782 secular Lords against 26 Spiritual Lords.

The 'it's only a little bit biased' argument. I said it wasn't a high priority of mine, in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a situation that appears to be a blatant sop to a particular religious viewpoint at the expense of everyone else, and so is not justifiable. Your 'it's not much' is effectively a tacit admission of that.

Your fears seem to be based on secular superstition rather than data.

Which is why you asked for data? Or is it because now that you've been given the data it serves you to ignore it?

Then there is the question of whether a notional minuscule input is invariably bad or good.

No, there really isn't. Whether you agree or disagree with their voting record is irrelevant, the problem is that they have a reserved place for one particular sect of spellcasters, when no-one else does. It's special treatment, it's a double-helping that hasn't been justified.

I'm particularly exercised because they so regularly vote against the principles I'd espouse, but my argument against their inclusion isn't that I disagree with their stance, it's that I disagree with the notion that they should get to have a stance when everyone else instead gets to have the opportunity to write to a Lord of their choice.

O.