Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof D:- The CofE does come knocking on your door to raise money to fund the cost of providing its church services, it expects its church-goers to do so. Likewise the RCC.

Neither of those churches have ever sent people to knock on my door for money, in my whole life!
They take a collection in church from congregants on Sundays.

Sorry - typo - I meant 'The CofE doesn't come knocking on your door to raise money to fund the cost of providing its church services, it expects its church-goers to do so. Likewise the RCC.

That was my whole point - the SA does come knocking on your door asking for donations, much of which is used for the day to day costs of providing its religious worship. It is pretty well unique in doing that - other churches don't - they expect their congregations to cough up for those costs, not the general public via donations on the doorstep or on the street.

[floo]

Floo, I agree with what you said earlier about door knocking with tins! Maybe in high street, charities often have a stand and leaflets but haven't seen that for a while. Certainly no churches around where I live do door knocking.

RNLI - Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a charity that I've been told uses next to nothing for administration and all staff are volunteers. A worthy cause indeed. Tho' I don't object to staff being paid, usually charity staff are not paid particularly well compared to private sector.

We used to donate to the RLNI on a regular basis.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Sorry - typo - I meant 'The CofE doesn't come knocking on your door to raise money to fund the cost of providing its church services, it expects its church-goers to do so. Likewise the RCC.

That was my whole point - the SA does come knocking on your door asking for donations, much of which is used for the day to day costs of providing its religious worship. It is pretty well unique in doing that - other churches don't - they expect their congregations to cough up for those costs, not the general public via donations on the doorstep or on the street.

You do not have to give money to them! Just throw away their envelope & refuse to answer the door.

[SteveH]

you're at it again with your smugness , don't tell me what I can or can't expect .

I think you're trying to wind me up, provoke me into a profane outburst, and get me banned. Well, I decline to be wound. Sorry.

[ProfessorDavey]

RNLI - Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a charity that I've been told uses next to nothing for administration and all staff are volunteers. A worthy cause indeed. Tho' I don't object to staff being paid, usually charity staff are not paid particularly well compared to private sector.

All charities need to fund basic administrative costs and also the costs associated with fundraising. You'd hope the former is key to the minimum necessary and the latter is used effectively, so raises far more than the costs involved.

But once those costs are stripped out you'd expect the charity to be using pretty well all the rest of its money to support its charitable aim - so for the RNLI, that would be providing lifeboat and lifeguard services.

That's where the SA is so problematic as its charitable aims are so opaque - is it a church or is it a charity providing services for vulnerable people. It is very happy to be seen as the latter when attempting to raise money from the public, but the reality is that very little of the money it raises actually is spent on those services. So I suspect you'd be somewhat concerned if the RNLI was only spending 22% of its income on providing lifeboat and lifeguard services.

So there is an interesting comparison here, given that the SA and RNLI aren't miles apart in terms of annual income - SA is £209million, RNLI is £197million. But when you look at expenditure on the type of activity the organisations market themselves on to attract donations from the public the difference is astonishing. The RNLI spends £146million (74% of its income) on providing lifeboat and lifeguard services. The SA spends just £47 million (22% of its income) on helping vulnerable people.

[ProfessorDavey]

You do not have to give money to them! Just throw away their envelope & refuse to answer the door.

I don't give money to them.

The problem is that I don't believe they are honest with the public about where they spend their money. Over the years they have created the impression that the main thing they do is help vulnerable people, e.g. via soup kitchens, support for homeless etc. But actually this is a minor part of their activity and expenditure.

e.g. this:

https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/help-salvation-army-help-people-need-donating-big-collection

'This year more than ever The Salvation Army needs your help to raise vital funds for the Big Collection for people in need to support its diverse programme of life-changing social and community work.

... Please give as generously as you can as 100% of all donations to the Big Collection will directly support the church and charity’s work to help people in need.'

Read this and you'd think that 100% of your donation will directly help people in need. This, as their most recent account demonstrate, is dishonest in the extreme, just 22% goes to help people in need. They focus on their 'life-changing social and community work', which is clearly indicated in their accounts as expenditure of just £47 million of their annual £209 million income.

[Robbie]

The Salvation Army has never knocked on my door for a donation!

Presumably money is spent on training SA soldiers. People I know who are SA officers have worked abroad in places where there is great need & in prisons over here amongst other things. They have to be salaried. I've no objection to them being salaried out of my meagre annual donation.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Salvation Army has never knocked on my door for a donation!

Really - they do so every year around here. Their modus operandus is to know on the door with the little collection envelope. I no-one is in they leave the envelope and knock a day or so later for a donation.

Presumably money is spent on training SA soldiers. People I know who are SA officers have worked abroad in places where there is great need & in prisons over here amongst other things. They have to be salaried. I've no objection to them being salaried out of my meagre annual donation.

But those costs will be in the 'Community Programmes' and/or 'Training Programmes' sections of their accounts - which together are less than 25% of their income.

I think you may be a bit shocked by the figures in their accounts, and feel the need to try to explain them away. But they are what they are - and don't forget that the accounts are produced by the SA themselves and independently audited so there can be no accusation of a smear campaign.

The problem is that the reality in their accounts bears no resemblance to what they claim and market as part of their 'Big Collection for people in need' campaign.

[Walter]

I think you're trying to wind me up, provoke me into a profane outburst, and get me banned. Well, I decline to be wound. Sorry.

keep calm and post on

[Anchorman]

Yes they do.

If you are a married heterosexual person you can become a member of the SA, if you are married homosexual person you are banned from becoming a member. That is the most obvious direct discrimination you can get.

The SA is classed as a religious denomination.
Their interretation of Scripture leads them to reject same-sex marriage, just as other relihious denominations (and other religions, for rhat matter) do.
In my experience working at a local level ith the SA, first as a volunteer in a joint  drug rehab project in the early 1980's, (no pun intended) when I was more active in ther Iona Community, and latterly serving on a joint liason committee in my local county, I have not noted any homophobia, or lack of tolerance toward any gender or social situation. Quite the opposite: I know of a lady - a lesbian - who was weaned off drugs and alcohol through a SA rehab centre. She was never presured to make any faith committment; though the SA made no secret of their faith.
She remains an atheist.

[Robbie]

That's exactly what i've found over the years Anchor.

[ProfessorDavey]

The SA is classed as a religious denomination.
Their interretation of Scripture leads them to reject same-sex marriage, just as other relihious denominations (and other religions, for rhat matter) do.
In my experience working at a local level ith the SA, first as a volunteer in a joint  drug rehab project in the early 1980's, (no pun intended) when I was more active in ther Iona Community, and latterly serving on a joint liason committee in my local county, I have not noted any homophobia, or lack of tolerance toward any gender or social situation. Quite the opposite: I know of a lady - a lesbian - who was weaned off drugs and alcohol through a SA rehab centre. She was never presured to make any faith committment; though the SA made no secret of their faith.
She remains an atheist.

Would you actually like to respond to the point I actually made which was:

'If you are a married heterosexual person you can become a member of the SA, if you are married homosexual person you are banned from becoming a member. That is the most obvious direct discrimination you can get.'

Just because they don't discriminate in all cases, doesn't mean they don't discriminate - they clearly do as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's exactly what i've found over the years Anchor.

But you accept that as a matter of policy they do discriminate as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

[Robbie]

We used to donate to the RLNI on a regular basis.

Good. I've donated from time to time, my sister is very keen on them having lived down at the coast for a while when young and seen them in action.

But you accept that as a matter of policy they do discriminate as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

If you say so Prof. They don't discriminate when it comes to people they serve, far from it; the rules they have for themselves is up to them. It may change in the future.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

But you accept that as a matter of policy they do discriminate as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

Crap.

The Sally army will offer help to anybody in distress. If you want to spit in their face, go ahead. You will be the one who looks like a bigot.

[Robbie]

Precisely HWB.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi NS – sorry for the delay.

Not sure why you switched from a comment on belief systems to belief types,

I didn’t. I was trying to bring it back from where you tried to take it.

Certainly if we define a belief type as a belief that is held as certainly true, and one that isn't then they are different. But the thing the belief is about is not the determinant factor here, it's what the persn holding the belief thinks. So the issue you have with certainty is with people who act as if they are certain about things, not what the belief is.

That’s backwards. Some beliefs have inherent in them that they are inerrantly, certainly true – “God is” is a typical example. Others on the other hand do not – scientific theories for example. It’s not that a belief is “held as” certainly true/not true but rather that some beliefs themselves are certain in their character.   

Further the people who are not certain and allow for the possibility of being wrong can also talk about faith and if you accept that then your faith = dogmatism idea falls unless you go down the NTS route. And that's why I mentioned that, it wasn't saying that you have used it, but unless you were to use it, you would have to move from your position on faith.

No. If someone accepts, say, the belief “God is is certainly true” then they cannot allow for the possibility of that claim being wrong. They buy it wholesale or they reject it wholesale. “God might be real” is a fundamentally different claim to “God certainly is”.

As to equality the vegan has a different definition and the Archbish may do too - I would suggest we all do to an extent and that in day to day conversations the differences aren't important but in the rather more complex cases, what is meant by equality

No doubt, but not relevant to the point – “all people should be treated equally” stands or falls on its merits. Either the Archbish agrees with it or he doesn’t. “Animals should therefore be afforded equal rights to people” doesn’t change that.   

Disageeing with a comparison as being valid isn't derailing.

It is when why it’s a derail is explained. 

At base your position seems to be that if someone were to say I am certain that Marmite is great, that is skin crawling.

Nope. At base I’m saying that if someone says, “Marmite is objectively great” that is “skin crawling” for want of a better term. A better analogy though would be something like, “unicorns are objectively real” as taste is necessarily subjective so is unlikely to be the subject of a claim of objective certainty.   

Further since there are lots of people who state that they have faith but would express doubt as to whether something is true, then the whole point you are making is based on a caricature

That’s a non sequitur. That there may well be lots of people who have doubts about the objective truth of their faith beliefs does not mean that there aren’t lots of people who have no doubts at all. Quite a few of the theists who post here for example are like that – several times I’ve been told that, no matter what evidence or argument there might be, nothing could ever shake their certainty in the fact of “God”.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.

I find it difficult to think of something more wrong that that. Faith starts and ends with no evidence at all, makes a guess, calls that guess "God", and then worships it.

Science on the other hand starts with hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests it, and either rejects or amends the hypotheses or develops the results into theories. It cannot "go a bit further in the same direction" except as another hypothesis that itself would be subject to the same process.

Epic fail.   

[SteveH]

SteveH,

I find it difficult to think of something more wrong that that. Faith starts and ends with no evidence at all, makes a guess, calls that guess "God", and then worships it.

Science on the other hand starts with hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests it, and either rejects or amends the hypotheses or develops the results into theories. It cannot "go a bit further in the same direction" except as another hypothesis that itself would be subject to the same process.

Epic fail.   

As I said before, you are insisting that your definition of faith is the only possible one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SteveH,

I find it difficult to think of something more wrong that that. Faith starts and ends with no evidence at all, makes a guess, calls that guess "God", and then worships it.

Science on the other hand starts with hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests it, and either rejects or amends the hypotheses or develops the results into theories. It cannot "go a bit further in the same direction" except as another hypothesis that itself would be subject to the same process.

Epic fail.   

But how does science help you in anyway that can't help me Hillside. I can have science without faith in scientism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

As I said before, you are insisting that your definition of faith is the only possible one.

If you did then you'd have been wrong then too. "Faith" is the pixie dust that gets you from guessing to assertion without the hard yards of evidence in between. If you did have evidence then there's be no need for faith.

Claiming faith and science to be analogous is grotesque. 

[SteveH]

Wahey! This thread has overtaken the other one in mumber of posts!   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Humph,

The Sally army will offer help to anybody in distress. If you want to spit in their face, go ahead. You will be the one who looks like a bigot.

Why is it "spitting in their face" not to fund an organisation that's institutionally homophobic, especially when different charities without the baked in homophobia are available? Maybe if more people vetoed the SA in protest it'd force them to rethink their policy.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

SeveH,

Wahey! This thread has overtaken the other one in mumber of posts!   

See Reply 20.

[Anchorman]

Would you actually like to respond to the point I actually made which was:

'If you are a married heterosexual person you can become a member of the SA, if you are married homosexual person you are banned from becoming a member. That is the most obvious direct discrimination you can get.'

Just because they don't discriminate in all cases, doesn't mean they don't discriminate - they clearly do as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

I thought I already responded.
The interpretation of Christian marriage which the SA espouses as a Christian church -which it is - is in accord with mainstream Christian evangelical thought.