The Kirk are doing it better

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

If you believe Christ, at least, then yes. I am the way etc and John 3 and 6 concerning baptism and the eucharist.

Yes, and if you believe instead in any other explanatory narrative provided by the religious tradition to which you happen to be most enculturated that too makes perfect sense to you. Where it falls apart though is when those with beliefs of this kind (ie, "faith" beliefs) overreach and assert them to be true for other people as well. To make that case they'd have to start with a logical path from assertion to epistemic truth – which so far so I know no theist has managed to do. 

[ad_orientem]

ad,

Yes, and if you believe instead in any other explanatory narrative provided by the religious tradition to which you happen to be most enculturated that too makes perfect sense to you. Where it falls apart though is when those with beliefs of this kind (ie, "faith" beliefs) overreach and assert them to be true for other people as well. To make that case they'd have to start with a logical path from assertion to epistemic truth – which so far so I know no theist has managed to do. 

Well then, seeing as you don't believe in hell it shouldn't bother you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Well then, seeing as you don't believe in hell it shouldn't bother you.

It doesn't. What does bother me though is the behaviours of some who think their personal truths are true for others too - by discriminating against gay people for example – because that affects more generally the society in which I live.

[floo]

If you believe Christ, at least, then yes. I am the way etc and John 3 and 6 concerning baptism and the eucharist.

Believing in something like that will save you is no better than touching wood!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, all that would give you is a tu quoque – it deflects from the question rather than engages with it.

Second though, no: however deep my commitment to equality, I’m quite open at least to the possibility that one day someone may come up with an argument that makes me change my mind about that. By contrast, if I think an omniscient god has had his instructions on the matter accurately recorded in a book, on what basis could I apply mere logic to falsify “Him”?

That’s the point. You and other think that divine, inerrant rules are written in a book yet you come up with opposite positions on the same question. As your rationale (“faith”) is the same though, where do you go from there?

can't quite see it in terms of a tu cocque. I'm just getting you to see that you may just have the answer to your own questions.

For example you are prepared to admit, you could be wrong and yet you have categorised me as someone who has an absolute cast iron conviction that I am right on this.

As stated before, this issue is a recent development and I wonder if we shouldn't have a bit of the Ho chi Min attitude as toward the French Revolution.

On another but related issue I took you as a bit of an expert on equal marriage but you seem to merely relegate it to a subset of equality.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

No doubt, but what you’re describing here is a sort of very good RE teacher. Dawkins, Dennett et al would have no problem with that. Indeed they’re all for teaching about religious beliefs as important socio-cultural phenomena. That though says nothing about whether the claims of any of these books and faiths are actually true

No sorry, more much more, she quotes and uses all the main philosophers, and she helps her reader understand what the philosopher was trying to convey, from Confucius through to Kant, she has a in depth knowledge of not only R&E but also the human condition, she would lose Dawkins easily, as for Dennett, well someone somewhere will one day explain what all the fuss is about that man, and if push comes to the shove I much prefer Dawkins, in fact as I type this, Dawkins and Armstrong have one thing in common they are both accessible, Karen Armstrong's true intelligence lies in the fact she knows her subject intimately, and can translate it for every level.

I can think of several. None of them though make claims of objective facts about the world in the way the religious texts tend to. Why then do you think them to be analogous?

Objective facts!! Now what has that to do with the price of fish, go on give me your favourite, your very favourite, the one that made you really think about the human condition.

Gonnagle.

[ad_orientem]

ad,

It doesn't. What does bother me though is the behaviours of some who think their personal truths are true for others too - by discriminating against gay people for example – because that affects more generally the society in which I live.

Who the Church marries or not is no business of yours.

[Rhiannon]

Who the Church marries or not is no business of yours.

It is everyone's business if the church thinks it has the right to have a voice in society.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

Why are you even asking that question, the man has answered it, albeit in Vlads own very peculiar way.

Has he? Where? I understand he's cool with secular gay marriage, not sure what he thinks about the church's stance on it.

This is a subject with personal meaning for me as it is why I left the church long before I lost my faith. I was involved in the local synod and the political back biting and infighting from both traditionalists and liberals was pathetic and saddening at the same time. Faith and love were fucked. The gay issue (sex, celibacy and marriage) is one of justice and love it is true, but it also exposes the wider divisions, nastiness and spite in an organisation that once served god and now serves itself. I took my family away from to because it wasn't a fit place in which to raise them. 'Another gay story' will happen again and again because of the pain, hate and spite that riddles the church.

[Robbie]

You're well out of it Rhiannon. Me too.

Constant wrangling, round in circles, same old, same old, never getting anywhere....
same happens here on 'Searching for God'. Does head in, don't know why they don't give it a rest.

(Synod House had two good restaurants, one cafe/bistro style & one posh)

[ad_orientem]

It is everyone's business if the church thinks it has the right to have a voice in society.

Of course it has a right, especially in a democracy. It speaks for a large chunck of society, unless you're arguing that members of the Church become non-citizens.

[Rhiannon]

Of course it has a right, especially in a democracy. It speaks for a large chunck of society, unless you're arguing that members of the Church become non-citizens.

In which case people have the right to know what the church does and to criticise if it behaves unjustly or in a way that damages society.

[Bubbles]

In which case people have the right to know what the church does and to criticise if it behaves unjustly or in a way that damages society.

Plus the fact the church gets an extra say in the uk as part of the House of Lords.

The church has got where it has today on lots of its stances,  by listening to changing and challenging voices.

[Anchorman]

Plus the fact the church gets an extra say in the uk as part of the House of Lords. The church has got where it has today on lots of its stances,  by listening to changing and challenging voices.

- Haud the bus..... The CofE might have a say in the running of the disunited kingdom....though it shouldn't habe any seats in the coffin dodgers house anyway. The Church of Scotland  - the Kirk - is an entirely different kettle of fish. It has no connection with the organisation, structure or established status of the CofE. And nor should we have!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

can't quite see it in terms of a tu cocque.

It’s spelled “tu quoque”, and it’s exactly what you did. Look it up.

I'm just getting you to see that you may just have the answer to your own questions.

No, you’re just avoiding the question.

For example you are prepared to admit, you could be wrong and yet you have categorised me as someone who has an absolute cast iron conviction that I am right on this.

Depends what you mean by “on this”. If you means your position re homosexuality, I’ve said no such thing; if you mean “God”, then yes.

As stated before, this issue is a recent development and I wonder if we shouldn't have a bit of the Ho chi Min attitude as toward the French Revolution.

It was Zhou Enlai (not Mao Zedong as popularly thought, and certainly not Ho Chi Minh), and “the issue” isn’t recent in any case. Presumably the authors of the NT were thinking about it some 2,000 years ago, and the authors of the OT before that.

On another but related issue I took you as a bit of an expert on equal marriage but you seem to merely relegate it to a subset of equality.

It is a “sub-set” in the sense that it’s one example of a larger principle.

Anyways, back to the question you avoided: if you think some books record the wishes of an omniscient god and that on a specific issue they validate your position but someone else thinks the same thing but finds validation for the opposite position in the same books, as both of you rely on “faith” what makes you right and him wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

No sorry, more much more, she quotes and uses all the main philosophers, and she helps her reader understand what the philosopher was trying to convey, from Confucius through to Kant, she has a in depth knowledge of not only R&E but also the human condition…

But that is a very good RE teacher!

…she would lose Dawkins easily…

“Lose” at what though? Her detailed memory of various “holy” texts? Could be.

The arguments some attempt to suggest that the content of these books is factually true? Seems unlikely. 

…as for Dennett, well someone somewhere will one day explain what all the fuss is about that man, and if push comes to the shove I much prefer Dawkins, in fact as I type this, Dawkins and Armstrong have one thing in common they are both accessible, Karen Armstrong's true intelligence lies in the fact she knows her subject intimately, and can translate it for every level.

No doubt, but Dennett is accessible too. Try his recent appearance on Radio 4’s “The Life Scientific” for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4

Objective facts!! Now what has that to do with the price of fish, go on give me your favourite, your very favourite, the one that made you really think about the human condition.

Happy to if you want me to, but it has everything to do with the price of fish. If religious texts help you think about the human condition then well and good. When they assert factual truths that cannot be shown to be the case with logic or evidence though (eg, “God”) then in that respect they are at least mistaken.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Who the Church marries or not is no business of yours.

Yes it is so long as it’s the established church – it reaches into the lives of others in the legislature, in education, in access by right to the media etc. That means that its pronouncements have an authority in the public mind, albeit an undeserved one. Essentially: “If a bishop thinks it’s ok to discriminate against gay people, then it’s fine for me to do the same thing in my life too”. 

If the church disestablished though and became a sort of private members’ club akin to the Flat Earth Society, then what they said and did would indeed be no business of mine.

[Rhiannon]

ad,

Yes it is so long as it’s the established church – it reaches into the lives of others in the legislature, in education, in access by right to the media etc. That means that its pronouncements have an authority in the public mind, albeit an undeserved one. Essentially: “If a bishop thinks it’s ok to discriminate against gay people, then it’s fine for me to do the same thing in my life too”. 

If the church disestablished though and became a sort of private members’ club akin to the Flat Earth Society, then what they said and did would indeed be no business of mine.

I'm not sure I agree, the Catholic church isn't established but nevertheless various archbishops pop up on the news, as does the Pope. Religion doesn't happen behind closed doors, it gets taken into the workplace, schools, the pub. It is our business if they treat people unfairly and discriminate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure I agree, the Catholic church isn't established but nevertheless various archbishops pop up on the news, as does the Pope. Religion doesn't happen behind closed doors, it gets taken into the workplace, schools, the pub. It is our business if they treat people unfairly and discriminate.

Us and Them eh, that's sinister............... also the workplace, schools, the pub etc are places of secular homophobia.

For instance the penchant of young people for prefacing the unsatisfactory with the word Gay cannot be laid at the door of any church... This is after all a secular society.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gonners,

But that is a very good RE teacher!

“Lose” at what though? Her detailed memory of various “holy” texts? Could be.

The arguments some attempt to suggest that the content of these books is factually true? Seems unlikely. 

No doubt, but Dennett is accessible too. Try his recent appearance on Radio 4’s “The Life Scientific” for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4


Happy to if you want me to, but it has everything to do with the price of fish. If religious texts help you think about the human condition then well and good. When they assert factual truths that cannot be shown to be the case with logic or evidence though (eg, “God”) then in that respect they are at least mistaken.

Another ''science is not atheism'' piece , Hillside?

If science does not equal atheism why are you contrasting science with religion?

[ad_orientem]

Us and Them eh, that's sinister............... also the workplace, schools, the pub etc are places of secular homophobia.

For instance the penchant of young people for prefacing the unsatisfactory with the word Gay cannot be laid at the door of any church... This is after all a secular society.

Solence the Chuech, eh?

[floo]

Solence the Chuech, eh?

Been at the communion wine, you sound sloshed?

[Rhiannon]

Us and Them eh, that's sinister............... also the workplace, schools, the pub etc are places of secular homophobia.

For instance the penchant of young people for prefacing the unsatisfactory with the word Gay cannot be laid at the door of any church... This is after all a secular society.

If you give yourself a label that sets you apart as a child of God then you set yourself aside from the rest of society. I find church sinister in some ways, yes.

You are right about homophobia in all aspects of society. Yet I've never met a group of people less hung up about sexuality and sexual identity than my kids and their peers, they are growing up in a world where difference doesn't matter. Your loving church just flags it up all over the place, no better way to control than divide and rule. And I dislike your prejudice against the young, but then what else should I have expected? After all, the young tend to be unbelievers, and as far as you are concerned that's all wrong because they don't know they need saving.

[ad_orientem]

Been at the communion wine, you sound sloshed?

Sausage fingers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you give yourself a label that sets you apart as a child of God then you set yourself aside from the rest of society. I find church sinister in some ways, yes.

You are right about homophobia in all aspects of society. Yet I've never met a group of people less hung up about sexuality and sexual identity than my kids and their peers, they are growing up in a world where difference doesn't matter. Your loving church just flags it up all over the place, no better way to control than divide and rule. And I dislike your prejudice against the young, but then what else should I have expected? After all, the young tend to be unbelievers, and as far as you are concerned that's all wrong because they don't know they need saving.

You what?