[Closed] We Christians

It's like laughing at trainspotters or model railway enthusiasts or mtbers.

I am aware that much of the doctrine is peace and love but i talso has has rules that must be adhered to despite the evidence they have finally accepted DNA iirc but not evolution....i am not sure what their view is on Dinosaurs.

The message is not peace and love it is about intolerance , preaching , dictating and making others life according to their view [ marriage for example even though it predates the Church and their involvement by millennia]
this is why they garner such strong reactions
TBH less than 200 years ago we would all be in prison for blasphemy if we said this. We are not imprisoning those of faith so who lacks the tolerance again?

What it does mean is stores can't choose to, say, open on Sunday and close on Tuesday. It means that when I'm making a spag bol and find I'm out of (veggie) mince at 6pm on a Sunday, I'm knackered.

TandemJeremy - Member
Hilldodger - no - they can do what they like between consenting adults in private.

So you reject their right to communicate their beliefs in public ? surely that's the definition of censorship....

What it does mean is stores can't choose to, say, open on Sunday and close on Tuesday. It means that when I'm making a spag bol and find I'm out of (veggie) mince at 6pm on a Sunday, I'm knackered.

OT but, I do miss the quietness of Sundays of my youth when only the paper shop was open in the morning.
Boring I suppose, but they had a quietness that I'd appreciate now - if not then.

There's a difference between holding and communicating your faith, and pushing it on others, obviously.

TBF, if there's anywhere that people can try and push their religious values, it's in the middle of a debate discussing religious values.

There's vast a difference between doing it here and knocking on my door on a Sundday morning. More power to their elbow, I say.

Not in most of Scotland and are there no corner shops near you?

Not that sell Quorn.

OT but, I do miss the quietness of Sundays of my youth when only the paper shop was open in the morning.
Boring I suppose, but they had a quietness that I'd appreciate now - if not then.

Yeah, me too. Perhaps you need to move to a nice quiet parish, where they're allowed to open on Sundays but choose not to. (-:

do these have a special place in the lords where they get to vote on legislation?

Too right! Mentioned this in the previous thread.The head of state in the UK is the head of the Church of England(the Queen not DC) and all that constitutional guff that goes with it.But we live in a parliamentary democracy so if there was the public appetite for it then we could get rid.

nick - rationality is accepting things on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence.

Being rational is not a moral judgement. Its a statement of fact. No religious belief can be rational - indeed in the Christian religion this is implicit in the teachings - " without faith I am nothing" - there was no pejorative intent in that particularly.

So I am not assuming moral superiority - that I am a better person - for being rational, whereas the Christian faith it is implicit that those who believe are better people. Its this assumption of moral superiroity that drives the predjudice inherent in chrstianity.

Its unpleasant to be told you are of less value and a lessor being because you don't believe

Yeah, me too. Perhaps you need to move to a nice quiet parish, where they're allowed to open on Sundays but choose not to. (-:

Does such a place exist? Sounds like.... heaven. 😉

Hilldodger - when they do not attempt to tell me what I can and cannot do bemuse of their beliefs then fine.

whereas the Christian faith it is implicit that those who believe are better people.

bullshit. I know of not a single Christian who believes they are better than people who don't believe, not a single one. They might want to push their particular viewpoint or have an opinion that should be listened to but that applies to many different sorts of people.

Its unpleasant to be told you are of less value and a lessor being because you don't believe

I can only conclude that you have met some very unpleasant Christians because I cannot imagine someone calling you a lesser being - ever

No one tells you what to do, everything is possible but not everything is benificial.

So freedom of speech as long as it's something you don't disagree with TJ?
Are you referring to (the minority of) religious extremists or the entire population who hold religious beliefs ?

And rationality is subjective and relative and without morality is a recipe for untold horror.
Edit-Not that Christians have a monoply on morality!

Leffeboy - it is implicit and very obvious from the outside - look at the quotes from stevewhyte for examples. Its not bullshit its the truth.

You may not want to see it but is absolutely central to religion that they are superior for believing.

The patronising and condesending attitude is because of this assumption of superiority. otherwise why the drive to convert? to evangelise? Emphasis of sinners repenting?

FFS.

TJ, I begin to think that you have some serious issues. I mean, seriously. Why do you waste so much time and effort on arguments on an insignificant bike forum? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself that?

I know that others do it too, and God knows I spout more than my fair share of waffle, but you just KEEP ON ARGUING!

Stop it.

[img] [/img]

hilldodger - Member

So freedom of speech as long as it's something you don't disagree with TJ?
Are you referring to (the minority of) religious extremists or the entire population who hold religious beliefs ?

All religious.

Nope - like all freedoms it is limited by the need not to impinge upon anyone elses freedom.

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No - the limits should be the same - you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom. when you want to tell me what I can and cannot do because of your religion then that is to be rejected.

Kenny - "Rational mindset" is not making a moral judgement. Its a statement of fact. Religion is not rational by definition - its a matter of faith.

Unfortunately the context in which you used the phrase was one could could come across as being of a similar nature to that which you criticise.

leffeboy - Member
because I cannot imagine someone calling you a lesser being - ever

well certainly not on the basis of disagreeing with their Christian beliefs and values.

My understanding of the teachings of Jesus are of tolerance, humility and forgiveness. I cannot see anything offensive, patronising or demeaning in any of these virtues.....

The patronising and condesending attitude is because of this assumption of superiority. otherwise why the drive to convert? to evangelise? Emphasis of sinners repenting?

You may not want to see it but is absolutely central to religion that they are superior for believing.

It really isn't central to religion that they are superior, not it any way. I can see how you might see it that way but I know of not a single Christian who takes that point of view. To them what is central is that there is a God and that they would like to work out what that means for them and how they live. I don't know of any who think they have it right

otherwise why the drive to convert?

Simples - they think they have found out something rather significant and want to share it. There are no points for getting 'converts'. They just want to pass on something rather fine that they have found out. Sort of like 'PSA: God exists' rather than 'repent or die'

You may not want to see it but is absolutely central to religion that they are superior for believing.

Reading the posts on here I'm afraid it's the aethiests to come across as believing they are superior. And that's not through some implicit interpretation; it's from explicit statements.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

So TJ, your issue is with how a set of beliefs is espoused by some of those who follow them rather than the beliefs themselves ?
Do you honestly see any harm or offense in the principles of love for your fellow man, humility and forgiveness ?

Does such a place exist? Sounds like.... heaven.

I see what you did there. (-:

Lefgfeboy - can you not see it?

they think they have found out something rather significant and want to share it.

thats the assumption of superiority.

Kenny - every statement from the religious shows this - its absolutely central to religion that its adherents are better people.

Its so normal to you that you cannot see it - can't see the wood for the trees.

Hilldodger - I see much harm in the assumption or moral superiority, hatred and prejudice that religions espouse.

#right - I can feel the banhammer hovering over me again. I am forbidden to argue on here effectively nowadays. So I will back out and not even answer any more direct questions

TandemJeremy - Member

thats the assumption of superiority.

...every statement from the religious shows this

well the one below certainly doesn't

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven"

Where do you get this "better people" from?

Do you feel left out?

they think they have found out something rather significant and want to share it.
thats the assumption of superiority.

It really isn't. It is possible to discover something without imagining you are superior for doing so. I wish I could express this in a way that made sense but I as I said before, I know of no Christians that wander around feeling superior to everyone else. I know of lots who spend time trying to work out what it all means

Kenny - every statement from the religious shows this - its absolutely central to religion that its adherents are better people.

You are guilty of seeing what you want to see. You are reading meanings into statements that aren't actually there. I'd love to see explicit proof of what you say rather than implicit interpretations.

A sense of moral superiority is actually what Richard Dawkins is very guilty of.

Its so normal to you that you cannot see it - can't see the wood for the trees

ok, now you're playing. Bedtime methinks

I really thought I had seen the limit of TJ's absurdity with regards to religion, and then this little beauty comes along :

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No - the limits should be the same - you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom.

So you want to "limit" people's right to express their religious beliefs in the "same" way as there are limits on people expressing racism ?

I know you believe that racist views shouldn't be tolerated on this forum TJ, I now know that you think people's religious views shouldn't be tolerated either.

Which leads me to the conclusion that either A) you don't think before typing/speaking B) you are really stupid, or C) a complete arsehole. I hope it's A, I really do.

0 to 273 posts in 7 hours 😯

Good going but it was only ever going to go one way really

I see much harm in the assumption or moral superiority

I fear it may be all three, Ernie, but even worse - unknowingly so. Like some sort of Pavlovian response.

I fear it may be all three, Ernie

are you saying a sort of trinity?

IME Christians are damned sexy as hell.. and I think that really, when all is said and done, that is all we need to know..

I will answer this one -

Ernie - It D by the way - you have missed the point. Still on religion you really do seem to have a blind spot.

I believe religious views should be limited in the same way as any other. The test is "does their freedom to espouse their religious doctrine impinge upon my freedom?" When it does its not acceptable. Same as racism.

Why should the religious be able to prevent homosexuals marrying? Prevent the sale of contraceptives? Prevent me doing what I want on a Sunday? at the moment religions have exemption from the equality laws - I would remove that. A religious organisation can refuse to employ people on grounds of their religion.

When their freedom to be religious means I lose my freedom then its wrong

We limit freedom of speech all the time - indeed their are laws on this.

TandemJeremy - Member
I will answer this one -

When their freedom to be religious means I lose my freedom then its wrong

What personal freedom have you, as an individual, lost as a result of the Christian religion ?

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No - the limits should be the same - you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom.

So you want to "limit" people's right to express their religious beliefs in the "same" way as there are limits on people expressing racism ?

I know you believe that racist views shouldn't be tolerated on this forum TJ, I now know that you think people's religious views shouldn't be tolerated either.

double post

Why should the religious be able to prevent homosexuals marrying?

Do they? I thought same sex civil marriages were prevented by law?

What personal freedom have you, as an individual, lost as a result of the Christian religion

I cannot work in many schools as I am not of that faith...a workplace discriminating against employees on the grounds of religion

I believe religious views should be limited in the same way as any other.

You specifically said in the same way as racism is limited. You freely chose to make that specific analogy - no one forced you to. The inference is very clear - there is no difference between holding racists views and having religious beliefs. And therefore that stevewhyte should be banned for this forum for saying "The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation" and other stuff, in the same way that he would be for making a racist comment.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, I just wanted to understand exactly what you think. And you've made that very clear now.

I cannot work in many schools as I am not of that faith...a workplace discriminating against employees on the grounds of religion

Not just christianity though is it? How many Muslim faith schools would you be permitted to work in?
We are really not very limited by the Christian faith here in Britain. Look at those poor people living under sharia.

The inference is very clear - there is no difference between holding racists views and having religious beliefs.

I agree with Ernie here.

I cannot work in many schools as I am not of that faith...a workplace discriminating against employees on the grounds of religion

But they are faith schools. Certain "qualifications" are needed for every job. I can't work in a hospital because I've no medical qualifications; I don't feel discriminated against though.

I am teacher I could work there 🙄
can you name another workplace allowed to discriminate on religious rounds except for religious organisations?
they are exempt from discrimination law on the grounds of religious freedom.

flash and ernie in a tree K I S S I N G
I think we have reached this level of playground taunts and I am am out

TJ

Laws limit the things you bring up and are made by governments ,more often than not elected by the public.For right or wrong.You usually espouse democracy and self determination etc
Now if you'd have brought up circumcision....
You are not allowed by law to smack a child in the UK but you can in the name of religion permanently mutilate one only a few days old.

Prevent me doing what I want on a Sunday?

What are you prevented from doing on a Sunday that you want to do? Shopping? Hardly an abuse of your human rights is it, not compared with the rights of shopworkers to some family time.

at the moment religions have exemption from the equality laws - I would remove that.

You say you don't like religion interfering in your life, but now you are trying to do exactly the same. That is forcing your own views on another grou of people.

Ernie - that not what I said or meant - I used Racism as an example as is quite obvious

I shall copy the whole thing

All religious.

Nope - like [b]all freedoms[/b] it is limited by the need not to impinge upon anyone elses freedom.

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No - the limits should be the same - you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom. when you want to tell me what I can and cannot do because of your religion then that is to be rejected.

and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly My email is in my profile if anyone really wants to argue this further.

can you name another workplace allowed to discriminate on religious rounds except for religious organisations?

Why would any others want to?

And anyway, my own view is that employers should be entitled to hire whom they like. If they want a workplace staffed by one-legged black lesbian aethiests then that's up to them; it's their business; literally.

I don't care what you believe, and the argument of 'it's all a load of tosh' is a busted flush. Does it matter if someone believes a load of tosh? No. Does it matter if what they believe infringes upon other people? Yes.

A big problem is that religion is adept at playing the victim, look at the cries of 'oh the hatred' in this thread for example (harking back to the free speech rubbish spouted earlier - does free speech only matter to the religious if their faith isn't criticised?) and CMD's reference to 'a fight back'.

Faith schools are nothing but propaganda machines taking people at a time when they are most malleable, suggestive and trusting and using that to secure the next wave of followers. They are also divisive, where else in our society do we tolerate such segregation?

The Lords Spiritual wield disproportionate power and their block voting on selected issues renders the upper house pointless.

“That this block vote of 26 bishops does have influence was exemplified in a recent vote in the Lords to extend adoption rights to gays and lesbians under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations when, to a man – and they all are! – they supported opposition to this human rights measure, invoking mumbo jumbo* in preference to tolerance towards fellow human beings, a quality that some of us thought was championed by a certain Jesus of Nazareth.”
Lord Harrison

*He wasn't talking about religious texts but the rhetorical contortions that the Lords Spiritual are often reduced to in order to justify the way they vote.

There is only one other country in the world where the leaders of a single religious institution have the same power over the legislature as the Lords Spiritaul; Iran. The selection process for Bishops has also shown how the 'slice of cake' (a very useful but absolutely bullshine characterisation) CoE reacts by breaking the rules when confronted by a candidate they do not like (Rev. Jeffrey John).

This post is getting a bit long now - tbc

and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly My email is in my profile if anyone really wants to argue this further.

Don't see why it should be. I've disagreed with loads of what you've said on here tonight, but none of it has offended me or bothered me in the least. It's been a free and open exchange of views, as it should be.

mmm - this isn't going to end well kenny. The rules are more 'anti-discrimination' rather than positive discrimination. Employers shouldn't be able to refuse someone for certain reasons

and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly

The noise is your therapist knocking at the door 😉

Faith schools are nothing but propaganda machines taking people at a time when they are most malleable, suggestive and trusting and using that to secure the next wave of followers.

You must have very little respect for the ability of your children to think for themselves

It's the old argument about how much right the state has to interfere in the lives of private citizens, even if the majority of the population finds the views of those citizens morally repugnant. It's not an easy call in some situations.

The Lords Spiritual wield disproportionate power and their block voting on selected issues renders the upper house pointless.

What percentage of the upper house does 26 votes represent, it's certainly not 50%
🙄

300 'undred

edit: missed. Elf would never have let that happen 🙁

nick1962 - Member

TJ
Now if you'd have brought up circumcision....
You are not allowed by law to smack a child in the UK but you can in the name of religion permanently mutilate one only a few days old.

Its worse than that you are allowed to Murder a child up to 24 weeks.

Just in case you didnt know what that age looked like

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/images/2010-06_23-week-baby.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.lovingit.co.uk/images/2010-06_23-week-baby.jp g"/> &imgrefurl= http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2010/06/can-babies-feel-pain-at-24-weeks.html&h=286&w=468&sz=55&tbnid=_GxVhJ9ByAz_pM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=147&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbaby%2B24%2Bweeks%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=baby+24+weeks&docid=EgCYRvbVCMJ1UM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ssh8T46GKMLb0QW3rrDRDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAg&dur=2683

Holy shit.

leffeboy - Member
You must have very little respect for the ability of your children to think for themselves

I don't have children. But they are children, and if sent to a faith school then it's reasonable to assume that their parents are religious. Where will they get a conflicting view if their home and school life is based on the same doctrine?

big_n_daft - Member

What percentage of the upper house does 26 votes represent, it's certainly not 50%

I never said it was, I said it was disproportionate.

Father christamas...yes kids sure are great thinkers and dont fall for tall stories
I hope they dont fall for anything else their teachers tell them and think that is true as well
Good point well made kenny

kennyp - Member

"and with that the ban hammer must be descending upon me quickly My email is in my profile if anyone really wants to argue this further."

Don't see why it should be. I've disagreed with loads of what you've said on here tonight, but none of it has offended me or bothered me in the least. It's been a free and open exchange of views, as it should be.

Kenny - I have been banned for excessive argueing and am basically under notice for it.

stevewhyte - Member

Its worse than that you are allowed to Murder a child up to 24 weeks.

What a vile way to try and score points. Have some facts:

http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/brie-0 ]Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists[/url]

Currently, only 2% of all abortions carried out in the UK each year occur between 20 weeks and 23 weeks and 6 days, and [b]these are carried out in instances where the women's or baby's health are at risk.[/b] The vast majority of abortions occur within the first trimester of pregnancy.

Lowering the time limit will not result in a lower abortion rate. Women who are desperate to have an abortion will look for the means to have one, and this includes having an illegal and unsafe abortion in their own countries or travelling to a country where late abortions are carried out.

Awaiting the 'hand of hope'.

stevewhyte

You've opened a can of worms there.
Did think it was ,at best insensitive, for TJ to bring up laws about abortion and Sunday Trading in the same post.
Not specifically a religious issue IMHO but one that is certainly very devisive.
Read The Pre Persons anyone?

TandemJeremy - Member

Ernie - that not what I said or meant - I used Racism as an example as is quite obvious

I shall copy the whole thing

All religious.

Nope - like all freedoms it is limited by the need not to impinge upon anyone elses freedom.

Do racists have unlimited freedom to espouse their views? No. Should the religious? No - the limits should be the same - you can do what yo want so long as it does not limit someone elses freedom. when you want to tell me what I can and cannot do because of your religion then that is to be rejected.

It is very clear from [i]"No - the limits should be the same"[/i] that you are equating the rights of people with religious views with the rights of racists. You clearly feel that their freedom of expression should be limited.

Backtrack if you want and say you didn't mean it - I don't mind. But it's very clear what you said.

By arguing about this stuff you endow it with meaning, don't argue and it becomes less important.
It's hocus pocus, leave it be.

..oh and congrats to steve for posting a real thread killer. When you've been a bit closer to the subject than shitehawk propaganda, you'll have a different opinion.

nick1962 - Member
Did think it was ,at best insensitive, for TJ to bring up laws about abortion and Sunday Trading in the same post.

Why?

And it's certainly not as insensitive as standing outside an abortion clinic telling lies to vunerable women based on your personal faith.

Nick you are corrct there it is.

Life, funny you call me vile when i oppose the Murder of Children regardless of age. Hardly an issue to score points on.

That's exactly what you're doing though. You oppose 24 weeks if it saves the life of the mother even if both mother and child would die otherwise?

Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

bump glitch

Lifer - Member

nick1962 - Member
Did think it was ,at best insensitive, for TJ to bring up laws about abortion and Sunday Trading in the same post.

Why?

And it's certainly not as insensitive as standing outside an abortion clinic telling lies to vunerable women based on your personal faith.

Lifer - Member

Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

I can go one better,

Dont like abortion, dont get pregnant.