Something out of place here.

[Nearly Sane]

Such actions are in direct conflict with the Christian message of the New Testament.
The last command of Jesus was "Love one another as I have loved you"

and yet the people who did it used your god to justify it. Anazing how worthless that god is.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith.  We can't both be right.  However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true.  It is more than a matter of life or death.

Oh dear, oh dear - the old threatening approach. See me quiver.

AB - do you not think I've heard of Pascal's wager. Don't your think I've done the calculation and recognised it for the busted flush it is.

Problem for you is there are many, many more possible scenarios than 'no god' vs 'christian god' and I can claim the entire territory of the 'no god' possibly, while you can only claim a tiny proportion of 'there is a god' territory. And when you recognise the whole spectrum of possibilities, then plenty of those outcomes are more favourable to me than you.

So if I am right then the outcome is neutral albeit you have wasted your life worshiping a non existent god.

Sure if you are right then you are hunky dory and I'm in trouble.

But remember there are literally thousands of gods purported to exist so if there is a god there is no guarantee that it is the christian god. Indeed it is likely that it isn't. So if there is a god, but not the christian god then we are both in trouble if that if they are vengeful and require worship or damnation.

But perhaps the god that may exist isn't interested in whether it is worshiped, but takes a hugely dim view of worshiping false gods - fine for me, bad news for you.

Or a god which isn't interested in whether it is worshiped but is interested in what you do with you life. So all that wasted time worshiping some other non existent god isn't going to look good for you compared to my much better use of time.

etc etc.

So I'd suggest there are just as many scenarios in which you are in big trouble as I am (probably more) - sadly you don't seem to have thought through these alternative scenarios so blinkered in you view are you.

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear, oh dear - the old threatening approach. See me quiver.

AB - do you not think I've heard of Pascal's wager. Don't your think I've done the calculation and recognised it for the busted flush it is.

Problem for you is there are many, many more possible scenarios than 'no god' vs 'christian god' and I can claim the entire territory of the 'no god' possibly, while you can only claim a tiny proportion of 'there is a god' territory. And when you recognise the whole spectrum of possibilities, then plenty of those outcomes are more favourable to me than you.

So if I am right then the outcome is neutral albeit you have wasted your life worshiping a non existent god.

Sure if you are right then you are hunky dory and I'm in trouble.

But remember there are literally thousands of gods purported to exist so if there is a god there is no guarantee that it is the christian god. Indeed it is likely that it isn't. So if there is a god, but not the christian god then we are both in trouble if that if they are vengeful and require worship or damnation.

But perhaps the god that may exist isn't interested in whether it is worshiped, but takes a hugely dim view of worshiping false gods - fine for me, bad news for you.

Or a god which isn't interested in whether it is worshiped but is interested in what you do with you life. So all that wasted time worshiping some other non existent god isn't going to look good for you compared to my much better use of time.

etc etc.

So I'd suggest there are just as many scenarios in which you are in big trouble as I am (probably more) - sadly you don't seem to have thought through these alternative scenarios so blinkered in you view are you.

I fully understand your views as taken from outside the Christian faith.

You can't possibly imagine how all these arguments will disappear into oblivion if you were to encounter the reality of God's love in your life.

Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?

[Stranger]

Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?

Your absolute certainty is not something to be proud of. As I said before, it's a symptom of irrationality.

[Gordon]

Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?

In principle, I wouldn't want to be.

Bertrand Russell offered some useful advice on this in his Liberal Decalogue: where his first point is "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

[Outrider]

The definition of progress you are using is a myth.

So if progress isn't 'things getting better for people' what is it?

Secularisation clearly isn't (progress) so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.

Established religion in the UK has been consistently homophobic, tribal, misogynistic. In other countries it can add consistently anti-science as well. Removing the excessive influence of any single example of that to afford multiple voices a say in society is progress. Or do you think that we shouldn't be listening to a range of voices and ensuring that no one religious stance has an overt influence?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

You can't possibly imagine how all these arguments will disappear into oblivion if you were to encounter the reality of God's love in your life.

And you cannot possibly imagine how your beliefs will disappear into oblivion if:

a) There is no god and no afterlife so your beliefs will disappear when you die.
b) When you discover there is a god, but not the christian god, and you realise you've been worshiping a non-existent god all along. Now you'd better hope that god is benevolent and not vengeful and concerned by you worshiping a false god all your life.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?

To have unshakable certain in something for which there is zero evidence doesn't seem to be a very sensible position to take AB.

But just because you have unshakable certainty (just as many other people do for completely different gods) doesn't mean you are right.

My view is that I have never seen any credible evidence for the existence of any god or gods. Under those circumstances I do not believe in their existence and choose to live my life on that basis. Hence I am atheist on the matter of belief in god/gods. However I cannot be certain and I do not know that god/gods do not exist (hence I am also agnostic with regard to knowledge.

However if credible evidence were to appear for the existence of god/gods then I will, of course, change my mind.

How about you AB - if credible evidence arose that there was a god but that god was Vishnu, rather than the god you worship, would you change your mind?

[BeRational]

In principle, I wouldn't want to be.

Bertrand Russell offered some useful advice on this in his Liberal Decalogue: where his first point is "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

I would think about the 'Fools Paradise'

[Roses]

I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith.  We can't both be right.  However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true.  It is more than a matter of life or death.

I am sure you are sincere about your take on faith, however you can't prove god exists anymore than than I can prove it doesn't. If the consequences of rejecting the faith are dire, god would be a very unpleasant entity making its existence a matter of belief without proving it to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. The deeds attributed to god in the OT and NT don't do it any favours, imo. 

[Outrider]

Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?

That you see this as a viable argument indicates the depth of the problem, here.

No, I absolutely cannot be as certain, because I accept the limitations of the human condition, the provisional nature of both scientific enquiry and the nature of understanding based as it is on a subjective awareness. You appear to have a level of confidence in your belief that is in no way a reflection of the quality of the evidence supporting it; you are, to an extent, immune to reason.

Your position is, definitionally, irrational,

O.

[jeremyp]

Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?

In my case, the answer to that is no. But contrary to your opinion, to admit the possibility that I might be wrong is a strength, not a weakness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you be as certain about your non belief as I am about my Christian faith?

Leaving aside for now that being certain about anything is a very foolish position to take – how would eliminate even the possibility of being wrong? – you’re also being inconsistent here. Sometimes you claim to be certain, but at other times (usually when your attempts at justifying arguments have collapsed completely) instead you disingenuously try the, “I’m only posting this idea as a possibility” line. 

Perhaps if you picked either position and then stuck with it your reasoning would at least be consistently wrong rather than inconsistently so?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if progress isn't 'things getting better for people' what is it?

Established religion in the UK has been consistently homophobic, tribal, misogynistic. In other countries it can add consistently anti-science as well. Removing the excessive influence of any single example of that to afford multiple voices a say in society is progress. Or do you think that we shouldn't be listening to a range of voices and ensuring that no one religious stance has an overt influence?

O.

I think many of the charges you are laying should be be laid at the door of non established churches namely prosperity gospel mega churches joined by politics and a shared interested in money making. Of course having an axe to grind allows you to completely disregard the downsides of the enlightenment, laissez faire, marketisation, global warming, pollution, unsustainable use of resources and the good side of established religion in moderation of the wilder aspects of personal religion and the parenting of humanism. American humanism put up a fine riposte against The misogyny of high profile atheists and scientific academics.UK humanism and Australian humanism, not such encouraging
Offspring from Christianity e.g. Nicholls misleading bollocks.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think many of the charges you are laying should be be laid at the door of non established churches namely prosperity gospel mega churches joined by politics and a shared interested in money making.

Outrider will no doubt answer for himself. However two of the tings he mentioned were homophobia and misogyny. And on these the two largest 'established' churches in the UK (CofE and RCC) are guilty as charged. Both churches believe that homosexuality is wrong and clearly discriminate against gay people. And both churches also discriminate against women. The RCC more significantly and overtly in effectively reserving all the most senior positions of influence for men. However the CofE isn't blameless - let's not forget that is is pretty recently that the CofE allowed women bishops and if you scratch below the surface there isn't equality are congregations are allowed to object to a woman bishop in a manner they aren't for a man.

So rather than try to divert attention to the non established churches as you call them, let's focus on the main denominations whose current position on equality for gay people and women is woeful in comparison with most law-abiding companies, charities etc in the UK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Outrider will no doubt answer for himself. However two of the tings he mentioned were homophobia and misogyny. And on these the two largest 'established' churches in the UK (CofE and RCC) are guilty as charged. Both churches believe that homosexuality is wrong and clearly discriminate against gay people. And both churches also discriminate against women. The RCC more significantly and overtly in effectively reserving all the most senior positions of influence for men. However the CofE isn't blameless - let's not forget that is is pretty recently that the CofE allowed women bishops and if you scratch below the surface there isn't equality are congregations are allowed to object to a woman bishop in a manner they aren't for a man.

So rather than try to divert attention to the non established churches as you call them, let's focus on the main denominations whose current position on equality for gay people and women is woeful in comparison with most law-abiding companies, charities etc in the UK.

As far as I know no church or clergy have been charged with homophobia in the UK or found guilty. How could they. You are indulging in wankfantasy.
But supposing the debate was reopened. Homophobia would have to be studied. I see no fear of homosexuality, again, wank fantasy. The case then the complaint is an equalities issue. Now absolute equality cannot be assured there are differences and I believe it is the difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage that renders the idea of a gender neutral marriage with less of a claim to the title holy matrimony. Firstly the claim is very recent and how it has come about needs an explanation beyond a particular interpretation of the term equal rights. Secondly the only information we have on the holy is from scripture which defines holy matrimony as gender important.

There is therefore the risk here that gender neutral marriages are not going to have the same status with god no matter how hard people try to make them holy.

And that brings us to the Hillside angle. God himself is homophobic. Well, why would God be phobic? Relationships are a gift and the nature and potential of any relationship is ultimately weighed by God.

Let me add another group for whom holy matrimony is not on offer... single people who have the gift of a certain freedom of being they would not have if married. Holy matrimony is not for them.

Nuns and priests have a form of marriage to God. That doesn’t mean that us marrieds are less equal then them in the distribution of God’s love and neither are those who do not fall under the rubric of gender important matrimony.

Gender neutral marriages exist already but I would certainly be very interested to know about how and why the very recent demands for holy gender neutral marriages arose, seemingly from nowhere.Particularly when the murky hand of atheism is present in it.

[Gordon]

As far as I know no church or clergy have been charged with homophobia in the UK or found guilty. How could they. You are indulging in wankfantasy.
But supposing the debate was reopened. Homophobia would have to be studied. I see no fear of homosexuality, again, wank fantasy. The case then the complaint is an equalities issue. Now absolute equality cannot be assured there are differences and I believe it is the difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage that renders the idea of a gender neutral marriage with less of a claim to the title holy matrimony. Firstly the claim is very recent and how it has come about needs an explanation beyond a particular interpretation of the term equal rights. Secondly the only information we have on the holy is from scripture which defines holy matrimony as gender important.

There is therefore the risk here that gender neutral marriages are not going to have the same status with god no matter how hard people try to make them holy.

And that brings us to the Hillside angle. God himself is homophobic. Well, why would God be phobic? Relationships are a gift and the nature and potential of any relationship is ultimately weighed by God.

Let me add another group for whom holy matrimony is not on offer... single people who have the gift of a certain freedom of being they would not have if married. Holy matrimony is not for them.

Nuns and priests have a form of marriage to God. That doesn’t mean that us marrieds are less equal then them in the distribution of God’s love and neither are those who do not fall under the rubric of gender important matrimony.

Gender neutral marriages exist already but I would certainly be very interested to know about how and why the very recent demands for holy gender neutral marriages arose, seemingly from nowhere.Particularly when the murky hand of atheism is present in it.

None of which addresses a core issue that you keep avoiding: should a same-sex couple who are both committed and practicing Christians wish to have a 'holy' wedding you, along with various Christian denominations, are prepared to deny them that on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic and discriminatory.


 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

As far as I know no church or clergy have been charged with homophobia in the UK or found guilty. How could they. You are indulging in wankfantasy.

You cannot be charged with a homophobic offence when you're protected by special exemptions in the equalities legislation.

You’ve been corrected on this already.

But supposing the debate was reopened. Homophobia would have to be studied. I see no fear of homosexuality, again, wank fantasy.

You don’t have to have fear for a practice to be homophobic (though arguably the culture your church validates that leads to young men being beaten up on the street does).

You’ve been corrected on this already.

The case then the complaint is an equalities issue. Now absolute equality cannot be assured there are differences and I believe it is the difference between gender important marriage and gender neutral marriage that renders the idea of a gender neutral marriage with less of a claim to the title holy matrimony.

Your beliefs about “holy” matrimony are neither here nor there. Either it’s offered equally, or it’s offered only on a discriminatory basis.   

You’ve been corrected on this already.

Firstly the claim is very recent and how it has come about needs an explanation beyond a particular interpretation of the term equal rights.

Anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, ani-slavery etc were all at one time very recent. How homophobia has come about is neither here nor there – if it exists now, then it exists now.

You’ve been corrected on this already.

Secondly the only information we have on the holy is from scripture which defines holy matrimony as gender important.

That’s just an argument for a homophobic scripture, which doesn’t help you.

You’ve been corrected on this already.

There is therefore the risk here that gender neutral marriages are not going to have the same status with god no matter how hard people try to make them holy.

You cannot have an unqualified guess (“god”) as your premise. I may as well argue that black people should sit only at the back of the bus because that’s what leprechauns want.

You’ve been corrected on this already.
 

And that brings us to the Hillside angle. God himself is homophobic.

No, “Hillside’s angle” as that the god story you espouse is homophobic.

You’ve been corrected on this already.

Well, why would God be phobic? Relationships are a gift and the nature and potential of any relationship is ultimately weighed by God.

The god story would be homophobic because the people who wrote it came from less enlightened times (see also “god's” support for slavery etc).

You’ve been corrected on this already.

Let me add another group for whom holy matrimony is not on offer... single people who have the gift of a certain freedom of being they would not have if married. Holy matrimony is not for them.

You’ve really lost it now. You need more than one person to marry – you do understand that right?

Nuns and priests have a form of marriage to God. That doesn’t mean that us marrieds are less equal then them in the distribution of God’s love and neither are those who do not fall under the rubric of gender important matrimony.

Nuns think themselves to be “brides of Christ”, therefore not as single at all. You do know that right? 

Gender neutral marriages exist already but I would certainly be very interested to know about how and why the very recent demands for holy gender neutral marriages arose, seemingly from nowhere.Particularly when the murky hand of atheism is present in it.

If you’re interested in something, do some research on it.

Back to the point though: you espouse a god story and associated real world practices that meet the definition for homophobia. You seem to think that’s a good thing – I on the other hand think it’s contemptible.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of which addresses a core issue that you keep avoiding: should a same-sex couple who are both committed and practicing Christians wish to have a 'holy' wedding you, along with various Christian denominations, are prepared to deny them that on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic and discriminatory.

No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual and his wife were to want holy matrimony and they were commited and practicing christians, and I was a clergyman and licensed. I would marry them. So it is nothing to do with their sexuality but that gender neutral marriage does not yet come under my rubric of holy matrimony and wouldn't until or the occasion of me being changed by revelation or discernment. I think you can see I have dismantled therefore the charge of homophobia as you present it

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtH,

No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual and his wife were to want holy matrimony and they were commited and practicing christians, and I was a clergyman and licensed. I would marry them. So it is nothing to do with their sexuality but that gender neutral marriage does not yet come under my rubric of holy matrimony and wouldn't until or the occasion of me being changed by revelation or discernment. I think you can see I have dismantled therefore the charge of homophobia as you present it

Bizarre reply. If any gay person wanted to marry someone of the same sex and you were their cleric, then you would refuse them. That's the homophobia part.

Try to remember this before you deflect off topic again.   

[ProfessorDavey]

No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual ...

Tom Robinson at one time may have indicated that he was gay, but he is bisexual and indeed he has indicated that he was always bisexual ...

... and his wife

As this point proves.

But actually the church discriminates against bisexual people as well as homosexual people as the church will marry a bisexual person provided their chosen spouse is of the opposite sex, but refuse to if their chosen spouse is of the same sex.

[Gordon]

No, If Tom Robinson, a professed homosexual and his wife were to want holy matrimony and they were commited and practicing christians, and I was a clergyman and licensed. I would marry them. So it is nothing to do with their sexuality but that gender neutral marriage does not yet come under my rubric of holy matrimony and wouldn't until or the occasion of me being changed by revelation or discernment. I think you can see I have dismantled therefore the charge of homophobia as you present it

The only thing that is being 'dismantled' are your laughable attempts to defend the indefensible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

You cannot be charged with a homophobic offence when you're protected by special exemptions in the equalities legislation.

Just like you can't get charged for wearing a loud shirt during the hours of darkness or smelling of foreign food. Your point is....?

You don’t have to have fear for a practice to be homophobic

and who decided that the literal meaning phobia of homosexuality be scrapped altogether and replaced by a flexible meaning( see Stonewalls changing definitions )

(though arguably the culture your church validates that leads to young men being beaten up on the street does).

I'm not sure the atheist's wankfantasy of hordes of churchgoers piling out of evensong to hunt down gays is consistent with an ever increasing secular society Hillside. You might have to explain what you have in mind here.

Your beliefs about “holy” matrimony are neither here nor there.

That makes two of us

Either it’s offered equally, or it’s offered only on a discriminatory basis.

since that's your view it is neither here nor there.   

Anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, ani-slavery etc were all at one time very recent.

I completely disagree

How homophobia has come about is neither here nor there – if it exists now, then it exists now.

Homophobia may have been around forever. That it is found in western non churched people, i.e. popular thuggery I would say IS due to fear of the different, fear of contracting homosexuality, fear of the myths surrounding it, and the taint roman aristocracy put on homosexuality which lingered for centuries and realisation of  ancient dogma by violent people. Opposition to the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony is very recent

   
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VtH,

Bizarre reply. If any gay person wanted to marry someone of the same sex and you were their cleric, then you would refuse them. That's the homophobia part.

Which of your suitcase full of definitions, which is deliberately lacking the plain meaning version of homophobia, are you referring to? In fact if you come back prematurely on this i'll know you are making it up as you go along.
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tom Robinson at one time may have indicated that he was gay, but he is bisexual and indeed he has indicated that he was always bisexual ...

But you are making the ridiculous assertion here that Robinson or anyone in his position somehow leaves his homosexuality at the door of the church when he or she seriously undertakes Holy matrimony. That is arrant nonsense on your part.