Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not an excuse to turn away from anything the church says, it is a bloody good reason to. It's why I gave up my vocation, my place on church councils and eventually my membership of the CofE, long before I lost my faith. It isn't simply about homosexuality (the software filter allows me to say that at least), it is that the homosexuality issue illustrates so much about the close-mindedness, the prejudice, the sheer nastiness of the church. As you rightly say, the church recognised the wrongness of slavery in spite of it being clearly condoned in the Bible, and yet refuses to budge on the gay issue. Why do you think that is?

Clearly condoned in the NT? That is an inaccuracy on your part.
That many in Secular British society condone it is clear as this runs into thousands.
Your experience of Churches is not my experience. Secular prejudice and sheer nastiness is...from many people I know who would have started with hippy ideals and then abandoned them....thus underlining an inability to stick to high ideals through one's own efforts.

As for the Gay issue the refusal to budge on the Gay issue (presumably marriage) is simple. It just doesn't move that fast and that is often a good thing. Let's face it until recently Gay marriage was a non issue. Also there has for the C of E no clear divine call for change. A secular call yes, legislation, yes but do we not have gay marriage because Cameron wanted to increase his constituency.

Since we are a secular society, Secularists wishing to stick one on the church can have what they want within reason although they shouldn't expect a free ride and I accept that. If you want a C of E marriage I'm afraid there are conditions.

[BeRational]

It is clearly condoned, and even tells you how to keep a Jewish slave for life, by giving him a wife whilst a slave.

He would be free to leave, but can keep his wife and publicly have a spike driven through his ear to signify that he is now a slave for life.

I understand you might not like these facts, but you must not ignore them, as it makes you look dishonest.

Slavery is clearly condoned in the bible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is clearly condoned, and even tells you how to keep a Jewish slave for life, by giving him a wife whilst a slave.

He would be free to leave, but can keep his wife and publicly have a spike driven through his ear to signify that he is now a slave for life.

I understand you might not like these facts, but you must not ignore them, as it makes you look dishonest.

Slavery is clearly condoned in the bible.

I was talking about the NT.
Of course the UK government voices it's usual 'condemnation' but somehow thousands find themselves at the wrong end of modern slavery.

[BeRational]

I was talking about the NT.
Of course the UK government voices it's usual 'condemnation' but somehow thousands find themselves at the wrong end of modern slavery.

So you ignore the old testament?

Did Jesus ignore the old testament?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you ignore the old testament?

Did Jesus ignore the old testament?

I ignore the OT wherever the NT calls on me to update.

[Sebastian Toe]

I was talking about the NT.

Why....
Col 4:1

Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.


...and not something like,
Masters find a way to free your slaves for you know that you also have a Master in heaven who will surely free your soul.......?

[Rhiannon]

I ignore the OT wherever the NT calls on me to update.

The Pauline texts on slavery were used by abolitionists and supporters of slavery alike. Remind us what Jesus said about slavery again?

As an aside, no the gay issue isn't just gay marriage. It is the expectation that gay couples and gay clergy should be celibate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Pauline texts on slavery were used by abolitionists and supporters of slavery alike. Remind us what Jesus said about slavery again?

As an aside, no the gay issue isn't just gay marriage. It is the expectation that gay couples and gay clergy should be celibate.

Because they don't believe in sex before marriage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since we are a secular society, Secularists wishing to stick one on the church...

"Secularists" don't want that - that's just your paranoia. What secularism actually entails is the separation of church and state.

... can have what they want within reason...

"What they want" is for religious of people of any faith not to expect their beliefs to be given privileged status in the public square.

... although they shouldn't expect a free ride...

Yes "they" should.

...and I accept that. If you want a C of E marriage I'm afraid there are conditions.

No-one wants a "C of E Marriage" at all (nor indeed an Islam marriage, a Zoroastrian marriage, a Norse gods marriage, a....) so there are no conditions. What secular societies actually want is indifference to the content of any religious beliefs, while protecting the rights of those who have them to think and practice however they wish.

 

[Rhiannon]

Because they don't believe in sex before marriage.

No, that isn't true. They expect gay couples who have civil marriages to abstain. This requirement isn't there for straight couples with civil marriage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because they don't believe in sex before marriage.

While at the same time refusing to permit the marriage of gay people.

Does the phrase "rigged game" ring any bells?

[torridon]

Maybe that is why talk of 'matter' is rather old hat.  Maybe to understand consciousness we need to think past mere matter and learn to think in information terms.  The leading theory in consciousness research after all is 'integrated information theory'.

Information is not information until it is perceived.  Without conscious human perception, information is meaningless.

That's 'information' in the everyday sense. I thought you would understand from the above I was using the term in the more profound way it is used in science.  Information exchange happens all the time at all levels throughout physics, we do not say it is meaningless simply because it does not amount to some or other phenomenon such as 'perception' which is at a much higher level of complexity of information exchange.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

While at the same time refusing to permit the marriage of gay people.

As far as I know Gay marriages are perfectly legal...whereas heterosexual partnerships aren't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As far as I know Gay marriages are perfectly legal...whereas heterosexual partnerships aren't.

Not in C of E establishments they're not. As I understand it, their position is: "We won't officiate at your marriage, and we'll sit in judgment on you if you have sex without being married".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No-one wants a "C of E Marriage" at all .

So what's the problem?

[Aruntraveller]

As far as I know Gay marriages are perfectly legal...whereas heterosexual partnerships aren't.

Again - still. Give it up for goodness sake.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So what's the problem?

The problem is that it was your claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not in C of E establishments they're not. As I understand it, they're position is: "We won't officiate at your marriage, and we'll sit in judgment on you if you have sex without being married".

Yes...That is the current arrangement.

As far as the position is too. We won't let you have a civil partnership at all...So shut the fuck up. See Trentvoyagers piece on that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes...That is the current arrangement.

And you're OK with that?

As far as the position is too. We won't let you have a civil partnership at all...So shut the fuck up. See Trentvoyagers piece on that.

You're clearly trying to communicate something here, but there's no telling what it might be. Any thoughts?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And you're OK with that?

Oh fuck. Hillsides got his Grand inquisitor hat.
My position on this as far as you are concerned has been placed on these pages several times before.

Given that Gay marriage is a comparatively recent phenomenon the main motive for moving it amongst antitheists is as part of a campaign of linguistic piracy and engineering an apparent moral advantage in order to stick one on the church.

Gays are allowed civil legal marriage and I do not oppose that.

Some churches perform the ceremony and I am not against that.

That Antitheists are still not happy and wish to suppress the argument for heterosexual civil partnerships (see Trentvoyagers post) confirms my suspicions of the motives I have already outlined.

[Aruntraveller]

To be clear I do not oppose heterosexual civil partnerships and never have. It's just that you drag it out at every verse end to accuse antitheists of being in some kind of conspiracy to stop heterosexuals having that choice.

ITS THE GOVERNMENT STUPID

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh fuck. Hillsides got his Grand inquisitor hat.

Asking a question isn’t being a “Grand Inquisitor” – it’s just asking a question.

My position on this as far as you are concerned has been placed on these pages several times before.

Given that Gay marriage is a comparatively recent phenomenon the main motive for moving it amongst antitheists is as part of a campaign of linguistic piracy and engineering an apparent moral advantage in order to stick one on the church.

Dear god man but you’ve got the paranoia thing reeeeal bad haven’t you. It’s got nothing to do with, “antitheists”, “linguistic piracy” or “sticking one” on anyone. Have a cup of teas and calm yersel’ down willya? What it actually is is just some people thinking that societies work better when they operate equally rather than on a discriminatory basis. 

That’s it. Really, that’s it.

Gays are allowed civil legal marriage and I do not oppose that.

That’s big of you. What about the established church refusing it though?

Some churches perform the ceremony and I am not against that.

C of E churches?

That Antitheists….

NOOOOOOOOO!

…are still not happy and wish to suppress the argument for heterosexual civil partnerships (see Trentvoyagers post) confirms my suspicions of the motives I have already outlined.

No-one is trying to “suppress” anything you banana! What some people actually do is to argue for equal rather than discriminatory behaviour, and they comment too on the sheer bloody hypocrisy of a club with presumptions of the moral high ground refusing the former while at the same time vilifying sex between people who aren’t married!

If the established church wants to disestablish and instead become a sort of private members’ club, then in my view they should be free to say and practice whatever they like subject to the law of the land. If they remain inextricably bound up with the apparatus of state though, my view is that they should be obliged to operate as the rest of that apparatus operates.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To be clear I do not oppose heterosexual civil partnerships and never have.

Can you indicate where I have said you oppose this.

I talked about suppressing the argument which you appeared to be doing in your post.

[Alan Burns]

Information is not information until it is perceived.  Without conscious human perception, information is meaningless.

That's 'information' in the everyday sense. I thought you would understand from the above I was using the term in the more profound way it is used in science.  Information exchange happens all the time at all levels throughout physics, we do not say it is meaningless simply because it does not amount to some or other phenomenon such as 'perception' which is at a much higher level of complexity of information exchange.

The concept of "information exchange" is entirely derived from the conscious awareness of human beings.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive something which we can label as "information" and then our conscious observation is used to track its movement or dissipation.  Take away our awareness and everything is just basic material particles reacting with each other.  Any complexity is labelled as such only in our human awareness.

[Aruntraveller]

Can you indicate where I have said you oppose this.

I talked about suppressing the argument which you appeared to be doing in your post.

Nope just trying to suppress you from making the same ridiculous assertion yet again. Nothing to do with antitheists - all to do with government will and time to devote to what is seen as a very, very small issue. But by all means try to get the sainted Teresa to take it up as part of her election manifesto. She, after all, appears to have time to waste on whatever takes her fancy. And she is a Christian, or so she claims.

PS I read this as you thinking I was agin it:

That Antitheists are still not happy and wish to suppress the argument for heterosexual civil partnerships (see Trentvoyagers post) confirms my suspicions of the motives I have already outlined.