The N H S Chaplaincy again

[Hope]

But the chaplain cannot work without the license from the CofE and would have known in his contract with the NHS he had to have the license.

Sassy, a chaplain doesn't need the license from the CofE specifically, but they will need a licence from whichever denomination they belong to.  Furthermore, most chaplaincies are multi-denominational, some even multi-faith - from Christian to Muslim, Humanist to Hindu.

[Hope]

This to ippy, on the thread topic.

ippy, can you explain why, if the NHS was designed to provide support for three aspects of human life - the physical, mental and spiritual - the taxpayer should be asked to fork out for the support of two of these aspects, but not the third?

[Leonard James]

One of the synonyms go for normal is natural. My friends may not all be the average but they are normal. People get very confused about the use of language here and will happily use such terms as 'abnormal' while ignoring the pejorative connoatation that word has. It would be more accurate to describe heterosexuality as the norm but recognise that homosexuality in the sense of natural is normal, and not as some would have it as something to be compared to a disease or be thought of as bad as murder.

I don't think so. The norm is usually used to mean what is most common. Normal means natural for the individual.

[ippy]

I thought I had spelled out clearly that my bone was with the funding of chaplaincy in the UK NHS,  prisons and the Forces.

I'm also sure that I explained why somewhere nerar the begining of this thread or thereabouts, why have you asked me to repeat myself Hope? My views haven't changed; government money promoting the word, something the C of E can't resist getting it's hands on, someone else, anyone else paying for their promo work, they love it.

ippy.

[Hope]

I gather that about 8% of the world's population have blue eyes, so clearly in Hope's warped world these people have a 'medical condition' involving 'mutations' and 'misdevelopments' and are 'imperfect' and 'abnormal' and are 'suffering' from blue-eyedness and should be 'cured' so that they can be brown eyed like 92% of members of the human species.

Shows how limited your underrstanding of genetics is, PD   

[Rhiannon]

Shows how limited your underrstanding of genetics is, PD   

Hope, really not a good idea to try this one on those that are clearly so much better informed than you are.

[Hope]

Hope, really not a good idea to try this one on those that are clearly so much better informed than you are.

Well, it's only what I'm told by people who do know better than me.  In any such situation one can only go on what the experts say and are reported as saying.

[Rhiannon]

Handedness does seem to have a genetic element, PD.  Or at least that is what I've been told by doctors and scientists.

He is a scientist. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

He is a scientist.

And!!

If the good Prof told you to go jump in the Clyde would you do it.

Further! Our Leonard thinks it is all genetic, wonder if the Prof agree's with Leonard.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

And!!

If the good Prof told you to go jump in the Clyde would you do it.

Further! Our Leonard thinks it is all genetic, wonder if the Prof agree's with Leonard.

Gonnagle.

Hope says he's taking the word of scientists, yet PD is one and Hope ignores him. Could that be because PD says stuff that Hope doesn't like?

[Leonard James]

Further! Our Leonard thinks it is all genetic, wonder if the Prof agree's with Leonard.

Gonnagle.

Bearing in mind that our responses to environmental conditions are also dependent on our genetic makeup.

[Hope]

Indeed. So stop citing these myriad 'scientists and doctors' that you know as 'evidence' and try using a little humanity instead.

I think that referencing such 'scientists and doctors' is very much a case of using (more than) a little humanity, Rhi.

[Rhiannon]

And yet you continue to ignore PD. Funny that.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

Bearing in mind that our responses to environmental conditions are also dependent on our genetic makeup.

So does that bring us winging all the way back to.

1. Nature.

2. Nurture.

3. A mixture of both.

Does this in anyway answer why you are gay and I am not, are we any way forward Leonard??

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Not sure that a kiss helps with genetic re-coding, ippy. 

Gotta be worth a try!

ippy

[Hope]

Several on this thread

ippy

Hi ippy, I've reread the whole thread, and especially your posts, and have found absolutely nothing about why the tax-payer shouldn't pay for one part of the overall purpose of the NHS.  Yes, you have said that you believe that tax-payers oughtn't to be paying for the spiritual element of the NHS's purpose, but at no point have you explained why this element shouldn't be paid for whilst the physical and mental elements should be.  In what way are the latter 2 different from the former?

[Hope]

And yet you continue to ignore PD. Funny that.

I don't ignore him; just that I don't assume that he is right and others I speak to are wrong.  If anything, I suspect that no-one really knows and therefore - in my view - the issue remains open for debate.

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

So does that bring us winging all the way back to.

1. Nature.

2. Nurture.

3. A mixture of both.

The individual response to environment is not uniform, and I feel that can only be due to genetic makeup.

Does this in anyway answer why you are gay and I am not, are we any way forward Leonard??

I think it answers it in every way, Gonners. However, you don't have to agree with me. 

[ippy]

Dear Leonard,

So does that bring us winging all the way back to.

1. Nature.

2. Nurture.

3. A mixture of both.

Does this in anyway answer why you are gay and I am not, are we any way forward Leonard??

Gonnagle.

One thing's certain it wont be religion that finds the answer in some sort of revelation, it'll be more hard working practical scientists working in the real world again, as opposed to man made religious fantasy.

ippy 

[Hope]

One thing's certain it wont be religion that finds the answer in some sort of revelation, it'll be more hard working practical scientists working in the real world again, as opposed to man made religious fantasy.

ippy

And it may well be that the trigger that leads said scientists to such a discovery is their religious faith, ippy. 

[Gordon]

And it may well be that the trigger that leads said scientists to such a discovery is their religious faith, ippy.

Doubt it, since this would imply that scientists doing 'science' would in some way factor the divine into their theories, hypotheses and methods: and if they do that then they stop being scientists and they aren't doing science any more.

[ippy]

And it may well be that the trigger that leads said scientists to such a discovery is their religious faith, ippy.

Well that might be but there's so few, contradiction of terms, religious scientists, it's more likely to be a scientist with a realistic world view that will find the answer, just on the odds alone Hope.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well that might be but there's so few, contradiction of terms, religious scientists, it's more likely to be a scientist with a realistic world view that will find the answer, just on the odds alone Hope.

ippy

People are becoming less rounded that's for sure.
There's also the propensity nowadays to think that what you do and how you do it is the way that the world is.

If we go back though religious scientists were by far in the majority.

In terms of proselytising, evangelical faiths in science, Swiveleyed antitheism like your own is a big motivation behind scientists....sad to say though, science is as atheist, secular humanist or religious as any other tool.....Brobat, B and Q budget Hammer Drill etc, is...i.e.
not very.

[Brownie]

There are lots of scientists who have faith ippy.  Probably not famous ones but they certainly exist and not in small numbers.

[Hope]

Well that might be but there's so few, contradiction of terms, religious scientists, it's more likely to be a scientist with a realistic world view that will find the answer, just on the odds alone Hope.

ippy

Are there really 'so few' religious scientists, ippy.  If that is the case, a lot of them must be towards the top of their profession - Andrew Pinsent, Denis Alexander, Mike Hulme, John Polkinghorne, Ben Carson (though I'm not overly in awe of his politics!!), Michal Heller, Russell Stannard, John Houghton, Rosalind Pickard, Raymond Vahan Damadian - to name but a few.   There are others listed at http://bit.ly/1Uus90c - and I could add further names as well.

That's only a list of Christians who are also leading scientists.  Here is a selection of 20th century Muslim scientists - http://bit.ly/1RzBk9I.    I believe that there are a number of scientists who are also Hindu in religious belief. 

In a recent study, some 1/5th of American scientists appear to have religious beliefs -

The study also found that 18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population; ...

http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/  (Feb 2014)

An even more recent report (Dec '15) suggests tht the divide is perhaps even smaller than that.

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html