Something out of place here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

By people who understand what these terms mean, yes. Moreover, I’ve explained to you several times now what these terms do mean so just collapsing into expletives doesn’t get you out of that hole.

So no argument then. Funny that.

What makes you think that the Government of the day would have denied racist exemptions had the church asked for them given that they so cravenly kowtowed on the homophobic exemptions they were asked for?
 
You never have understood the meaning of the word “analogy” have you.

No, you are: for equality the service has to be open to all without special conditions attached. You may as well say that the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s with flakes in to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets instead) can’t be antisemitic because he will sell them the 99s, but only on condition that they pretend not to be Jewish.

Can you finally see where you’ve gone wrong again here?     

It already is “the state” (ie, established) church and you’ve missed the point. What governments tell people to do via legislation is meant to everyone to comply with. The outlier position is when special exemptions are given to selected groups so the same rules don’t apply to them.

I happen to think that homophobic exemptions from the equalities legislation granted to special interest groups on the grounds of faith is a bad thing for society as a whole. You it seems do not. That presumably is because you’re comfortable with your homophobia.     

Then, as ever, you rather think wrongly. If you think it’s antitheist to refuse the church morally indefensible exemptions to equalities legislation that’s your privilege, but the cost is that you thereby paint yourself firmly into the homophobic corner too.

Shame on you.     

Oh, and just to remind you – here once again is why you’re a homophobe (and I’ve even amended it slightly to address your latest pathetic deflection):

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people who wish to marry each other.

4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.

That makes you a homophobe.

Do you get it now?

I thought there was a rule posting the same thing at the same person over and over again.......ah, well, when it suits eh?
That is hypnosis by the way.

Again what you are proposing Hillside is a society whereby we should not accept religion nor give it public forum but then you also want this church to do what the state tells it in doctrinal issues. That is a state church.

That makes you a totalitarian

Do you get it now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Roses,

Vlad just can't help himself.   

I do sometimes wonder whether decent and reasoning Christians (and there are plenty of them) who read Vlad’s efforts here head in hands at the reputational damage he does to their faith might actually conclude that he’s some kind of deep undercover anti-theist committed to wrecking their church from within.

Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury or someone like him should be alerted in case he finally succeeds?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Roses,

I do sometimes wonder whether decent and reasoning Christians (and there are plenty of them) who read Vlad’s efforts here head in hands at the reputational damage he does to their faith might actually conclude that he’s some kind of deep undercover anti-theist committed to wrecking their church from within.

Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury or someone like him should be alerted in case he finally succeeds?   

Decent christians no doubt who shut the fuck up in the face of your atheist wankfantasies, I will give you this you treat all christians equally with the same disrespect.

Oh Oh Vlad is stopping me from reaching you Lord because he is being beastly and after all I was brought up to believe Christians were doormats, After all Lord, you old homophobe, it says in your old book.      Ha Ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

 Vlad the Homophobe,

I thought there was a rule posting the same thing at the same person over and over again.......ah, well, when it suits eh?

There may well be, but on the other hand when someone repeatedly asks for the explanation he’s already been given and then consistently ignores it what do you expect?

That is hypnosis by the way.

Gibberish.

Again what you are proposing Hillside is a society whereby we should not accept religion nor give it public forum but then you also want this church to do what the state tells it in doctrinal issues. That is a state church.

More lying doesn’t help you here either. As you well know (because I’ve told you, what, hundreds of times now?) what I’m actually opposed to is institutions given special privileges in the public square solely on the ground of their imaginary friends.

You won’t understand this, but so should you be. It happens (presumably) that you’re not gay, so the homophobic exemptions given to your church don’t bother you. Who’s to say though what innate characteristics you do have that potentially at least some faith group may one day want to discriminate against – who will stand up for you then given your indifference at the bigotry your church visits on gay people now?         

That makes you a totalitarian

Only if you completely misunderstand what that word means.

Oh, and I see that as ever you’ve completely ignored the arguments that handed your arse to you in a sling once again. What does this dishonesty say about you do you think? 

Yet again then, here’s why you’re a homophobe:

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people who wish to marry each other.

4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.

Finally address that or not as you wish, but the facts won’t change if you don’t.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Decent christians no doubt who shut the fuck up in the face of your atheist wankfantasies, I will give you this you treat all christians equally with the same disrespect.

Keep going – you’re making my point for me.

Oh Oh Vlad is stopping me from reaching you Lord because he is being beastly and after all I was brought up to believe Christians were doormats, After all Lord, you old homophobe, it says in your old book.      Ha Ha.

Temper tantrums aren’t arguments.

As ever when you run out of road you resort to foot stamping. The International League of Super-Dastardly Undercover Ant-theists would be proud of you for doing their work so assiduously. Keep it up.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Hang on a minute, I’ve just noticed something:

Victorious

League of

Anti-theist

Double agents

Your cover has been blown old son. Still, I’ll say this for you – you had a good run.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Hang on a minute, I’ve just noticed something:

Victorious

League of

Anti-theist

Double agents

Your cover has been blown old son. Still, I’ll say this for you – you had a good run.

The prayer of Hillside

Lord, send us some new Christians, these ones are substandard.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

The prayer of Hillside

Lord, send us some new Christians, these ones are substandard.

I already have one of those thanks. It's a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel though - what I'd actually pray for is some Christians here capable of coherent reasoning. I don't suppose you know any do you? Maybe the non-homophobic wing of your church would be a good place to look?     

[Outrider]

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.

The Anglican community is still facing a schism over the issue of gay rights; the institutional misogyny of all the Abrahamic faiths is well established; the prosperity gospellers at least are honest about their money-grabbing, not like the Catholic Church and the likes of Mother Theresa... no, it's just about the fringe groups and the non-established churches at all.

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...

Laissez-faire economics has been the background that has allowed the financing of the vast technological boom that has raised the overall human condition across the board; that it could be more equitably distributed is a failing, but it's one of politics (politics that, in a significant portion of the history of that laissez-faire economics has been significantly influenced by the major religions, and the need to pander to them).

Unsuitable use of what resources? Some have been misused, some wasted, others have been incredibly well utilised.

Global warming and pollution are an issue, yes, I've been quite accepting of that. It's an issue that an awful lot more people are facing with the possibility of educating themselves over, and being able to have their voices heard in courts over than would have been the case if the religions were still the majority influence.

...the good side of established religion in moderation of the wilder aspects of personal religion and the parenting of humanism.

Which are what, exactly?

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.

Individuals of any stripe can be problematic - is it the institutes that have been the problem? Have they failed to respond, have they perpetrated generations long cover-ups, have the overtly threatened and punished the victims of this mistreatment consistently? I suspect we both know the answer to that.
 

Offspring from Christianity e.g. Nicholls misleading bollocks.

Uh, what?

So, we're better educated, better nourished, better connected and healthier, as a world, than we ever were under the reins of religion... and whilst there are problems to be addressed, the age-old ones of warfare, misogyny, tribal violence and hate-crimes are down... but progress is a myth, and the Enlightenment hasn't brought us anything worthwhile?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Anglican community is still facing a schism over the issue of gay rights; the institutional misogyny of all the Abrahamic faiths is well established; the prosperity gospellers at least are honest about their money-grabbing, not like the Catholic Church and the likes of Mother Theresa... no, it's just about the fringe groups and the non-established churches at all.

Laissez-faire economics has been the background that has allowed the financing of the vast technological boom that has raised the overall human condition across the board; that it could be more equitably distributed is a failing, but it's one of politics (politics that, in a significant portion of the history of that laissez-faire economics has been significantly influenced by the major religions, and the need to pander to them).

Unsuitable use of what resources? Some have been misused, some wasted, others have been incredibly well utilised.

Global warming and pollution are an issue, yes, I've been quite accepting of that. It's an issue that an awful lot more people are facing with the possibility of educating themselves over, and being able to have their voices heard in courts over than would have been the case if the religions were still the majority influence.

Which are what, exactly?

Individuals of any stripe can be problematic - is it the institutes that have been the problem? Have they failed to respond, have they perpetrated generations long cover-ups, have the overtly threatened and punished the victims of this mistreatment consistently? I suspect we both know the answer to that.
 
Uh, what?

So, we're better educated, better nourished, better connected and healthier, as a world, than we ever were under the reins of religion... and whilst there are problems to be addressed, the age-old ones of warfare, misogyny, tribal violence and hate-crimes are down... but progress is a myth, and the Enlightenment hasn't brought us anything worthwhile?

O.

You have missed a fair few problems from your list greed, theft, corruption, adultery. A laissez fairer system existed and sent kids up chimneys, down pits and under machinery, an addiction to fossil fuels which has led to fossil fuels.

The c of E has put itself in jeopardy but gay rights will have to take it's place in the queue with what needs resolving.

[Gordon]

The c of E has put itself in jeopardy but gay rights will have to take it's place in the queue with what needs resolving.

Can't see why the issue of 'holy matrimony' requires a long delay in a queue: all it needs, surely, is a policy change whereby the providers of the the 'holy' element are no longer seeking to deny it to same-sex couples, plus a quick amendment to the equalities legislation to remove the current shameful cop-out exemptions.

[Outrider]

You have missed a fair few problems from your list greed, theft, corruption, adultery.

And there's been no evidence of any of those prior to the Enlightenment, right?

A laissez fairer system existed and sent kids up chimneys, down pits and under machinery, an addiction to fossil fuels which has led to fossil fuels.

And has now produced child-labour laws, and integrated the rights of children into a universal declaration of human rights, and produced a growing social welfare and health and safety understanding.

The c of E has put itself in jeopardy but gay rights will have to take it's place in the queue with what needs resolving.

That would be the Church of England with its £1billion a year income from its £8.7 billion endowment which rakes in £12million a year from the government to upkeep its buildings, whilst we're talking about 'greed'. The Church of England which only announced last year that it's going to divest its investments in fossil fuels, seeing as global warming and pollution are a problem. The Church of England which says it's going to divest from arms manufacturers, because it's only now worried about all those child soldiers that at least didn't have to go down the mines or up the chimneys. The Church of England which still tries to maintain a stranglehold on educational establishments because they're worried about the freedom of children to just be children...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can't see why the issue of 'holy matrimony' requires a long delay in a queue: all it needs, surely, is a policy change whereby the providers of the the 'holy' element are no longer seeking to deny it to same-sex couples,

The holy element as you call it is something christians have no control over, namely God. This is 'Boss' thinking on your part. The Church seeks God. (pious bit over) it's not seeking to deny or provide but to discern God's will.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And there's been no evidence of any of those prior to the Enlightenment, right?

But with the industrial revolution these come on an, er, industrial scale.

And has now produced child-labour laws, and integrated the rights of children into a universal declaration of human rights, and produced a growing social welfare and health and safety understanding.

This is a ''without all the squalor and misery of the industrial revolution we wouldn't now have these things'' argument. These things were brought in when we realised how bad the enlightenment was going not because it was going well. This is us coming to our senses over what had happened due to the enlightenment. Such a reaction isn't guaranteed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

The holy element as you call it is something christians have no every control over, namely whether or not to espouse just one version of a God belief. This is 'Boss' thinking on your part. The Church seeks justifications for its homophobias by claiming a homophobic God. (pious bit over) it's not seeking to deny or provide but to discern God's will as written in a story they choose to believe as an article of faith.

FIFY

I've corrected you on your fondness for the fallacy of reification many times now - why then do you keep collapsing back into the same mistake?

[ProfessorDavey]

That would be the Church of England with its £1billion a year income from its £8.7 billion endowment which rakes in £12million a year from the government to upkeep its buildings, whilst we're talking about 'greed'.

It goes way, way further than that - not only does the CofE get major handouts for upkeep of buildings, uniquely premises used for religious purposes are completely exempt from business rate - so much so that the buildings aren't even listed on rateable values listings of the Valuation Office agency. For other charities, in most cases they are still expected to pay 20% of the business rates, and if a part of the premises (e.g. a cafe in a museum) is considered to be a commercial venture then 100% rates has to be paid on that part of the space. Yet for churches, not only do they not pay a penny for their main premises they can run a cafe as a commercial venture and pay not a penny of business rates on that either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

FIFY

I've corrected you on your fondness for the fallacy of reification many times now - why then do you keep collapsing back into the same mistake?

Clueless. That's your world Hillside, what is God a reification of, apart from everything you don't like so that's your reification.
The church is not just another organisation. The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.

[Outrider]

But with the industrial revolution these come on an, er, industrial scale.

Is there any evidence that the rate is any higher? Or is it just that the Enlightenment has been successful at stopping people dying, so there are more people around?

This is a ''without all the squalor and misery of the industrial revolution we wouldn't now have these things'' argument.

As opposed to the 'religion is of great comfort to people in a world torn apart by religion' argument, you mean?

These things were brought in when we realised how bad the enlightenment was going not because it was going well.

You appear to be conflating the Industrial Age with the Englightenment; the Englightenment was a philosophical stage the gave us the likes of Hume and Locke, neither of whom was a figure of Industry or technology, but who wrote on ethics and morality and how to deal with those ideas in a world where it was obvious that religion had had its day.

This is us coming to our senses over what had happened due to the enlightenment. Such a reaction isn't guaranteed.

No, this is the continuation of the Enlightenment as we've moved from the Industrial Age, Technological Age, through the Digital Age,  and, arguably, into the Information Age.

O.

[Gordon]

The holy element as you call it is something christians have no control over, namely God.

Don't be silly: of course they do, where the obvious examples are the notable variations in Christian dogmas between Christian sects.
 

This is 'Boss' thinking on your part. The Church seeks God. (pious bit over) it's not seeking to deny or provide but to discern God's will.

Presumably reification is the fallacy du jour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtH,

Clueless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

That's your world Hillside, what is God a reification of, apart from everything you don't like so that's your reification.

Perhaps if you tried at least to look up what this word means before you screw it up again that would help. You take faith claims (“god” and what this supposed god supposedly wants) and reify them for your premise. It’s the same argument as me saying that leprechauns hate black people staying in B&Bs so it’s right that I put a “No blacks” sign in the window of my B&B, and if you don’t like it you’d better take it up with the leprechauns.

Surely at some dim level of comprehension even you can see the problem with using unqualified faith claims as your premises can’t you?

Can’t you?

The church is not just another organisation.

Yes it is, only it’s an organisation that’s given special privileges in the public square that are denied to other organisations so it can behave contemptibly without fear of prosecution.

The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.

So have most churches over the millennia too. This one can cling on more effectively because of the special privileges it enjoys (getting to kids in special schools before they’ve fully developed critical faculties of their own for example), but there’s no particular reason to think it won’t go the same way as the rest of them in due course.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Presumably reification is the fallacy du jour.

Sure seems to be. He’s determined to play a game of:

“1. Let’s pretend that I can give you a coherent definition of “god”;

2. Let’s also pretend that I’ve been able to demonstrate the existence of this supposed god; and

3. Let’s also pretend that I’ve been able to demonstrate a reliable way to know what this supposed god supposedly thinks and wants.

OK, so on that basis I can defend my homophobia on the ground that its divinely ordained.” 

Just by way of some icing on the cake, he also seems to be oblivious to the problem that even if we did pretend all those things still all he’d be left with is a homophobic god.

When this is explained to him, rather than address the problem he has the quite astonishing brass neck to accuse the person who does the explaining of being “clueless”.

You couldn’t make it up, you really couldn’t. Oh wait, it’s Vlad – making shit up is all he has.

Oh well. 

[Outrider]

The church is not just another organisation.

'The' Church? Which singular church is that, the Presbyterians, RC, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Anglican, Latter Day Saints... the list goes on. Each of those churches is just another organisation, just like the various churches that came before them.

The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.

In much the same way, yes. Culture moves on, and institutions wither, die and are reborn.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The church is not just another organisation. The quango's, departments, corporations, services will pass away.

Churches are indeed just another organisation - one that must adhere to the laws of the land. Currently those laws allow them an opt out of Equalities legislation, but whether or not that remains in the years and decades to come is a matter, quite rightly, for the democratically elected government of the UK.

Much as some churches consider that they are above the law, and operate according to their own parallel legal system - it isn't true. Churches must adhere to the law.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VtH,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Perhaps if you tried at least to look up what this word means before you screw it up again that would help. You take faith claims (“god” and what this supposed god supposedly wants) and reify them for your premise. It’s the same argument as me saying that leprechauns hate black people staying in B&Bs so it’s right that I put a “No blacks” sign in the window of my B&B, and if you don’t like it you’d better take it up with the leprechauns.

Surely at some dim level of comprehension even you can see the problem with using unqualified faith claims as your premises can’t you?

Can’t you?

Yes it is, only it’s an organisation that’s given special privileges in the public square that are denied to other organisations so it can behave contemptibly without fear of prosecution.

So have most churches over the millennia too. This one can cling on more effectively because of the special privileges it enjoys (getting to kids in special schools before they’ve fully developed critical faculties of their own for example), but there’s no particular reason to think it won’t go the same way as the rest of them in due course.

The Dunning Kruger effect applied to religious experience. The religious experience is not to do with one's natural or acquired intellect Hillside although aspects of it manifest in knowledge and Wisdom(look it up).

Religious people have religious experience, antitheists dodge it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Churches are indeed just another organisation - one that must adhere to the laws of the land. Currently those laws allow them an opt out of Equalities legislation, but whether or not that remains in the years and decades to come is a matter, quite rightly, for the democratically elected government of the UK.

Much as some churches consider that they are above the law, and operate according to their own parallel legal system - it isn't true. Churches must adhere to the law.

Churches will render to Caesar that which is Caeser's