Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Militant Secularism

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Militant Secularism Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 12:39:31 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8252
Joined: 31/7/2008
Did you find anything?

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 391
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 12:40:58 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
No. : (

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 392
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 12:50:05 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1159
Joined: 2/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: sam89

Oh dear, not the "atheism requires just as much faith as religion" argument.

The onus is always on the person making the claim to provide evidence. As Christopher Hitchens said, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".


That is true for statements of fact. Statements of personal belief require no evidence to be valid. There is a line to be drawn between those who make statements of their belief or disbelief in God and those who say that God  does or does not exist as absolute statements of fact.

The former I have no trouble with.

quote:

Atheism and agnosticism aren't actually mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins considers himself to be technically agnostic because he can't disprove God's existence. But there is literally an infinite number of things which could exist, e.g. fairies, Santa Clause, ghosts, demons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc. Are we expected to remain agnostic on all of these things? If not, why is it anti-intellectual to rule out God's existence?


Father Christmas and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can have their origins traced by cultural historians. Faeries, ghosts and demons may or may not exist. Like God they are, as you state, impossible to disprove. I have no problem with remaining open to the potential they do exist while remaining sceptical. Unicorns are one for the crypto-zoologists.

quote:

Agnosticism deals with the epistemological question (i.e. "Can we know God exists?) whereas atheism and theism deal with the theological question (i.e. "Do you believe in God?"). If you say you're agnostic then you're saying that you don't know whether or not God exists. It therefore follows that you don't believe in God, so you're basically an atheist in all but the label.


I don't believe in God, but I don't deny he exists either. I don't know.

quote:

As far as I'm aware there are no atheists that say that there is definitely no God. They just place the likeliness of God's existence on par with fairies, Santa Clause, ghosts, demons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc. That is to say that they cannot scientifically rule them out, but there is absolutely no evidence in favour of them existing.


There are some on the lunatic fringes, which is what I am talking about here. Those who deal in absolutes. They tend not to be taken very seriously as they are the flip-side of the religious literalist coin. About ten years ago you could have counted me as one of them until I had a discussion on the nature of the universe with a very intelligent scientist who also happened to be an extremely devout Catholic. He chose science over the seminary as he felt by understanding the fundamental make-up of the universe he could better understand God.

While it wasn't enough to make me a believer it shattered any delusions I had that science and religion were incompatible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs

I'd far rather listen to someone who uses reason, logic and empirical evidence over someone who relies on make believe.


As a former would be lawyer I can state with a modicum of authority that empirical evidence is only as good as the person interpreting it. Reason and logic are fine when explaining that which is reasonable and logical, but not everything is.

There is no shame in just not knowing. It is a mark of wisdom when you realise just how little you actually know and how much you are willing to take on faith. One day I hope I am wise enough to do just that.


(in reply to sam89)
Post #: 393
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 12:54:55 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5062
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No I didn't. I stated that when anyone of any religious faith goes round knocking on people's doors, there's a potential for less scrupulous members of that faith to take advantage of people who are vulnerable, elderly, grieving, unhappy, etc. etc. It's hardly an earth-shattering claim.


I still find it offensive. Your implication from my perspective is that Jehovahs Witnesses would take advantage of vulnerable people. As a Jehovahs witness, I find that offensive..


No, my implication was that anyone of any religious denomination could take advantage of vulnerable people if they were so inclined.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 394
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 1:00:25 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8252
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

No. : (


It's alright, you can have our word.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 395
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 1:05:12 PM   
Keyser Sozzled


Posts: 5999
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

quote:

ORIGINAL: sam89

Oh dear, not the "atheism requires just as much faith as religion" argument.

The onus is always on the person making the claim to provide evidence. As Christopher Hitchens said, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".


That is true for statements of fact. Statements of personal belief require no evidence to be valid. There is a line to be drawn between those who make statements of their belief or disbelief in God and those who say that God  does or does not exist as absolute statements of fact.

The former I have no trouble with.

quote:

Atheism and agnosticism aren't actually mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins considers himself to be technically agnostic because he can't disprove God's existence. But there is literally an infinite number of things which could exist, e.g. fairies, Santa Clause, ghosts, demons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc. Are we expected to remain agnostic on all of these things? If not, why is it anti-intellectual to rule out God's existence?


Father Christmas and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can have their origins traced by cultural historians. Faeries, ghosts and demons may or may not exist. Like God they are, as you state, impossible to disprove. I have no problem with remaining open to the potential they do exist while remaining sceptical. Unicorns are one for the crypto-zoologists.

quote:

Agnosticism deals with the epistemological question (i.e. "Can we know God exists?) whereas atheism and theism deal with the theological question (i.e. "Do you believe in God?"). If you say you're agnostic then you're saying that you don't know whether or not God exists. It therefore follows that you don't believe in God, so you're basically an atheist in all but the label.


I don't believe in God, but I don't deny he exists either. I don't know.

quote:

As far as I'm aware there are no atheists that say that there is definitely no God. They just place the likeliness of God's existence on par with fairies, Santa Clause, ghosts, demons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc. That is to say that they cannot scientifically rule them out, but there is absolutely no evidence in favour of them existing.


There are some on the lunatic fringes, which is what I am talking about here. Those who deal in absolutes. They tend not to be taken very seriously as they are the flip-side of the religious literalist coin. About ten years ago you could have counted me as one of them until I had a discussion on the nature of the universe with a very intelligent scientist who also happened to be an extremely devout Catholic. He chose science over the seminary as he felt by understanding the fundamental make-up of the universe he could better understand God.

While it wasn't enough to make me a believer it shattered any delusions I had that science and religion were incompatible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigKovacs

I'd far rather listen to someone who uses reason, logic and empirical evidence over someone who relies on make believe.


As a former would be lawyer I can state with a modicum of authority that empirical evidence is only as good as the person interpreting it. Reason and logic are fine when explaining that which is reasonable and logical, but not everything is.

There is no shame in just not knowing. It is a mark of wisdom when you realise just how little you actually know and how much you are willing to take on faith. One day I hope I am wise enough to do just that.




Pesky Sith.


_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 396
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 1:06:17 PM   
shool


Posts: 10076
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No I didn't. I stated that when anyone of any religious faith goes round knocking on people's doors, there's a potential for less scrupulous members of that faith to take advantage of people who are vulnerable, elderly, grieving, unhappy, etc. etc. It's hardly an earth-shattering claim.


I still find it offensive. Your implication from my perspective is that Jehovahs Witnesses would take advantage of vulnerable people. As a Jehovahs witness, I find that offensive..


No, my implication was that anyone of any religious denomination could take advantage of vulnerable people if they were so inclined.


so could anyone, religious or otherwise. They could also help them.

As Clowny says its a massive generalisation.

Anyway I'm done. I must be in a bad mood today as some of the comments in this thread from page 11 onwards have got me a bit worked up.

< Message edited by shool -- 20/2/2012 1:08:09 PM >


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 397
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 1:31:31 PM   
Harry Lime


Posts: 5147
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: shool
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No I didn't. I stated that when anyone of any religious faith goes round knocking on people's doors, there's a potential for less scrupulous members of that faith to take advantage of people who are vulnerable, elderly, grieving, unhappy, etc. etc. It's hardly an earth-shattering claim.

I still find it offensive. Your implication from my perspective is that Jehovahs Witnesses would take advantage of vulnerable people. As a Jehovahs witness, I find that offensive.
What would you expect us to do exactly? Offer comfort? No that would be awfully inappropriate.

With the greatest respect shool, the moment you knock on any door you are trying to sell a product, so to speak. Granted, it is a product that you deeply believe in but you are still doing it for a wage or comission, albeit not in the financial sense. To try to argue that by imposing your views on the doorsteps of others that you are not, at any point, going to foist your beliefs on the vulnerable simply lacks coherence and logic. Similarly, whilst your faith brings you contentment and perhaps offers something similar to many that you come into contact with, you have to accept that your views can also cause anguish and upset as well. For all of those who find comfort and love in the word God, there are others who find nothing but chaos, contradiction and turmoil.

For instance, and I stress that I say this with the greatest respect to you as a decent guy, I find some of the views of your faith throughly repugnant. To bring your beliefs to somebody who is grieving or depressed or suffering may be a wonderful thing for some that you manage to reach. For others it can be a descent further into some kind of existential hell.

You can't claim a monopoly on God and Humanity. This is, unfortunately, the deciet that all religions, not just yours, endlessly - and somewhat arrogantly - fall into.

I've done my best to stay out of this so far and don't particularly want to get embroiled in this nonsense, so I'll finish my piece and leave. I just want to say that the concept of militant secularism is a subterfuge - a term coined in the spinning furnace of political jargon. I will also say this - Great Britain is not a Christian country. It is merely a country with a deep Christian heritage and with institutions that have grown out of this. The idea of any nation with notions of democracy being permanently defined in such a way is a patently absurb contradiction. The will of the people shifts over time and, as such, the definition of our nation must shift with it.

< Message edited by Harry Lime -- 20/2/2012 2:28:25 PM >


_____________________________

"People think I have an interesting walk. Hell, I'm just trying to hold my gut in."

If I get there early will it be the right time
our heaven is just waiting so put your hand into mine.

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 398
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 2:45:18 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5062
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No I didn't. I stated that when anyone of any religious faith goes round knocking on people's doors, there's a potential for less scrupulous members of that faith to take advantage of people who are vulnerable, elderly, grieving, unhappy, etc. etc. It's hardly an earth-shattering claim.


I still find it offensive. Your implication from my perspective is that Jehovahs Witnesses would take advantage of vulnerable people. As a Jehovahs witness, I find that offensive..


No, my implication was that anyone of any religious denomination could take advantage of vulnerable people if they were so inclined.


so could anyone, religious or otherwise. They could also help them.

As Clowny says its a massive generalisation.



In that case you should both re-read my original comment. If I was generalising I would've said something like 'all religious people who go around knocking on doors are taking advantage of the vulnerable'. I merely said there was potential for the vulnerable to be taken advantage of, by the manipulative or over-zealous. If you don't know anyone like that then great, I'm glad. But we all know they exist even if they are (thankfully) in the minority.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 399
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 2:59:36 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
It is possible to get from patristic writings through to modern democracy and retain an understanding that that democracy is Christian.

It comes down to interpretations of the Body Politic, interpretations of the relationship between Monarch, the mass of people which he rules and "the Crown".

Just as Christ was both husband and head of his church, so monarchs were understood to be husband and head of their kingdoms. Depending on the interpretation, the power of the divine is present either in the monarch directly from God or in the monarch only as a result of the consent of the commonweal, nation, body in which the power of God resides. The second of these interpretations comes from the understanding that the first Roman Emperor was granted his authority by the people. This notion of consent is how the marriage metaphor was introduced and was run with.

"The Crown" is where it really gets going. Though never defined as a product of the "marriage" between people and monarch "the Crown" was afforded a legal corporational body, that a perpetual minor. In effect the existence and power of a kingdom was "embodied" in this immortal construct. When the mortal body of the king died "the Crown" passed to the heir. In our democracy the power of "the crown" is wielded, protected and managed by the people, through parliament, rather than through the person of the monarch.

I guess you could argue whether a monarchy is necessarily Christian. Or whether the people need be Christian in order for the political theology to remain applicable. The system is, however, Christian. Certainly the sea-saw of power in the "marital" relationship between Monarch and people currently sees the big fat ass of the people grounded. You'd be hard pressed to find a majority of the people believing that the sovereignty of the UK is God given, or that the freedom of the people is just a given rather than God given. Our system does not hold our understood truths of human freedom to be self-evident.

So while it may be said that the nation is not Christian, the system by which it governs itself certainly is.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to Harry Lime)
Post #: 400
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 3:37:47 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7916
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No I didn't. I stated that when anyone of any religious faith goes round knocking on people's doors, there's a potential for less scrupulous members of that faith to take advantage of people who are vulnerable, elderly, grieving, unhappy, etc. etc. It's hardly an earth-shattering claim.


I still find it offensive. Your implication from my perspective is that Jehovahs Witnesses would take advantage of vulnerable people. As a Jehovahs witness, I find that offensive..


No, my implication was that anyone of any religious denomination could take advantage of vulnerable people if they were so inclined.


so could anyone, religious or otherwise. They could also help them.

As Clowny says its a massive generalisation.



In that case you should both re-read my original comment. If I was generalising I would've said something like 'all religious people who go around knocking on doors are taking advantage of the vulnerable'. I merely said there was potential for the vulnerable to be taken advantage of, by the manipulative or over-zealous. If you don't know anyone like that then great, I'm glad. But we all know they exist even if they are (thankfully) in the minority.


'as well as the fact that the potential for taking advantage of the vulnerable is pretty high, which I find frankly distasteful.'

'there was potential for the vulnerable to be taken advantage of, by the manipulative or over-zealous.'

Perhaps you should practice what you preach. Re-read your original comment, as I don't see anything about being taken advantage of by the manipulative or the over-zealous, just that the potential is very high. Which, in its initial form before the added caveat, reads as a presumption that more god-botherers are likely to take advantage than not. Plus, is it a fact? I'm not sure I've read anything that's conclusive on the matter. Is this an anecdotal viewpoint?



_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 401
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 4:20:56 PM   
sharkboy


Posts: 6286
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

It is possible to get from patristic writings through to modern democracy and retain an understanding that that democracy is Christian.

It comes down to interpretations of the Body Politic, interpretations of the relationship between Monarch, the mass of people which he rules and "the Crown".

Just as Christ was both husband and head of his church, so monarchs were understood to be husband and head of their kingdoms. Depending on the interpretation, the power of the divine is present either in the monarch directly from God or in the monarch only as a result of the consent of the commonweal, nation, body in which the power of God resides. The second of these interpretations comes from the understanding that the first Roman Emperor was granted his authority by the people. This notion of consent is how the marriage metaphor was introduced and was run with.

"The Crown" is where it really gets going. Though never defined as a product of the "marriage" between people and monarch "the Crown" was afforded a legal corporational body, that a perpetual minor. In effect the existence and power of a kingdom was "embodied" in this immortal construct. When the mortal body of the king died "the Crown" passed to the heir. In our democracy the power of "the crown" is wielded, protected and managed by the people, through parliament, rather than through the person of the monarch.

I guess you could argue whether a monarchy is necessarily Christian. Or whether the people need be Christian in order for the political theology to remain applicable. The system is, however, Christian. Certainly the sea-saw of power in the "marital" relationship between Monarch and people currently sees the big fat ass of the people grounded. You'd be hard pressed to find a majority of the people believing that the sovereignty of the UK is God given, or that the freedom of the people is just a given rather than God given. Our system does not hold our understood truths of human freedom to be self-evident.

So while it may be said that the nation is not Christian, the system by which it governs itself certainly is.


But surely  it is this "marital" relationship that has groundings in Christianity, not necessarily the parliamentary process?  Certainly not to the extent that it was before the monarchy was effectively excised from the process and given a notional figurehead status rather than an actual say in the day-to-day running of the country.  Royal Assent is basically a rubber-stamping exercise and an acknowledgement of Her Maj's status as the head of the country.  It would be more than possible to remove this stage from the legislative process and not weaken it any.  Yes, I accept that religion has had influence on the structure of legislating bodies and their various recourses such as the courts, but a truly democratic nation has to be seen as separate from and distinct from the church by its very definition.  After all, there weren't too many of those ancient greeks praising Jesus when they came up with the concept!

_____________________________

WWLD?

Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless

I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 402
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 4:31:38 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
Oh dear, the Daily Fail have gone and done it again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to sharkboy)
Post #: 403
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 4:38:59 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54583
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

Richard Dawkins has condemned slavery despite his ancestors making their money through forced labour


Because, obviously, he should be all for it

Surely any family that had a chunk of cash from back then would have got at least a chunk of it related to the slave trade/use of slaves?


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 404
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 4:43:02 PM   
Chief


Posts: 7777
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Banshee
It's kind of a non-story. What do they expect? Him to hop in the DeLorean and go back and tell them it's wrong and not to do it?

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 405
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 4:55:17 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

It's kind of a non-story. What do they expect? Him to hop in the DeLorean and go back and tell them it's wrong and not to do it?


They want to show the world that ALL NON-CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL SLAVE MASTERS GAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Because the church never sanctioned, profited or had any involvement in the slave trade right? RIGHT?!!!

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Chief)
Post #: 406
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 5:04:48 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4205
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
Oh dear, I went and read the comments. I like this one:

quote:

He should not be held accountable for his ancestors - but he cannot dismiss carrying their DNA. His family DNA has many faults and just as his ancestors ill-treated Africans, becaue the Dwikins mob thought they were isuperior - so does Dawkins believe in his own superiority when he castigates Christians and religion. His family DNA sure held a lot of mutated genes and makes them very opiniated.


I notice how in the article the Mail remembered to emphasise the point that Wilberforce was "deeply religious". Pathetic.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 407
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 7:11:43 PM   
sam89


Posts: 562
Joined: 1/5/2008
Especially as Dawkins pointed out on his website that he only shares one in 128 of his genes with these ancestors (the DM says 512 but on his website he admits he made a mistake in the maths).

To be fair to the DM, this was actually a Telegraph reporter that picked up this story. He wrote about it on his website:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645002-the-sins-of-the-fathers-also-in-polish

< Message edited by sam89 -- 20/2/2012 7:12:06 PM >

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 408
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 7:40:58 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8252
Joined: 31/7/2008
But... does Ezykiel 18:20 not teach us that: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son"?

(in reply to sam89)
Post #: 409
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 9:10:02 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy

But surely  it is this "marital" relationship that has groundings in Christianity, not necessarily the parliamentary process? 


Parliament has its groundings in the relationship between the monarch and the nation/kingdom. This relationship developed in Christian terms. There was not such thing as atheism during the development of parliament. Cromwell was concerned with the matieral and spiritual welfare of the "poor godly people of England."



I dunno if it's visible in the quality of the picture but the body of which the king is the head is made up of tiny wee individuals. Like some kinda badass joiny-up transformer. Fae Hobbes' Leviathan 1651. A big part of why power shifted in the marriage was the development of the idea that "the people" were as divine, or more so, than the monarch. This was probably latent from the medieval understanding that there was both a divine (God the father) and bodily (Mary the mother) christ. The divine christ was married to the wider, corporational bodily christ. Mary herself was thought by some to be born of a virgin - her saintly mother Anne. Indeed, the importance of consent to Christian marriage developed largely in the wake of discussions of Mary's marriage to Joseph. Consummation was pretty much essential for a marriage to be legal, but not entirely - else JC was a b@stard.

(The thinking is bonkers, but hey, they were Christians trying frantically to fit dogma and legal theory to real life and shape that life. That JC's Dad wasn't Joseph but God didn't seem to occur. Nor that to legitimise JC and absolve Mary of being a dirty adulterous Virgin they had to marry Mary to God. Lunatics.)

edit: consent is the kicker. Consent implies the right to protest against or remove a monarch deemed tyrannical. It is from consent - the consent of people to be ruled by king as wife by husband (to love honour and obey) that parliament comes. The power of parliament did not just depend on the changeable divinity of kings but the divinity of the people.

When those heathen muppets at Ibrox sing "We are the people", even though the majority are clueless, they are singing about being God's chosen people. The Protestant people. It is not medieval - as media eejits love to proclaim - but modern. Glorious Revolution and all that.

quote:

Certainly not to the extent that it was before the monarchy was effectively excised from the process and given a notional figurehead status rather than an actual say in the day-to-day running of the country.  Royal Assent is basically a rubber-stamping exercise and an acknowledgement of Her Maj's status as the head of the country.  It would be more than possible to remove this stage from the legislative process and not weaken it any.  Yes, I accept that religion has had influence on the structure of legislating bodies and their various recourses such as the courts, but a truly democratic nation has to be seen as separate from and distinct from the church by its very definition.  After all, there weren't too many of those ancient greeks praising Jesus when they came up with the concept!


Now hud on a minute. Parliament does not equal democracy. Democracy has scared the bejeesus out of Parliament forever. And it's nae as if those ancient Greeks were secular.

Also, Established Church, Parliament opened by the bint, Bishops in the Lords...

We could do away with the religio-monarchical bullsh!t and establish a democratic Parliament just because humans have the right to govern themselves. Until we do, we haven't.

< Message edited by boaby -- 20/2/2012 9:19:32 PM >


_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to sharkboy)
Post #: 410
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 10:07:55 PM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3195
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

That being the God in Judaic traditions, also missing all the other views on God and missing the personal relations involved in believing in such a God. So no, it's not simple, at all. Let's not forget that Hinduism has a much more complex idea of creation.


No, I was countering your point about going beyond a first cause God.,

quote:

You know, I keep hearing this and I've not mentioned once that it is anti-intellectual, this is coming from the atheists who decided to any belief under one banner as "anti-intellectual".


You're right it wasn't you, that's fair enough.

quote:

Ok, unicorns can be perceived, we know what we they are, we can perceive, and know, the features and attributes of a unicorn, we know the attribute of a fairy, we know the attributes, features and qualities of a chocolate teapot, we may argue how it exists and even offer proof that there is nothing between Mars and Earth that barely resembles a teapot, let alone made of chocolate. This does not apply to a celestial and divine deity, especially one argued to be greater than anything that can be perceived and simply beyond perception (as argued by one theologian/philosopher whose name escapes me, Anselm, I think), not things with attributes that can be perceived, this is something which simply cannot be perceived. This is like using a solar system to define the universe. To say such a thing doesn't exist because of lack of evidence or using other logical arguments is fine, to show the burden of proof using a teapot is fine, to not realize that these are all perceivable things you are using to disprove a deity whose definition can go beyond perception is where my beef stands.


This actually gives unicorns more credibility than God.


_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 411
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 10:28:22 PM   
BigKovacs


Posts: 3195
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: Textile Street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
As a former would be lawyer I can state with a modicum of authority that empirical evidence is only as good as the person interpreting it. Reason and logic are fine when explaining that which is reasonable and logical, but not everything is.


True.

quote:

There is no shame in just not knowing.


True.

quote:

It is a mark of wisdom when you realise just how little you actually know and how much you are willing to take on faith. One day I hope I am wise enough to do just that.


How so? You don't need wisdom to obtain faith.

_____________________________

Gamertag: Cambo1979.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 412
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 11:02:21 PM   
Larry of Arabia

 

Posts: 7576
Joined: 28/2/2007
From: Turtle Island
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Ok, unicorns can be perceived, we know what we they are, we can perceive, and know, the features and attributes of a unicorn, we know the attribute of a fairy, we know the attributes, features and qualities of a chocolate teapot, we may argue how it exists and even offer proof that there is nothing between Mars and Earth that barely resembles a teapot, let alone made of chocolate. This does not apply to a celestial and divine deity, especially one argued to be greater than anything that can be perceived and simply beyond perception (as argued by one theologian/philosopher whose name escapes me, Anselm, I think), not things with attributes that can be perceived, this is something which simply cannot be perceived. This is like using a solar system to define the universe. To say such a thing doesn't exist because of lack of evidence or using other logical arguments is fine, to show the burden of proof using a teapot is fine, to not realize that these are all perceivable things you are using to disprove a deity whose definition can go beyond perception is where my beef stands.


Isn't this just one of those 'God is in the gaps' arguments though, the gap being in our ability to percieve him? The only thing saying God can't be perceived after all is man, who has not exactly shown a good track record as far as knowing the inner workings of God is concerned.



_____________________________

"Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."


(in reply to BigKovacs)
Post #: 413
RE: Militant Secularism - 20/2/2012 11:33:23 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5062
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No I didn't. I stated that when anyone of any religious faith goes round knocking on people's doors, there's a potential for less scrupulous members of that faith to take advantage of people who are vulnerable, elderly, grieving, unhappy, etc. etc. It's hardly an earth-shattering claim.


I still find it offensive. Your implication from my perspective is that Jehovahs Witnesses would take advantage of vulnerable people. As a Jehovahs witness, I find that offensive..


No, my implication was that anyone of any religious denomination could take advantage of vulnerable people if they were so inclined.


so could anyone, religious or otherwise. They could also help them.

As Clowny says its a massive generalisation.



In that case you should both re-read my original comment. If I was generalising I would've said something like 'all religious people who go around knocking on doors are taking advantage of the vulnerable'. I merely said there was potential for the vulnerable to be taken advantage of, by the manipulative or over-zealous. If you don't know anyone like that then great, I'm glad. But we all know they exist even if they are (thankfully) in the minority.


'as well as the fact that the potential for taking advantage of the vulnerable is pretty high, which I find frankly distasteful.'

'there was potential for the vulnerable to be taken advantage of, by the manipulative or over-zealous.'

Perhaps you should practice what you preach. Re-read your original comment, as I don't see anything about being taken advantage of by the manipulative or the over-zealous, just that the potential is very high. Which, in its initial form before the added caveat, reads as a presumption that more god-botherers are likely to take advantage than not. Plus, is it a fact? I'm not sure I've read anything that's conclusive on the matter. Is this an anecdotal viewpoint?




Fair enough, that was my fault - I missed that bit out in my original post and wrongly assumed that the word 'potential' would render it a given. But I then clarified the point twice by referring specifically to 'unscrupulous members' and the aforementioned 'pushy and over-zealous' ones and Shool was still offended so there's not a lot I can do about that.
As for anecdotal, I'm not sure exactly how you define that but yes, I've had personal experience of two people I knew who were in vulnerable situations being taken advantage of. Even then though, I wouldn't for a second suggest that everyone who chooses to spread their word by knocking on doors is capable of that so I apologise if anyone took it that way.
Right that's my last word. I'll stick to arguing about football and Led Zeppelin - it's much more fun.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 414
RE: Militant Secularism - 21/2/2012 8:33:29 AM   
Kilo_T_Mortal


Posts: 13534
Joined: 30/9/2005
Are you saying Led Zeppelin don't exist?

_____________________________

he's ruining my buestiful threat!

"She must have known about all this before she let that grinning loon put his space-cock anywhere near her?"
horribleives

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 415
RE: Militant Secularism - 21/2/2012 9:12:25 AM   
NadaPlissken


Posts: 1297
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Hobb's End

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kilo_T_Mortal

Are you saying Led Zeppelin don't exist?


It's okay, I read in a book that they do.

_____________________________

Ross Kemp invented Spain.

(in reply to Kilo_T_Mortal)
Post #: 416
RE: Militant Secularism - 21/2/2012 9:14:44 AM   
Chief


Posts: 7777
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Banshee
They appeared on a slice of toast once so they must be real.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 417
RE: Militant Secularism - 21/2/2012 10:03:33 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

This actually gives unicorns more credibility than God.


Only it doesn't, as they can be proven or disproven using a respective analysis. Accepting that some things can't be proven within our perceptions is a starting point and pretending we can know everything in our lifetimes is extremely foolish.

quote:

Isn't this just one of those 'God is in the gaps' arguments though, the gap being in our ability to percieve him? The only thing saying God can't be perceived after all is man, who has not exactly shown a good track record as far as knowing the inner workings of God is concerned.


No, it isn't a God of the Gaps argument as I'm not saying that our lack of ability to perceive him is the reason why he exists, they were those who used it to make it a reason for it that this is why God exists. It was also nonsense as it meant that it turned something conceptual into real. I would agree with the second bit, it's just a definition of God among many.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to BigKovacs)
Post #: 418
RE: Militant Secularism - 21/2/2012 10:10:05 AM   
shool


Posts: 10076
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No I didn't. I stated that when anyone of any religious faith goes round knocking on people's doors, there's a potential for less scrupulous members of that faith to take advantage of people who are vulnerable, elderly, grieving, unhappy, etc. etc. It's hardly an earth-shattering claim.


I still find it offensive. Your implication from my perspective is that Jehovahs Witnesses would take advantage of vulnerable people. As a Jehovahs witness, I find that offensive..


No, my implication was that anyone of any religious denomination could take advantage of vulnerable people if they were so inclined.


so could anyone, religious or otherwise. They could also help them.

As Clowny says its a massive generalisation.



In that case you should both re-read my original comment. If I was generalising I would've said something like 'all religious people who go around knocking on doors are taking advantage of the vulnerable'. I merely said there was potential for the vulnerable to be taken advantage of, by the manipulative or over-zealous. If you don't know anyone like that then great, I'm glad. But we all know they exist even if they are (thankfully) in the minority.


'as well as the fact that the potential for taking advantage of the vulnerable is pretty high, which I find frankly distasteful.'

'there was potential for the vulnerable to be taken advantage of, by the manipulative or over-zealous.'

Perhaps you should practice what you preach. Re-read your original comment, as I don't see anything about being taken advantage of by the manipulative or the over-zealous, just that the potential is very high. Which, in its initial form before the added caveat, reads as a presumption that more god-botherers are likely to take advantage than not. Plus, is it a fact? I'm not sure I've read anything that's conclusive on the matter. Is this an anecdotal viewpoint?




Fair enough, that was my fault - I missed that bit out in my original post and wrongly assumed that the word 'potential' would render it a given. But I then clarified the point twice by referring specifically to 'unscrupulous members' and the aforementioned 'pushy and over-zealous' ones and Shool was still offended so there's not a lot I can do about that.
As for anecdotal, I'm not sure exactly how you define that but yes, I've had personal experience of two people I knew who were in vulnerable situations being taken advantage of. Even then though, I wouldn't for a second suggest that everyone who chooses to spread their word by knocking on doors is capable of that so I apologise if anyone took it that way.
Right that's my last word. I'll stick to arguing about football and Led Zeppelin - it's much more fun.


Apology accepted, My apologies too if you think I berated you on this.
I wasnt in the best of moods yesterday and reading several posts (not just from you) imputing wrong motives to, or just bashing people of faith in general didnt really help.

I should have known better and learnt from previous occurances that it would be a mistake to even post in this thread to be honest

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 419
RE: Militant Secularism - 21/2/2012 12:43:14 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
To quote the late, great Curtis Mayfield - humans seem to be able to do pretty much everything except get on.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: Militant Secularism Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172