Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that the split between politician/religious person doesn't quite work. Politicians are often religious and may be taking action for 'religious reasons', a religious figure could be taking actions for political reasons.

The 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland had political and religious reasons intertwined, as do many other conflicts, and wars. I'm baffled that some people think they can be separated out, or that they don't arise from the same basic traits of humanity.

Agreed. I was not suggesting that people are either acting from religious motivations or political ones. My point was that whatever the motivation or mix of motivations for a person's actions, the belief that what they are doing is right or wrong is not based on purely measurable stats.

Hence, one person can hold the belief that killing tens of thousands of civilians including children and medics in Gaza is right in order to try to achieve a certain military objective, and someone else can believe that it is wrong. Being able to quantify the number of dead and injured has not helped in terms of the belief of right and wrong in the political issue of whether the UK economy and UK citizens should forgo the economic benefit of selling arms to Israel to bomb civilians or whether the UK should express political support for Israel both in government statements and by selling Israel weapons.

[Alan Burns]

Quite a step from opposing promiscuity to condemning all same-sex relationships.
"Our maker" has given an extremely variable set of instructions depending on where you dip into your holy 'book'. St Paul seems to have suggested it would be better to stay single. Jesus himself gave some very odd instructions, apart from the instance when he was forbidding divorce. He too seems to have suggested that celibacy was a higher state of spirituality, and even (taking him literally) advocated self-castration for males. You may argue that in the latter case he was obviously speaking metaphorically, but the great scholar Origen thought otherwise, and applied the knife. His example is not unique: the Russian sect of the Skoptzi were still insisting on self-castration well into the 20th century.
Trouble is, your God's 'instructions' are anything but clear, and it's about time you realised this.

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

And that's why your Bible's rules about sex are stupid.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Religions substantially concern themselves with what their various gods supposedly do and do not want the faithful to do. Whether these gods actually do want the faithful to do or not to do these things (and whether those gods even exist at all) is unknowable. There’s nothing to test or measure about that.

Agreed that this particular aspect of religion can't be tested -  yes religion concerns itself with a higher power/ spiritual consciousness/ something greater than human thinking, which it claims links purpose and meaning to human actions.

But other abstract concepts e.g. freedom, responsibilities, duty, integrity, identity, morality i.e. an individual's control of their desires and instincts and the regulation of society by characterising certain actions as right or wrong are common to religion and politics.

Politics on the other hand says that you will live longer, be happier, be more secure, be more literate, be more whatever if various real world events happen or don’t happen (see the manifesto extracts I linked to for examples). These claims by contrast are testable and measurable.

Testable metrics would be meaningless without politics also concerning itself with freedom, responsibilities, duty, integrity, identity, morality etc. i.e. the same abstract concepts as religion minus the woo.

We currently have a lot of political time spent on identity, for example in the transgender debate - it's not metrics that deemed that men with a penis who identify as women without having experienced the biological constraints of women should be considered as women in society and given access to women's spaces and sport.

What are the metrics people used to decide whether or not it is right, or even how much wealth and income is fair, for the government to redistribute using benefits and taxes (e.g. inheritance tax, personal tax, corporation tax) so working individuals are compelled to help the unemployed and less well-off?   

Of course there’s an overlap between the two fields, but this substantial difference between them seems undeniable to me.

Except this difference is not meaningful in practice as the overlap is what leads to the UK giving political, economic and military support to governments despite the metrics telling us what the consequences of this support are e.g. that it will cause inflation in food and energy prices e.g. Ukraine v Russia; or despite the metrics telling us that over 40,000 people have been killed by Israeli bombing and denial of food, water, electricity, and 80 percent of all verified Palestinian deaths in Gaza had occurred in Israeli attacks on residential buildings or similar housing, and that children aged five to nine made up the largest group of victims.

Did we have riots against asylum seekers because of metrics or because people believed something that isn't true?         

Abstract thought is fine so far as it goes, but there’s still a fundamental, qualitative difference between “you should do X because that’s my faith” and “you should do Y because the effects can be tested against a set of goals”. Politicians when they’re doing politics largely abjure the former; clerics when they’re evangelising largely rely on it.

That is a very narrow focus and does not cover much of the impact of religious and political ethics on society.

The important difference is that in politics demonstrably bad ideas can be found out and rejected, and better ones sought (think of the disastrous Truss mini budget for example that seemed great to the Tufton Street wonks who spawned it and to the Daily Mail, and then collapsed immediately it met reality). How would you propose to test the idea “God doesn’t want you to go to bed with your boyfriend” by comparison though?

How would you test ideas about what society/ Parliament thinks you should do in terms of sexual or any other type of morality? How do you test how much privately-owned wealth governments should or should not redistribute or how much governments should fund public services or how much immigration is acceptable or how many asylum seekers the UK should accept? Do metrics determine whose freedoms or living standards take priority?

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Agreed that this particular aspect of religion can't be tested -  yes religion concerns itself with a higher power/ spiritual consciousness/ something greater than human thinking, which it claims links purpose and meaning to human actions.

But other abstract concepts e.g. freedom, responsibilities, duty, integrity, identity, morality i.e. an individual's control of their desires and instincts and the regulation of society by characterising certain actions as right or wrong are common to religion and politics.

Testable metrics would be meaningless without politics also concerning itself with freedom, responsibilities, duty, integrity, identity, morality etc. i.e. the same abstract concepts as religion minus the woo.

We currently have a lot of political time spent on identity, for example in the transgender debate - it's not metrics that deemed that men with a penis who identify as women without having experienced the biological constraints of women should be considered as women in society and given access to women's spaces and sport.

What are the metrics people used to decide whether or not it is right, or even how much wealth and income is fair, for the government to redistribute using benefits and taxes (e.g. inheritance tax, personal tax, corporation tax) so working individuals are compelled to help the unemployed and less well-off?   

Except this difference is not meaningful in practice as the overlap is what leads to the UK giving political, economic and military support to governments despite the metrics telling us what the consequences of this support are e.g. that it will cause inflation in food and energy prices e.g. Ukraine v Russia; or despite the metrics telling us that over 40,000 people have been killed by Israeli bombing and denial of food, water, electricity, and 80 percent of all verified Palestinian deaths in Gaza had occurred in Israeli attacks on residential buildings or similar housing, and that children aged five to nine made up the largest group of victims.

Did we have riots against asylum seekers because of metrics or because people believed something that isn't true?         

That is a very narrow focus and does not cover much of the impact of religious and political ethics on society.

How would you test ideas about what society/ Parliament thinks you should do in terms of sexual or any other type of morality? How do you test how much privately-owned wealth governments should or should not redistribute or how much governments should fund public services or how much immigration is acceptable or how many asylum seekers the UK should accept? Do metrics determine whose freedoms or living standards take priority?

I think you’re not getting it still. Both religion and politics make claims about outcomes – “behave as our god wants and you’ll be rewarded (and not condemned) in an afterlife”, and “behave as our arguments dictate, and you’ll be rewarded in this life” respectively. For the former the desired outcome is an eternity of harp music and non-fattening pizza in heaven, for the latter the reward is better health, longer life expectancy, greater wealth, improved security etc. There is of course some overlap too – the religious will sometimes say something like “follow these rules and you’ll be happier in this life for doing so”, and politicians will sometimes say something like “morally this is the better way to behave” but to a great extent the two categories of claim are different inasmuch as they’re non-verifiable in practice and verifiable in practice respectively.

This doesn’t seem to me be a particularly controversial point to make by the way.           

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

It’s a rigged game though isn’t it. First the rules prohibit same sex marriage, and then they say sex outside of marriage is sinful. What then are gay people supposed to do, and what the hell business is it of your religion to pronounce on that issue in any case? 

[Outrider]

What consequences/benefits has promiscuity brought to our society?
STDs

STD's are not caused by promiscuity, although their spread can be increased by it. We have methods to limit that, of course, but there is religious opposition to those, often, as well.

the break up of family life.

Sex outside of a notionally monogamous marriage is not a cause of relationship breakdown, it's a symptom of it. The 'breakdown of traditional family life' comes not as a result of sex outside of marriage but as a result of not societally trapping women (typically) in relationships for life. If traditional relationship structures are only viable when one party is trapped in them, the traditional structure needs to change.

the enormous cost of supporting one parent families and destitute children.

If that was that much of a problem you'd presumably be in support of codifying gay relationships where not only are unsupported children not likely, but you have a supply of childless couples who could support 'destitute children'.

the mental breakdown of so many people who fail to live up to the so called norms of modern aspirations.

As opposed to the mental breakdown of people ostracised by the in-group think of formal religion, and the mental suffering of people masking their true self in order to fit in with restrictive societal expectations. Are people genuinely less happy, or are we just better at being open about it and supporting people?

Would it not be so much better to simply follow our maker's instructions?

Keep slaves, stone rape victims or marry them off to their rapists, subjugate women, and swear off van Dykes, seafood and polycotton? No. No it wouldn't be better. Frankly it's disturbing that you'd even ask the question.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I think you’re not getting it still. Both religion and politics make claims about outcomes – “behave as our god wants and you’ll be rewarded (and not condemned) in an afterlife”, and “behave as our arguments dictate, and you’ll be rewarded in this life” respectively. For the former the desired outcome is an eternity of harp music and non-fattening pizza in heaven, for the latter the reward is better health, longer life expectancy, greater wealth, improved security etc. There is of course some overlap too – the religious will sometimes say something like “follow these rules and you’ll be happier in this life for doing so”, and politicians will sometimes say something like “morally this is the better way to behave” but to a great extent the two categories of claim are different inasmuch as they’re non-verifiable in practice and verifiable in practice respectively.

This doesn’t seem to me be a particularly controversial point to make by the way.           

I think I am getting it since I agreed with your point that claims about what gods want / will reward/ if they exist - can't be tested and are different from verifiable claims i.e. ones that can be measured.

Where we disagree is your notion that the non-religious in society e.g. non-religious voters and politicians aren't influenced by abstract concepts that impact society as much as abstract concepts influence religious people and impact society. Both groups interpret ideas that they have come across about culture, history, ethics etc to come up with abstract concepts of values that are right or wrong for society.

Inserting "God thinks" before "we should" in the sentence "I think we should... bomb the Arabs/ Russians/ Ukrainians/ Israelis" for example... doesn't change the impact of the action on society. Clearly there are wars going on and people predicting dire consequences if these wars aren't continued that have nothing to do with claims about an after-life.

You think politicians sometimes say this is morally better. Whereas I see them spend a lot of time talking about the different values voters want to see upheld in society especially in relation to state intervention and social issues - abstract concepts about human rights, authoritarianism, liberalism, free markets, free speech, patriotism, racism, privilege, bias, tolerance, inclusion, privacy, freedom, preservation of way of life, rule of law, fairness, equality, social inequality, exploitation, self-interest.

Both religious and non-religious might spin metrics as evidence of the values the government is seeking or should be seeking to uphold but the values themselves are based on abstract concepts rather than metrics. Hence as I pointed out, there can be a metric about thousands of civilians killed by bombing residential areas and a society's values might view this as the right thing to do. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I think I am getting it since I agreed with your point that claims about what gods want / will reward/ if they exist - can't be tested and are different from verifiable claims i.e. ones that can be measured.

Where we disagree is your notion that the non-religious in society e.g. non-religious voters and politicians aren't influenced by abstract concepts that impact society as much as abstract concepts influence religious people and impact society. Both groups interpret ideas that they have come across about culture, history, ethics etc to come up with abstract concepts of values that are right or wrong for society.

Inserting "God thinks" before "we should" in the sentence "I think we should... bomb the Arabs/ Russians/ Ukrainians/ Israelis" for example... doesn't change the impact of the action on society. Clearly there are wars going on and people predicting dire consequences if these wars aren't continued that have nothing to do with claims about an after-life.

You think politicians sometimes say this is morally better. Whereas I see them spend a lot of time talking about the different values voters want to see upheld in society especially in relation to state intervention and social issues - abstract concepts about human rights, authoritarianism, liberalism, free markets, free speech, patriotism, racism, privilege, bias, tolerance, inclusion, privacy, freedom, preservation of way of life, rule of law, fairness, equality, social inequality, exploitation, self-interest.

Both religious and non-religious might spin metrics as evidence of the values the government is seeking or should be seeking to uphold but the values themselves are based on abstract concepts rather than metrics. Hence as I pointed out, there can be a metric about thousands of civilians killed by bombing residential areas and a society's values might view this as the right thing to do.

No. Try two examples:

1. The God of the OT says, “slaughter the Canaanite men, women and children because their behaviour is sinful”. The Jews accept that as an article of faith and slay the Canaanites.

2. Netanyahu says, “kill the Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza because that way we may also exterminate Hezbollah and in any case our retribution for the October 7 killings will be so terrible that they’ll never attempt the same thing again”.

In both cases, as you note, lots of innocent people end up dead. In the former case though, the faith claim is the beginning and the end of the matter – there’s no way to know if the God of the OT is real and nor, even if "He" is, whether his instructions are faithfully written in a text. There's no particular, real world outcome other than delivering on the article of faith.     

In the second case though, either it works or it doesn’t – ie, either Hezbollah regroups and attacks again, or they never again try it. 

Note too that in the second case there’s no overt reference to a moral or philosophical imperative (which is all there is in the first case). Instead there’s a claim to a pragmatic, real world solution that demonstrably after the slaughter can be shown to have worked or not (regardless of how morally contemptible you or I think it to be whether or not it achieves its objective).

This difference clearly is a difference no matter how much you try to obfuscate that, and I happen to think it’s quite an important one too.     

[Nearly Sane]

VG,

No. Try two examples:

1. The God of the OT says, “slaughter the Canaanite men, women and children because their behaviour is sinful”. The Jews accept that as an article of faith and slay the Canaanites.

2. Netanyahu says, “kill the Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza because that way we may also exterminate Hezbollah and in any case our retribution for the October 7 killings will be so terrible that they’ll never attempt the same thing again”.

In both cases, as you note, lots of innocent people end up dead. In the former case though, the faith claim is the beginning and the end of the matter – there’s no way to know if the God of the OT is real and nor, even if "He" is, whether his instructions are faithfully written in a text. There's no particular, real world outcome other than delivering on the article of faith.     

In the second case though, either it works or it doesn’t – ie, either Hezbollah regroups and attacks again, or they never again try it. 

Note too that in the second case there’s no overt reference to a moral or philosophical imperative (which is all there is in the first case). Instead there’s a claim to a pragmatic, real world solution that demonstrably after the slaughter can be shown to have worked or not (regardless of how morally contemptible you or I think it to be whether or not it achieves its objective).

This difference clearly is a difference no matter how much you try to obfuscate that, and I happen to think it’s quite an important one too.   

You're really going to go with Netanyahu isn't in his general rhetoric appealing to morality? That it's merely housekeeping.? If you think he isn't you are either an idiot or a liar. The idea of the 'self defense' that he touts is based on morality. We continue to sell weapons to Israel because the govt thinks it is right morally to do so.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No. Try two examples:

1. The God of the OT says, “slaughter the Canaanite men, women and children because their behaviour is sinful”. The Jews accept that as an article of faith and slay the Canaanites.

2. Netanyahu says, “kill the Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza because that way we may also exterminate Hezbollah and in any case our retribution for the October 7 killings will be so terrible that they’ll never attempt the same thing again”.

In both cases, as you note, lots of innocent people end up dead. In the former case though, the faith claim is the beginning and the end of the matter – there’s no way to know if the God of the OT is real and nor, even if "He" is, whether his instructions are faithfully written in a text. There's no particular, real world outcome other than delivering on the article of faith.     

In the second case though, either it works or it doesn’t – ie, either Hezbollah regroups and attacks again, or they never again try it. 

Note too that in the second case there’s no overt reference to a moral or philosophical imperative (which is all there is in the first case). Instead there’s a claim to a pragmatic, real world solution that demonstrably after the slaughter can be shown to have worked or not (regardless of how morally contemptible you or I think it to be whether or not it achieves its objective).

This difference clearly is a difference no matter how much you try to obfuscate that, and I happen to think it’s quite an important one too.   

You keep mentioning you think it's an important difference without ever explaining why you think it's important.

You're comparing a Bible story with a real event? Bible stories, like many religious stories are brief illustrations to make a religious point rather than historically accurate descriptions to be taken literally. Why not pick a real world event to illustrate your point about faith claims.

Are you suggesting with your Netanyahu example and the support he has from Western governments that Israel and its allies don't consider morality or values to be important in their decision to bomb civilians? It is just an academic exercise in recording metrics on how much bombing will allow a country to make an area so uninhabitable that it can ensure there is no resistance to illegal military occupation? Why is that demonstrating the superiority of making decisions based on metrics rather than religion?

The Israelis (supported by their foreign allies) have been bombing, killing and abducting tens of thousands of Palestinians for decades and it hasn't worked in ending resistance to Israel's illegal military occupation. They blockaded Gaza since 2007 turning it into the largest "open air prison" and it didn't work. All that happened was that other countries supporting Israel became targets for terrorism. So why are they ignoring metrics and continuing to do what hasn't worked in the past?

The US bombed and killed thousands of civilians during its War on Terror https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-civilian-casualties-iraq-afghanistan-b1912816.html - it didn't work in ending the Taliban.

Sanctions on Iraq and mass bombing of civilian infrastructure killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - ok the US got some oil revenue out of it and US taxpayers spent trillions killing people so it worked in terms of making some private US companies very rich. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-war-bush-twentieth-anniversary-b2302031.html

The US also bombed and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese - it didn't work in ending Vietcong resistance.

The metrics you might want to look at is how much money are weapons manufacturers earning and how long  Netanyahu can delay his criminal trial by prolonging and extending the war -  to avoid facing up to corruption charges and prison.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-rejects-netanyahus-request-to-delay-testimony-in-criminal-trial/

Netanyahu’s defense team requested the delay because it said the prime minister has been unable to prepare for giving testimony, set to begin on December 2, due to the time pressures of managing the current, multi-front conflict.

I still don't get the "important" difference you are trying to highlight. What is the important difference between religious claims and people seemingly ignoring metrics and making decisions based on wishful thinking and their human psychotic urge to kill lots of people?

[jeremyp]

You keep mentioning you think it's an important difference without ever explaining why you think it's important.

You're comparing a Bible story with a real event? Bible stories, like many religious stories are brief illustrations to make a religious point rather than historically accurate descriptions to be taken literally. Why not pick a real world event to illustrate your point about faith claims.

Are you suggesting with your Netanyahu example and the support he has from Western governments that Israel and its allies don't consider morality or values to be important in their decision to bomb civilians? It is just an academic exercise in recording metrics on how much bombing will allow a country to make an area so uninhabitable that it can ensure there is no resistance to illegal military occupation? Why is that demonstrating the superiority of making decisions based on metrics rather than religion?

The Israelis (supported by their foreign allies) have been bombing, killing and abducting tens of thousands of Palestinians for decades and it hasn't worked in ending resistance to Israel's illegal military occupation. They blockaded Gaza since 2007 turning it into the largest "open air prison" and it didn't work. All that happened was that other countries supporting Israel became targets for terrorism. So why are they ignoring metrics and continuing to do what hasn't worked in the past?

The US bombed and killed thousands of civilians during its War on Terror https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-civilian-casualties-iraq-afghanistan-b1912816.html - it didn't work in ending the Taliban.

Sanctions on Iraq and mass bombing of civilian infrastructure killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - ok the US got some oil revenue out of it and US taxpayers spent trillions killing people so it worked in terms of making some private US companies very rich. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-war-bush-twentieth-anniversary-b2302031.html

The US also bombed and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese - it didn't work in ending Vietcong resistance.

The metrics you might want to look at is how much money are weapons manufacturers earning and how long  Netanyahu can delay his criminal trial by prolonging and extending the war -  to avoid facing up to corruption charges and prison.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-rejects-netanyahus-request-to-delay-testimony-in-criminal-trial/

Netanyahu’s defense team requested the delay because it said the prime minister has been unable to prepare for giving testimony, set to begin on December 2, due to the time pressures of managing the current, multi-front conflict.

I still don't get the "important" difference you are trying to highlight. What is the important difference between religious claims and people seemingly ignoring metrics and making decisions based on wishful thinking and their human psychotic urge to kill lots of people?

That's a gross distortion of the Palestinian situation. For one thing, Israel can't turn Gaza into an "open air prison" by itself. Gaza has a border with Egypt and a coastline.

Anyway, that's all off topic for this thread, so I'll say no more.

[Nearly Sane]

That's a gross distortion of the Palestinian situation. For one thing, Israel can't turn Gaza into an "open air prison" by itself. Gaza has a border with Egypt and a coastline.

Anyway, that's all off topic for this thread, so I'll say no more.

Moderator note I am going to copy this and The Accountant's post to which it is a reply to the Hamas Attacks Isreal thread. I'll leave them here as well as otherwise it might get a bit confusing, and there is relevance in the post to the ongoing discussion BUT a detailed discussion here of the war, even though this thread is our most flexible, would be a derail as jeremyp points out.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You're really going to go with Netanyahu isn't in his general rhetoric appealing to morality?

Broadly, yes. That (according to him) the killing of thousands of Palestinian innocents is a net moral good is baked in to his policy, but his public justifications (destroying the Hezbollah leadership, creating a deterrent etc) all concern the policy itself, not the moral calculation that sits behind it. For him and his generals, that’s an unspoken given.   

That it's merely housekeeping.?

That’s a straw man. Not even Netanyahu would (I think) call the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians “merely housekeeping”. He would though more likely call it something like a horrible but unavoidable necessity required to ensure the security of Israel.     

If you think he isn't you are either an idiot or a liar.

Charming – see above.

The idea of the 'self defense' that he touts is based on morality. We continue to sell weapons to Israel because the govt thinks it is right morally to do so.

Yes, he probably rationalises his behaviour as a morally bad act that’s nonetheless necessary to ensure a greater morally good outcome. Note that I’m not suggesting for one moment that I agree with him, just that his justification is tied to a real world outcome – future Israeli security – that in due course may or may not be shown to follow his actions.     

[Dicky Underpants]

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 people 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 in the last instance?
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.

*One of the origins of the peculiar belief is that in the Synoptic Gospels, at the institution of the eucharist, Jesus is supposed to have said "Take, eat, this IS my body." Likewise, in John's different account, he also appears to refer to a literal eating of his flesh (I'd say that in this instance, it's pretty obvious Jesus was having a little joke at his disciples expense). However, all this twaddle has involved endless theological and philosophical dispute over the centuries - even drawing in references to some abstruse speculations in Aristotle.
Which brings us back to your original assertion that 'God's instructions' are quite clear. In the end, it comes down to how much Christians are prepared to argue the toss over what's literal and what isn't. Catholics have a further problem here, because once a decision has gone down as accepted absolute truth by the Magisterium, it's damned difficult to change it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

You keep mentioning you think it's an important difference without ever explaining why you think it's important.

Yes I have, several times. In Reply 51717 for example I said:

“And at the end of Trump’s term those same voters could count the number of deportations to decide whether or not he’d delivered on the promise. What would you suggest the parishioners count in response to a cleric saying, for example, that same sex people shouldn’t go to bed together? That's a significant difference I think.”

And in In Reply 51738 I said:

“As I said, the difference is measurability and its attendant accountability. Religions can have all the “ideas about morality” they like, but that’s the end of it. Politics on the other hand ties itself to actions – indeed you could often define "politics" as the enactment of ideologies – and those actions have real world effects and consequences that can be determined to have happened or not. You seem to think this difference isn't important. I think it is.”

In short, truth claims tied to real world outcomes bring accountability; truth claims tied to (supposedly) divine instructions on the other hand don’t. The former can be tested and, when found wanting, on that basis can be rejected in favour of different policies; the latter cannot.   

You're comparing a Bible story with a real event? Bible stories, like many religious stories are brief illustrations to make a religious point rather than historically accurate descriptions to be taken literally. Why not pick a real world event to illustrate your point about faith claims.

What would “…a real world event to illustrate your point about faith claims” be? The resurrection of Jesus is claimed by those who believe in it to be a “real world event” for example, but the paucity of evidence for it makes it untestable. 

Are you suggesting with your Netanyahu example and the support he has from Western governments that Israel and its allies don't consider morality or values to be important in their decision to bomb civilians? It is just an academic exercise in recording metrics on how much bombing will allow a country to make an area so uninhabitable that it can ensure there is no resistance to illegal military occupation? Why is that demonstrating the superiority of making decisions based on metrics rather than religion?

The Israelis (supported by their foreign allies) have been bombing, killing and abducting tens of thousands of Palestinians for decades and it hasn't worked in ending resistance to Israel's illegal military occupation. They blockaded Gaza since 2007 turning it into the largest "open air prison" and it didn't work. All that happened was that other countries supporting Israel became targets for terrorism. So why are they ignoring metrics and continuing to do what hasn't worked in the past?

The US bombed and killed thousands of civilians during its War on Terror https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-civilian-casualties-iraq-afghanistan-b1912816.html - it didn't work in ending the Taliban.

Sanctions on Iraq and mass bombing of civilian infrastructure killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - ok the US got some oil revenue out of it and US taxpayers spent trillions killing people so it worked in terms of making some private US companies very rich. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-war-bush-twentieth-anniversary-b2302031.html

The US also bombed and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese - it didn't work in ending Vietcong resistance.

The metrics you might want to look at is how much money are weapons manufacturers earning and how long  Netanyahu can delay his criminal trial by prolonging and extending the war -  to avoid facing up to corruption charges and prison.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-rejects-netanyahus-request-to-delay-testimony-in-criminal-trial/

Netanyahu’s defense team requested the delay because it said the prime minister has been unable to prepare for giving testimony, set to begin on December 2, due to the time pressures of managing the current, multi-front conflict.

You’re veering into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the crisis here. My point though was that Netanyahu, while he clearly thinks he has the moral high ground (as presumably do all politicians), sets out his stall as being actions necessary to ensure an outcome – ie, future Israeli security. Whether or not he’s right about that only time will tell, but it will tell nonetheless by the events that unfold. Compare this with, say, “we can build settlements here because this land was given to us by God”. What real world evidence would you point to to test this claim?     

I still don't get the "important" difference you are trying to highlight. What is the important difference between religious claims and people seemingly ignoring metrics and making decisions based on wishful thinking and their human psychotic urge to kill lots of people?

In a word, accountability. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Yes I have, several times. In Reply 51717 for example I said:

“And at the end of Trump’s term those same voters could count the number of deportations to decide whether or not he’d delivered on the promise. What would you suggest the parishioners count in response to a cleric saying, for example, that same sex people shouldn’t go to bed together? That's a significant difference I think.”

And in In Reply 51738 I said:

“As I said, the difference is measurability and its attendant accountability. Religions can have all the “ideas about morality” they like, but that’s the end of it. Politics on the other hand ties itself to actions – indeed you could often define "politics" as the enactment of ideologies – and those actions have real world effects and consequences that can be determined to have happened or not. You seem to think this difference isn't important. I think it is.”

In short, truth claims tied to real world outcomes bring accountability; truth claims tied to (supposedly) divine instructions on the other hand don’t. The former can be tested and, when found wanting, on that basis can be rejected in favour of different policies; the latter cannot.   

What would “…a real world event to illustrate your point about faith claims” be? The resurrection of Jesus is claimed by those who believe in it to be a “real world event” for example, but the paucity of evidence for it makes it untestable.

We're discussing real world effects of religion and politics. Remember Outrider's concern about people accepting things without evidence in religion? Apparently that was more worrying for him compared to people accepting things without evidence in politics, such as people believing without evidence that it is morally right to support Israel - a country which drops 75,000 tons of bombs on a civilian population to kill over 40,000 people, of which 40% were children, so that it can keep illegally occupying and annexing land on which to build more settlements.

What do you propose to measure or count to determine whether it is morally right to support bombing civilians? Or are you suggesting that voters don't care about the morality of the actions of politicians and do not hold them accountable for immoral policies e.g. ethnic cleansing or breaking international law by committing genocide/ war crimes / crimes against humanity?

There is no evidence that the Jews slaughtered the Canaanites so why bring the Bible story into a discussion about real world events. It's irrelevant.

You’re veering into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the crisis here. My point though was that Netanyahu, while he clearly thinks he has the moral high ground (as presumably do all politicians), sets out his stall as being actions necessary to ensure an outcome – ie, future Israeli security. Whether or not he’s right about that only time will tell, but it will tell nonetheless by the events that unfold. Compare this with, say, “we can build settlements here because this land was given to us by God”. What real world evidence would you point to to test this claim?     

In a word, accountability.

What will voters count or measure to know if he has achieved future Israeli security? Eg. how many dead or injured soldiers and reservists and hostages is acceptable? How far into the future before the next terrorist attack comes along is acceptable to voters?

Beliefs that God gave land for settlements is meaningless without political action - you need a well-connected, militarily superior leader or government or army to annex land for settlements and bomb anyone who tries to resist your annexation.

[Dicky Underpants]

AB,
 

It’s a rigged game though isn’t it. First the rules prohibit same sex marriage, and then they say sex outside of marriage is sinful. What then are gay people supposed to do, and what the hell business is it of your religion to pronounce on that issue in any case?

Well of course the Catholic first answer would be that they should remain celibate (the Church welcomes you!) The second, more sinister, and unfortunately increasingly prevalent answer in evangelical circles, is that they should put themselves forward to be 'healed' into heterosexuality. Cue the appalling Nicky Gumboil and his revolting Alpha Course (and that really has spread like a disease).

[Nearly Sane]

Well of course the Catholic first answer would be that they should remain celibate (the Church welcomes you!) The second, more sinister, and unfortunately increasingly prevalent answer in evangelical circles, is that they should put themselves forward to be 'healed' into heterosexuality. Cue the appalling Nicky Gumboil and his revolting Alpha Course (and that really has spread like a disease).

  Is the Alpha course still going?

[Dicky Underpants]

  Is the Alpha course still going?

No idea, but since its initial success worldwide, I wouldn't be surprised if it's reinvented itself in some form or other.
I'd just read an old article by Jon Ronson which provoked my venom here.

[Nearly Sane]

No idea, but since its initial success worldwide, I wouldn't be surprised if it's reinvented itself in some form or other.
I'd just read an old article by Jon Ronson which provoked my venom here.

It does appear to be still going but looking at what's available near me at a much lower level.

https://alpha.org/

This article?

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/oct/21/weekend7.weekend

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea, but since its initial success worldwide, I wouldn't be surprised if it's reinvented itself in some form or other.
I'd just read an old article by Jon Ronson which provoked my venom here.

I find myself relatively untroubled by Alpha although I'm not so sure about it's seeming emphasis on the Charismatic movement.

It could be argued that one product of Holy Trinity Brompton is Sir Paul Marshall of GB news and Unherd fame although how Gumbel and Alpha are implicated in that I know not.

[Dicky Underpants]

It does appear to be still going but looking at what's available near me at a much lower level.

https://alpha.org/

This article?

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/oct/21/weekend7.weekend

That's the one. However, I found it in a collection of his journalism known as "Lost at Sea".
However, the link to the second part of the article at the end doesn't appear to work. That section does raise some perplexing questions about human nature, as well as relating a long sequence of coincidences (if what Ronson writes is true).

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I see you’ve just ignored the rebuttals I gave you. Ah well.

As for what you did say instead:

We're discussing real world effects of religion and politics. Remember Outrider's concern about people accepting things without evidence in religion? Apparently that was more worrying for him compared to people accepting things without evidence in politics, such as people believing without evidence that it is morally right to support Israel - a country which drops 75,000 tons of bombs on a civilian population to kill over 40,000 people, of which 40% were children, so that it can keep illegally occupying and annexing land on which to build more settlements.

Outy can answer for himself perfectly well, but you’re still not getting it – when a cleric says “God wants you to do X” that’s the beginning and the end of it. The same cleric or subsequent generations of clerics can keep making the same assertion over and over again with no consequences because there’s no attendant accountability. By contrast, when a politician says, say, “killing Gazan Palestinians indiscriminately will ensure the future security of Israel”, demonstrably either the future security of Israel will happen or it won’t. (Note that I’m not suggesting that it’s a morally good action, regardless of its consequences – just that that’s the real world claim.) Over time when real world policies fail they can be rejected and others tried instead; over time when clerics make the same assertions about, say, homosexuality, nothing changes. That’s the difference, and it’s a big one: the former enables progress; the later doesn’t.             

What do you propose to measure or count to determine whether it is morally right to support bombing civilians? Or are you suggesting that voters don't care about the morality of the actions of politicians and do not hold them accountable for immoral policies e.g. ethnic cleansing or breaking international law by committing genocide/ war crimes / crimes against humanity?

I make no claims about deciding on moral positions by counting or measuring real world evidence.   

There is no evidence that the Jews slaughtered the Canaanites so why bring the Bible story into a discussion about real world events. It's irrelevant.

Whoosh! It was actually a small thought experiment – whether or not the slaughter of the Canaanites actually happened isn’t the point. The point rather was that even if it’s just a story it illustrates the difference: “slaughter the Canaanites because God wants it” has no testable consequence; “slaughter Gazan Palestinians because it will make Israel secure” on the other hand can be tested against its actual results (again, note that I make no comment about the morality of the latter even if it does make Israel secure. Netanyahu presumably thinks Israel's security is the highest moral good, but that’s a different matter).   

What will voters count or measure to know if he has achieved future Israeli security?

Whether or not a repeat of the Oct 7th murders occurs would be one measure.

Eg. how many dead or injured soldiers and reservists and hostages is acceptable? How far into the future before the next terrorist attack comes along is acceptable to voters?

See above.

Beliefs that God gave land for settlements is meaningless without political action - you need a well-connected, militarily superior leader or government or army to annex land for settlements and bomb anyone who tries to resist your annexation.

Again, the belief that God gave certain land to the Jews is the underlying moral justification for the Israeli government sanctioning the building of settlements on it. The point is that there’s nothing to test about that – it’s just a faith claim.     

[Outrider]

We're discussing real world effects of religion and politics. Remember Outrider's concern about people accepting things without evidence in religion? Apparently that was more worrying for him compared to people accepting things without evidence in politics, such as people believing without evidence that it is morally right to support Israel - a country which drops 75,000 tons of bombs on a civilian population to kill over 40,000 people, of which 40% were children, so that it can keep illegally occupying and annexing land on which to build more settlements.

When people fail to look at the evidence in politics or science or history or economics they're doing it wrong; when people don't look at the evidence in religion THAT'S THE POINT.

When people look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to you, that's politics, still, just seen through the lens of different people's experiences. For what it's worth, there is some evidence to morally support Israel's stance - in my opinion, not enough, evidence, the balance is against them at this moment in time, but it's not like they don't have citizens being held hostage, it's not like they don't have a wealth of hostile nations on their immediate border with an express will to destroy them.
 

There is no evidence that the Jews slaughtered the Canaanites so why bring the Bible story into a discussion about real world events.

Because it's what's being called for in the name of religion - that it didn't happen is irrelevant, because none of it happened, but people are being told to accept it on faith and act upon because following those guides is 'good'. That's when religion is poisonous.

Beliefs that God gave land for settlements is meaningless without political action - you need a well-connected, militarily superior leader or government or army to annex land for settlements and bomb anyone who tries to resist your annexation.

And that military is easier to mobilise, easier to maintain, easier to support and a vessel for re-election when religion permeates the society and the government.

O.