Religous debates and questions

I agree with you overall Kafria except perhaps on the marriage thing- I dont see why Churches should get to choose whether they marry gay couples or not. If it was a registry office they could not choose regardless of the personnal views of the person working being the desk that day- they have to obey the law so should the Church- nobody, not politician not church should be above the law. (We have seen where that attitude leads with the reoccuring nightmare of church pedophilia scandals).


"I support the idea that we should each be allowed our own beliefs as long as they don't harm others "- Kafria

Problem is from a secular point of view they do harm others- the Churches view on homosexuality is harmful if you happen to be born one. The Churches views on abortion might be harmful if the woman has been raped or for whatever reasons feels she could not cope or does not desire a child- and we already know the result of banning abortion- backstreet abortions, neither safe nor deisrable in a society.

I think Church people mistake the secular 'attack' for being all against the idea of a God- when in fact it is against the idea of religion much more. And certainly my own view is anti-religion only which I see as simply as a social control device and a means for an elite cast to have power- we need only look at the Catholic Churches history to see what happens when Churhes are allowed full licence- we get a Dark Age, people burned alive for disagreeing with scripture etc.

And thank you Kafria for you comments about me, I hugely enjoy debating these points with you and always find them informative and engaging, and yes I am occasionaly (delibretly) provocative. But thats a tactic I learned from the best- the Churches!

The marriage thing is something I am still working through...

I couldn't understand what the issue was, of course same sex couples should be allowed to marry, but hadn't realised it was to have it happen in church.

Marriage is a complicated issue, in terms of it's history, it has both secular and religions traditions it is mixed up in both so the arguments of both sides don't really stand up in that point of view. I don't hold with the church view against homosexual couples - the same passage in the bible also recomends stoning mystics for their idolatry - so as long as the vicar is happy to marry them I don't have a problem with this. This is in fact what the government is proposing I believe.

There is also the issue of the marriage service itself 'this man and this woman... for the procreation of children' needs a little rewrite.
Actually, this has me wondering, are they talking about holding civil ceremonies in church or is it the whole service 'in the sight of god' etc. I am assuming the latter or else why worry about whether you can get married in church.

Scrap that, in writing this it has given me time to think on this and actually I don't have a problem with this at all. However to go onto your wider point, a registrar is a civil servant I believe, so is a representative of the government and has to do as they are asked. A vicar is not, I am not sure the same expectation can be held.

Just as an addition to my last post I wanted to respond your point Kafria:

'I have never had to contend with a law that would make me go against something I believe in, a tenet of faith I should follow so it is an easy stand to take.'

I dont see any difference here between a religous person and a secular one. I have moral lines, not based on what I think a God would approve of but with what I can personaly live with. The difference I suppose is my objections are based on rationalism, I oppose the UK drug laws because I believe they are provably false and that the medical evidence and the effect globally of the 'war on drugs' does not support the position the Law has taken, but its not out of faith that I am just right. Contrary evidence could alter that view accordingly.
Whereas for example opposing abortion purely on the grounds God says its wrong to take a life (apart from being a bit rich coming from the same Church which offered absolution of sin to anyone willing to kill a Muslim in the Crusades) is not rational. A rational mind can see there would be circumstances in which it might not be the best thing to do and therefore at the least there must be allowances. A rational mind can see the problems that would arise form banningit such as back-street abortions. But Churches believe in absolutes however, at least when it suits them it seems.

A see your point about the civil servant- but you can be married in many ways these days, and not have a civil servant present beyond presenting the legal documents. A Humanist wedding for example could not be called off because at the last minute the person marrying them discovered it was a gay couple. I dont think the Church should be allowed to either. Surely the message from Jesus is that love is the most important single aspect.

chris63 wrote:

I always love Chris' thingees, always subtlte 9after a fashion).

So what we have is: You're the ball, Petty, your old Da is the (unseen) kicker trying to force you into Heaven, and Jesus is the dutiful defender, keeping all Scotshobbits out. Profound really...

There goes the serious debate! And Scothobbits dont go to heaven- we already live there.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:How come you can circumspect the laws of the land everyone else has to abide by if you claim an unprovable super being said you could?
If the police arrested me for some crime and I turned round and said, 'but the Tooth Fairy says its what I've to do'...

If you really truly believed in the Tooth Fairy, you'd be not unlike most police I know. (That kind of belief does help you deal with the more difficult things).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And Scothobbits dont go to heaven- we already live there.

Are they also three inches tall and painted blue?

Dunno about three inches tall but painted blue yes- on several occasions- going into battle, supporting Scotland's footballl team and any time you are really pissed.

I read this really interesting article in the Independant.
www.independant.co.uk/news/science/religion-vs-science: can the divide between god and rationality be reconciled.
11th October 2008

sorry the link dont work, go figure. so no surprises there then.

Link not working for me Mrs Figg!

Amarië wrote:First conundrum: Um... He gently kicked a fish in the right direction and it all snowballed from there? Yeah, sounds good. I wasn't there at the time, but I think the most popular idea is that He started the Big Bang. Unless your a creationist of course.

What if God had too much chilli one night?

Amarië wrote:Second: The Church used to be the ones who dictated the laws, some think that's how it should have stayed. It's not too different from a political party with conservative views in my opinion. Everybody thinks their views are the correct ones, don't they Petty? Orwell?

I have no 'views' - just 'sleights', Amarie.


Petty wrote: "I am genuinely curious..." You are, you know!

Amarië wrote:Gee, [Petty] no pressure there! Hey, come over here and speak for the Church!

I don't even think Petty believes in God, Amarie - what kind of Church do you have in Fjordianlandia?


{{Note to self: I wonder if they'll notice I've taken pretty much no notice of what they're talking about? }}}

Nac Mac feegle - blue/three inches tall/ living in heaven!

Kafria wrote:The same sex marriage in churches.... brought me up short to start with, when I thought it might be mandatory...

Me too, Kafria. If it was mandatory, as a Law Abiding Citizen, I would have to comply, but it would take some time for me to readjust to... and I hate to think what my Missus's reaction would be!

I see I am confusing you again

Hey! Where did you get that photo of Grandpaw Tyrant from Kafria?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
The problem with the fine line in what you say Halfwise is that if you take away the centuries of acceptance and reverance the Church as clevelry built up its as mad as a bag of cats and consdiderably less sane. And its rather hard not to point that out.

This isn't about logic, it's about whether you want people to feel welcome. At some point you have to swallow the impulse to blurt out "but that's CRAZY!" and take a gentler, more circuitous path. It's not just been you (though you earn points for tacitly admitting by responding that a fair fraction of it has been you), and I think all of us might have worked harder to keep down the ridicule in this thread. There's plenty of other threads for that! It's just that this one started out to be different.

Halfwise from the outside its hard to tell how religous America really is. Bits of it seem extremely religous and other bits no more so than in Europe. But would be intresting to see, not how many Americans claim to be Christian, but what the actual numbers of regularly active, church attentding Americans is across the whole country- that would be an interesting stat indeed.

Most religious Americans don't actually go to church on a regular basis. These people are usually more accepting of other people's beliefs, and also are more likely to hold beliefs that can only be described as kookier than the mainstream. I was once out watching a meteor shower with an old ex-marine, a real no-nonsense type you'd think. After about the fourth beer he looks over at me and asked if I had taken Jesus as my personal savior. "Here it goes" I thought. But half an hour later he had dragged me not only through Jesus but through UFOs and crystal meditation and Atlantis and I don't remember what else, but it all fit together in his mind into one seamless whole. And he's not the only one I've had such a conversation with.

So I'm largely content to let people have their less than logical beliefs so long as it's not imposed on me. Society doesn't actually need everyone to be thinking rationally, in fact it's more entertaining if they're not. But it's the organized religions that have the power to impose on me, and one way to deal with that is to have protections built in against belief systems in government. In a country that has religious majorities, they see atheism as just another belief system....so there's got to be equal protection in both directions. Just the way it works.

halfwise wrote:I think it may be more outmoded in Europe than in other places. America still has a believing majority...

1st Speaker: "What religion are you?"

2nd Speaker: "I'm a Catholic."

1st Speaker: "Oh, so you belive Jesus is Lord!"

2nd Speaker: "Who?"

Is the 2nd Speaker counted in the stats as a 'believer' Halfwise?

In a country that has religious majorities, they see atheism as just another belief system....so there's got to be equal protection in both directions. Just the way it works.- Hlafwise

But there is a difference there Halfwise- atheism is not demanding the law make exceptions for them or that people have to believe in anything, or that the way some people choose to live is somehow wrong and immoral. The oppression here is being done by religion not atheists.
The religous side is expecting exceptions from law and insistng it alone has the 'correct' way to live. If it were simply a political doctirne we would see right through it and not stand for it- but throw a God in the mix and its all different.

ps I agree its not just about logic- which is why I have never poked fun at anyones belief in a God, just in religion.

halfwise wrote:So I'm largely content to let people have their less than logical beliefs so long as it's not imposed on me. Society doesn't actually need everyone to be thinking rationally, in fact it's more entertaining if they're not. But it's the organized religions that have the power to impose on me, and one way to deal with that is to have protections built in against belief systems in government. In a country that has religious majorities, they see atheism as just another belief system....so there's got to be equal protection in both directions. Just the way it works.

I don't believe in a view of God that sits at all in line with what Major Religionists believe, but I would kill anyone who tried to stop people believing in what they want to.

....And anyone who would kill me for holding my views would be a Tyrant worthy of me killing first (whether a Religionists or any kind of ideologue).

...Mind you, if I killed someone because they were oppressing someone for their beliefs (secular or religious), then wouldn't I be an ideologue too?

This is why I don't take the Serious Threads seriously -- get yourself tied up in all sorts of intellectual knots!

Bertrand Russell was once slapped in prison for some civil disobedience or other. The warden came along and asked what his religion was.
"Agnostic", said Russell.
The warden asked how to spell it, and carefully wrote it down. Then walked away with a philosophical "well, I guess we all worship the same God."
Russell claimed that kept him cheerful until he was released a week later.

I was gonna make a smart remark about Catholics, but decided to stow it. Monty Python covered it all in "the Meaning of Life" anyway. (NOT one of their best efforts, but that part in particular was quite good. I went to see it with a nice Catholic girl and she was not amused.)

Now how am I supposed to resist after that comment Halfwise.

I saw a debate (if one could call it that? ) between Richard Dawkins and Archbishop Pell (head of the Catholic Church in Australia). It was in front of a studio audience. Sadly, the audience seemed equally balanced between Believeres and Agnostic/Atheist types, so I could not tell from the applause whether Dawkins or Pell were (on democratic principles) proven 'correct' about the existence or non-existence of God.

If I held a debate with a religious person, I'd ensure the audience was full of Agnostic/Atheist types (with an odd relifgionist here and there - to throw condescending gibes at). Why would you run the risk of being proven wrong about your beliefs, I say?

halfwise wrote:Bertrand Russell was once slapped in prison for some civil disobedience or other. The warden came along and asked what his religion was.
"Agnostic", said Russell.
The warden asked how to spell it, and carefully wrote it down. Then walked away with a philosophical "well, I guess we all worship the same God."
Russell claimed that kept him cheerful until he was released a week later.

I was gonna make a smart remark about Catholics, but decided to stow it. Monty Python covered it all in "the Meaning of Life" anyway. (NOT one of their best efforts, but that part in particular was quite good. I went to see it with a nice Catholic girl and she was not amused.)

Life of Brian... Life of Brian... Life of Brian... proves nothing, but a brilliant expose of life in 1st century Jerusualem.

Are you confusing "life of brian" with "meaning of life"?

If you cut about 40% out of Meaning of Life what remains is fairly decent.