Sick wickedness of Catholic parents.

[Rhiannon]

It is acceptable in the USA Rose, that's why Carter and Obama made it to the White House. But we can agree that your socialism isn't French socialism and American socialism isn't Brit nor French socialism. And Canadian socialism? Well we have our own brand as well. My Uncle moved back to the USA because he couldn't stand our brand. Of course that was just when things were heating up in Korea and those pinko commies started marching south.
Please don't tell me that you were taught that communism is so very right. If you do that then my love for the UK has taken a nose dive.

No, we are taught that persecution of communists and socialists simply for their political beliefs is wrong.

[Leonard James]

How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?

Probably for the same reason that atheism can cause parents to be just as heartless.  My wife used to be a child-minder.  Two of the children she cared for came from a family where the mother was a mix of spirituality, and the father was a die-hard atheist.  He was determined that his son and daughter should have absolutely no interaction with anyone who had a faith; he was determined that if they didn't agree with his belief system, they would not be allowed out of their house, wouldn't get any pocket money, or enjoy any friendships.  Fortunately for them, he worked  long and often weird hours, so their mother's hours and interests tended to take precedence over her husband's.  When he discovered this, he became severely abusive to all the family, and eventually the three left him.

Yes, some people are evil, even non-religious ones. But we can't change the way evolution works, we can only try to control the misfits.

[Rhiannon]

Some of you are so blatantly biased against the USA. You get the shock stories on your little island and make your pathetic, outrageous, childish and plain stupid, anti US comments. Each one of you is a fool if you think what you bitch at the USA about, can't be found in your little Utopia.(snork) Somebody says moderate Christianity keeps a low profile there. Absolute lie, it certainly does not. And we can look at some presidents for example, Obama, Carter, Clinton, Ford, Bush #1, LBJ, Nixon, Kennedy, all very liberal. No, what the true issue here is the fact that the conservative evangelicals get politically involved as is the right of every single American. You get the shocker stories over there but if you were smart, you would actually take in all the American news not just what feeds your pathetic anti USA addiction. Here's a news flash silly ones, there is anti gay religious people and non religious living on your island. That is fact.


from the being watched

I think I know what Floo is referring to.

American culture is very capitalistic and materialistic and their Christianity is too.

Ours is often much more socialist in comparison.

There is a difference between Christianity in the UK and Christianity in the USA.

It's to do with outlook on life.

Americans have been taught that communism is so very wrong and their version of Christianity often clashes with ours.

Socialism is acceptable here, but not in the USA.

That's too much of a generalisation. Politics aside, there are churches here that exemplify what we think of as U.S.-style - conservative, 'Biblical', prosperous, judgemental. But equally there are very liberal churches that have mainstream CofE bishops raising their eyebrows. I've read a lot of American Christian writing ranging from Elaine Pagels to Thomas Merton and I had more in common with them than many UK writers.

[Rhiannon]

Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.

Not acting on  your homosexuality.

No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.

There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.

The only sin is to believe in the concept of sin

No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.

[Rhiannon]

http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804

How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?

I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".

Trust me on this, ad-o, regardless of what you think of homosexuality it is wicked beyond belief to make a child feel dirty and ashamed and isolate them because you feel that they cannot control themselves sexually. Even more so when you do not treat their siblings in the same way.

[Shaker]

No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.

But as history shows, as soon as you give a religion a chance to do this, it will do exactly that. For the most part in the secular-liberal-democratic West religions have been declawed and have had their teeth pulled; they can't enforce anything as they would have done - and did - a few centuries ago; now they just sit and grumble and sulk on the sidelines when they don't get their own way, which thank goodness* is most of the time. But there are benighted parts of the world where religion still sees it as a duty to judge and to prevent what it sees as sin in others.

Give a religion a chance to rule the lives of people and to curtail their freedom of thought, belief, expression and action and it will always, always, always take it.

* Literally.

[Rhiannon]

No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.

But as history shows, as soon as you give a religion a chance to do this, it will do exactly that. For the most part in the secular-liberal-democratic West religions have been declawed and have had their teeth pulled; they can't enforce anything as they would have done - and did - a few centuries ago; now they just sit and grumble and sulk on the sidelines when they don't get their own way, which thank goodness* is most of the time. But there are benighted parts of the world where religion still sees it as a duty to judge and to prevent what it sees as sin in others.

Give a religion a chance to rule the lives of people and to curtail their fredom of thought, belief and action and it will always, always, always take it.

* Literally.

You didn't need the 'but'.

I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.

[Nearly Sane]

Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.

Not acting on  your homosexuality.

No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.

There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.

The only sin is to believe in the concept of sin

No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.

It wasn't an entirely serious point but I would suggest in effect your post is a rephrasing of it. The concept of sin would I suggest encompass the judging and prevention.

Also there are tons of things that those of us who do not believe in sin judge others on and try to prevent them doing.

[Nearly Sane]

No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.

But as history shows, as soon as you give a religion a chance to do this, it will do exactly that. For the most part in the secular-liberal-democratic West religions have been declawed and have had their teeth pulled; they can't enforce anything as they would have done - and did - a few centuries ago; now they just sit and grumble and sulk on the sidelines when they don't get their own way, which thank goodness* is most of the time. But there are benighted parts of the world where religion still sees it as a duty to judge and to prevent what it sees as sin in others.

Give a religion a chance to rule the lives of people and to curtail their freedom of thought, belief, expression and action and it will always, always, always take it.

* Literally.

Sorry, but this seems like bizarre anthropomorphising of religion to me. It is merely the opinions of humans. It does not have intentions, or actiins, and the individuals attached to religions behave in as many different ways as the rest of us.

[Leonard James]

I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.

Because their lives would be greatly affected if divorce were banned ... homosexuality affects only a small percentage of them, and even they are mostly closeted.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Care to tell me who exactly in the USA is telling Americans to PERSECUTE communists? Get real Rhi, Cuba just reopened their embassy in Washington and Vietnam USA relations are quite good. Truth is, during the cold war there was as much anti commie preaching being done in your nation and mine as there was in the USA. You think an evangelical/conservative  getting involved in politics is an attention seekers? Are you for real? What about an atheist or pagan getting involved in politics, what about any person exercising their right as an American to get involved in politics? Are you just biased against them because the conservative/evangelicals are better organizers or is it because you, like so many over your way, go for the shock stories and ignore the whole picture? Let's get real for a moment Rhi, Americans were killing the unborn legally long before you liberal Brits got around to killing them. And the truth is you were not far ahead of my American cousins with regards to gay marriage.

[Rhiannon]

Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.

Not acting on  your homosexuality.

No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.

There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.

The only sin is to believe in the concept of sin

No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.

It wasn't an entirely serious point but I would suggest in effect your post is a rephrasing of it. The concept of sin would I suggest encompass the judging and prevention.

Also there are tons of things that those of us who do not believe in sin judge others on and try to prevent them doing.

That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.

[Rhiannon]

Care to tell me who exactly in the USA is telling Americans to PERSECUTE communists? Get real Rhi, Cuba just reopened their embassy in Washington and Vietnam USA relations are quite good. Truth is, during the cold war there was as much anti commie preaching being done in your nation and mine as there was in the USA. You think an evangelical/conservative  getting involved in politics is an attention seekers? Are you for real? What about an atheist or pagan getting involved in politics, what about any person exercising their right as an American to get involved in politics? Are you just biased against them because the conservative/evangelicals are better organizers or is it because you, like so many over your way, go for the shock stories and ignore the whole picture? Let's get real for a moment Rhi, Americans were killing the unborn legally long before you liberal Brits got around to killing them. And the truth is you were not far ahead of my American cousins with regards to gay marriage.

We learn about persecution of communists in our history lessons. Don't you?

[Shaker]

I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.

I wonder if it has anything to do with religious prohibitions on homosexual behaviour stemming from specific cultures and specific historical periods where the survival of the population was under threat? Now, today, we know that being gay doesn't render you infertile and doesn't prevent you from being able to procreate if you can force yourself go through with the sticky bit with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not sexually, physically or emotionally drawn; nevertheless, it seems fair to say that a majority of gay people don't reproduce. It's generally the case that most gay people don't have children. If you live in a relatively small tribe/society, anybody who doesn't reproduce threatens the future existence of said tribe. Could that explain it? I'm not an anthropologist so I don't know, but it's presumably a testable hypothesis.

I've actually seen - remarkably often - people try to argue against homosexuality on the basis that if everyone was homosexual the human species would die out. The facts that exclusive homosexuals are a very small (though permanent) section of the human population and that the problems facing the world stem from overpopulation, not its lack, seems not to figure but you can't go intruding facts and reality on these people.

[OH MY WORLD!]

 You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.

[Leonard James]

Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.

There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.

Absolutely true.

[Rhiannon]

I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.

I wonder if it has anything to do with religious prohibitions on homosexual behaviour stemming from specific cultures and specific historical periods where the survival of the population was under threat? Now, today, we know that being gay doesn't render you infertile and doesn't prevent you from being able to procreate if you can force yourself go through with the sticky bit with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not sexually, physically or emotionally drawn; nevertheless, it seems fair to say that a majority of gay people don't reproduce. It's generally the case that most gay people don't have children. If you live in a relatively small tribe/society, anybody who doesn't reproduce threatens the future existence of said tribe. Could that explain it? I'm not an anthropologist so I don't know, but it's presumably a testable hypothesis.

I've actually seen - remarkably often - people try to argue against homosexuality on the basis that if everyone was homosexual the human species would die out. The facts that exclusive homosexuals are a very small (though permanent) section of the human population and that the problems facing the world stem from overpopulation, not its lack, seems not to figure but you can't go intruding facts and reality on these people.

Well yes, if you go back to the times of the OT you are talking about a very small number of people - prohibition against gay relationships and adultery and divorce made sense. Similarly when Paul was writing he would have been observing a very different idea of homosexuality in Greek and Roman culture from what we generally mean when discussing gay relationships and marriage. So I guess you could say that after the Black Death being gay wasn't helpful in building up the population.

But that doesn't account for why in societies with booming populations and excellent health care we still have people with religious belief freaking out about it. Unless the church has replaced the tribe as the one under threat from non-procreation? 

[Nearly Sane]

Let's remember there was a time divorce was frowned on and fought by some religions. Even when I was growing up, there was a fair amount of discrimination against divorced people in the RCC.

I think that rather like divorce has become normalised, homosexuality will be too. There are denominations that already do. There is also a highly of classism in the history in that those in the aristocracy would have suffered less in the past for homosexuality or divorce. Indeed given that it used to need an act of parliament to get divorced, only they could achieve this . In the grand scheme 30 or so years that homosexuality is 'behind' divorce on its acceptance is nothing

[Nearly Sane]

You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.

Err no, it is pretty much the definition of opinion.

[Outrider]

You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.

Ignorance about the Bible would, indeed, be bliss. Instead we have so much of the ignorance of the Bible..

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.

Surely most laws are testament to that? Or Leonard's idea that creationists shouldn't be teachers. Sin is merely nail varnish for morality.

[Leonard James]

You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.

Good grief! JC, you are turning into a splendid partner for Sass!

[Rhiannon]

That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.

Surely most laws are testament to that? Or Leonard's idea that creationists shouldn't be teachers. Sin is merely nail varnish for morality.

Have you believed in sin and then not? I have. And whilst I'm still a moral person, I don't beat myself up an nth as much.

[Shaker]

Truth is, during the cold war there was as much anti commie preaching being done in your nation and mine as there was in the USA.

This is not merely bullshit but bullshit on stilts, spray-painted with gold paint, varnished, squirted with Hugo Boss and with hundreds and thousands sprinkled on top. Since this remark was directed at/a response to Rhiannon, the "your nation" in the quoted sentence refers to Great Britain (or the UK). I don't know, and if I'm brutally honest am not especially interested, in whether Canada ("mine") had its equivalent of the USA's Red Scare with an alcoholic politician soon to die a premature death of his addiction orchestrating a campaign of smear, innuendo, insinuation and suspicion against people of nothing more than socially liberal and progressive views (with the attendant destruction of careers and lives that ensued), but I do know one thing: this nation - my nation; Rhiannon's nation - didn't. I neither know nor care about Canada, but there wasn't "as much anti commie preaching being done" in our realm "as there was in the USA."

So give over with this fulminating horseshit and learn some history which extends beyond the borders of the USA's lumber room.

[Nearly Sane]

That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.

Surely most laws are testament to that? Or Leonard's idea that creationists shouldn't be teachers. Sin is merely nail varnish for morality.

Have you believed in sin and then not? I have. And whilst I'm still a moral person, I don't beat myself up an nth as much.

I was brought up RC but never bought into to it, that said Catholic guilt is, like the smell of vomit, pervasive.

I disagree with a lot of what Dryghten's Toe writes, but I agree that most people talk of morality, their morality in a sense which makes it sound objective and is in that sense indistinguishable from sin.