Religous debates and questions

Petty, does it make any difference if it's a "consenting" donkey?

I don't think its specified Orwell, but it is a sin, but homosexuality is an abomination. Which I think is worse. So if you shag your dog God will hate you less for it than if you shag your neighbour (assuming your neighbour is the same sex of course), mind you if your neighbour is married and of the opposite sex thats a sin to, coveting her ass like that. So God's pretty much got you always.

It's like God don't like sex. Did Astarte stand him up back in the days when Gods were both Male and Female, and not not just Males who made women out of ribs? (You know, I've tried that myself, not only doesn't it work, but boy it's painful!)

Yes, bit odd He made a creature which can only develop and evolve through passing on its genes by sexual intercourse, gave the said creature hugely strong sex drives to accomplish this, and then set a ban on most sexual activity. Bit odd really, not very sensible. Bound to lead to trouble and priest touching up children when you think about it.

I found this funny

Sounds about right.

from what I remember from religious studies at school, there is a big difference between the Old testament and the New in terms of God, being on the one hand the vengeful OT God and Jesus being friends with prostitutes in the NT, I think Jesus was a lot more forgiving of mans weakness than in the OT where it was all fire and brimstone. could be wrong it was a long time ago I studied the Bible.

Yeah, but they are supposed to be the same God.
Its a very secular view to look at the development of religon in the region through that time period and see how it was influenced and that the God of the times of the NT is one developed and reflecting different ideas and concepts of the time compared to those of OT days, but thats a non religous outlook. Its how religous folk bridge the gap is the more interseting question. Its all perfectly explainable from a secular stand point. There is no mystery.

Is the Catholic Church really even a church at all? Or just a peodiphiles club? One or two instances cropping up in a large organisation is perhaps explainable but it seems every county the Catholic church has been involved in they have been systematically abusing children and covering it up.
The latest is in Holland. According to BBC news;

'Tens of thousands of children have suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions since 1945, a report says.
The report by an independent commission said Catholic officials had failed to tackle the widespread abuse at schools, seminaries and orphanages.
It studied 1,800 complaints of abuse at Catholic institutions, identifying 800 alleged perpetrators, just over 100 of whom are still alive.'

And the Churches response?

"This episode fills us with shame and sorrow," said a bishops' statement.
Last month the Dutch branch of the Catholic Church set up a sliding compensation system based on the severity of abuse suffered, offering compensation of between 5,000 and 100,000 euros (£4,200-84,000; $6,500-130,000).'

How typical of the Catholic Church- throw money at it till it goes away.
Surely it is about time this so called Church was torn down and its abusers put behind bars where they belong?
Nobody ever seems to be held to account for this stuff, no one ever seems to be arrested or prosecuted for it either. And it continues, country after country.
I don't know why the Church itself is allowed to deal with this- surely its a criminal matter and Bishops etc should be going to court not to confession over it.

I don't understand why there haven't been more arrests around the world either. Perhaps the Church is treated as a sacred cow and law enforcement is being blocked by politics. Or perhaps the Church has just covered up evidence well enough that it's hard to prove anything. It's disgusting either way.

Stumbled across these, there's a whole series of them well worth a watch agree or not and very funny- warning contains strong language and, if you are religous, blasphemy.

A couple questions for you, Petty. I stuck it over here because the the Freedom!! tread seemed to be moving toward female bog wrestling and I didn't want to impede it.

20+ years ago I spent the month of March hitching and hiking around Scotland, mostly in the Highlands and Islands. I met crofters, Free Kirk-ers, people who talked like the Clearances happened last week, and I heard Scottish Nationalism preached from the pulpit every Sunday. Very good people with very strong opinions! (In some ways very similar to the rural American South, where a lot of Scots settled).

So here're the questions:
Q#1 -- Are they culturally still hanging on up there? (I'm hoping...)

Q#2: -- What are your thoughts of the role of the Kirk in a free Scotland?

I fear this answer might get a bit messy- religion tends to do that- the Kirk is still prominnt in the north and in particular on th eislands- its worth noting that ferry sailings for example from Lewis on a Sunday only began in 2009 and then under protest from the Kirk for breaching the sabbath (it is also worth notng however that the day of the first sailing those who turned up to cheer it on outnumbered those who were protesting against it).
It is perhaps worth giving a description of the kirk (or Church of Scotland as it tends to be called these days), this is from their own website;

'The Church of Scotland's governing system is presbyterian which means that no one person or group within the Church has more influence or say than any other. The Church does not have one person who acts as the head of faith, as that role is the Lord God's.
Church of Scotland government is organised on the basis of courts. Each of these courts has committees, which may include other members of the Church, and at national level employ full-time staff. At a local level, the parish, the court is a kirk session. Kirk sessions oversee the local congregation and its parish, and consist of elders presided over by a minister.
At district level, the court is a presbytery. Presbyteries consist of all the ministers in the district and an equal number of elders.
At national level, the court is the highest court of the Kirk, the General Assembly. The General Assembly consists of around 400 ministers, 400 elders, and members of the diaconate, all representing the presbyteries.
The Queen is not the supreme governor of the Church of Scotland, as she is in the Church of England. The sovereign has the right to attend the General Assembly, but not to take part in its deliberations. The Oath of Accession includes a promise to "maintain and preserve the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government".
The Queen maintains warm relations with the Church of Scotland, where she worships when in Scotland, and from which the chaplains of the Royal Household in Scotland are appointed.
The Church of Scotland (the Kirk) is not State-controlled, and neither the Scottish nor the Westminster Parliaments are involved in Kirk appointments.
The Kirk’s status as the national Church in Scotland dates from 1690, when Parliament restored Scottish Presbyterianism, and is guaranteed under the Act of Union of Scotland and England of 1707.'

So thats the set up- quite democratic (so long as you believe what they believe!). Membership stands officially at about 607,714 (latest figures I could find) out of a population of just over 5 million. Although the census gave a fgure of 42% of the Scottish population claiming some form of allegiance to it even though they dont actually attend church in any way. Its also worth noting however that the second biggest group in the survey were those who claimed no religion.

The kirk doe showever still have influence, enough at least that the Scottish government consults them on matters which cross into religion. The most recent example is the argument raging over same sex marriage- the SNP governement want sit to be made law and the kirk opposes. The SNP have been runing a consultation on this for about a year in which the kirk has been very vocal alongside the Catholic church in condeming it- the decision is due shortly and it will be a test of the power ofthe church- as polls show the majority of Scots people are all for it and couldnt give two hoots really. So if it is dropped as a proposal it will be thanks to the churches intervention alone.

Q2- There is no way to talk of Scotland post independence and relgion without getting to the elephant in the room. Sectarianism.
Thanks to history the protestants are bound to the monarchy and the flag of the union. The catholics are mainly Irish decent and favour republicanism.
Sectarnism is strongest in the west coast of Scotland, its also where the population is densist. Alex Salmond is canny enough to know the chances of an independent Scotland hang on persuading these protestant unionists to vote for independnece this is why Salmond has made strong assurances the Queen would remain Head of State- its to appease this section.
Another issue is the possible effects Scotland gaining independence might have on Northern Ireland- if those of a sectarian mind thought for an instant that the breakaway of Scotland would lead to the NI becoming part of a united Ireland they would vote against-even if it otherwise completely benefited Scotland and even the people themselves- theyd still vote against such is the old bile still over that issue.
All this the kirk will have to reflect in a new independent Scotland- plus unlike in England where the Church has hereditary seats in the House of Lords and can vote on legisalation the Scottish Parliament only has two non elected officials sit on it and neither are religous but rather legal -the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland - and whilst they can contribute and advise in debates as nonelected members they have no votes.
The kirk is just another lobby group in practice with no direct access to the levers of power. I don't see this changing if Scotlands becomes independent.


Sorry about the length of this Chris but its really a complex topic and I've only scratched the surface of it here.

Who is the curret Stuart Pretender, Petty? You couldn't possibly be expected to survive as a nation without a Monarch, surely...

We're keeping Queen Liz Orwell- for the reasons given above- to appease the anti-catholic section of the population.

If there was to be another Stuart claim on the throne it would have to come from the House of Wittelsbach-the Royal line of Bavaria.
That Royal house is descended from the Stuart line unbroken and is considered by Jacobites to be the legitimate heir of the House of Stuart as king of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland.
"HRM the Duke (of Bavaria) generally does not comment on issues concerning his familiar relationship to the Royal House of Stuart," a spokesman told the media.
Even among old romantics there isnt any appitite for restoring the Stuarts to a Scottish throne.

Very interesting! I knew it wouldn't be simple. I hadn't thought of the Irish conflict and sectarianism issue, but of course it makes perfect sense.

What first brought the question to my mind was some remarks that were made about our religious Right over on the election thread. Some of the parallels between our Family Values voters and the Highlanders and Islanders are striking, both for good and otherwise.

I learned right away that everything stops in the Highlands for the sabbath, so I'd ask whoever owned the roof I was sleeping under on Saturday if there was a service in the morning. They'd usually introduce me to the congregation and I would be welcomed, and after that I was an honorary part of the village.

The service doubled as a weekly town hall meeting in which all the needs of the community were discussed, volunteers called for, duties assigned, for everything from helping the sick to fighting fires. It's about the finest form of local democracy I have ever seen!

I'd be sad to see it fade, but on the other hand I'd hate to see it evolve as ours has into a national movement

The structure of the kirk, its democractic leanings and town hall style meetings predates christianity almost certanly and is inherited from the earlier Celtic religion. Scotland has always had a democratic streak in its institutions for as far back as records go, with even our Kings being elected and serving terms of office.
The old set up as far as can be discerned was not dissimilar- with a local group of elders administring local laws and justice and settling disputes, with the Druid class acting in what would now be the minister role, arbitrating where necessary and keeping the structures in place, and who in turn would be part of the greater Druid assembly. History goes a long way back round here and still hangs about in a lot of our society, for good and ill.

The trick in a secular world is to throw out the relgious nonsense but to to retain the older community aspects you describe.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

The trick in a secular world is to throw out the relgious nonsense but to to retain the older community aspects you describe.

who does the throwing?

Society by rejecting it- as has been happening in Scotland in slow fashion ever since the Reformation- which was the beginning of the end for strong religous involvement in society. The majority of Scots are in practice secular- with the church merely fulfilling a wedding and funerals role- and even there humanist weddings and funerals in Scotland are almost equal with religous ones. Polls on gay marriage (not civil partenrship but full marriage conducted in churches) show overwhelming support for it. The Church is vocal but thats not he same as listened to.

Not sure if that counts as "throwing it out". More like leaving the door open and letting it wander out when it gets hungry.

It often seems that fundamentalist religions thrive best under repression. If there's even the perception that the state is repressing a religion there is a multitude of conspiracy theorist types who will seek it out and explore its mysteries.

There is no sense here of religion being repressed especially not by government, the Scottish Parliament consults the Church all the time, more than most people probably think necessary in fact- its just people dont seem to bother to take it seriously much these days. The secularism and suspicion of authority (religous or otherwise) in Scotland has always been there- its just grown more and more over the decades.
I think overall the feleing is the churches have a role to play its just not in politics and as a nation we've never been very good and being told what to do. So Churches are more like moral advice, an opinion to be heard and weighed with all the rest but nothing more.

The Scots view of the Church has always been cynical- a good exmaple of this is Holy Wullies Prayer by Rabbie Burns, recitied at Burns Suppers every year to this day..



Intrestingly the kirk often performs this at their Burns Suppers. Which probably says something about how even the religous establishment here views things.

A handy infographic for those who are still trying to figure out their faith. Posted with apologies to absolutely everyone.

Very very good - and accurate as far as it goes.

Did you know, there is no such a thing as a boring generic Christian btw? ALL believers of ALL God-type religions hold extreme views of one kind or another. If not, they don't know their own Holy Writings well. In the latter case, perhap boring generic don't-know-what-faith-actually-is Christians would be a better description.

An interesting survey caried out in the UK by the Dawkins foundations.

They asked questions of people who had put on the last census that they were Christian.
The figures for the last census UK wide showed- (all numbers are a percentage out of 100)

No religion 33
Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations) 54
Muslim 4
Prefer not to say 3

(Not the full list but the rest are all so low as not to be relevant)

Heres the first question put to those surveyed who had claimed Christianity as their religion-

1. You have said that you defined your religion in the Census as Christian. Why do you think of yourself as being of this religion?

The results were:

I was christened/baptised into this religion 72
One or both of my parents are/were members of this religion 38
As a child I went to a Sunday school run by this religion 37
I believe in the teachings of this religion 28
I went to a school run by this religion 21
I used to attend religious services at a church of this religion other than weddings, christenings/baptisms or funerals 19
I currently attend religious services at a church of this religion other than weddings, christenings/baptisms or funerals 19
My husband/wife/partner is/was a member of this religion 13
My child/children attend/s a school run by this religion 7
I don’t really think of myself as a member of this religion 3
I believe in the religion 1

I find it incredible that out of all the reasons for putting they were Christian only 1% of those surveyed said it was becasue they actually believed in the religion. This would seem to confirm what has seemed obvious to me for a long time, that the modern Church forms a social function in UK society but not a religous one.

2. Apart from special occasions such as weddings, funerals and baptisms or christenings, how often IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS have you attended services or meetings connected with Christianity?

Once a week or more 17
Less often but at least once in two weeks 5
Less often but at least once a month 7
Less often but at least twice – not including Christmas and/or Easter 11
Less often but at least once – not including Christmas and/or Easter 4
Christmas and/or Easter only 6
Not at all during the last 12 months 49

And of those surveyed most of them don't attend church at all.


3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The UK should have an official state religion.

Strongly agree 11
Tend to agree 21
Neither agree nor disagree 18
Tend to disagree 24
Strongly disagree 22

Interestingly even among those calling themselves Christians more are opposed or strongly opposed to this than in favour.

4. Sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are wrong

Strongly Agree 14
Tend to agree 14
Neither agree nor disagree 22
Tend to disagree 25
Strongly disagree 21

5. An adult woman with an unwanted pregnancy should be able to have an abortion if she wants one, provided it is within the legal time limit for doing so

Strongly Agree 30
Tend to agree 33
Neither agree nor disagree 13
Tend to disagree 11
Strongly disagree 9

6. Sex between a man and a woman is only acceptable within marriage

Strongly Agree 9
Tend to agree 14
Neither agree nor disagree 18
Tend to disagree 29
Strongly disagree 28

So on morality if this is any guide most UK Christians have not got a problem with homosexuality and sex outside of marriage or legal abortion- or the opposite of everything the Christian church thinks.

This is just a selection of the questions (there are loads) if you want to read the full report it is here- http://c3414097.r97.cf0.rackcdn.com/IpsosMORI_RDFRS-UK_Survey_Topline_15-02-2012.pdf

I believe in the teachings of this religion 28
I believe in the religion 1

Well that sort of sums up the confusion of what Christianity is about. The Church of Norway has decided that *drum roll* homosexuality is both ok and not ok! Glad we got that sorted out.