Respecting religion???
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You say personal grudge: my grandmother had a personal grudge against the church. She was torn from her mother around the age of 6, with her twin brother, and then put to work in a nun run workhouse. He brother was killed on his first day, but then he shouldn't have cried. She was tortured by nuns.
This was then, over 100 years ago, and in another country, although it was the UK then.
But that was in the past and children are now safe with the vicars and nuns.
If the past was nothing to do with the current pope, then this is a new religion. But it is not. The pope's just the same as the others. It's in the book so there's no argument, no decision. Do it the pope's way or else.
The same goes for the other religions of course, some more violently, others more subtly. But you can't get more didactic than the current vicar of christ.
'Clashed': now there's a bit of whitewashing for you. They did more than clash. It was a pogram.
I've got no grudge against churches. I used to help out in the one in my village some years ago, and my wife, an atheist, taught in Sunday school. I have a great deal of respect for the vicar. A tremendous bloke, but he would have been just as good without religion.
If you want to ignore history, then by all means go ahead. The church is nothing without history. There are no miracles now science has moved on. The was the one with mt theresa of course, the miracle of the fast film stock. Read m muggeridge on the matter. Farcical.
Stick with the present and the churches fall apart. It strips them back to politics.
Believe what you want. I've got no problem with that. If you want to come on this thread and argue, I'm all for that, as long as it does not get personal. However, the thread title was respect. Let's look at that.
There are non-religious charities. Remove the church from the equation and things would run smoother in many places. Community work used to be the most effective part of the church in the past, but we're ignoring history now, aren't we.
If we just take now then there is no point to religions.
All I ask is that you be more specific in your statements or be prepared to back them up.
If you have a personal grudge against the Catholic Church, specifically, then make that known instead of making statements that suggest all Churches are doing this.
Making statements that the Church (all Churches?) promotes intolerance then backing it up with centuries old examples and references to Islam and Judaism isn't really appropriate.
If you have a personal grudge against the Catholic Church, specifically, then make that known instead of making statements that suggest all Churches are doing this.
Making statements that the Church (all Churches?) promotes intolerance then backing it up with centuries old examples and references to Islam and Judaism isn't really appropriate.
Muggeridge's miracle.
He went to see theresa, starting the cult in western eyes in many ways.
He suggests he saw the first photographic miracle.
“The Missionary’ is dimly lit by small windows high up in the walls, and Ken [Macmillan, the photographer] was adamant that filming was quite impossible in there. We had only one small light with us, and to get the place adequately lighted in the time at our disposal was quite impossible. It was decided that, nonetheless, Ken should have a go, but by way of insurance, he took, as well, some film in an outside courtyard where some of the inmates were sitting in the sun.
"In the processed film, the part taken inside was bathed in a particularly beautiful soft light, whereas the part taken outside was rather dim and confused…. I myself am absolutely convinced that the technically unaccountable light is, in fact, the Kindly Light [Cardinal] Newman refers to in his well-known exquisite hymn. …[The love in the home is] luminous, like the halos artists have seen and made visible around the heads of saints. I find it not at all surprising that the luminosity should register on a photographic film. …I am personally persuaded that Ken recorded the first authentic photographic miracle.”
Who could argue with that, eh? A 100% miracle.
According to Ken though they had with them a batch of brand new film stock from Kodak that was 'faster', i.e. needed less light to get an image. He then developed it in a manner which increased the speed at the cost of definition.
It can be seen how miracles actually happen. One daft old biddy wants to be purged of the sins of his youth and middle age and then, born again, wants to give something back. This is reported in many religious sites, Muggeridge allowing it to be taken from his book, virtually and autobiography, in order to spread the word (and sell more copies no doubt.)
It's funny in a way.
He went to see theresa, starting the cult in western eyes in many ways.
He suggests he saw the first photographic miracle.
“The Missionary’ is dimly lit by small windows high up in the walls, and Ken [Macmillan, the photographer] was adamant that filming was quite impossible in there. We had only one small light with us, and to get the place adequately lighted in the time at our disposal was quite impossible. It was decided that, nonetheless, Ken should have a go, but by way of insurance, he took, as well, some film in an outside courtyard where some of the inmates were sitting in the sun.
"In the processed film, the part taken inside was bathed in a particularly beautiful soft light, whereas the part taken outside was rather dim and confused…. I myself am absolutely convinced that the technically unaccountable light is, in fact, the Kindly Light [Cardinal] Newman refers to in his well-known exquisite hymn. …[The love in the home is] luminous, like the halos artists have seen and made visible around the heads of saints. I find it not at all surprising that the luminosity should register on a photographic film. …I am personally persuaded that Ken recorded the first authentic photographic miracle.”
Who could argue with that, eh? A 100% miracle.
According to Ken though they had with them a batch of brand new film stock from Kodak that was 'faster', i.e. needed less light to get an image. He then developed it in a manner which increased the speed at the cost of definition.
It can be seen how miracles actually happen. One daft old biddy wants to be purged of the sins of his youth and middle age and then, born again, wants to give something back. This is reported in many religious sites, Muggeridge allowing it to be taken from his book, virtually and autobiography, in order to spread the word (and sell more copies no doubt.)
It's funny in a way.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Voight, as ///ajd linked above, it is the official policy of the Church of England to be discriminatory. As Derek has pointed out repeatedly, it is the official policy of the Catholic Church to be discriminatory.It is all well and good you saying that the particular church you attend is not discriminatory, and you don't have any personal experience of Christianity being discriminatory, but your personal experience is just that, personal experience. According to your own comments, you do not agree with either the CofE/Anglican Church or the Catholic Church on their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity. If you don't agree with the majority followed Christian interpretations, then by extension your viewpoint on Christianity must be a minority one.
Still, you don't really believe in God and just think Jesus was some cool dude who said a lot of righteous things, so who am I to judge, eh?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You seem keen to dismiss other religions to your own (even other christian faiths). So, if you want to focus only on the CofE, see the links above where it is trying to block same sex marriage in 2013.Are you going to say 2013 was in the past?
How do you justify them trying to block this?
///ajd said:
You seem keen to dismiss other religions to your own (even other christian faiths). So, if you want to focus only on the CofE, see the links above where it is trying to block same sex marriage in 2013.
Are you going to say 2013 was in the past?
How do you justify them trying to block this?
You see, my problem with you is this: You mention not allowing top jobs to be taken up by women, so that's an accusation, an accusation levelled at whom?Are you going to say 2013 was in the past?
How do you justify them trying to block this?
You mention the Church promoting the murder of non-believers, an accusation levelled at whom?
You don't seem to answer this ever. That kind of makes it impossible to answer the question and therefore your statement ends up just a rhetorical rant. You've already for my answer about sexism and homophobia with reference to the CofE.
///ajd said:
You seem keen to dismiss other religions to your own (even other christian faiths). So, if you want to focus only on the CofE, see the links above where it is trying to block same sex marriage in 2013.
Are you going to say 2013 was in the past?
How do you justify them trying to block this?
I do not think it is entirely justified. Are you going to say 2013 was in the past?
How do you justify them trying to block this?
But you'll find I already answered an initial question about homophobia and sexism that doesn't quite paint the picture you are trying to portray.
There are homosexual CofE clergy, some are in civil partnerships.
There are many female clergy.
There is now a female Bishop, and there will be more.
Some Bishops think it's crazy that there isn't an out and out clarification of policy and that the clergy themselves are the hardest done by in this respect. Some clergy feel any approach to homosexuality is a result of the sensibilities of older generations, it's a reflection of society, don't forget that homophobia knows no religion.
I've never heard any bad words spoken against women or homosexuals in any CofE or Methodist services. That said I've not heard anything bad in the Orthodox or Catholic services I've attended.
How about answering my questions about accusations you've made?
mattmurdock said:
Voight, as ///ajd linked above, it is the official policy of the Church of England to be discriminatory. As Derek has pointed out repeatedly, it is the official policy of the Catholic Church to be discriminatory.
It is all well and good you saying that the particular church you attend is not discriminatory, and you don't have any personal experience of Christianity being discriminatory, but your personal experience is just that, personal experience. According to your own comments, you do not agree with either the CofE/Anglican Church or the Catholic Church on their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity. If you don't agree with the majority followed Christian interpretations, then by extension your viewpoint on Christianity must be a minority one.
Still, you don't really believe in God and just think Jesus was some cool dude who said a lot of righteous things, so who am I to judge, eh?
Matt, I assume you dont go to Church so therefore do not have first hand and current experience of any sermons, good or bad?It is all well and good you saying that the particular church you attend is not discriminatory, and you don't have any personal experience of Christianity being discriminatory, but your personal experience is just that, personal experience. According to your own comments, you do not agree with either the CofE/Anglican Church or the Catholic Church on their interpretation of the Bible and Christianity. If you don't agree with the majority followed Christian interpretations, then by extension your viewpoint on Christianity must be a minority one.
Still, you don't really believe in God and just think Jesus was some cool dude who said a lot of righteous things, so who am I to judge, eh?
So how do you feel you are placed to decide what, at ground level, is the majority or minority practise? Or is your mind made up? Are you bigoted?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So what do you think Levictus means by"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."?
I'm not getting a particularly warm feeling about the bibles view of homosexuality...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The Church of England objections were unfounded my previous posts have show that, but I'm happy to play whac-a-mole against you and religion so here but here are some more examples:“We have been working on this for 15 years. There have been scientific assessments, independent safety reviews, ethics reviews, and considerable public consultation. This has been an exemplary example of proper consultation and evidence-based policy – yet they say we are rushing things"
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/31/sci...
"Since 2007, the UK has run an exemplary and internationally admired process for considering benefits, risks, ethical issues and public consent, which must properly precede a change in the law. This has revealed broad public, ethical and scientific support for approving mitochondrial donation, so that the fertility regulator can license clinical use when there is sufficient evidence it is safe enough to proceed."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/30/par...
"A senior MP (Andrew Miller, chair of the Commons science committee) has branded as utterly outrageous and irresponsible the attempt by church groups to get MPs to vote against a change in the law that would allow an IVF procedure to stop genetic diseases being passed on to babies."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/chu...
Over a decade of research and planning
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n10/full/nm100...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is a fair point that I do not go to any churches and therefore I do not have first hand experience of what happens there. However, just because the day to day practice in your neck of the woods does not follow the official stance of the CofE, it does not mean that the church as a whole is suddenly less discriminatory, particularly as the people in a position to make the proclamations that end up in the news, or in a position to actually influence the law, are in the main following the official stance of the CofE.You only have to look at the divisions the vote on women bishops caused in the Anglican church to see that there are still a fair number of church members who do have a problem with women and who do have a problem with homosexuality.
I think I have said this before, but if everyone in the church had the same generally feel good approach to Christianity that you apparently do, then it would obviously be less of an issue to me, just like people who believe in alien abduction or hidden fairy realms are not really an issue to me.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It appears that you don't agree with homophobia in the CofE, and provide some anecdotes that perhaps they are not homophobic after all. However, as I posted, their actions in 2013 speak louder than any anecdotal platitudes, and it cannot be denied that their actions were discriminatory. They conciously put scripture above the rights of individuals. This is deeply unpleasant behaviour.My other accusations are fairly obviously against other religions, some christian as you can surely work out. It is hilarious to observe one christian rubbish the ethics of other christians.
I think we have confirmed the CofE is far from innocent, as well illustrated by the medical example above.
What I don't understand is how you reconcile a homophobic entity (CofE) with being a force for good?
///ajd said:
What I don't understand is how you reconcile a homophobic entity (CofE) with being a force for good?
What is "good" about homosexuality?The traditional sexual aberrations might be summarised as,
- Sex with other men
- Sex with children
- Sex with animals
Claudia Skies said:
///ajd said:
What I don't understand is how you reconcile a homophobic entity (CofE) with being a force for good?
What is "good" about homosexuality?The traditional sexual aberrations might be summarised as,
- Sex with other men
- Sex with children
- Sex with animals
Seems clear to me that the implication from AJD is that being homophobic is a bad thing but that the CofE is homophobic yet claims to be a force for good.
Of course being homophobic isn't limited to the religious, there are plenty of non-religious bigots out there and not all religious people are homophobic.
IainT said:
Of course being homophobic isn't limited to the religious, there are plenty of non-religious bigots out there and not all religious people are homophobic.
Precisely my point - it is a very weak direction from which to make a specific attack on religion.As mentioned earlier in this thread, just because some of religion(s) is utter nonsense doesn't mean it is all nonsense. One needs to avoid the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Hence it is entirely sensible to have a generally shared set of human "morals" which reflect the views of the community as a whole.
What I find odd about UK 2015 is the "everything at the same time" approach. Some men getting married to each other while some women aren't allowed out of the house unless they have a blanket over their head. Are both of these simultaneously "good"? Or both bad? Or one of each? Or something else? And if dressing in religious garb is no different from dressing like a goth or punk, why are these people allowed to have special dispensation which allows animals to be killed without stunning? And to mutilate their male children? How does that fit the shared morality?
Claudia Skies said:
As mentioned earlier in this thread, just because some of religion(s) is utter nonsense doesn't mean it is all nonsense.
Please point out the religious bits that are not nonsense, as opposed the human/ethical/community bits that would exist without the supernatural bits.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff