Professor Rosaria Butterfield gives a powerful and brave speech to students.

[Gordon]

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

Or rather - referring to anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance of what Jesus is alleged to have said and done: a point that I think applies to all these "Jesus tells us/reminds us" claims.

You are lumbering under the illusion that what the NT claims surrounding Jesus is both certain historical fact and is also authoritative: it is neither.

[Nearly Sane]

Personally I think too much is being made of homosexuality. As far as I am concerned...its neither here nor there.  I am a Hindu and we don't have any specific opinion on homosexuals. Life is about karma (action) and its consequences....and I accept that. 

As far as sin and natural order is concerned we have to look at it only from a human angle. Sin is specific to humans. Animals do not sin. Sin comes in only if we can control and regulate our thoughts and actions but we choose not to.

If we keep justifying our actions in terms of animal life we will not remain civilized let along progress spiritually. That is what I meant by referring to cannibalism,  killing rivals, killing babies, eating offspring etc.

Why are you repeating the straw man argument about justifying actions based on animal life?

And once again this reads as if you are saying homosexuality is the equivalent of cannibalism. Again this may be because having posted without reading the thread, you have ended up confusing everyone, including yourself, but you don't appear to be reading the replies pointing out your misreadings either.

[Nearly Sane]

We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin.  If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

Do you support same sex civil marriage?

[Enki]

....It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin.  If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love....

Interesting! So, as I am completely unaware of your supposed God's love and certainly feel no need of your supposed God's salvation, could it be therefore that I was 'born perfect' after all? This does seem to be the logic of what you are saying. My wife, of course, would totally disagree that I was 'born perfect'. How little does she know! 

[jeremyp]

We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.

Unconditional?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin.

Kind of stupid of God to design us that way.

If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.

Was Jesus aware of God's love? Was Jesus perfect?

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

That story is a fairly late interpolation. It was probably inserted into the Gospel of John in the fourth or fifth century.

[ProfessorDavey]

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

You are implying that the views of Atkins confer some kind of greater authority than the views of anyone else. They don't - she is entitled to her homophobic views as long as they don't stray into the territory of discriminating against gay people. But we are just as entitled to hold different view and to completely ignore her views and/or treat them with disdain. And quoting Jesus - i.e. referring to some completely unsubstantiated ancient text confers absolutely zero additional weight to her views.

[splashscuba]

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

I guess for those that sign up to your brand of sky fairyness then them's the club rules. This is a Christian topic so am guessing you only think this applies to your club members. For the rest of is its just sex outside marriage which is a personal choice between consenting adults. It's mostly fun/emotional but most of all, its just part of the human existance.

[Nearly Sane]

I guess for those that sign up to your brand of sky fairyness then them's the club rules. This is a Christian topic so am guessing you only think this applies to your club members. For the rest of is its just sex outside marriage which is a personal choice between consenting adults. It's mostly fun/emotional but most of all, its just part of the human existance.

I think Alan's very clear that he thinks the rules apply tl everyone, and he's here tl save us all while worshipping a god that created child leukemia but finds his contact lens.

[splashscuba]

I think Alan's very clear that he thinks the rules apply tl everyone

He'd be wrong then, obvs.

[Nearly Sane]

He'd be wrong then, obvs.

Well, I think he's wrong but I'm not sure it can be stated as an obvious fact. Just as he can't show that he's correct.

[jeremyp]

Well, I think he's wrong but I'm not sure it can be stated as an obvious fact. Just as he can't show that he's correct.

Yes, it's an obvious fact. The Christian religion is based on tenets that are incoherent. It is obvious that nobody who doesn't subscribe to it has to adhere to its rules.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, it's an obvious fact. The Christian religion is based on tenets that are incoherent. It is obvious that nobody who doesn't subscribe to it has to adhere to its rules.

if there is a psychopathic god that is deeply interested in what people do sexually, then the rules apply in the sense that it can do what it likes to apply them.

[splashscuba]

Yes, it's an obvious fact. The Christian religion is based on tenets that are incoherent. It is obvious that nobody who doesn't subscribe to it has to adhere to its rules.

Never been a Christian so Obviously doen't apply to me. I usually adhere to the club rules I follow though i.e. climbing club. Don't think there's much crossover with the Chtistian club rules.

[Nearly Sane]

Never been a Christian so Obviously doen't apply to me. I usually adhere to the club rules I follow though i.e. climbing club. Don't think there's much crossover with the Chtistian club rules.

And yet if some all powerful entity wants to ignore your choice because it's a weird nutjob, the rules would apply to you.

[SteveH]

We all have weaknesses which, if we give in to their temptation, will lead us away from God's unconditional love.
It is not just homosexuals who have such weakness - the bible reveals that we are all born with original sin.  If we were born perfect, we would have no need for God's salvation, and we would not be aware of God's love.

I recall Anne Atkins' famous but controversial talk on radio 4's thought for the day in which she reminded us that all sex outside marriage is a sin, quoting Jesus saying to the woman caught in the act of adultery "Go and sin no more".

Anne Atkins is an appalling old bigot, whose pseudo-sophisticated style just makes her ludicrous as well.

[Nearly Sane]

Anne Atkins is an appalling old bigot, whose louche, pseudo=sophisticated style just makes her ludicrous as well.

And like the RC church isn't too keen on reporting paedophiles.


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/my-friend-the-paedophile-why-didn-t-agony-aunt-anne-atkins-report-what-she-knows-8220159.html

[splashscuba]

And yet if some all powerful entity wants to ignore your choice because it's a weird nutjob, the rules would apply to you.

There isn't one.

[Nearly Sane]

There isn't one.

You think.

[Sriram]

Maybe the emphasis on heterosexuality by religions is a natural selection process by which reproductive phenotypes are promoted and non reproductive phenotypes are discouraged........ 

After all, religions are only promoting reproduction and parental responsibilities. Nothing wrong with that!

[jeremyp]

if there is a psychopathic god that is deeply interested in what people do sexually, then the rules apply in the sense that it can do what it likes to apply them.

And if the World is flat we could fall off the edge of it.

[Nearly Sane]

And if the World is flat we could fall off the edge of it.

No, that's a category mistake. We can demonstrate the world isn't flat. We can't do the same with god claims. That said, it means that those who make them can't demonstrate any reason to believe them. In addition, you can point out that different claims they make about their 'god' are inconsistent.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe the emphasis on heterosexuality by religions is a natural selection process by which reproductive phenotypes are promoted and non reproductive phenotypes are discouraged........ 

After all, religions are only promoting reproduction and parental responsibilities. Nothing wrong with that!

This reads like a restatement of your use of the 'appeal to nature' fallacy which when the logical conclusions of that were pointed out you disavowed.

In addition it's, at best, disingenous tl describe the attempts of some religious people to have homosexuals treated as second class citizens including criminalising homosexual activity as 'encouraging heterosexuality'.

[jeremyp]

No, that's a category mistake.

No that's obfuscatory bollocks.

The point is that nothing is completely certain in this world but some things are so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty.

We can demonstrate the world isn't flat.

We can demonstrate that the Christian god and Christian ideology are incoherent concepts.

[Nearly Sane]

No that's obfuscatory bollocks.

The point is that nothing is completely certain in this world but some things are so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty.
We can demonstrate that the Christian god and Christian ideology are incoherent concepts.

I agree that it makes no essential difference to how we acy but accuracy in terms of discourse is not 'obfuscatory bollocks'.

[jeremyp]

I agree that it makes no essential difference to how we acy but accuracy in terms of discourse is not 'obfuscatory bollocks'.

No, but your "category error" nonsense was just obfuscatory bollocks.